I am Radley Balko, writer and investigative journalist for the Huffington Post, and author of the new book "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces." Ask me anything.

Hi Radley. I'm a documentary photographer and have had many confrontations with police simply for taking pictures. I've even been told that I could be arrested for being rude (disorderly conduct). How can someone defend themselves if they are arrested and have merit-less charges against them (aside from paying for a lawyer)? Is there any 'fail safe' that can protect people from having to go through the system first?

Unfortunately, there really isn't much you can do when it happens. You should watch some of the various "know your rights" videos (I suggest anything done by Flex Your Rights), and become familiar with what you need to say and do to preserve your ability to sue at a later date. But there really just isn't anything I can think of that you can do to prevent an illegal arrest as it's happening. The other guy has the gun, and that's really all that matters.

More broadly, though, I think it's a good idea for state legislatures to pass laws making it clear that there is a First Amendment right to record on-duty cops in public. More importantly, such laws should have an enforcement mechanism -- a clear cause of action for wrongful arrests. Under qualified immunity, it can be difficult to sue a police officer even if he arrests you illegally. An explicit law from the legislature can remedy that -- and would then become a pretty effective deterrent.

Radley:

Anyone who reads the comments on your pieces -- or who writes from a perspective like yours -- is familiar with accusations that you are in the thrall of the Koch Brothers, etc.

What's the funniest and/or stupidest accusation that's been made against you about political bias?

Ken

p.s. Can you get the Koch Brothers direct deposit to work? It keeps bouncing from my Cayman account.

Hi, Ken!

I really hate to give any of those people undeserved attention. Everyone needs a bogeyman. With the right, it was Soros. With the left, it's the Kochs. I think the most absurd conspiracy theory I've seen is a recent one basically arguing that the last eight or so years I've spent writing on these issues is just part of a Koch brothers plot to get me accepted into the progressive movement, after which I guess I'm supposed to use my new influence and progressive credibility to bring everyone around to a Koch-ALEC-oligarch agenda. Or something.

I will say this: There's no better way to be disabused of conspiracy theories than read someone else attempt to advance one that you have firsthand knowledge isn't true. It's amusing to watch.

That said, the ritual tattoo they give you upon working for a Koch organization is in a pretty painful place.

(Note to readers unfamiliar with my history: I did work for two organizations that have some affiliation with the Koch brothers -- Cato and Reason. I covered the civil liberties beat (drug war, police abuse, criminal justice, etc.) at both organizations, although at Cato I also wrote about what you might call paternalism or Nanny State issues. I've never met either Koch brother. I've never received any orders from them. I've never been told to write or not to write something at their insistence.)

How do you feel about body cameras of the type which the NYPD is now going to be required to wear in some precincts?

I think they're a wonderful idea. And I think the criticism from Bloomberg, king of the New York surveillance state, that body cams somehow violate the civil rights of police officers is absolutely absurd. Even for him. It's also pretty revealing of how Bloomberg views the relationship between the citizen and the state. I've talked to plenty of cops who welcome body cameras, dash cameras, and citizens recording them. They say that sort of monitoring is more likely to clear them of false charges than catch them doing something wrong. Mostly because they don't consider themselves officers who intentionally violate the law.

That said, I think we need to make sure that these cameras are functioning properly, and can't be tampered with. I think I'd also support a law stating that if dash or body camera footage goes missing, the courts should presume that the defendant's account of events is correct. (Absent other evidence, of course.) I've seen far too many incidents in which one, or even several, such cameras have conveniently "malfunctioned" at critical times.

Hey Radley, favorite pork BBQ spot in Nashville. Ready, go.

-2??? This is my favorite question!

Without a doubt, Martin's. Get the "redneck taco." The "shell" is a pancake made of pancake batter and pork fat. The filling is meat from the pig they roast each day, barbecue sauce, and slaw. It's really a beautiful thing to behold.

http://kevinsbbqjoints.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/73627_161846927182351_142884312411946_335221_880731_n.jpg

I recently finished reading your book, and as a lawyer and Army veteran, I was troubled to learn of the extent of militarization in our police. The stories of the dead and injured in botched raids particularly touched and angered me. Some of these stories sound more like Iraq than Modesto. I don't think I'm alone however in wanting more writing from you. Some historical perspective for this type of militarization would be nice. Why, for example, should the average person be worried about this? What examples are out there to show where this arc leads? Any plans to do a second book? Thanks.

I do get into much of that in the book. My original manuscript was about 2.5 times as long as the final book. So there was actually lots more material. But we had to trim it down to make it more appealing to the general public. And the general feedback I've received suggests that the the history tends to be the least compelling part of the book for a lot of people.

I've toyed with what to do with the excised material. I think there's a chance we may put out some sort of ebook later this year. At the very least, I'll probably eventually put it on the blog. So stay tuned!

Hey Radley, I am a huge fan of your work. Thanks for doing this AMA. What are your thoughts on civil disobedience?

I guess it depends on the specifics. I'm very much in favor of jury nullification in cases of consensual crimes. And I think deliberately disobeying immoral laws in a public way can be a powerful way to build support for social change.

But it can also be counterproductive, and repel people from your cause. I support gun rights, for example, but I think Adam Kokesh's planned armed march on D.C. a really dumb idea.

(Although his subsequent raid, arrest, and detainment went way, way too far.)

If you could change one thing about the police, what would it be?

End the drug war.

Have you ever been the victim of police abuse/misconduct? Are you worried that you've put a target on your head by writing this book?

I had one incident that was scary, but just a misunderstanding. (A cop pulled into my parking lot an unrelated call, looked through my window, and apparently mistook some my then-girlfriend and I horsing around as domestic violence.) I also had an incident a few years ago in which a sheriff's deputy apparently visited my former house in Alexandria, Virginia to inquire about some articles I had written. I had already moved to Nashville when it happened (I heard about the incident through a neighbor), but it was still a little disconcerting.

Those incidents aside, my reactions with cops have mostly been neutral to positive. I've had a few officers get a little rude about something I've written, but mostly even the disagreements are cordial and polite.

I'm not particularly worried about my book making me a target. For one, I don't think I'm nearly important enough for that to happen. (And if it did, it would really only help my career!) I also just don't think cops seeking out critics to do them physical harm is something that happens all that often. (I know, I'm setting myself up, here.) I've seen a few incidents, but I wouldn't say it's at all common.

Hey Radley.

Video and audio evidence always seems to disappear when police beat or shoot someone.

What kind of public policy proposal could make this kind of misconduct less likely?

I mentioned this above, but I'd like to see a law that says if critical video or audio evidence goes missing, the defendant's account of the incident will be presumed to be truthful. (Absent other evidence.) My one year of law school fails to inform me about whether or not such a law is legally feasible, but it certainly seems like a just way to handle these cases.

Something I've noticed with the whole Militarization aspect is that SWAT forces are now wearing current Military issued uniforms: ACU's, MARPATS and Multicams, and the thing that's been worrying me is that are these swat teams still thinking like police, or soldiers now? Is there some way we can get these fake Soldiers to quit wearing those uniforms, and also counter whatever propaganda they are being fed to act more hostile to citizens?

I think that as bad as the weapons and tactics are, the uniforms might be more pernicious, at least in terms of fostering a militaristic mindset. I'm always baffled at how many cops you see wearing camouflage today. In most cases, they do it because they get the camo uniforms as surplus from the military. They say they're cheaper than conventional police uniforms.

That may well be true, but it just strikes me as wholly inappropriate for domestic policing. When you dress like a soldier, you're predisposing yourself to start thinking like one. And of course, there's really no strategic value, unless you're raiding a forrest.

Hi Radley, I saw you speak a week ago just before Bobby Seale. I got to your conversation as it was wrapping up though, and I wanted to ask you:

What role do multi-jurisdictional fusion centers and DHS grants to city police departments play on the mindset of police?

edit: poor grammarmamamar

The DHS grants are particularly problematic because unlike the 1033 program (which gives away surplus Pentagon gear), the DHS grants go toward the purchase of new equipment. So they've given rise to a cottage industry that serves basically to cash those grants in exchange for the gear. That industry is inevitably going to start lobbying Washington to continue and expand the program. (I'm sure it's happening already.)

And now we've entered the era of the police-industrial complex. Once you have moneyed interests entrenched like that -- once you have a program that can feed off of itself -- reform gets a hell of a lot more difficult.

Hi Radley. I've been reading The Agitator, and now your articles for HuffPo, for years. Thanks for what you do.

As a peaceful marijuana user, I'm very concerned about protecting myself and my family from overly enthusiastic police forces. Do you have any advice for what I and my family can do to protect ourselves?

(I live in NYC and there are always hints of decriminalization, etc. But I've already been arrested and thrown in jail for possession and I remain skeptical that these changes are forthcoming.)

I guess my best advice would be to be inconspicuous about your drug use. For street encounters, or knock-and-talks, know your rights (watch those Flex Your Rights videos). Don't advertise yourself.

The odds of any single individual getting SWAT raided are very, very small. On the off-chance it does happen, I'd just encourage complete and utter submission. Raids are of course extremely volatile. You don't want to do anything that can be misinterpreted. Once you realize what's happening, fall to the floor. Make sure your hands are empty. The time to make a stand and exercise your rights comes later. As a raid is happening, you're just trying to stay within that thin margin for error. Your goal is for you, your family, your dog, and anyone else in the house to live long enough to file a lawsuit.

Have you ever personally done any "cop watching" or "cop blocking"?

I haven't. I think there's room for "cop blocking," if it's done in a way that doesn't deliberately provoke confrontation. (When it does do that, I think it can be counterproductive.) But I think my role -- and what I'm probably most effective at -- is to cover these issues as a journalist.

Is there an event or something that triggered the rise in the militarization of the police force? Was it the DEA in the 80's, the number of soldiers being made cops after the wars, or 9/11 or what? Was it one event, or a series, or has the change been just a gradual one?

It's been a gradual change, over about 40 years. You've hit on some of the major catalysts. But there are others. I would explain them all in detail, but I just wrote a book about it!

What checks are in place to keep police officers from arresting individuals and charging them with ambiguous crimes such as disturbing the peace or resisting arrest when the only evidence will more than likely be the officer's word against the individual's?

If there are none, what should they be?

Tough question. See my answer above about having legislatures create a cause of action for illegal arrests. But these vague laws that allow for arrests for a broad range of things that are mostly subjective are really problematic. I don't know that I'd eliminate them entirely. I guess better training for cops -- more teaching de-escalation, conflict resolution, and other alternatives to force.

But that probably isn't a very satisfactory answer.

What police intimidation, threats, or roadblocks have you faced during your investigative work over the years?

As I explained above, very little. I've had a couple of amusing traffic stops, where I got into some back-and-forth with cops over what I was and wasn't allowed to do. (Politely, I might add. There's no reason to be an asshole.)

One amusing anecdote: After some back and forth, the cop asked if I was some sort of lawyer. I told him that I was a journalist. He asked what publications I had written for. I ran off a list, including Playboy. This got his attention, and seemed to impress him He asked what I had written for them. At this point, I'm thinking, "Shit. I shouldn't have said that." Because the article I wrote for Playboy was about the overuse of SWAT teams.

But I decided, what the hell, I'd go ahead and tell him. His response:

"Aw, man. Fuck those guys. The SWAT team is just a bunch of assholes."

I'm sure that isn't the case everywhere. But I thought his reaction was hilarious. We kinda' bonded over that.

Not only did I not get the DWI (I was stone sober), I also got out of the speeding ticket (which I deserved).

You mention in your book that people seem to react more strongly to stories about dogs being killed by police than about people being killed by police.

To what is that attributable? Is it a general thought that the police must've had a reason to go after that person, so therefore they played a role in their own demise (similar to the "She was wearing a short skirt, she was asking for it" mindset)? Or is it something more?

I think you're probably right that people tend to think the dogs are innocent, and may be less likely to believe that about some drug suspect.

But I also think people get angry about the callousness with which these pet shootings are often treated. When a person is shot, the officer is suspended, and there's an investigation. Maybe that investigation isn't as thorough or independent as it should be. But there is at least the pretense of an investigation.

With these dog shootings, many times all a cop needs to say is "I felt threatened," and regardless of whether or not there's any objective reason for him to feel that way, the shooting is usually deemed justified. It's a subjective standard. Add to that the fact that so few police agencies give their cops any training on how to handle dogs without shooting them (Unlike the U.S. Postal Service, for example), and I think it feeds into this idea of "us v. them" -- that officer safety trumps everything else. That even a subjective, irrational fear of a dog's tooth breaking an officer's skin justifies filling a beloved dog with bullets. And the police agency doesn't even care enough to give its cops the training to minimize the number of times it happens.

That, I think, is where the outrage comes from.

Radley, I've noticed that you're more careful about logic and about not picking pointless fights than most people.

How did you develop the habit of being very sensible?

I lived in Washington, D.C. for 10 years. There's nothing like living at the global epicenter of faux outrage and shameless posturing to make you appreciate the merits of civil, reasoned discussion and debate.

Has public outcry caused any noticeable, or meaningful, change in the way departments operate? In your opinion, what needs to be done?

It's pretty rare that you get any procedural changes, even with really egregious examples of abuse. I really don't think we're going to see any major reforms to law enforcement in America until politicians begin to believe there could be a political penalty for not moving in that direction. I emphasize this in the book -- you can rail about "pigs" and bad cops all you like. But the policies that got us here were passed by politicians. And that's really where the reform is going to happen, if it happens.

Politicians are risk-averse. For decades, the only position on these issues that risked a political penalty was to advocate policies opposed by police advocacy groups and police unions -- looking "anti-cop." That's ingrained in them. So I don't see any real change coming unless there's a tangible political price for continuing with the status quo.

Hey Radley. I'm a Documentary Filmmaker from Hamilton Ohio. After watching your BBC interview that was intercut with footage it made me wonder: have you ever thought about making your kick ass book into a kick ass documentary film?

I have. There's lots of compelling video to go with the major events in the narrative. I think it would make a great documentary. But I'm probably biased.

What groups do political lobbying to make the legislative changes you suggest?

Very few. The ACLU. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Americans for Forfeiture Reform. Cato doesn't do lobbying, but they do advocacy on these issues. But I do think these issues are picking up some momentum, so there may be some new groups to spring up in the next few years.

I read your book and loved it. Great job. Do you see any movement nationally/locally from politicians to scale back from the militarization? If not, what do you see that could possibly stop it?

Not nationally. I do think the public perception of these issues has shifted dramatically in recent years, mirroring public opinion on marijuana, incarceration, and other criminal justice issues. But Congress is so isolated, they aren't going to do anything unless not doing something might cost them their jobs.

Locally, I think there's more room for optimism. The SWAT transparency bill in Maryland after the Cheye Calvo raid was a great start. There was a similar bill in Michigan, although it failed to pass. And as I understand it, there's currently some interest in reform within the Utah legislature.

Is there a counter to the argument that a well armed police force is necessary to confront the citizens of such a well armed country?

There are counter-arguments. But you'll have to read the book? Or just do a couple searches on my blog. I've addressed them in the past. Just too much to get into here.

Best Nick Gillespie story: go!

I'm going to pass. : )

Hey, great work on your most recent book! I was wondering, given recent disclosures about the NSA and parallel construction, is there anything you would change in your book?

Not really. The book was already pretty long, and as I mentioned above, the manuscript was quite a bit longer. So I'm not sure I could have incorporated the NSA stuff into the narrative in a way that would keep the book focused. That said, you're certainly right that the issues are related.

Who are your favorite authors on politics, political ideologies, human rights, civil rights, and economics?

I don't think I can do this question justice in this format. But here is a quick, off-the-top-of-my-head list of people, sites, publications I read regularly: Reason; Julian Sanchez, Jim Harper, and Tim Lynch at Cato; Tim Lee; James Bovard; Simple Justice; Popehat; A Public Defender; Liliana Segura at The Nation; Glenn Greenwald; Ta-Nehisi Coates; the Champion (publication of the NACDL); Empty Wheel; the American Conservative; the Atlantic; Esquire; ProPublica. I haven't really even gotten started. But I should get to other questions.

[deleted]

Good question. There's a fine line good cops have to walk. I might pose this question to some of the cops that I interviewed for the book, and write up a blog post about what they say. My guess would be to try to get into positions where they can make policy or affect the training curriculum. But I have no law enforcement experience, so that's really just a guess.

Radley,

What inspired you to begin reporting on the rampant abuses plaguing our justice system and, more broadly, police corruption in general?

I just gradually migrated to these issues over the years. I guess they're the issues I found most interesting. Or maybe most enraging. They're also issues where I think journalism can have a real impact. So that probably drew me to them, too.

At what age did you start losing your hair?

1. I've always had short hair. So shaving wasn't all that traumatic. Embrace the bald.

Do you think that psychiatric evaluations done during the hiring phase of police recruitment are effective in screening out candidates prone towards violent behavior? If not effective, what would you change about the process?

I don't think it's done enough, or as thoroughly as it should be. But I think police agencies in general need to pay more attention to this sort of thing. In the book, I talk about how many police recruiting videos today appeal to all the wrong aspects of the job. (See here, for example: http://www.theagitator.com/2012/07/05/two-videos-two-cities-two-attitudes/)

But I think cops need to be taught about the Milgram experiments and the Stanford Prison Experiments (flawed though the latter may have been). They should know about the corrupting effects power can have on their psychology, and be taught how to guard against it. They should get more training on de-escalation and conflict resolution.

A few months ago, I had lunch with a guy who teaches use of force classes at police agencies. He said he's noticed over the years that the focus of these courses has shifted from emphasizing how to avoid using force, to how to justify a questionable use of force after the fact. That's telling, and really troubling. I've talked to two other police officers who work on academy curriculum since, and they've said the same thing.

Do you think there will be implications for countries other than the US if this police-militarisation continues? Possibly glorifying and encouraging other police forces to follow suit?

Oh, I think that's already happening. Britain and Canada have been following our lead. And we're certainly not the worst when it comes to this sort of thing. I'm no expert on policing around the globe, but from the little I've read, many other countries have much, much more brutal, corrupt police forces than we have in the U.S., including quite a few western countries. I don't know that that's all that comforting. But it does help to keep things in context from time to time.

How informed are you going into interviews? Obviously, it is best to know as much as possible about your subject etc, but having done a few interview pieces myself, I know this is not always possible. Do you feel like going off the cuff is a skill that grows with time or is simply a skill some people have? Also, how do you get past the defenses of the people you are interviewing, especially when it's obvious someone doesn't want to be talking to you?

Are you talking about source interviews, or TV/radio interviews?

Actually, I think the answer is the same in both cases. I just don't do interviews that I'm not prepared for. Or if I don't feel I'm well-read enough to do participate in an intelligent way. I've turned down lots and lots of cable news interviews because they wanted me to comment on some topic I didn't know enough about to feel qualified to talk about it.

As for how to get past defensive sources, I've found that if you can get someone on the phone, people generally love to talk about themselves, even to an outlet they think might be hostile. The problem is that initial step of getting them on the phone, or to meet in person. Police agencies generally go into lockdown mode when a scandal breaks. And the more bureaucratic the institution, the less likely it will be to get a real interview once things go south.

On a related but slightly different topic, would love to hear your unbridled views on the NRA's 'School Shield' plan.

I think it's a reactionary, overtly political, ill-considered response to a non-existent (in relative terms) problem. And it would probably have some pretty disastrous unintended consequences.

Whatever happened with the Rack n Roll in Manassas? I was following the case on your old site for a while but then the coverage fizzled.

Also, do you have recommendations for ways to reverse the warrior cop issues? Is there a Constitutional argument that modern police comprise an illegal "standing army"?

Sadly, David Ruttenberg's civil suit died in federal court. Last I heard, he had sold the bar and moved to New York. The bad guys won.

Hey Radley. In your opinion, do you think the militarization of police forces (and their pursuit of vaguely defined enemies like crime and drugs) have to do more with the rise of the prison-industrial complex or are there other factors that have had a greater impact?

Edit: clarification

I think they're both symptomatic of the same general problem -- a generation of politicians who have demagogued and exploited the crime issue for political gain, and paid very little consideration to the real consequences of the policies they've enacted.

I've been a follower and fan of yours for a few years now. Congrats on the new book. Do you ever wish you'd finished law school? As a lawyer myself, I can tell you that you're reaching more people in a positive way than you'd be able to do as a lawyer.

I'm glad I went, and I'm glad I quit. I think I needed to both. That one year has definitely aided me in what I do now. And I loved the intellectual rigor of law school. But I always knew I never wanted to practice. I went mostly because I was working at a place I hated at the time. (Probably the reason a lot of people in their 20s go to law school.)

And I think you're right. At least with me, I think I've been able to make much more of an impact as a journalist than I ever could have made as a lawyer.

Being a proponent of civil liberties, you have been strangely silent with regard to your thoughts on the Second Amendment. Where do you stand with regard to the right of citizens to keep and bear arms?

"Strangely silent?"

I've actually been pretty harshly attacked of late for supporting the Second Amendment!

It's true that I'm not really a "gun person," by which I mean I don't consider myself part of the gun culture. I don't own a gun (although I've enjoyed the handful of times I've gone to a shooting range). I also think the NRA's response to some these recent shooting events has been ridiculous. (Particularly the stuff about putting cops in schools, and attacking video games.)

I also do have some concerns about "Stand Your Ground" laws. I support the Castle Doctrine. You should never be required to retreat from your own home. But I think removing the duty to retreat in public, even when retreat is safe option, is bad policy. I also think just calling these laws "Stand Your Ground" is problematic. I think it plays to the most cynical instincts on both sides of the debate.

But I'm very much in favor of the right to own a gun, concealed carry, I oppose "assault weapon" bans, and I would certainly consider myself pro-Second Amendment.

Hi Radley, Im an American living in Germany the last couple years and through your writings and others I've been able to keep up with everything going on in the states.

What's your opinion what might happen end of September beginning of October? All those MREs and water must be needed for something...

That's a rather ominous comment.

I don't know to what you're referring. I'll be watching football at about that time.

[deleted]

I don't think racism should be illegal. Ridiculed, mocked, condemned, and socially ostracized, yes. But not criminalized.

Why can't I trust any news source, very much including your website? Seriously. Journalism is dead in this country and I want to know why you cowards(journalists) are doing nothing about it.

I don't think there's any answer I could write here that you'd find satisfactory. I think there's good and bad in journalism, as in any field (including law enforcement). But there's lots of great, trustworthy journalism out there.

Is this a typo in the last line of your book? (I was reading an advance copy.) "It would can't wait" until the US is a police state to start paying attention to police militarization?

Yep, that was corrected.