[Vision2020] Drug Thugs rampage again

Tue Aug 12 20:13:54 PDT 2008

Ted -

I'm not sure if 2020 is a useful place to discuss issues like the war on 
some drugs and the right to armed self defense.  Discussions in those areas 
tend to generate more heat than light.

It would be interesting to see what folks in Moscow think about paramilitary 
police tactics.   One of the newspaper articles about the attack in Maryland 
said that one of the women in the house screamed when she saw people in 
black hoods carrying rifles climbing over the fence and coming across the 
lawn. I might do the same myself!

I have no problems with policemen wearing protective vests, and helmets 
aren't a bad idea iin dangerous situations, but policemen should always be 
readily identifiable as police.  Several of the pictures of SWAT teams I 
have seen look like they want to be some sort of army special-ops unit.

Police work is dangerous, but I feel there is a greater danger if the police 
set themselves apart from the people they are supposed to be protecting.  
Unless there is a truly verifiable threat to the officers, warrants should 
be served by a knock on the door and a courteous request to come in.

- Mike

Mike Finkbiner
mike_l_f at hotmail.com

Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those 
who create it.

Milton Friedman

>From: "Ted Moffett" <starbliss at gmail.com>
>To: "Mike Finkbiner" <mike_l_f at hotmail.com>
>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Drug Thugs rampage again
>Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:20:53 -0700

>Mike et. al.
>
>Even if the police in this case did give the residents "time to
>respond," and announced they were the police, and had a warrant, before
>breaking in, the dogs killed in this raid may still have been killed, and
>the residents terrified and traumatized.  Police have justification to use
>force against threats.  Even someone reaching into their pocket has been
>used as a justification by police for lethal force.
>
>Another reason to not justify these sorts of raids (I recall you defend the
>right to have firearms for self defense), is that when weapons are 
>displayed
>for self defense when police unannounced burst into someones home, the
>police are allowed to shoot in defense.  Innocent people have been shot by
>police when they were only trying to defend themselves against a home
>invasion from an unknown source.
>
>"Time to respond" or an announcement from police they are the police, is 
>one
>thing, while the issue of whether the police had a search warrant issued by
>a judge who gave due consideration to whether Fourth Amendment rights 
>should
>be compromised, is another.  The Fourth Amendment has been weakened in the
>US to the point where the police can conduct warrantless searches and it
>passes... This erosion has been in part justified by the so called "war on
>drugs," and has been expanded in the "war on terror."  Till the erosion of
>the Fourth Amendment is rolled back, police will abuse their power.  That's
>why we need strong civil rights in the first place, as the framers of the 
>US
>Constitution were well aware of...
>
>A fundamental question in this case is, does the threat to society from
>cannabis, which is what the suspicious package in this case contained,
>justify erosion of Fourth Amendment rights and the treatment of these 
>people
>and shooting their pets?  The medical journal Lancet published a study in
>2007 listing cannabis as less harmful to society than either alcohol or
>tobacco.  Alcohol was determined to be more of a harmful drug than
>amphetamines.
>
>The laws clearly do not reflect the medical and social realities of the
>objective threats posed by various drugs.  Even if the police announced who
>they were, and had a warrant, before breaking down the door of the 
>residents
>in this case, these tactics are questionable, given cannabis should be
>decriminalized:
>
>http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-August/055355.html
>
>http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-August/055344.html
>------------------
>Ted Moffett
>On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Mike Finkbiner 
><mike_l_f at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> > I can see where there might be very rare occasions where it would be
> > helpful
> > for the police to be able to break in a door without giving the 
>occupants
> > time to respond.  Unfortunately there have been quite a few problems 
>with
> > the practice.  While the vast majority of police officers are decent 
>folks,
> > it appears that there are a few of them who get a thrill out of
> > paramililitary style raids.  Many of the raids I have read about don't 
>seem
> > to have any other justification for a heavy-handed approach.
> >
> > Because of that I think we need to sharply curtail or eliminate the
> > practice.  Police officers should knock on the door, clearly identify
> > themselves and present a legal warrant before entering a house or
> > apartment.
> >
> > I have no idea if this map of botched paramilitary style raids produced 
>by
> > the Cato Institute is accurate, but it is sobering.
> >
> > http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
> >
> > Does anyone know how often this practice is used locally?  The map only
> > shows one botched raid in North Idaho
> >
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > If this incident had happened to Ordinary Joe Citizen, not the mayor and
> > his
> > family, I doubt we'd even hear about it.
> >
> > Ellen A. Roskovich
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >
> > Mike Finkbiner
> > mike_l_f at hotmail.com
> >
> > Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of 
>those
> > who create it.
> >
> > Milton Friedman
> >
> >
> > =======================================================
> >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >               http://www.fsr.net
> >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >