For all of the fear mongering about terrorists and terrorism, I’m more worried about being a “false positive” for terrorism than terrorism.
Radley Balko wrote about a swat raid on an entirely innocent family in: Federal judge: Drinking tea, shopping at a gardening store is probable cause for a SWAT raid on your home, saying:
Last week, U.S. District Court Judge John W. Lungstrum dismissed every one of the Hartes’s claims. Lungstrum found that sending a SWAT team into a home first thing in the morning based on no more than a positive field test and spotting a suspect at a gardening store was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. He found that the police had probable cause for the search, and that the way the search was conducted did not constitute excessive force. He found that the Hartes had not been defamed by the raid or by the publicity surrounding it. He also ruled that the police were under no obligation to know that drug testing field kits are inaccurate, nor were they obligated to wait for the more accurate lab tests before conducting the SWAT raid. The only way they’d have a claim would be if they could show that the police lied about the results, deliberately manipulated the tests or showed a reckless disregard for the truth — and he ruled that the Hartes had failed to
do so.
If you think that’s a sad “false positive” story, consider Jean Charles de Menezes who was murdered by London Metropolitan Police for sitting on a bus. He was executed with 7 shots to the head, while being physically restrained by another police officer.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke (at that time) is quoted by the BBC saying:
“I very, very much regret what happened.
“I hope [the family] understand the police were trying to do their very best under very difficult circumstances.”
What “very difficult circumstances?” Menezes was sitting peacefully on a bus, unarmed and unaware that he was about to be attacked by three police officers. What’s “very difficult” about those circumstances?
Ah, but it was the day after bombings in London and the usual suspects had spread fear among the police and the public. The “very difficult circumstances” victimized the police, the public and of course, Menezes.
If you live in the United States, there is the ongoing drum roll of police shooting unarmed black men, when they don’t murder a neighbor on the way.
No doubt the police need to exercise more restraint but the police are being victimized by the toxic atmosphere of fear generated by public officials as well as those who profit from fear-driven public policies.
You do realize the TSA agents at airports are supplied by contractors. Yes? $Billions in contracts.
Less fear, fewer TSA (if any at all) = Loss of $Billions in contracts
With that kind of money at stake, the toxic atmosphere of fear will continue to grow.
How can you reduce your personal odds of being a terrorism “false positive” in 2016?
The first thing is to realize that the police may look like the “enemy” but they really aren’t. For the most part they are underpaid, under-trained, ordinary people who have a job most of us wouldn’t take on a bet. There are bad cops, have no doubt, but the good ones out-number the bad ones.
The police are being manipulated by the real bad actors, the ones who drive and profit from the fear machine.
The second thing to do is for you and your community to reach out to the police officers who regularly patrol your community. Get to know them by volunteering at police events or inviting them to your own.
Create an environment where the police don’t see a young black man but Mr. H’s son, you know Mr. H, he helped with the litter campaign last year, etc.
Getting to know the local police and getting the police to know your community won’t solve every problem but it may lower the fear level enough to save lives, one of which may be your own.
You won’t be any worse off and on the up side, enough good community relations may result in the police being on your side when it is time to oust the fear mongers.