
In Iraq, I raided insurgents. In Virginia, the police raided me - webmonkeyuk
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-iraq-i-raided-insurgents-in-virginia-the-police-raided-me/2015/07/24/2e114e54-2b02-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html
======
sudioStudio64
I, for one, get tired of the constant refrain of hero worship while these guys
say that there number one job is to get home safely.

They are afforded terrible powers to intervene in, and disrupt, someone's
life. That trade is made under the assumption that they do a dangerous job.

A benefit is afforded to them due to the responsibility that they bear.

Obviously, they want to have as much power with as little danger as possible.
They want to maximize the benefit the receive (largely being above the law and
a middle class existence) and minimize the repercussions of what they owe for
it (possibly being in danger).

Its the same in other areas of American life where elites have abdicated their
responsibilities but have become accustomed to the benefits afforded them to
the point that they think it's owed to them. That has to change.

EDIT: for clarification and spelling.

~~~
tessierashpool
Their number one job is not to kill anybody innocent, and they are terrible at
it.

Source: [http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-
Americ...](http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-
Americas/dp/1610394577)

~~~
mikeash
I think this should be taken a little bit farther, and we should say that
their number one job is not to kill anybody at all. Sometimes they have to,
but it's not acceptable just because the person they kill is guilty of a
crime, even a heinous crime. Killing should only happen when it is the only
possible way to stop an imminent life-threatening situation. Any use of lethal
force should be viewed as a great failure, even if it may sometimes be a
necessary one. Even if one believes in the death penalty, killing as
punishment should only be carried out by the justice system after a fair
trial.

~~~
unabst
Amen. I would go as far to say Police should serve and protect lives, period,
including, if not most importantly, those they arrest. Unfortunately being a
gun society is likely what makes this impossible. There is a kill or be killed
mentality. If the worst weapon we had was kunf-fu we'd hire Jet Li and be done
(though he does appear to dodge bullets).

------
jxm262
This is a really well written article. This also echo's alot of the sentiment
that many people have. I remember reading recently about the differences in
police training from Germany vs the US. One of the things that stuck out at me
was the huge amount of hours they spend training to "not" shoot, and learning
how to de-escalate situations. It's no wonder we have so many issues here in
the US, it makes me sad.

~~~
tajen
What does it mean for us Europeans, who still have, for the moment, more
lenient police? Should we expect that America uprises against their own
police? Draw a Fergusson every 3 months? Becomes either less economically
stable or more economically agressive? Should we expect that US' political
influence requires us to step up our police, the same way France escalated an
NSA-style law six months ago? It worries me that a friend country's police
goes more totalitarian, but are there actual consequences on us?

It's an open question. For the last 6 years I've refused to set foot in US
(and even declined free tickets to a very important tech conference in my
field) because of your unpredictable trigger-friendly police [1] and your
guantanamo-friendly interviews at border control [2]. I wonder it your
unstability could reach me in Europe.

[1] Being a foreigner, I'm not protected by your constitution and the officers
haven't sworn to protect and serve me.

[2] I do believe an intent to go to a conference could randomly be
recategorized as seeking work, which is illegal, and using a false Facebook
name could be recategorized as identity theft. I do believe it's therefore
possible to be retained at your border for an undefined amount of time, with
no record and no rights to a lawyer. I do believe I'd be upset in this
situation and I could end up sentenced for life in your prisons.

~~~
powertower
> Draw a Fergusson every 3 months?

The majority of what you have been told by your media are "narrative" stories
that are removed of all actual facts and details (to fit the narrative). Its
pure politics.

For example, in the Ferguson case, you where told that the police officer
(Darren Wilson) saw Michael Brown, and for whatever reason, just murdered him
on the spot, by shooting him through the back of his head - all while Michael
Brown was doing nothing wrong, and holding his hands up.

Except none of that is true. Here is the basic outline of what happened
instead - [http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ferguson-
shooting-13-facts/...](http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ferguson-
shooting-13-facts/2014/11/25/id/609483/)

Or here -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown)

And that's still leaving allot out.

In the case of Trayvon Martin, the spin was even worse.

This is a racist "white" man - [http://www.breitbart.com/big-
government/2013/02/06/zimmerman...](http://www.breitbart.com/big-
government/2013/02/06/zimmerman-brother-voted-obama/)

And a watermelon soda is an ice tea -
[http://www.examiner.com/article/trayvon-s-skittles-
arizona-t...](http://www.examiner.com/article/trayvon-s-skittles-arizona-tea-
and-something-called-purple-drank)

 _I 'm assuming the later was "modified" in the produced story by all the
left-leaning news outlets because it was too stereotypical / and the narrative
must be protected. If you don't believe it, check the crime seen photos and
the court records - I did._

And that's about 5% of the falsehood story. I could go on and on.

> Should we expect that America uprises against their own police?

Cops kill a reported 500 or so people every year. Maybe twice that much in
real numbers.

The majority of those people are violent criminals - some of which are firing
at cops, using knifes to stab cops, garbing at cops' guns, using vehicles to
run cops over, etc.

Why would anyone that is not delusional with the political media spin revolt
against cops?

~~~
mikeash
That newsmax.com article is fascinating. The first three facts in their list
have no relevance to the legitimacy of the shooting. They are clearly trying
to paint Michael Brown as a bad person who deserved to die, and they aren't
even being subtle about it. The fact that he had just stolen something has
absolutely no relevance to the question of whether Darren Wilson acted
correctly when he fired his gun.

One thing I have never seen _anyone_ bring up on either side is the question
of why Officer Wilson, believing his life to be in danger while sitting in his
car, did not simply drive down the street to eliminate the danger, then
reassess the situation from safety.

Wilson may well have been in danger, even mortal danger. He still did the
wrong thing by responding with lethal force when he could have removed himself
from that danger. As a result, he ended up killing one of the people he was
sworn to protect.

~~~
frogpelt
Based on your comment, I completely skipped the first three points.

If the rest of the bullet points are true, the first three don't make a
difference.

To answer your question, police officer are not trained to retreat and allow a
criminal to get away because they feel danger.

~~~
mikeash
OK, so why _aren 't_ they trained that way? Unless a criminal represents an
imminent threat to the public, the police _should_ prioritize safety above
getting their man.

------
downandout
_" Rhoads defended the procedure, calling the officers’ actions “on point.”
It’s not standard to conduct investigations beforehand because that delays the
apprehension of suspects, he told me._"

That is dereliction of a police officer's duty. The entire purpose of a police
force is to _investigate_ potential crimes, and then, if it is determined that
a crime has occurred, to arrest those involved. This man, a shift commander,
is literally saying that their policy is to shoot first and ask questions
later. He should, at a minimum, be fired. Additionally, if he has actually
structured his department in a way that has officers arresting people without
prior investigation, he and all others carrying out this policy should be
criminally prosecuted for false imprisonment.

------
whoopdedo
> It’s not standard to conduct investigations beforehand because that delays
> the apprehension of suspects, he told me.

When a man's job depends on him apprehending suspects, then he will find a way
to create more suspects for which to apprehend.

~~~
wmeredith
This was the line that stuck out to me as well. What a bunch of disgusting
hypocrites. What happened to serve and protect? What about innocent until
proven guilty?

~~~
vezzy-fnord
_What happened to serve and protect?_

Police in the United States have never had any such legal duty, and this has
been backed by court precedent. It's purely a motto.

Two relevant cases are _South v. State of Maryland_ (1855) and _Castle Rock v.
Gonzales_ (2005).

------
suprgeek
In the US the Police are a "Guns & Badges" Culture thru & thru. Only the truly
"macho" are regarded with respect. There is no concept of de-escalation.

The bigger problem is that the policies & incentives are built to reinforce
this. They get promotions/assets based on forfeiture laws, weapons based on
Pentagon Surplus & publicity based on Shootouts. No one ever got promoted for
not shooting a (potentially innocent) suspect. Very very rarely does a cop get
prosecuted for pulling a gun or inflicting other violence.

SO put a bunch of arrogant, power seeking people in a system which glorifies
violence & rewards forfeitures. What else do you expect?

~~~
analog31
I wonder if this influences the civilian population too, by promoting the idea
that the only way for citizens to protect themselves is by being prepared to
shoot their way out of any situation.

------
rayiner
I'm both disappointed and not all that surprised. I grew up here, and this is
the product of something that has been brewing for twenty years.

The citizens here are to blame. The police are just giving the public what it
wants. It's a county full of McMansions and extreme paranoia. Lots of upper
middle class people terrified that their fragile existence might be upset by
[Mexican immigration, terrorism, <insert fear here>].[1] I'm not sure if 9/11
was a turning point _per se_ , but planes crashing into the Pentagon in
neighboring Arlington didn't help.

It wasn't always like this. When I was growing up you'd almost never see a
Fairfax County cop. Vienna was always a police state, but the small-bit speed-
trap kind. Today, there are cops crawling around Tysons (where the biggest
danger is rowdy teenagers).

[1] It's notable that this story takes place just across the Potomac from
where those parents got in trouble with the police for letting their kids walk
home less than a mile from school.

~~~
fiatmoney
"Lots of upper middle class people terrified that their fragile existence
might be upset by [Mexican immigration, terrorism, <insert fear here>]"

It probably doesn't help that your average Northern Virginia McMansion is
owned by a .gov / defense / national security contractor who under a variety
of scenarios might see himself on one indictment / target list or another.

------
joesmo
"I understood the risks of war when I enlisted as an infantryman. Police
officers should understand the risks in their jobs when they enroll in the
academy, as well. That means knowing that personal safety can’t always come
first. That is why it’s service. That’s why it’s sacrifice."

I think that sums it up well. Many police officers do indeed act like they
don't understand the risks or even purpose of their own jobs. Policing has
become an end in and of itself. It's no longer about protecting and serving
but about policing and arresting and jailing. It doesn't matter if there is no
crime, people will be arrested. It doesn't matter if there is serious crime,
low-level offenders will be the primary target. And of course, nothing is more
important than officer safety. These officers are cowards who should be
ashamed of themselves. They don't have an altruistic bone in their body and
probably wouldn't lift a finger to save a baby out of a burning building. It
is the citizens' lives that matter, that the police are sworn to protect. It
is the citizens they serve. But that indeed has been lost.

Given all this, is it any wonder that much of the population no longer trusts
police, many from negative personal experiences? The author is right. Until
there is a huge shift in the way police treat citizens, this problem of trust
will get worse. For many, it is a problem of hate, and in many cases, rightly
so.

Yet the police and many other people insist that the change has to come from
citizens. If only we give up our guns. If only we give up our freedoms. These
things just make the problem worse by blaming the victims and forcing the
citizens to give up even more for the well being of the police.

There is no movement from the pro police camp, and it's been their turn for
decades now. Until there is, hate and animosity from the community will
continue to grow.

------
Retra
I'm confused as to why a report of a squatter requires any kind of raid to
begin with...

~~~
bostik
I'm going to go full-on cynical here:

A) because they can, and B) because it counts towards SWAT gear maintenance

To expand on point B, I would not be the least bit surprised if police
departments' beancounters actually kept tabs on the _average_ cost of SWAT
gear maintenance costs. Higher number of conducted raids means a lower bolded
number in metrics spreadsheet.

... which actually brings up another item. Do the personnel on a raid get paid
dangerous duty bonuses?

~~~
Retra
I don't think the article said it was a SWAT team conducting the raid.

I mean, I could see some off-hand justification by saying that they get to
practice for real raids in an unfamiliar situation... but raids are prone to
inciting over-reactions and media attention, which clearly doesn't provide
long term value.

~~~
justizin
> .. which clearly doesn't provide long term value.

The police are not interested in long term value. They want action, they want
to play with their toys. It is simply not more complex than that.

~~~
chucksmash
That's a mighty broad brush you are painting with there.

~~~
sbov
It's a pretty good explanation.

Part of why the militarization of the police is so scary is because most of
that equipment is given under a "use it or lose it" clause. So they have to
use their tanks, otherwise the federal government will take them back.

So, they have to find "reasons" to use them even if they aren't necessary.
Maybe one day in the far future they might be useful, but in the meantime
they're basically toys.

------
maehwasu
Two years ago, I was in the US for a month and volunteered to chauffeur two
Chinese students to a Celtics game as an outing (I was working for a
homestay/education consulting company at the time).

On the way back at night, driving through a small town in central
Massachusetts, I passed a cop car, going at the speed limit. The cop
immediately pulled out and began tailing me, but did not turn on his lights.

I tried to maintain a constant speed, a couple miles above the 35 mile per
hour speed limit, since I know cops treat excessively slow speeds as an
indicator of drunk driving.

Eventually, after 15 minutes of being tailed, I hit my foot a bit too heavily
on the gas, and went to 45 miles per hour. He instantly turned on his lights,
and pulled me over.

The officer was extremely skeptical when he got to the car, especially since
the name on the car's registration was my company's, not mine, and I had two
minors in the back. After some questioning and prodding about where we had
been and what we had been doing, he let me go with a warning.

I shudder to think what would have happened if I had pulled over in the same
situation, but black. The officer was serving no sort of duty except to troll
for problems where none existed.

I haven't returned to the US since: it turns out there are many places I can
live where I don't have to have nerve-wracking interactions with hostile law
enforcement, ever.

~~~
toephu2
So because of one isolated incident you think all cops in the U.S. act this
way and therefore will never visit again? You think what you see on TV isn't
just handpicked? and is actually representative of the thousands of pull overs
cops perform daily? You think every single black person pulled over gets shot?

~~~
manish_gill
This excuse ("bad apples") is getting pretty old. One anecdote can be
discounted. Tens and hundreds of them in the past several years are a bit hard
to ignore. US cops are bad. Face it.

~~~
rsanek
The plural of anecdote is not data.

~~~
manish_gill
No, but when the plural of anecdote is enough to incite riots in cities and
communities, inspire trending hashtags, movements all over a country, enough
to put the problem in the International spotlight, it's almost as good.

If the actual data were pointing to the completely opposite conclusion, there
would be someone arguing for that. Nobody is.

------
ghufran_syed
I sometimes find ex-military folks analogies between their wartime service and
situations in civilian life rather forced, but this analysis is exactly right.
I used to ask myself why the Israeli Defence Forces would risk innocent
palestinian civilian lives to kill the terrorists who hide among them by using
drones or airstrikes instead of the kind of techniques they would no doubt use
if the terrorists were surrounded by Israeli civilians. The simple answer is
that the life of an Israeli civilian is considered (by the IDF) to be worth
more than that of a palestinian civilian.

The same was clearly true in the United States' early approach to counter-
insurgency in Iraq, as described in this piece, where the life of an American
soldier is clearly much more valuable to the US Government than those of the
Iraqi civilians we went to 'save'.

The sad thing is the comparison I would always quote was "what would the
police do in the United States, if you had a dangerous criminal surrounded by
civilians?" They probably wouldn't use an airstrike, they would probably use
some other technique with a higher risk to the police, but a lower risk to the
civilians they are sworn to 'protect and serve'

This article (and lots of other data) suggests that is changing: if everyone
is a suspect until proven innocent, there is no need for police restraint. The
worse that can happen is a dead 'perp' I guess...

~~~
jessriedel
> The simple answer is that the life of an Israeli civilian is considered (by
> the IDF) to be worth more than that of a palestinian civilian.

It's important here to draw a philosophical distinction between the claim that
the lives of some groups are more important than the lives of others, and the
claim that a particular person or organization has a greater duty to some
groups than others. It's perfectly consistent to think that each parent has a
greater duty to protect their own children (possibly at the expense of other
lives), and that each military has a greater duty to protect its own
civilians, without actually thinking that anyone is more intrinsically
valuable than anyone else.

~~~
ghufran_syed
I think that's a reasonable analysis, but incomplete. If a nation state
occupies territory that does not belong to them (for whatever, possibly well-
founded reasons), and therefore controls, by force, the lives and freedoms of
the inhabitants, then I would argue that along with the authority that force
gives them, comes a 'duty of care' towards the civilians of the occupied
territory, at least equal of that owed their own citizens.

[EDIT] ----- To quote Colin Powell, former US Secretary of State regarding the
possible invasion of Iraq: 'You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million
people,' he told the president. 'You will own all their hopes, aspirations,
and problems. You'll own it all.' Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of
State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you
own it.[1] \------------

I agree that a parent has a greater duty of care to protect their own children
than someone else's children. However, to extend your analogy, if I have
someone else's children staying at my house, then I am literally 'in loco
parentis' ("in place of a parent") for those children. I would argue that I
have a duty of care to those children and their parents that is AT LEAST equal
to my duty of care towards my own children.

A better analogy might be that of a school. Maybe the kids don't want to be
there, maybe their parents don't want them in that school either, but once the
children are there with the teachers 'in loco parentis', surely it is
unacceptable for teachers in that school to take actions that make it safer
for the teachers by making it less safe for the children? For example, would
it be ok for the teachers to carry tasers to protect themselves in case a
child attempts to assault them?

[1] Woodward, Bob (2004). Plan of Attack. p. 150.

~~~
jessriedel
I agree with most of that.

> I would argue that I have a duty of care to those children and their parents
> that is AT LEAST equal to my duty of care towards my own children.

Well, first this would only plausibly apply to dangers that have to do with
you taking responsibility for the children. Is there is some exogenous risk
that has nothing to do with where the children happen to be at a given time (a
condition that is not analogous to the middle east) then you probably don't
have duty to them above and beyond the normal case.

Second, and more importantly, if a choice really must be made then parents are
empirically _always_ going to choose their own children, and this is perhaps
something you need to weigh when you let your children leave. Even in the
extreme case where I am a parent directly responsible for putting my own and
other's children at risk (e.g., I take them on a dangerous hike), I'm going to
save my child before others. Note sure if that's moral, but that's the way it
is.

> would it be ok for the teachers to carry tasers to protect themselves in
> case a child attempts to assault them?

Here I think there's a risk of conflating the outside-group/inside-group
distinction we've been discussing with the adult/children distinction. I agree
that teachers need to err on the side of putting themselves at risk rather
than children, but this comes more from the fact that we all have greater
duties to all children (regardless of relation) than we do to adults, because
children are both more vulnerable and more innocent (in the sense of being
less responsible for their predicament).

~~~
ghufran_syed
And I would argue that in a trade-off between police or military safety vs
civilian safety, civilians are similarly "both more vulnerable and more
innocent (in the sense of being less responsible for their predicament)" than
the military or police that interacts with them.

~~~
jessriedel
Agreed.

------
gokhan
> _The culture that encourages police officers to engage their weapons before
> gathering information promotes the mind-set that nothing, including citizen
> safety, is more important than officers’ personal security._

This seems like the thing police forces need to change in order to fix the
situation.

~~~
justizin
If wishing made it so.

The institution of the police is intrinsically corrupt and unbalanced. This
has nothing to do with the fact that your neighbor or your Uncle Joe is a
police officer and seems like a perfectly nice person, and joined for all the
right reasons, their job is not to keep you safe, it is to keep you under
control. All of us, collectively.

I know it's a big complex discussion to have about, "if we didn't have the
police, what would blah blah", but instead of recoiling from fear, it's
important to address the facts.

~~~
Qwertious
And yet this is a bigger problem in the USA than in Europe or Australia.

~~~
Elrac
My German wife says this is (to a large part) a direct consequence of the fact
that the US has a much larger population of people with nothing left to lose.
Middle class workers working off a mortgage in suburbia are a lot less likely
to become violent killers than underprivileged folk who have precious few
career options outside of drug dealing in gangs.

~~~
adventured
That's an incorrect conclusion.

Check out the historical murder rate of Appalachia in the US.

Extremely high gun ownership, extremely low murder rate. I grew up there, deep
in poverty, everyone owned guns, and the murder rate was on par with the best
of Europe per 100,000 people.

The difference? Cultural. Where I grew up, people simply did not believe in
killing each other, period. Desperation was widespread, yet there were no
gangs, there were no drive-by shootings.

~~~
Elrac
Nice try, poor logic.

What you call "people [not believing] in killing each other" is a phenomenon
that calls for an explanation. I believe that explanation is simply that
there's nothing to be gained from killing a desperately poor person.
Appalachia (and other poor rural areas) have no gangs because there's no way
to make a profit on organized violence. Gangs and the associated violence
happen in cities because that's where some of the people, at least, have money
that they can spend on drugs or prostitution or simply be robbed of.

~~~
skeolawn
So following that logic, I guess if a "rich" person was to drive through
Appalachia they would be inevitably doomed?

~~~
Elrac
That's an absurd extrapolation. Please try to follow along here! I'll repeat
it slowly for you:

Because there's (in general) little to be gained from robbing people in this
area, there are no or few violent street gangs and other forms of organized
crime like you'd find in various cities where there's a more colorful mix of
rich and poor. Lacking an organized criminal element, Appalachia presents not
significantly more (nor less) danger to well-off tourists than any other area
where poor people live and a few will -by statistics- be criminals; and
considerably less than various cities, certainly various neighborhoods, where
robbery and other violent crime are common and more or less an "industry."

------
calibraxis
Now that whites are far more directly endangered by police, one sees articles
like this pop up all the time.

 _" In a very real sense, the 'middle class' is not an economic category, it's
a social one. To be middle class is to feel that the fundamental institutional
structures of society are, or should be, on your side. If you see a policeman
and you feel more safe, rather than less, then you can be pretty sure you're
middle class. Yet for the first time since polling began, most Americans in
2012 indicated they do not, in fact, consider themselves middle class."_
[http://gawker.com/ferguson-and-the-criminalization-of-
americ...](http://gawker.com/ferguson-and-the-criminalization-of-american-
life-1692392051)

The author still argues in favor of policing. (Just like he doesn't question
whether he had any right to invade another country.) Advocating that police
return to his side, against the common domestic enemy.

------
sago
"nothing ... is more important than officers’ personal security"

I'm not sure this is true. If it were, why would they put themselves into
potentially violent situations? It seems to me the priorities are

1\. Make the arrest. 2\. Officer safety. 3\. Public safety. 4\. Justice.

In that order. They are related, to get 4 you _sometimes_ need 1-3. But not
always.

'Militarised police' is correct, because this corresponds exactly to what we'd
want of our warfighters.

1\. Carry out the mission. 2\. Be safe. 3\. Keep 3rd parties safe. 4\. Be
ethical and moral.

It's a far cry from 'to protect and serve'. Personally I'd be happy with a
squatter in an empty apartment getting away more often in return for not
deploying an armed raid with no confirmation based on a single report.

~~~
manish_gill
Wouldn't you say Public Safety should triumph Officer Safety?

~~~
sago
Yes, that was the subtext of my point: the priorities are wrong, if the
mission is to 'protect and serve'.

------
jessriedel
This discussion of strategies for reducing the use of force by police is more
constructive and sensible than most on this issue:

[http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/04/law-enforcements-
warrior...](http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/04/law-enforcements-warrior-
problem/)

~~~
ghufran_syed
I just took a quick look, but it looks like a great article, might be worth
doing a HN submission?

~~~
gknoy
It's a great article, and was posted in June:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9699893](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9699893)

~~~
jessriedel
Yep, this must be where I read it originally :)

------
brownbat
Virginia is a special puzzle.

For Violent Crime in 2011, it ranked 46th of the 50 states. Property Crime was
43rd.

The Federal & State Incarceration Rate was 13th, and general funds spending on
corrections (2008), it was ranked 11th highest.

Sometimes Europeans are alarmed by the high US incarceration rates, with our
700-800 per 100,000 over twice most other countries. If you want your eyes to
just pop out of your head though look at the state by state numbers. (The US
is a big place, and all social trends are not perfectly distributed.)
Louisiana incarcerates over 1400 of its 100,000, four to fourteen times most
other countries. The one thing you can say for Louisiana, though, is that it
also has over double the national murder rate. So maybe it has other endemic
problems that are running both numbers up simultaneously.

Virginia's up there in incarceration with 900-1000 per 100k, but it doesn't
have the violent crime stats that could even attempt to excuse it. It has
below average homicide and violent crime rates.

It's a high incarceration state for no damn reason.

Some resources:

[http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents...](http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/va_justice_system_expensive_ineffective_and_unfair_final.pdf)

[http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-
and-...](http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-
state#MRord)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Louisiana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Louisiana)

[http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Crime_in_Virginia.shtm](http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Crime_in_Virginia.shtm)

------
e12e
> He explained that it was standard procedure to point guns at suspects in
> many cases to protect the lives of police officers. Their firearm rules were
> different from mine; they aimed not to kill but to intimidate.

That's nuts. At least they haven't gone that crazy in Norway - the police
instruction on firearms are still: "Only aim at someone you're authorized to
kill" \-- eg: someone posing an immediate threat that can't be avoided by de-
escalating the situation (so it's not enough for someone to threaten to kill a
police officer, if that officer can easily back away and secure the area/wait
for backup -- but more along the lines of someone aiming a gun at someone).

And this makes more sense to me too: Everyone is entitled to self-defense if
they fear for their life -- if someone threaten you with a deadly weapon -- be
that a knife or a gun, it's entirely rational to try and kill them in order to
save yourself. You might of course serve out the rest of your life in prison
if you make the wrong call -- but you'll be alive.

Just because someone is a cop, doesn't mean they can't be(come) a murderer.
This is why it's so important for police to practice restraint. They work for
us, not against us after all (or should, anyway).

------
rogeryu
This reminds me of Sandra Bland who was put into jail for three days because
of improperly signaling a lane change. Police in the US is totally out of
control it seems.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
She was put into jail for committing an unwritten infraction called "Pissing
Off the Police"

Most officers feel entitled to a considerable amount of respect and many of
them are prone to use their discretion in order to extract revenge for
perceived personal insults. This has always been the case. Recently we have
technology that increasingly exposes this and other sorts of wrongdoing.

~~~
adventured
I always find it interesting that most people don't realize police brutality,
and people being killed by police, was worse 40 years ago than today.

The difference is, today there's a bright spotlight on police brutality, and
200 million smart phones.

~~~
mikeash
Don't they? I always thought that the current outrage was more along the lines
of, "Look guys, we're supposed to be past this 'killing black people for being
black' thing, and anyway we can all see you doing this stuff now, so why are
you still doing it? Seriously, stop it already!"

I certainly could be wrong, that's just my vague impression.

------
DominikR
I once used to believe that the problem in the US is that guns are so widely
available, but today I'm not so sure about that anymore, because there are
many very safe countries that rank high in number of guns per capita like
Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Austria, Canada and Germany.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country)

In Switzerland every male has a military type machine gun and two magazines at
home and in my country, Austria, there are regions that rival Texas in terms
of gun ownership.

Today I tend to believe that this might be a problem of city planning (and
preventing ghettos). The US has cities that are much larger than the largest
cities in the countries cited by me. But I might be wrong here.

Anyways, I do not doubt that police in Austria and Germany would act no
differently than in the US if they had reason to expect that they could be
shot every time they stopped a car. Thankfully this is not the case.

~~~
mattstreet
The rules about every male having a weapon and ammo went away in 2007 or so.
There is a lot of regulation there about who can have a weapon or buy
ammunition.

~~~
DominikR
Well, Switzerland still ranks very high in terms of gun ownership. (4th place
in the world)

My point is that the mere availability of guns can't be the only reason.

This is most likely a very complex problem with many different issues that
have to be tackled. Better police training, preventing ghettos, hopeless
economic situation for people of certain race, racism - these are all issues
that will have to be tackled to get this under control.

Just taking away the guns wont solve the problem I fear.

~~~
rodgerd
> Well, Switzerland still ranks very high in terms of gun ownership. (4th
> place in the world)

If you're insisting that the situation with firearms in Switzerland resembles
that of the US you are either ignorant, obtuse, or dishonest. They are not
even remotely comparable.

~~~
DominikR
I'm not insisting in anything, I'm just saying Switzerland is ranked 4th place
in the world in terms of guns per capita.

But it doesn't make any sense for me discuss anymore with you because you seem
to believe that insulting others is a great way to exchange opinions.

------
excitom
I feel like if the author had been black he wouldn't be around now to write
that article.

~~~
hellbanner
Quite possibly. But while tackling racial biases and avoiding historical
violence is a noble undertaking, he focuses his efforts describing the effects
of police attitude.

------
pasbesoin
There was no report of anyone being harmed -- of any violence occurring. _The
police_ escalated the situation to a violent confrontation.

Fail.

P.S. If they had raised a sudden firefight, where might some of the resulting
rounds traveled and impacted, particularly in what might be a fairly
population-dense apartment building(s) setting?

~~~
grecy
They could have landed in a baby's crib, but that doesn't matter -
[http://www.thewire.com/global/2012/05/german-police-used-
onl...](http://www.thewire.com/global/2012/05/german-police-used-
only-85-bullets-against-people-2011/52162/)

------
c5karl
The chief of police has posted a response:
[https://fcpdnews.wordpress.com/2015/07/25/a-message-from-
the...](https://fcpdnews.wordpress.com/2015/07/25/a-message-from-the-chief/)

~~~
koenigdavidmj
Very carefully worded. The original article never said anything about Special
Weapons and Tactics, which is what the chief denied using. In fact, the whole
point is that this procedure is decidedly normal.

------
roymurdock
I wonder if the majority of cops become more empathetic after reading pieces
like these and take extra precautions not to become _those cops_ under public
scrutiny?

Or do they just get even more set into the _us vs. them and we know what 's
better for the dumb masses_ mindset?

I would love to hear an actual cop's opinion on how the recent media coverage
has affected his/her individual performance and the overall performance of the
police force in general.

------
graycat
The solution in the US is supposed to be US democracy.

A first step is freedom of the press so that citizens can become informed.

A second step is for problems to be exposed in the press as in the OP.

A third step is for citizens in the area with such problems to inform their
elected officials that the police need better supervision to solve the
problems.

Fourth, with enough concern from voting citizens, the political supervision of
the police needs to tell the police chief, etc. to clean up their act.

If problems continue, then the mayor, etc. needs to get the Chief of Police a
new job, say, cleaning the sidewalks with a toothbrush -- "Get'm nice and
clean, now, y'hear. Good to see you doing well at the work you are best suited
for.".

With more concern, lawyers, including the local prosecutors, can bring legal
cases against the police. As in Baltimore now, a few serious legal cases
against the police can calm down the whole police force like a few million
pills of Valium.

Net, via our democracy, the power, essentially all of the power, really
overwhelming power, is fully in the hands of the voting citizens. All citizens
have to do is find a sympathetic candidate and pull a lever in a voting booth.

With any kind of serious activity by voting citizens, police arrogance can
disappear like a snowball in a hot July in Vegas.

The police need to be worried now: Somewhere in the US is a billionaire who
believes in the US Constitution and is ready to spend a little money to set up
police _sting_ operations, have hidden cameras recording everything, make a
really big public story about the abuses, have teams of lawyers filling the
court dockets with every legal case they can come up with, and then organizing
some political activity to get the politicians on board.

The story for the police? Simple: Clean up your act on your own or the voters,
politicians, and lawyers will do it for you.

Too much of the police have talked to themselves too much and talked
themselves into believing a lot of nonsense reasons why they should treat the
citizens like dirt. Well, that treatment and those reasons won't cut it, not
for even a minute, once the sunlight shines on the situation -- instead,
voters, politicians, and lawyers have the power, overwhelming power, and will
stop the nonsense.

------
dmourati
This story could have easily ended much worse if the Iraq vet had armed
himself against the intruding police as suspected home invaders.

------
lectrick
Every time you aim a gun at an innocent persons' head without first doing due
diligence before escalating, you increase the chances of an accident or
misunderstanding which results in an innocent person dead.

Which we hear about all the time. So WTF?

In any event, why would a squatter merit such a hostile response?

------
jowiar
FWIW Fairfax County, VA is about as rich, white, and suburban place that you
can find in the US.

~~~
AdmiralAsshat
I wholeheartedly disagree with that. Alexandria, maybe. But Fairfax County is
pretty large: it encompasses Annandale, Springfield, and Centreville.
Springfield has a heavy latino population, and Centreville and Annandale have
like a 25% Asian population. Annandale even has a section called "Little
Korea" for pete's sake.

To be fair, though, Alexandria is not fair from Arlington, and about the only
people who can afford to live in either of them these days are trust fund
babies.

~~~
cwisecarver
I live in Alexandria and I can assure you that I am not a trust fund baby.
Only child of a single parent with no college education, self-taught web
developer with a decent income.

It is a diverse area. My neighborhood is single-family homes and I would wager
half of them are just scraping by. Two blocks in either direction and you'll
see abject poverty or McMansions nestled on too little land next to military
housing from the 30s.

------
droithomme
Why would they sent an assault team to look into a report of a squatter?

------
nchammas
The author's recommendation that the police build up community relationships
to increase trust and reduce unnecessary confrontation reminded me of a book,
Fixing Broken Windows [1], that made a similar recommendation for what it
called "community policing".

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Fixing-Broken-Windows-Restoring-
Commun...](http://www.amazon.com/Fixing-Broken-Windows-Restoring-
Communities/dp/0684837382)

------
rbcgerard
It blows my mind that the police would not check with the management office
security guard as to whether the unit was currently occupied...what if it had
been rented that day?

this feeds into a problem that is a corollary to the above, which is the whole
see something/say something mentality with no repercussions for those that
call the police on others...

------
joeax
To understand all of this, a great FB page to follow is CopBlock (disclaimer:
not affiliated with them but a great news source). The way the police in
America act today is borderline Orwellian, or perhaps it's already crossed
that line.

------
vaadu
I live in Fairfax county. It has some excellent officers but the dept is
atrocious when it comes to transparency and honesty with the citizenry.

The officer involved shootings of unarmed people are consistently swept under
the rug.

------
dunkelheit
Can this be the consequence of liberal gun ownership laws in the US? When
anyone police interacts with can carry the gun it makes perfect sense to act
as if they did. Hence excessive violence in trivial cases.

------
snambi
Probably the best article I read this year!

------
GizaDog
The comments here are amazing!

------
curiousjorge
I read these type of people walk the fine line that separates criminals, the
propensity for violence and murder while wearing a uniform doesn't fix
psycopathy. Not to say all police officers are built this way, and certainly
there are elements that I can observe as an outsider that makes American style
policing to be particularly and overwhelmingly lethal and excessive. I have a
hard time buying the liuetenants response that this is the norm. What kind of
fucked up policy allows guns drawn officers with questionable safety margin to
kick out a suspected squatter? It raises even more questions like, what if the
author was African American? Or maybe he had tattoo on his face? If people
wearing a uniform are free to choose a response in their own thinking, how
much of past fatalities by police force were caused by trigger happy and blood
thirsty individuals that are clearly psychopaths? How can the public trust
enforcers who more than coincidentally use excessive force before the usual
buckshot is laid out? It must be truly terrifying to be American, and stories
like this makes me inclined to keep my Canadian citizenship. Not taking the
higher ground, we've had exactly such police brutality, but almost in most
cases they've resulted in criminal conviction. On the other hand a super lax
and incompetent police force like those in Korea or Japan is equally
frightening, but much less than a trigger happy, God knows what type of
disorder suffering badge wearing individual will react in high stress
situations, especially one that is escalated entirely by themselves.

------
puppetmaster3
The issue is in USA only police kill if you don't obey them (follow their
verbal commands), possibly due to reduced middle class. Here is a hypothesis:
to lower the issue, either the US citizens increase gun ownership or police
don't carry guns; till parity. Data point: Stanford experiment. More middle
class and power balance. Then they'd be polite, like in the rest of the world.
On you tube, you can see police outside of USA interactions... and there is
'pushing' and such involved and sometimes their feelings get hurt. In USA, if
you don't obey or hurt their felling: you are dead.

------
kelvin0
I am baffled how he can even compare the military raids done in Iraq to the
experience he mentions. Of course I'm not saying it`s not a harrowing
experience, but it didn't end up with him dead, or worse yet jailed in some
obscure military jail without any recourse.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_to_the_Dark_Side](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_to_the_Dark_Side)

------
hackaflocka
This article doesn't add up. Even highly-paid local government servants (i.e.
the police in this case) aren't usually this stupid.

What it's claiming is: if someone calls up the police to report that a
squatter is occupying a neighboring apartment, there's a SWAT raid on that
apartment?

Nope. This was either in a very high-security zone, or there was some other
extenuating circumstance.

Here's my guess at why they didn't bother with asking the security guard or
management, and just went with the word from a neighbor. The neighbor is a
high-ranking member of the local SWAT organization.

~~~
function_seven
Nothing in the article indicates that a SWAT unit was dispatched. It was
likely a couple of patrol units.

Sadly, the article does add up for me.

