SWAT Overkill: The Danger of a Paramilitary Police Force

In a guest editorial, law professor and instupundit.com blogger Glenn Reynolds argues that overagressive tactics and surplus military gear have turned some police units into a dangerous menace.

It used to be that police came to the door, announced themselves and, once a homeowner responded, entered the premises. Most policemen still work this way. But an alarming number now break down doors first and ask questions later. Don't get me wrong: Police often do dangerous work and they need equipment that's going to protect them. And dynamic entry is valid when dealing with desperate criminals, but these tactics put ordinary citizens--and the ... Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala
Tags Help
Subjects: U.S.
Topics: Law
Member Tags: Flowing narrative, perspective, limited national perspective, Police brutality
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Kaizar Campwala - Nov 29, 2006 - 10:38 AM PST
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Kaizar Campwala - Dec 20, 2006 - 3:44 PM PST

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Fabrice Florin
4.0
by Fabrice Florin - Oct. 1, 2008

Good opinion piece by Instapundit blogger Glenn Reynolds, pointing to the rise in overagressive tactics from SWAT units. The author presents this alarming trend with good factual evidence to back his points, and makes the reasonable argument that police raids be videotaped for transparency purposes, and that inappropriate behavior be prosecutable in a court of law. Thoughtful piece on an important matter.

See Full Review » (10 answers)
Stephen Onisko
4.3
by Stephen Onisko - Oct. 1, 2008

A good flowing narrative that keeps the issue in personal perspective for the reader. However, the broader national issue is not fully developed nor is the perspective of those in the line of duty, or associated with this type of law enforcement. No numbers to suggest what part of the number of incidents are troublesome and support the need for transparency argument.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Mark Tapscott
4.5
by Mark Tapscott - Oct. 1, 2008

Reynolds presents cogent reasoning and vivid examples to make a strong case.

See Full Review » (5 answers)
Tony Litwinko
4.1
by Tony Litwinko - Oct. 1, 2008

It's an editorial, and that implies an opinion, whether or not the opinion is well-documented or not. In this case, there is enough for an editorial comment, though I would have liked to see more development of the final reference to the "troubling report" by Radley Balko, who is not identified clearly enough: "poitical commentator" doesn't really give bona fides. At the very least, a link to the report must be given.

See Full Review » (6 answers)
Kaizar Campwala
4.0
by Kaizar Campwala - Oct. 1, 2008
See Full Review » (1 answer)
Richard Keller
4.6
by Richard Keller - Oct. 1, 2008

Brings up a critical and growing problem, wile defining why it should be of concern.

See Full Review » (6 answers)
Matt Rollefson
4.1
by Matt Rollefson - Oct. 1, 2008

It's an editorial, and an interesting piece as such. It's definitely not investigative journalism.

See Full Review » (6 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.2

Good
from 9 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
4.2
Facts
3.5
Fairness
4.0
Information
4.3
Sourcing
3.3
Style
4.5
Accuracy
4.0
Balance
3.0
Context
4.3
Popularity
4.3
Recommendation
4.4
# Reviews
4.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »

Topics

U.S. | Law
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!