Category Archives: Militarization of Police

The Abuses of Militarized Police

Posted on by

A story has come from Nevada of a lawsuit that was filed on July 1st, 2013. It contends the Henderson, NV, police violated the 3rd Amendment rights of a man and his parents.

Amendment 3 – Quartering of Soldiers

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The issue in this complaint against the Henderson PD is that “militarized” police, i.e., their SWAT organization, seized the home of a man against his wishes. When the SWAT police didn’t get permission to enter, they broke in the door, assaulted him, arrested him and took him off to jail. They subsequently, using a subterfuge, did the same with his parents who lived in another, nearby residence. The following day all charges were dropped. Clearly the arrest was a ploy to remove the man from his home and his parents from their home against their protests.

You can read the complaint of the lawsuit here.

Henderson [Nevada] police arrested a family for refusing to let officers use their homes as lookouts for a domestic violence investigation of their neighbors, the family claims in court.

Anthony Mitchell and his parents Michael and Linda Mitchell sued the City of Henderson, its Police Chief Jutta Chambers, Officers Garret Poiner, Ronald Feola, Ramona Walls, Angela Walker, and Christopher Worley, and City of North Las Vegas and its Police Chief Joseph Chronister, in Federal Court….

The Mitchell family’s claim includes Third Amendment violations, a rare claim in the United States….

“On the morning of July 10th, 2011, officers from the Henderson Police Department responded to a domestic violence call at a neighbor’s residence,” the Mitchells say in the complaint.

It continues: “At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a ‘tactical advantage’ against the occupant of the neighboring house. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call.

Mitchell claims that defendant officers, including Cawthorn and Worley and Sgt. Michael Waller then “conspired among themselves to force Anthony Mitchell out of his residence and to occupy his home for their own use.”

The complaint continues: “Defendant Officer David Cawthorn outlined the defendants’ plan in his official report: ‘It was determined to move to 367 Evening Side and attempt to contact Mitchell. If Mitchell answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If Mitchell refused to answer the door, force entry would be made and Mitchell would be arrested.’”

It continues: “The officers banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence.

“Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.

“Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell’s front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room.

“As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor….

“Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple ‘pepperball’ rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain….”

Officers then arrested him for obstructing a police officer, searched the house and moved furniture without his permission and set up a place in his home for a lookout, Mitchell says in the complaint. — The Volokh Conspiracy.

If you read the complaint, you’ll note the Henderson Police also violated their 4th Amendment rights as well by searching both homes without warrants nor any probable cause.

Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The police searched, ransacked the house, for what reason?

When plaintiff Linda Mitchell returned to her home, the cabinets and closet doors throughout the house had been left open and their contents moved about. Water had been consumed from their water dispenser. Even the refrigerator door had been left ajar and mustard and mayonnaise had been left on their kitchen floor.” — Courthouse News.

The Mitchells, son and parents, had broken no law. They were not the subject of the domestic dispute—that was their neighbor. So what justification did the police have for their actions other than they could? From what a number of legal professional have determined, none. There was no justification.

The crux of this suit is whether militarized police constitutes “soldiers” within the definition of the 3rd Amendment. They are agents of the state, as are soldiers. Many will say SWAT police are soldiers if you use the “walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck” logic.

Although it’s not well known, there is a history of US military forces violating the 3rd Amendment. That last such occurance was during WW II.

During World War II, after Japan attacked the Aleutian Islands off Alaska’s coast, the United States forcibly evacuated the islands’ natives and quartered soldiers in private homes. That hitherto unremarked violation of the Third Amendment gives us a fresh perspective on what “Property” means in the U.S. Constitution. As a general legal matter, property includes not just real estate – land, fixtures attached thereto, and related rights – but also various kinds of personal property, ranging from tangibles such as books to intangibles such as causes of action. That knowledge would, if we interpreted the Constitution as we do other legal documents, tell us just about everything we need to know about the scope of constitutional property. Case law and commentary do not speak as plainly, however, raising troubling questions about what “Property” means each of the four times it appears in the Constitution. In particular, some authority suggests that the Takings Clause protects personal property less completely than it does real property. The unjust treatment of Aleutian natives during World War II shows the risk of giving constitutional property so peculiar and narrow a definition. This paper describes the troubling inconsistencies that afflict the law of constitutional property and invokes the Third Amendment, that oft-forgotten relic of the American Revolution, to argue for giving “Property” a plain, generous, and consistent meaning throughout Constitution. — The Volokh Conspiracy.

The issue above is, that while troops “may” be quartered in private homes during wartime, the act must follow specific law. In other words, Congress must pass specific legislation that clarifies the circumstances when the 3rd Amendment doesn’t apply, compensation to the owners for damage, and the legal procedures to enact the seizure. That clarifying legislation has never been passed making the acts during WW II illegal.

The event in Henderson, NV in 2011 doesn’t have the quasi-justification of occurring during war. That is, if the Henderson PD does not consider themselves at war with the residents of Henderson.

The abuses of militarized police are growing across the country. It is a manifestation of a growing police state that has been actively encouraged by the federal government.

Whether our front door is kicked in by a group of lawless thugs, or by armed and armored SWAT troops acting like lawless thugs, it is still a violation of our castle. Theoretically, we could be justified in resisting under the auspices of castle laws. Of course, it wouldn’t matter when the SWAT team kills us. We’re still just as dead. And…the SWAT team would likely get off without charges.

It does beg the question. Can people defend themselves against police when it is the police who are violating the law? That is something for our Legislatures to address.

Facebook

What’s really going on?

Posted on by

I am not a conspiracy theorist. I believe many, who exhibit those symptoms, have their tin-foil beanies on too tight. On occasion, however, when multiple sources cite multiple instances of similar events, you really have to wonder what’s going on.

What am I talking about? The militarization of the Department of Homeland Security.

Their are credible reports, reports that present irrefutable facts that the DHS, and other federal agencies, too, is militarizing. They are buying obscene amount of ammunition, 1.6 billion rounds, small-arms, and IED resistant, armored vehicles—MRAPs.

Beginning several years ago, the DHS began stockpiling ammunition, most, but not all, in .40S&W, a favored pistol caliber of law enforcement and federal agencies. They also bought large amounts of 5.56mm rifle cartridges, and 12ga 00 shotgun shells. 

Add to that the 2,700 armored MRAPs transferred from the Army to DHS, and a newly announced purchase of 360,000 more rounds of ammunition, and any rational person begins to get suspicious.

Add one more item to all of the above. DHS is freeing illegal aliens, criminal illegal aliens because of “sequester.” What a farce! Let’s estimate the cost of all that ammunition. Conservatively, let’s say each round costs $1.00. (Current prices for .40S&W hollow-point ammunition is in excess of $25 for a box of 20.) DHS could have spend that $1.6 billion on prosecuting the illegals DHS has in custody. Instead, Janet Reno turned them loose.

Think what could happen when all those criminals hit the streets—another manufactured crises? Some of those conspiracy theorists claim the FedGov is preparing for a coup. I can’t subscribe to that. Not quite, but it certainly is suspicious.

I’ll leave you with Michael Ramirez’s latest cartoon…

ramiriz_03252013

Facebook

The Militarization of Police

Posted on by
I read an article today that was frankly, disturbing.  The subject of the article has been present for a long time, decades in many cases.  That subject?  The conversion of our local police into a paramilitary force.

Local Cops Ready for War With Homeland Security-Funded Military Weapons

Dec 21, 2011 4:45 AM EST

A decade of billions in spending in the name of homeland security has armed local police departments with military-style equipment and a new commando mentality. But has it gone too far? Andrew Becker and G.W. Schulz of the Center for Investigative Reporting report.
…

The buying spree has transformed local police departments into small, army-like forces, and put intimidating equipment into the hands of civilian officers. And that is raising questions about whether the strategy has gone too far, creating a culture and capability that jeopardizes public safety and civil rights while creating an expensive false sense of security.
“The argument for up-armoring is always based on the least likely of terrorist scenarios,” says Mark Randol, a former terrorism expert at the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress. “Anyone can get a gun and shoot up stuff. No amount of SWAT equipment can stop that.”

The result? The police are no longer peace officers, they are now law enforcement officers.  
It is important to note here that contrary to popular belief, the police have no requirement to protect the people.  There have been a number cases rising to the US Supreme Court and the Court has said the police have no requirement to protect individuals. The police can only enforce the law or seek those who have broken the law. They no longer work to protect the people but they now protect…what?

One common response is to counter acts of terrorism.  Really?  Then why are these units being used to serve warrants…in the middle of the night…without knocking?  That doesn’t sound like countering terrorism to me.

Another is that criminals are more heavily armed than the police.  They cite the famous North Hollywood bank robbery where two men, armed with fully automatic weapons and wearing body armed engaged in a shoot-out with police resulting in multiple casualties among those police officers.  The police actually had to commandeer semi-automatic rifles from a near-by gun dealer.  The City of Los Angeles did not provide any long-guns to the police, short-ranged shotguns excepted.

In that situation, the police had been effectively disarmed by the LA city government.  There were federal grants available, that were used afterward, to provide funds for squad-car rifles like the Ruger Mini-14 and the Colt AR.  The city was negligent but blamed instead “proliferation of firearms” instead of accepting their own failures.

There are instances where criminals barricade themselves against police. A siege occurs.  Most people understand that sieges will end sooner or later.  They DO NOT require frontal assaults by armed and armored police to resolve the situation. But, politics demand quick resolutions not patience and the command staff demand a resolution before the media appears and the scene is broadcasted on the local news.

Still it come back to the conversion of police from the peace officer mentality to the law enforcement mentality.  In the latter case, the Us vs. Them mentality not only develops but is encouraged. A California study in 1997 researched the trend and noted the deficiencies and the dangers of militarization.

Militarizing American Police: The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary Units
Peter B. Kraska and Victor E. Kappeler
Social Problems
Vol. 44, No. 1 (Feb., 1997), pp. 1-18
(article consists of 18 pages)

Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems

I can’t cut ‘n paste an excerpt from this study. You’ll have to go to the site and read it for yourself.

Here is an excerpt from testimony before Congress on the same subject.

Our Militarized Police Departments

Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Crime

| July 2, 2007

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak today.
I’m here to talk about police militarization, a troubling trend that’s been on the rise in America’s police departments over the last 25 years.
Militarization is a broad term that refers to using military-style weapons, tactics, training, uniforms, and even heavy equipment by civilian police departments.
It’s a troubling trend because the military has a very different and distinct role than our domestic peace officers. The military’s job is to annihilate a foreign enemy. The police are supposed to protect us while upholding our constitutional rights. It’s dangerous to conflate the two.
But that’s exactly what we’re doing. Since the late 1980s, Mr. Chairman, thanks to acts passed by the U.S. Congress, millions of pieces of surplus military equipment have been given to local police departments across the country.
We’re not talking just about computers and office equipment. Military-grade semi-automatic weapons, armored personnel vehicles, tanks, helicopters, airplanes, and all manner of other equipment designed for use on the battlefield is now being used on American streets, against American citizens.
Academic criminologists credit these transfers with the dramatic rise in paramilitary SWAT teams over the last quarter century.
SWAT teams were originally designed to be used in violent, emergency situations like hostage takings, acts of terrorism, or bank robberies. From the late 1960s to the early 1980s, that’s primarily how they were used, and they performed marvelously.
But beginning in the early 1980s, they’ve been increasingly used for routine warrant service in drug cases and other nonviolent crimes. And thanks to the Pentagon transfer programs, there are now a lot more of them.
This is troubling because paramilitary police actions are extremely volatile, necessarily violent, overly confrontational, and leave very little margin for error. These are acceptable risks when you’re dealing with an already violent situation featuring a suspect who is an eminent threat to the community.
But when you’re dealing with nonviolent drug offenders, paramilitary police actions create violence instead of defusing it. Whether you’re an innocent family startled by a police invasion that inadvertently targeted the wrong home or a drug dealer who mistakes raiding police officers for a rival drug dealer, forced entry into someone’s home creates confrontation. It rouses the basest, most fundamental instincts we have in us – those of self-preservation – to fight when flight isn’t an option. (Emphasis mine — Crucis)

The testimony continues and it’s well worth a few minutes reading the full article at the website.

One cogent line above is “…when you’re dealing with nonviolent drug offenders, paramilitary police actions create violence instead of defusing it.”                                   

What is the purpose then, of these paramilitary units?  Protecting the people?  No. That is not a requirement saith the courts. Countering heavily armed drug dealers? As the testimony above states, that isn’t commonly needed either.

Serving warrants?  Before the use of SWAT teams, Officers would walk up to the doors and knock.  Rarely did they have to call up enforcements. And if such were needed, the officers waited until those enforcement arrived instead of charging inside weapons drawn.  (I should note here that my father was an auxiliary deputy sheriff.  He would frequently serve warrants throughout our county and never once needed assistance or have to draw his weapon.  In fact, he rarely carried a weapon when serving warrants. He told me he never needed one.)

We again return to the original question.  What is the purpose of militarizing the police?  I have some thoughts on that but I’ll not state them here.  Those questions should be directed to our elected officials and police.  

Once all the rationalization is swept away, the answer will be they’re not.  Yes, some small force, trained and equipped should be available when needed. Perhaps a force by the State Police or Highway Patrol. But not every Police Department nor every Sheriff’s department needs one. In fact, very few do.

All too often, such paramilitary forces are used simply to justify their existence.  Use it or lose it. Many federal grants come with these paramilitary forces.  No SWAT team, no federal money.

That is a very serious mistake.

It promotes the Us vs. Them mentality that pits the police against everyone not of the police.  That mentality enforces distrust by the police and that distrust is returned by those same people the police are supposed to protect.


It’s is a prime example of negative feedback. The more the SWAT teams, the paramilitary forces are used, the more they are thought to be needed. The truth is just the opposite. The less they are used, the less they are actually needed.