SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the dividends-of-cooperating-with-cops dept.
TechDirt reports:
Previously, [TechDirt reported how] police officers pretty much razed a residence to the ground searching for a shoplifting suspect.
In another case, law enforcement spent nineteen hours engaged in a tense standoff with an empty residence before deciding to send in a battering ram.
Now, they're reporting another "standoff" with a lawsuit [PDF] following.
On August 11, 2014, after registering her child for first grade, Ms. West returned to her home to find multiple City of Caldwell police officers in her yard searching for a Fabian Salinas. Wanting to cooperate, and uncertain whether Salinas was in her house, Ms. West gave the police a key to her house and gave them permission to use it to enter her house to arrest him. During a ten hour long standoff, police repeatedly exceeded the authority Ms. West had given them, breaking windows, crashing through ceilings, and riddling the home with holes from shooting canisters of tear gas destroying most of Ms. West and her children's personal belongings. The only occupant of the house was Ms. West's dog. Ms. West's home remained uninhabitable for two months.
[...] So, when given a key and consent from the occupant, officers instead chose to grab an armored vehicle and go through several windows and the attic.
[...] This happened back in 2014 but there's been no coverage of the Caldwell cops' 10-hour, one-dog standoff until now. Thomas Johnson of Fault Lines suggests that might have something to do with the local paper of record.
If you're wondering why it took a couple of years for this event to make news outside of Idaho, it's because the local paper apparently only checks court records or their exclusive police source, resulting in some very incomplete reporting. Why bother getting out there and talking to the homeowner or neighbors when you can sit on your chunk?
[...] From all appearances, the suspect was never in the home during the 10-hour standoff.
[...] The police did give her a three-week stay in a hotel. Too bad it took more than two months for her to be able to return to her residence. This raid on a house containing nothing more than a dog is the natural side effect of police militarization, which encourages law enforcement to escalate in questionable situations, rather than use more measured tactics to ensure occupants aren't deprived of a place to live simply because a suspect might be hiding somewhere behind closed doors.
Previously: 19-Hour "Standoff" Ends With Cops Destroying an Empty House
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @07:11PM
It has become all too common for the police to refer to citizens as civilians. This is a byproduct of the militarization of the police and is very telling regarding their mentality towards the public at large. This is a dangerous situation and is continuing to escalate.
I realize that the police now are tasked with many responsibilities that they didn't have before and shouldn't have now. The police are not trained for "empathy and understanding" and should not be handling mental health or social work situations. The skill set necessary for those jobs are in stark contrast with the skill set for dealing with actual crime.
One more thing - the budgets for the police are woefully inadequate for the jobs they are now expected to do. By making arrests, property seizures, fines, etc all revenue streams for the police we have created a monster. Their budgets should meet their needs completely and they should never have to rely on their actions when enforcing the law in order to cover their expenses.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @07:42PM
Not to mention part of their budgets include giving out tickets and issuing fines.
For instance in California there are laws to discourage people from smoking in or near buildings. Yet local cops generally don't enforce it because they don't get a cut out of the fines because the state refuses to give them a commission. So it would have to be a state official that enforces these laws and how often do they come by. Consequently, from what I hear, if you enter any bar or similar establishment around here you are pretty sure to find that there are people smoking inside. The police won't do anything even though it's against the law and the establishment doesn't care because they won't get punished. The police pretty much refuse to enforce a state law at their own expense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @10:00PM
in California there are laws to discourage people from smoking in or near buildings
Inside, certainly.
...and there are exemptions e.g. private clubs.
Note: You may find some places that calls themselves private clubs and have a minimal barrier to "membership".
"Near" is too general.
The law specifies 20 feet from a portal or ventilation intake.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Sunday August 21 2016, @09:10AM
Consequently, from what I hear, if you enter any bar or similar establishment around here you are pretty sure to find that there are people smoking inside.
I''ve spent my life in the Bay Area (mostly North & East), and I haven't seen anyone smoking in a restaurant or bar since the law was passed way the fuck back in the early-mid 1990s, but I *have* seen police, security & employees enforcing it around doorways. Our statewide smoking rate is 11.x% of adults and the area immediately north of me has the 3rd highest rate, so I can't imagine it's all that different in the rest of the state.
A few web searches didn't reveal articles on the topic (at least, not for California) since 1998, so I looked up our current smoking laws [ca.gov]. They state that local police handle enforcement and can/do fine establishments:
…any violation of the smoking rules is an infraction punishable by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a first violation, by a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for a second violation within one year, or by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) for a third and for each subsequent violation within one year.
While the police often don't bother to prosecute, if the company gets 3 complaints in a year, at that point Cal/OSHA is required to perform inspection (a big enough hassle to be a deterrent in itself, from what my father has said) and can/will levy thousands of dollars in fines if they think the place is violating the ban.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:08PM
Thanks. Maybe I was misinformed.
Then again, as I look around online, I see that there is at least one person smoking in this picture
https://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/the-greatest-hawthorne?select=h3NpEZjgrQ8j05aMUm8eNQ [yelp.com]
The Yelp reviews seem to indicate that smoking is allowed inside. I know someone that went there that doesn't generally go there so it's not like they have a membership if one is required. I'm sure one is not required. This person that went there is the person that told me that these types of establishments informally allow smoking inside although they legally shouldn't.
I'm sure I can find more examples if I dug.
I'm sure if I dug I can find many more examples.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tibman on Saturday August 20 2016, @07:46PM
People like to call things like this a result of militarization. Except in the military (US Army) this is not how we would clear that house. You walk into the house and clear it. Wouldn't take more than five minutes. Nothing would be destroyed either. The police that destroyed this ladies house are extreme cowards. So i don't think militarizing is the right word to use. Unless you completely exclude military training and culture. Which i find to be more important than the equipment used.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Saturday August 20 2016, @10:21PM
Ok. Next time they think there's a armed guy with a shotgun inside are you volunteering to "walk right in and clear it"? I encourage you to do so. But safety conscious people might choose an approach that is less likely to get them shot. You will of course say there wasn't anyone in the house--and that was true...but do you have xray vision?
We're in a world where islamic terrorists are gunning down 50 at a time in Orlando. It's not a big stretch to worry about someone armed in a private home.
(Score: 2) by Jesus_666 on Saturday August 20 2016, @11:36PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @02:02AM
Who are we in the USA to argue [google.com] with success [google.com]?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @05:45AM
http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131 [theonion.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by LoRdTAW on Sunday August 21 2016, @12:50AM
My friend did this is Iraq. Door to door clearing houses after someone shoots out of a window. Pretty common thing and the gun is usually an AK47 or similar. They know there is a well armed person willing to die for god in one of those homes yet they still kick the door down and sweep the premises.
The difference is in the training and environment. Cops wont go to those lengths because they arent trained to do so.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Sunday August 21 2016, @11:37AM
Pretty sure in a war sometimes they just level the building, too. Tanks, and all that.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Sunday August 21 2016, @04:30PM
In a push, yes. I heave heard of that. But after the dust settles they still do security.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Noldir on Sunday August 21 2016, @12:18PM
That was his point, it's what military training gives you. And I know at least over here police training as well. Its part of your job, don't like it? Get a safer job. Its like firefighters not wanting to go near a burning building.
No, I wouldn't approach a house with a possible armed mad man. I don't have the training or gear. But police do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:38PM
stfu, you stupid bastard.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Sunday August 21 2016, @09:01PM
I can't clear houses like that anymore. Just a normal civilian like you now. But in Iraq i cleared thirty or so houses/buildings. There is a two star signature on my CAB. So yes, you just walk right in. Safety conscious people should probably go find a safer job. If you are doing your job incorrectly in order to be safe then you are literally not doing your job. It takes some courage to walk through that fatal funnel. I am glad that i don't need to do it anymore.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Monday August 22 2016, @12:26PM
So given intel that there's an armed, barricaded subject inside... you waltz right in? 2 stars is 10 years correct? Thank you for your service. I'm surprised it was not more like 300 buildings, to be honest.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Monday August 22 2016, @02:08PM
We check windows where possible but yeah, just go in. Most intel is crap. People planning missions from satellite/map. If you aren't sure then knock first and say hello, lol. The best intel is the finger. Someone rides along who knows exactly which house and points their finger. The two stars thing is in reference to the two star general who signed my combat action badge. I'm certain some people have searched a lot of buildings. But only around 30 for me. My primary mission was training locals. Taught the southerners how to fight. Now they walk around with cargopants, camelbaks, body armor, radios, and sweet sunglasses.. just like us.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @11:13PM
Bingo. The cops are acquiring all the military hardware but are receiving none of the training. Instead, they're relying on Hollywood for the latter. It's a lot cheaper than proper military training and everyone knows that movies and TV paint an accurate picture of how police should behave. /s
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @07:18AM
> Instead, they're relying on Hollywood
And Israel apparently...
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday August 20 2016, @08:55PM
There is little choice but to handle mental health issues when someone is having a crisis that could end in violence.
In some cases at least it's not that the budget is inadequate, it's just that it gets blown on armored vehicles and other paramilitary gear instead of less exciting but more useful gear..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @09:46PM
Actually, the federal 1033 program gives away those surplus weapons of war GRATIS.
All the cops have do is apply for them and go pick them up when the paperwork has cleared.
...and it's clear to me that the biggest lack of expenditure on cops is repeated training on how to DE-ESCALATE situations.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday August 21 2016, @01:41AM
They get the armored cars on long term loan but they have to maintain them and that's expensive. It's a bit like the white elephant of old except the cops aren't smart enough or egoless enough to realize they're being screwed.
Then there's the stingrays, the helicopters they only use to look for pot, drones they don't know how to fly, flash-bangs, etc. etc.
Agreed, they should be spending that on proper training to de-escalate instead.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Saturday August 20 2016, @10:51PM
I also have been worried, amused, and disgusted with the use of 'civilians' to refer to citizens, but classify themselves as separate. This kind of 'us vs. them' mentality always leads to the escalation of violence. The militarization just accelerates the process, and the whole 'war on X' is just icing on the cake.
Create a gov't. against the people scenario(real, or perceived), and when the people feel backed into a corner, finally, they will fight back. *see: Arab Spring*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @03:50AM
Are you some kind of idiot?
Police in civilised countries are most definitely trained for empathy and understanding. If most Americans think like you,we have nailed the source of the problem right here.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Sunday August 21 2016, @09:40AM
More like "unindicted criminals living in the community"