Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper
1) This excessive use of force and murder of innocent civilians without real justice erodes public confidence in law enforcement.
2) LEOs need to be denied military gear and tactics unless confronting threats for which there is no other recourse.
3) No knock and other such invasive warrants need to be severely curtailed with a demonstrated need and accountability for consequences. Risk assessments should be part of the warrant package submitted to judges.
4) "SWATting" needs to be made a felony.
5) Finally, officers wrongfully killing civilians need to be charged and sent before a grand jury for possible charges and trial. Instead of at worst, being allowed to move on to another department, individual officers need to be accountable for their actions as anyone else would be.
6) If these murders are allowed to continue unpunished, police will experience an ever increasing public mistrust and hostility from their citizens.
TR
|
1) Agreed, except I would change 'murder' to 'death' for reasons explained below.
2) Understand, but then ask ... when do they get to train with the equipment and the tactics to employ it when no other option exists. Otherwise, all you're getting is the Wild West. I started both the SWAT team and the Bomb Disposal Unit for the Marion County Sheriff's Department in Indianapolis, IN back in the late 70's. The major point that differentiated us from other such tactical units is that we had an employment SOP that was taught throughout the agency and adhered to.
3) You're barking up the wrong tree. This area is the province of judges and the legal system and they (after careful deliberation of both statutory law and case law) reach a decision about what warrants will be authorized.
4) SWATing? What the $$%% is SWATing. When I was involved in such operations I placed a lot of emphasis on one portion over another -- special weapons, not so much; special tactics created by thinking outside the box but within the legal parameters set by statute and dedicated to the premise of 'protect and serve' and that included the suspect(s) to the maximum extent possible. At the end of the day, because of the venue,
it's called law enforcement -- I don't care if you're wearing a bathing suit and firing a water cannon or wearing Captain America's jumpsuit and deploying in a hover craft.
5) This is confusing; you're mixing apples and oranges. If you're charging them with an offense, then you don't need a grand jury. What I would expect here (and what I've recommended in the past) is that a total separate law enforcement agency (not connected to the incident) investigate the actions of a tactical unit and that prosecutors or district attorneys be specially trained to handle and present such investigatory results to a duly constituted grand jury.
6) Don't agree with the inflammatory language, because by definition 'murder' is a defined set of circumstances; however, if such events are not
transparently investigated and immune to the bias created by a lack of information, and a duly constituted body whose authority to decide if charges are not acceptable to the public,
then you will have mistrust and chaos. An option to deal with the last condition is to unmask the grand jury prior to any such deliberations and find a way to have the citizens of that political enclave decide if they are competent to make such a decision. If so, they'd have to accept the results.
.