The Glade 4.0

_________________
"...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

Excellent article, Elm.

Was it good for you? Who came first?

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Fiat declaration

(see? I can play too.)

<snip endless "fiat declaration" nonsense">

The entire tactic of claiming someone else is making a fiat declaration is just a way of trying to get your own accepted.



I have the tactical experience to be able to make this declaration. What in your experience gives you any qualification to call it into question, excpet by saying "fiat declaration" but so what? Because something is a fiat declaration does not make it incorrect - especially when:

they are completely dissimilar. In a raid situation, you've already accumulated considerable evidence. You've investigated long enough to get probable cause for a warrant, or, in hostage situations, you at least have a static situation and can sit back and conduct reconnisance. That's rarely the case in actual policing. For the most part, you are by yourself or with one other officer going into a situation cold. That situation may or may not even be at a building as a warrant service generally is, and you don't have a large team of officers that you've practiced with extensively.



In other words, you don't know enough about what you are talking about to effectively contest my tactical knowledge and experience, and so you are simply saying "fiat declaration" in hopes the Glade Idea Popularity Contest will see you through.



In which case, you might want to provide some sort of proof of your own fiat declarations, namely that there is some sort of "bleed over." Here's a hint: A few anecdotes from Google to not prove much of anything, especially since "bleed over" is an exceedingly vague term; I know of no accepted definition for it. As such, it seems to be one that means whatever you need it to in order for your argument to be correct. Does it mean that you may occasionally find some police department somewhere using a tactic that is really not necessary based ont he seriousness of the situation? Ok, sure, you certainly can. If that's what it means, however, it is so easily satisfied that all it essentially is saying is "things are not 100% perfect" in which case I don't give a **** if there's any "bleed over" or not. If, on the other hand, it means something more reasonable to you, it might behoove you to state that definition in terms precise enough that it can be demonstrated or not with some degree of surety. Until then, I'll continue to simply say that "bleed over" has not occured, because to me, it doesn't mean anything.

As to those supposed "fiat declarations" regarding tactical differences between things like, say, making a traffic stop and serving a search warrant based on a brief explaination, then you're just being obtuse or obstinate. I should not need to explain what the differences are between stopping a car or going to a domestic violence call with one or two officers and no advance information, and having an entire team of officers ready to conduct a search after weeks of investigation and recon; the fact that there are differences should be patently obvious to the untrained observer, and it should not require any explanation whatsoever on my part for you to grasp that, regardless of your lack of experience in such matters. Saying it's a "fiat declaration" is essentially an admission that you can't contest this fact, but that it's inconvenient, so you just want to imply there's something wrong with it.



So what? Why is it a problem that these tactics were used in any of these situations, other than that you just don't like them?



This example makes no sense wahtsoever. I can't even tell what you are talking about.



So in other words, "bleed over" means using such tactics in situations where they are appropriate for no other reason than some arbitrary line in your mind between situations where there are known heavily armed drug dealers, and situations where there is a high likelyhood of such persons. So what if they were originally developed for drug raids? Why should they not be used in situations where a hostage or barricade situation is likely to develop?

What you're really demonstrating is that "bleed over" is really just predjudicial language for evolving tactics. There is nothing inherenetly wrong with SWAT raid tactics; the problem arises from the War on Drugs that drives the frequency of their use. If you're going to go raid a house, that's the right way to do it. The problem is why we're raiding so many houses in the first place. The problem has nothing whatsoever to do with SWAT tactics; it has everything to do with the political drive behind it. We're also arresting entirely too many people for just smoking a joint; that does not mean that there's a problem with people getting handcuffed.



No, actually you haven't submitted such proof. You've submitted a few anecdotal incidents, where for some arbitrary reason or other you feel these tactics shouldn't have been used. You certainly have not provided any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that SWAT tactics are useful for everyday policing.

Simply showing a few incidents where such tactics have not been used, but apparently you feel they shouldn't have means nothing. All this means is that there's "bleed over" according to some nebulous criteria in your head. You need to show that it occurs regularly in situations that are unquestionably inappropriate for it. This does not mean situations that the Glade average thinks are inappropriate; it means situations where the courts think it is inappropriate.



The only thing I don't like is the fact that you feel a problem that is entirely a matter of your own arbitrary criteria being violated is somehow a matter of public concern.


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.[/quote]

The reason it's pointless is that you want to apply hindsight (intelligence, regardless of preparation time, is never perfect) and anecdotal evidence and complain that your nebulous personal standards are being violated. Of course it's "pointless" to you. You don't want to examine whether your personal standards are reasonable because you know, when it comes right down to it, that you have a problem with these tactics despite the fact that the courts don't, and that you don't have to take the risks. Cops are just faceless guys in uniform to you, and their concern for their own safety is something you can easily dismiss.

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

My mistake then. I did not realize you were arguing against a connection between a "protest fee" (which I already stated I oppose) and the number of polcie present; clearly there would be a moral hazard there. Rather, I think that protestors should be required to remain and clean up any mess, assuming they haven't become violent and had to be dispersed. Paying for the cost of police protection is the responsibility of the taxpayer.

What I was arguing against was the idea that the number of police at a protest is somehow driven by police union desires for overtime (there are far less unpleasant ways to get overtime than wearing a bunch of riot gear and worrying about getting hit with a rock) or that it should somehow be related to the desires of the protestors themselves.



I fully agree. Again, I did not realize there was any connection being drawn between the fees and the police presence.



I think it is relatively easy to assess that. Allowing for a broad definition of "protest", to include "rallys", "marches" and similar assemblages, it's usually fairly easy to assess their general demeanor simply from the attitude and level of organization of the people involved. I could have told you OWS was going to be a major problem beforehand simply because it was so disorganized, and because of their declared intent of "occupation", clearly intended to sound like a military occupation; from my best understanding the original one was started by Adbusters, but all the successive ones were "viral" and therefore highly disorganized and with no one at the top that could be held responsible for the group, problem behavior was inevitable.



Of course the answer changes. The WBC is far more likely to draw angry counterprotestors than anyone else. For any other nameless group, 2 to 4 officers sounds adequate based on what you've described. For WBC at least twice as many are likely to be needed simply because of their "general demeanor".

Also, I don't think the Chief of Police should be approving the protest permits. That should be an independent official, and, as stated, if there is any sort of "protest fee" (and again, I would prefer a mandatory clean-up policy) it should not be driven by estimated police strength.

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.[/quote]

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

No, the reason it's pointless is that I've given you evidence that it's happened; yet you still won't back off your fiat declaration that it "hasn't can't won't" happen. You believe you hold the key to the vault of tactical knowledge and even with direct evidence to the contrary can't see the forest for the trees. Good luck with that.

_________________
"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

If cops aren't willing to face the danger of being a cop, maybe they shouldn't... Military members can't burn villages, because they might contain insurgents. Oh wait.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

I feel bad when the real pushback happens. Unfortunately it wont mean reduction in violence from the police, just a Mexican standoff in some areas.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Diamondeye:

You do realize you're fundamentally incapable of contributing rational discourse about police matters right?

_________________

I don't believe that is true. I do believe he is more personally invested in having as many tools to do his job as possible, with as little risk to himself as possible. But that's where the creeping infringement comes in. Police have bargained for, administrators have pushed for, and legislators have put in place, these policies and laws to help advance these actions the police are doing. But they did so without any dissenting opinion or people challenging the reasoning behind it. Well maybe token resistance, which gets lost in the noise of officer safety.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

It is true; he rejected the reality that police officers are first and foremost customer service personnel. It doesn't matter if he refuses to believe; it really doesn't matter if he doesn't believe it. Cops are customer service personnel.

_________________

Don't cops fall under the executive branch of government?

That being the case (and I believe it is), they're not customer service personnel, they're agents of the executive and answerable to the executive.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Oh, come on. Of course they are. "To Protect and Serve [the public]".

Their customer is the public, not necessarily the person who called them. No, they don't have to make the person who called them happy, but they do in fact serve the public.

Doesn't really matter who they answer to, they're still customer service personnel. Crime response is customer service; crime prevention is customer service; keeping the peace is customer service ...

Everything a police officer does in fulfilling the duties and obligations of their office is ... customer service.

_________________

OK Khross but before we go further I need the definition of customer service you're using. Because somehow DE sitting behind a mall kiosk wrapping packages and taking store charge card payments is making me giggle.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Well, you probably need better personal skills to handle the mall kiosk or credit counter at a department store.

_________________

That right there is what I see as the crux of the issue.

I'd not classify the military, the CIA or the FBI as being in customer service, and I don't classify the local or state police that way either. If I did, I'd probably be just as outspoken or even more so than some others that post here.

Thing is, I see an agent of the executive as an extension of the executive, and if I have a problem it's rightly a problem with the executive, not his or her agents, and place to deal with problems with the executive are the legislative and the judicial.

I'm not sure if my way of looking at it is the right way, but it seems to most accurately reflect reality as I see it.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I'm using a pretty basic definition of customer service: you directly act to serve the needs of the customer. The problem here isn't the term "customer service", it's the completely unreasonable understanding of the relationship between law enforcement and the average citizen. The FBI is a police agency, by the by; the CIA and the Military are not. Police agencies, however, spend the entirety of their time attempting to reconcile grievances, disputes, or points of conflict between people, entities (legal or otherwise), and governments. Police agencies provide measurable services to the public; they provide services we can enumerate: crime prevention (arguable), crime response, keeping the peace, etc. All of these services require some sort of interaction with the public (either individually or at large); all of these services are attempts to reconcile a grievance with living in this society. The grievance isn't necessarily with the government; the grievance can indeed be between two citizens (and most often is). But, you know, conflict resolution is a customer service, too.

_________________

The problem, as I've discussed before in this thread is that your relationship with your government is not, since we lost (forfiet?) the ability to abolish our current government and establish a new one in it's place, customer/seller. You have no market based decisions you can make, and are thereby dictated terms.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Khross: You do realize you're just trolling, appealing to motive, poisoning the well, and engaging in ad hom attacks, right?

No one here, and I mean NO ONE HERE has a better history of contributing to rational discourse on police matters than I do. All you're doing here is trying to dismiss arguments I make based on a pre-emptive "you can't contribute rationally" attack. If you had any intention whatsoever of engaging in rational discourse, you wouldn't be trolling in this fashion.

Instead, trolling is exactly what you're doing here because what you're really interested in is appearing to be Right On The Internet. You are simply afraid of confronting anyone on a topic you can't claim to be the greater expert on, and so you revert to attempts to discredit their arguments in advance by this sort of bullshit.

You know what, that's fine. Just don't ever complain about the quality of discourse here again.

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

Ah, in other words you simply don't want to address any point I made, so you'll just make fiat declarations about spinning, backtracking, and strawman. Good to know.

The fact is that you haven't provided direct evidence to the contrary, because you haven't made a claim firm enough to make direct evidence for. You have provided a few anecdotes, but, disregarding the questionable veracity of at least one of them, they don't constitute evidence because your claim is still essentially undefined. The best you can do is say "here's a hint" but that just establishes that you, yourself, do not really know what you mean by "bleed over"; it describes nothing more than a vague sense of alarm you personally have and a very vaguely-defined phenomena, that you cannot describe except by providing a few anecdotes and acting as if there's something so inherently obvious in them that I can't fail to see it.

What's really hilarious is that you claim I can't see the forest for the trees, yet your "evidence" consisted of a few trees and a claim that there's a forest because a few trees exist, when in reality I don't know if what you're calling a "forest" is really a "forest" or a "wood", a "glade", a "glen", a "copse" a "stand" or a few trees in some proximity to each other, because you're consistently refusing to say what in your mind is a "forest" and just wanting to drop hints and keep pointing out that you may have spotted a tree or two.

As for tactical knowledge, it's very convenient how my tactical knowledge is somehow questionable only when it comes into conflict with the Glade "**** tha po-lice" attitude. When I point out that SWAT warrant service/search tactics are not applicable to the vast majority of police matters because their nature is entirely different, and you then claim to have provided "evidence to the contrary" by providing "evidence" of their use in yet more search and warrant situations, all you're demonstrating is that you simply don't understand. It should not be hard to grasp that SWAT tactics for searching a home for drugs and evidence with 7 or 8 occupants do not translate to controlling a protest or riot that is outdoors and consists of hundreds of people and where there is no warrant or need to arrest a specific person or seize specific evidence. You're not providing any "direct evidence to the contrary" because your "direct evidence" doesn't pertain to my point: You cannot apply SWAT building entry and search tactics to situations that don't involve building entry and/or search, any more than I could apply, say tactics for an armor battalion to entering a building.

I'm struck by the fact that we initially agreed that the War on Drugs spawned the current SWAT search tactics and that their widespread use is driven by that. Therefore, I'll send you a PM. I don't believe it's productive to discuss this in public however.

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

How many examples would one need to cite for you to conceed that they are no longer ancedotal, and are instead indicative of a patern?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Why do you need to do it with anecdotal evidence? You don't HAVE any other?

Anecdotal evidence cannot establish patterns, especially when you're talking about a pattern on the scale of law enforcement activity in a country that is third most populous and third largest by land area in the world. Anecdotal evidence is pitifully weak for establishing large scale generalities or trends. If you could cite enough examples to be meaningful, you could compile them into statistical evidence.

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

No, actually, everyone has a better history than you do; that's thing you don't understand. Your posts in this thread are not rational; they're apologetic. You don't know that your opinions on police matters are irrational; you were a cop. You're working in a form of law enforcement now. You are constitutionally incapable of being rational on the subject, because in this thread and every other thread on the subject ...

1. You tolerate 0 dissent regardless of source: e.g. your complete fiat dismissal of everything Vindicarre has posted in this thread.

2. You can't separate yourself from the discussion. You can't abstract law enforcement away from the personal anymore.

You don't post rationally on this subject; I'm sorry you think you do. And, I'm sorry you think pointing out a behavioral reality of your involvement in these discussions is poisoning the well, appealing to emotion, whatever ...

I honestly don't care. You see, I'm not debating your irrationality on this subject; I'm simply stating its existence. You've already demonstrated your incapability in this regard; and, the funny thing is ...

The only reason anyone holds it against you is you.

_________________

We need a heavily moderated thread in which nothing but statistics and other evidence will be cited on this subject, aand we can then use it as a referrence tool to bludgeon you with.

An estimated 40,000 paramilitary raids are conducted annually in this country.

The stated purpose of a SWAT team was best outlined by the origionators of unit with the LAPD, from wikipedia, bold mine:

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20