Militarisation of law enforcement - Overkill in America's domestic wars on everything

I was giving my son $20 for an A, $10 for a B, -$10 for a D and he lost it all for an F (he was in high school and I was getting desperate). I don't think $80 is unreasonable if handled right -- it was absolutely wrong to take it.

 

So you think I'm "warped?" Oh, well. Between the two of my girls, their take is about 200.00 for straight As.

 

I know, DMC. I was just playing.

I love to spoil my kids....

 

Third paragraph covers it all:

I don't think the overall principle of taking the money from the child was wrong. Again, it may have been marked bills, especially since undercover officers had repeatedly bought marijuana from the parents. Even if not, it may have been useful evidence in a trial. Given the details of the rest of the find, though, I think it was a little over the top unless they were marked bills. I'm also curious why SWAT was there at all, unless someone had a registered firearm or firearms had been seen at the house before (by the undercover officers).

That seems to me to be... quite generous of you, Chandos. Good man.

 

I'm an American. I don't use illegal drugs, and I am very much against the use of illegal drugs (especially around children). I don't smoke. I barely drink. I don't cheat on my wife, or even flirt with other women. Heck, I come straight home from work every day to be with my family. I rarely swear, and don't swear in front of my children. In other words, I'm about as straight-laced as they come.

But the video posted by Ragusa, to me, is completely disturbing and apalling. Those officers brought proverbial bazukas when fly swatters would have been sufficient. To me, it looked like a bunch of high school bullys had grown up, gotten jobs, and were hiding behind badges to continue their bullying. I sincerely hope some of those guys lost their jobs due to their extreme misconduct. I mean, come on, killing the family pet because dad has some reefer in his closet? Painting such a horrible picture in the child's subconscious that will probably never go away? Utterly and completely deplorable.

 

That's pretty much it. And that's from somone who lived with a cop for 21 years.

 

As for taking the money, one other big issue related to such raids part of the original point in Balko's paper [link in first post on page 1] was forfeiture laws. Cops in raids are generally allowed to confiscate everything that looks like money or assets gained through criminal acts, in drug cases in particular.

Not only did they take the money apparently assuming they must have been criminal gains, they were asserting the girl was lying about having gotten it for grades - and the girl will have a hard time getting it back. Protection of citizens whose property has been unjustifiably been confiscated is very weak in America.

And then, if dad was a indeed criminal and paid her for grades with money gained through crime, hostile authorities could claim money laundering and keep the money on those grounds.

Now that sure does sound like overkill to me.

 

I don't see them as claiming she lied about the grades. Whether she was payed for A's or for coming straight home from school is meaningless. If she was payed with drug money, it's stil drug money.

For the rest of your post, though, I don't know much about the law in that case, so I'll stay out of it.

 

I see that dmc didn't say that I wasn't warped.

... it's just a jump to the left ...

 

I agree with that - if the arguement was they seized the money on the basis that they got that money from the sale of drugs, then it doesn't matter why they gave it to the girl. If such an excuse were considered acceptable, then they'd never be able to seize any money. "Sorry officer, you see, that money is not really mine. I gave my daughter $15 million for her straight-A report card."

On a side note, why, at the age of 9, would you need $80? Perhaps I led a very sheltered childhood, but when I was 9, if I needed something, my parents bought it for me. If I really wanted something (but did not necessarily need it), I usually got that too if my request was reasonable.

Once I got into high school, I worked a part time job for my spending money on weekends, so I never got paid for grades. But at least I can see why a teenager may need/want money. I don't see why a 9-year old would need to be carrying around more money than what they would need to buy their lunch at school.

 

There should be an element of common sense, which seems to be missing on the side of law enforcement, as Ragusa points out. Any property which is seized from a citizen is still private property and should be accounted for in a proper manner. There is a difference between seizing 15 million dollars and taking 80.00 out of a Barbie wallet of a 9-year old. If law enforcement cannot tell the difference, they are morons. The Revolution was "born" over the issue of property rights. Nothing should be more sacred to Americans than the right to their lives and property, regardless of what some "petty officials" of the state claim.

 

A problem that hasn't gotten nearly enough attention here is that it is up to the one whose property was confiscated to prove that the stuff he owned was legitimately earned and acquired. Throw away your bills too quickly and you'd find yourself in trouble. It can be a difficult thing to prove.

And what if a person of his or her spouse has a legit income, and allegedly engages in crime as well - does the rotten apple spoil the whole barrel? Even what's in a child's purse? Let them confiscate everything and let God sort it out?

One ought to keep in kind that this approach breaks with fundamental and basic principle: That authorities, if they charge you with a crime or confiscate your property under forfeiture laws, originally had to prove you did something wrong, or that you illegitimately acquired something. Here, the reverse is the case - a citizen has to disprove the charge made by the police if he wants to regain his lost property, if he fails to do that he forfeits it.

The idea behind search warrants originally was and still is to make it difficult for authorities to search and seize - precisely because privacy and property are constitutional rights.

 

When James Otis argued this, it was even deeper than constitutional rights, but rights that are in man's nature, and given by the "Author of Nature." When "Liberty" is mentioned, this is what some are speaking of; not "liberty" from Commies, Islamists, or terrorists," but "Liberty" that goes back to Anglo-Saxon England and when it was decided that these rights were "self-evident" and did even require a piece of parchment to have force.

 

Was the $80 not accounted for in a proper manner? The search warrant probably covered the home and all occupants, right?

I'm not entirely sure on the legal process here, but may I assume you're talking about what happens if there is no arrest or trial? It would seem to me that the police should have to return the confiscated property or charge a suspect within a certain amount of time.

 

NOG,
yes so it would seem. But according to Balko people after raids that resulted in no charges had problems getting their property back. No charges, no crime, no reason to confiscate? It apparently didn't change anything about the reversal of the burden of proof.

Balko also points out that for some departments confiscations amount to a large part of their budget, creating an incentive for confiscations.

I invite you to read Balko's paper; he writes about that.

 

Some police departments in larger crime-riddled cities in the US have even gone further than that, unfortunately, doing things like holding witnesses to crimes against their will in order to ensure their cooperation.

There's certainly a line to be crossed here, but I'm not entirely sure where it lies. That whole "it's a different world today" argument - and the implication that greater intrusions upon liberties are justified because of it - often comes into play now. (See the US response to terrorism and the justification for things like the Patriot Act.)

I'm curious to know what people on the front lines - those who suffer most from unchecked crime - think of this in general. As has been said already, there are those who have mistrust and malice for their police departments, but I suspect there may be others who welcome these modern 'tactics,' because they have a limiting effect on crime.

 

I'm not sure. Did it?

 

While I'm sure $80 is a fortune to your average 9 year old, of all the points raised in this thread across the 3 listed cases, this detail to me is the most trivial, and I'm surprised its become a primary focus.

-Pointing a gun to 14 year old's head - without proper cause, this is obviously a really big problem.
-Shooting and killing the family dog while otherwise treating a minor MJ offence as if the family is to be "considered armed and extremely dangerous" - appalling and completely unacceptable.
-Killing a 7 year old child "in the line of duty" - I guess that accidents happen, but I don't even have words for how wrong this one is. I'm actually getting choked up, again, just thinking about it.

Compared against:
-Taking $80 of possible drug money from a child - somehow this barely fails to register as important.

I don't know. I guess it's just me....