Swat and their tactical procedures

The truth?

Why did you omit the rest of my answer? ....and who said all of the above?
Click to expand...

Because THAT made my point & the rest of your answer made no sense. You said
*********************************************************
"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?"
*********************************************************

I was going to ask how YOU would enter the home, but you already told someone else "Why should I? ......."Find a better way to police is why we pay taxes to the experts, not to be fatally vulnerable to collateral damage"

So, by your own admission, you "don't know" & you don't have an answer to the dilema, that's why you pay your taxes.

I'm sorry, but now I'm compelled....."fatally vulnerable to collateral damage"

??? Tell the truth......Reticle, are you REALLY that afraid?

No matter what, the good ol' USA is still a better & SAFER place because our police officers are on duty, trying their best to keep tax-paying good citizens like yourself safe. Whether you appreciate or like them or not.

And oh, to answer the 2nd part of your question, "Who said all of the above?" Nobody did. It was my opinion.

Tough thread.......
 
reply to post #55

Wow aarondhgraham, that is an amazing story.

Now to everyone, I am perfectly sure no one here or most of America hate the Police. I think from reading the post We all have even more empathy for what they do and have to go through. Having a regular job is stressful enough. They go from a stand still to 100 miles and hour. So their jobs are very stressful. And we all appreciate their work.

Now this thread has nothing to do with he hates me or she hates me. It has to do with 2nd amendment. What i am surprised about is that the no knock tactic is use to GAIN evidence. If Swat is going in, there should be no question of evidence. In other words, If you do not have the evidence. A no knock dynamic entry is not warranted. What we could do is have one officer in full Kevlar Armour go to the door and say i have a warrant to search the property. If they refuse,after say 3 minutes no response, send in the dynamic entry guys. What, they might flush the evidence down the toilet? They might burn it, eat it? A drug dog should be able to point to any residual evidence. And like someone said earlier cut off the water. They can't flush it all. And i would take that one further by blocking off the sewer line. Then filter it for evidence.

If we get to know our neighbors we might all know who is doing what. I mean it would be obvious. Oh i know that dude, he is total pot head. All we have to do is ask.
 
Last edited:
There is a hue & cry to stop high speed chases in many areas,,,
Paradise PD in Northern California stopped them,,,
After the Chief plowed into a van of grannies,,,
For a man who ran a stop sigh and fled.

Stillwater, Oklahoma PD is severely restricted in when they can do one,,,
This was a direct result of citizens petitioning the mayor,,,
There were two incidents that prompted this.

There are alternatives now,,,
Radio nets can be cast to cover a broad area,,,
Or just the common sense decision that these are far too dangerous to continue.

Far too many cops feel the need to "do their job" at the expense of the citizens,,,
I for one am dang tired of being classed as acceptable collateral damage.

And does there really need to be a "Hue & Cry" from the public to stop a dangerous procedure?

This is again why you are supposed to be called professionals,,,
You should recognize the inherent danger and police your own actions.

And before you say I should try the job before I complain so much,,,
I did the job as a uniformed CSO in Chico, Ca.,,,
And as a non-uniform at UCR PD,,,
Without a sidearm as well.

I was invited to attend the academy,,,
I declined because I would not be a "good" cop,,,
For one I would be a Serpico and that's very frowned on.

I would have your back going through a door,,,
But I would turn my partner in for abusing his authority.

And please everyone, stop using the term "Civilian",,,
That's military terminology,,,
I'm a Citizen.

Aarond
 
Last edited:
Terry A said:
Because THAT made my point & the rest of your answer made no sense. You said
*********************************************************
"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?"
*********************************************************

I was going to ask how YOU would enter the home, but you already told someone else "Why should I? ......."Find a better way to police is why we pay taxes to the experts, not to be fatally vulnerable to collateral damage"

So, by your own admission, you "don't know" & you don't have an answer to the dilema, that's why you pay your taxes.

I'm sorry, but now I'm compelled....."fatally vulnerable to collateral damage"

??? Tell the truth......Reticle, are you REALLY that afraid?

No matter what, the good ol' USA is still a better & SAFER place because our police officers are on duty, trying their best to keep tax-paying good citizens like yourself safe. Whether you appreciate or like them or not.

And oh, to answer the 2nd part of your question, "Who said all of the above?" Nobody did. It was my opinion.

Tough thread.......
Click to expand...

I'll assert that portion did serve your argument and that the rest did not. If it made no sense, perhaps you could copy and paste the whole quote rather than portions of it. Here's what I said:

"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."

Am I really that afraid? Well, perhaps we should ask Kathryn Johnston if she was afraid. Of course we can't. She is dead.

Not to be bellicos, but your opinion serves as a distortion projected on those who resist no knock warrants and their constitutionality. Example: you state that, "No matter what, the good ol' USA is still a better & SAFER place because our police officers are on duty, trying their best to keep tax-paying good citizens like yourself safe. Whether you appreciate or like them or not."

Again an opinion meant to project that I may not appreciate the police or to place doubt that I may. This is a lie of distortion intended or not.
 
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...
The police aren't being shot at while they are assembling outside someone's door to serve a warrant. This isn't a combat situation where Marines are trying to take a bunker and capture an enemy.

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...

I think in most cases, a better way (knocking) has been invented. To be fair to the police, most warrants are not no knock warrants.


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...

I want police who are brave and tough enough to not be afraid to knock on a door.

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...

Police are part of the general public and we need to work to keep things that way. We can't have a situation where police are our best friends when we need them and look at them with distrust when we don't. Both the average member of the public and the police need to work together. Police need to be held to the highest standards but the general public should know that police work can be extremely difficult and the public needs to provide the needed support.
 
aarondhgraham said:
And please everyone, stop using the term "Civilian",,,
That's military terminology,,,
I'm a Citizen.
Click to expand...

Good point. Do police refer to the public as civilians or citizens? I've heard the former more than the latter by a wide margin.
 
Do police refer to the public as civilians or citizens?
I've heard the former more than the latter by a wide margin.
Click to expand...

This goes to my argument that former military are not necessarily the best candidates for police officers,,,
Their training (and mine by the way) was to attack and enforce submission by any means necessary,,,
I am not someone you must "put into submission" because you don't as yet know my status.

Aarond
 
Terry A,

Your analogies are not appropriate. Firstly, because virtually every instance you list is one in which the person who MIGHT be killed is a VOLUNTARY participant, aware of the risks.

More appropriate would be a shuttle launch where the engineers didn't verify o-ring seals, or a doctor didn't check for allergy info before administering medication...

See, they're not doing their job.

Besides which, we're not talking about police never, ever, ever making mistakes. We're talking about gross negligence in the most dire of all circumstances. It's a circumstance wherein there is no excuse whatsoever for getting it wrong, for the reasons I listed before.

It's not a "mistake", it's gross negligence and an absolute failure to do the primary job which is the most important duty of all police personal, namely to protect innocent life.

An error on a speeding ticket is a mistake. Killing innocent people in botched raids, is not. It is unforgivable and heads should roll. There is no excuse.
 
Their training (and mine by the way) was to attack and enforce submission by any means necessary,,,
Click to expand...

As an military member on active duty with nearly twenty years experience, I can assure you that this "conquer bay any means" statement is no longer always the case.

I agree that a botched raid is inexcusable and that heads should roll, all I am saying is that they can and do happen despite the best planning and intentions.
 
There is actually very little difference between a no knock warrant, and a warrant without a no knock endorsement. In a no knock we just take the door announcing who we are, and our intent. Without the endorsement we do knock, and announce... Then take the door. It's not like we wait 20 minutes for someone to scratch, yawn, pour a cup of coffee and answer the door.

Just the procedure I followed when applying for a search warrant. Using an informant.

1) The informant must have made two controlled buys at the location.
2) The informant must be reliable, and have been reliable in the past.
3) I must verify independantly information supplied by the informant to establish his reliability regarding this location.
4) I must independantly verify that activity indicating drug sales is going on at this location.

Then we can apply for the warrant.

Before we can exicute/serve the warrant the Informant must make one more buy at the location, and physically mark the entrance.
We tack and stage for the warrant. An officer called a ghost must verify the informants markings. Only then will we exicute.

If any step is missing... no service. We start all over again.
 
In my opinion, there is no way to justify a no knock warrant unless it is EXTREME circumstances. Not that does not include billy the neighborhood crack dealer. Criminals impersonate police all the time.
 
It was said so long as humans are in the mix mistakes will be made. And so long as power is involved it will corrupt not all but some. Are all SRT people trigger happy adrenaline freaks no, this is not to say they are perfect either (and i am not saying a large majority are that way just some). Do I believe that corrections need to made absolutely. The job they have is a dangerous one at that. And one that goes for the most part unnoticed, as well as unrewarded. It has perks and it has flaws the biggest one is human error, I understand why they use tactics that they do, I also understand why people are concerned with them using them tactics. The blade is two sided and it cuts just as easy with both sides on one side it cuts the threat of officers getting hurt, on the other side it board line cuts into the constitutional rights.

Ask anyone who came from Iraq or Afghanistan and they will tell you bout PID Positive Identification we had a list of things we had to go through before firing at a potential enemy, there was also a escalation of force that went with it. Not being a LE person I could not tell you when the use of SRT is considered or justified.

I know that they are human and they are going to make mistakes and largely what they do goes unnoticed and unrewarded. With that being said they are a high profile unit which means high publicity and high praise when they do good and high scrutiny when the screw up. One of the down sides to the job. I do not envy them for that been down that road on the military side of things.

On the other hand they did volunteer for that job and understand that that they are restricted in what they can and can not do. And also understand the dangers that are involved with it. Given the fact that they have some the best weapons that money can buy as well as the best body armor for the most part, as well as tactics and other equipment, they are relatively well protected. In there line of work like the service they have make decisions on the fly at times. And it will be them people that have to live with the mistakes they made. They to are human and honest mistakes happen.

And so long as people understand the dangers they face and understanding of things they can be be understood. And so long as the SRT understand who they are serving and and remember their oath they will be understood as well. Bottom line don't forget where both sides came from.
 
I think that one reason for this problem, if in fact a problem exists, is that because there are SWAT teams, they will be used. They have to justify their existance. Although special squads have been around in a lot of places for decades in one form or another, only relatively recently have they become more common in their present form as we think of them. The reason for this, I believe, is because a lot of money was made available to local governments for law enforcement purposes. In addition to a lot of hardware, they apparently did things like establish SWAT teams. Or so it seems. Things are not always like they seem. Whether or not they are a good idea or not is a different story but things have a way of taking on a life of their own. In this case, one might say a new form of policing has grown up.

In a way, this is an outgrowth of the anti-crime campaigning of Nixon's elections. You may or may not recall there was a lot of civil disorder in the late 1960s and early 1970s and I think we're still feeling the effect of the backlash. It is conservatism in action.
 
^^^^
This might be true. The county where I grew up has a SWAT team... The biggest city is about 18k people, what a lot of folks on TFL would call a "small town". They have ALMOST ZERO violent crime, say nothing of the type that would require a SWAT response and I can think of one instance in my entire life that would have justified their presence... but it wasn't even in their jurisdiction. Don't get me wrong, great guys, I know a few of them, good cops, professional, all that... Just, SWAT, really?!
 
My only concern with following orders immediately is that a friend of mine was a victim of a home invasion and was held at gun point for a couple hours by some scumbags dressed as SWAT.
When the real police finally showed up they didn't do any kind of fingerprinting and never solved the case.
My whole point is that just because someone busts through your door with guns yelling they are police does not make it true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top