JOHN WHITEHEAD writes on the rise of deadly home invasions by the police. These invasions by SWAT teams more and more seem to end in the violent deaths of innocent people. Here is an excerpt of his article:

Unfortunately, with every passing week, we are hearing more and more horror stories in which homeowners are injured or killed simply because they mistook a SWAT team raid by police for a home invasion by criminals. Never mind that the unsuspecting homeowner, woken from sleep by the sounds of a violent entry, has no way of distinguishing between a home invasion by a criminal as opposed to a government agent. Too often, the destruction of life and property wrought by the police is no less horrifying than that carried out by criminal invaders.

Consider, for example, the sad scenario that played out when a SWAT team kicked open the door of ex-Marine Jose Guerena’s home during a drug raid and opened fire. Thinking his home was being invaded by criminals, Guerena told his wife and child to hide in a closet, grabbed a gun and waited in the hallway to confront the intruders. He never fired his weapon. In fact, the safety was still on his gun when he was killed. The SWAT officers, however, not as restrained, fired 70 rounds of ammunition at Guerena—23 of those bullets made contact. Guerena had had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home.

[…]

There was a time in America when a man’s home really was a sanctuary where he and his family could be safe and secure from the threat of invasion by government agents, who were held at bay by the dictates of the Fourth Amendment, which protects American citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Fourth Amendment, in turn, was added to the U.S. Constitution by colonists still smarting from the abuses they had been forced to endure while under British rule, among these home invasions by the military under the guise of writs of assistance. These writs were nothing less than open-ended royal documents which British soldiers used as a justification for barging into the homes of colonists and rifling through their belongings. James Otis, a renowned colonial attorney, “condemned writs of assistance because they were perpetual, universal (addressed to every officer and subject in the realm), and allowed anyone to conduct a search in violation of the essential principle of English liberty that a peaceable man’s house is his castle.” As Otis noted:

“Now, one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.”

To our detriment, we have now come full circle, returning to a time before the American Revolution when government agents—with the blessing of the courts—could force their way into a citizen’s home, with seemingly little concern for lives lost and property damaged in the process.

Actually, we may be worse off today than our colonial ancestors when one considers the extent to which courts have sanctioned the use of no-knock raids by police SWAT teams (occurring at a rate of 70,000 to 80,000 a year and growing); the arsenal of lethal weapons available to local police agencies; the ease with which courts now dispense search warrants based often on little more than a suspicion of wrongdoing; and the inability of police to distinguish between reasonable suspicion and the higher standard of probable cause, the latter of which is required by the Constitution before any government official can search an individual or his property.

Indeed, if Winston Churchill is correct that “democracy means that if the doorbell rings in the early hours, it is likely to be the milkman,” then it’s safe to say that we no longer live in a democracy. Certainly not in a day and age when the Fourth Amendment, which was intended to protect us against the police state, especially home invasions by government agents, has been reduced to little more than words on paper.

— Comments —

Leo Walker writes:

Agree with [Whitehead] wholeheartedly.

Consider the case of Miriam Carey.

Once, when institutions were held in high regard, their very legitimacy granted an authority that required little force to exercise their functions. As little as ten years ago, after having been cornered, Miriam Carey’s surrender would have been been taken for granted by both sides, nothing less would have occurred to anybody at the scene either as witness or participant. In today’s America Miriam Carey was shot out of hand.

As governing institutions’ legitimacy erodes the institutions compensate by using increased force to achieve their ends. The causes of the trends that have brought us to this pass have not been recognized; no effort is being made to roll them back. It follows, therefore, that the trends will not only continue but accelerate. The policies of the Left inevitably lead, in the end, to economic, cultural, social, moral and spiritual collapse.

Historically republics devolve into dictatorships. Increasingly I see the institutions of American civilization being adapted to serve as organs of a totalitarian state. If I were a conspiracy nut I’d say that we are being fed a slow but steady increase of violence by the authorities as a means to desensitize us to violence. It sure feels that way to me.

Laura writes:

Wow, you have hit the nail on the head. As governing institutions’ legitimacy erodes the institutions compensate by using increased force to achieve their ends.

Jonathan Ferrell is another example of this excessive force. An unarmed man was shot ten times by the police. It’s insane and outrageous.

Mrs. H. writes:

Trespassing happens all the time with city workers who are not police.  Soon after we bought our house, surveyors came to remeasure the back of our yard, which had been mistakenly plotted as city land (it used to be an alley) since the ’60’s.  We knew they would be visiting that week.

Home alone with two small children, I looked out my window to find three large men walking around my house!  I watched them (unmarked clothes, no indication that their car was city owned) and did not confront them until they walked into the back yard.  They acted offended I was suspicious!  I asked them why they didn’t knock at the front door, first (one had tried opening the back porch door, which was locked).  They said they assumed no one was home (we only own one car, which my husband had taken to work). I said, “What if we had a dog in the yard?”  “We didn’t see a ‘Beware of Dog’ sign…”  (Of course, if one of these men had been bitten by our dog in our yard, we would have been fined for not having a sign, and the dog would have either be put down for doing its job or labeled dangerous.)

My husband says we’re basically renting from the city (118k house with 4k/yr property tax), so he says that’s why they just walked right into our yard.

I know my situation is tame in comparison to SWAT teams showing up, but it’s frustrating to know a certain class of people (city or state or fed officials) feel they have a right to impose themselves on my property.  My husband has mapped out a plan if DCSF ever shows up.

Wanda Sherrat of Ottawa writes:

What appalls me is the huge number of people who are perfectly willing to champion the increasing brutality of the police.  When Marion Carey was shot down, the most frequent excuse given was “She WAS armed – she was behind the wheel of a 3,000 lb weapon” so the police were perfectly justified in simply shooting her.  And this excuse was often delivered with a blunt, no-nonsense, “case closed” sort of finality.

The excuse-makers never take this reasoning one step further, which is that I, they, and millions of citizens go forth thus “armed” every single day.  We are thus now ALL legitimate targets for judicial murder; after all, we COULD use that car to strike down a police officer.  And since so many of these killings now hinge on the officer’s “perception” of danger (to himself), how can anyone prove the contrary?  Marion Carey had no gun or bomb, but she had a car.  That is now sufficient to justify the Bonnie and Clyde treatment.

Please follow and like us: