Response for Sept. 14th
From Rise of the Warrior Cop:
“They were then told to remain still as officers pointed guns at their heads. Eleven-year-old Alberto was doing just that-lying still under the gun of Officer David Hawn. But shortly after the raid began, Hawn’s gun went off. The boy died instantly. There were no drugs or guns in the Sepulveda home….The city of Modesto and the federal government settled a lawsuit brought by the Sepulvedas for the death of their son for $3 million” (248).
Throughout the assigned readings, it is clear that the ‘War on Drugs’ and the Post-9/11 fears enabled a culture, supported by the state and federal governments, of illegal and dangerous raids. One of the most disturbing instances of the abuse of power by police occurred in September 2000 in Modesto, California. After nineteen months of investigation, DEA and FBI agents, along with a local narcotics force, raided fourteen homes, including that of Moises Sepulveda. The officials raiding the homes were unaware of the presence of any children. Shockingly, Moises’s wife and three children were forced to the ground at gunpoint where, soon after, their son Alberto was ‘accidentally’ killed by an experienced officer. In response to this murder, California had enacted a “...blue ribbon commission to review the procedures, guidelines, and performance of the state’s hundred of SWAT teams” (248) and paid the family for their suffering. The commission produced lackluster change and blamed their lack of funding and poor training for the string of deadly raids. In terms of the payout for the family, I think it was a complete slap in their faces. Not only was the family wrongfully stormed and forced to the ground via gunpoint in their own home, but they had to witness their child be ripped away from them for forever. There is no amount of money that can heal those wounds. I believe this instance, along with many abuses of power in the Radley Balko text, sheds light on the hysteria the state and federal governments created in an attempt to combat the War on Drugs, thus fueling the instability in the county. In addition, this proves substantial in the argument to further investigate the funding of these operations.
The beginning of the militarization of America’s police force was the war on drugs in the 1980s. In Militarizing Mayberry (614-17), Kraska and Cubellis provide charts that show a substantial growth in the number of police departments that have a police paramilitary unit (PPU), and the dramatic increase in activity of those PPUs. These units often employ military tactics and weapons, a part of their arsenal mentioned is CS gas. It struck me as odd because CS gas is banned for use in warfare, but it does not matter to the federal government if it is used within the United States on its citizens.
ReplyDeleteThe stories of the Texas towns raided by SWAT teams in Rise Of The Warrior Cop show that the police choose to enforce these drug laws primarily on poorer, African-American neighborhoods because the departments get funding for each arrest that they make so they choose to target minorities because they think they don’t have a voice to defend themselves.
From Rise Of The Warrior Cop:
By 4:00AM, forty black people—10 percent of Tulia’s black population—and six whites were in handcuffs. (245)
“But as the lone dissenter, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, explained, decisions like these can become a how-to guide for cops to undermine the Fourth Amendment. ‘The Court today arms the police with a wry routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant’” (Balko 263).
ReplyDeleteThe Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In Ginsberg’s dissent, she criticizes the abuses of the Fourth Amendment by the normalization of a militarized police. As refenced in Balko’s piece, the police of America are becoming ever-more militarized, causing dangerous situations to peoples’ lives, concerns, and liberty. The militarization of the police, through an influx of SWAT teams, assault rifles, armored vehicles, and military equipment, is one response to the ongoing “drug war” in America. Through propaganda, people normalize this militarization as an adequate response to “drug kingpins” and “scum,” which has even breached the Supreme Court of the United States. Ginsberg dissent is toward the ruling of Kentucky v. King (2011), which removed the need of a warrant if there is an exigent circumstance, even created by the police. This decision, along with others like Hudson v. Michigan (2006), which removed to the knock-and-announce requirement of police and diminished the Exclusionary Rule, stating that illegal evidence confiscated from a no-knock entry could still be used in court, violates the Fourth Amendment’s protections to people’s due process. By normalizing the militarization of the police, people’s liberties are being sacrificed. The Military-Industrial Complex, which helps to normalize and arm the police through deals between the government does not only protect its citizens, but creates a situation in which their liberty is being sacrificed. There is a fine line between security and freedom, and if we give up too much freedom to a militarized security, Eisenhower’s warning of a “garrison state” will become a reality.
“They save police lives. And I can’t help but think that people who are trying to stop this just don’t think police officer’s lives are worth saving” -Jim Massery on individuals trying to prevent the purchasing of military vehicles for SWAT teams in local police forces. (p 255 Balko).
ReplyDeleteThis is charged rhetoric and I begin by saying I have understanding that this is not the quote of an actual police officer, but someone trying to sell a product. However, this does not change the fact that this has become a narrative within American society. This is similar to the notion of the “We/They” attitude discussed/mentioned in both handouts. The police force is supposed to protect citizens, not see them as an enemy. It is unfair to claim that people advocate against militarization because they don’t care for police officers when they are really advocating for their own safety and lives. The Balko handout mentions numerous situations of innocent people (including children, veterans, and the elderly) being “held at gunpoint” after having their homes barged into by men in full body armor. These individuals were often bystanders or seldom guilty of whatever crime they were being accused of. Often they were seriously injured/traumatized at the hands of an overpowered police force. PPU members claim they are so effective is because they have “the freedom to handle situations and problems as we see best” (Krasko p. 619). This in itself is ambiguous, problematic, and unconstitutional. The packet mentions how such teams raid homes first, check facts later. The situations of taking unreliable intel, searching and seizing without a warrant, entering the wrong home entirely, and taking such violent measures for nonviolent, trumped up drug charges proves that allowing America’s police force to adopt militarized tactics is unethical and detrimental. What can also not be ignored are the statistics of Black Americans being targeted through this militarized police force. This has become a systematic way of subjugating minorities in America while protecting those who commit heinous acts against them. Yes, police officer’s lives matter, but so do Black lives. The militarization of police forces neglects to consider that police should be protecting and serving their citizens, not violating their constitutional rights, criminalizing them for their class or skin color, and acting in their own self interests.
The militarization of our police state not only exemplifies the unhealthy culture of violence within our police force, but it also shows how easily the government is able use the poor population for its own gains. One of the main driving factors in the militarization of our police force is money: from outside companies contracted to make weapons for America’s policemen to local police stations arresting more people to get more money, the militarization of our police force is a lucrative business. And who pays for all the money that is being funneled into local governments and big business? The poor of course! Just like many other enterprises that the government undertakes to make more money, such as sending soldiers off to war, the lower and middle class will always be the government’s raw resources to get this done. The government often views its citizens as collateral, and as long as they are making money it seems to not matter that their citizens are both being stripped of their rights and being unlawfully murdered by police forces. From Alberta Spruill to Alberto Sepulveda to an apparent complete disregard for the fourth amendment to the Constitution, the United States government does its best to ignore anything that challenges their militarization. Rise of the Warrior Cop by Radley Balko states “The 1990s trend of government officials using paramilitary tactics and heavy-handed force to make political statements or to make an example of certain classes of nonviolent offenders would continue.” Throughout its history, the United States has done little to actually protect the individual rights of many of its citizens, and the least wealthy among them have always been the most subjugated; from slaves, Native Americans, and women to the current poor who are most likely to be raided for drugs or gambling, the United States will always put money above the safety of its citizens.
ReplyDelete