I'm from the government, etc...

George:
When I was a rookie Deputy I was blessed to have training officers who understood the authority that comes with the job. They always told me that I was to NEVER abuse that authority. That was drilled into me constantly. They also drilled into me that my mere presence would likely cause grief in some form or fashion to someone, whether it be the person I needed to contact or his/her family. What I learned was DISCRETION. That over the past 8 years has meant a lot of cases solved without a lot of hard feelings. It has also meant running into people I've arrested and not having a problem with them, since I handled their situation in a low-key manner.

Sadly, it doesn't always work out that way. I've had to be an a****** more than once. It comes with the territory. And sometimes overwhelming force must be used. Even then, once the situation is under control, simple politeness and courtesy, can pay huge dividends.

Maybe because of the way we handle the vast majority of our business, that even in the anti-police sections of my community, we can get people to talk to us. What is the old saying? You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar...

Luckily for me, there isn't a great deal of the "Us vs. Them" mentality in my department. It is that mindset with gets cops and their departments in more hot water with the public than anything else, I think. Too often officers forget that not everyone is a scumbag who needs to be bodyslammed. Even I have to remind myself of that-every day.

------------------
Maintain eternal vigilance. It is the people who are prisoners of their own ignorance that pose the greatest threat to our 2nd Amendment Rights.




[This message has been edited by Matt19 (edited August 21, 1999).]
 
Joe Mama: Sorry, but the NRA has no copyright on "jack-booted thugs". That honor belongs to a US Representative, a Democrat, back in 1968. I believe it was Dingell of Michigan, protesting the creation of today's BATF under the auspices of the GCA of '68. He predicted today's actual behavior.

Ah, the things the newsies never tell us!

:), Art
 
Matt, Your a prime example of the kinda of officers we need.
I am most pleased your a member of this forum.
I understand the need of force and having to be an a****** once in awhile... And that is just fine.

STAY SAFE!

------------------
"America is a melting pot, the people at the bottom get burned while all the scum floats to the top."


RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
The Critic formerly known as Kodiac
 
Shoots Women And Toddlers? Is this what SWAT has become? And LEO's wonder why people hate 'em. I worked with, and socialized with cops for much of my life, but I suspect they've let the standards slip in recent years.
LEO's had better look to policing their own trash before it gets anymore out of hand.



------------------
The Bill of Rights, and the Golden Rule are enough for civilized behavior. The rest is window dressing. Shoot carefully, swifter...
 
For what it is worth, I am a retired police officer and I was talking to one of the guys I trained who is getting ready to retire soon. He told me that the officers close to retirement are counting the days, hours, minutes and seconds until that time comes. Mainly because of the mind set and ideas of the younger cops. He said they have little or no regard for the people they are to "serve" and no respect for officers that have been around for a while. Law suits waiting to happen.

I am sure they would be very happy to conduct a 10 man "TWAT" raid on some poor jerk that was wanted on a misdemeanor warrent, with the hopes they could MP-5 him and his family, dog and cat.

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
 
Oy! Jim, it bothers me that many civilians have an attitude toward those who "serve and protect". But when I hear the high mileage cops say the same thing, that's rather frightening.

It sure makes me appreciate the county where I live. The VAST majority of these folks are worthy of our respect and support.

Interestingly enough, the nastiest deputies seem to be the younger ones (as you noted). And among them, the nastiest of all are the few female officers who truly are nasty without cause. (Personal and family experience.)

-------

As an experienced police officer, do you see any way to reverse this ultra-macho "kill 'em all" attitude of the newbies? I understand the concept of officer safety, but alienating the law-abiding civilians does not enhance officer safety or civilian cooperation. Ideas or comments?
 
One thing that needs to be instilled in them - They are POLICE OFFICERS. Not SOLDIERS in an OCCUPATION of a hostile country.

If they continue with this - They will end up getting what they want...

Us vs THEM... Both side VILLIANIZE the other.
The local LEO's need to realize that we are on the same team here...
But that wont happen. It is HUMAN NATURE to seek a FOE. If there is No Enemy... We will MAKE ONE.

------------------
"America is a melting pot, the people at the bottom get burned while all the scum floats to the top."


RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
The Critic formerly known as Kodiac
 
Jim V, you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the young coppers. I also fear that it will be the brainwashed young cops And young "new army" studs who are the real threat to the people regardless of race religion , or national origin. The days when most cops were ex MP's is long gone. These young ones are simply a` product of the dumbed down society which produces robots that bleed! They are being taught that its them versus us by their corporate masters in Federal, state, and local governments. If martial comes down, young coppers, who are daily being militarized by our corporate masters, will do the bidding of their masters without question. Too much evidence from around the country daily is showing the nature of these "new police". But the masses are mesmorized by Republican and Democratic talk about the need for more of these wonderful police. It would be nice to fire a boatload of them. Probably get flamed on my commnets but i am fed(FED?) up with these many incidences of police brutality. Fire away!
 
Dennis:

I know you were asking Jim for this, as to how we can "...reverse this ultra-macho kill'em all attitude of the newbies...".

Hope you want mind if I share my practical experiences in dealing with this problem.

Back in the mid 1980s, I was still serving as a Military Police Officer. Assigned in Germany, I spent time as a Provost Marshal and MP Station Commander (both jobs the military equivalent of a Chief of Police or Sheriff) and in command of a 175 man Corp MP Company.

In these three positions, I often had to deal with young (and not so young) MPs who forgot they were there to protect and serve soldiers, their families, DA and local national civilian employees while on the Kaserne/Post. Most cases were rather minor (being rude, over bearing with someone ref a piss ant complaint or traffic stop, etc). However some constituted serious offenses (beating up a soldier apprehended for suspicion of child abuse while the soldier was detained in my station's D-Cell; theft of government property; etc). BTW the soldier accused of child abuse was proven totally innocent...did not even go to trial!

Dealing with these problems and others involving alledged MP misconduct brought me to this conclusion:
1. Developing an officer who will truly "protect and serve" and who will apply the Golden Rule to max extent possible begins Day 1 in the Training Academy and continues on the job by trainers and supervisors who LEAD BY EXAMPLE. If you man the training academies with "ass kickers" that's what you'll have walking across the stage on graduation day. If you have supervisors at any level who spout the "kill em all...let God sort em out" attitude and tolerate it in others, that's what you'll have on the street. Finally, if you have a LE Supervisory staff that "blows off" citizen complaints ref officer misconduct, then you'll have a dept that is out of control. The best way to combat this is for the public and their elected representatives (mayor/city council/county executive/sheriff) to be taken to task by the public when it is clear that they are not keeping the LE element in check. A Civilian Review Board which works closely with IAD or whoever investigates officer misconduct w/in the dept is, IMHO, vital to maintain the integrity of the process.

2. Once proven, officer misconduct must be dealt with swiftly and, if necessary, ruthlessly. In my case, I saw to it that all allegations were looked at quickly and thoroughly. Then, I took appropriate action, whether that consisted of counseling statements, Company Grade Art 15, referral for Field Grade Art 15 or referal to Special or General Courts Martial Convening Authority, depending on the severity of the offense. But it did happen and my soldiers knew it would. In most cases, counseling statements by the soldier's platoon level chain of command did the trick. In more serious cases (as I spoke of earlier), I referred individuals to Special or GCM. They were convicted BTW and served time along with a BCD or DD. In cases in between where repeated counseling statements and/or Company Grade Art 15s wouldn't work, I sent the individuals to "OCS"...that's "On City Streets". IOW, I chaptered their sorry asses out of the Army with a General Discharge.

After this happened two or three times, the conduct of the soldiers in my Company, or the Companies that provide the manpower to perfom Discipline, Law and Order Patrols when I was a Provost Marshal or Station Commander improved dramatically. (Understand in the cases where I was a PM or Station Cdr, I had no UCMJ authority and would relieve soldiers accused of mis-conduct and refer the matter to their COs)

I'm sure their will be those who claim "...that won't work with civilian LE, cuz of the civil service nature of the job, the unions, etc...". I'm not so sure of that. The fact that allegations are quickly and thoroughly investigated an appropriate action taken will go a long way. Couple that with LE supervisors and trainers who lead by example and civilan leadership which won't accept anything less and I think many of these problems can be solved.

Just MHO...
Mike
 
Mike, This simply goes to the general theory of punishment. If it deserves punishment, punish the offender as quikly as possible (or discipline, for the more sensitive among us).

This goes in all walks of life, civilian or military. The military is simply more organized to this end, and has the history of a more strictly enforced disciplinary system in place than civilian life. But if the trials wouldn't last forever, and the appeals woouldn't go one for a lifetime, and the incarceration (in come cases) wouldn't be postponed indefinitely teh criminal element would among us would get the message, and those officers that have this problem would, as well.

Then we all could get on with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Sounds like you're one guy that would make a great Top Cop in any jurisdiction :)
 
Mike,
Thanks! You hit upon so many serious subjects I can't compliment you on each of them; however, one that most leaders miss is obvious in your thoughtful response and your actions.

It is not the *severity* of potential punishment that deters misconduct - it is the *assuredness* of punishment.

Low performers must improve or be replaced.

This applies to any environment; civilian, military, law enforcement, accounting, washing cars, etc. As you point out, training and corrective actions are an everyday responsibility of supervision and management - as is leadership by example.

It's all part of integrity - a declining personal trait. As workers become supervisors, managers, and executives because of political correctness rather than integrity and ability, our systems become increasingly abusive.

I really appreciate your thoughtful response.


[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited August 22, 1999).]
 
Okay, before we condemn all SWAT teams on the basis of a few incidents, lets cool down a little.

1. If the case is as was reported in the paper, then the County Government where it occurred should have to raise property taxes to pay the settlement for those people.

2. Does any poster to this thread have first hand knowledge of what happened? In other threads we decry the media's inaccuracy and bias. What makes us so sure that all the facts in this story are correct?

3. SWAT/SRT/EST whatever you call them are a necessary part of modern law enforcement. They are not, for the most part staffed with SF/Ranger wannabes. As a matter of fact the LACK of police officers with military experience would astound most of you. Of course since the draft ended there is a general lack of military experience at a levels of our society, but that's a seperate thread.

4. I think that if the facts of the story as reported are correct the persons responsible, from the sheriff on down should be jailed. Official Misconduct is the appropriate charge. It's a felony here in Illinois.

5. How many of you guys and gals thought this way about SWAT tactics before the current wave of gun laws made all of us possible targets for a raid like that. Or was it okay when drug dealers were getting treated that way? It's an honest question, most people don't care much unless it's their ox being gored.

6. There is a problem with over militarization of our police departments. But for the most part police agencies realize it. A police department is an extension of the people it serves. And except at the Federal level, it generally responds to the needs and wants of the people. I don't know about Colorado, but around here the sheriff is elected. Unless this guy was very unpopular, the sheriff will probably see this cost him.

If this happened the way the article said, I'm serious, the people responsible should be jailed. There is no excuse for treating people this way. But we don't know:

a. If this guy was a local troublemaker who threatened officers or what his criminal or mental history was.

b. If there was some other information that led the sheriffs officials to deploy a SWAT team. These operations are expensive in terms of overtime and dangerous, not only physically, but liability wise as the sheriff is about to find out. In my experience SWAT is not routinely deployed for misdemeanor warrant arrests.

So lets wait for all the facts to come in. The police work for us. Mike Spight is right in that violations by those who uphold the law must be dealt with swiftly, surely and severely. How many of us would feel this way if the perpetrators of Ruby Ridge and Waco had paid for their crimes? Whenever an incident like this is allowed to slide, it harms everyone who carries a badge.

Jeff
 
Very good questions and points made Jeff.
Thank you.
As always, hats off to Mike.
J

------------------
The whole secret of a successful life is to find out what it is one's destiny to do, and then do it.
HENRY FORD, "Success," Forum, October 1928
 
Jeff:

Great post with the usual clear eyed insight I've come to expect from you.

Jeff, I said "some" officers attracted were "...SF/SEAL/RANGER..." wannabes, not all of them. As you stated, a problem is the lack of military experience on the part of young men and women who are employed in para-military organizations...the police!
In some cases, I remain convinced due to having to deal with a US Army MP SRT that had been allowed to "run wild", many of those drawn to the mission fall into the wannabe category. That goes for some (not all) in civilian LE SWAT as well. I think that fact is borne out by the lack of emotional maturity displayed in certain cases, as the one we're discussing here.

I agree, it remains to be seen if the newspaper's account is totally accurate...it did mention that there were no priors on the man the team eventually arrested. That could be in error...I guess we'll all find out.

BTW, I don't think anywone should be treated this way...I have been critical of SWAT and street officer misconduct for some time, regardless of who was on the receiving end. Bottom line...you can't make any of it personal when on the job.

You're absolutely correct in your assertion that civilian LE has become too militarized. I maintain, as well, that there are too many SWAT teams in this country, duplicating services available from the county or state. All due to elected officials and LE supervisory staffs failing to conduct an analysis and to identify a requirement before obligating funds to train, equip and maintain a capability that is not really needed.

Finally, I think we're in agreement that the ultimate solution is leaders (civilian and LE) who LEAD BY EXAMPLE, take care of their personnel, and who (when necessary) will take swift, sure action to discipline (or bring charges against) those officers who willfully step over the line.

Mike
 
Please don't flame me…I'm fragile :) :) :)

I'm here to learn and as usual the Law Enforcement topics draw my attention.
So what is the solution? Do away with SWAT all together? From what I'm reading, many believe that LEO's are acting as militia where a militia is not needed.
Does anyone have statistics? Before SWAT teams became so widely used, how many of our police officers were shot dead while serving warrants? How many of them were shot because they only took 2 or 3 officers to take down an armed criminal who had the mind set that he was not going back to jail. Does anyone know?

I understand your concerns of home invasions and how it could be seen as unconstitutional. Many are saying officers are not justified to knock down the door of a criminal. They are not "peace officers", but "thugs." Thugs that even go as far to point guns at children. What is the tough guy, attitude doing for statistics inside the police department? Are these tactical procedures saving the lives of cops? I guess that is my main question.

Times change and believe me when I say I'm not justifying what happened in this thread. The man was supposedly being warranted on a misdemeanor, but I do wish we had more facts on the story. Usually SWAT teams are not deployed unless there is reason that an officer's life could be endangered. Unfortunately, until criminals stop having families, there will be children involved. I've read where drug dealers will hide dope in the diapers and cribs of their own children. While drug raids are going on, the parents are not concerned about their screaming, terrified children, they are making mad dashes to the toilet to flush evidence. While this particular case has nothing to do with narcotics, I believe there are justifications behind most home invasions and the safety of all officers.

Perhaps this is one of those ludicrous accounts of police brutality. I really don't know.
Perhaps Mike is right. It is not that SWAT teams are not needed, but who is actually doing the training and giving out orders for SWAT deployment when a simple knock at the bad guy's door would have sufficed. I guess my next question is, how do the officers know when to knock and when to bang? They send out scouts to assess the situation prior to a raid, but how can the scout be 100% sure that the criminal will not blow his deputies away once they arrive? I would hate to have the burden of such a decision for my fellow officers.

Dennis, I couldn't help but comment on your analogy of the young officers you have been in contact with. Perhaps the "chip" that some women carry is justified. Perhaps it is not. Perhaps they feel the need to prove themselves while trying to work a job in a minority. I think the word "youth" has much to do with all of it. They are young and naïve and are strapped with a firearm. I think it is the job of the superior officer to slap them back in place. I know a guy who has served many years as a cop and is now in a superior position. He would have no regrets putting any rookie in their place, male or female. It doesn't really matter to him if the rookie is upset over a scolding. He just wants the job done right. I've learned a lot from him but even if I, being his friend, were to say something derogatory, he would be all over me like a fly on sh#t. (Hopefully he won't come here and read..ha!)

I believe Mike has the key comment, proper leadership. Without it, terrible things can occur such as this home invasion.


[This message has been edited by LadydeeJ (edited August 23, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by LadydeeJ (edited August 23, 1999).]
 
The only experience I personally have with SWAT members is that a team leader traded
me Winchester Silvertips for military surplus FMJ 9mm so he could put some rounds out
though an Uzi our group was shooting.

However, the problem is clearly that SWAT units are being mostly misused. The tactics
and organization of these teams is based on the models of the British SAS and German
GSG-9 counter-terrorist units. Their mission tasking is directed at hitting fixed targets
hard and fast, terminating any threat to the team or hostages. This was exemplified in the
SAS assault on the terrorists that had taken over the Iranian embassy in London. All the
hostiles were eliminated, including one that attempted to surrender, supported by female
hostages. This earned him a double tap in the head from a Browning Hi-Power. The point
being that these tactics don't transfer well to most civilian law-enforcement situations.
Ironically, in the very situations that this style of operations is called for, like Columbine, SWAT teams stand off and contain the area, citing "uncertainty and officer safety" and waiting for hours before attempting entry. Apparently, civilians (even children) are considered much less important than team members (more on this later). This has been frequently demonstrated in highly public venues. Another example would be the San Ysidro (SP?), California, McDonalds shootings. Sniper takes a shot (through plate glass with 5.56mm, questionable in itself), fails to terminate the subject, who then goes about shooting people while the SWAT team tries to get its act together to go in (apparently not in their plan).

Unfortunately, George Hill cites the samurai and Bushido code as an standard for LEO
conduct. I truly fear that this is indeed the case for many SWAT teams. The feudal
Japanese society was strictly caste based. This would be fine for you if you were a daimyo (warlord) or samurai, but would prove tragic if you were an artisan, merchant or farmer. A samurai could, and often did, murder a peasant to test a new weapon, hone his killing skills, or even on a whim. Some quotes from Secrets of the Samurai: A Survey of the Martial Arts of Feudal Japan by Oscar Ratti and Adele Westbrook (CASTLE BOOKS, 1999) follow...
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>"In fact, any surrender terms offered by an enemy, even though intended to prevent
useless bloodshed, were considered by most Japanese commanders as an insult, when not
a simply a hilarious notion"

<LI>"The warrior whose master had been, or considered himself, the victim of any type of
offense, ranging from a procedural slight to a verbal insult, from an attempted
assassination to an actual murder, assumed the obligation of avenging his master even if
this took years to accomplish."

<LI>"Vengeance (kataki-uchi) was considered complete according to ritual when the head of the enemy was placed at the master's feet or, if he had died, upon his tomb."

<LI>"His code of honor (Bushido) and all the classics related to it stressed the point of never pausing to ponder the nature, significance, and effects of a superior's command."
</UL>
Note that many of these concepts are disquieting, if not downright chilling, when
employed by modern law enforcement (Waco, Ruby Ridge, et al). Considering yourself
inherently the "better" of those under your control has tragic consequences. Let's also remember that the samurai enforced the Hideyoshi Toymoti "Great Sword Hunt Edict" that has disarmed Japanese civilians to this day.

LadydeeJ, I would point out that while SWAT teams are useful in certain, narrowly
defined situations, the immense propagation of these units are at odds with the number of
missions that they can be properly tasked to. Every Federal acronymic agency has
acquired hordes of these teams (BATF even started to build its own "secret air force",
using military OV-10 Bronco COIN aircraft transferred to a private company owned by
that agency) so they can raid anyone who buys nasty things like water barrels. Due in large
part to federal grants and profits from farcical "war on drugs" seizures, funding is available to form these "boys with toys" units within almost all local police departments. The local paper here had a write up on a city SWAT team that had zero call-outs in the first two years of operations, and one in their third. They were ordering some $16,000 worth of new
MP-5's. Another city team here was involved in a incident where they raided the wrong
house. In the process, they threw a flash-bang into a window that landed on the occupant's chest, a woman sleeping on her couch. The pyrotechnic device ignited the couch and her clothing, and she burned to death.

If officer safety is placed paramount to citizen's lives and constitutional rights, you're no longer living in a free society. It's a police state.
 
Thanks Thunderbolt for your input. I really appreciate it. I can never learn about how things are done by keeping my eyes and ears closed to what is going on around me. Your knowledge is appreciated.
J
 
LadydeeJ: While you goal of officer safety is admirable, it would appear that only a tiny number of police deaths result from drug raids and warrant services. As a result of your comments, I went looking through the Bureau of Justice Statistics' 1991 Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. From 1972 to 1988, only 38 officers were killed during drug raids and warrant services. This ran from a low of 0 in 1972 and 1975 to a high of 8 in 1976. Now to put those unfortunate 38 deaths in perspective, between 1980 and 1990, 45 officers were shot and killed by _fellow_ officers: cross-fire, mistaken IDs, and negligent discharges. The number of deaths caused by fellow officers increases to 55 if you include negligent discharges of firearms during training.

If you really want to increase officer safety, make certain that all of the officers in a department has body armor and is _wearing_ it. Between 1981 and 1990, only 22% of the 761 officers killed were wearing body armor.
 
Lets address duplication of effort. Does every police department need a SWAT team...No, probably not. And in many cases there mutual aid agreements with larger agencies to provide this capability. But the key thing we have to look at is response time. When you need a SWAT team, you usually need it now. A lot can happen in the more then two hours it can take a regional State Police team to assemble and deploy. If your spouse was being held hostage in the bank lobby, you'd be screaming bloody murder if you were waiting two hours or more for trained equipped officers to respond. The police administrator is facing a double edged sword hanging over his head. If he is faced with this situation and he has NO plan or trained officers to deal with it, he's most likely going to get sued for negligence and probably lose his job. If he forms a SWAT team and it has a bad operation (no plan survives contact) he's probably going to get sued or lose his job or both.

There are other aspects to having another jurisdiction take over these operations for you, you lose control. Maybe your community won't respond well to the tactics and techniques used by a larger agency. I'm sure the sheriff in this incident probably wishes he had let the Highway Patrol make this arrest. For everyone in the community who says "let the State handle it", there is someone else who will say, "we should handle our own problems". So what do you do?

The key is leadership. And at the local and county level we all have a lot to say about who runs our police departments. Sheriffs are elected in most parts of the country. Police chiefs are appointed by mayors and city councils. Take an interest in who is running your police department. He/she is YOUR employee. Talking with your councilman or even mayor is a lot easier then talking with your Congressman or Senator. Get your friends and families involved, take an interest in what YOUR employees do. If you don't think citizen input isn't paid attention to, you're wrong. Right now on our order board at the PD, there is an order posted to run radar for 30 minutes each shift at three locations in town. Why, to generate revenue? No, because citizens have complained to the mayor and city council about speeding in these locations. This may seem trivial compared to SWAT raids, but the principle is the same.

I think you'll find that the great majority of police officers in this country try to be professional and get along with everyone. It's a lot easier to do the job that way. but remember the nature of the job upsets people. I had my former chief tell me this one time after he received a complaint about me (I wrote a woman a parking ticket for parking too close to the intersection, almost got hit by traffic I couldn't see, so I hung a ten dollar parking ticket on her, you'd of thought we not only raided her home with the SWAT team, but kicked her cat on the way in, the fit she through) "The nature of police work will piss some people off, no matter how fair you try to be, if I never hear any complaints about an officer, I figure he doesn't do anything." That's pretty much how it is, some days nothing will please everyone. BTW he backed me, told the woman he was glad someone took the initiative to write some tickets there, before he had to order it enforced.

So I think the solution to the SWAT controversy is for all of us to quit sitting back and preaching to the choir and start preaching to our representatives. That will work at the State and local level, I don't know what will make a difference at the Federal level.
Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top