Detroit PD. Black glove plus?

**George Cassidy** · February-10-11, 10:08 AM

I just read an online article about the Detroit PD responding to routine calls, like domestic disputes and public distirbances, with Special Response Teams carrying submachineguns and other esoterica of war. I mean, WTF? I had a few years on the job with NYPD and, with relatively few exceptions, we recognized that the boot heel is not the means to deal with public discontent.

In police jargon, "black glove" is someone who abuses authority. Imagine if you had a whole department who rolled that way.

**Detroitnerd** · February-10-11, 11:11 AM

Actually, this has been a long trend, dating back to the inception of the War on Drugs, to militarize police departments. And what good is all that cool equipment if you never get to use it? Or brandish it? That all plays into the recent [[and discontinued) shock-and-awe-style raids, such as the one that ended with a police bullet in a 7-year-old girl's neck, dead in her grandmother's arms. Heck, they were so proud of their gear they even brought along an A&E crew.

In my opinion, maybe New York cops are better used to dealing with the public. At least they'd be civil to me if I asked for the route around the presidential gridlock or something. I hate to generalize, but Detroit's cops do not seem very good at engaging the public or even being on the same level as them. I've been screamed at and threatened with arrest by DPD just asking for clarification about where I was or wasn't supposed to drive. Some of those cops remind me of the classic dude running out an irritating retirement in his scout car who has no idea how to deal with the public.

Now, if that's the mentality, and you view the community you're policing as "the enemy," it completes the military metaphor, doesn't it? Attacking with flash-bang grenades and a hail of bullets is the logical next step.

**Motor City Sam** · February-10-11, 11:58 AM

I'm not aware of any situation where the DPD showed up on a routine call like a domestic disturbance with a SWAT team. I'd like to read that article if you have a link to it, George.

My interaction with the DPD has usually been fine. I have asked for directions and been politely instructed which way to go. I have been pulled over for speeding and while the cop was not friendly he was also not abusive. I have introduced my young Goddaughter and my nephews to random police officers on the street so the kids won't be afraid of the cops, and in each of those occassions the officers have been very friendly towards me and the children.

I know there are those "bad cops" out there, but apparently I have had the good fortune to not run into any of them in my 40 plus years of living in and around the City.

As far as heavy weapons and body armor, I want my police officers to be as well equipped as possilbe to deal with the dangers they face. I'm not going to ask them to lessen their capabilities in a time when criminals continue to wield assault rifles, machine guns, body armor, etc. I think if the criminals were still using zip guns and razors, the cops would probably still be using .38 revolvers.

**Ray1936** · February-10-11, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by George Cassidy

I just read an online article about the Detroit PD responding to routine calls, like domestic disputes and public distirbances, with Special Response Teams carrying submachineguns and other esoterica of war.

Comments like this without quoting a source are pretty worthless, George.

**Detroitnerd** · February-10-11, 01:12 PM

Here's an article that mentions it, though it's more narrowly about the TV crew issue :

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/us/22detroit.html

**Motor City Sam** · February-10-11, 03:03 PM

I read that article when it was published. I respect the Times, but that article uses Geoff Fieger and a lawyer who specializes in police misconduct as it's main sources of comment. Given that, no one should be surprised at the tone of that piece.

Again, I have not heard of any incidents of DPD SWAT rolling out on relatively minor calls with machine guns.

**Detroitnerd** · February-10-11, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Motor City Sam

I read that article when it was published. I respect the Times, but that article uses Geoff Fieger and a lawyer who specializes in police misconduct as it's main sources of comment. Given that, no one should be surprised at the tone of that piece.

Again, I have not heard of any incidents of DPD SWAT rolling out on relatively minor calls with machine guns.

What is the "tone" of the piece. It seemed pretty impartial to me. Not exactly a call for the workers of the world to unite and overthrow the man, in my view.

**Motor City Sam** · February-10-11, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

What is the "tone" of the piece. It seemed pretty impartial to me. Not exactly a call for the workers of the world to unite and overthrow the man, in my view.

No, it wasn't a call for revolution, but to me [[and I could be wrong) it read as if it already had it's premise and mostly used quotes that reflected negatively on the police to support that. You have an author and a professor that both say the cameras being there "may" have affected the way the police conducted that raid, when they have absolutely no knowledge of what happened and no connection to Detroit. Then they quote two lawyers who make money suing the police. And I think it's telling that the last quote in the article is from someone [[a retiree?) who says, "The cops bungled this one real bad, all the way around."

Balanced might have included a quote or two from the DPD union in support of the officers, or a police tactics expert who could actually speak with some knowledge to raid methods and the use of flashbangs, or maybe someone pointing out it is actually very rare to have that kind of incident on Cops, 48 Hours, or other reality TV police shows despite the presence of the cameras.

**Detroitnerd** · February-10-11, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Motor City Sam

No, it wasn't a call for revolution, but to me [[and I could be wrong) it read as if it already had it's premise and mostly used quotes that reflected negatively on the police to support that. You have an author and a professor that both say the cameras being there "may" have affected the way the police conducted that raid, when they have absolutely no knowledge of what happened and no connection to Detroit. Then they quote two lawyers who make money suing the police. And I think it's telling that the last quote in the article is from someone [[a retiree?) who says, "The cops bungled this one real bad, all the way around."

Balanced might have included a quote or two from the DPD union in support of the officers, or a police tactics expert who could actually speak with some knowledge to raid methods and the use of flashbangs, or maybe someone pointing out it is actually very rare to have that kind of incident on Cops, 48 Hours, or other reality TV police shows despite the presence of the cameras.

How are we to take a positive view of tactical units that throw flash-bang grenades and then kill 7-year-old children? Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems most people would say that that's a problem.

You don't think that the police were more amped-up than usual because they knew their paramilitary tactics could end up on television? I find that difficult to believe.

What police officer on active duty is going to say his department bungled a raid? Given DPD's recent history of "gag orders" and retribution for speaking out [[Gary Brown), it makes sense that a retiree would be the one to come forward.

Don't let's forget, the newspaper is covering something tragic that raises questions in the mind of the average "reasonable person." Should they balance it out with a spokesperson from "Law and Order" magazine saying that "this is really no big deal" or it was "collateral damage" or something like that?

The goal of a newspaper isn't to be balanced -- or it would never be able to do its job -- but to be fair. That report struck me as "fair" -- not polemical.

**SWMAP** · February-10-11, 04:07 PM

George cassidy writes: "I just read an online article about the Detroit PD responding to routine calls, like domestic disputes and public distirbances, with Special Response Teams carrying submachineguns and other esoterica of war."

Studies show that domestic violence calls are most dangerous for the responding officers. here a recent story on that topic:
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/128209...edirected=true

**SWMAP** · February-10-11, 04:10 PM

Where's the part about police using submachine guns in domestic violence situations?

**Detroitnerd** · February-10-11, 04:12 PM

Yeah, domestic violence cases are most violent for police. I learned that in police training. But the way you deal with it isn't by arming yourself with high-tech weapons. You do sensible things.

1) Turn off siren and lights as you approach.

2) Separate the arguing people from each other. Take them into separate rooms. Speak in a calm tone of voice.

3) Never take them into the kitchen or any other place that looks like they'll have handy access to weapons.

4) Have back-up ready to help if things go bad.

That, my friends, is the textbook chapter on dealing with DV calls. Flash bangs and Desert Eagles ain't gonna help fine-tune that.

**SWMAP** · February-10-11, 04:16 PM

The cops in that article never got a chance to "seperate the combatants."

Still wondering where the idea of submachine guns came from. The NYT article on Ayanna's death does not mention submachine guns used for domestic violence runs.

**George Cassidy** · February-10-11, 04:27 PM

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...992425,00.html

**Motor City Sam** · February-10-11, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

How are we to take a positive view of tactical units that throw flash-bang grenades and then kill 7-year-old children? Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems most people would say that that's a problem.

You don't think that the police were more amped-up than usual because they knew their paramilitary tactics could end up on television? I find that difficult to believe.

What police officer on active duty is going to say his department bungled a raid? Given DPD's recent history of "gag orders" and retribution for speaking out [[Gary Brown), it makes sense that a retiree would be the one to come forward.

Don't let's forget, the newspaper is covering something tragic that raises questions in the mind of the average "reasonable person." Should they balance it out with a spokesperson from "Law and Order" magazine saying that "this is really no big deal" or it was "collateral damage" or something like that?

The goal of a newspaper isn't to be balanced -- or it would never be able to do its job -- but to be fair. That report struck me as "fair" -- not polemical.

Detroitnerd, there are several issues at play here and you're are mixing them up. This whole thing started with the OP saying he read an article about the DPD showing up at "domestic disturbances" in SWAT gear and "esoterics of war". I said I would like to read that article and you posted something that was not only NOT that article, but was only slightly related to the original point.

No reasonble person would say that what happened to Ayanna Jones was not a tragedy. Who said anything about that incident should be viewed as a positvie? Of course there is a "problem" there as you put it. Several problems in fact, including the fact that the family was harboring a murder suspect in the same place where there were children. As far as the TV cameras go, the police officers I have talked to about this have told me that when the cameras are on they are more likely than ever to go by the book and not "cowboy" because they know they are being filmed and are afraid of lawsuits stemming from their actions. If you were being filmed on your job, would you be more likely to go outside of your company policy and procedures? Take risks that could have serious consequences?

Flash bangs have been used in thousands of raids by PD's nationwide. They are used often because they are effective. If the police had tossed a flash bang into the house where Officer Brian Huff got killed before he went in, he would probably still be alive. That poor little Jones girl was not killed by a flashbang.

So you don't think they should have sought out an opinion that didn't agree with the article's premise? No current officers, no police experts that might have a different view? But seeking out and printing the quotes of the lawyers who obviously have an agenda even though you know they will support your premise is "fair"? And I don't think the guy who was quoted at the end was a police retiree. I think he was just some retired dude at the diner. If he was an ex-cop, I'm sure the author would have made that point. And I'm not sure what your point was about Law and Order magazine, but have you heard anyone say anything remotely close to "it was no big deal" that the little girl was killed? Or dismiss her death as collateral damage?

**Detroitnerd** · February-10-11, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by SWMAP

The cops in that article never got a chance to "seperate the combatants."

That wasn't a DV call. I think we're conflating two different issues.

Originally Posted by SWMAP

Still wondering where the idea of submachine guns came from. The NYT article on Ayanna's death does not mention submachine guns used for domestic violence runs.

It wasn't a DV call, it was a SWAT-style raid seeking a murder suspect. We still haven't found the article that was referenced. [[It's always a help to post a link so we know what we're talking about ... though our conversations do tend to wander ...)

**SWMAP** · February-10-11, 04:33 PM

George, that link does not work.

**Motor City Sam** · February-10-11, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

That, my friends, is the textbook chapter on dealing with DV calls. Flash bangs and Desert Eagles ain't gonna help fine-tune that.

So, who is using flashbangs on domestic violence runs? And since when do Detroit cops use Desert Eagles for duty weapons? You are arguing against things that aren't even happening to make your point.

**SWMAP** · February-10-11, 04:39 PM

No, the article I posted above was noting the danger of domestic violence calls to responding police It was first about police officers who were shot responding to a domestic violence call. The shooter was waiting for them outside the house. Then the article covers the statistical dangers to police officers responding to domestic violence calls.

i know that the Detroit case wasn't domestic violence. The police were going in to arrest a cold murderer. But George's initial post said that detroit police use the esoterica of war to respond to "domestic violence calls."

i think you jumped in and mixed things up with your NYT artice about Ayanna's death.

**George Cassidy** · February-10-11, 04:43 PM

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...992425,00.html

Sorry, try this one.

**Detroitnerd** · February-10-11, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by Motor City Sam

Detroitnerd, there are several issues at play here and you're are mixing them up. This whole thing started with the OP saying he read an article about the DPD showing up at "domestic disturbances" in SWAT gear and "esoterics of war". I said I would like to read that article and you posted something that was not only NOT that article, but was only slightly related to the original point.

I've made an attempt to clarify that in a later post. I do think that, when you mention SWAT-style tactics to Detroiters, they will think of Ayanna's death. That was a SWAT-style raid in which a young girl was killed, which is naturally memorable.

Originally Posted by Motor City Sam

No reasonble person would say that what happened to Ayanna Jones was not a tragedy. Who said anything about that incident should be viewed as a positvie?

Well, if your desire was for a "more balanced" article, I guess I'm wondering where that "balance" is supposed to come from. Who is going to defend what happened, you know, speak to the press and make the article more "objective" or something. That was your complaint, wasn't it?

Originally Posted by Motor City Sam

Of course there is a "problem" there as you put it. Several problems in fact, including the fact that the family was harboring a murder suspect in the same place where there were children.

Are we veering off into some kind of "human shield" argument here? If so, that's so tasteless I won't address it.

Originally Posted by Motor City Sam

As far as the TV cameras go, the police officers I have talked to about this have told me that when the cameras are on they are more likely than ever to go by the book and not "cowboy" because they know they are being filmed and are afraid of lawsuits stemming from their actions. If you were being filmed on your job, would you be more likely to go outside of your company policy and procedures? Take risks that could have serious consequences?

Sure, because the whole conceit of the case was that you have 48 hours to solve a case before the trail goes cold. Nobody wants to end the episode saying, "We lost him." The pressure of being a live storyline is intense, as you've seen plenty of people on "reality television" behave like perfect jackasses. Anyway, if what you say is true, I guess I'd ask why the police stopped tactical raids and why Bing put the kibosh on TV crews. Seems pretty damning when you look at it that way.

Originally Posted by Motor City Sam

Flash bangs have been used in thousands of raids by PD's nationwide. They are used often because they are effective. If the police had tossed a flash bang into the house where Officer Brian Huff got killed before he went in, he would probably still be alive.

Um, yeah, and if cops were to just run into crime scenes, guns blazing, probably fewer cops would be killed. But that's not what police do. At least not in Oakland County or Beverly Hills. Saying that something could save a police officer's life doesn't always make it right.

Originally Posted by Motor City Sam

That poor little Jones girl was not killed by a flashbang.

No, only her blanket was burned by it going off while she was sleeping on the porch. [[Where's all the expensive "night vision" hardware to see there's a kid sleeping out there?) Instead, what killed her was an amped-up "reality star" cop shooting first and thinking later. I'd hate to be that guy...

Originally Posted by Motor City Sam

So you don't think they should have sought out an opinion that didn't agree with the article's premise? No current officers, no police experts that might have a different view? But seeking out and printing the quotes of the lawyers who obviously have an agenda even though you know they will support your premise is "fair"? And I don't think the guy who was quoted at the end was a police retiree. I think he was just some retired dude at the diner. If he was an ex-cop, I'm sure the author would have made that point. And I'm not sure what your point was about Law and Order magazine, but have you heard anyone say anything remotely close to "it was no big deal" that the little girl was killed? Or dismiss her death as collateral damage?

Just because an article doesn't have quotes to "balance it out" in your opinion doesn't mean the person who wrote it is biased. Sometimes, nobody except nut jobs are there to provide the "balance" you seek, and that's the point I'm trying to make.

**SWMAP** · February-10-11, 04:46 PM

Still missing the part about the DPD ever responding to domestic violence calls with machine guns. Where is that statement?

**Detroitnerd** · February-10-11, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by SWMAP

No, the article I posted above was noting the danger of domestic violence calls to responding police It was first about police officers who were shot responding to a domestic violence call. The shooter was waiting for them outside the house. Then the article covers the statistical dangers to police officers responding to domestic violence calls.

Want to shoot at the cops? Go right ahead. We all know what to expect next.

Fact is, the majority of DV cases are handled in the was prescribed above -- that's good police work.

Originally Posted by SWMAP

i think you jumped in and mixed things up with your NYT artice about Ayanna's death.

It's the closest thing that comes to mind. Anyway, as you'll see from the other posts, I'm trying to fix things up, not mix things up.

**Detroitnerd** · February-10-11, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Motor City Sam

So, who is using flashbangs on domestic violence runs? And since when do Detroit cops use Desert Eagles for duty weapons? You are arguing against things that aren't even happening to make your point.

That's funny, the initial post said something was happening, and it sounds very, very WRONG. So I'm telling the posters and readers of this fine board how it's s'posed to be. You have a problem with that?