Mall Cop’s Fight Highlights Public Misinformation on Authority

This article may seem contrary to the mission here, but I think it’s important that we, as citizens, know exactly what rights we do and don’t have, and precisely what the nature of authority really is in America today.

It becomes all too easy to cry “foul” when we see authorities throwing a temper tantrum, but that does not always mean they are wrong, or that a use of force was not justified.

So while we may not weep for the loss of a soldier in the army of tyrants, it is till important to understand that anarchy is no better solution than a police-state.

Now having said that, I believe the following article does an excellent job of pointing out how this authority did the right thing, the wrong way.

Thanks to Captain Six at Station.6.Underground for another contribution here.

*  *  *

This incident happened back in May, but I have decided to show it here since there is still quite a bit of discussion going on about it, and quite a lot of misinformation.

In the video you will see a Security Guard, under contract with the Cafaro company, attempt to enforce the regulations of the Ohio Valley Mall. A physical confrontation ensues. The debate here swirls around all sorts of misunderstanding by the general public, and the public's general disdain for authority.

As any regular reader here knows, I am not fan of authority myself, and certainly no "cop lover." But while I have to agree that this guard acted foolishly, technically, she had every right* to do what she did. The woman she confronted should have been arrested and charged.

VIDEO LINK

The primary misconception that the public often has is that security guards have no legal authority. This is completely incorrect. In some ways, private security guards actually have more power than a police officer.

You see, a police officer must have either probable cause that a crime has been committed or be acting under emergency authority in order to issue you a command. A security guard on the other hand, is acting as the agent of the property owner. Essentially, a guard has as much authority over their jurisdiction as you have in your own home.

The police may enforce the law, but that is where their authority ends. The security guard on the other hand, may enforce the law, any rule or regulation of the property, and may even make up rules as they go along. The only real exception there is that the guard can't compel you to commit a crime.

A guard might enforce a "shoes required" dress code for the mall, even though there is no law that says you have to wear shoes. A guard might also tell you to get up an move, right after you sat down at a table in the food court. The guard would have no obligation to explain why, and would not have to cite a "you can't sit here" rule in mall regulations. The guard might simply be telling you to move because that space was reserved, or perhaps there is a crew coming to fix a water leak there. Or maybe the guard just wanted that table for themselves. It doesn't really matter legally speaking. Now granted, a guard who goes around bullying people without cause or to get the best table in the foodcourt is not going to be looked upon well by their employer, or even fellow guards, but the legal authority is there just the same. 

So specific to this situation here now. A police officer might very well tell these people that they cannot photograph there, and order them to move along. While taking photographs is not illegal, the officer may establish a scene perimeter because of the emergency situation and enforce special circumstances within that scene. They might tell you to move along for reasons of safety, or even tell you that your photos are subject to confiscation as evidence in an ongoing investigation.

(It should be noted here, that emergency authority if often used to enforce some level of common decency too. Aside from being material evidence in an investigation, no one wants to see pictures circulated on the internet of their loved one's mutilated remains being extricated from a twisted wreck along some highway. And you probably wouldn't want to see a bunch of rubberneckers oogling you while you die either.)

The guard also has, generally speaking, this same emergency authority. Being a security guard does not grant that authority outside of their jurisdiction, but here on the mall property, the guard was indeed helping to manage an emergency situation and a hazardous condition within her jurisdiction as a consequence of the emergency. She could not go running out to the interstate and do the same thing, but there on mall property she had every right to do what she did.

Now here is where the guard's power goes even beyond that of a police officer. Even if there had been no truck rolled down the embankment, no emergency situation, the guard still had the authority to tell those folks to stop taking pictures and to move along. Not only were they impeding the flow of traffic and creating a hazardous safety condition, but the guard also has no obligation to explain herself to them. She didn't have to have a reason at all, legally speaking, as we have already seen with the foodcourt example. But at the same time, if one of those idiots had gotten run over they probably would have turned right around and sued the mall over it.

Okay, so we have now established that a guard can enforce the law and help to maintain a secure perimeter in an emergency situation. We have also seen that a guard may enforce the rules of the property, which may not have anything to do with actual laws. We have even seen that a guard has the right to make up the rules as they go. Just as you could in your own home. You could tell other people they can't smoke in your home while you sit down and light up a fat cigar. The guard is the legal agent of the property owner, and therefore has the same authority as the property owner.

But what can the guard actually do to enforce these rules? It's simple really. They can tell you to leave. And if you refuse to leave? Well then, now you have committed a crime. Criminal trespass. You are now subject to arrest. The guard may use physical force to affect that arrest, or may simply use physical force to stop you from continuing your criminal activity. This is the same authority a nightclub bouncer uses when they kick out drunks. If they ask you nicely to leave, and you don't, you're in trouble. This is the same in a bar, a mall, or when you are in someone's own home. You can be ejected through physical force, and you are subject to a criminal prosecution.

So yes folks, rent-a-cops do indeed have authoritahhh. In many ways, more so than a police officer. In fact, a guard could supersede the commands of a police officer, or even eject a police officer from the property in some instances, depending on the specifics. 

The last argument that can be made here is that the guard was not actually on private property, but public property. I have seen this argument made, but it is simply not true. Even if you let the public onto your property, let's say for a yard sale as an example, it is still your property and you have the right to kick someone out. This is true even of businesses like malls, that are often thought of as public areas, even when they really are not. This has been upheld numerous times and is well established in case law. Mall property is not public property.

Furthermore, where this incident took place was not a public roadway. The truck rolled over from the public interstate, but where the guard's confrontation occurred was on Mall Ring Road, which is private property. It is not owned or maintained by any public entity, but instead secured and maintained through private contracts. the guard was within her jurisdiction. The fact that it is private property has been established by numerous media reports and is also evident by the fact that the road is not accessible to Google Earth's Street View.

So all in all here, we must now conclude that the people taking pictures and loitering, were wrong, and that the guard was legally in the right. Not only was she enforcing mall regulations, she was also protecting the interests of the mall owners, and the safety of the very people who had become confrontational with her. Although we hear in the video some talk about who touched who her first, we also see now that the guard had every right to initiate physical force to enforce the mall's security.

The guard was under no obligation to "call the police" as some have suggested, because the guard herself is in fact the authority there.

Now, having said all of this in defense of the guard, we might also look at the manner in which she performed her duty. This is the real problem here. What she did was completely legal, and the other folks were indeed breaking the law at that point, we can also see this as an example of a total lack of professionalism. A lack of training and experience could be blamed here as much as any judgement of the guard's personality. So in that sense, we might even blame her employers partially for this incident. But it seems clear enough that whatever the reason, the guard lacked a certain level of professionalism. She lost control of her own temper, and at least partly because of that, she lost overall control of the situation. Meeting belligerence with belligerence and escalating a situation beyond one's control are not hallmarks of security and/or law-enforcement professional conduct.

Having worked int he field myself, I will share my opinion here on what I might have done in that situation. First, I would have established my authority with what is known as command presence. this can be accomplished through everything from wearing a well-fitting, neat uniform, to posture, to speaking in an authoritative tone, eye contact, and in general expressing an air of professional confidence.

When my commands were not followed, I would have selected on of two options. First, to continue my hard-ass approach and call for immediate backup. At that point, I have made a supervisor aware of an escalating situation. It is then left to them to either order me to disengage, or to send reinforcement to press the issue. The alternative for me would have been to humanize myself a bit. To try to build a small rapport of understanding, and basically tell them why they can't be there taking pictures.

"Look guys, I'm just doing my job. If one of you gets hit by a car, it's my ass," is something I might have said.

Or maybe, something a little condescending even like, "Come on people. Really? How morbid are you? Don't sit here taking pictures of someone having the worst day of their lives."

The idea here is to engage in a bit of coercive conversation, rather than just start screaming and yelling. If at that point they still refused to follow instructions, I would fall back to the first choice, and call a supervisor/dispatch for reinforcement and/or further instructions.

The guard's inability to stay calm, and to effectively maintain order led to her being fired from her job in the end. No charges were filed against her, which goes to show that she was legally justified in what she did. But at the same time, her employer saw the guard was unable to do her job effectively, and sent her on her way. Because of that, it is little surprise that the mall elected not to pursue charges against the transgressors.

So the next time you start making wise cracks at the mall cops, just remember that most are more professional than you give them credit for. They are at the short-end of plenty of jokes, they bite their tongue and carry on. Think what you want about security guards, but don't make the mistake of thinking that they are powerless. If pushed, they really can mess up your day. At the very least they can tell you to get the hell out and never come back.

Click here for an article on the incident from a local news source

*DISCLAIMER: This article is not intended as legal advice. Consult an attorney to learn the specific regulations and guidelines in your state and/or location

It May Soon Be a Felony to Annoy a Cop in NY

You read that right. The NY State Senate has passed a bill that is now before the Assembly, which will make it a felony, punishable by four years in prison, "TO HARASS, ANNOY, THREATEN OR ALARM A... POLICE OFFICER."

Many opponents are concerned that this law will be misused in a number of ways, but particularly against citizens and reporters who film police encounters. Police routinely abuse laws that are on the books already. Everything from arbitrary laws such as disorderly conduct and obstruction of police administration, to resisting arrest and assault on a police officer.

In this incident, a deaf and mentally handicapped woman was charged with felony assault on a police officer for the crime of acting as the officer's punching bag. In this case, a trucker was beaten within an inch of his life for the crime of obstruction, and resisting arrest. And in this case, a man was sentenced to 18 years in prison after he was shot by police in his own bed in the middle of the night. Police had raided the house with a no-knock warrarnt on the suspicion that it was a drug house, but only discovered personal use paraphernalia after shooting the man numerous times.

There are thousands of incidents like these which show police abuse of authority with the existing laws that are already in place. Even cases that defy logic entirely, like being arrested for resisting arrest. How can one be arrested for resisting arrest, if there is no other charge to justify an arrest in the first place?

New York lawmakers have justified their proposal as follows:

JUSTIFICATION:  Police officers all across this state put their  lives on  the  line  every  day  to protect the people of New York. New York State must establish laws and toughen existing laws that  protect  the police   from   becoming  victims  of  criminals.  Far  too  many  law enforcement officers are being harassed, injured,  even  killed  while honoring  their  commitment  to  protect  and  serve  this  state. The Legislature has a responsibility to do everything we  can  to  protect our  brave  heroes,  our police officers, from violent criminals. This legislation contributes to that premise.

As far as the notion that police officers are "putting their lives on the line" goes, this doesn't seem to be a a reasonable justification for making the police a privileged class protected by their own special set of laws that the average citizen does not enjoy. Fisherman are putting their lives on the line every day, in order to bring you fish-sticks and crab legs. They have the most dangerous job in America, followed by loggers. In fact, police officers rarely make the top 10 list for most dangerous jobs in America, yet cabbies, truckers, even refuse truck workers are more likely to be killed at work than a police officer.

If we are going to give police officers this special protection, perhaps we should also demand that the police be held especially accountable for crimes which violate the public trust.

I propose that we make it a felony, to commit a crime, while employed as a police officer, and especially crimes committed while in uniform or on duty. All too often, we see just the opposite. Rather than police being held accountable for crimes and betrayal of the public trust, they are given special privilege and shown gross favoritism in every phase of the accountability process.

The following links will show you just how unbalanced justice really is, between we the people, and they, the stormtroopers of the privileged class.

What Can We Learn From Criminal Complaints Against Cops?

Child Molester Cop Gets No Prison Time

D.A.'s Office Complicit in Brutality Coverup

SWAT Get Medals For Shooting at Innocent Family in Botched Raid

Cop Made Chief After Conviction for Negligent Fatal Shooting of Motorist

Firing With Intent: Are American Cops Out of Control

Top Cop Threatens to Kill After Fellow Officer Gunned Down

This article originally presented by Station.6.Underground

Officer Jason Ellis was shot multiple times early Saturday morning on an off-ramp leading from the Bluegrass Parkway to Highway 55 in Nelson County, Kentucky. The K-9 officer was on his way home from work in a marked cruiser, but did not have his dog with him, when he was ambushed and killed by multiple shots from a 12-gauge shotgun. He is the first officer killed in the line of duty in the 150-year history of the Bardstown police force. Motorists discovered his body at around 3 a.m. and phoned 911. The former Cincinnati Reds professional baseball player leaves behind a wife and two children.

It is understandable that his fellow officers would feel a great deal of anger over such a seemingly senseless act of violence. What is not so understandable, is why Chief Rick McCubbin would make a public statement that sounds as if he hopes the suspect or suspects are killed, rather than be put on trial. It is one thing to feel human emotion after an event like that, to feel the need for revenge. It is quite another for a highly trained former U.S. Marshal with 25 years of law-enforcement experience to make a press statement like this...

“I can assure you we won’t give up on this person or persons until we either have them in custody or in the front sight of one of our weapons. I certainly hope the latter is the choice.” -Chief McCubbun

The police are not a judge, nor a jury, nor serve the public as executioners. It is this very mentality of shoot first and ask questions later which leads criminals to justify the slaughter cops in cold blood. A murder begets murder cycle of violence, rather than justice. Of course, there will be those that argue "so be it" and that it will "save taxpayers money in the long run" when police kill suspects on sight. But if we are really meant to condone this reasoning as a matter of policy, we might just as well shut down the courts entirely, burn the Constitution and get the ovens fired up in the concentration camps.

It is one thing to feel like you want to go out and get swift revenge. It is quite another for the police to say, in essence, that they will kill a suspect if they can get away with it. It's not the flashing lights or shiny pins, it's not the paycheck paid from tax dollars, or being a good shot with a gun that makes a police officer. The police are expected to "take the high road"so to speak, to be the better people. After all, it is this very principle above all others which defines the police officer, or which once did anyway. The principle which separates the police from the criminals. The ideal which makes the police the heroes in the first place.

Too often today though, it seems as if the opposite has become true, both in the eyes of the public, and in the courtroom. Instead of police being held to a higher standard, they are simply given a pass for criminal behavior and betrayals of public trust. Such a haven from justice creates a caste of criminality and thuggery for which there is no accountability. It is not acceptable to say that because a person spends his days doing good, that on occasion we should look the other way so that he can brutalize and murder. Yet that has become the predominant trend in our society today with our complacent acceptance of police wrongdoing.

Of course, anytime that police wrongdoing is brought up, the mind deflects the horror of what we are seeing, and instead refers to the argument of casuists, for whom the police can do no wrong. There is always the "few bad apples" argument, or the argument that there are a lot of cops out there who do a lot of good for the public, each and every day. And of course this is true, there are a lot of police officers out there who are genuine heroes, but that is entirely irrelevant when considering whether a cop is guilty of murder, or perhaps plans to commit murder. It is also entirely beside the point, if the police happen to kill someone who turns out to be the wrong person or otherwise entirely innocent.

Then again, maybe the idea of the good cop is something we should take a closer look at in this particular case. What follows here is a hypothetical example of sorts, made to demonstrate the perils of murdering suspects. Let us go right ahead and assume that the murdered police officer, Jason Ellis, was indeed every bit the American hero he appears to have been. There is no reason to believe otherwise. Let us question the circumstances of his death though, as any good investigator should.

The officer was on his way home from work at the end of his shift. He was driving in a marked police unit, but it was a "pool car" rather than his regular K-9 SUV unit. His dog was not with him. This pool unit was not equipped with recording devices like most standard police vehicles today. These pool cars are usually a sort of  "reserve" unit, usually an older model near-retirement, used more as an errand vehicle than for regular patrols and therefore not fully equipped with the latest gadgetry. 

The officer did not radio to headquarters/dispatch that there was an emergency, but he appears to have stopped on the freeway ramp to clear an obstruction in the roadway, or perhaps to assist what may have appeared to be a disabled motorist. There is debris along the roadway which appears as if a tree or limb might have been dragged or fell into the roadway, or that a vehicle went off of the roadway. His emergency lights were flashing when state police arrived at the scene, to find him dead. The officer was killed by multiple gunshot wounds from a 12-gauge shotgun. The officer's pistol remained secured in his holster. Some reports state that he was found in his vehicle, others say he was found laying outside of it. Crime scene investigators were seen concentrating around a knoll overlooking the scene, thick with brush and a small tree.

We should also consider that it is not very common for police to be killed randomly, or simply as targets of opportunity. In this case, it appears as if the officer may have been ambushed, and even that the attack was planned ahead of time. Whatever caused him to stop must have appeared to be so mundane that he had no reason to radio for assistance even though he was off duty, or that the attack happened so fast he never had a chance to radio for help.

Was this officer set up to be killed in an ambush, or did he simply stumble upon a cold-blooded killer, randomly, on a remote roadway in the dead of night? One would think that the police themselves would be anxious to answer that question. Especially the Chief who is responsible for the officers in his command. Instead of answers though, the Chief is voicing his opinion that he would just rather murder the suspect and be done with it.

This would be an awfully convenient way of murdering a police officer, and getting away with it, either directly or indirectly.

Let's imagine for a moment that the officer who was killed, might have stumbled upon something he shouldn't have at some other time. Some political intrigue and corruption perhaps, or maybe evidence of an ongoing criminal enterprise within the department. Only examples of course, but again to illustrate that the possibility exists this crime may not have been entirely random. The facts that he was killed on his way home from work, without his dog, in an under-equipped vehicle, in a remote location, and was not robbed of his firearm are all clues which suggest he was not killed randomly. Perhaps too, it was someone he worked with, who would know exactly what sort of highway hazard Officer Ellis would not bother to call in on the radio for.

Considering these points, it makes it all the more suspicious why the Chief of police would be calling for the murder of a suspect. Perhaps a suspect who was a trigger man in a larger plot? Perhaps a suspect who had no involvement at all, but who will be marked as guilty and rubbed out, closing the case and any further investigation.

This is not to say this is actually the story of what has happened there in Kentucky. This theory is just that, a theory, based on a few strange tidbits of information, to illustrate a point. It is not simply in the interest of protecting the rights of a suspect, who may or may not actually be guilty, but also in the interest of the victims of a crime, to make sure that a suspect is brought to justice rather than killed. It is in the interest of the police themselves, to protect themselves from being killed in this sort of plot. It is in the interest of the "good cops" that they cannot so easily be snuffed out, should they happen upon criminality within their ranks.

If it turns out that this cop-killer is just that, a plain old-fashioned monster, then let that be proven in a trial, and let the killer then be strapped to an electric char or have a fatal needle shoved in their arm, so be it. But if there is more to the story, or if the person who the police zero in on turns out to be innocent, these are reasons enough why the police should not be in the business of murder.


Credit to CopBlock.org where there original news story was first seen, and where a few additional links are available.

TSA K9 Goes Berserk at ATL

Susan Dubitsky was viciously attacked by a bomb- sniffing dog at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia. She had paid little attention to the canine when it suddenly lunged at her and tore at her flesh. Why the handler was not able to control the Cujo has not been explained, but he did speculate that the color of her clothing may have provoked the attack.

Despite serious injuries to her lower abdomen she was not transported to an area hospital, but rather treated by airport EMT's who simply patched her up and sent her on her way.

The victim is very concerned that the dog might have done this to a child's head or neck, considering that a child might stand at about the same height as her mid-range. One must also wonder what this might have done to a pregnant woman.

The bloodthirsty pooch is still on patrol and no changes have been made to security protocols.

ARTICLE WITH VIDEO HERE

Top Cop Tells NYers 'Prove You're Not a Terrorist'

See the original article and other great articles at: Tech Dirt

NYPD Sergeant Says 'Guilty Until Proven Innocent' Is Just The Price We Pay For A 'Free Society'

from the nothing's-more-'secure'-than-a-jail-cell dept

We've been dealing with the New York police department lately, thanks to the mayor and the police chief using the recent Boston bombing as an excuse to increase surveillance efforts and enact other policies to further encroach on New Yorkers' civil liberties. Whenever something terrorist-related occurs, it seems as though the NYPD's reps can't keep their opinions to themselves, even as the department itself drifts further and further away from being a sterling example of How Things Should Be Done.

In a recent Christian Science Monitor article dealing with "teenagers, terrorism and social media" (focusing on the recent Cameron D'Ambrosio arrest for making "terrorist threats" via some improvised rap lyrics posted to Facebook), Sgt. Ed Mullins of the NYPD shows up to make some very disturbing statements about your rights and responsibilities as a (mere) citizen. It starts with the worst kind of "policy" and goes downhill fast.

Using a zero tolerance approach to track domestic terrorists online is the only reasonable way to analyze online threats these days, especially after the Boston Marathon bombing and news that the suspects had subsequently planned to target Times Square in Manhattan, Mullins says. The way law enforcement agencies approach online activity that appears sinister is this: “If you’re not a terrorist, if you’re not a threat, prove it,” he says.

you’re not a threat, prove it,” he says. "Zero tolerance" is never "reasonable." It never has been and it never will be. In fact, it's the polar opposite. Zero tolerance policies simply absolve the enforcers of any responsibility for the outcome and grant them the privilege of ignoring mitigating factors. It allows them to bypass applying any sort of critical thinking skills (the "reason" part of "reasonable") and view every infractions as nothing more than a binary IF THEN equation.

Mullins goes even further than this, though, asserting that the burden of proof lies with the person charged, not the person bringing the charges. This flips our judicial system on its head (along with the judicial systems in many other countries) and, if applied the way Mullins views it, puts accused citizens in the impossible position of trying to prove a negative. This is just completely wrong, and it's a dangerously stupid thing for someone in his position to believe, much less state out loud. (Mullins also heads the Sergeants Benevolent Association, the second-largest police union in New York City.)

Believe it or not, Mullins is not done talking. What he says next doubles up on the "dangerous" and "stupid."

“This is the price you pay to live in free society right now. It’s just the way it is,” Mullins adds.

No. It isn't.

This is the price Mullins is charging to live in the NYPD's severely stunted version of a "free" society. The NYPD has been harassing young minorities at the rate of 500,000 impromptu stop-and-frisks per year for the better part of the last decade. For the past 10 years, the NYPD has been regularly trampling citizens' civil liberties simply because they attend a mosque. The NYPD and Mayor Bloomberg have worked ceaselessly to make New York the most-surveilled city in the U.S.

That's the price New Yorkers are paying. It has nothing to do with living in a free society. The NYPD takes liberties away and high-ranking cops like Mullins have the gall to suggest there's some sort of equitable exchange occurring. Mullins doesn't seem to understand (or just doesn't care) that if you take away freedom you no longer have a free society.

It has been said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, but "eternal vigilance" isn't shorthand for oppressive surveillance and zero tolerance policies that make freedom less "free." "Eternal vigilance" isn't treating the Constitution like a relic too worn and tattered to serve any purpose in these "dangerous" times. And being an officer of the law isn't an excuse to shut your intellect off and allow your brain stem and broad policies to "work" in concert in order to treat loudmouth teens on Facebook like a guy with a trailer home full of explosives.

This "vigilance" is supposed to be put to use by citizens in order to prevent authorities like Mullins from encroaching on our liberties. It's not solely limited to a united military effort against foreign powers. There are plenty of people apparently willing to attack our freedom from the comfort of the home front.

Grammy Winner Lauryn Hill to be Re-Educated by Court Order

Read related article at: InfoWars.com

SWAT Transparency Bill Yields Results

This report is actually a few years old now, but still very relevant when it comes to gaining an understanding of how police operate and how they spend taxpayer dollars. This article is not an original work by this site, but is being shared here in entirety for reference in ongoing conversation and study.  Users are encouraged to visit the original source at: reason.com

4.5 SWAT Raids Per Day

Maryland's SWAT transparency bill produces its first disturbing results

Radley Balko | March 1, 2010

Cheye Calvo's July 2008 encounter with a Prince George's County, Maryland, SWAT team is now pretty well-known: After intercepting a package of marijuana at a delivery service warehouse, police completed the delivery, in disguise, to the address on the package. That address belonged to Calvo, who also happened to be the mayor of the small Prince George’s town of Berwyn Heights. When Calvo's mother-in-law brought the package in from the porch, the SWAT team pounced, forcing their way into Calvo's home. By the time the raid was over, Calvo and his mother-in-law had been handcuffed for hours, police realized they'd made a mistake, and Calvo's two black Labradors lay dead on the floor from gunshot wounds.

As a result of this colossal yet not-unprecedented screw-up, plus Calvo's notoriety and persistence, last year Maryland became the first state in the country to make every one of its police departments issue a report on how often and for what purpose they use their SWAT teams. The first reports from the legislation are in, and the results are disturbing.

Over the last six months of 2009, SWAT teams were deployed 804 times in the state of Maryland, or about 4.5 times per day. In Prince George's County alone, with its 850,000 residents, a SWAT team was deployed about once per day. According to a Baltimore Sun analysis, 94 percent of the state's SWAT deployments were used to serve search or arrest warrants, leaving just 6 percent in response to the kinds of barricades, bank robberies, hostage takings, and emergency situations for which SWAT teams were originally intended.

Worse even than those dreary numbers is the fact that more than half of the county’s SWAT deployments were for misdemeanors and nonserious felonies. That means more than 100 times last year Prince George’s County brought state-sanctioned violence to confront people suspected of nonviolent crimes. And that's just one county in Maryland. These outrageous numbers should provide a long-overdue wake-up call to public officials about how far the pendulum has swung toward institutionalized police brutality against its citizenry, usually in the name of the drug war.

But that’s unlikely to happen, at least in Prince George's County. To this day, Sheriff Michael Jackson insists his officers did nothing wrong in the Calvo raid—not the killing of the dogs, not neglecting to conduct any corroborating investigation to be sure they had the correct house, not failing to notify the Berwyn Heights police chief of the raid, not the repeated and documented instances of Jackson’s deputies playing fast and loose with the truth.

Jackson, who's now running for county executive, is incapable of shame. He has tried to block Calvo's efforts to access information about the raid at every turn. Last week, Prince George's County Circuit Judge Arthur M. Ahalt ruled that Calvo's civil rights suit against the county can go forward. But Jackson has been fighting to delay the discovery process in that suit until federal authorities complete their own investigation into the raid. That would likely (and conveniently) prevent Prince George's County voters from learning any embarrassing details about the raid until after the election.

But there is some good news to report here, too. The Maryland state law, as noted, is the first of its kind in the country, and will hopefully serve as a model for other states in adding some much-needed transparency to the widespread use and abuse of SWAT teams. And some Maryland legislators want to go even further. State Sen. Anthony Muse (D-Prince George's), for example, wants to require a judge's signature before police can deploy a SWAT team. Muse has sponsored another bill that would ban the use of SWAT teams for misdemeanor offenses. The latter seems like a no-brainer, but it's already facing strong opposition from law enforcement interests. Police groups opposed the transparency bill, too.

Beyond policy changes, the Calvo raid also seems to have also sparked media and public interest in how SWAT teams are deployed in Maryland. The use of these paramilitary police units has increased dramatically over the last 30 years, by 1,000 percent or more, resulting in the drastic militarization of police. It's a trend that seems to have escaped much media and public notice, let alone informed debate about policies and oversight procedures. But since the Calvo raid in 2008, Maryland newspapers, TV news crews, activists, and bloggers have been documenting mistaken, botched, or disproportionately aggressive raids across the state.

Lawmakers tend to be wary of questioning law enforcement officials, particularly when it comes to policing tactics. They shouldn't be. If anything, the public employees who are entrusted with the power to use force, including lethal force, deserve the most scrutiny. It's unfortunate that it took a violent raid on a fellow public official for Maryland's policymakers to finally take notice of tactics that have been used on Maryland citizens for decades now. But at least these issues are finally on the table.

Lawmakers in other states should take notice. It's time to have a national discussion on the wisdom of sending phalanxes of cops dressed like soldiers into private homes in search of nonviolent and consensual crimes.

(Highlight emphasis by November Yankee)

BONUS VIDEO: