E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
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
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Even if the Hartes had marijuana, a SWAT raid is outrageous

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

The case of Robert and Addie Harte is completely outrageous. The family was terrorized by a SWAT raid despite the fact that the "probable cause" for the raid was flimsy at best. (Radley Balko has written extensively about this case.) But the raid would have been completely outrageous even if they were guilty.

The police mistook loose-leaf tea for marijuana, and raided the Hartes' home in an April 20 publicity stunt. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the Hartes were actually growing marijuana. (They were not, of course.) Was a paramilitary SWAT raid, complete with a battering ram to knock down the door if the Hartes did not answer, a prudent use of police power? No, it was not - and that should be obvious to everyone.

The purpose of SWAT is to go in with overwhelming force to deal with high-risk situations that are too dangerous for traditional police tactics. These include things such as terrorist attacks, barricaded suspects, active shooters and hostage situations. But these situations are rare. SWAT teams are increasingly used on non-violent suspects, and often create violence. One such case was a 92 year old woman in Atlanta who thought she was the victim of a home invasion and was gunned down by SWAT officers.

The Hartes had no history of violent crime. There was no need or justification for a SWAT raid. The police could have showed up unannounced with a search warrant and went through the house. A traditional search warrant would have been much less traumatic and would not have carried the potential for violence. The real question here should not be whether the search warrant was justified. The real question here is why the police are conducting paramilitary raids on suspects with no history of violence instead of simply serving a search warrant.

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 may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

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

Thank you for your cooperation.