High school drug raid

[Chanileslie]

The bastards.



I know this is America, but couldn't the reporter- or at the very least, the reporter's sub-editor- spell 'canine'?

Police dogs in the US are called K9 units and the dogs are referred to as K9's; hence the terminology used by the reporter which is correct.

 

[AmateurScientist]

ARRRRRRGGGG.........

Yeah, I recall that incident AS. I had a rather lengthy discussion on here with some lawyer guy from Alabama, IIRC.

I seem to recall something about it as well....

But to get back to this incident.....

Lacking some new information we're not privy to, this whole thing was just wrong.

If they had surveillance info which caused them to ask the police to get involved, they should have been able to target just those kids that they suspected of drug activity. They could have been brought to the office and searched. The drug dogs could have done their sweep of lockers while everyone was in class.

I can think of about half a dozen better ways of approaching the suspected drug problems in this school.

I don't think they should have surveillance info to begin with. Cameras do not belong in schools. They don't belong in most workplaces or on public streets anymore than they belong in locker rooms, restrooms, or parties.

Privacy is a precious, once revered thing which is dying by leaps and bounds in our modern, Western societies. I'm appalled that there is a large contigent which apparently fully supports its loss if it means greater security.

F*ck security. Privacy and the freedom from unwarranted government or other intrusion is far more important for a free state. I'd much rather have lawlessness than totalitarianism.

AS

 

[LTC8K6]

Again, we don't really know what the police were told. Maybe the stoolie said one of the dealers usually carried a gun?

It's hardly unheard of today.

I think they confined it to the hallway because they were targeting the group that hung out in that hallway at that time.

It would have been easier to block all the exits and have everybody in the school in the bag to search. They did not include everybody, so they must have had that group as their target.

It's too easy to say what someone should have done, when you didn't have to do it.

This was the first such raid conducted by these officers, apparently.

I can't seem to get the video to run well on this infernal machine, though I have seen it on TV. Is the claim of "Guns put to their head" justified?

In any event, it seems pretty clear that this raid will be thoroughly investigated, so if any laws were broken we will find out about it.

 

[LTC8K6]

Some more info.

http://www.charleston.net/cgi-bin/printme.pl

"Several officers did unholster their weapons in a tactical law enforcement approach," he said. "There was no force whatsoever. Everyone was very compliant.""

"Several weeks ago, a student was arrested trying to pass out between 200 and 300 prescription pills, he said. After school ended Friday, one student threatened another and claimed to have a weapon."

"Officers searched only book bags that the police dog responded to, not students, he said."

 

[AmateurScientist]

Some more info.

http://www.charleston.net/cgi-bin/printme.pl

"Several officers did unholster their weapons in a tactical law enforcement approach," he said. "There was no force whatsoever. Everyone was very compliant.""

"Several weeks ago, a student was arrested trying to pass out between 200 and 300 prescription pills, he said. After school ended Friday, one student threatened another and claimed to have a weapon."

"Officers searched only book bags that the police dog responded to, not students, he said."

Ummm.... unholstering weapons is force. It's threatening deadly force. Had any private citizen done that in a similar circumstance, many police officers would have shot said person without hesitation.

Yeah, everyone was compliant because they were scared out of their wits. Again, did you see the video? Wouldn't you have been scared with multiple officers with weapons drawn and dogs roaming nearby? This quote is at odds with news reports on CNN which stated that a few students were handcuffed after failing to get down in a prone position immediately upon being ordered to do so.

I'm amazed that you apparently think this approach to drugs in schools is not outrageous. Personally, I don't care how many raids these officers had conducted before. My point is that neither they nor any other officers should even consider this sort of raid ever, under any circumstances, when they are merely responding to allegations of drug dealing or possession. My opinion does not preclude police response to genuine emergencies like the Columbine shootings, however. That was a genuine emergency in which deadly force was necessary. This was not.

AS

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Ummm.... unholstering weapons is force. It's threatening deadly force. Had any private citizen done that in a similar circumstance, many police officers would have shot said person without hesitation.

As an attorney, could you argue the difference between force vs. threatening force?

Could you argue the difference between a citizen pointing a gun at a police officer vs. a tactical entry by police?

Yeah, everyone was compliant because they were scared out of their wits. Again, did you see the video? Wouldn't you have been scared with multiple officers with weapons drawn and dogs roaming nearby? This quote is at odds with news reports on CNN which stated that a few students were handcuffed after failing to get down in a prone position immediately upon being ordered to do so.

I didn't see the video, but saw half a dozen stills. Agree it looked scary.

I'm not sure what CNN's reporting has to do with the issue, AS.

(snip)Personally, I don't care how many raids these officers had conducted before. My point is that neither they nor any other officers should even consider this sort of raid ever, under any circumstances, when they are merely responding to allegations of drug dealing or possession. My opinion does not preclude police response to genuine emergencies like the Columbine shootings, however. That was a genuine emergency in which deadly force was necessary. This was not.

AS

Agree, based on what we know and have seen so far.

 

[AmateurScientist]

As an attorney, could you argue the difference between force vs. threatening force?

Depends on the context. My state's definition of robbery, for instance, requires the actor to use force or the threat of force to commit theft. There is a difference between actually hurting someone and creating fear of harm to someone and thus getting compliance by threatening force.

In this case, I think calling drawing weapons on students "force" is appropriate. Threatening the use of deadly force may be more accurate, but it's a more cumbersome phrase.

Could you argue the difference between a citizen pointing a gun at a police officer vs. a tactical entry by police?

That wasn't my point. My point is that from the students' perspective they were just as menaced by the police as they would have been by private actors. I doubt many police officers in tactical units would have considered shooting a private citizen with a firearm drawn on students lying prone to be unjustified. They would have considered the armed citizen's doing so to be threatening the lives of the prone kids. Downing and disarming that individual would be their top priority.

The police did exactly what they would have probably shot a private citizen for doing. Isn't that a little frightening?

I didn't see the video, but saw half a dozen stills. Agree it looked scary.

Yeah, and remember, these were schoolkids, not armed thugs robbing a bank. The kids weren't seasoned cops used to handling firearms tactically or otherwise. D*mn right the kids should have been scared.

I'm not sure what CNN's reporting has to do with the issue, AS.

I didn't claim it's relevant to the larger issue. It is directly relevant to the quote I referred to in the post to which I was responding.

The quote I was referring to said "everyone was very compliant." Apparently, they weren't, according to CNN's report. CNN said that several students were handcuffed because they failed to get prone when ordered to do so. I would call that non-compliant. I think CNN's report is in fact at odds with the police spokesman's quote. It's relevant as a rebuttal to that remark only.

Otherwise, it's irrelevant to the bigger issue, which is whether police tactical raids belong in schools.

Agree, based on what we know and have seen so far.

I can't imagine any information short of "students or teachers downed or threated by shooters in the school right now" which could justify this raid.

Don't hold your breath for any new information as justification. This was a drug raid. As such, the tactics used are never justified, in my opinion.

As others have noted, I don't like the pro-police bias some have here. It implies that police have power and should use it to do whatever is necessary or "justified" to stop drugs or any other thing which is deemed a threat.

Sorry, but I cannot subscribe to such a view considering the constitutional restraints on police power in the U.S. The use of force by government agents is an awesome power. The government has relatively unlimited strength and resources compared to the citizens alone or in small groups.

Police too seldom consider the psychological and sociological effects their use of force might have on the citizens involved or the larger populace. Their focus is on the safety of themselves first, and on the safety of others involved second. That's a good focus, but it's not the whole picture. Somebody failed to consider the whole picture in deciding to carry out this raid.

AS

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Note this quote ...........

Think of the implications of this. Because of the institution of the Surveillance Regime, anyone who finds themselves outside that field of surveillance becomes a suspect. It's the old what have you got to hide? conundrum. This is much more than the passive public safety mechanism that it's made out to be. This is a principal foundation of the police state reality that is evident in the video.

Sure sounds like some of that to me. It takes absolutely no imagination on my part to come up with the idea that perfectly innocent (of drug dealing) students would stand under the cameras, and do all sorts of seemingly odd things, just because they were offended by the 'Big Brother' aspects of the cameras.

But the whole point of people having guns drawn? Somebody said (was it hyperbolic) guns to heads?

And then finding NOTHING!?!?!?!?!?!?

Was there a leak? While I can see "not finding much", not finding a single thing suggests that the raid was leaked well in advance.

 

[Tmy]

I find it funny how there great survellience led them to believe that there were hyjinx going on OFF CAMERA. No shizit. Like some kid is going to smoke cigarettes in front of the camera. There is still nothing that justifes the whole guns drawn and get on the floor tactics.


I remember in high school they put together "Drug Awareness Day". A day long informational blitz on the dangers of drugs. Most of the student body took the oppurtunity to show up to school drunk and or stoned on that day. Whos says teens dont appreciate irony.

 

[LTC8K6]

I think there are people who grew up in fairly crime free areas and those who grew up in fairly crime ridden areas.

The former are probably outraged, while the latter wonder what the big deal is about this raid.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.charleston.net/stories/110803/loc_08drugraid.shtml

EDIT: Click on the link and then click on the print button, or it'll ask you to register.

This article has opinions from other law enforcment agencies in the area. They seem to agree that it was a bit much for such a search of a high school in that area.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Depends on the context. My state's definition of robbery, for instance, requires the actor to use force or the threat of force to commit theft. There is a difference between actually hurting someone and creating fear of harm to someone and thus getting compliance by threatening force.

In this case, I think calling drawing weapons on students "force" is appropriate. Threatening the use of deadly force may be more accurate, but it's a more cumbersome phrase.

Agree that it depends on context, which is why I'm kinda splitting hairs here. I guess I was trying to see if you could argue the side of the police in the context of what we know. That is, could you argue that they were using force, but not deadly force?

That wasn't my point. My point is that from the students' perspective they were just as menaced by the police as they would have been by private actors. I doubt many police officers in tactical units would have considered shooting a private citizen with a firearm drawn on students lying prone to be unjustified. They would have considered the armed citizen's doing so to be threatening the lives of the prone kids. Downing and disarming that individual would be their top priority.


The police did exactly what they would have probably shot a private citizen for doing. Isn't that a little frightening?

Again, I was just wondering if you could argue that a police officer is "more justified" in shooting a citizen who points a gun at them, than a citizen is in shooting a police officer who enters a school (in uniform, properly identified, en masse, in tactical formation, etc.) where it's obvious that it's a police raid?

Yeah, and remember, these were schoolkids, not armed thugs robbing a bank. The kids weren't seasoned cops used to handling firearms tactically or otherwise. D*mn right the kids should have been scared.

Again, I agree, based on the facts at hand.

I didn't claim it's relevant to the larger issue. It is directly relevant to the quote I referred to in the post to which I was responding.

The quote I was referring to said "everyone was very compliant." Apparently, they weren't, according to CNN's report. CNN said that several students were handcuffed because they failed to get prone when ordered to do so. I would call that non-compliant. I think CNN's report is in fact at odds with the police spokesman's quote. It's relevant as a rebuttal to that remark only.

Otherwise, it's irrelevant to the bigger issue, which is whether police tactical raids belong in schools.

OK, must have missed that quote.

I can't imagine any information short of "students or teachers downed or threated by shooters in the school right now" which could justify this raid.

Don't hold your breath for any new information as justification. This was a drug raid. As such, the tactics used are never justified, in my opinion.

Agree; based on what we know.

As others have noted, I don't like the pro-police bias some have here. It implies that police have power and should use it to do whatever is necessary or "justified" to stop drugs or any other thing which is deemed a threat.

Sorry, but I cannot subscribe to such a view considering the constitutional restraints on police power in the U.S. The use of force by government agents is an awesome power. The government has relatively unlimited strength and resources compared to the citizens alone or in small groups.

Police too seldom consider the psychological and sociological effects their use of force might have on the citizens involved or the larger populace. Their focus is on the safety of themselves first, and on the safety of others involved second. That's a good focus, but it's not the whole picture. Somebody failed to consider the whole picture in deciding to carry out this raid.

AS

Well, I agree in principle AS, but here's where I'm having trouble with you're argument. Your idealism is one thing. The facts surrounding the case are another.

If the police department doesn't very quickly explain why their tactics were necessary, then I'll come down on your side and agree that this was a real abuse of power. I'd also back you up idealistically in some regards.

I'm also willing to bet we won't hear much more from the PD, but who knows? We probably need an extension to the 48 hour rule for this one.

This probably could have been two threads: one to discuss police tactics, and another to discuss the reasons behind employing those tactics.

 

[AmateurScientist]

I think there are people who grew up in fairly crime free areas and those who grew up in fairly crime ridden areas.

The former are probably outraged, while the latter wonder what the big deal is about this raid.

Perhaps the latter group has already grown accustomed to having many of their constitutionally guaranteed liberties taken away. They routinely have to endure unnecessary questioning and harassment by police merely for walking in their own neighorhoods. Police use different standards for deciding someone is a suspect in what they routinely refer to as "high crime areas." This is code for "we assume everyone in them is a criminal."

If I were to drive my late model European luxury sedan in a housing project (a "high crime area" according to police in any metro area in the U.S.), as I did recently to view the scene of a crime, I would be assumed by most police officers to be looking to buy drugs. I would most likely be stopped and questioned. Residents of such areas and those visiting them put up with this kind of crap daily.

Just because it is routine for them doesn't make it right.

Maybe if the residents of high crime areas had an opportunity to live and observe the relative harassment-free lifestyle more privileged persons enjoy they would be outraged.

AS

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Perhaps the latter group has already grown accustomed to having many of their constitutionally guaranteed liberties taken away. They routinely have to endure unnecessary questioning and harassment by police merely for walking in their own neighorhoods. Police use different standards for deciding someone is a suspect in what they routinely refer to as "high crime areas." This is code for "we assume everyone in them is a criminal."

If I were to drive my late model European luxury sedan in a housing project (a "high crime area" according to police in any metro area in the U.S.), as I did recently to view the scene of a crime, I would be assumed by most police officers to be looking to buy drugs. I would most likely be stopped and questioned. Residents of such areas and those visiting them put up with this kind of crap daily.

Just because it is routine for them doesn't make it right.

Maybe if the residents of high crime areas had an opportunity to live and observe the relative harassment-free lifestyle more privileged persons enjoy they would be outraged.

AS

While I reserve the right to argue this later, in general, even this "cop defender" would agree that this was true.

If this were eloquently written I might nominate this for a language award for this month.

For now I'll just nominate it for the "hhhhmmmm.......yeppers" award.

However, AS........in a late model European car, you might be pegged for a pimp, or a loan shark, or a high roller, or........

 

[Graham]

Update

Principal in drug school raid resigns

MONCKS CORNER, South Carolina (AP) -- A high school principal announced his resignation Monday after coming under fire over a November drug sweep in which police with guns drawn ordered students to the floor.

The article goes on to mention, however, that he will just be reassigned to a different position by the local educational authorities.

Graham

 

[scribble]

Also, they found nothing? Not even a smidgen of cannabis? Hmmm, methinks the students had an idea what was going to happen.

This sentiment has been mentioned a couple of times in this thread. It really says something to me about the state of the War on Drugs that it's unbelievable a high school could have no marijuana in it.

The police talk about "drug dealers" as if there were drug kingpins wandering the school. Were talking about some pimple faced 17 yr old stoners selling weed. Talk about overkill. Now all these kids will probably go through life being all bitter and resentful to police.

Well, of course it's anecdotal, but I know when I was in high school, mary jane was definately not the only thing going around. You could get H pretty easy, though this was before X got popular I'd imagine you'd have no problem there either. And LSD was everywhere. Guns weren't unheard of; they installed metal deterctors the year after I graduated.

That doesn't mean I agree with how this situation was handled. It's ridiculous and I only wish I were there so I could have said something.

 

[The idea]

You simply can't dicate personal lifestyle choices in a free society.

Please define "personal lifestyle choice" and explain why such choices can't be dictated in a free society.

Suppose somewhere in the world a government that executes political prisoners smokes the flesh of the prisoners and then smuggles the meat into free societies. Would buying and eating such meat be a "personal lifestyle choice"? Why or why not?

 

[fishbob]

Explain why such choices can't be dictated in a free society.

Why? Note the two important words in that phrase - free and dictated. Choices is not one of the important words in that phrase. Personal lifestyle choices are irrelevant in this discussion.

 

[epepke]

I mentioned that government tyranny is a far greater threat to America and American citizens than terrorism, gun violence, drug dealers, drug use and abuse combined will ever be. I spoke about America's current fears being a danger to freedom because a lack of vigilance in preserving it will inevitably lead to the government's taking it away, little by little, step by innocuous step. It won't give any of it back without a hell of a fight.

I agree. When I was in middle/high school, at the time, being the mid-1970s, I'm pretty sure that drug use was as or more rampant than it is now. The closest that things ever came to a police presence on campus, apart from the usual exhibitions and auditorium shows, was the one time that the police had stopped a car on one of the streets adjacent to the school. I can remember in, I think, calculus class, everybody at the window watching. When the policeman found a bag in the trunk, he waved it at us and smiled, and we all cheered.

Nowadays, the cops seem to be doing their damnedest to destroy any and all respect for the law by their actions.

 

[Nasarius]

Please define "personal lifestyle choice" and explain why such choices can't be dictated in a free society.

Suppose somewhere in the world a government that executes political prisoners smokes the flesh of the prisoners and then smuggles the meat into free societies. Would buying and eating such meat be a "personal lifestyle choice"? Why or why not?

That's gotta be the weirdest comparison I've ever heard, and it fails because in your example, the choice involves causing harm (albeit indirectly) to other people. As soon as illegal drugs are made legal, their production and distribution no longer cause harm to anyone.

P.S. Even now, the vast majority of good-quality marijuana available in the US is grown in the US. Its production typically hurts no one, beyond the pollution caused by all that electricity consumption