EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
This Is What A Police State Looks Like
The late Chalmers Johnson often reminded us that “A nation can be one or the other, a democracy or an imperialist, but it can’t be both. If it sticks to imperialism, it will, like the old Roman Republic, on which so much of our system was modeled, lose its democracy to a domestic dictatorship.” His warning rings more true by the day, as Americans watch the erosion of their civil liberties accelerate in conjunction with the expansion of the US Empire.
When viewed through the lens of Johnson’s profound insights, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Kentucky v. King makes perfect sense. On May 13, in a lopsided 8-1 ruling, the Court upheld the warrantless search of a Kentucky man’s apartment after police smelled marijuana and feared those inside were destroying evidence, essentially granting police officers increased power to enter the homes of citizens without a warrant.
Under the Fourth Amendment, police are barred from entering a home without first obtaining a warrant, which can only be issued by a judge upon probable cause. The only exception is when the circumstances qualify as “exigent,” meaning there is imminent risk of death or serious injury, danger that evidence will be immediately destroyed, or that a suspect will escape. However, exigent circumstances cannot be created by the police.
In this case, the police followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex and after losing track of him, smelled marijuana coming from one of the apartments. After banging on the door and announcing themselves, the police heard noises that they interpreted as the destruction of evidence. Rather than first obtaining a warrant, they kicked down the door and arrested the man inside, who was caught flushing marijuana down the toilet.
The Kentucky Supreme Court had overturned the man’s conviction and ruled that exigent circumstances did not apply because the behavior of the police is what prompted the destruction of evidence. Tragically, an overwhelming majority of the Supreme Court upheld the Conviction. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that citizens are not required to grant police officers permission to enter their homes after hearing a knock, but if there is no response and the officers hear noise that suggests evidence is being destroyed, they are justified in breaking in.
In her lone and scathing dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with the Kentucky Supreme Court, arguing that the Supreme Court’s ruling “arms the police with a way 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, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.” She went on to stress that “there was little risk that drug-related evidence would have been destroyed had the police delayed the search pending a magistrate’s authorization.”
Not only did the police instigate the destruction of evidence by banging at the door and shouting “Police, police,” but they could have easily obtained a warrant since they likely had probable cause. There is no reason to believe that delaying the search to obtain a warrant, as legally required, would have led to the destruction of evidence. This was pure laziness and contempt for the constitution on part of the officers.
An argument could be made that entering without a warrant saves money, time, and resources, especially if it’s obvious that a crime is being committed. However, the protection of our rights is worth the money, time, and resources. Living in a free society requires that we make these sacrifices, even at the peril of our safety if need be. In fact, I would argue that the wasting of money, time, and resources is the fault of a deeply flawed drug policy, not the protection of those pesky civil liberties always getting in the way of law enforcement.
As for the implications of such a ruling, arming the police with more power will have serious consequences for an already institutionally biased criminal justice system in regards to the “war on drugs.” Jordan C. Budd notes the existence of a “poverty exception” to the Constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment, a bias that renders much of the Constitution irrelevant at best, and hostile at worst, to the American poor. While attacks on the Fourth Amendment negatively affect all members of society, minorities and the poor, generally the targets of the drug war, are more vulnerable to the abuse of power that follows.
Chief Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit recently decried this “unselfconscious cultural elitism” in a case upholding the ability of police to clandestinely attach a GPS tracking device to the underside of a car parked in the driveway of a modest home:
Poor people are entitled to privacy, even if they can’t afford all the gadgets of the wealthy for ensuring it. . . . When you glide your BMW into your underground garage or behind an electric gate, you don’t need to worry that somebody might attach a tracking device to it while you sleep. But the Constitution doesn’t prefer the rich over the poor; the man who parks his car next to his trailer is entitled to the same privacy and peace of mind as the man whose urban fortress is guarded by the Bel Air Patrol. . . .We are taking a giant leap into the unknown, and the consequences for ourselves and our children may be dire and irreversible. Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we’re living in Oceania.
The same holds true in the context of warrantless door-busting. In the Kentucky case the police smelled marijuana in the hall of the apartment complex that the initial suspect they were tracking had taken refuge in. An apartment hall is a common space shared by many people, who could be emitting various odors from inside their homes, such as cooked onions or fresh paint. Had this been a single-family home in the suburbs, there is no way the smell of pot would have been detected from the doorway of the house across the street.
Scott Lemieux made this point well when he wrote:
As with the broader drug war, civil-liberties violations have a disparate impact in terms of race and class. It is generally not wealthy white suburbanites who have to worry about being stopped and frisked on the streets or having their doors broken down. Like the grotesquely harsh sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine possession, this erosion of Fourth Amendment rights has persisted because wealthy people are largely insulated from its effects.
The failure of society at large to secure the rights of all segments of the population, has resulted in what can only be described as a nail in the coffin of our right to privacy, at least for those who can afford it.
In her dissent, Ginsburg went on to ask, “How ‘secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?” While I agree with Ginsberg’s premise, I would go further in arguing that the war on drugs has created a dangerous precedent where even when a search warrant is obtained, we are far from secure in our homes.
For example, about a week prior to the Kentucky ruling, police authorities in Pima County, Arizona, fired 71 shots in seven seconds at 26 year old Jose Guerena, a former Marine who served two tours in Iraq. Guerena was murdered in the middle of the night while his terrified wife and 4-year old son hid in the closet. The SWAT team that killed him was there to serve a narcotics search warrant as part of a multi-house drug crackdown. As Guerena lay dying with his wife pleading for help, the SWAT team barred paramedics from entering the home.
Guerena’s wife asserts that her husband grabbed his gun because he thought his family was the victim of a home invasion, not a police raid. This is understandable given the family’s location in Arizona, a state where anti-immigrant militants are notorious for the cold-blooded murder of hispanic families. Deputies initially justified their actions by claiming that Guerena fired at officers but later said he kept the gun safety on and never pulled the trigger.
As it turns out, Guerena’s murder is just the most recent in a long line of botched paramilitary operations. According to an investigation carried out by the CATO Institute, America has seen a disturbing militarization of its civilian law enforcement over the last 25 years, along with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of paramilitary police units for routine police work. In fact, the most common use of SWAT teams today is to serve narcotics warrants, usually with forced, unannounced entry into the home.
The CATO study found that some 40,000 of these raids take place every year, and are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers.
These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.
Those who suggest that the Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Kentucky is ‘no big deal’ or that it’s ‘alarmist’ to think otherwise, must not understand the extent to which the boundaries are pushed when the Court makes exceptions to our rights. Nor do they comprehend that once lost, civil liberties are impossible to reclaim. With SWAT teams already injuring and at times killing the wrong people to serve warrants, just imagine the abuse to come given the increased power the Court has bestowed upon the state.
Considering the level of brutality we have been dishing out around the world, from the “war on drugs” to the “war on terror,” the erosion of our civil liberties is sadly inevitable. Did we really think that we could wage war and occupy other nations with checkpoints, invasive surveillance, and brutal violence without these same policing tactics spreading to our country?
After sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers abroad to terrorize people in their homes around the world, we shouldn’t be surprised that our government would eventually employ the same actions against its own citizens. Just as Chalmers Johnson predicted, our imperialism abroad is destroying what is left of our democracy at home. From warrantless wiretapping to warrantless door-busting, this is what a police state looks like.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
108 Comments so far
Show AllThe Indiana Supreme Court just came down with a decision that mimics the Kentucky one. It gives the police a blank check. It seems that the word "exigent" has been removed from the legal lexicon.
Since 2008 when the US Army's Northcom battle group became dedicated to "quelling domestic disturbances", the US has been a military/police state.
When deployed, Northcomm will make your local SWAT Team look like a cub scout troop.
Rania Khalek's closing paragraph about Amerika "...sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers abroad to terrorize people in their homes around the world..." is the dress rehearsal that has become increasingly commonplace in the land of the free (sic).
Look for more government crackdowns and authoritarian SCOTUS rulings as the corporate powers that run the empire begin in earnest to employ the austerity programs that more rapidly continue the shift of wealth from the workers to the plutocracy.
everyone should read chalmers johnsons' trilogy - the sorrows of empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson#The_Blowback_series
as for the drug war in mexico - another amerikan psyop aimed at producing and selling more drugs in order for wall street bankers to earn fees laundering the billions of dollars of drug profits - read this by james petras
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24856
wachovia has admitted it laundered at least 385 billion drug dollars - they are now owned by wells fargo i believe- and no one went to jail
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-29/banks-financing-mexico-s-drug-cartels-admitted-in-wells-fargo-s-u-s-deal.html
all amerika has left is the military - death and murder and theft all funded by drug money and this has been the case for 60 years
but as the author points out, if your poor and worse black don't smoke a joint in your apartment because the ss gestapo will pop a cap in you ass
another police state twist comes from the police now stealing money from motorists they pull over on interstates - without even charging you with a crime
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTeH9D_tN-k
these cops are paid from confiscated money so they need no reason and there have been cases of cops from different counties almost shooting each other on the side of the road over which jurisdiction can steal the money
throw in the crotch pat downs at the airport and we begin to get a picture of one fucked up and lawless country
couldn't see that one coming............
chalmers johnson did though
Busting into a private home (apt.) for a marijuana odor?! Good grief. I mean, there is no suggestion that the suspect(s) were growing it or even selling it, just possessing some grass. And if the 'drugs' were being disposed of, surely this is what the PTB/WoD types supposedly want anyway. Oh, my bad, it's always a mistake to apply rational thinking to a fascist, ultra-rightwing, authoritarian paradigm, one in which we apparently now live.
What would have happened if the man had continued smoking the pot, or if he had flushed it down the toilet? What harm would have come to society? Nothing would have happened, and no harm would have been done. He would have gotten away with breaking a law -- a ridiculous law to begin with -- but no one would ever have even known the difference. As it is a great deal of harm has been done, to him and to the society.
Great. Now crapping at home is a suspicious activity. Pray you're not on the pot when they come knocking.
Police state tactics by the fascist amerikan empire will hasten the rebelion by the people ! From Egypt and Tunisia to amerika, the winds of change will drive the People to rise up against the oppressors !
I sure as hell hope so.....
If anyone, especially the police, crash through your door without a warrant, you have the right under the fourth amendment to shoot them dead. Good luck with that.
And if by chance I had a loaded gun on hand, that is exactly what would happen.
You would probably get killed, since they would have the element of surprise on their side and there would be more than one. Bursting in to someone's home suddenly and without a warrant is rarely necessary. I guess people learned to enjoy it in Iraq and Afghanistan and want to continue the thrill.
I would defend your right to try and protect your home with a gun, but I think it is a very risky choice most of the time.
Suicide by cop over a joint is not a rational choice.
Pssst- I don't own a gun. I believe that the entire thread is an "If..." Have a rational day.
Good, empty blather is less of a problem than an armed moron.
I'm sure you'd know.
An excellent article that ties this ruling to the larger overall trend of the growing police state and the gradual destruction of our Constitutional liberties. And remember: the freedoms granted in the Constitution are not given to us by that document, but proclaimed to be "inalienable rights" that we possess regardless of whether the police state approves of them or not. This is indeed yet another step towards fascism for America - which, unfortunately, is going to be the inevitable government that will exist in the U.S. in the near future (and it could be argued already exists), not in its pseudo-form as it exists today, but blatantly and officially, although of course our leaders will still call us a "democracy."
If you have the means, I highly suggest you get the hell out of this shitty country while you are still able to. I know I'm saving up.
Amen....listen to DemonStorm.....NZ (where I am), Aussie, and even the UK are much much much better. America is done.....until you fix a lot of stuff you'll be 10 years behind these countries socially. And on that note, being AfricanAmerican it is sooo nice to not be afraid of the police. I've had the Orlando police force themselves past my roommate because they were looking for a black peeping tom in a white neighborhood. Didn't matter that I owned the property for 3 years nor that I would have to be an idiot to peep tom across the street from said property. Instead of investigating, warning local women, or asking ANY questions......10 WHITE COPS show up at my door at 4am....They're investigation involved using a computer for the "local n***er search" and voila....there's one across the street so they drag me out in cuffs and if I didn't stay calm or warn them of my 4th amendment I would have been charged and never ever been able to get a visa to any of the countries I mentioned.....luckily, I kept my cool and they realized they were wrong. You can keep Amerikkka and all the racist, ignorant, close minded ass people in it. If you are smart, get out now because a lot of middle class people are about to experience what it was like to be black....by being poor. It's happening now with the union busting and politics crushing the middle class. The black and brown community are saying to ourselves, "....oh really, the system isn't fair, really? We didn't know..."
" Deputies initially justified their actions by claiming that Guerena fired at officers but later said he kept the gun safety on and never pulled the trigger."
Remind anyone else of the firefight that never happened in Pakistan?
"In her lone and scathing dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with the Kentucky Supreme Court, arguing that the Supreme Court’s ruling “arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases."
At least we have one member of the Supreme Court that actually values our constitution. Too bad she's not younger. God only knows who they will replace her with.
Excellent article that lays out the erosion, make that the destruction, of our civil liberties clearly and succinctly.
Yes, war does come home in more ways than one. We are reaping what we've sown abroad. These calamitous home invasions and murders of innocent people would not be happening domestically if we, as a nation, had not become inured to the international wars we have waged. We're numb and we've been naive and lazy. We had better wake up to and change what our government is doing internationally or we'll all be crying over our own lost liberties and feeling the pain of what we've inflicted on our victims abroad.
As an expatriate USer, living in Canada as a dual citizen; as an ex-marine who deserted his beloved country in shock and disbelief at what he learned was REALLY going on in Vietnam and in the states in 1970...... I wholeheartedly agree with janeeliz.
I would add however that "reaping what we've sown abroad" is justice long overdue. Not revenge, like the execution of unconvicted OBL, but justice.
We will have to "feel the pain of what we've inflicted on our victims abroad";
unfortunately, I believe this is the only way that we naive and lazy numbsters will be motivated to make REAL change (as opposed to "change we can believe in").
I'm not there (US) anymore, but I follow events in my former homeland with great sadness and anxiety (and ever growing anger). Your (our) losses are great, the erosion of civil and economic liberties profound, so many of you (us) don't even realize it.
I can only end by saying I wish you (us) the best of luck and I will continue to live in fear of that rogue state N. of the 49th parallel.
Another example of a police state:
- The routine arrests of those protesting in Washington DC or go back a few years, those penned up in "free speech zones" during the Democratic National Convention in Boston. In this country, mass protesting usually requires a "permit"; otherwise you can be arrested, unless you protest Osama's death in front of the White House then you get a free pass. I'm sure there are plenty of Middle Eastern countries that could justify violence on protestors because they don't have "permits" to protest. M$M does not report the hypocrisy when our government condemns foreign governments when clamping down on protesters while at the same time, arresting our own protestors. Remember, Ray McGovern's arrest for performing a silent protest when Hillary Clinton gave a speech on freedom to protest a while back?
Protesting the government shouldn't require a permit from the government.
All solid comments.
This well-written article brought to mind an old film, "The Great White Hope." If memory serves me well, the story focused on a promising Black boxer and his Caucasian lover. Their affair hit the news when Southern authorities busted into the home they shared. The basis for this break-in was that inter-racial sex was considered against the law.
Many in this forum probably know that sexual couplings that deviate from typical intercourse are still considered illegal (and on the books) in a number of states. Imagine if instead of the noise of "destroying evidence," some police authority recognized the sounds of sex and decided your partner was inappropriate, and decided to bust you?!
The drug war was ALWAYS about placing the imprimatur of FELON on those who would be most likely to vote in liberal or progressive ways. I will never forget being among the thousands of wild long-hairs burning effigies of Richard Nixon RIGHT ON the White House lawn as countless joints perfumed the air. The conservative power-figures knew they could never win the war of ideology against this vast group of free spirits. The only way to knee-cap their political muscle was to damage many through the inane War on Drugs. It was a pre-meditated political move to gain more control of the "chess" board.
A nation that pushes war, loves guns, alcohol, tobacco, road rage style driving, and porn is in NO position to tell persons not to smoke the proverbial peace pipe. Laws that make no sense deserve NOT to be honored. Yet apart from my comment about disenfranchising a specific portion of the population, let us not forget that within the authoritarian state, for all the chants of "freedom!," prison building and maintenance have become another HUGE source of revenue and "jobs" program.
We are more truly the land of the wounded, depressed, and incarcerated... but try selling those slogans to soldiers. Sounds better to convince them that they're instead fighting each bogus war to safeguard our alleged freedoms.
This young writer is very gifted, and I hope her career goes far!
First, this ruling demonstrates that, liberal or conservative, the bourgeoisie support the police state against the masses. Where were the other three "liberals" on the court?
The cops are brutes, but it's the bourgeoisie judiciary that has allowed them to become unfettered monstrosities.
Second, since the judicial system refuses to protect he rights of the poor, then the poor shoul not feel morally bound by any of the nation's laws. If you can get away with it, then do it, becomes the operating principle.
Good point. And frankly, since the President doesn't feel he needs to be bound by any laws, why should any of the people in the nation he represents either? Obama has violated more laws than his predecessor, and hardly a week goes by when he doesn't take a big dump on the Constitution. His claimed power to assassinate any human being (American or not) on his word alone, without due process? There are dictators who would love to have that kind of power. His big middle finger to Congress on the 60th day after invading Libya, when the law states he had to get their approval no later than 60 days? Amazing. His claimed power to hold anyone indefinitely for the remainder of their lives, even if they are found innocent in a court of law? Flagrant, blatant law-breaking. But hey, so what? He's the President.
If he shows such little regard for the law, I see no reason why we should either. And frankly, breaking the law will eventually be the only way we serfs will ever win back this country.
During the Hitler regime the judges who were sympathetic to the Nazis usually sided with the Brown Shirts and against the progressives whenever the two groups clashed in the street.
What should we expect from the conservative mind that is fearful, cowardly, stupid and authoritarian. We should be handing out literature describing the conservative mind as a warning of what to expect when you vote for one of these people. Expect war at home and abroad because these cons are positive that nothing will be right unless they are in charge and forget about any debate about whether they're right or not. There is no dialogue with these mutants about their views ; there is only monologue. From them. To you. Shut up.
AREMAGEN: Excellent point. And the dark side learns from history, too. That explains how they got the fundamentalist church on board this time. Imagine a philosophy that tells you that whatever you do, so long as you follow some specified rules, is directly favored by the Deity, and millions go along? Condition these millions of followers to obey rules and respect authority. Condition them further to believe in such fictions as ultimate good teams and bad teams, or simplistic concepts of absolute good and absolute evil. Then the soil of the collective consciousness is made ripe and ready for the seeds of mistrust to be planted against those who don't follow those same strict, "God-ordained" rules.
And what better way to summon support for a massive war, and put aside the pesky problem of conscience than to tell millions that the war is itself holy; why it's been called a crusades! Nor would that "Freudian slip" (from Bush) mean much were not there also Christian inscriptions on actual weapons, an evangelical presence of some influence in the US Air Force, and people like Eric Prince profoundly convinced they can kill with impunity because they are doing God's bidding, and of course, on the Right God Team.
Hiter may have had some help from the conservative arm of the Catholic Church, but he had NOTHING like this. The televangelical ministries (along with their music and publishing arms) reach an estimated 60 million people.
I had to go out today to run an important errand and noticed that NO ONE was on any of the local roads. It seemed like maybe a bomb had dropped and that me, without TV or radio, heard nothing of it. What actually was going on to draw the local multitudes was a Christian Rap concert.
Some posters who don't live in the Bible Belt or really understand how significant this type of Christian fundamentalism is (to MUCH of the South), do not grasp the power of this demographic and how retrograde its belief system. In the few times I've driven across the U.S. (from Florida to Texas, or from N.Y. to Florida), there are vast regions where the ONLY radio station one could pick up was a Christian one. There are towns where the ONLY social center is the church.
It's a very ugly thing when religion is used as the psychic means to rouse the public into a cry FOR war. That has happened. I still think Pat Robertson is a CIA plant, and some very sinister minds understood the power of infiltrating the growing Christian circuits to bring about a seamless union between militarism (specifically M.A.D), and a virtual courting of Armageddon. This essentially marries the interests of the church with the military. Hardly what Jesus would do!
In my view, this inversion of Christianity to SERVE war = the anti-Christ. It is NOT an individual, it's a movement. Just as Amerika has steered very far from its purported ideals about justice, freedom, and law, much of this martial Christianity has veered dangerously afar from the teachings of their own purported Master.
Chris Hedges and John Dean have published books on this topic, and I can't recall who it was (Nick Turse?) who broke the stories about the Christian Evangelical influence over the U.S. Air Force. Perhaps someone would care to fill in that data?
Jesus killed Mohammed: The crusade for a Christian military
By Jeff Sharlet
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/05/0082488
It should also be pointed out that over 85% of all drug law enforcement agencies in the U.S. are now "self funding" meaning they are in the business of seizing assets to finance their operations. That translates into 34,000 SWAT raids in the U.S. last year that had a profit motive underlying the bust. I assume that the Tea Partiers and other right wingers out there will argue that the government should stay out of policing the country.
You are absolutely right Space Cadet -- the drug war has become very profitable for police and sheriff's departments around the country.
Which is precisely why many would prefer to stage a drug raid rather than solve a rape or a murder. There is no profit in protecting people from a violent attack.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/forfeiture.html
They have an actual system in place for splitting up the 'goodies' with the Feds.
They can just turn off the water. Nooooo, that is too easy and would deprive them of a chance to show off their skills at offing the rabble.
You can not even sue the police officers any more. In my former state of residence the legislature banned lawsuits against police officers in the performance of the duties. LOL! This was in response to a successful lawsuit I brought against specific officers. Can't have the rabble figuring out a way to get justice now can we? I am sure you all are aware of how lawsuits against the Departments go nowhere.
So, with lawsuits against the State agencies and officers banned, our elections corrupted by the feudalist corporations and the courts and legislatures bought and sold where do we go from here?? I know, let's give up our guns, and sing songs of liberation while we continue voting on Diebold voting machines. LOL!!
Excellent piece!
Is there any wonder about which way Kentucky v. King would go, as the Unpatriot Act is extended yet again?
Yes, before the GWOT there was the WOD.
This case, along with Kelo and Citizens United and others, illustrate just how dead constitutional principles and the rule of law are in this country.
Soon they'll be busting down doors because they 'smell fear', which is what most people exude when their doors are busted down.
These SWAT teams are hooded and killing brown people. In the old days they wore hoods too. This time they are on the public payroll. That is the truth. The USA is a sick, racist killer.
I agree that this is another well-written, thoughtful piece by Ms. Khalek.
And that the 8-1 decision does not augur well for those clinging to the desperate hope that Democratic maladministrations will appoint justices inclined to respect and preserve the now-"quaint" civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution.
With careerist time-servers like Elena Kagan as a "friend" of Constitutional protections, who needs enemies?
os....point well made sir. everyone should at long last understand that the argument that we "must" vote for obama because of the supreme court is BOGUS!!!!!!!!!
Dancing Bear & Obedient Servant: You both posted KEY observations. Thank you. Some of the minds in this forum go way beyond what the published authors dare to say or even note.
Sioux, what you said just reminded me of teddy. He had a conflict of issue last year on CD and unfortunately left. I didn't think that he deserved it but it happened. Here is his post-CD life:
http://www.disqus.com/teddyfromcd/
My favorite post of his was his defending us CDers against the ringleader of the Obama PR apologists by the way.
CAMPING IN A CAR ON "FREEMAN" ROAD IN A POLICE STATE
Ms. Khalek is certainly correct to take alarm at that dismaying 8 to 1 decision by the Supreme Court. It wasn't just the gang of 5 that believe that only corporations-- not commoners -- have rights in this case.
I had occasion last night to think of the fate of the unfortunate Jose Guerena--who was gunned down in his home in Tucson by a SWAT team.
Traveling to Tucson, I decided to camp out on public lands near the I-8 freeway.
Rather ironically, the road is named Freeman Rd.
I pulled off on a dirt road about a mile from the freeway and parked on a slight hill. My Australian cattle dogs were with me and they got the front seats while I curled up in the back.
Beautiful, mild night with many bright stars across a wide sky. No wind.
I was awakened by my dogs barking furiously. At first, I thought coyotes were skulking close to the vehicle -- something I have encountered in the Sonora Desert. You are in their territory and they check you out.
Not seeing any coyotes and unable to quiet my dogs, I raised up to look out my back window.
It was very eerie and dreamlike. A series of little red dots were visible in the darkness. The dots were, I realized, attached to figures -- about a dozen -- spread out in an array behind me at maybe a distance of twenty feet. Men dressed in military garb. Helmets. Night goggles. Weapons raised and pointed at me.
Instantly, the vehicle was illuminated in bright white light.
"Raise your hands! Keep them up!"
Someone else was shouting at me to get out of the vehicle.
"I am just sleeping out here!" I yelled back. "Who are you?"
"Keep your hands in sight!"
I was kneeling awkwardly but made certain that my hands stayed up, up in the light.
"Anyone else in the vehicle?"
"No, just me and my dogs!"
"Don't move! Keep your hands up! We are going to open the vehicle."
I had not locked the doors, fortunately. They opened the back hatch. I blinked into bright light-- saw men in camouflage gear, weapons raised and pointed at me. Two men grabbed me and yanked me out of the back of the vehicle. I was in T-shirt and underwear."
"Do you have a weapon in the vehicle."
"No, of course not."
"Do you have ID?"
"Yes, in my wallet."
"Where is it?"
"In the back."
"What about the dogs?" one man asked me. They were still barking but luckily had not left the front.
"Sheila! Panga! It's Ok. It's Ok," I yelled at them. They stopped barking. One of the men reached into the back of the vehicle and grabbed my wallet.
My red heeler Dingo, who died a few years ago, would have attacked them. When they grabbed me, he would have come after them. They might have shot him. (He once almost bit a Border Patrol agent who suddenly stuck his arm inside the vehicle at a checkpoint. Fortunately, the agent removed his hand in a timely fashion.)
Panga, his sister, is 16 and has bad arthritis. Sheila, younger, is a good watchdog but not a fighter.
I produced my driver's license and they they took it. They radioed in.
"Who are you?" I asked.
"Sheriff's Deputies."
"Why are you dressed like that?" Think U.S. soldiers in Iraq & Afghanistan. Not Andy Griffith in Mayberry.
They did not answer.
Eventually, they decided that I was not a "bad guy". They justified their behavior because there were drug smugglers and "human traffickers" out here. I guessed there were maybe 25 of them. All but a couple were dressed in military gear. A combat zone.
We were a 100 miles from the border in Maricopa County. They conceded that I was not breaking any laws by sleeping out here but ... suggested that it was unwise.
Yes, I agreed. Very unwise. After that they were polite, brought me my shoes, and pants, and agreed to let me go. They offered to even show me the way out but I said I knew the way.
They were not brutes. They did not rough me up or even search my vehicle. Most of them seemed like decent chaps once they had decided I was just a hapless traveler in the wrong spot.
Nonetheless...
Where exactly is the 4th amendment? I was quietly sleeping in my vehicle far from the border on public land. I did nothing illegal.
Yet they felt not the slightest hesitation in putting the vehicle under siege with a small army of men with semi-automatic weapons dressed in combat gear.
One groggy misstep by me upon being awakened-- and they would have sent me (and the dogs) off packing on that long dirt nap.
"Oh, well, we thought he was reaching for a gun. He was in a known 'trafficking' zone."
If they really thought I was there to pick up drugs or immigrants-- why not surveil the vehicle? Why not check me when I tried to leave in the morning with a warrant?
Because that would have taken a little more time and it was unnecessary. They don't need "no stinkin' warrants" and no probable cause.
Even in a police state officers generally have reasons or suspicions to justify their behavior. The point is that there are no effective legal restraints on their behavior. They have carte blanche.
Besieging someone in a vehicle with combat weaponry would seem to constitute the definition of a police state-- even if they treated me fine once they had decided that I was a 'good' German.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The title of this story should be, "Night Of The Small Penises."
RANDY: You write well, and thanks for sharing the story.
I presume you are Caucasian? Lots of thugs are looking for "action," and the pretext would no doubt become roused by any Latino or Mexican found in the desert. Arizona is hardly a zone of law these days. It's more like a no man's land, a return to the Wild Wild West, thanks to the racist policies and drummed up fears of "the other."
Also, as you related, had one of your dogs NOT stopped barking, it might have gotten shot.
I'm glad it worked out Okay for you; but I don't think you can generalize from your encounter, that had the person sleeping in that vehicle been non-white, that matters would have gone so smoothly (personal terror not included). What if you had a joint? What if they saw a pipe? What if your license was expired or your insurance not up to date? 25 armed soldiers of fortune descending in the night is a nightmare...
Still, I'm glad you were able to slip out of its grip and write about the encounter.
Good, gripping story Randy. Sid you ever find out why they were in combat gear? It could be very confusing when a group of toughs surrounds you or bursts into your house and you do not know if they are police, plainclothes cops, soldiers, militias, robbers or just wilding assholes. Your choice of self-defense could depend on that knowledge.
And I agree with Siouxrose. This sort of thing is part of an atmosphere that is not that new for non-white people.
They were in combat gear because they WANTED to be. They thought it makes them look "cool", and they LOVE that. They want to play army, but aren't courageous enough to actually join up and do it for real. They want to go out and intimidate anyone they can, push people around and much as possible, and generally prove that they are the biggest bad asses on the block.
What is really sad is that they, like the last 2 PIGS that pulled me over for NOT breaking the law, LIVE to intimidate people. It's FUN for them. It doesn't matter that it is illegal, that it's an abuse of power, and that what they are really doing is instilling HATRED AND DISRESPECT for cops everywhere by their BS behavior.
To be honest, I'm surprised more people don't carry guns to protect themselves AGAINST THESE CROOKS. And it's getting to where the cops are BIGGER crooks than the REAL crooks are. Who are we supposed to go to when it's the freaking PIGS that are causing the freaking problem and are the ones who are REALLY breaking the law?
There isn't a cop left on the streets that I would trust to do ANYTHING BUT be a total and complete PRICK no matter what the situation is. Maybe we should stop hiring mental patients as cops. Maybe we should INSIST that they start hiring people with an IQ of OVER 100 for a change. It's well known that since 9-11 the standard has been UNDER 100, look what we get for that. Idiots with guns on steroids. GREAT! I feel SO much safer, now.
And they wonder why we call them pigs. So do I, it's an insult to the porcine world. They are lower than pigs, they are nothing but scum. At least every one I've had to deal with in the last decade sure as hell has been. NONE of them had a CLUE where their authority ended, and as far as they were concerned, it DIDN'T. They can lie, cheat, steal, maim and murder and NOTHING happens. We cross the street wrong, and it's probation of r2 years for US. They infringe our civil rights, injure people, abuse their power and NO ONE does a freaking thing about it. And the right STILL Insists that if you aren't guilty you have nothing to fear. Just wait til it's THEIR houses this happens to. Then where do THEY go to bitch? Too bad, righties, there won't be ANYWHERE left.
The difference between 30 years ago and now is that it's anyone who isn't in the top 2% that gets this treatment. It USED to be only minorities, now it's ALL of us. GREAT, isn't it? Equality at last, we are ALL under the thumb of big money and the rich. And the cops are just one more way the intend to keep it that way. Why do you think they want borderline MORONS to be cops? It's easier to get them to do what you WANT them to do, rather than what the law is. And NONE of these cops has a CLUE what the law is, and they can't think it out for themselves, either.
WJM -- I would only add that a lot of sheriff and police departments DO HIRE veteran's who have spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't think that is the major cause of our problems, however.
It is the drug war, the terror war, the erosion of civil liberties -- this is all coming down from the politicians -- think Patriot Act -- & the right-wing courts who think the police need more and more power.
They do love dressing up in combat gear and flaunting semi-automatics -- that is obvious.
Thank you for your comment jclientelle --
If I can quote what I just wrote to Siouxrose --
These guys were sheriffs-- not Border Patrol, not National Guard, etc. The fact that they were dressed up as if they were being airlifted into Helmand Province is part of the problem. The relentless 'militarization' of the police. They should be solving burglaries and protecting citizens from violence -- not running amok playing war games at taxpayers expense and pointing semi-automatic weapons at people legally camping.
If they burst into your house and you take any action in self-defense then they will kill you with massive firepower.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/kathryn_johnston_one_year_latter/
Two friends of mine went through a tour of the Northern US States and encountered much the same many years back. It was not as dramatic or over the top but when compared to what they were used to In Canada it really frightened them.
They were trying to save money on their trip so would pull over to the side of the road at night in a pullout and rest. In any case they wore woken up in Western Washington State one night by a bright line shining in their face and two men with revolvers pointed each of my friends heads (They were a married couple).
They went through the same episode of questions and grilling with my friend reflecting the fear he felt and the belief that if he made one wrong answer or move it would be BOOM.
These were Police deputies in plainclothes. They told my friends that their type were not welcome and to leave the county . Western Washington State and Idaho are quite the backwaters.
GW North -- You are absolutely right, it is not new. What happened to your friends is just horrific.
I had a run in with a Yuma County Sheriff in the early 90s who was utterly out of his mind. He suggested to my face that I was part of a Satanic cult group and possibly a serial killer (I do not make this up) because I was reading Edgar Allan Poe and had a writing pen in my car that he thought was a Satanic symbol.
At least this Sheriff did not point a gun at me while he was explaining all this. (A second officer stood back with his hand on his gun, watching me, but the pistol remained holstered.)
This Sheriff -- possibly a congenital imbecile -- had apparently received some kind of training in how to recognize members of Satanic Cults (they were big at the time-- there were supposed to be Satanic child molesting cults at every day school in the country).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
It took me two hours to extricate myself from this sheriff but he could find nothing finally to arrest me for. But at least he was dressed as a sheriff -- not in combat gear.
Hi Siouxrose --
You are right -- I am a white guy. Middle-aged and 'look' pretty conservative. I have no doubt it would have gone much, much worse if I was Latino.
I would be in jail right now if they found a joint, dope pipe, etc. They'd probably seize my vehicle, cash, etc. and try to rig a forfeiture. Forcing people to forfeit possessions is a huge business for many police and sheriff's departments around the country.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/forfeiture.html
Maricopa County, by the way, is headed up by the famous -- or rather infamous -- Joe Arapaio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
These guys were sheriffs-- not Border Patrol, not National Guard, etc. The fact that they were dressed up as if they were being airlifted into Helmand Province is part of the problem. The relentless 'militarization' of the police. They should be solving burglaries and protecting citizens from violence -- not running amok playing war games at taxpayers expense and pointing semi-automatic weapons at people legally camping.
It was surreal and it has left me very paranoid about camping in Arizona.
I used to camp in the enchanting Dragoon Mountains -- the authentic home of the great Cochise and his band of the Chiracahua Apache. I had planned on camping there this evening but instead I am keeping my head down at a lousy Motel 6.
The Dragoons are much closer to the border. At least the Dragoons are in Cochise County, and I would probably only face the Border Patrol down here. Bad enough.
Well, I take that back. Tombstone, which is near the Dragoons, is home to various nutty border vigilante groups.
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v19n3/burghart_cops.html
Thank you for your concern and kind words.