Prof. Balko on militarization of police

Although I oppose anything that looks like it might lead to the creation of a taxpayer-funded totalitarian regime, I cannot help but marvel at the vacuity of the phrase "nonviolent drug offenders."

This guy needs to study the cases of violent drug offenders in order to find out what on earth would make the police imagine that drug offenders might be violent.

The phrase "nonviolent drug offenders" is apparently supposed to evoke images of a peaceful, potsmoking hippy quietly enjoying his hookah and some milk and cookies prior to retiring to bed for the night.

That is not your average "drug offender."

When the police go after a "drug offender," they typically have good intel that he is "violent" and therefore needs to be apprehended by officers who are ready to use as much force as might be necessary.

The police almost invariably go after dealers, who are in it for the money, and who typically intend to protect their income source with at least as much ferocity as any armed person.

That is why the police go after "nonviolent drug offenders" with vigor.

I oppose policies which authorize excessive use of force as much as I oppose uses of force which turn out to have been wrong.

But I also oppose the fictionalized accounts of raids which include the fictional characters known as "nonviolent drug offenders."

In the context of this kind of police work, this ostensibly small difference between fictional, hypothetical characters and real, documented, "violent drug offenders" is crucial.

If the police fail to observe this distinction, they seriously risk winding up dead--simply because some talking head has invented a character call whom he calls "nonviolent drug offender."

Moreover, even "nonviolent drug offenders" abuse substances typically provided by means of the application of some form of unlawful violence or threat of such violence.

"Nonviolent drug offenders" are complicit in the violence of "violent drug offenders," and as such they put themselves in the risky position of being treated like the latter.

If the "nonviolent drug offenders" want to be excluded from such treatment, then they should abstain from abusing drugs.

Perhaps. But, if Mary Jane were legal to grow in one's own backyard, there would be less violence involved in the biz, don't you think? Wormwood is legal to grow in your backyard and I can't recall ever hearing of someone getting killed over a bottle of home-made absinthe.

When the police go after a "drug offender," they typically have good intel that he is "violent" and therefore needs to be apprehended by officers who are ready to use as much force as might be necessary.

Like Kathryn Johnson and Richard Paey? Your assertion is raw unfiltered B.S.

And see this:

A six-agency illegal drug task force on Monday initially broke into the wrong apartment and handcuffed an innocent couple as they were preparing to retire for the night. After officers realized their error, they eventually took four people into custody at the adjacent apartment.

The two people who were released resided at 512 Montgomery St., Apt. 4. The intended raid target was Apt. 3, said Lt. Scott Marquardt, director of the Richland-Iowa-Grant Drug Task Force and a member of the Platteville Police Department.

Marquardt said he is investigating how the tactical unit mixed up the apartments and broke the big front window and ignited a "flash bang" device outside the window, then entered through the apartment door and handcuffed the couple. Marquardt said he didn't know if the door was smashed in.

"They were obviously disturbed about it, and we are disturbed that they are disturbed," said Marquardt.

"Nonviolent drug offenders" are complicit in the violence of "violent drug offenders," and as such they put themselves in the risky position of being treated like the latter.

Decent cops are complicit in activities of corrupt jack-booted thugs, and as such they put themselves in the position of being hated like the latter.

If the "nonviolent drug offenders" want to be excluded from such treatment, then they should abstain from abusing drugs.

And what about the innocent victims who aren't even "nonviolent drug offenders," but happen to have their homes raided by mistake?

'When the police go after a "drug offender," they typically have good intel......

I spent 30+ years in LE in FL. Part of that time was as a grunt and then a LT in a drug unit.
When we went after a "drug dealer" we had sufficient intel to know the level of force (resistance) available to him and acted accordingly. I remember only one instance of SWAT assistance or SWAT like tactics being used. For the low level dealer the arrest was usually made at the time of the buy by the undercover officer and his back-up. The user was not arrested in a confrontational environment.

'If the "nonviolent drug offenders" want to be excluded from such treatment, then they should abstain from abusing drugs.'

This is patently stupid. Most, if not all, officers feel that "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime". At the same time, you don't make a shop-lifting arrest the same way you make an armed robbery arrest.

I disagree with the gentleman from the CATO Institute about LE being furnished the support tools. local LE has taken over many of the duties of Federal LE and military EOD teams since the '60's. A look at the incidents in LA and Miami are just 2 examples out of many of under armed LE being out-gunned and killed and wounded. The problems are not LE having the tools. It is not taking the time to complete the gathering of intel prior to acting.

LE has forgotten, to a large extent, that 'the purpose of LE is to gain voluntary compliance with the law.' Whether done by arrest or warning, the purpose remains the same.

"In the meantime, do you know any C3 dealers who can let us fire thousands of rounds of free ammo during some belt-fed machine gun demos?"

The police almost invariably go after dealers, who are in it for the money, and who typically intend to protect their income source with at least as much ferocity as any armed person.

You mean just like organized crime did during alcohol prohibition? I remember how that problem was solved, do you? I'll give you a hint: it didn't involve the use of SWAT.

These articles highlighting the increased militarization of our various police forces, the IRS, Forest Service have drastically dropped off since President Bush won in 2000. Wasn't that a big relief? Unfortunately the black ops in ninja suits have steadily increased.