The same cops who’ve now spent more than a week parading through the streets of Ferguson, Missouri like a conquering army—pointing high-powered rifles directly at unarmed protesters, assaulting them with tear gas and rubber bullets, enforcing unconstitutional curfews and speech restrictions, blocking media access, arresting journalists—can be found on SWAT teams and riot squads in local police departments all over Florida. They are armed with the same military equipment carried by the cops who threw a flash grenade into a crib during a raid in Habersham County, Georgia, severely burning and hospitalizing a 19-month-old toddler. They operate under the same standards for use of deadly force as the cop who brutally choked Eric Garner to death in Staten Island, or the cops who fatally shot a homeless man in the back in Albuquerque, or the cop who sparked the ongoing protests in Ferguson by killing 18-year-old Michael Brown. This is a nationwide problem. Florida is no exception.On December 10, 2013, two dozen Miami police officers fired 377 shots at a stationary car, killing both of the men inside—only one of whom was suspected of a crime—even though the men were unarmed and appeared to be attempting to surrender. Two officers were also shot during the barrage, and several bullets struck nearby cars, businesses, and private residences, including one in which an infant was sleeping.

On May 27 of this year, a Tampa Police Department SWAT team shot and killed29-year-old Jason Westcott during a raid over alleged sales of less than $200 of marijuana. Officers claim Westcott was armed, and that they shot him in self-defense. Months earlier, Westcott had gone to the authorities because he had been receiving death threats, and was advised by the same police department that would later invade his home to be prepared to use deadly force against home invaders.

On June 10, a Department of Homeland Security SWAT team stormed into a Homestead couple’s residence at 6:15 a.m., deploying flash grenades and tear gas. Officers forcibly removed the towel the woman was using to cover herself and handcuffed her, leaving her to lie naked on the floor while they ransacked the house. The couple still has not been given any information about why they were raided.

On July 30, Madison County Sheriff’s Office deputies raided a Madison family’s home at 5 a.m., terrorizing them with drawn weapons and flash grenades. A 16-year-old boy was dragged out of bed at gunpoint and handcuffed. Deputies did not find the alleged drug dealer they were searching for, because they had raided the wrong house.

On July 31, a Miami Police Department SWAT team raided a house in Coconut Grove where three children were home alone. Two of them were injured—a 13-year-old claims an officer struck him in the head with a rifle (a police spokesman said the child “ran into an officer’s weapon”), and a 12-year-old claims an officer punched him in the eye.

And on and on. The stories are as horrendous as they are plentiful (although exact statistics are hard to come by, which is in itself a problem). Police officers have difficult and often dangerous jobs, and they need to be able to protect themselves, but we cannot allow that to become an excuse to trample on the rights—and all too often, lives—of the most vulnerable.

Yet that is exactly what these shocking displays of force tend to accomplish. They disproportionately target the poor and powerless, often for crimes as minor as simple drug possession, and with little regard for whether the suspect actually poses a threat to officer safety. The frequency with which SWAT teams storm into the wrong house, needlessly kill family pets, and provoke confused and terrified homeowners into defending themselves (with predictably tragic results) strongly suggests that many raids are not conducted with even a basic acceptable level of professionalism. Even when raids are “successful”, they can take an incredible emotional toll on the innocent family members, friends, and neighbors caught in the crosshairs.

Unraveling the myriad flawed policies and perverse incentives that brought us to this point will not be easy, but the status quo is unacceptable. Lives are being destroyed on a daily basis. While many aspects of the problem need to be addressed at the federal level, with the right reforms Florida can increase the safety of both private citizens and police officers, demonstrate a newfound respect for civil rights, restore public trust and confidence in law enforcement, and become a model for other states to follow. I believe the following changes would be major steps in the right direction:

Require police officers to use body cameras and dashboard cameras at all times while on duty, and establishing a presumption in favor of the defendant’s version of events in cases where an encounter should have been recorded but was not (or the recording has been lost or destroyed). Used properly, cameras can be vital tools in both protecting private citizens from abuse and in protecting police officers from false accusations.

Limit the use of SWAT raids to situations where such overwhelming force is truly called for. Too many of these raids and other aggressive police actions target people suspected low-level, non-violent crimes. If paramilitary equipment and tactics are to be used at all, it should be in response to extreme violence, not as a means of introducing violence into a situation that could have been handled peacefully.

Prohibit “no-knock” forced entry raids. It should be self-evident that when police invade a home without clearly announcing who they are, they are increasing the likelihood that the residents will attempt to defend themselves (as was allegedly the case for Jason Westcott).

Strengthen protections against civil asset forfeiture abuses, removing the terrible incentives that allow law enforcement agencies to directly profit from criminal investigations by seizing cash and other assets—sometimes without even convicting the owner of the seized property of a crime.

Require law enforcement agencies to develop protocols and training methods aimed at resolving situations without violence. Police officers are often trained as if they are soldiers preparing for battle, and too many seem to have taken this to heart.

Require law enforcement agencies to keep and report statistics regarding how many raids they conduct, how the raids are conducted, what evidence was sought, what evidence was recovered, and whether there were any injuries (to officers, suspects, or innocent bystanders) or property damage. Police militarization has become such an insidious problem in large part because the public has been kept in the dark about many of the more unsettling details.

End the “war or drugs”. A full accounting of the devastation wrought by drug prohibition is a subject for another day, but any serious approach to police reform has to acknowledge its central role in dismantling privacy and civil liberties, suppressing poor communities, destroying families, and giving the police free reign to harass, intimidate, and abuse.

I call on the other District 8 candidates to join me in supporting these reforms.

I attended a Candidate Forum at the Golden Gate Community Center last Tuesday where the Supervisor of Elections set up a mock election.  I, like most voters, naturally assumed that all candidates who qualified to be on our ballots in November would be on this mock ballot because it was run by the SOE using the same ballot format, voting booths and ballot reader they’ll use in November.

Imagine my surprise when I tried to vote for my favorite candidate and his name was missing from the ballot. In the race for Attorney General, there were only three candidates listed.  But I know there is a fourth – my candidate, Bill Wohlsifer.  I asked the Supervisor of Elections how they could exclude my candidate who met the same criteria and paid the same $7,738.32 fee to qualify to be on our ballots as the other three?  The SOE told me: “The organizers of the event choose who to put on the mock ballot” as if I should be fine with that answer.  I’m not.  I never imagined that the government could be hired to handicap candidates.

Exclusion from polls, forums and media are exactly how the voters’ impression of a candidate’s viability is diminished.  It starts locally and then by the time we get to the elections, no one will vote for the candidate who is perceived as “not viable” – even though the only tests of their viability were the things they were excluded from.  I understand not opening the mock process to write in candidates, but all those who went through the ballot access process and paid the same fees should be given equal treatment, especially if public resources are used.  A list of all candidates who qualified to be on the ballot is available from the Supervisor of Elections.  In fact, I am surprised the Supervisor of Elections did not suggest that the organizers of this event give equal treatment to all who qualified under identical requirements.

Maybe it wasn’t done in a malicious way.  Perhaps he was excluded out of neglect.  But the exclusion of Bill Wohlsifer’s name in this public event which used public resources and looked “so official” has now diminished his viability in the voters’ minds.  Nan Rich supporters should be livid too, as her name was excluded from the Gubernatorial race on these ballots.  What is the sense of holding a candidate forum for the public to meet the candidates if you’re going to hide some of the candidates from them?  Isn’t that steering? Real Estate agents aren’t even allowed to do that.  How can it be legal for a government agency to participate in steering?

by:  Jo Vaccarino

picked up by Live Free