Okay, reply to this tomorrow, but you are aware that in most cases a citizen is allowed to defend his or her home against intruders, even to the point of killing the intruder if necessary? Knockless warrants combined with this philosophy can lead to a lot of problems.
Okay, first of all, yes, of course a citizen has a right to self defense, and a right to defend his property and his home. But that should not turn into the right to take any and all action he feels like. I must confess that I know nothing of what the limits to those rights are in United States Law, but in general, self-defence requires that you only use
necessary force. Suppose, for example, a 17 year old Amirox were to break into my house to steal some DVDs and wreck some shit because he thought no one was home. But I was home. I would be justified in kicking his ass and throwing him out the door because I'm defending my property and my home. But if I were to come downstairs, see the disgusting fat kid looting my shit, go back upstairs and fetch my shotgun, and come back down and blow him away, I would not be justified in doing so. I would be a murderer, because that was not necessary force. It was just a distinguished mentally-challenged, obese, self-centered druggie teenager with no respect for the rights of others trying to have some fun by wrecking other people's shit. Deserving of an ass kicking? Sure, but not some 12-gauge buckshot to the chest.
Of course, that example is not directly relevant to our discussion.
But I can tell you my opinion, and that is that Americans are generally way too obsessed with this right. Some Americans seem to get positively horny at the idea of repelling a home invasion with their God-given handgun. And it goes to the idea expressed in the thread about America becoming desensitized to mass killings that American culture seems to value and idolize the "self" even over the value of human life itself.
In any event, that has nothing to do with judicially-authorized warrants executed by police. You have the right to defend your home. You
do not have the right to resist a judicial warrant by force. Police who execute such warrants are wearing labels identifying themselves as such, and announce their presence, loudly, as such. When making an entry, we are trained to constantly yell "POLICE, STOP!" or "POLICE, SEARCH WARRANT" until our voices give out.
Right to defend your property? Check.
Right to shoot at police? Not check.
So let's not kid ourselves here. If the police are doing their jobs, there's no question about who they are and what's going on, and thus no justification for those inside to resist. It is America's "culture" of guns and violence that lead people to shoot at police, not the other way around.
Or put another way, how on EARTH could you possibly interpret a police raid as anything other than....well, a police raid?
How many criminal organizations in the United States are there that routinely conduct home invasions with teams of 10+ people, all decked out with body armour, and armed with submachine guns, automatic shotguns, and assault rifles? And who make their entry by yelling and announcing their presence (with those yells being "STOP POLICE" to boot?) I mean, this is the USA, not Mexico. Can you show me some articles, news clips, or studies? 'cause if this is happening, fuck, we better write off the ol' US of A right now. I'm willing to harbour select EB'ers on my couch and sponsor you for immigration to Canada.
And let's be serious, if the above WERE happening, how in GOD'S NAME would the best course of action be to grab your nearest gun of choice and start firing back?! There's a dozen of them versus one of you, they're armed with submachine guns and assault rifles, they're wearing body armour, and they've caught you by surprise. If you have ANY FUCKING SENSE OF SELF-PRESERVATION, your reaction should be just about the same as if you thought they were the police: to stick your empty fucking hands straight in the air. And then let them take whatever the fuck they want and hope they let you live.
Now, to finish up, I'll go back to a phrase you have used repeatedly, and is also found on that CATO article (perhaps that's where you got it from?) You repeatedly refer to the "militarization of police", as if that is a boogeyman, a bad thing. As if it is self-evident that it is something to be reviled. Now, that may be a very effective co-opting of language to shape the debate, but let me ask why that is something to be feared? Or blamed on the police and authorities?
Generally speaking, I think that our police forces reflect the society that they police. Authoritarian regimes such as China and the Soviet Union were repressive, with no regard for human rights, and hence their police followed that pattern. Western societies have entrenched human rights, and have checks and balances in their political systems. And so it is with Western police services, which are subject to civilian oversight, checks and balances, and training that emphasizes conflict-resolution as much as physical training and defensive tactics. And so it is, in fact, that even Western police forces over the past half-century or so have evolved to reduce their reliance on physical force, increased civilian oversight and accountability. Certainly in Canada, this shift has been reflected in the education levels of police, as today a police officer usually has some sort of postsecondary degree, often a full four-year Bachelor's, while fifty years ago that probably would have been unheard of. It's not a perfect system, but no system is. Yes there are corrupt cops and asshole cops, but you just have to deal with them on a case-by-case basis, and gradually tweak the system when those imperfections reveal themselves.
So, given that, what
is to be made of the development and growth of SWAT teams and other tactical teams in the US and Canada since the 1970s?
The CATO article tries to paint a picture of an ever-more-prevalent police state, increasing police violence, and deteriorating rights of private citizens. But of course that's what they did. It's CATO, they're libertarians, and they view the almost every government and societal trend of the past 30 years with hostility. The CATO article cites the increasing prevalence of SWAT teams since the 1980s as a "bad thing" in such a way that its "badness" should be self evident.
But what might be an alternative theory? First, I will admit not having any background or expertise in the history and development of SWAT teams (though I will admit a desire to join the RCMP equivalent, the Emergency Response Team, at some point in my career). Nonetheless, with just a few facts, I will present an opposing viewpoint.
As per
http://home1.gte.net/vzn05sxc/lawfacts.htmThe deadliest year in United States Law Enforcement history was 1974. That year, 268 police officers were killed in the line of duty. In fact, the 1970s was the deadliest decade for law enforcement in history. A total of 2,182 officers were killed, or an average of 218 per year.
When did SWAT teams come about? The idea for SWAT is attributed to Daryl Gates of the LAPD, in 1968. The first deployment of SWAT was in 1969, and in 1971, the LAPD formed the first full-time SWAT team.
The FBI's Hostage Rescue Team was created in 1982. In Canada, the first RCMP ERT was formed in the 70s. As the CATO article states, these sorts of units expanded throughout the 80s and 90s.
What happened to law enforcement fatalities in that period? Well gee, they decreased. From the 1970s figure of 218 per year, the 1990s saw an average of 152 fatalities per year. Quoth the article:
Largely due to the increased use of soft body armor, better training and improved equipment, police deaths have been on the decline for the past two decades. During the 1980’s we averaged 187 officer fatalities each year, and in the 1990’s we averaged 153.
So, in the three decades following the development and growth of SWAT teams, police officer fatalities went from an average of 218 per year in the 70s, 187 in the 80s, and 152 in the 90s. The "militarization" of police, as you put it, had a purpose. It has saved lives.
Yes, I know, correlation is not causation, but I wonder whether those statistics made their way into that book that CATO is shilling in the article. If I were a betting man, I'd say no.
