Rise of the Warrior Cop

Some recent events: During the Occupy protests a policeman goes down a line of seated, bound demonstrators and methodically pepper sprays them in the face. After the Boston Marathon bombing there are tanks in the street and the entire city is locked down to search for one man.How has this become a part of "to serve and protect," the stated mission of many police departments?This book takes the reader through the process which in the last 30 years has militarized the police into agents of punishment and terror. It all started with SWATT teams and the drug wars.The idea of the SWATT team was developed in L.A. by Daryl Gates during the turbulent 1960's as a way to deal with extreme situations that might involve stand-offs and hostages. The original purpose of the team was lost as they became more popular. By 2005 there were approximately 50,000 to 60,000 SWATT raids in the U.S. that year. Most often they were used to serve warrants for non-violent crimes.With no small part played by the media, in 1968 a majority of Americans feared the country was headed towards anarchy although only 28% felt that crime was up in their own community.Nixon's cynical fear mongering proved useful to his political purposes; even more useful was to tie all crime to drugs. This focus on drugs in Reagan's years became good vs. evil and those born evil only fit to be controlled and punished. Clinton had to prove the Democrats were not soft on crime and Obama has continued the policies of his predecessors.Presidential rhetoric resulted in specific policies that helped turn us-cops into battles with them-criminals.In 1988 the Byrne grant program sent billions to police departments as a way for the White House to impose it's crime policy on local law enforcement. It created regional narcotics task forces that drew cops from all agencies within a jurisdiction. There was no oversight or accountability; the task forces became roving bands of drug cops. (In '89 more task forces were formed that coordinated the military with law enforcement; SWATT teams were often trained by active duty military.)Clinton's COPS program in 1994 was talked up as providing community policing but there was no definition of what this would look like. Funds were used mostly to militarize.The 1033 Program, part of the 1997 Pentagon Bill, was set up to provide military equipment to police departments. There was even a 800 number and a catalog to show what the military could provide. In FY 2011 half a billion dollars of military property was "reutilized" this way. (L.A. county has 4 semi-trailers on standby to beat other police departments to the gear made available.)Equipment included M-16 rifles, grenade launchers, night-vision goggles; airplanes and helicopters were offered as well as armored personnel carriers. Even communities between 25 and 50 thousand people would obtain this military equipment in the spirit of macho me-too-ism.Drugs were money makers for police departments when forfeiture laws started giving state and local agencies who cooperated with the Feds a cut from the sale of confiscated assets after drug convictions.The terror inflicted by SWATT teams has been made possible by the Supreme Court which over 30 years has virtually gutted the protections of the 4th Amendment. Essentially, all SWATT team entries are no-knock and as violent and brutal as the cops like.There are many, many "mistakes" -- wrong addresses, misinformation from informants (whose tips are not checked), careless incompetence. When innocent people end up dead in these raids there's no liability for the police even when millions are then paid in wrong-full death cases. Because no records are kept, the extent of the botched deployment of SWATT teams is not known; nor if they are even effective by any measure.Experts say that those who want to be on SWATT teams are the very people to keep off because the attitude on many teams is: "Why serve an arrest warrant to some crack dealer with a .38? With full armor, the right s*** and training, you can kick ass and have fun!" As one team member said: "You get to play with a lot of guns. That's what's fun."In pursuit of that fun it's open season on peoples' pets. Dogs are wantonly killed even when chained or leashed. Cops will "kill pets while merely questioning about a crime in the area."A few police officials won't use SWATT teams. They know that for most drug related arrests it's safer and more effective to not invade buildings. But they are the rare exception.The SWATT teams have to justify their existence so they are now routinely used for victimless, non-violent situations: friendly poker games, massage parlors, strip clubs. They are now even part of the enforcement of regulatory laws (Consumer Protection Agency has it's own SWATT team). It's called mission creep but what is does is "it creates violence out of non-violent crimes."The author shows how out of control this cops-as-soldiers situation is by describing a drug policy conference at the Hoover Institution moderated in part by Joseph McNamara who as police chief of San Jose, California had the lowest crime rate with the smallest per capita police department in America.The information McNamara elicited from participating officials -- mayors, police chiefs, DAs, judges -- showed systems where no one had overall authority or responsibility to require accountability as the community's law enforcers became increasingly militarized and brutal.This conference that showed a self-perpetuating system was held in 1997; in the 15 years since then the situation has not improved.The author makes clear that he's not anti-cop or anti-SWATT team. He just raises the concern of where this blurring of policing with the military can lead. He worries that the U.S. is perhaps already a "police state writ small" since police officers' power and authority is near complete. (How else describe a recent occurrence in Rochester, New York when 3 youths waiting for a bus to a school event were arrested when they wouldn't dispurse at the command of a cop.)The book ends with some suggestions for how to reign in the police but the author is not sanguine that this can happen without people becoming better informed and outraged. He's certainly doing his part in spreading the word.

This history of policing in America is thorough and fascinating, informative and readable. And the conclusions are both inescapable and terrifying. I can’t think of a way to recommend it highly enough.

Police officers are not soldiers. Despite a superficial similarity, both soldiers and cops wear uniforms and carry weapons, the skills and attitudes required to be successful in these professions are very different. A soldier is trained to kill the enemy. He often has to shoot first and analyze the situation later if he wants to stay alive. A soldier need not concern himself with the civil rights of his enemies. His job is to destroy them and win the war. A police officer, on the other hand, is trained to keep the peace. For him violence is the very last resort. His job is to protect civilians, not kill enemies. Why, then, are law enforcement personnel increasingly taking on the look and attitudes of soldiers?A SWAT team is meant to be used in emergency situations, when there is a hostage situation, an rampaging shooter, or a riot. There should be few cases in which a SWAT team is ever used and probably only larger jurisdictions really need one, particularly since small city police forces may not have the resources or personnel or properly train or equip a SWAT team. Why are SWAT teams increasingly found to be necessary by small town police departments and why are they being used to perform what ought to be routine, non-violent duties such as serving warrants or making arrests in drug possession cases or illicit gambling rings? Why are various federal departments using armed agents to enforce administrative regulations?The fourth amendment to the constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and guarantees that any searches and seizures cannot occur without a warrant issued after a demonstration of probable cause. Generally, this has meant that the police are not to enter a residence without knocking and identifying themselves as law enforcement. Why are no-knock raids complete with flash-bang grenades becoming ever more common and accepted as appropriate procedures? Why are there more and more cases of the police raiding the homes of innocent persons, injuring and perhaps killing people, without a word of apology or accountability?We are supposed to be a nation of equal justice under the law. How is it that police officers can assault and kill with impunity, can steal under the cover of civil forfeiture, and generally act as if they are above the law they are tasked to enforce? When did the friendly neighborhood policeman become the warrior cop?Radley Balko attempts to answer these questions in his book, Rise of the Warrior Cop. Balko traces the history of law enforcement in the United States from the beginning, noting that before the American Revolution and for the first few decades after independence there were no police forces in the United States or, for that matter in Britain. There were country sheriffs, but their role was largely serving court warrants. Law enforcement depended on social pressure in small communities and informal, volunteer town watches and posses. As the population grew and became more urbanized, it became necessary to adopt a more formal approach to law enforcement and the first police departments were organized in the 1830's. This was controversial, both in America and Britain, as the political cultures of both nations were strongly against having a standing army of soldiers patrolling the streets and care was taken to make a clear distinction between the newly formed police forces and the army.This distinction began to become somewhat less clear in the twentieth century. Prohibition and later the War against Drugs with fights against well armed gangsters and later drug dealers seems to indicate a need for police officers to be more heavily armed, at least in certain special circumstances. The possibility that incriminating drug evidence could be hurriedly disposed of, seemed to make traditional procedures of knocking and waiting for a suspect to answer a door to be somewhat foolish. The upheavals and riots of the 1960's showed a need for a heavily armed and specially trained task force, or SWAT agents, to handle extreme circumstances.Since the 1960's, tactics meant to be used rarely and under specific conditions have become routine. If one is fighting a war against drugs, than the drug dealers are not simply fellow citizens who have committed a crime, but the enemy who is working to bring down the country. One does not concern oneself too much with the civil rights of the enemy in time of war. After 9/11, terrorism began to take the place of drugs as the enemy and justification for police departments around the country to acquire cool military equipment.There is much more to be said about this issue, and Radley Balko says it in his book. If you are at all concerned with civil rights, and our country's slow erosion into a police state, than I highly recommend Rise of the Warrior Cop, though you may be surprised and shocked to learn how widespread and serious the problem of police misconduct has become. Balko lists many, many examples is his book.Some might accuse Radley Balko of being anti-police. He denies the charge and I believe him. As he notes, the vast majority of police officers are good people. The problem is not really with the cops. The problem is that the system we have in place tends to reward the bad cops and to create incentives for even good cops to behave badly, particularly in the sense that often develops in police departments that it is us (the department) against them ( the criminals and increasingly civilians). Balko does make suggestions for reforms at the end of the book, and I hope that someone in a position to do something will heed his warnings.

This is an excellent read. Balko claims to be quite objectified in the content of this book, but I'd say his own thoughts and opinions clearly seep into the subject matter. That doesn't detract from the subject of the book though as he makes very valid points andhe seems to have researched the book very thoroughly. My only real criticism is that the book does tend to jump in time. I expected it to be written chronologically, which is how it starts, but then as the chapters tend to focus on topics and issues, the timeline does move around a bit. However, the book remains really engaging, even if you're unfamiliar with the US justice system and politics. It's a very topical read and worthy of attention.

A great work loaded with facts from the foundation of America to the present day. It really underscored the reasons for militarism and the erroding of constitutional freedoms in our country today. It also presents ideas for re establishing community trust between law enforcement and the citizenry that our founding fathers intended.

This is a well referenced book that provides a credible narrative for the development of militarised policing and provides further evidence (if any were needed) of the futility of the "War on Drugs". Policy changes are required, but it is hard to see what will incentivise US political leadership to make this change.One wonders if Police personnel working in this context become disturbed and conflicted by their experience ( as many soldiers do) and start to work against the militarised ethos. This could be the basis of a grassroots movement for change.

As we grapple with the complex issue of community safety and our relations with the police this monograph must provoke our thinking and our action. The US experience may apppear to be irrelevant but stop read and let your mind play with the ideas and data.

Interesting