Police State

Man on Roof. Police Taze him. He jumps off roof to avoid the onslaught. Police put him in choke hold, drag him down stairs hitting his head on every stair on the way down. Man dies.

Why did cops kill this 95-year-old in walker?

A 95-year-old man who served his country during World War II is now dead after police stormed his retirement home with riot shields, Tasered him and shot him with bean bag rounds – all because he adamantly refused to undergo high-risk surgery.

U.S. Army Air Corps veteran John Wrana, who was honorably discharged as a sergeant after he served in the India-Burma campaign, used a walker because family members said he was “wobbly” on his feet, according to the Chicago Tribune. The elderly veteran was shot down by enemy fire during the war.

On July 26, a doctor reportedly told Wrana if he survived surgery, he would likely be put on life support. The elderly man refused the operation, and paramedics attempted to involuntarily transport him for medical treatment. He was sitting in a chair, holding a cane and a shoe horn when police arrived at the Victory Centre senior living facility located just south of Chicago.

The Cook County medical examiner reported that Wrana bled to death internally from injuries caused when the elderly man was shot in the stomach with a 12-gauge shotgun that fired a bag filled with lead shot. The death has been ruled a homicide, according to reports.

And this is relevant how?

You don't get how a story about an innocent civilian being killed by the police for not wanting to do something he had every right not to want to do is relevant to a thread about the rise of a police state? Come on, you're not that obtuse.

jeffmarkel said:

You don't get how a story about an innocent civilian being killed by the police for not wanting to do something he had every right not to want to do is relevant to a thread about the rise of a police state? Come on, you're not that obtuse.

There are about 800-900 thousand law enforcement officers in the U.S. In any population of that size there will be bad apples, and enforcement actions that go badly, even egregiously (as is the story -- IF TRUE -- of the death of the guy with the walker).
I fail to see how these cherry-picked, one-off anecdotes -- of questionable veracity -- support the notion that there has been a "rise of a police state". The same stuff was happening back in the idyllic times of yore, ie whenever it was you believe a police state did not exist in the past.

I'm not sure why we think the story isn't true. I'm not saying that all cops are bad. As stated, you take a group of people big enough and there are going to be great people, bad people and everything in between.

You can find stories like this just about every day. If you read back on this thread, there are quite a few stories like this on this very thread. And in many cases, there really isn't much of a punishment. Its really insane. And there really isn't much outrage. If it wasn't for youtube and some niche communities interested in tracking this stuff you wouldn't know it was occurring. These stories generally don't make it past the local news.

I do think the mentality that the police will make us safe, and thus we need to arm them to the teeth. When they screw up or overstep their bounds, even if the results are fatal, we collectively shrug. At the same time we need to fear our neighbors. Disarm the neighbors. However, once that neighbor puts on a badge, heck let him ride around with a fully automatic weapon. Let's arm him to the teeth and send him to bust down someone's door in the middle of the night to raid non-violent offenders.

It's this kind of mentality that allows for the conditions of a police state to develop. Without that fear. Without that need for someone to protect us from whatever bogeyman. You don't need those trappings to take place.

Is there a kleptocratic and even a facist element to this? Certainly. But it happens because people let it happen...even want it to happen.

So, as the balance of power changes. It's good to take a look at some of the consequences we'd like to deny exist.

There is definitely militarization of the police. A book just came out out about that.

"Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces," by Radley Balko, PublicAffairs, 2013, 400 pages.

At both federal and state levels, the formerly hard line between police and military has blurred. Police are increasingly using military weaponry, employing military tactics and framing their mission using military terminology. Right now, there is a Third Amendment case -- that's the one about quartering soldiers in private homes without consent -- making its way through the courts. It involves someone who refused to allow the police to occupy his home in order to gain a "tactical advantage" against the house next-door. The police returned later, broke down his door, forced him to the floor and then arrested him for obstructing an officer. They also shot his dog with pepperball rounds. It's hard to argue with the premise of this case; police officers are acting so much like soldiers that it can be hard to tell the difference.

In "Rise of the Warrior Cop," Radley Balko chronicles the steady militarization of the police in the U.S. A detailed history of a dangerous trend, Mr. Balko's book tracks police militarization over the past 50 years, a period that not coincidentally corresponds with the rise of SWAT teams. First established in response to the armed riots of the late 1960s, they were originally exclusive to big cities and deployed only against heavily armed and dangerous criminals. Today SWAT teams are nothing special. They've multiplied like mushrooms. Every city has a SWAT team; 80% of towns between 25,000 and 50,000 people do as well. These teams are busy; in 2005 there were between 50,000 and 60,000 SWAT raids in the U.S. The tactics are pretty much what you would expect -- breaking down doors, rushing in with military weaponry, tear gas -- but the targets aren't. SWAT teams are routinely deployed against illegal poker games, businesses suspected of employing illegal immigrants and barbershops with unlicensed hair stylists.

In Prince George's County, MD, alone, SWAT teams were deployed about once a day in 2009, overwhelmingly to serve search or arrest warrants, and half of those warrants were for "misdemeanors and nonserious felonies."

http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-1308.html

After 9/11 weapons producers and the military found a new market for their wares/goods. Us. Money allocated for security in the US was/is used to purchase assault weapons and surveillance apparatus by state and local governments. And local law enforcement feels the need to use this hardware in order to justify the purchase and overwhelm "the enemy."

And more and more the enemy is us.

I will say terp, while we don't agree on economics I believe we share common ground here.

Towson, Maryland Parent Arrested for questioning "Common Core" at an "Education Forum"

Man asks question about the Common Core. Room full of people watch as he is "escorted" from the meeting. One woman stands up for him. Here is the vid:



The parent is charged with assaulting a Police Officer and disturbing a school operation.

The baseline for police violence is way higher than it used to be. We've gone from cops shooting guard dogs to cops shooting puppies. SWAT teams used to be reserved for violent standoffs, now they evict grandmothers from their homes.

It's no surprise that with the "acceptable" level of violence being so high, there are more extreme incidents like the alzheimer's patient being killed in his wheelchair.

This militarization isn't keeping us safer, and in fact we're all in danger because of how easy it is for errors to happen.

All that's necessary for you too to be an innocent victim is for you to be ... innocent.

tom said:

The baseline for police violence is way higher than it used to be.

What data or research do you base this assertion on, beyond just anecdotal observation?
Of course in today's YouTube age we're going to see outrageous stuff happen. Do you think this stuff didn't happen years ago?

The paramilitarization of police is a well-known post-9/11 phenomenon. Maybe cops were going around shooting puppies and the elderly back when I was a kid in the 60s and 70s, but I doubt it.

tom said:

The baseline for police violence is way higher than it used to be. We've gone from cops shooting guard dogs to cops shooting puppies. SWAT teams used to be reserved for violent standoffs, now they evict grandmothers from their homes.

maybe we should bring back the pinkertons to evict people.

Paramilitarization and violence are two different things. Just because a police force has upgraded infrastructure doesn't mean it's more violent.
Why do you doubt that instances of outrageous police brutality took place in the 60s and 70s (or for that matter any other decade)? That seems a romanticized view of the good ol' days, which weren't necessarily that good. Lots of heads were beaten (and worse) during civil rights marches and anti-war protests, for starters.
I'd argue that the baseline for police violence is LESS today, because technology has forced transprency by enabling essentially everyone to be a citizen journalist.

uh, ok.

Well that's a thorough and well-reasoned rebuttal, full of facts, figures and empirical support.

Student_Council said:

Well that's a thorough and well-reasoned rebuttal, full of facts, figures and empirical support.

When you're playing in his sandbox, . . .

Because new weapons are never used, right? We built bunker busters and guess what? Used! Napalm? Used. B-52s, used. Nukes, used. New technologies are always used at least once before people get put off by them.

http://www.policemisconduct.net/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/29/us-police-obtaining-military-vehicles-to-aid-hunt-for-criminals/

http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/19/ohio-state-university-gets-armored-milit

Next time, it won't be just "four dead in Ohio."

US Ranks 46 in Press Freedoms according to Reporters without Borders

The United States was singled out for its pursuit of intelligence leaker Edward Snowden, the conviction of WikiLeaks informer Bradley Manning and the secret seizure of phone records from the Associated Press.

The group, known by its French acronym RSF, said the United States had suffered "one of the most significant declines" in press freedom last year, dropping 13 places to 46th in the 180-country index, wedged between Romania and Haiti.

"Countries that pride themselves on being democracies and respecting the rule of law have not set an example, far from it," RSF said.

We are 1 slot behind Romania. Romania!

MoralTerpitude said:

We are 1 slot behind Romania. Romania!

Yeah, there's lots of handwringing over this. The methodology isn't great. It changes its questions and data points every survey (thus the large fluctuations of countries moving up and down). And it's mostly qualitative with questions like, "What are the factors apparently preventing the creation of independent, privately owned media?" and "How difficult is it to launch an independent private media company in light of the following constraints?"

While it's a real issue here an abroad, I wouldn't put too much stock in the shocking headlines.

Journalists are not scientists. My favorite:

(On a scale of 1 -10) How easy is it for authorities to force the firing of a...


...public radio or TV journalist?

...public radio or TV executive?

...journalist in a private media company?

...private media executive?

Well this is creepy. Adam Fisher: When the wars come home — or, what’s behind a new $90 million fake city?

On Jan. 24, the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group cut the ribbon on a $90.1 million, 300-acre fake city at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia. The site is about 60 miles south of Washington. The city contains a fake bank, soccer stadium, underground subway station with subway cars, train station with real train cars, an embassy and a mosque, according to the U.S. Army’s website.

The objective is to address possible — or, given the financial commitment, perhaps probable — combat in urban areas.


Some of the onlookers at the ribbon-cutting noticed that the new fake structures bore no resemblance to Baghdad or Kabul or anywhere else that the U.S. has lately been prosecuting its military adventures. Instead, it resembled a kind of Anywhere, USA, and it was hard not to speculate that in the future, the military might be forced to take up arms against its own citizens.

This speculation might be dismissed like the alligator in the front yard, except for a quietly mounting body of evidence.

A July 25, 2012, article in “Small Wars Journal” provided this overview of the problem: “If we face a period of persistent global conflict as outlined in successive National Security Strategy documents, then Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil.

Army capstone and operating concepts must provide guidance concerning how the Army will conduct the range of operations required to defend the republic at home. In this paper, we posit a scenario in which a group of political reactionaries take over a strategically positioned town and have the tacit support of not only local law enforcement but also state government officials, right up to the governor.”

OK, it’s just speculation. A $90.1 million fake city is chump change in the Pentagon’s budget. Flag, mom, apple pie and mounting profits suggest the alligator is a figment of an overactive imagination. Or is it?

The 2012 article, like the fake city at Fort A.P. Hill, no doubt took a cue from a 2006 Army Military Police training manual which outlines responses to civil unrest both inside and outside the continental United States.

The manual states that “during operations to restore order, military forces may present a show of force, establish roadblocks, break up crowds, employ crowd control agents, patrol, serve as security forces or reserves and perform other operations as required.”

The internment and “re-education” of “dissidents” are addressed, as is the use of deadly force: “No warning shots will be fired.” Elsewhere, in a variety of settings, a Navy SEAL warned that the Obama administration was quietly asking top military brass if they would be comfortable disarming American citizens; Christians, tea party supporters and anti-abortion activists have been portrayed as a “radical terrorist threat”; and the Department of Homeland Security has suggested “liberty lovers” were domestic extremists.

Video on the Facility Ribbon Cutting Ceremony

Snowden's lawyer detained and interrogated at Heathrow. Told she was on an "Inhibited Persons List"

A lawyer who represents National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden and has spoken on his behalf numerous times was detained while going through customs at Heathrow airport in London.

Jesselyn Radack told Firedoglake she was directed to a specific Heathrow Border Force agent. He “didn’t seem interested” in her passport. She was then subjected to “very hostile questioning.”

As Radack recalled, she was asked why she was here. “To see friends,” she answered. “Who will you be seeing?” She answered, “A group called Sam Adams Associates.”

The agent wanted to know who was in the group. “Ray McGovern, Annie Machon, Thomas Drake, Craig Murray,” she answered. She said she is part of the group as well.

“Where will you meet?” Radack answered, “At the Ecuadorian Embassy.” Then, the agent asked, “With Julian Assange?” Radack said yes.

The interrogation continued, “Why have you gone to Russia twice in three months?” Radack said she had a client in the country. “Who?” She answered, “Edward Snowden.”

“Who is Edward Snowden?” asked the agent. Radack said he is a whistleblower and an asylee. Then, the agent asked, “Who is Bradley Manning?” To this, she answered, “A whistleblower.”

For whatever reason, the agent asked, “Where is he?” “In jail,” Radack told the agent. (Now, she is known as Chelsea Manning.)

The agent said, “So he’s a criminal?” Radack corrected the agent, “He’s a political prisoner.” The agent asked if she represented Manning and she said no. Then he followed up, “But you represent Snowden?” She replied, “Yes, I’m a human rights lawyer.”

Former NSA employee and whistleblower Thomas Drake was with her and witnessed the interrogation. The agent barked the questions at Radack and had a “threatening demeanor.

Radack said she was “stone face cold” during the interrogation but afterward was shaking and in tears. “How did he know to bring up those names?”

Notably, Radack mentioned she was told she was on an “inhibited persons list.” Jennifer Robinson, an Australian human rights lawyer who has represented WikiLeaks, discovered she was on this list in April of 2012.

According to a report by Australian journalist Bernard Keane, this is a term the Department of Homeland Security uses. From a DHS document:

‘Inhibited status’, as defined in this rule, means the status of a passenger or non-traveling individual to whom TSA [Transportation Security Administration] has instructed a covered aircraft operator or a covered airport operator not to issue a boarding pass or to provide access to the sterile area.

Keane highlighted the fact that in March 2012, “as part of the US government’s seemingly remorseless attempt to impose its laws on the rest of the world, the UK agreed to new rules that required airlines to provide the Department of Homeland Security with details of passengers even if they weren’t traveling to the United States, but to countries near the US, such as Canada, Mexico and Cuba.”

Radack reacted to the intimidation and harassment afterward, “The government, whether in the US, UK, or elsewhere does not have the authority to monitor, harass or intimidate lawyers for representing unpopular clients.”

Think again Ms Radack.

Just a thought -- building this fake city in Virginia might send a message to the Tea Party fanatics. Isn't one of the reactionaries from that area or nearby? Wonder if he voted for the funding.

Are you saying that the government should intimidate people that hold certain political beliefs?

Jude said:

Just a thought -- building this fake city in Virginia might send a message to the Tea Party fanatics. Isn't one of the reactionaries from that area or nearby? Wonder if he voted for the funding.

That would be an absolutely awful thing for the government to do.

Well, the poster said the gov't built this fake city that looked like a US city implying the training would be used for soldiers to be deployed in US cities.

So....if that premise is assumed to be correct (which I don't assume), then why build it there? Presumably local congressmen and senators want gov't money and construction (a time-honored tradition called pork.) If they didn't lobby for the funding, who did? All I did was ask why there?

The story talked about "political reactionary" forces (which generally means very far or ultra far right wing) taking over parts of a US city. This is what the story was about -- far right wing types seizing control of a city in this country and the military moving in to take it back.

Actually, the story was about the military's building of a city (and other activities) to train for such an event. I get the impression that the author does not think this is a valid concern.