Swat and their tactical procedures

Get to know your L.o.es or Swat, But can we?

Thank you for your reply Mr. Tuttle. I think you have a very good point and probably a solution to many problems. But You may find this interesting. Okay i live a big city 1.2 million if you include sub burbs 2 million. Now I would say 99.5% of all citizens don't know any, and i mean any police officers. Not to mention the more secretive Swat guys. I have a high school buddy whom i have know for 20 + years now who is in Swat. He is great, out going, happy, easy to get along with person. And he said to me, "Yeah, when you want to get in touch with me don't call, just text me." The point is He does not want me to call. What kind of friend is that. Now getting back to the police in a big city. The police are rotated constantly and there is no way they'll get to know you or vise versa. And I think that is the way it is intended. If law enforcement and city social workers could go around town introducing themselves. And got to know the public in their area of town (that is if they were not rotated out, as if they were in a war zone!). Many, many problems would be nipped in the bud before they became full blown. See if they got to know the families in their area they would get, ( what , what is that)
GOOD INTELLIGENCE.
 
Last edited:
Obviously, Peetzakiller, you have never actually been in a law enforcement position nor been a part of one of these raids. You have the luxury of armchair quarterbacking 'til your heart's content. Get yourself into a position where you actually conduct or oversee one of these actions and you might come to learn and understand that the police do actually do everything they can to mitigate mistakes and be successful at accomplishing their mission. You might also realize that these warrant raids are extremely dynamic and always have an element of risk.
 
Quote:
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"? (The only post (Terry A's) where these words are used btw) I have not done any studies on this, nor will I , but I'd GUESS that it may happen once or twice a year.

It doesn't take a genius to tell from reading your post (and taken in the context of your other posts including your wanting to see how I would do things differently rant in your last post) that, you are in fact implying that since it's a rare occurrence, we shouldn't let that dissuade us from letting the police do them. No one in this thread used the words "supposed innocent people being killed," those are your words. Since it isn't a direct quote as you insist, the quotation marks can only be construed as condescending, therefore implying that it is in fact "ok."
Click to expand...

Darren,
Two times, my friend, you stated that the quote "supposed innocent people"
came from me. But if you look back at the very 1st post in this thread, the very 1st sentence is where I got those words. I quoted from the original post in this thread.
Does that alter anything in your thinking about what I was trying to convey?

And Darren, some of us may sometimes differ in our opinions on whatever the subject may be, but it's just our own individual opinions. I'm absolutely certain that you are a good man with some really good thoughts. ideas & opinions. But from time to time, not everybody is going to see everything the same way. Along those lines, I hope that even if I were to disagree with anyone on here, I would do it in a gentlemanly fashion, as you did. But my last response to you was very pointed, and so I apologize to you for the harsh tone in my post.

I spent just under 30 years as an officer, 10 of which was on our entry team. I know from the men I worked with how careful the police try to be in making sure that NOBODY gets hurt, let alone killed. I never met a police officer who wanted to kill anyone. So when a few people who have no experience whatsoever feel free to take arm-chair pot shots at the police because of some tragic mistakes that some officer somewhere made, it kinda upsets me.
We have people in this thread comparing the USA with the nazis. Incredible.
 
Skadoosh,
I was careful not to include your whole post in my reply, (:D) but your post #42 was very well said!
 
Why stop there?

Today, 10:42 AM #38
peetzakilla
Senior Member

Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 8,857
Quote:

There really is no LEGITIMATE excuse. When it happens it should be punished SEVERELY.

Any group, agency or individual that can't pull these off with 99.999999999999999% reliability has no business doing the job. After all, that IS the job. The whole friggin' point is to PROTECT civilians.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your thinking there peetzakilla. Why don't you apply that same high standard to NASA? If they can't launch something with less then near 100% certainty, then shut 'em down. Let's close all the hospitals too, since they can't guarantee that kind of success ratio in surgeries or medical treatments. I'm not a NASCAR fan, but since nobody can say that there will never be an accidcent, lets abolish that sport, since accidents are going to occur & lives will be lost. How about airline companies? Planes crash because of pilot error. Are you guys on the "Airlines Forums" saying they shouldn't be in business? I could go on, but my point is why hold just the police to such an impossibly high standard? Does this same standard also apply to firefighters & EMT's? In everything I referenced, lives have been lost. And, very sad to say, lives will be lost at times when police are trying to do their job.

No loss of life is ever a good thing, so please, no liberal bashing from others saying that I'm saying it's ok if the police kill even one person. Not what's being said at all. But by the same token, why are some people so hyper-critical of police & not other agencies? I could never understand how some people just despise the police in our country. Again, I'd love to see what those people would do if they were in the same situations.......
 
I disagree with your thinking there peetzakilla. Why don't you apply that same high standard to NASA? If they can't launch something with less then near 100% certainty, then shut 'em down. Let's close all the hospitals too, since they can't guarantee that kind of success ratio in surgeries or medical treatments. I'm not a NASCAR fan, but since nobody can say that there will never be an accidcent, lets abolish that sport, since accidents are going to occur & lives will be lost. How about airline companies? Planes crash because of pilot error. Are you guys on the "Airlines Forums" saying they shouldn't be in business? I could go on, but my point is why hold just the police to such an impossibly high standard? Does this same standard also apply to firefighters & EMT's? In everything I referenced, lives have been lost. And, very sad to say, lives will be lost at times when police are trying to do their job.

No loss of life is ever a good thing, so please, no liberal bashing from others saying that I'm saying it's ok if the police kill even one person. Not what's being said at all. But by the same token, why are some people so hyper-critical of police & not other agencies? I could never understand how some people just despise the police in our country. Again, I'd love to see what those people would do if they were in the same situations......
Click to expand...

Sure there is risk in everything. The correct course of action is to avoid risk when we can. The point here is not to stop policing, it is to stop policing with military aggression and tactics. There is a reason that the founders codified in the constitution that civilian policing was not to be done by the military. It was to be done by a civilian police authority. Given that, what sense does it make to have a civilian police that uses military weapons and tactics?

Perhaps what is most at risk is the good will between police and the citizens. When the perception that the police are as or more dangerous than the criminal element, then the police have lost their moral authority and AS A GROUP will become the enemy of the population. We see the consequences of that already. When I was a kid, the police were generally considered as 'one of us'. Now, they are 'one of them' and the public fears the police and associates isolated abuse and corruption with all police. Right or wrong, in public affairs perception is reality. The result of that lost moral authority is chaos.

Find another way.
 
US Marine Jose Guerena was shot twenty-two times by a SWAT team planning to serve a warrant. He retrieved a legally possessed rifle in response to sudden intruders, likely concerned for his family's safety, and the SWAT team opened fire on him before establishing any communication. The team later retracted its initial claims he had opened fire when it was established that Guerena had never fired and his safety was still on. No evidence of drug trafficking was found and Mr. Guerena had no criminal convictions. Members of the SWAT team subsequently hired legal defense and a large following of fellow Marines held a memorial service at his home with his widow.
Click to expand...

Here is, I believe, a case of misunderstanding to say the least. And you can evaluate this one by simply searching for, and watching the video yourself.

The SRT/SWAT team approached the address with a siren going full blast--although they were going at a relatively slow speed.

They approached the house AT A WALK, and KNOCKED ON THE DOOR.

They appeared to have a conversation at length with SOMEONE INSIDE THE HOME. THIS PERSON THEN CLOSED THE DOOR ON THE OFFICERS.

The officers then started to enter the door.

As they entered, Mr. Guerena was observed in a barricaded position, with a rifle in his hand capable of defeating most body armor at close range (AR15) AIMED AT THE OFFICERS, AT A RANGE OF LESS THAN TEN YARDS.

He was, therefore, briskly shot by the entry team.

Sorry, friends--but this guy does not get one ounce of sympathy from be. What do you expect officers to do when a gun is pointed in their direction?

Here's a secret--most cops (including me, by the way) wish desperately that we could go on duty in a nice, summer weight uniform, with a duty belt and minimal equipment. That is our wish. We wish that everyone had a respect for their fellow man or woman, and obeyed the law. Sadly, that is not the case.

We wish that we could do our job without danger or hazard. Sadly, there are people that would murder us without warning--simply because we wear a badge and a uniform.

Why do we have serious firepower on tap, and employ military tactics?

We learned from incidents like the Northridge, CA bank robbery; the FBI shootout in Miami, the Norco bank robbery from CA, and the Newhall police shootings that became the foundation for the felony stop.

We learn lessons from the murders of Officers for senseless reasons--Deputy Rich Herzog, King Co. Sheriff's Office; Officer Tim Brenton, Seattle PD--shot at point blank range behind the wheel of his patrol unit; Sgt. Mark Renninger, Ofc. Tina Griswold, Ofc. Greg Richards and Ofc. Roland Owens--killed in less than 30 seconds of horror by a man who hated cops; Deputy Kent Mundell, killed on a DV call, all of these from the SAME region.

These lessons came at a high price, as did the lessons learned by all of us who wear the badge; paid in blood by those who have fallen. We have learned from their mistakes.

We have learned that we execute search and arrest warrants prepared for the worst possible scenario. We have learned that while we can and do the "knock and announce" that sometimes the best approach for the safety of all--officers and others--is to go in fast and hard, and to take the arrestee into custody before they have a chance to react or even to prepare.

It may look rough and overbearing to some, but trust me--it is sadly necessary given the times we live in.

Be safe, stay safe, and God bless!
 
Terry A, No worries...it's hard to convey emotion and intent through words alone. Even so, this has been a good debate.


Now, allow me to disagree with you again... :)

I disagree with your thinking there peetzakilla. Why don't you apply that same high standard to NASA? If they can't launch something with less then near 100% certainty, then shut 'em down. Let's close all the hospitals too, since they can't guarantee that kind of success ratio in surgeries or medical treatments. I'm not a NASCAR fan, but since nobody can say that there will never be an accidcent, lets abolish that sport, since accidents are going to occur & lives will be lost. How about airline companies? Planes crash because of pilot error. Are you guys on the "Airlines Forums" saying they shouldn't be in business? I could go on, but my point is why hold just the police to such an impossibly high standard? Does this same standard also apply to firefighters & EMT's? In everything I referenced, lives have been lost. And, very sad to say, lives will be lost at times when police are trying to do their job.
Click to expand...

I can totally see what your getting at with the above examples. But it is my opinion that you're comparing apples to oranges. The difference between what Peetzakilla is saying and your examples is this: All of the above are risks accepted by those that choose to participate in them. Therein lies the difference. I'm not accepting the risk of potentially dying in a no-knock raid, I'm forced to accept it. They are putting me at risk whether I like it or not.

Please don't think I'm being overly critical of the police. I'm not criticizing the police, but rather a procedure used by the police. Having said that, I do believe that some officers and indeed some police agencies have over the years adopted a "win at all costs" attitude towards law enforcement. This is unfortunate but considering that it might seem like the bad guys are always winning, I can see why that type of law enforcement would be appealing. But where do we draw the line?
 
Reticle, I have a question for you...

Here are two REAL situations that happened in the jurisdiction in which I patrol. Tell me how you would handle them.

First:

A call received that a man was leaning out of his window next to a major arterial, aiming what appeared to be a high powered rifle at passers-by, and at moving vehicles.

Second:
A young gangbanger with an extensive criminal history steals a scoped SKS rifle and ammunition, and announces that his target of choice are officers from your agency.

How would you handle these calls?
 
Sure there is risk in everything. The correct course of action is to avoid risk when we can. The point here is not to stop policing, it is to stop policing with military aggression and tactics. There is a reason that the founders codified in the constitution that civilian policing was not to be done by the military. It was to be done by a civilian police authority. Given that, what sense does it make to have a civilian police that uses military weapons and tactics?

Perhaps what is most at risk is the good will between police and the citizens. When the perception that the police are as or more dangerous than the criminal element, then the police have lost their moral authority and AS A GROUP will become the enemy of the population. We see the consequences of that already. When I was a kid, the police were generally considered as 'one of us'. Now, they are 'one of them' and the public fears the police and associates isolated abuse and corruption with all police. Right or wrong, in public affairs perception is reality. The result of that lost moral authority is chaos.

Find another way.
Click to expand...

1. The "military tactics" are proven to work under combat conditions. If the police are being shot at, what tactics should they employ?

2. "....what sense does it make to have a civilian police that uses military weapons and tactics?"
What kind of weapons should the police use? Muskets? And again, you mention tactics. They're really concepts, ways of doing things that ensure success. When a better way is invented, the police will incorporate it into their proceedures.

3. "When the perception that the police are as or more dangerous than the criminal element, then the police have lost their moral authority and AS A GROUP will become the enemy of the population."
Personally speaking, I don't want sissy boys protecting the general public against stone cold killers.
And if I read you right, if the police are brave & tough & ready to do their job aggressively if need be, then they 'lose their moral authority" and "become the ENEMY of the population." ??? That is way out there, don't you think?

4. "When I was a kid, the police were generally considered as 'one of us'. Now, they are 'one of them' and the public fears the police and associates isolated abuse and corruption with all police."
Well, I'm sorry that's how YOU see things today. Whatever happened must have really scarred you deeply. I don't think that way at all. I see our police officers as our friends & helpers.
Who exactly do you look to as "one of us" ? Do you really, sincerely believe in your heart that the majority of Americans looks at the police in this country as "them" vs "us"? That's simply amazing.
 
Powderman said:
Reticle, I have a question for you...

Here are two REAL situations that happened in the jurisdiction in which I patrol. Tell me how you would handle them.

First:

A call received that a man was leaning out of his window next to a major arterial, aiming what appeared to be a high powered rifle at passers-by, and at moving vehicles.

Second:
A young gangbanger with an extensive criminal history steals a scoped SKS rifle and ammunition, and announces that his target of choice are officers from your agency.

How would you handle these calls?
Click to expand...

The answer is I don't know. I am not a cop. What I do know is that neither case justifies military entering of an innocent person's home and shooting them dead when they try to defend themselves against an unknown threat at 3:00am.

Sure, they may announce who they are, but who can believe that when the consequences of getting it wrong either way are fatal?
 
Police high speed pursuits on average are far more deadly than no-knock warrants. Yet they happen every day. The hue and cry from the general public to cease all pursuits just isn't there...
 
Terry A said:
1. The "military tactics" are proven to work under combat conditions. If the police are being shot at, what tactics should they employ?
Click to expand...

Again, that is not my call. Military tactics against innocents are my concern. Surely you are not suggesting that a little collateral damage is acceptable.... My suggestion is to find another way.

Terry A said:
2. "....what sense does it make to have a civilian police that uses military weapons and tactics?"
What kind of weapons should the police use? Muskets? And again, you mention tactics. They're really concepts, ways of doing things that ensure success. When a better way is invented, the police will incorporate it into their proceedures.
Click to expand...
Muskets. That's cute, but serves to distort the discussion. 'Tactics', 'concepts', whatever you want to call them if they are militarized and used on innocent civilians in exchange for officer safety, it is an unacceptable barter. Find another way.

Terry A said:
3. "When the perception that the police are as or more dangerous than the criminal element, then the police have lost their moral authority and AS A GROUP will become the enemy of the population."
Personally speaking, I don't want sissy boys protecting the general public against stone cold killers.
And if I read you right, if the police are brave & tough & ready to do their job aggressively if need be, then they 'lose their moral authority" and "become the ENEMY of the population." ??? That is way out there, don't you think?
Click to expand...
'Sissy boys' is cute too, but another deceptive distortion. I don't want militarized police engaging the innocent public. By the way educated predictions are always 'out there'. Don't you think?

Terry A said:
4. "When I was a kid, the police were generally considered as 'one of us'. Now, they are 'one of them' and the public fears the police and associates isolated abuse and corruption with all police."
Well, I'm sorry that's how YOU see things today. Whatever happened must have really scarred you deeply. I don't think that way at all. I see our police officers as our friends & helpers.
Who exactly do you look to as "one of us" ? Do you really, sincerely believe in your heart that the majority of Americans looks at the police in this country as "them" vs "us"? That's simply amazing.
Click to expand...


Why do you assume something happened to me? Mine is an over 45 year observation from the spectrum of populations and concetration. I don't think that a majority of the population sees it as us vs. them...yet. What I have read in this and many threads is an us v. them attitude of the police in an alarming ratio. I don't share that attitude. I have LE in my immediate family. They confirm much of what I written. Believe it or not.
 
The answer is I don't know. I am not a cop.
Click to expand...

Reticle, with all due respect sir, that's a great answer.

Do you realize that police officers were not always police officers? I started at age 21 & became permanently disabled at 50. In between that time, I'm Joe Citizen, as is all my family & friends who are not LE. We are NOT the enemy or some occupying force. We also have familes & loved ones we care deeply about.
And I can honestly say that never one time ever in my entire life did I ever fear that the police would ever harm, in any way, anybody that didn't deserve it. Does it happen? Sure it does. But I don't spend my life worrying "What are those evil police going to do to "Good Citizen" now?

I am a total dummy when it comes to computers or machines. I wouldn't dream of posting on a computer forum & telling the computer techs how bad they are & how they should be ashamed & how they need to do this & that....

But there are those here who feel some type of compulsion to vent or rant against something that they really have no grasp of.

This is a polarizing thread. Maybe I'm seeing it wrong, but those who are AGAINST the police in our country seem to want to shame or vilify all officers with the same blanket. The police are not the bad guys. They're battling the bad guys so YOU don't have to. If anyone thinks they can do it better, apply for the job.
 
My worst complaint about this is,,,

When it happens,,,
The homeowner is invariably charged with a crime of assault on a police officer.

This is not hearsay,,,
I was personally involved with this,,,
Not personally as being shot at but knowing the homeowner personally.

His tenant heard someone breaking in the house,,,
The man fires a round into the floor to scare the invaders off,,,
Riverside PD and Riverside Sheriff's Dept fired over 175 rounds of .223.

Not only was the tenant hit multiple times,,,
He was immediately offered a "plea deal" by the Riverside DA.

Plead guilty to misdemeanor shooting a firearm in the city limits,,,
We won't charge you with Assault on a Police Officer,,,
He refused the plea and the DA filed charges.

The biggest wrong here was that the cops had the wrong address,,,
They went into the wrong house knowing their warrant was an invalid one.

They had a warrant for 1234 so-and-so street,,,
When they arrived they found four rental cottages,,,
1234-A, 1234-B, 1234-C, and 1234-D so-and-so street.

Rather than standing down until they got the correct address,,,
They decided to go off of the Sheriff's surety,,,
They entered the wrong friggin' cottage,,,
Shot and nearly killed an innocent,,,
Then charged him with a felony.

The owner of the cottages was the lead dispatcher for the UCR PD,,,
My wife was the dispatcher on duty and heard the entire thing,,,
I was a CSO for UCR PD and witnessed the cover-up talk.

This is why I am very passionate about this topic,,,
I personally witnessed the directed attempt to cover and intimidate.

It took over 7 years but the injured man's lawyer is now much richer,,,
The injured man had to spend most of his money on medical bills,,,
Nothing happened to the officers in charge of the raid.

Ask me again why I think this procedure is wrong.

Aarond
 
Reticle, surely with "45 year observation from the spectrum of populations and concetration" you must have something better to offer other than "find another way"...

This militarized LE that you speak of...arent they still overseen and governed by an elected body comprised of citizens from the public? Much like our military is head by an elected civilian official? Is that not the relief valve put in place by our forefathers to protect the public from an overzealous military and LE?
 
Terry A said:
Quote:
The answer is I don't know. I am not a cop.

Reticle, with all due respect sir, that's a great answer.

Do you realize that police officers were not always police officers? I started at age 21 & became permanently disabled at 50. In between that time, I'm Joe Citizen, as is all my family & friends who are not LE. We are NOT the enemy or some occupying force. We also have familes & loved ones we care deeply about.
And I can honestly say that never one time ever in my entire life did I ever fear that the police would ever harm, in any way, anybody that didn't deserve it. Does it happen? Sure it does. But I don't spend my life worrying "What are those evil police going to do to "Good Citizen" now?

I am a total dummy when it comes to computers or machines. I wouldn't dream of posting on a computer forum & telling the computer techs how bad they are & how they should be ashamed & how they need to do this & that....

But there are those here who feel some type of compulsion to vent or rant against something that they really have no grasp of.

This is a polarizing thread. Maybe I'm seeing it wrong, but those who are AGAINST the police in our country seem to want to shame or vilify all officers with the same blanket. The police are not the bad guys. They're battling the bad guys so YOU don't have to. If anyone thinks they can do it better, apply for the job.
Click to expand...

Why did you omit the rest of my answer? ....and who said all of the above?
 
Police high speed pursuits on average are far more deadly than no-knock warrants. Yet they happen every day. The hue and cry from the general public to cease all pursuits just isn't there...
Click to expand...

You are actually going to use this as a justification?

Dang but I'm glad you aren't on my local police force.

Aarond
 
Skadoosh said:
Reticle, surely with "45 year observation from the spectrum of populations and concetration" you must have something better to offer other than "find another way"...
Click to expand...

Why should I? Are you suggesting that if a challenged citizen cannot/will not suggest a better way that there is no better way or that there is no urgent need to find one? Find a better way to police is why we pay taxes to the experts, not to be fatally vulnerable to collateral damage.

Skadoosh said:
This militarized LE that you speak of...arent they still overseen and governed by an elected body comprised of citizens from the public? Much like our military is head by an elected civilian official? Is that not the relief valve put in place by our forefathers to protects the public from an overzealous military and LE?
Click to expand...
Yes. No. the constitution is the relief valve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top