Losing the 4th
As a quick refresher:
Amendment IV
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.
I spend a fair amount of time researching and following articles about no-knock cases gone wrong and numerous violations of the fourth amendment. Via Kim DuToit I found this link to an article over at The Munchkin Wrangler that is spot-on when it comes to the militarization of our police and how this has led to blatant violations of the fourth. This is a nationally growing problem that needs to be addressed by the citizenry before it gets further out of control.
Money quote:
“When you dress like a soldier, carry the same equipment as a soldier, talk like a soldier, train like a soldier (and in many cases, alongside a soldier), and you're told that you're fighting a war, then sooner or later you'll feel like a soldier, and then you'll start acting like one.
The problem with that is that the mission of the soldier and that of the cop are fundamentally incompatible. The soldier is there to kill the enemy and break his stuff. The cop is there to impartially enforce the law with the least amount of force necessary for the job.”
If you have the time, read it in entirety as well as the comments below. There’s some very good analysis within.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Losing the 4th.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.wallsofthecity.net/mt-tb.cgi/1315
4 Comments
Leave a comment
advertisements
u.m.p.c. blogroll
cafepress
There is a reason the military should never be used for police action, and for the same reason, the police should never have started training themselve using military methods.
They are there to keep the peace, protect the populace, and enforce the laws. They are not there to exercise "supressive fire", blast down doors on a suspicion, and generally perform actions that start to convince the populace they are supposed to be protecting that they are the enemy.
Do not even get me started on the "War on Drugs", though...
Good point, but may I just introduce the Second Amendment? This is, in reality, for which the 2nd Amendment was intended. It was AGAINST the government, not to give the government the right to build an Army. ;)
That is a very valid observation, Rosemary, but... that is also a very touchy subject, and a very fine line. The Second Amendment was, indeed, put in place to keep the government in check, but once pro-rights individuals start going down that line... well, there is no turning back. And doing it by yourself, well, that is just a sure-fire way to turn into a martyr. Granted, sometimes, rights are more important than life, but... well, people just have to choose their fights.
I cannot say as though I am sure what I would do, but if someone comes bursting through my door with hadware that third-world armies would envy... I dunno. Even moreso now that some group of criminals has been knocking on and knocking down doors in NYC dressed up as - oddly enough - NYPD.
"Even moreso now that some group of criminals has been knocking on and knocking down doors in NYC dressed up as - oddly enough - NYPD."
This is why no-knock as a policy is such an affront to liberty. As an example, in a case where law enforcement has raided the wrong address (which happens all too often), they are not only putting the innocent homeowner at risk of death, but also open to potential prosecution for defending him/herself. All this with seemingly no accountability for the mistake, and no recourse for the victim.