Forum, I have a serious question. It seems Our citizens are being confused by some Swat tactics. In some cases supposed innocent people are being killed. So, I can see how this can affect all of Us. In all situations does Swat clearly identify themselves before entering a property? (I think the answer is self-explanatory, No. Because they would lose the element of surprise.) So, if you see all blacked out guys entering your property with weapons drawn, what is your first reaction? Do you open the front door and say come in? All gun owning people will grab their gun. So, Could someone clear up what i am missing? Why have i seen many stories of people getting killed because L.e.o.s hit the wrong house or something like that? Is it a tactic based on averages. Which is to say on average we hit the correct home and take down the bad guy? Does Swat need to rethink their tactics and policies to keep real law abiding citizens safe? Let me know what you think.
Swat and their tactical procedures
- Thread starter SifuGun
- Start date
Yankee Doodle
New member
As the door goes bye-bye, every member of the entry team is shouting, at the top of their lungs, "Police, get on the floor, get on the floor, Police, show me your hands, get on the floor"
If this isn't enough to identify themselves, I don't know what is.
No, we never knocked on the door in advance, and announced who we were and why we were there. I had a moral obligation to return to my family alive, after my shift was over.
I have no problems with the system, or the training, as they now exist. Everything can be improved, and I am sure that all procedures are under constant review in order to enhance citizen safety.
If this isn't enough to identify themselves, I don't know what is.
No, we never knocked on the door in advance, and announced who we were and why we were there. I had a moral obligation to return to my family alive, after my shift was over.
I have no problems with the system, or the training, as they now exist. Everything can be improved, and I am sure that all procedures are under constant review in order to enhance citizen safety.
2damnold4this
New member
Why not?
Rather than get into a long dissertation on the vagueries of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, one is far better off deciding not to fight a vastly superior aggressive force (SWAT). Yes, you and your loved ones may very well be traumatized by the event. Your primary task is to survive the incident, and pointing your H&R .22lr revolver at this group, is no match for several Glock 21's, shotguns, M4 carbines, and tear gas pointed at your head.
After everything is said and done, and you've obeyed the invading force, call 1-800-SHYSTER, and sue their butts if they mistakenly broke into your home. Lawyers love these cases, and it makes police commanders, mayors, and city councilmen get prematurely gray, and develop ulcers.
As a living plaintiff, you will carry far more weight in court than your next of kin if you get into a gun fight and get killed. Yes, you obeyed the SWAT team, and yes they did have the wrong address. And yes, you will own the police department, and enjoy a very leisurely life, since you won't have to work any longer.
"Yes, I obeyed every command when they broke down my front door.
"Yes, my dog, wife, daughter, sons, and mother-in-law, laid on the floor and didn't move while they tossed our house.
"Yes, the SWAT team leader had us all in cuffs, and we didn't argue.
"Yes, the on-scene commander, looked at the warrant, and yes, the clerk transposed the address
"Yes, I had to have psychiatric help, and so did everyone living in the house.
"No, I have never had contact with police, and no, I did not have a meth lab working in the shed."
At the conclusion of the civil trial -
"I would like to thank the judge, the jury, and my attorney. While it doesn't erase the pain of that night, the monetary award (mid-seven figures) will go a long way toward alleving the pain."
After everything is said and done, and you've obeyed the invading force, call 1-800-SHYSTER, and sue their butts if they mistakenly broke into your home. Lawyers love these cases, and it makes police commanders, mayors, and city councilmen get prematurely gray, and develop ulcers.
As a living plaintiff, you will carry far more weight in court than your next of kin if you get into a gun fight and get killed. Yes, you obeyed the SWAT team, and yes they did have the wrong address. And yes, you will own the police department, and enjoy a very leisurely life, since you won't have to work any longer.
"Yes, I obeyed every command when they broke down my front door.
"Yes, my dog, wife, daughter, sons, and mother-in-law, laid on the floor and didn't move while they tossed our house.
"Yes, the SWAT team leader had us all in cuffs, and we didn't argue.
"Yes, the on-scene commander, looked at the warrant, and yes, the clerk transposed the address
"Yes, I had to have psychiatric help, and so did everyone living in the house.
"No, I have never had contact with police, and no, I did not have a meth lab working in the shed."
At the conclusion of the civil trial -
"I would like to thank the judge, the jury, and my attorney. While it doesn't erase the pain of that night, the monetary award (mid-seven figures) will go a long way toward alleving the pain."
Yankee Doodle
New member
2damnold4this
Why not?
Simple.
Knock, Knock.
Who's there?
This is the Police. Will you kindly open the door and let us in so that we can serve this warrant and arrest you? We will at the same time be confiscating all your illegal drugs, guns, ammo, explosive devices, radio controlled nuclear weapons and whatever else you may have of an illegal nature.
We politely ask that while you are deciding whether or not to let us in, you refrain from destroying any evidence, or grabbing a gun and turning this into a serious altercation. We thank you for your co-operation.
Yeah, riiiiight.
I assume that I have made it easier for you to understand?
Why not?
Simple.
Knock, Knock.
Who's there?
This is the Police. Will you kindly open the door and let us in so that we can serve this warrant and arrest you? We will at the same time be confiscating all your illegal drugs, guns, ammo, explosive devices, radio controlled nuclear weapons and whatever else you may have of an illegal nature.
We politely ask that while you are deciding whether or not to let us in, you refrain from destroying any evidence, or grabbing a gun and turning this into a serious altercation. We thank you for your co-operation.
Yeah, riiiiight.
I assume that I have made it easier for you to understand?
I guess this is the price we pay for law and order. A perfect answer on how to serve a warrant against dangerous individuals does not exist. A Swat might roll up on you by mistake. I heard a judge here ( forget exactly where) in the U.S. ruled that even if the police are right or wrong. You can not resist when they invade your home. If you can not resist that has in effect stripped you of Your right to bear arms. Also, What is to stop thieves from impersonating the police? Why the Gestapo blitz style assault. If the fugitive is there and the place is surrounded. Where is he/she going to go? To destroy evidence? You should all the evidence you need before you roll out the Swat team to serve a warrant. I hope we can cut down on accidental police invasions, get more bad guys, and keep more law abiding citizens safe.
Hey everyone...
Actually it's very simple. It is very much true that a warrant service may look like a home invasion, and a home invasion may look like a warrant service.
there are only four exceptions for the police to enter your home without a warrant 1) Permission, 2) Exigent circumstance, 3) Hot persuit, 4) To seize evidence open to plain view.(IIRC)
Otherwise the police must apply to a court for a search warrant. That warrant application must be based on probable cause, and most courts require it stand up to the two pronged test. The issuing judge or magistrate may or may not include a no knock provision in the warrant. This is usually based on officer testimony indicating a substantial physical danger to the officers, or others including the subject, or possibly a danger of evidence likely being destroyed.
The tactics of the warrant service depend on the given situation. There are basically three ways of handling it.
1) Knock on the door, and present the warant. Inform the occupant of the evidence that your looking for. Enter and search if the occupant cant or will not cooperate.
2) Tactical controlled entry. This is what we see on TV with SWAT teams, and trucks, and helicopters and such. This is the safest method possible, and is most often deployed if possibe. The Officers are/must be clearly identified by clothing, and absoloutly must verbally identify themselves Loudly, clearly, and constantly.
3) Dynamic entry. This is the method used when there is a time issue between the issuance of the warrant, and service of the warrant. Often done by detectives, and plain clothed officers wearing raid jackets. Although there may be long guns, and shotguns used, there may not be. These officers will also loudly identify themselves. This kind of an entry is also often used for an exigent circumstance search without a warrant. While a dynamic entry requires specific training SWAT officers are also qualified to do them.
Actually it's very simple. It is very much true that a warrant service may look like a home invasion, and a home invasion may look like a warrant service.
there are only four exceptions for the police to enter your home without a warrant 1) Permission, 2) Exigent circumstance, 3) Hot persuit, 4) To seize evidence open to plain view.(IIRC)
Otherwise the police must apply to a court for a search warrant. That warrant application must be based on probable cause, and most courts require it stand up to the two pronged test. The issuing judge or magistrate may or may not include a no knock provision in the warrant. This is usually based on officer testimony indicating a substantial physical danger to the officers, or others including the subject, or possibly a danger of evidence likely being destroyed.
The tactics of the warrant service depend on the given situation. There are basically three ways of handling it.
1) Knock on the door, and present the warant. Inform the occupant of the evidence that your looking for. Enter and search if the occupant cant or will not cooperate.
2) Tactical controlled entry. This is what we see on TV with SWAT teams, and trucks, and helicopters and such. This is the safest method possible, and is most often deployed if possibe. The Officers are/must be clearly identified by clothing, and absoloutly must verbally identify themselves Loudly, clearly, and constantly.
3) Dynamic entry. This is the method used when there is a time issue between the issuance of the warrant, and service of the warrant. Often done by detectives, and plain clothed officers wearing raid jackets. Although there may be long guns, and shotguns used, there may not be. These officers will also loudly identify themselves. This kind of an entry is also often used for an exigent circumstance search without a warrant. While a dynamic entry requires specific training SWAT officers are also qualified to do them.
2damnold4this
New member
Is it more about destroying evidence or avoiding the altercation?
Double Naught Spy
New member
Does it matter? Whether it is more about one or the other, the aspect of violence is always a very real possibility. Detroit SWAT (tv show) had an episode that clearly showed this. As I recall, it was a drug warrant, the warrant SWAT team did their thing and started to try to go in when bullet(s) came through the door. Then something happened that I found oddly funny. The SWAT team ran back to the street and called in the real SWAT team to seize the violent offender. It struck me at the time that they had SWAT and SWAT Lite and SWAT Lite is sort of like street cops dressed up like SWAT but who don't really do all the real SWAT stuff.
So yeah, some bad guys resort to violence to keep from going to jail.
2damnold4this
New member
I'm curious if it has more to do with safety or destroying evidence. I suspect that most of the time knocking might be safer but would have a larger problem with destroying evidence. Of course there are times when some sort of no knock entry might be safer for everyone involved but I suspect that is overused.
The SWAT team must have a search warrant that has been signed by a judge. That implies to me that is intended to be read, which begs the question: By who? The answer should be, by the person who is being served. But, that is not the case. Instead of presenting the search warrant as proof of their right of entry, the current custom is to smash down the door and enter while shouting, "Police". Not only is this is a presumption of guilt, but unduly endangers those inside the residence, both guilty and innocent and benefits only the police at the expense of the residents. Guns are pointed, and innocent people have been shot, and the person who is named in the warrant has no opportunity to accept the warrant. For all intents and purposes, it is a warrentless entry inasmuch as no attempt is made to hand the warrant (serve) to the person named.
The argument that it is safer for police to do it this way should be viewed from the perspective that police procedures should be judged by how well they serve the interests of the public not by how well they serve the police. The purpose of the police is to protect the public...not them selves.
The argument that it is safer for police to do it this way should be viewed from the perspective that police procedures should be judged by how well they serve the interests of the public not by how well they serve the police. The purpose of the police is to protect the public...not them selves.
Uncle Buck
New member
I remember reading an article about a search warrant that went wrong. The police knocked and announced themselves. The guy who owned the place set it on fire and left through another exit. I do not know if it was natural gas or gasoline, but some officers were hurt badly.
When we went to search a room in the dorms once, we knocked and all of a sudden heard "Hold On, Coming." Flush, flush, flush. Luckily the dog alerted on that area and we were able to find some drugs that missed the bowl. (Later, when we would do dorm shakedowns, we turned the water of to the entire dorms.)
Bad guys do not always play by the rules.
When we went to search a room in the dorms once, we knocked and all of a sudden heard "Hold On, Coming." Flush, flush, flush. Luckily the dog alerted on that area and we were able to find some drugs that missed the bowl. (Later, when we would do dorm shakedowns, we turned the water of to the entire dorms.)
Bad guys do not always play by the rules.
Yankee Doodle
New member
Dahermit
You have hit it right on the nose. The purpose of a TCE is exactly that. Through the use of surprise, and overwhelming force, the chances of a gun battle developing are almost completely eliminated. This is what protects the innocents in the area. No bullets flying through walls, out windows, down stairs, into adjoining homes or apartments.
I have been in situations where we had to use every means at our disposal to serve the warrant, and not have to fire a weapon. This included the use of "flash-bangs" when and where required. I have been asked numerous times, by arrestees, "What the hell just happened?"
This is exactly the result we were after. Perps in custody, evidence secured, and most important, no one injured. NO ONE INJURED.
I really have nothing further to contribute. If you still don't understand, I can't help you.
You have hit it right on the nose. The purpose of a TCE is exactly that. Through the use of surprise, and overwhelming force, the chances of a gun battle developing are almost completely eliminated. This is what protects the innocents in the area. No bullets flying through walls, out windows, down stairs, into adjoining homes or apartments.
I have been in situations where we had to use every means at our disposal to serve the warrant, and not have to fire a weapon. This included the use of "flash-bangs" when and where required. I have been asked numerous times, by arrestees, "What the hell just happened?"
This is exactly the result we were after. Perps in custody, evidence secured, and most important, no one injured. NO ONE INJURED.
I really have nothing further to contribute. If you still don't understand, I can't help you.
Of course, criminals can do this too. Yelling "Police" is no proof of actually being the Police.
On the other hand, five guys with M-4s and body armor break down your door while you are sleeping in bed and you are pretty much screwed no matter what, no matter how well good you and your wife are with the matched set of his and her 1911s on the nightstands.
Then there was a case recently where the Police did a no-knock on a guy for alleged downloading child pornogrophy (hardly a violent crime). It turned out the neighbor was stealing the guys bandwidth over Wifi.
So the Police break in, literally drag this guy down the stairs and arrest the wrong guy. Luckily he didn't suspect a home invasion or he'd have been dead.
Excellent work Uncle Buck!
"When we went to search a room in the dorms once, we knocked and all of a sudden heard "Hold On, Coming." Flush, flush, flush. Luckily the dog alerted on that area and we were able to find some drugs that missed the bowl. (Later, when we would do dorm shakedowns, we turned the water of to the entire dorms.)"
I really think we need to physically search all individuals that are suspected of illegal drug activity. If they decided to do illegal drugs they open themselves up to have the Police sort them out.
"When we went to search a room in the dorms once, we knocked and all of a sudden heard "Hold On, Coming." Flush, flush, flush. Luckily the dog alerted on that area and we were able to find some drugs that missed the bowl. (Later, when we would do dorm shakedowns, we turned the water of to the entire dorms.)"
I really think we need to physically search all individuals that are suspected of illegal drug activity. If they decided to do illegal drugs they open themselves up to have the Police sort them out.
Last edited:
.
Just two cases that come to mind: Woman holding a video camera filming her daughter's birthday party, shot and killed by police. They "though" the camera was a gun...turned out they had the wrong house... It was "Avenue", not "Street". Then in Jackson, MI, about two years ago, police officer shoots person by "accident", when serving warrant. "Don't know why...finger just slipped". Teenage suspect was not armed, had not resisted. There are many such cases.
Aside from that, if you do not understand what the intent of requiring a piece of paper with a signature on it, I cannot help you, you will never understand. Let us all submit to random stops, searchers...it will keep us all "safer"...it worked in Nazi occupied Europe after all.
Double Naught Spy
New member
And on post 16, Godwin's Law rears its ugly head.
Sorry, but the US is nothing like Nazi Germany or occupied areas. The comparison isn't even remotely the same.
Sorry, but the US is nothing like Nazi Germany or occupied areas. The comparison isn't even remotely the same.
Thank you Yankee D!
I'll just add this....out of the thousands of house assaults conducted by law enforcement every year, just how many "supposed innocent people are being killed"? I have not done any studies on this, nor will I, but I'd GUESS that it may happen once or twice a year.
These are not just men dressed in black. They have badges, patches & as has already been mentioned, they identify themselves as police officers.
The bottom line is that if the police were to raid a house, what would you expect them to do to someone in the house who aims a firearm at them?
Also, the person who aimed the firearm at the police, whether the police were in the right house or not....shouldn't they properly identify who THEY are aiming a gun at? Instead of blaming the police for rarely hitting the wrong house, why doesn't the blame fall on the occupant(s) of the wrong house if they aimed a weapon at uniformed officers?
"The bottom line is that if the police were to raid a house, what would you expect them to do to someone in the house who aims a firearm at them?"
Or as post #16, aiming a camera at them. An officer once came to my house. I was in the back yard building a shed. And i had a black cordless drill in my hand! I am luck i did not get shot. He said drop it. I did so immediately. My point is this was an accident waiting to happen. The funny this is i saw him coming. He was rapping his baton in his had as he came down the side of my house. I see him clear as day even now. I don't know how i saw him coming. ( It felt like an out of body experience) I mean there is not way i could have seen him coming. Not from where i was standing. Nevertheless, I knew. When he was in front of me I drop my CORDLESS DRILL. Wow.
Or as post #16, aiming a camera at them. An officer once came to my house. I was in the back yard building a shed. And i had a black cordless drill in my hand! I am luck i did not get shot. He said drop it. I did so immediately. My point is this was an accident waiting to happen. The funny this is i saw him coming. He was rapping his baton in his had as he came down the side of my house. I see him clear as day even now. I don't know how i saw him coming. ( It felt like an out of body experience) I mean there is not way i could have seen him coming. Not from where i was standing. Nevertheless, I knew. When he was in front of me I drop my CORDLESS DRILL. Wow.