E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Needless fearmongering about violent crime

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:30 PM (#)

See previous LTTE on this topic here and here and here and here and here.

Bloomington Herald-Times, September 25, 2014 (Comments)

To the Editor:

I wish that conservatives who rightly decry the federal government's deadly excessive force in Waco, Texas in 1993 would apply the same scrutiny to use of force by law enforcement generally, especially in relation to the increasingly literal "War on Drugs."

An August 31 letter to the editor engaged in needless fear-mongering about violent crime - which has dropped significantly since the early 1990's. This kind of fear-mongering against crime and drugs has led to erosion of civil liberties and ever-increasing use of force by government agents.

SWAT teams, which were originally for riots, hostage situations and barricaded suspects, are now used between 50,000 and 80,000 times per year. (See http://wapo.st/1w0xqxd for more.) The vast majority of these paramilitary raids are for simple search warrants, where SWAT is not needed.

SWAT often creates a needlessly violent situation that could be resolved with a traditional search. For examples, see the horrific burning of an 18 month old baby earlier this year by a flash-bang grenade, the police officer killed by Corey Maye when Maye thought he was the victim of a home invasion, and the 92 year old woman who was gunned down in her own home by SWAT in Atlanta.

(2 Comments)

Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.

Comments:

At September 26, 2014 at 3:45 PM , Blogger Mike Newton said...  

Well said, but wasted. "Conservatives" generally applaud any use of force against minorities and non-white foreigners, as they applauded slavery and segregation in years past, while gashing their teeth over "persecution" of career criminals like Cliven Bundy. How you tolerate GOP bigots is beyond me. You seem sincere, and yet you hang out by choice with the worst crowd there is, crazed racist Larry Pratt included. Very strange.


At September 29, 2014 at 7:07 AM , Blogger Scott Tibbs said...  

If you think Democrats are any better than Republicans when it comes to the War on Crime and the War on Drugs, you're deluding yourself.

Barack Obama has continued to sell military equipment to local police and Dems generally have embraced the same "tough on crime, tough on civil liberties" policies that Republicans have.


Post a Comment


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.