I hate to change the subject but......
Regarding the original post on this thread, it seems that it's really an issue of accountability. Irrespective on my opinions vis-s-vis police departments and the people who staff them, I find it interesting that members of professions that tend to lionize their disciplines seem to get real salamanderly when its suggested that they be held responsible for their job performance.
Despite all the money, all the new tools and data being generated constantly, all of the "talent" working these professions, the answer to "why did it get %$#&'d up?" is a finger pointed at someone else.
What I mean is this. An old lady's home was invaded with overwhelming deadly force by a team of supposed professionals, highly trained to deal with all manner of potential threats. The authority was granted at the request of another supposedly highly trained (presumably college educated) professional. By a presumably even more highly trained and educated professional. These are not volunteers, they get paid well and enjoy for the most part an enviable degree of security and support from their employers.
As justification they relied on hearsay testimony by an un-vetted non-professional.
Speeding tickets require a higher standard of evidence.
So, since this is not an isolated occurrence, and we're not even talking about the deeper issue of how regularly lesser infractions occur, the dialog turns to whether or not it's EVER or NEVER o.k. to execute no-knocks.
Seems to me it's about accountability. As in "you screwed up, you need to pay the price", not "let's find someone to blame". If an individual chooses to assume a sacred responsibility then that same individual must be judged to that standard. I don't like the idea of guys that have the arsenals our "peace officers" posses using the "everybody makes mistakes" defense when someone's life and property are on the line. It doesn't work for a kid at the 7-11, it shouldn't work for a circuit judge. Or anybody in between.
Old lady or not, a pre-dawn un-anounced entry, supported by body armor, nice guns, God knows what else and three officers go down along with the death of the "suspect"? I say fire em all and charge them with a murder conspiracy. That's what would happen if a few of us decided we had good reason to grab some guns, kick down some innocent citizen's door and someone got killed.
I say fire and prosecute the field officers, let the courts sort it out.(without the union's or city's legal team getting involved.) At the very least they should be discharged for poor performance if not for manslaughter.
D/A and Judge, same. Furthermore they should be stripped of any professional credentials they hold in that state. They shouldn't be anywhere near the legal community.
I'm not sure if I have ever heard any member of the LE community express the degree of outrage heard from all other quarters without. All you see are excuses and rationalizations. No defense of individual responsibility. and certainly no substantive opinions about the remedy.
If one aspires to bear the authority to sit in judgment of their fellow citizens, then one must assume both a consummate degree of responsibility, and an ordinate degree of accountability.
As far as the relevance of SW.A.T. or any other specialized unit within the P.D.'s I think we were better off without them. I say get them all in uniform and on the street. That way we'll have a better idea of when their not doing their jobs. Or if we need them we can find them, they won't be off somewhere suiting up to ice granny.
