MyFox
 

Nick-Charles's Blog

by Nick-Charles

Last Post 88 days, 8 hours Ago


America’s Troubled House

A botched police raid that terrorized an innocent family says a lot about the state of mind in the U.S.A. today.

Excerpts from a Newsweek article, written by a US presidents daughter, and well worth reading. It defines clearly what is at stake for America because of the militarization of civilian police forces into SWAT units. The full article can be found at:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/152412

“It sounds like something out of a police state in another part of the world.

Or perhaps, if you pay close attention to the plight of the poor, a poverty-riddled neighborhood somewhere in America where drugs and violence define everyday life.

A police raid on a house, doors smashed in, guns fired, lives lost … and then the admission that it was all an unfortunate mistake.

But this time it happened in the quaint, small town of Berwyn Heights, Md., and it happened to the mayor.”

Mayor “Calvo went upstairs to change clothes for an evening event.

His mother-in-law was in the kitchen when she saw masked men with guns running toward the house. Not surprisingly, she screamed as they kicked in the door.

They shot Payton who was standing beside her. They then turned their weapons on the other black lab, Chase, who was running away from them. They killed him, too.

Calvo, the mayor of Berwyn Heights since 2004, heard the shots just before he was grabbed and forced to walk down the stairs backward in his boxer shorts and socks into the waiting bloodbath. His mother-in-law was handcuffed on the bloody kitchen floor next to the body of one of their dogs.”

“Mayor Calvo came downstairs into a new time in America, in which no one is presumed innocent and guilt is only an assumption away.”

“While Chief High later expressed regret for the incident, he stopped short of offering an apology. And Sheriff Michael A. Jackson, whose department executed the raid, defended his department's actions.”

“These cases say something about our culture.

A country is not just defined by big sweeping events like wars and treaties and elections. It's defined by what goes on in neighborhoods, towns, homes.”

“ In the past eight years, we have seen our privacy invaded in the name of "homeland security."

We have all been living in a climate of "shoot (or accuse) first, ask questions later." And that attitude is contagious.”


“Imagine being Georgia Porter, one minute cooking dinner, the next handcuffed on the kitchen floor, inches from the bloodied body of a dog who was part of her family.

Imagine Cheye Calvo hearing the shots from upstairs, not knowing what was happening, and then finding himself handcuffed, helpless, forced to kneel in his underwear.

Imagine Trinity Tomsic dealing with her defiled home--not only did the police slaughter their dogs, they tracked blood all over the house in a search that yielded nothing.”

“You need to imagine all these things because, in a way, we all live in that house. It's called our country, and this is what's starting to happen here.”

The “official country Web site defines itself as "a county of livable communities." That's what we all wish for--a livable community, a home where we feel safe.”

“We want to feel that if the bad guys come, we can call the police and they will be the good guys.”

“We want to believe that if we're innocent, armed men with government badges won't handcuff us and shoot our pets and wave their weapons in our faces.

But more and more of us don't believe that.”

“The next president will not only have to deal with the economy, with global warming, with wars in other countries … he will have to deal with fear and rage at home.

A country does not only lose itself by what happens on other shores; it loses itself in living rooms, kitchens, backyards.

America will lose itself when we look around us and nothing feels like home anymore.”

You can never go back home, it seems.

23 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 23
Page 1 of 2
1
Last
amabomud read my blog
Aug 29, 2008 | 4:40 PM

Thats why you need to load up on guns and ammo, just in case the dum police wants to break down the door of your house! Then you shoot to kill then ask questions later!!!

chardoney read my blog view my photos
Aug 29, 2008 | 4:49 PM

"he will have to deal with fear and rage at home"

Humm, sounds more like you're talking about China, Russia or Cuba than the USA. Most Americans are happy, content and respect/love their country.
And yes, amab, we need to continue to have guns to protect ourselves, just as our Founders said - from big tyrannical, socialist, leftist government officials.

NativeTX read my blog
Aug 29, 2008 | 4:58 PM

I would not entertain that thought DUMOBAMA. I have been on felony and high risk raids and I'll tell you a man who spends the kind of time on the range and the amount of skills practiced(police) will get a homeowner with a gun killed quick.

The reason the police have militarized is to counteract militarized criminals. LA started the trend and it was passed on to all other jurisdictions(Not that I fully agree with the logic). LA seems to have very restrictive gun laws and a great deal of automatic weapons in criminal hands - who'd a thunk it?

I've been watching a trial where the same thing happened. The cops swore out a false warrant, killed a 93 yo grandma, and planted eveidence to get out of prosecution. All but one cop plead guilty.

I was even more frightened when Clinton was in office. Talk about oppression. I don't think this kind of thing is going to change.

Nick-Charles read my blog
Aug 29, 2008 | 7:39 PM

The issue is about militarization of police and the hundreds upon hundreds of people killed and maimed and the millions in private property destroyed by out of control SWAT teams.

Native: I agree with you that a victim of a SWAT home invasion almost exclusively to serve warrants (not hostage or terrorist situations) doesn't stand a chance. Cops playing army in our neighborhoods against a typically asleep "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law citizen" to serve warrants isn't even honorable - it's a cowardly attack.

What do you consider "High Risk"? You mean as proscrebied by the NTOA "risk assessment forms"?

Militarized criminals? That's a canard. How many officers are feloniously killed each year?
Per the FBI around 55 out of 1 million annually. Virtually all by illegal handguns - none it appears, by "militarized" criminals.

Federal giveaways of taxpayer paid military equipment, asset forfieture laws which allow police to line their pockets with "booty" and an entire militarized civilian police industrial complex is what fuels SWAT.

There is no risk based threat or economic justification for SWAT. It's bull.

NOTE: I support good civilian police officers. I DO NOT support SWAT nor having "sidewalk soldiers" running wild in our streets kicking down doors, throwing stun grenades, setting houses afire, shooting and killing people to serve a warrant. This however is what 90% plus of SWAT home invasion attacks are about.

Nick-Charles read my blog
Aug 29, 2008 | 7:48 PM

Chardoney: I believe what the author is talking about is outrage over injustice at the hands of miltarized police.

Spend some time at

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

for grins and educate yourself. This is just one of many such databases and stems from just one study.

There are hundreds more.

If you are happy and content with what you learn on this topic, and if you think that the Founders would have stood for it without an outright revolt, then you need to actually study our history.

No disrespect intended.

Chuck_U_Farley read my blog
Aug 29, 2008 | 9:57 PM

Most cops these days are just "Vic Mackey" wannabe's drunk with power and the right to use deadly force. I just love (not) the ones that wear the knee high leather boots and the Nazi-like hats. What a bunch of thugs. Just look at that fat jackass in Denver pushing the ABC producer out into traffic. F'ing cowards all of them.

Chuck_U_Farley read my blog
Aug 29, 2008 | 9:57 PM

Most cops these days are just "Vic Mackey" wannabe's drunk with power and the right to use deadly force. I just love (not) the ones that wear the knee high leather boots and the Nazi-like hats. What a bunch of thugs. Just look at that fat jackass in Denver pushing the ABC producer out into traffic. F'ing cowards all of them.

scottythecomic read my blog view my photos
Aug 30, 2008 | 1:10 AM

SWAT and the militarization of the police needs to stop.

NativeTX read my blog
Aug 30, 2008 | 2:56 AM

I just gave you the historical reasoning behind it. I said I didn't fully agree with it.
The F.B.I. HRT unit is something I agree with. Using SWAT to counter something like the Bank of America thing in California in the '90s is another. The military is prohibited from those actions by the constitution...and not equipped for them outside of Delta and SEALs.

Like I said, I have served high risk warrants with them. I'm not sure who could do it besides SWAT. A beat cop is not trained for close quarters battle like SWAT is. This skill is necessary in these types of services. The high risk warrant service is for felons, drug related, or those known to be violent. They don't use SWAT for warrant round ups.

I can't even comment on the Vic Mackey syndrome. I haven't considered it.

RustyWhite read my blog
Aug 30, 2008 | 5:20 AM

One and all,

Being an ex-sniper on a weapons team and a Narc- K9 handler, I know a little about this subject. Due to my beliefs and respect for the sacrifices of those who came before us. I had to give up one of the best professions I ever wanted!:(

Using terrorist tactics while being AMUNE to any accountability ONLY BREEDS more distrust and disgust for those trying to do the right thing!

If you want to see just SOME of the truth, visit DrugWarRant.com, on the left hand side of the home page is a candle. Click on it! Or go to www.leap.cc and on the bottom of the page follow the DOCUMENTED links.

scottythecomic read my blog view my photos
Aug 30, 2008 | 8:22 AM

Thank you, Rusty. I concur. These steroid freaks are wayyyyy too zealous.

Units like SWAT should only be summoned in true emergencies, not every time some nimrod with a knife refuses to come out of his/her house.

It amuses me that to save someone from themselves they have to be killed.

I've been around a lot of police misconduct. While they are necessary, they have become too militarized and are losing the public trust.

Gee. Wonder why?

Nick-Charles read my blog
Aug 30, 2008 | 1:47 PM

Native:

You wrote: "Like I said, I have served high risk warrants with them. I'm not sure who could do it besides SWAT. A beat cop is not trained for close quarters battle like SWAT is. This skill is necessary in these types of services. The high risk warrant service is for felons, drug related, or those known to be violent."

Serving a warrant on by law still innocent citizens, via "Speed Surprise and Violence of Action" and by a SWAT induced "close quarters battle" is ridiculous. The only "High Risk" involved is the SWAT team itself.

Let me ask you, besides hostage/terrorist situations which I could "give a little" (although tactically SWAT teams are still busying themselves with dressing up to ever arrive on scence in time):

When was a the first or last time a pot head attacked anybody? NEVER. But that’s “high risk”?

How about that school administrator who committed a felony by embezzlement? Now there's a real high risk operation for ya, huh? SO if you serve a warrant on her, by all means do it by military attacks with full automatics, stun grenades, etc. a destroy the house in the middle of the night. Maybe her husband might think “we are being attacked by criminals” and grab a golf club. Shoot the hell out of him, skip burst mode use full auto!

How about a belligerent drunk? Oh sorry, drinking is legal so SWAT wouldn't be used. They are handled everyday by civilian police officers.

These teams are being used daily nationwide whether exigent circumstances exist to justify their use or not. SWAT attacks to serve warrants are no different than home in

Nick-Charles read my blog
Aug 30, 2008 | 1:50 PM

(cont.)

These teams are being used daily nationwide whether exigent circumstances exist to justify their use or not.

SWAT attacks to serve warrants are no different than home invasion attacks committed by dangerous and violent criminals that we see in the news every day. The problem is so obvious that throughout this country there are ever increasing numbers of home invasions by criminals dressed as police and SWAT team members!

Further there are literally no valid controls to assure SWAT home invasion attacks are only used in dire circumstances. The policies, practices and procedures for the use of SWAT units are in fact arbitrary, illogical, and so over-broad such that individual police officers or supervisors may elect to employ violent and dangerous tactics (known as “Speed, Surprise and Violence of Action”) to effect searches/arrests in virtually any situation regardless of whether or not that level of force is prudent, reasonable, or necessary.

Just take a gander at the NTOA’s “risk assessment form” THE ersatz tool for SWAT deployment. The less known, the less investigation, the presence of elderly people, a resident’s military service, ETC. – ARE ALL DEFINITIONS OF “HIGH RISK” “justifying” a SWAT attack.

American history and “Protect and Serve” be damned!

COP SAFETY UBER ALLES! (And besides, it is so much fun to blow stuff up in the middle of the night, even U.S. citizens!)

NativeTX read my blog
Aug 30, 2008 | 4:50 PM

Wow. Good conjecture. I haven't done a service on a simple dope smoker. Drug dealers and dens have been the mainstay. Criminals with a history of violence have been the mainstay.

I can't comment on every SWAT team out there...neither can any of you. You lump every jurisdiction and officer in with a perceived preponderance of bad cops. I have dealt with a great number of cops and have only once dealt with a power freak. That's just my experience.
Your mileage may vary...obviously.

Now, I don't want SWAT kicking my door in and hope they get the address right before they do. I don't break the law. The law does not hassle me and never has. Any trouble they have given me is my own fault. Period.

SWAT is a useful tool to be used with descretion and prudence. I would never agree with cowboys taking advantage of the public.

This argument is akin to one saying all our troops are baby killers. Do you believe that?! Hell no! Use your brains, not your emotions. You cannot substantiate wild cliams of rampant abuse of power by all SWAT teams by a handful of websites that may or may not be credible or address the complete issue.

I respect your opinions. I'm glad you are sharing them. But they come across as a little reckless and generally stereotypical with the facts.

None of us are experts here. We are sharing what we believe.

scottythecomic read my blog view my photos
Aug 30, 2008 | 7:44 PM

It would be interesting to know how many people each SWAT member has killed or shot. I'd bet people would be horroified.

No excuse. None.

NativeTX read my blog
Aug 30, 2008 | 9:45 PM

That would be good to know. I would think the press would love to put that info out if it was in any way derogatory or could be construed as a way to limit gun ownership...or win a Pulitzer. You know the press is still looking for another Watergate to expose. (unless it's against the Dems)

You know what I maen.

scottythecomic read my blog view my photos
Aug 30, 2008 | 9:51 PM

You're sure right about that.

I am watching the hurricane come that Bush sent to N.O. to finish it off.

NativeTX read my blog
Aug 30, 2008 | 10:47 PM

Bush failed them before the hurricane was a tropical storm!(or at least the celebrities will say so) Really, he may be able to murder people on the air being as Dems have forgotten he is President as they dream of BHO in office.

RustyWhite read my blog
Aug 31, 2008 | 5:46 AM

Native,

It is quit clear you DID NOT visit the sites offered. If you had you would have seen the DOCUMENTATION to support the information.

Are there some good SWAT units, YOU BET! That in NO WAY justifies the MISUSE and abuse of powers by others, does it?

In the old days an undercover officer was the ONLY one to wear a mask and hide their identity. So he or she could continue to work undercover. So why do they all wear masks today? Did you know to file a complaint that one was abused or there was misuse of powers during these event you have to be able to IDENIFY those that abused you, FACT! How does one do that today, why not at least have a NUMBER on each one, the same size as SWAT!

Only one predigested against the KNOWN facts, or unaware of them and this every growing problem. Could support no cause for alarm or accountability of the misuse of this well meant and SPECIALIZED TRAINED units. With "" SPECIAL POWERS "" comes special responsibility and "" NEEDED "" EXCEPTIONAL circumstances for the use of these SPECIAL POWERS, PERIOD! If “” ANY “” team can’t even get the right house, they shouldn’t have these powers PERIOD! Terrorizing , traumatizing and sadly to many times KILLING our Elderly, men women and children FOR ANY REASON IS UN-AMERICAN, PERIOD!!! “” REGUARDLESS OF THE PERP THEIR AFTER “”!

Nick-Charles read my blog
Aug 31, 2008 | 1:13 PM

Native wrote:
"Wow. Good conjecture. I haven't done a service on a simple dope smoker. Drug dealers and dens have been the mainstay. Criminals with a history of violence have been the mainstay.

I can't comment on every SWAT team out there...neither can any of you. You lump every jurisdiction and officer in with a perceived preponderance of bad cops.

Now, I don't want SWAT kicking my door in and hope they get the address right before they do. I don't break the law. The law does not hassle me and never has."

That would be the conventinal wisdom. Unfortunately, what this article is about is the fact that people are routinely being killed, maimed, terrorized and private property destroyed - over things like a joint or two - all the time. The state of Wisconsin, up until recently served ALL drug warrants of any kind via SWAT Home Invasion Attacks. You know like for a 14 year old kid with a joint. The practise was stopped as unconstitutional, because exigent circumstance must be present - and they were not.

I have to agree with Rusty. Had you looked at any of the numerous sites regarding SWAT abuse, all with documented and sourced references, you'd see the problem.

"Officer Friendly" is dead and it's a damn shame to lose another set of childhood heroes.

And along with Officer Friendly's untimely death, has come the death in large part of respect of the populace for LE. Is this necesarrily fair? No.

But when we start having storm troopers attacking "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law United States citizens" every day across this country, what

Page 1 of 2
1
Last


Write your comment below:




Nick-Charles

I'm a new user who hasn’t written a bio yet.

Member Since: 6/11/2007