BBC News: SWAT usage in America

I think this is something all American's should be concerned about , LEO's too. Many of my friends are LEO's and I would hope the climate shift we're seeing in our country would concern them as well. (Actually I know for a fact that many of them do) Our national debt is outta control. Proposed cuts target among other things , LEO jobs.

More and more liberties are being taken . Searches , seizures , unnecessary force , wiretaps , surveillance everywhere (505 new surveillance cameras are being installed around New York this year and they're looking for nearly $82m more tax dollars to add even more ... You can BET other cities will follow suit)

We're fast approaching an Orwellian Totalitarian Police State.

What's next ? ID Chips to track our every move ? I'll bet ya there not far away.

I know I've gone way off topic here , my apologies. But I ain't liken what I'm seein or hearin. More and more everyday and we'd better wake up or tomorrow we'll be saying ... "What the hell happened?" :mad:
 
Wildcard ... your absolutely right. Many that join the military have this same attitude and sadly , we American's are quickly getting a reputation of brutality over seas with our British allies as bullies and thugs in fatigue's who are quick to shoot first and ask questions later ... or never.
 
Rich, I had an 8hr shift to think about the statements made. I have come to the conclusion that you, and through much pain and headbanging, Wildcard, have a very valid point. Ive never really taken the oppurtunity to look at it from outside the box. Coming from, and now working in, a small, rural environment does not help matters.

I do know far too many cops who are in this jobs not to serve, primarily, and protect, but to rack up arrests and stats. This does sadden me, and Ive stated this to coworkers many times before. It is far too easy to take the defensive in conversations such as this, and I am guilty of this, as is most every other cop in America.

The SWAT team has a very real and valid role in todays law enforcement. There are many, many scenarios where the SWAT team is invaluable. After much introspect, I do, in fact, feel that this tool is far overutilized. Granted, this is not an issue where I am, as Search Warrants and High Risk Arrest Warrants are served by the normal patrolman where I am. I have served many a search warrant, or been party to, while in full Class B's. I dont even own a balaclava, for Gods sake.

Apparently, this is a regional issue. In the rural departments, such as mine and those surrounding me, the SWAT team is used for meth lab busts, Barricaded suspects, etc. it is a very rare occurence, in other words, to use them.

For me, I enjoy the calls, the helping change flat tires, the good side of Law Enforcement. I take real joy in locking up the real bad guys, and no joy in locking up everyday joes because they broke a law I dont like, or dont comprehend. it happens, but it is part of the job.

To all those, even Wildcard, I apologize for becoming automatically accusatory and defensive.
 
LD-
You just won the TFL Class Act Award for March '06!

Not because of the position you've taken; simply because of the honesty it takes to get there.

Let's face it...in an increasingly polarized society, there's little chance of bringing the LEO Bashers to the Table of Understanding; just as little chance of getting the self-proclaimed LEO "Operators" to see those in the middle as anything but insignificant bystanders in a personal "War". But I truly believe there are far more of us in the middle; on BOTH sides, we need to try to find some common ground despite the Tin Foil hype, the We're-at-War hype and the incessant Political hype.

It's gotta be pretty damned difficult to send a couple of good cops out on a "routine" warrant and have one come back in a body bag. Gotta be even more difficult to be confronted with the same situation, one week later, and not use every man, tool and tactic available to make certain everyone goes home. For my part, the answer is in the numbers game. For my part, I don't need every single potential bad guy taken off the street "right now"; I'm willing to pay the cost of waiting a bit, in hopes of catching them in a more advantageous spot than behind a locked door, with kids around.

And I'm certainly willing to wait until we've confirmed the right address, all the intel matches and the "informant's" story is corroborated. That's called good Police work; investigation-by-no-knock is simply cool video... too often the results are tragic and increasingly the images alienate those you seek to protect. There's a reason why most jurisdictions have reigned in high speed pursuit....the fruits are simply not worth the potential collateral damage.

Thanks for doing what you do.
Rich
 
Since petre mentioned RFID, I'd like to let you all know that this isn't just media hype and pie-in-the-sky.

On page 742 of the catalog T051 from DigiKey (everyone involved in electronics gets one, they're like a monstrous mail-order Radio Shack that has EVERYTHING) you will find that several companies (S/T, Microchip, Atmel) offer RFID development kits. S/T's price is $468.00. This gives EVERY electrical engineer the ability to set up an RFID system at a highly affordable price.

The development kit includes things like a receiver, and a setup to program the ID into the chips. The chips themselves then cost in the $3 - $4 range in quantities of under 10.

This set of facts pretty much puts RFID in everybody's hands, and by the time that happens, it's been in the gov't's hands for a real long time.

If I wanted to track your car, I could do it out of the DigiKey catalog for about $1000 and six weekends of work. All I'd need is a GPS module (they're available everywhere), a DSSS transmitter (available on a chip from Cypress Semiconductor for $12, I have 5 of them at home), a couple NiCad batteries, a charger system, and a way to tap into your taillight bulb socket. I could follow you from 500 yards away and you'd never know I was there. If I didn't mind being a little illegal about it, I could add a Gallium Arsenide power amplifier and track you from 5 miles away. The signal would be so weak that the FCC wouldn't ever see it. It's in the "junk band" and it's really hard to distinguish from leaky microwave ovens that are everywhere.

My point is that the tracking capability isn't in the near future. It is here, now, and has been for years.
 
There's a reason why most jurisdictions have reigned in high speed pursuit....the fruits are simply not worth the potential collateral damage.
Click to expand...

Whoah, there Rich. Dont make me turn into a liberal all at once. I will argue, as will the VAST majority of street cops, pursuits are a necessary evil. Evn if it initiates from a minor traffic issue, thats normally not the reason they run. They are running for a reaso, and its our job to catch them....

Yes, they are dangerous, but thats not the reason they are being limited by administrations. The reason is liability, and nothing more. The fact is, the minute you begin to utilize a "no pursuit" policy, everybody and their dog begins to run, because they know they can.
 
"It's gotta be pretty damned difficult to send a couple of good cops out on a "routine" warrant and have one come back in a body bag. Gotta be even more difficult to be confronted with the same situation, one week later, and not use every man, tool and tactic available to make certain everyone goes home. For my part, the answer is in the numbers game. For my part, I don't need every single potential bad guy taken off the street "right now"; I'm willing to pay the cost of waiting a bit, in hopes of catching them in a more advantageous spot than behind a locked door, with kids around.

And I'm certainly willing to wait until we've confirmed the right address, all the intel matches and the "informant's" story is corroborated. That's called good Police work; investigation-by-no-knock is simply cool video... too often the results are tragic and increasingly the images alienate those you seek to protect. There's a reason why most jurisdictions have reigned in high speed pursuit....the fruits are simply not worth the potential collateral damage."


This is exactly how I feel about the situation. If an informant says I'm using drugs in my house, that should not be enough. Some people irrationally dislike others and will accuse them of crimes. They might even know somebody else they can talk into corroborating the story. Your job as police is to see me go to a place known to be selling drugs (from a controlled buy), then drive directly back home. Preferrably, more than once.

If it's done that way and the public knows it, then, even though I disagree with drug laws, if I don't in fact do drugs I have nothing to worry about. As it stands, I don't do drugs and I DO still have to worry about it.

If an informant says I'm selling drugs, it's even easier. Any moron can tell a place of business from a home. Watch my place. If something unusual appears afoot, then take the time to find someone who can gain my trust and make a controlled buy.

If it's done that way and the public knows it, then, even though I disagree with drug laws, if I don't in fact sell drugs, I have nothing to worry about. As it stands, I don't sell drugs and I DO have to worry about it.

If you rely on simply the word of an informant, you risk attacking innocent people. This gives you a big black eye. And it lets the public know that, even if they are anti-drug and have nothing to do with them, they might still be "raided".

Those supporting Prohibition II have shot themselves in the foot. Those supporting using SWAT on the word of an informant have shot themselves again in the other foot.
 
LD-
I think you misunderstood my comment. I'm not at all against high speed pursuit. I'm simply pointing out that the parameters for conducting such actions have been tightened over the years for a reason.

Liability, you say? Of course, it's always about liability and it should be. "Liability" is nothing more than a cost-benefit judgment. What's the cost and benefit of botched SWAT addresses and raids, "accidental" shootings and the like where a minimal amount of old fashioned investigation and patience might provide a simpler, less dangerous interaction? There's enormous liability there.

When four guys break into my bedroom at O-Dark-Thirty, screaming "Police" and shining lights in my face, what's their liability when I defend myself and kill one of them before being gunned down myself?

Just as important, what's the cost to our society in terms of growing civic distrust and fear of ALL police?
Rich
 
Rich< i do completely agree. I simply feel that Liability has become a all too common phrase in Law Enforcement work. If you want me to be brutally honest, I feel civil liability is one of the main reasons the overuse of the SWAT team came inot play many years ago, and has grown of its own accord since.

The brass look at the bottom line. It is far cheaper to rain a team of 12 guys in entry tactics, speacial weapons, etc than it is to train a an entire department enough to do these things reasonably. Therefore, it makes more fiscal sense to send the guys who are trained, therefore less likely to screw up, and in turn, less likely to get sued, than it is to train the whole department to do these things. Now, we both know this doesnt always pan out in the real world, butthats the predominant theory.

With the present predominance of SWAT-type coverage on TV, including Texas SWAT, Dallas SWAT, etc, there is a certain "high speed, low drag" element that has chosen law enforcement as a career, not to serve th public, but to serve their own egos. Years ago, SWAT were the guys you called when you needed someone to go somewhere you couldnt. Now, it seems, they are oftentimes called when you want to go somewhere you shoudnt.

As for the pursuit issue, I was being a bit melodramatic. I am in support of reasonable pursuit policies. I.e., if you have the guys license, and you knwo who he is, and where he lives, file for a warrant. He will stop running when he is no longer chased.
 
Myself and the guys who were on SWAT with me were old-school in the respect that we believed dynamic entries were a last resort to be used to save lives rather than collect evidence.

An area where we were called in to assist on a lot of search warrants was predominately mobile homes — many without any skirting. Whenever possible, before announcing at the door, our team’s scout would slither under the mobile home, disconnect the line from the toilet(s) and attach a double lined garbage bag around the outlet with a flex cuff. When he signaled the job was done, we’d do the “Hark, hark, the narc!” thing (OK, it went more like, knock knock, police officers; we have a search warrant; open the door) and stand easy for a couple of minutes. We’d hear the toilet flush and then our suspect would come to the door and let us in, not knowing that he just gave us the evidence and saved the narc guys the trouble of searching for it. This obviously can’t work in every scenario, but I’ve wondered why more teams have not become more creative since the time when I wore my SWAT pin on my Class A’s.

Denny
 
Denny, I think the same thing happened that happened to Gumball lights and revolvers, its simply not cool anymore.

Im a young cop, 25 years old, to be exact. I have about 2 yrs on now, and I feel that I am a generation, possibly two, too late. I grew up around cops, all of my dad's friends are cops. These were the kind of cops that spent more time at the range, coffee shop, and barber shop than on controlled buys. They go the job done, and the community liked them.

I learned far more about policing from them when I was 12 than I did in the academy. I have the ability to talk 99% of the people I deal with into a set of handcuffs. I know cops that will talk them into a fight, often on purpose. This irritates me, as I still have this rose colored concept of innocent until proven guilty. Its my job to bring them to trial, not to judge them. This seesm to have fallen out of fashion long before me.

This job is 95% brains, and less than 1% muscle..the rest is attitude.
 
Rich and Wildcard. Where in my comment did I mention "cop bashing"? What I did mention was that the stats of the article do not marry up with the premise, nor the examples of the article. I'll break this down:

Title: Death raises concerns of police tactics. (Key word: Tactics)
1) Use of SWAT teams during some routine missions: I'll agree. I have stated that before. However use of a SWAT team is not a tactic.

2) Dr. Culosi shooting: First , it is still under investigation (per the article). However, just for the sake of argument, we'll call it a bad shooting. The shooting has NOTHING to do with the use of a SWAT team or the tactics involved. It was an error in judgement in a singular officer. It could have been a detective, patrol oficer, etc. As a matter of fact, the article states that SWAT teams only had to use deadly force in 0.4% of the warrants they served over 12 years. Which supports the NTOA statement that utilizing SWAT often reduces the amount of deadly force situations because of the training, tactics and weapons used. If the article showed that this particular agency's SWAT team uses tactic "A" for an arrest of this nature, and tactic "A" was shown to have elevated the chances of Culosi being shot, that would be worthwhile data. But, it didn't and the conclusion is empty.
So, most of the article, which focuses on the Culosi shooting, has nothing to do with "Police Tactics."

3) The recruiting video: Now you see the true core of this article. How does a video showing officers, K9, SWAT, air units effect Police Tactics? It is trying to make the leap in judgement that police agencies are targeting testosterone
ridden young men, and that it is those young men that cause police shootings due to their gung-ho attitude. Again, it is shown that the SWAT teams, K9, etc are more experienced, better trained and equipped officers that will reduce the likelyhood of OIS shootings. So, this is only a propaganda section that has nothing to do with tactics.

So, Rich and Wildcard, that was the basis of my statement that the stated facts of the article do not support the premise and title of the article. If this was a 9th grade science paper, it would get an F.

So, there was no statement of bashing.
Sorry, Wildcard, you'll have to search the internet some more for your champion article.
 
Breach-
I'm sorry, but you are way over reaching. Just two examples:
As a matter of fact, the article states that SWAT teams only had to use deadly force in 0.4% of the warrants they served over 12 years. Which supports the NTOA statement that utilizing SWAT often reduces the amount of deadly force situations because of the training, tactics and weapons used.
Click to expand...
Come again? Since when does a single data point create a "trend" from which you can draw this conclusion? .4% Compared to What? Compared to the number of times force was used back when SWAT did only barricade and hostage rates? Compared to the use of force numbers in no-SWAT warrant service? Somehow I can't see where you got the data for your conclusion that the author must clearly be "distorting" the facts.

The recruiting video: Now you see the true core of this article. How does a video showing officers, K9, SWAT, air units effect Police Tactics? It is trying to make the leap in judgement that police agencies are targeting testosterone ridden young men...
Click to expand...
If the recruiting video is real, it begs the question....Just Who Is It Targeting, Breach? Recruitment films carry a specific message, designed to appeal to a specific target audience. One can generally glean the Targeted Audience from the message. Examples:

- Army Video: "But, Dad, they'll pay for my college". Who's it target?
- Leptopril: "If you're only 20, 30 or 50 pounds overweight, Leptopril is not for you. Leptopril is for people with serious weight problems." Who's it target? :rolleyes:
- After Shave ad showing the beautiful girl stroking the handsome, clean shaven guy's face, while pawing her own thighs. Who's it tell you the after shave will make you?
- Recruitment film showing high speed callouts, complete with canines and choppers. What message regarding the daily routine does it convey? Who is the target market?

Rich
 
Rich,
Come again? Since when does a single data point create a "trend" from which you can draw this conclusion? .4% Compared to What? Compared to the number of times force was used back when SWAT did only barricade and hostage rates? Compared to the use of force numbers in no-SWAT warrant service? Somehow I can't see where you got the data for your conclusion that the author must clearly be "distorting" the facts.
Click to expand...
The 0.4% was the percentage given by the NTOA. It was the number of OIS during 12 years of warrant services. It mentioned that about 1/2 of the SWAT utilizations were for warrant service. I think those numbers speak for themselves.
Again, my observation on the video is that is has NOTHING to do with the premise of the article, which is police tactics. Recruiting videos do not dictate tactics. They may show them, and the units that utilize them, therefor targets the type of people that may want to be a part of those units. But, if you look at the numbers of personnel in specialized units, they are far outnumbered by the detectives, patrol, admin, etc. So, I do not see how including that little snippet supports the authors' premise of dangerous police tactics. Sorry, it's not there.
 
Rich Lucibella posted:
Additionally, it appears to me that the article is a reflection on changing values, not a slam on individual LEO's. Many of us....I repeat, MANY, believe that the use of SWAT Teams for routine calls is dangerous and over the top....that very article points to an unarmed optometrist who was killed when a SWAT Member's gun "accidentally went off"; what was the occasion of the raid? He was under investigation for "gambling". Ergo, Organized Crime!!! One of the major points is that, as LE begins to look and act more like Military, the Us vs Them chasm widens. And the citizenry can hardly be blamed for that widening.
Click to expand...

Wow am I glad I've returned to TFL. Overuse of SWAT-type tactics is alienating the law abiding, the very people whose support the police need most. Every dog shooting, heart attack inducing "attack" on the innocent sends a warning to the rest of the innocent (people like us) - "Don't get near your local police." Is that the message LE wants to send?

[Gratuitous comments regarding Staff at another Board deleted by Rich Lucibella]
 
The attitudes=viewpoints=betterment

In my opinion, the SWAT teams could be used better at our borders, ports, nuclear facilities, and other areas of the infrastructure where any major threat may involve highly trained bad guys with sophisticated weapons.They could also be used to go after real criminals trying to buy weapons for sale or criminal re-activity. Major drug dealers and sicko rings. I have always believed that Good Sheriffs are the key to local stuff. They should never be done away with and should not be chastised when doing what is right for all in that county. The obvious frustration is universal : we Civilians and LEOs have been told for too long to stand down, not to enforce laws that would keep a greater majority of bad people from illegally having a gun.Laws that would keep criminals from stepping on American soil, and on and on. Now is not the time to be divided. Our whole attitude has got to change here. So does the governments. So does our enemies. This country needs to enforce the laws they already have on the books and throw away all the crap that's got us confused. I hope and pray that that when we finally realize what's at stake, we'll ALL be on the same Firing Line. With all these view points, experience and willingness and blessings, it's a winning "combination".
 
petre said:
Wildcard ... your absolutely right. Many that join the military have this same attitude and sadly , we American's are quickly getting a reputation of brutality over seas with our British allies as bullies and thugs in fatigue's who are quick to shoot first and ask questions later ... or never.
Click to expand...


I see a big difference, as has been stated before. The domestic police in a country are NOT supposed to regard the People as an ENEMY. The military are trained to FIGHT, which in the context of military means either to KILL or to take prisoners. They are not about protecting the rights of their enemies when in fact they are sent to KILL their enemies. So I would hazard that we DO want aggressive, tough, I-wanna-kick-ass people to enter the military; albeit we do want them to have the capacity for rational thought, and we don't want them to be psychopaths.

Do you really mean to imply that it is the U.S. military alone that has aggressive members; or will you admit that it is very likely the British military also has its share of such people?

-azurefly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top