the munchkin wrangler.

Marko:

I agree with everything you have said. I am curious about one thing, though:

"It has gotten to the point where you have entire departments that are financed solely by asset forfeiture funds--they don't have an annual budget anymore, but rather get their entire annual operating budget from seized money."

Could you point me to a link that would document such a department? I'd be fascinated to know what part of the country to avoid completely.

I'm also assuming that you regularly read Balko's "The Agitator"...a great site documenting the abuses of the militarized police forces of the nation.

Geez, I just wrote a post along the same lines last night, although I tried an analogy instead of being so blunt, and I was trying to make a different point. But still, more people need to speak out against such police tactics, or they will continue with the implied consent of the citizenry.

Wow - awesome post. It seems that more and more the police are setting themselves up like Judge Dredd. Do as I say or else...and after reading about the recent tasering incidents, like the one in the Florida Best-Buy where the woman was tasered for not "complying to demands from an officer" (justification by the Police Chief), it seems to be getting worse all the time.

Good stuff, as usual, Marko.

Yet another home run, Marko, excellent!

cb

Excellent analysis and summary of a growing problem. The day of the neighborhood cop seems to be over; these days it is becoming divided into Us and Them, which is an unhealthy perception from both sides in which to run a society.
Just my opinion.

Interesting. Would you mind pointing out which pieces of equipment that you think are unnecessary, and their price tags? I'm sure that any department that utilized unnecessary equipment would love to trim their operational costs by removing said useless items.

You fault elected officials as the main cause of the problem and do not mention the hired help, the administrators and managers and in the end electorate that is willing to just go with the flow. We must all look in the mirror and realize it's us.

Marko,

I wish I could have put it so well.

I tried, unsuccessfully, to come up with the right words the other day when I read this article:

http://www.postindependent.com/article/20080108/VALLEYNEWS/248366321

Very good post.

"Interesting. Would you mind pointing out which pieces of equipment that you think are unnecessary, and their price tags? I'm sure that any department that utilized unnecessary equipment would love to trim their operational costs by removing said useless items."

I think the point of the post is that it's not the costume but the attitude the costume and task encourages.

The problem with giving the Police access to military equipment and training is that sooner or later they will want to test out their new toys and skills.(gotta justify it to the bean counters) Guess who gets to be the guinea pig for Barney Fife's new Jackboots? When cops start to think and act like soldiers, citizens become the enemy and "protect and serve" turns into "intimidate and terrorize". Nothing good will come of this trend.

While I think there is plenty of blame to be passed around, we ultimately need to look to the rightful source of all power. You guessed it: We The People.

The degree to which power can be used against us proportional to that which we have abdicated to our 'ruling class.' We need to take back that power at the ballot box before things get really ugly and our only recourse becomes the cartridge box.

Tom,
Sadly I'm afraid that it is too late toa take it back at the ballot box. I fervently hope that it is not too late for the soapbox to work.

Well written, sir!

This seems to me to be the biggest distinction between "peace officers" and "law enforcement agents". One might best be able to enforce the law by kicking down doors in the middle of the night, but I can't see how that helps one maintain the peace.

Well written, as usual.

You have echoed thoughts I've had for years, and done it well.

I'm a fairly staunch police supporter, recognizing how thin the veneer of civilization really is. On the other hand, I also understand how fast the we vs them mentality can make a situation go really bad.

In fact, it's the leading cause of revolution back through history.
The 'them' got fed up, and had a little surprise for the 'we'.

My own thoughts, an honest officer comes to my door and knocks, he'll have full co-operation. Heck, I'll go out and help him in a bad situation, freely. But... knock down the door without asking, without ID'ing in a reasonable manner, and that person is no longer on the side of right.

That would be a shame.

Asset seizure has been an on-going issue since the '70s, and only getting worse. I'm afraid John Ross might be right in the direction this is going.

That too, is a shame.

I am unimpressed, myself. The war on drugs doesn't infringe on my rights in the least. And in case ya hadn't noticed, some of the druggies out there are toting serious fire power too.

I think the post is childish and stupid. This guy will be the first to complain when some creep is trying to sell his kids drugs too.

This is just more of the same from the usual bedwetters. This is going to grate alot of you because it is a truth so many would rather deny: there is a price to be paid for security.

While I agree that it is a well written piece, I've been trying to think of how I wanted to present my arguement to the contrary. Problem is, I don't think it would be well recieved, nay, hardly even considered. That, in my opinion, is one of the biggest problems with the internet as a communication device. It tends to create ultra-inclusive cliques, and amplifies the "with us or against us" attitude.

Marko, I'm sorry I never got to meet you when you lived in Knoxville. Enjoy the great white North.

Dear anonymouse,

"This is just more of the same from the usual bedwetters.

I'd say that the "bedwetter" is the pu55y too scared to use his name on teh w3b. But that's just me.

Coward.

One problem anonymous has overlooked - innocence is no longer a defense. I'd say being shot to death would infringe his rights all to hell, as has happened too many times, too many cities - and all connected to the 'Drug War'.
Politicians, prosecutors and police have discarded the concepts of innocence and guilt in favor of political advantage and property values.

When this perception becomes widespread - that you may be 'detained' or shot in your own home at random, that your lawfully owned and obtained property may be taken or destroyed at any time with little or no recourse, that the police don't really care if you are innocent, only if you have something they want...
At that point the police may well need all those armored cars.

The problem is this: You are assigned to a raid on drug dealers or gang members. You know from experience these people carry gun. If you have firepower, tactics and equipment available, you will use them to enhance your chance of surviving the incident. Sometimes due to bad information or sometimes the suspect isnt there when the raid happens, you wind up looking stupid.

The reason officers on raids look alot like soliders on patrol in Bagdad is that if things go sour, all they have is what is on them. Put yourself in that position, you want to be sure you have enough and how you look is secondary.

Do SWAT teams overreact somtimes? sure, just like officers sometimes overreact. When that happens there are layers of accountability locally (through the department up to city council) and federally (if you've never had the FBI read you your rights, it is a treat) and through the courts.

Marko wrote: "What drug cop wants to see an end to it if he'd not only be out of a job (what interest does the DEA have in actually winning the War on Drugs?), but also deprived of a steady source of revenue for the department?"

That's analagous to asking "What research scientist has an interest in actually coming up with a cure for cancer?" and, I don't doubt, about as offensive to most DEA or other law enforcement types. They're the folks who get to see the consequences of drug use and addiction most frequently (along with various health care workers and court workers) and are most likely to view "winning the War on Drugs" as a good thing. For that matter, drug dealing typically comes with a host of other criminal acts. I don't know which comes first, the dealing or the other stuff, but smugglers and dealers generally have other crimes on their records (and I say this after viewing many hundreds of files on folks in prison).
Like another commenter, I'd be really interested to see a source showing a police department that relies solely on asset forfeiture for its budget.

On the other hand, I completely agree that the culture of policing has changed and the general militarization of that culture is a bad thing.

"For that matter, drug dealing typically comes with a host of other criminal acts."

As you pointed out, criminal activities tend to attract criminals. During Prohibition, only gangsters drove beer trucks for example, and it would have been safe to say that "Alcohol manufacture and distribution is invariably associated with racketeering, violence, and bribery," and yet very little of that goes on around the Anheuser-Busch offices these days. Well, a bit of bribery, perhaps...

Exactly right. I often feel as if I'm in an occupied country. And I've had $1,000 seized from me before, for utterly no reason. I'm just glad the assault charge was dropped.....

This is just more of the same from the usual bedwetters. This is going to grate alot of you because it is a truth so many would rather deny: there is a price to be paid for security.

Anonymous said...

Yea ... that price is our freedom.

Go crawl back under your rock, anonymous coward.

Much of what you say is not true, much is, and all of it is important to think about.

For example, the burden of proof in a seizure case is on the authority requesting seizure, as it is on the plaintiff in every case, civil or criminal. So asserting wrongly that the burden is on the defendant makes your other assertions seem suspect.

In the same way that asserting that people in law enforcement don't want to stop crime is not a very effective way to address an us-them problem.

I too would be interested to see an agency where forfeited assets provide more than a small percentage of budget, never mind all of it. Asset forfeiture results are public record, tell us some examples. Certainly none of the ones I work with have anything like that sort of "take". (That's not to say there aren't spectacular hits, but barring those, the results barely break even for local agencies.)



I work with police departments in a small city not unlike the one Marko just left. I, and the officers I know, are concerned about this phenomenon too. Marko believes as I do that you get what you pay for, and coupling pay to results gets more results. The problem is, how do you measure policing results?

You can't. What is a police department's "product"?

"For example, the burden of proof in a seizure case is on the authority requesting seizure,"...

at which point I quit reading, because that is 100% incorrect when talking about forfeiture. Forfeiture is not seizure, and the poster deliberately attempted to mislead people with this statement. In forfeiture cases, you are basically facing an adverse possession case where the police department is in possession of the property in question and you must prove that you are its rightful owner (i.e., that you obtained it in some lawful manner). No proof = no ownership = it's the cops' property now, sonny.

As for the notion that we need SWAT teams armed and dressed like effin' SS goons, hogwash. I grew up around cops. My best friend growing up was a cop's kid. Back in those days, cops had a .38 revolver in their holster and a 12 gauge pump action shotgun in their cruiser. That was all they needed. Now I hear you say, "but criminals are more dangerous today!". Again, hogwash. I have stood on the same stretch of road where Bonnie and Clyde, armed with Tommy guns, were gunned down by a posse of Louisiana State Troopers and Texas Rangers. These troopers and deputies were armed with, duh, .38 revolvers and 12 gauge shotguns. Bonnie and Clyde were armed with machine guns. But they still be dead, son. A well trained cop with a .38 revolver and 12 gauge can take down some spray'n'pray dipshit armed with a submachine gun any time of the day, without needing all that toy soldier bullshit.

But then, that was back when cops were men with, like, real stones. They knew they had a dangerous job. They reveled in the fact they had a dangerous job. Today's cops, on the other hand, seem to cower in fear of unarmed pregnant ladies, loudmouth but geeky and harmless college students, and 100 pound high school girls armed only with a bad attitude (see recent taser cases). Their junk ain't punk. They got effin' marshmallows between those legs, my friend. Marshmallows, I say. Not stones. They think being a cop can or should be a safe and stress-free job. That ain't true, ain't ever been true, and treating the entire population of the United States as the "enemy" in an attempt to make it true gives them the same attitude as stormtroopers of totalitarian regimes (albeit for a different reason). Marshmallows. Feh.

If you have ever been at the business end of these tactics, you can upgrade your tinfoil hat, and change your shorts.

Thanks for the great post and for visiting my blog Marko. I am a long-time lurker, recent poster. Keep it up. I hope I can add something to the dialogue from time to time.

The nature of America's enemies is changing. Terrorists strike at women and children in sneak attacks, then hide behind the law and recieve full benefit of those laws.

The druggies - ever see a fortified crack house? Or a Hell's Angels 'club house'?

Our enemies are sophisticated, they know how to use such equipment themselves, and they are more than willing to accept civilian casualties as well.

You lot think you can address such people with 18th century laws? Give me the sanctimonious speeches when your kids come home addicted to meth because what they thought were 'pop rocks' was a new form of crstal meth. Or tell me about it when some islamic POS shoots up a school bus with your kids on it.

17th century laws don't work on 21st century criminals.

Tam @12:09- Point regarding criminal acts attracting criminals. As was likely true of alcohol prohibition as well, drug smuggling and dealing seems to be usually associated with use, impaired judgment, and violence.

badtux- really bad example. The officers that gunned down Bonnie and Clyde used, in significant part, Browning Automatic Rifles. Here's part of a statement to a paper by one of the arresting officers: "Each of us six officers had a shotgun and an automatic rifle and pistols. We opened fire with the automatic rifles. They were emptied before the car got even with us. Then we used shotguns ... There was smoke coming from the car, and it looked like it was on fire. After shooting the shotguns, we emptied the pistols at the car, which had passed us and ran into a ditch about 50 yards on down the road. It almost turned over. We kept shooting at the car even after it stopped. We weren't taking any chances." from the Wikipedia article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clyde_Barrow

BADTUX is also wrong about the law of forfeiture. To wit:

"The state shall have the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture under this part ..."

and

"In establishing a preponderance of the evidence for forfeiture, a rebuttable presumption exists that the property of any person is subject to forfeiture, if the state establishes all of the following:
(1) The conduct giving rise to forfeiture occurred;
(2) The person acquired the property during the period of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture or within a reasonable time after that period; AND
(3) There is no likely source for the property other than the conduct giving rise to forfeiture."

WE have to AFFIRMATIVELY PROVE those three things, at least, just to get past a motion to dismiss.

TCA 39-11-101 et seq. are the statutes in Marko's ex state. The other 49, DC, and the US will have similar provisions. Free dinner for the first person who shows me a burden of proof requirement on the defendant. Burden of proof, not production.

And, Tam, Frank Hamer's book says he had his trusty Rem. Model 8- in .25!

I think you have too much time on your hands. You have presented no statistics only conspiracy theory. There are devastating consequences from drugs and you appear to be advocating the legalization of them - as if that will help. You don't appear to have first hand knowledge or facts to back up your claims. Have you done a ride a long with a police department or SWAT? Maybe it's too scary. I'm disappointed in you.

http://odmp.org/officer/19139-detective-jarrod-shivers

I'm amazed at the tortured logic of those who oppose Marko's position. Of course, if it makes those chains rest lighter on your shoulders...

The cop is there to impartially enforce the law with the least amount of force necessary for the job.

Actually, until the mid 1960's, the cop was there to KEEP THE PEACE, and actual "law enforcement" was frequently a secondary issue. They even called themselves "peace officers"...rather proudly.

The onset of the "enforcer" mentality has led to a serious lowering of standards for the average officer, and a completely different mind set than what was the case in the good ol' days.

The soldier is the peace maker.
The police officer is the peace keeper.
Regardless the arguments, there's been too many wrong address assaults, ending in death. One such incident is too many.

And the reality is this...gear up and spend a few months with a patrol officer in a high crime city and believe me, the tone and tenor of all these posts, of which are armchair quarterback crap, will change in a heart beat.

I think that our Cowards (Anonymous, that is) should read about the case of Donald Scott http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_P._Scott_(Malibu,_CA)
The millionair who was murdered by the LA Sheriff's Dept.

Ted (aka Grendel)

Anonymous said...

7:43 PM

http://odmp.org/officer/19139-detective-jarrod-shivers
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Yeah, I read about him. He was trying to kick down the door of the house, without identifying himself, in plain clothes. So the homeowner defended his property. The homeowner in question has no criminal record, outside of speeding tickets.

Oh, and for all those SWAT-lovers out there, stop making bad arguments. I have no problem with SWAT teams and I recognize the problem with drug dealers, terrorists, and other dangerous criminals. But why exactly was Shivers executing a no-knock on a guy with no criminal record. Why kick down his door with a whole gang of bearded undercover cops. If I look out my peephole and see a bunch of guys out of uniform with guns in their hand, I'm gonna shoot through the door as I call the police for help. Which is what I'm supposed to be able to do.

I'm pretty much all in favor of using A-10s to stop high speed pursuits. Any problem with that?

In my neck of the woods, the cops busted a drug dealer and turned her. She didn't give up all her bad ways, and soon she was stealing, and she stole from me. I made sure she got busted.
She and her buds are out for revenge. She has given them info that I am a drug dealer. The jackbooted thugs have searched several places I own.
I'm an excop, and a retired judge. I now know exactly what it is like to totally distrust the cops.
I've been a landlord for twenty three years. In that time, I've helped the cops bust many a drug dealer. I regularly call them when I see crimes, suspicious activity, and drunk drivers.
I fear what law enfarcement has become in this nation.
When I was a cop, my boss forbid the use of sunglasses unless we had a prescription. Mirrored ones were strictly verbotten. Now it the rage.
I agree that the cops need to be as well or better armed then the drug dealers and terrorists. I've got a collection of firearms that are the envy of many, and I've loaned stuff to cops many times. Its the attitude that unnerves me.
Near my home is a county police department that has no real accountability. Their director is appointed by a law board. The law board is appointed by the county comission and the city comissions in that county. It is a department to be feared. The last director was caught stealing.
Where do we go from here?

I know of two cases where the no knock search warrents went really wrong.
In the first case, the informant got the address wrong, so the cops went to the wrong house at 3am. There they suprised an elderly man and his wife in bed. The man, thinking it was a home invasion and robbery grabbed a gun to defend himself. The officers fired, killing him and wounding his wife. He was arround 80.
IN the second case, Our SCAT, street crime action team served a warrant. The guy inside, called 911, then fired when they burst through the door killing the lead officer. The cops shot and wounded the subject. He lived and was tried for capital murder. Witness after witness from his apartment building testified that the SCAT never announced who they were. He was acquitted. Later investigations showed that the drugs confiscated in the raid were planted.

Marko,
Great writing young man.
The Las Vegas Columnist Vin Suprinowitz also has some scary examples:
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/7812557.html
But if you really want more information, get the book from The CATO Institute:
www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476
Then, follow the link to the botch paramilitary raids in America:
www.cato.org/raidmap
See what's going on in your neck of the woods!

What is a police department's "product"?

A peaceful community. Police are most "effective" when they are doing nothing at all because nothing needs to be done.

No, the product that police officers view their job as doing is not producing a peaceful community. It is producing an orderly community. Cops view their job as producing order. Just look at how cops freak out when people exercise their 1st Amendment rights in a manner that is not orderly... e.g., Los Angeles during the immigration rallys. The cops went on a rampage that injured dozens of rally participants, several newsmen, and a few cops too, because a lack of public order... ah, ve must haff order, you know?

But even when public order has been restored such that nothing further need be done, the problem is that when nothing needs to be done, the public then says, "why are we supporting all these police officers?" So then the police invent new things to be done in order to justify their jobs. Such as playing SEALs and robbers, for example...

What's wrong with you people?

Police officers enforce monopoly law through state violence. What exactly is ethically defensible about that?

In most cases, I don't see how people make any distinction between police officers and thieves. It's just a protection racket, in exchange for a set of laws that get lots of people killed. It sure is convenient that we have monopoly law, monopoly police, monopoly drug prohibition, monopoly prison (some societies didn't have prisons; people worked off their debts instead) and monopoly just about everything else. All these interlocking monopolies mean that if a grandpa tries to defend himself due to agents of state violence (a SWAT team) busting into his house, the grandpa gets blamed (because it's wrong to resist the state, due to everyone assuming that the set of interlocking monopolies must be maintained). Of course, the state monopoly is only growing, now that we have the war on terror, plans for socialized medicine, public education, etc.

If my kids come home addicted to meth that's their fault, for choosing to do meth. Don't try to shift the blame to parents, or worse society. Kids should be taught self-responsibility from a young age. Anything else abdicates their essential personhood, their self-will.

If people continue to shoot up schools, it's likely because these are no gun zones, and hence no one (not teachers, not administrators, etc) can carry guns there. Therefore, it's the fault of the person who shoots up the school, but also indirectly the fault of the people who prohibited guns at school.

If you want to abdicate your self-responsibility and personal liberty, then go ahead and blame, society, and politicians.

But really, it's your fault as voter, when you aren't free and have a shitty nation.

With that said, I don't mind cops in the old West much at all. Give me clear, meaningful law, that refers only to real, physical people. Give me a six shooter and a lot of desert. Give me those things and I have no problem with police at all, since they aren't trying to tell people what to do, they just keep the peace.

"After peaking at 277 in 1974, officer fatalities have generally declined over the past three decades, with the exception of the increase in 2001. The annual average number of officers killed was 228 in the 1970s, 190 in the 1980s, 160 in the 1990s and 167 from 2000-2006."
Source: http://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/facts.htm

There are many reasons that can contribute to the data on my previous post-better equipment, better initial and subsiquent training, a more armed public- but one thing is for sure. ALL of us, police and citizens alike, need to stop looking at this as an us vs. them situation. Dept's need to hold thier officers to a high standard of conduct and John Q Public needs to do thier part to curb crime in thier community. It takes all of us to ensure that peace is maintained.

The interesting thing is, it's not too big a deal to just equip your street cops, keep decent extra armor shields and a truck, and just use your rank and file to do a lot of this, if we'll just TRAIN. The training's hard to get agencies to commit to. Yes, it's expensive. But it raises pride, skills, and protection, without creating a class of soldiers among cops.

rko,

Thanks for the great post. As a former cop, I think the Drug War has been the stalking horse to conditioning and influencing how people react to police power and the expansion thereof. The soldier gear and attitude is simply the logical next step.

I wrote a treatment of this myself from a slightly different perspective here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/buppert/buppert16.html

Cheers