Beating the SWAT team, Your suggestions, Part 2

Every morning when I come into work, I pass a wall with row after row of bulletins where officers/deputies were killed in the line of duty this year all over this country. Every week a couple more added, a few were swat entry members. It was tragic what happened in Compton and in Houston.

I can't defend or attack what happened in Compton. There's usually more than what's in the newspaper that you will never hear about. In Houston, those officers were not swat members. But I'm told they were very good at making drug busts. All the years of good work is forgotten and now they are labeled as criminals by some. They were fired. The lynch mob public is still trying to get the officers tried and put in jail. Policies and training procedures change whenever these incidents happen.

Just as the liberals seek to take away the public's pistols, the public seeks to take away police powers. Just as the liberals don't see the good in public gunownership, the public pays little attention to anything good the police do, but jump on the chance to skewer the police at every opportunity.

I've had very few people even thank me for catching a crook who stole all their belongings or rob them. We just do our job and dodge the bad guys bullets and the public's bricks.
 
I don't want the guys in Houston "tried and put in jail"-they should be executed if found guilty by a court not a "lynch mob." To paraphrase Ted Koppel from last night "Accepting responsibility without consequences is meaningless."

People, the issue is the tactics not the LEO's involved in the tactics. I believe the main objective of the use of these tactics is exactly what we see here: LEO's and private citizens viewing each other with suspicion. Ask yourself this: who benefits from this situation? Who benefits from allowing dynamic entries based on absolutely no credible evidence as in KC, Houston, and just recently in California? If you believe that just because a drug dealer got mail there once upon a time then that is credible evidence justifying dynamic entry with a SWAT team...you don't believe in liberty. Might as admit it and have done.
 
Let's look at the initiating factor in a few that went bad:
Aiken, SC-teenagers with guns and drugs. Source- a fourteen year old female runaway with criminal charges pending. Intelligence acquired in the morning. Raid occurred that afternoon. Corroboration? None printed in the newspaper and none released at trial during the testimony at the civil suit.

In Kansas City, it was the unsubstantiated word of a "usually reliable informant."

The El Monte Police are willing to kill because mail comes to your house.

You don't see a problem here? You see something to support and be proud of here?
 
You know, this wan't started as a cop bashing thread, but it becomes obvious that some of our members have a real mindset that the "poor, poor police" have a terrible job.

Junk.

If it's that terrible, find something else. The police department is not the military and there is no draft. (anyway)

The original thread remains valid - how do you beat a swat team? Define beat...

------------------
"Hear the voices in my head, swear to God it sounds like
they're snoring." -Harvey Danger, "Flagpole Sitta"
 
Editorial Comment
This thread best exemplifies one of the main reasons why we put TFL together....to bridge the gap between LE and other citizens. (If there weren't opinion differences, there would be no gap to bridge.)

And so we have individual positions as seemingly polarized as Spartacus and JohnArt debating here. But it's being done better than anywhere on the web or any other communication device I know of. Arguments are factual, nonpersonalized and reasoned, despite the passion. My hat is off to each of you.

It seems to me that we're seeing the various issues teased apart... We'd all agree that these types of raids can range from necessary to abusive to unConstitutional.

Spartacus (a law abiding good guy) knows that, in his case, such a raid would fall into the latter category and is willing to make a stand on principle. This is not to be derided as it is a cherished attribute in any life or death conflict. JohnArt (a law enforcing good guy) knows the realities of the cop on the street, what he faces and what he is asked to do...usually without a simple "thank you".

Thus the conflict in positions. Conflict is a fact of human nature and is also to be cherished. Only the Utopian Liberals would argue that conflict must be resolved in the corse of human evolution. Everyone else knows that it must only be managed. You each do us great credit in the way that you're managing this conflict.
Rich Lucibella
 
Now I get to put my 2 cents in. ;)

It seems to me that our members share several things in common...a general belief in the responsible conduct of the law abiding citizen and a deep abiding respect for the Bill of Rights are foremost among those commonalities.

The concept of no-knock warrants weakens both these pillars of our society. It challenges law abiding citizens to draw the line at their front door and say "Enough" and it weakens our commitment to the BoR by arguing, in essence, that times have changed. (Surely none of us would argue that the Founding Fathers would have countenanced such laws.) This very argument that times have changed is the hue and cry of every group that has ever sought to weaken the Bill of Rights, whether well intentioned or not. Think about it.

Further, it seems that such police powers seek only to provide protection to those unwilling to protect themselves or their neighborhoods. Lowering crime doesn't require that we all go armed and offing bad guys (though this is a Mitzvah at times as it serves as an object lesson to those in our neighborhoods that seek the easy way to the top.) In short, there wouldn't be a need for no-knocks if the neighbors were willing to cooperate with the police and help clean up their own sewage.

Given the fact that most of the population is unwilling to "get involved", we see a steady movement toward laws that protect the irresponsible at the expense of the responsible. There is a defintion to the end point of such movement...it's called a Police State. Verification of this trend may be found in the fact that this discussion is even happening.

While I do not hold Spartacus' views, because my objectives are different, sooner or later the trend toward a Police State will shift me to his position....as with every other person on this Board, LE included.

Now this Commercial message from our Sponsors:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief in the chains of the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson

Since when is 'public safety' the root password to the Constitution?
C. D. Tavares


Every friend of freedom must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence.
Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize-winning economist


Of course we arrest the innocent sometimes. Otherwise there would be no terror.
Curt Rich quoting a former secret policeman from Hungary[/quote]
Rich



[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited September 02, 1999).]
 
Rich Luciabella....You said it as eloquently as anyone could. Thanks. I've reminded myself not to take anything personally. I don't want a police state either.

Gizmo99....You're right...you hiring? (just a joke!!!) It's my day off and I didn't mean to raise my blood pressure or yours. Have a cool one on me! I've got no complaints. Sorry, if I got off the original question.

Spartacus.....whew!! I remind myself and my officers to take responsibility for their actions and if they are wrong, bite the bullet. Easier said than done.
 
Johnart, first I would like to say thank you for all that you do every day.

In My Opinion, there is only one way to beat a swat team, and that is to survive. There is no other viable option.

As for LEO's over stepping there bounds, well they are human. As with any other thing in life a force is made up of many different people.

I have some friends that I would not want serving a warrant on anyone I care about. They are really good people, but they are a little to quick to apply deadly force in my opinion. I understand why they view things the way they do. I have seen the streets they work and the challenges they face every night.

To those of you who think LEO's just want more power, I challenge you. Go spend a year one night on the streets dealing with what they have to do. You will have a different view. Most of there reactions are not that they want to take away anyones rights, they just want to survive until the end of the shift.
 
JohnArt,

Please understand EXACTLY where I am coming from. I work with police all the time in the emergency department. I depend on them at times and at others they depend on me. I know I respect the police I work with. I believe I have their respect. In my nurse's notes on several suspects I have stomped several incipient lawsuits against the police into the ground by noting that the patient's supposed neurological symptoms from the "excessive" use of the ASP baton followed no known constellation of known neurological symptoms,i.e, they were faking. I stop to assist police officers at vehicle accidents every time I come to one. I would immediately assist an officer who was being fired upon on the roadside. I will immediately respond to a knock on the door and a search warrant. I will follow all LEO commands. If given the opportunity to do so I will surrender if my door hasn't been broken down. Once that door comes down, all bets are off. Tommy Hutto, Fairfax SC Police Department is one of my best friends. In the event of a dynamic entry aimed at me, I've told him, "Tommy, get sick real fast, OK?"

I believe that the no knock policy is bad policy. That the disadvantages outweigh the advantages except in a hostage scenario and even then I think that major safeguards are needed.
 
Oh, and the bit earlier about executing the Houston cops. Mea culpa. I don't want the government executing anyone. Not because of my bleeding heart-don't get me wrong. But because mistakes are made. If you wrongly imprison a man you can release him and attempt amends. You can't let an innocent man out of a grave.

Case here in Georgia a few years ago. Guy in Savannah was charged with murder several months after the event. He had motive and opportunity. Said he was at a roach motel in Miami. The owner of the motel had split with all records. Savannah man spent three years on death row appealing right and left. His lawyer finally tracked down the motel owner.
The owner still had his records. There on the ledger, on the date of the murder, within an hour of the crime, was the convicted man's signature. He walked free. What would we have told his family if he had already been executed? Sorry about that?
 
Rich,

If you look at your posts from several months ago and compare them to what you are posting today, I think you will see a definite shift in your thinking. A shift toward my position. It looks as if the recent revelations about Waco and the El Monte shooting has you thinking. I am not writing this in glee at "winning" points in a debate. I would much rather be wrong about what I believe the future to be. I know I would be much happier if wrong.

Byron
 
To actually read opinions written by officers on TFL, is a rare occurrence. From what I'm learning, I think many cops feel that trying to convince a civilian on certain topics may be a waste of their time. Some of them may even feel that the gap may be too wide to even attempt to bridge.

I want to thank the few officers that have given their time in this debate. It has helped this thread to take a much better route than the initial one that was posted. It has given the reader a chance to hear both sides of the story, which is rare on TFL.
 
Ma'am? What Firing Line are you reading? Not the same one I am. There are TONS of LEO's here. They post everywhere. And the Firing Line is very balanced. Try having one of these discussions on Guns Save Lives.
 
Balanced? Many officers give their opinions on firearms and the safety of their usage. Besides Rob, very few give their political views in threads such as this one.
I might ask sir, which TFL are you reading?
 
We all have issues that are emotionally charged for us. Rich, thanks for your eloquent posts.

I have, in times past, made the statement that I would resist with force anyone sent to take my weapons in violation of the Constitution. I believe this is a sentiment held by most TFL members. We hold the 2nd Amendment so precious- and, indeed, it is- how can we not hold dear the 4th Amendment, as well? (Or, for that matter, the 1st Amendment?) Would we even give up our life for one, but not another?

I respect the many LEO out there, slaving away. I very nearly missed being a police officer in Alabama when I was 21 (I moved out of state). I helped push a dead squad car Tuesday "just because". I will unhesitatingly help any police officer in any way I can, as long as I do not feel that it violates any Constitutional principle, or is likely to get me mistakenly shot by another LEO. I don't hate officers. They are people like everyone else. There are a great number of good cops, and there are a few who are not...like all other people.

Some of us are willing to die on principle. Many things that I believe I would do in difficult situations go against my natural inclinations. (Which are, good books, good friends, and beautiful sunsets) I would do these things because I felt them to be my duty. We must all judge carefully how deeply our "convictions" are held.


All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing.


...oh, to beat the SWAT team. Change the damned unConstitutional law, follow the law to the best of your ability, and have every good American let it be known that encroachments to our homes and families will not be brinked.
 
allanh-
Most here would agree that the LE job is dangerous...frightfully so in the cities. So why increase those risks by encouraging noknocks?

The standard reasoning is because these are necessary to capture "violent" felons. Unfortunately, they've been expanded to include all types of suspected drug charges. The results are too many botched preplans, erroneous info and people shot for this Citizen's comfort. Even if the results were acceptable to me, the costs to civil liberties are too high. Period.

Spart-
Neither my posts nor my position has changed in the recent months. And you and I have never been that far off. I do, however, have an obligation to Moderate which limits the degrees of freedom in my posts....you need to read between the lines. ;)
Rich

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited September 02, 1999).]
 
Interesting thread.

I've been reading this for a couple of days and really had no intention of posting, but there's been a subtle change in the thread that brings some thoughts to the front of my mind.

Someone mentioned the tactics the entry teams use. When and where did these come from? I can pick two places in history that have influenced the American Law Enforcement Community and the resulting proliferation of the dynamic entry team. The Munich Olympic Games and the Iraninan Embassay raid (1972 and 1979 respectively, if my memory holds). The first shows what happens when governments are overwhelmed by events and unprepared for events. The second show what governments can do when they are not overwhelmed by events and are prepared for events. It's my opinion that American Law Enforcement saw these events and took them to heart by trying to learn the lessons of history. But there's a catch.

What did both events have in common? Terrorists. Where do we see the use of the entry team most often? Law Enforcement's attempts to enforce the laws on illegal drug use. Contrary to what American Law Enforcment thinks, drug dealers are not terrorists. That means that enforcing the laws on illegal drug use is not war. The tactics that we see entry teams use are variations of those used for counter-terrorist operations. Operations where the objective is to kill the person in your gunsite. Look back after the Iraninan embassy raid and you'll begin to see SWAT teams putting on bulletproof helmets and goggles, toting HK MP5's, and dressing in black. But how much time is spent on surveillance? From what I've been able to gleen about counter-terrorist raids like the Iraninan embassy, the CRW teams spend untold time spying on the place they have to attack. Cameras, microphones, and the good ole' MK1 eyeball. How much time did the entry team spend watching Mr. Pez's home in Compton before they blew the lock off the door?

It seems that entry teams have become fun and exciting ways to spend money enforcing the law. Heck, every city should have one! It's flashy, and the folks on the teams get to tote submachine guns. They seem to be pretty good at the suprise attack before dawn, as those of us who have read about the raids gone bad can see. Kinda' strange to see them waiting around ourside at Colmbine(sp?). Ah well, I digress.

I guess my point is this...the line between the tactics the military and the police use are becoming blurred. When American Law Enforcement starts to use military war waging tactics to enforce the law some folks somewhere have lost sight of what the police are suppose to do. Someone mentioned that criminals wouldn't be shouting "Police, search warrant!!" as they break into your home, but maybe that's not such a bad idea in this age of the "every town has to have one" entry team. Maybe it's time to try something different in our effort to enforce the law. Shall we try arresting the folks that break the law after they leave their house (they can't stay there all the time), then let them walk the police right back through the front door? If they're in front of the police serving the warrant then the criminal will take the bullet that was meant for the entry team by anyone left inside. If I were a criminal, this would encourage me to give a warning to my pals to come out with their hands up, so I could live long enough to watch Final Jeopardy after I make bail.

Our country is tough to figure out sometimes, because so much responsiblity is spread through so many levels of government. Because of this, every city, town, and county can have an entry team, trained but to a point, to kill the folks in their gunsites. Where I live, there are three (possibly five) entry teams in my county alone. That doesn't include the major city I live next to, or the dozen counties and towns surrounding the major city, or the state's team. There is very little central control over any of these borderline counter-terrorist commandos (thank God). Which brings us to the topic of this thread...Beating the SWAT team.

You can't do it.

There are too many of them. If you stand, you'll die and be made to look like a bad guy. If you are attacked by an entry team and surrender, you'll be made to look like a bad guy. If you are laid siege to by an entry team, you will be attacked and, more than likely, die. The mere presence of an entry team labels you a nutcase if you stand them off, a dangerous criminal if you're hauled off in cuffs, or a dead dangerous nutcase criminal that deserved this much firepower to kill you. As stated before, the only way to truly beat them is to never have them shoot down your door in the first place (but I really liked the fish idea, the coffee and donuts idea, and the TV newscrew disguise idea).

It's sad that American Law Enforcement thinks that the only way to deal effectively with very dangerous criminals is to attack them with the same violence and fury as armies would attack terrorist. What happened to catching them on the street when they're going to the Quicky Mart for a pack of Winstons and a Slurpee? I know I've oversimplified this issue a bit, but there has to be alternatives to the "speed, shock, and firepower" mindset that flows to easily at police headquarters around our country after watching the "SEAL CQB" video.

Now for the disclamer. You will not find a more stalwart defender of American Law Enforcement than I. What you will find is someone who will try to seek answers, even knowing that I won't like them when I find them. I know that the police do a thankless job, cleaning up after the rest of us, which is the reason I didn't follow a career in Law Enforcement (I barely like cleaning up after myself). I know that the goal of most police officers is to go home at the end of their day, and if someone can justify these tactics as the only way to do that, only then I will understand why they are used. Even after all this, the hard fact remains that if an entry team breaks down my door in the middle of the night, for whatever reason, I'm going to be too disoriented to figure out exactly what's going on, reach for my pistol to defend myself, and die in a hail of gunfire from the trendy HK MP5.

Please forgive any spelling mistakes.

EAF
 
I think it's pretty clear that the origin of this tension between LEOs and citizens lies in the enforcement of victimless laws by no-knock searches. Primarilly the war on drugs, and the war on guns. Get rid of those, and the tension would abate.

I mean, let's face it: I respect police, too. But their job is to enforce the law, and the morality of their actions is no better than the morality of the law. We rejected the Nuremberg defense for Germans, are we going to accept it for Americans? And the morality of the law in this country isn't exactly what it used to be! Until that changes, cops can't exect the sort of respect they used to get. And maybe you should start making that point to your representatives?

Anyway, how to beat swat? Harden your home, so you have time to react. So that they really have to think hard about whether they'd rather send out for a tank instead of reading the warrent to you. They're going to be high on adrenaline when they arrive at your door, and you want that to wear off. Have an uninteruptable communications link with the outside world, so that they can't just cut your phone line and tell the world whatever they want it to believe. A cell phone obtained under another name would be good. A webcam sending your side of events to the local news team would be better.
 
Allanh and Ladydj...... I sure appreciate your thanks. It's a comforting feeling.

Spartacus......thanks for coming back and speaking when the air wasn't as heavy. Its cool to see you are a nurse. So's my brother, wife, daughter and son.

Rich....sure do agree with you on no knock warrants. They should be like police chases, if we can determine they are too dangerous to the public, call it off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top