“Jesus, was that my rifle?”

I’ve blogged a lot about SWAT Team abuses over the years, and so has M. Simon. Because of my opposition to the Drug War, a lot of what I have said has been in that context. While I have often argued that SWAT Teams should not be used for routine law enforcement, a post I saw today focuses on the inherent immorality of the situation.

In America, a man’s home is his castle.  Thus, the castle doctrine has passed into law (in various forms) in many states, and will enjoy continued success in the courts and legislatures of the states.  Rightly so.  The fact that the inhabitant of a home is a suspect in a crime doesn’t (or shouldn’t) mitigate the fact that he has a right to self defense, and defense of his loved ones.  And home invasion by criminals pretending to be police officers is becoming commonplace.

As to this last issue, by use of military tactics on American citizens, the police have bypassed legitimate constitutional protections and right to a trial by jury by placing the suspect in a position where he or his family may be in danger no matter whether he surrenders or not (a criminal will simply take his life with no remorse, while a police officer may do it with no accountability).  Moreover, SWAT tactics are routinely used on suspects who have no involvement with capital crimes.  Yet by the use of military tactics on these suspects, the police may be perpetrating capital punishment on criminals (or suspects) who do not deserve it.  The police have become judge, jury and executioner in this circumstance without regard to the nature of the crime.

While military tactics used against U.S. citizens may in fact currently be legal, such tactics are immoral in the vast majority of circumstances.  This isn’t meant to rule out the occasional use of such tactics when hostages are in play, or gun shots have already been taken, or other such exigent conditions.  But I have cataloged the evolution of tactics and danger level in SWAT raids and home invasions for a while now (and will continue to do so), and the police departments in the various cities and counties of the country – while they may be legally exonerated of wrongdoing – have some soul-searching to do.  It will be done now or in eternity, but it will be done.

Very well said.

SWAT Teams put the state in the business of executing citizens without trial, without a hearing of any kind, even when they are not suspects, have not been accused of any crime, and when not so much as a warrant has been issued against them. In the facts underlying the above post, the victim — yes, he is a victim, whether his killers are ever charged — was a 68 year old man who had been accused of absolutely nothing. He was not a target of the raid, but that did not save him:

“The key consideration here is that Officer Duncan removed his weapon from safe moments after entering 26 Fountain St.” early on Jan. 5, Ijames wrote.

Authorities say Duncan shot and killed Stamps, a 68-year-old grandfather, when he lost his balance and accidentally pulled the trigger.

Stamps, who wasn’t a target of the raid, was face-down in a dark hallway, and Duncan was moving to secure the man’s hands behind his back when the shot was fired.

Ijames wrote, “The mechanical safety is what stands between good intentions and a potentially deadly outcome – but it can only do so when engaged.”

Police Chief Steven Carl sought an outside review of the tactical and technical aspects of the Stamps shooting from Ijames, a SWAT expert and retired assistant police chief from Missouri.

The town’s lawyer released Ijames’ report yesterday, as well as Hill’s internal report.

Ijames determined that Duncan and the other SWAT team members were well-trained, and that it was appropriate to use the heavily armed team to search 26 Fountain St.

In other words, they can simply break in and shoot anyone they want. And if you don’t like it, tough shit!

There are a couple of “isms” used to describe governments that work that way. One begins with a C and the other with an F.

This is the United States, and we have a Constitution that is supposed to prevent such outrages.

According to a much more detailed report, cop who fired the fatal shot seems to have been genuinely confused. After shooting the guy, he says he mentally asked Jesus whether it was his rifle.

FRAMINGHAM —”Jesus, was that my rifle?” was among Framingham SWAT team Officer Paul Duncan’s first thoughts after he shot and killed an elderly man who was lying face-down in the hallway of his Fountain Street house.