Radley Balko has done a great job of documenting the dozens and dozens of cases around the nation where SWAT teams have been used where they should not be used - serving routine warrants, for example - and the result was tragic. Here's his latest post on such an incident. The Maricopa County Sheriff's Department in Arizona sent in a SWAT team in full military gear, including tanks, and they ended up torching this house by shooting tear gas canisters into it. Here's the result:
And the tank they brought, here's where it ended up:
There was a mother and daughter inside that car, but thankfully they were able to get out and run before it parked itself on top of them. They also shot and killed the family's puppy. And for what did the police do all of this? To arrest the guy for outstanding traffic tickets. Insane.
- Log in to post comments
***Nitpick Alert***
Strictly speaking, the vehicle in the photograph is not a tank. A tank is a heavily armoured combat vehicle designed to carry heavy calibre cannon and machine guns, and moves on a continuous track.
And apparently, they didn't shoot the puppy. They chased it back into the burning house after it had tried to flee where it was burned alive. And then some deputies laughed when the dogs owner became somewhat enraged. Granted, that doesn't make them look much better.
And they believed the house conatined a cache of stolen automatic weapons and armour piercing shells, but nothing of that sort was found.
Forgive the double-post, but here's a LINK to the story.
I'm sure the question everybody's asking themselves is, "Did the tank get a traffic ticket?"
Are you kidding?
In most states, it is illegal for police officers to violate ordinary traffic laws unless they are at Code 3 (or whatever regional equivalent) and have their sirens on.
Yet police officers are easily the most reckless single group of drivers on the road I've ever seen, constantly speeding, making dangerous turns without signaling or warning, and so on.
I'm wondering who's going to cover this financial damage. Seems to me like the agency ordering this disproportionate use of force should be liable (from a moral standpoint, of course, not a legal one).
Chased the dog back into the burning building with a fire extinguisher.
Fuckers.
From the little I have read about Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department, the more I figure that they might well get away with it, and if they do end up paying, good 'ol Joe will still get re-elected. It scares the hell out of me that people like him still run police agencies in this country.
all of this was in 2004, according to one of the links I followed. has their been any follow-up?
So far, I've seen no follow-up. There was a campaign to recall Arpaio in 2005 -- the Web page is still up. The Wikipedia entry on Arpaio says nothing of this case or the recall drive; which leads me to believe it failed.
People in Maricopa may be so scared of whatever crime problem they have that they simply turn away and ignore the excesses of their own cops. Can't undermine our Men in Uniform, y'know, otherwise the bad guys win...
i wasn't looking at Arpaio specifically, but rather has there been a lawsuit for the damages, violations of due process, excessive force, or even cruel and unusual punishment?
destroying a man's house to arrest him seems a bit on the unconstitutional side to me.