The Glade 4.0

That doesn't make any sense, though.

First of all, SWAT tactics require high levels of training and coordination amongst a team of officers. The emphasis in "SWAT team" should be on "team" not on "SWAT". Building entry, in either actual military methods or in police methods is dangerous and chaotic because of the extreme short ranges and short reaction times and that is why special teams are needed for it. The ONLY time other officers should be contemplating a forced-entry that a SWAT team would make is in an "active shooter" (i.e. Columbine or VT) scenario.

Because of that, SWAT tactics do not translate well to other scenarios. They are focused very much on hostage situations, barricaded subjects, and heavily armed individuals in set-piece scenarios. That does not translate at all well to the regular officers' situation where he is likely to already be face-to-face with the subject when the situation goes bad and he needs to reach for spray or a baton or a TASER. Ironically, most SWAT situations are the exception rather than the rule. If a SWAT team is called out, that means an extended situation just because they need to assemble. There is plenty of time to gather intelligence and analyze the situation. It is very different from most other police situations where things like pepper spray and TASERs are used in a split second, with no time for detached reflection.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The main factors would be how many protestors are present and what the terrain is like. That is a very difficult question to answer. It's very much like "how many troops would it take to conquer Australia?" The answer is "it depends" on a huge number of factors.

I could estimate how many troops it would take to control a riot or protest better than how many cops because my command-level experience is military not law enforcement. However, even there we run into the same problem: give me a highly specific situation and I can answer, but that does not easily generalize to other situations other than to tell you that things like how many people, where they are, and other things (their general demeanor, the level of training of the soldiers or police available, equipment available, etc.) that affect it. Even then it is always a judgement call to a degree; there is no exact number of people needed.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Police officers are not customer service employees first. Their job is not to make happy the person that called them. Their job, if its to make anyone happy, is to make the courts happy.

As for how they are viewed, Gallup indicates that police officers are trusted very highly, with 57% of the population trusting them very highly, and 33% trusting them at an average level.

More importantly, this poll has been going on since 1976, and the ratings have been highly consistent. Police officers dropped since last year, but last year represented a spike since 2009, and the average remains consistent.

The bottom line is that the Glade view of the police is not the public view of the police.

By the way, military officers *cough* come in even higher, 2nd in the poll, with 73% trusting us very highly. Nurses are on top! (YAY KIRRA!)

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Oh, I agree that it doesn't make sense. Yet, it happens. The tactics developed to deal with heavily armed drug dealers having bled over into use against less formidable suspects.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I don't see that they have. You stated off saying you "worry about it" then I pointed out why they wouldn't, then you ome back and say that they have.

The fact is that they haven't. They can't. You can't apply the tactics that apply to SWAT teams and drug raids to regular policing because the situations are too dissimilar. It simply won't work and cannot meaningfully be done.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

DE, "having bled over" means it has already happened. As I stated initially: " I worry about the tactics developed to deal with heavily armed drug dealers having bled over into use against less formidable suspects." I started off the same way I have continued: the tactics have bled into other areas.



Your adamant fiat declarations to the contrary, tactics designed to be used by SWAT teams confronting heavily armed/barricaded suspects or hostage situations are used by other than SWAT teams, additionally, SWAT teams serve warrants all over the country for suspects much less formidable than "heavily armed drug dealers". Often it turns out badly for those being "served". Pun intended.

Here's the results of a 2 minute search:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/sear ... beach.html
http://dscriber.com/greenzone/the-after ... -marijuana
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xixpd7 ... rrant_news
http://www.examiner.com/domestic-violen ... ged-abuser
http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/201 ... y-pet.html

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Yes, you worry about whether it has happened. The fact is that it hasn't.





This is not "bled over" in any meaningful sense of the word. I am not making "adamant fiat declarations" (contrary to the accepted glade practice of simply claiming any position you disagree with, especially an unpopular one is a "fiat declaration" and calling it such consitutes some sort of insta-win)

The fact is that when a person has, or is likely to, barricade themselves in the home (or any other structure) those sorts of tactics are appropriate. This does not mean it's somehow "bled over" into any other sort of police work, especially not protests and riot control. This is like saying that the advent of nuclear weapons somehow "bled over" into the development of depleted uranium armor and penetrators.

As for these incidents you cite and others like them, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with having a SWAT team present for a warrant service with a subject that is likely to engage in a hostage or barricade situation. There's nothing that says he has to be a drug dealer. SWAT teams are here to stay because the situations they deal with are dangerous for police officers.

We could avoid a lot of those situations in the first place if we didn't have a "War on Drugs" political scene that creates an environment where a "small amount" of marijuana becomes a drug dealer, but the fact that the tactics exist and are used is not what's problematic, what's problematic is the political environment that drives the regularity they are used with. This is not "bleed over"; they are highly appropriate for warrant services or dangerous persons. Your use of the term "bled over" is an attempt to beg the question; it is a predjudicial term implying the tactics are somehow overused, or used where not approriate, and individual incidences of error aside, they are not simply used as a matter of course. The vast majority of warrants, search or arrest are not served this way. If they were, nothing would ever get done.

The press just likes to pick out the most dramatic and engage in a lot of screaming about it - especially since "the press" nowadays now includes every idiot with a blog and an axe to grind. Of your links, the first did not work. Of the others, the only one that could really be called neutral reporting was the one from Columbus. Just running a google search and finding that "holy crap, SWAT teams exist!" does not prove much of anything.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

We could avoid alot of these situations if the LEOs involved had even a modicum of self respect, decency, and compassion. Instead, as evidenced, they don't. As for your response, save yourself some lengthy diatribe, I'm not going to read it. I've read enough already.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

No, I worry because it has happened.


Fiat declaration.


Fiat declaration.


Fiat declaration.


Fiat declaration.


Fiat declaration.





You repeatedly make statements such as the ones I've highlighted above and insist that they are true based on the fact that you made them. That's a fiat declaration. Of course I'm going to desire some proof regarding a position I disagree with, if I agreed with it, I'd already have seen the proof. Whatever you may think of various "accepted glade practices", you're discussing this with me, not "the glade".



The fact is that none of the situations I reiterated in this post involved the suspect barricading themselves in prior to the SWAT team arriving, as a matter of fact, one of them involved the SWAT team using a key to the home.




No, it would be like saying that the advent of nuclear weapons, and their use, in anticipation of an amphibious assault that would cost millions of lives, "bled over" if they were then used to enforce a "no fly zone" in Libya.



I'll give you a hint as to what "bleed over" is:
Saying that "tactics developed to deal with heavily-armed drug dealers" morphing it into "there is nothing whatsoever wrong with having a SWAT team present for a warrant service with a subject that is likely to engage in a hostage or barricade situation" then morphing it into "they are highly appropriate for warrant services or dangerous persons".


I have not attempted to "beg the question". Petitio Principii means you prove the point attempt to prove your point without proof. I've supplied sufficient proof to refute claims such as: "The fact is that it hasn't." "The fact is that they haven't." "They can't." "You can't apply the tactics that apply to SWAT teams and drug raids to regular policing because the situations are too dissimilar." and "It simply won't work and cannot meaningfully be done." simply by showing where it has, and they have (by the way, your quotes just above give a perfect example of hysteron proteron, or begging the question.

It is only prejudicial when you don't like the fact that it exists. Bleed over doesn't mean or imply anything prejudicial, it doesn't mean anything is used as a matter of course. Quite the contrary, it depicts a situation where a few occurrences lead to a practice that could spread to more common use if the "bleed" isn't stopped. It merely describes a situation where an action or actions slowly pass over the boundaries of which they were originally intended.


If you don't think using "tactics developed to deal with heavily armed drug dealers" on a family that includes a seven year old, a dog, no guns, and less than a gram of pot is bleed over...
If you don't think using "tactics developed to deal with heavily armed drug dealers" on a man suspected of burning a car where no drugs or guns were found is bleed over...
If you don't think using "tactics developed to deal with heavily armed drug dealers" on a man at his business because a woman filed a complaint that he was abusing his daughters in which no charges were filed isn't bleed over...
If you don't think using "tactics developed to deal with heavily armed drug dealers" on a dog after everyone left the building peacefully isn't bleed over...
If you don't think using "tactics developed to deal with heavily armed drug dealers" on a man accused of simple assault on a neighbor, who is unarmed isn't bleed over...
then I guess this is pointless.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Save this for real cop, not on the internet, who matters. If you aren't trying to actively hone an argument you plan on making to your local city counsel or congress, save your stress burden. DE's totalitarian rants have served me well in these instances, but beyond that, I've never found much merit in them.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

DE functions as Monte here - serving as the perfect foil to direct people to the opposing point of view.

The liberal foil's use has been served as the board now both understands and think much more from the default libertarian perspective on economic issues. DE is serving to push in opposition to police powers and having a default respect for those you are told are in authority. He can continue to serve his role as a foil for there are some how still wrongly give police leeway.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

What a circle-jerk.

_________________


Grenade 3 Sports Drink. It's fire in the hole.. Your hole!

Right. Which I think highlights the practical problem with using "number of necessary cops" as the basis for assessing a direct fee. The right to peaceful assembly and the right to seek redress for grievances are not, like any other right, unlimited freedoms. However, inasmuch as they are Constitutionally guaranteed rights, I believe that it is only appropriate that the limits of these rights -- even in the form of monetary dissuasion -- be carefully and clearly defined. Even if it were true that the nation's police commanders were uniquely, and uniformly qualified to assess that question, "just whatever this expert thinks" is not an appropriate standard for a Constitutionally protected right.

The Constitution guarantees us equal protection under the law. Without a concrete, definable standard for how these fees are assessed, how can anyone determine whether they are being applied fairly and equally? You said it yourself:

This is not a standard which can be held accountable. If the police chief (or whoever) assesses a fee of $2,000 for a protest, and it later turns out that only $1,000 of police services were actually needed ... so what? It's not an exact science. On what grounds would you be able to challenge it when the only criterion is that he's an expert and you're not?

But you also touched on a much deeper problem:

At first glance, this policy seems to be more fair. People who use more water pay more for their water bill, right? So shouldn't people who "use more" police pay more for it? But the issue you just brushed up against is where this policy really breaks down. What does "general demeanor" even mean in this context? How can anyone know what the general demeanor of a particular protest is going to be like before the protest happens (and from nothing more than a paper application, at that)? Whichever way you lean is literally a prejudice, and it has no place in the law.

Concrete example: you're the chief of police. You've just been handed an application for a protest by a dozen people at an off-the-beaten-path location. The organization sponsoring the protest has no record of committing violence, resisting the police, or interfering with traffic at any of their past protests. What kind of police presence do you imagine will be necessary? Does your answer change if I tell you that organization in question is WBC?

Don't get me wrong: my answer would change, too. And in and of itself, I don't really have a problem with that. I'll grant that it's probably true that a larger police presence is needed at their protests (if only to protect the WBC protestors themselves), than at other protests of similar scope and location. But as much as I hate these guys, I do have a problem with assessing them a higher "protest fee" because of that. There may be a practical justification for the fee, but it doesn't change the reality that all other things being equal, the more controversial you and/or your position are, the more expensive it is for you to publicly protest. Ultimately, it is a controversy tax.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

The alternative is the 99% pay 100% to facilitate the message the 10% who want to claim they are the 99% to criticize the 1% who really pay 40% of the original 100%.

And that's not fair...

I should march and send you all a bill.

OR, as a special, this week only!, I'll NOT march for the low low price of half off! It's a win-win, you should take it.

Which all goes to the point...how much of my blatherings should all you pay for? If I were you, I'd not pay a dime.

Once "free speech" isn't free, the person doing the speech should pick up the tab.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

So, the American rallying cry in support of the First Amendment should be, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it (unless it costs me any money in the process, in which case, **** your right to say it)!"

Guys, I generally disagree with DE on this issue too, but there's no need to be dicks about it.

No, you still have a right to say it.

It's only "**** you" if you think I should pick up the tab for any of your rights. Rights are things government SHOULDN'T interfere with, not something the government should pay for.

It's sorta how the government shouldn't interfere with religion. You do your thing, I'll do mine, and if I want to send my kid to Catholic school I shouldn't send you the tab. You should at least have the ethical integrity to do the same.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Sure, but charging a fee and requiring people to fill out paperwork and get permission in advance is interfering with their rights. That's the point. If I protest against a certain government policy, and I cause absolutely no property damage or interference with public activities (e.g. blocking traffic) at all, why should I have to pay for the cops to come watch me speak my mind? If some douchebag at the protest decides to commit vandalism, and I am in no way involved with or supportive of those actions, why should I be any more responsible for paying the costs of his douchebaggery than you are?

Not the way I see it. It's guaranteeing that everyone's rights are met, not just the rights of people that want to demonstrate.

You always have the ability to purchase your own property or take out advertisement. If you want to use public property you have to queue up with everyone else using the property, and the way to facilitate the queuing up is to get permission in advance... and the fee is so your garbage gets cleaned up so I can demonstrate without stepping in your ****.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Hm, fair point. Let me raise a different argument then - if we don't have permits and fees, the public ends up footing the bill; if we do have permits and fees, the government is likely to abuse that power to stifle freedom of speech. In my view, the former is preferable to the latter, which kind of goes back to what I was trying to say with the "defend to the death" line - we, as Americans, are willing to die to defending the right to freedom of speech, but we're not willing to pay a little extra in taxes to defend against a potential/probable threat to that right? An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, no?

I'm not angling to be a dick here, I'm just tired of having this same argument, in which no ones mind gets changed, and you see the ugliest parts of people whom you otherwise consider to be friends (not exempting myself).

This has been the case for quite some time, and as I alluded to, the only time I found these threads useful was elwhen makng an argument to my local town officials that an officer needed to be fired.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Your premise that the government would abuse the power isn't a given, but I'll let that pass - we'll not come to a middle ground there. The people are the government, and as long as all people are treated equally by the government your argument doesn't hold water.

The "defending to the death" part is interesting... and my point still stands. I'd take exception to the government interfering with the freedom of speech of it's citizens. Requiring folks to pay for services, though, isn't interference.

Interference is when the government is putting it's thumb on a scale, bypassing whatever the regular requirements are and either adding to them for one group, or subtracting to them for another.

As long as everyone gets treated the same, and as long as the fee is commensurate with the requirements, freedom of speech isn't being interfered with.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I agree in theory, as does the Supreme Court - content-neutral time, place and manner regulations are allowed, and permits and reasonable fees have been upheld as such. My concern is that in practice, it's too easy for the government to engage in abuse and/or well-intentioned, but ultimately discriminatory behavior. And I don't think that's a paranoid, anti-government concern, since we've seen exactly that happen on a number of occasions in recent years (see, e.g., "free speech zones" during the 2004 and 2008 elections).

Abolish public property - problem is solved.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Actually, I do believe it's a paranoid anti-government concern. If one group of citizens want to protest and another wants to be unencumbered by those protests, a mechanism should be enacted to facilitate that. TPM restrictions provide equality for everyone

It really seems that you prefer to ameliorate your position in relation to others by insisting the slope's slippery rather than accepting a level playing field that treats all citizens equally. We have courts for resolving any issues that might occur.

I don't care what people say, where they say it, and I don't care that they want to say it in front of a camera. I just want them to shoulder the brunt of the obligations incurred. I accepted such requirements for myself when I reserved a pavilion at the city park for my fathers birthday party, it's not like it's onerous obligation.

Within reason, I would accept this as a perfect compromise. Better yet, refuse the use of public property except for purposes under which it was purchased.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.