SWAT, equip. care and feeding

TABING

New member
THE WAY WE LIVE NOW
SALIENT FACTS: SWAT TEAM
Hometown Commandos
During the recent shootings in Littleton, Colo., fully equipped
Special Weapons and Assault Teams were on the scene,
carrying some pretty heavy accessories. Such units -- highly
trained local and state police officers called in for dangerous
situations that require special equipment or firepower -- have
become standard crime-fighting tools in even the smallest and
most placid cities. And they're likely to keep growing.
Herewith, a review of the troops. By CHRIS MITCHELL


EQUIPMENT
For each person:
Ballistic vest or body armor
($1,200-$1,500)
Kevlar helmet ($250)
Fire-retardant jumpsuit ($265) and
gloves ($30)
Ballistic face shield ($325)
Boots ($100-$150), kneepads
($20) and elbow pads ($15-$20)
9mm. semiautomatic handgun
($600)
Shoulder-fired submachine gun like Heckler and Koch's MP-5
($1,500-$2,000)
Light attachments for both guns ($325)
Gas mask ($100-$150)
Radio headset ($300-$900)
Climbing and rappelling gear ($200)

For each team:
Ballistic shields ($1,700-$2,100 each) and high-intensity lamps ($3,000
each)
Breaching equipment: sledgehammer ($100), battering rams ($435 for a
50-pounder), halligan tools ($200 each), a hydraulic jamb-spreader
($750-$1,400), a firefighter's chain saw ($3,000) and exothermic cutting
torches ($2,700-$3,100)
Chemical grenades, baton or "bean bag" rounds and dedicated launchers
($4,000-$5,000)
Flash-bang grenades ($25 each)

PURPOSE
SWAT officers are trained to deal with all types of emergencies -- civil
disturbances, natural disasters, hostage situations and bomb scares -- but
their most frequent assignments are serving "no-knock" search warrants,
during which they seize drugs or other contraband. And in places where
there isn't a lot of door-bashing work to go around, they find creative ways
of making themselves useful. The 28-member Special Response Unit in
Greenwich, Conn., for example, performs animal containment when the
circus comes to town and crowd control when lottery jackpots top $1
million.

MANPOWER AND COST
Nine out of 10 American cities with populations above 50,000 maintain their
own SWAT teams, resulting in a nationwide force estimated at 60,000. A
full-time, 18-member unit costs approximately $1.3 million a year in salaries
and benefits; training could be $100,000. Equipment maintenance and
practice ammo runs $30,000 a year. Federal drug-war outlays cover some
of the tab, and the Pentagon has given local police forces more than a million
pieces of military hardware in recent years, including 73 grenade launchers
and 112 armored personnel carriers.

TRAINING
Full-time tactical units spend a lot of time training -- one day is
recommended for every three spent in the field. Often, this training is
conducted by the F.B.I., major weapons manufacturers and retired Navy
seals. Interested civilians can get similar instruction through private outfits. At
the New Hampshire-based Lethal Force Institute, weeklong introductory
courses ($600; character references, from attorneys or government officials,
required) include street gunfighting lessons, 16 hours of "intensive combat
shooting" and tips on "justifying your actions in court."

THE FUTURE
Violent crime is down, and the public has grown increasingly outraged at the
many incidents of excessive force and wrongful arrest that SWAT teams
have been linked to. Investigators are also looking into shortcomings in the
Littleton SWAT team's response (like their methodical advance on the
suspects and faulty communications systems). Still, in the wake of that
tragedy, professionals anticipate that SWAT budgets will expand to include
bomb experts and better explosives training. "What you have here is a
trendsetting crime," says Massad Ayoob, head of the Lethal Force Institute.
And out on the horizon, the SWAT industry's next big meal ticket is just
coming into view: biological terrorism. This year alone, the Department of
Justice budgeted about $70 million to equip U.S. cities for rapid response to
biological attacks. A high-profile anthrax scare or two should keep the funds
coming.



May 30, 1999


Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company
 
What about, "Compared to the lives we're able to save, it's a drop in the bucket"? Or is that too controversial a statement to say on here?
 
I would have to question some of those prices, the $100. sledge hammer for example. I also doubt many PD's pay $250 for a kevlar helmet or $325 for a face shield.
Could this be another example of the press twisting the facts to get the point they want?
 
Rob, you and I argued a point similiar to this back in February. Let me throw out a few of my thoughts, though not carefully composed.

1: "CIVILIAN GUNS"?? As opposed to military guns? Policemen WERE civilians last I checked. But that's part of the attitude I guess.

2: The Posse Commitatus Act (military excluded from the role of civilian law enforcement) meant to keep military type tactics out of law enforcement... That's not your cue to militirize police instead. It wasn't passed because they were afraid of someone with USMC, USN, or USA behind their names enforcing law, and PD doesn't make those tactics anymore appropriate.

3: The argument that "..we need heavier firepower to meet today's threat." just flows too easily into the next-step argument of regulating today's threat ( to us "civilians" that means 10rnd mags, import bans, "cop killer" bans, etc.) I DO NOT agree that policemen should be turned loose with greater firepower than I'm allowed... Look up POLICE STATE.

4: These guys are 'men of action'. Nothing per se wrong with that, being a closet 'man of action' myself. But I know for a FACT that when you give a guy a ballistic vest and an MP5 and train him to kick down doors-- he's going to want to go try it out and, well, you end up with a lot of "drops in the bucket" as SB put it. Based, likely, on a bad informant's tip or somesuch.

This "high speed, low drag, I'm a bad@ass" attitude is what we could use less of on the serve and protect police force-- Remember the attitudes of the HRT guys at Waco? "Honed. Honed to kill." is how one of them put it. Yeah, I know, "but they were Feds!". Like I said, I personally know for a fact that sentiments like those run rampant within circles that label themselves "elite". Furthermore most of these guys are about as elite as a soup sandwich and draping them with expensive gear.... Well, you picture a soup sandwich draped in nomex and kevlar.

I live in Fairbanks Alaska. Let me tell you, I'm more than a little curious why the Police in this quiet little town need MP5SD's. (I guess they aim to keep it QUIET :) )

All right Rob-- let 'er rip!
 
Dont be so tough on poor old LEO. A career in the military isnt for everybody. This way they figure they can have all the fun and all the thrills anr still go home to Mama and the kids every night.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
FBI HRT is another realm from the average LEO Swat/SRT/ERT. At most departements the SWAT officers are everday petrol cops who get special training and special equipment to deal with special situations.

If you have spent a night on a crime scene in the projects or served a warrant at a crack house, you understand why LE needs special armor and equipment and can justify the special weapons.

I'm not ignoring the "Civilian vs. LE vs. Military" issue, I am just not going to get into another semantic argument over it.

If Fairbanks has criminals with dogs, that would be one good reason for a silenced weapon. If people there can get automatic weapons, high powered rifles, handguns, drive cars, make bombs, work together, reinforce their doors, barricade themselves in, take drugs, sell drugs, get into gunfights over drugs, take hostages, move, hide behind things and/or shoot at cops, then I can understand why your police officers would want special equipment and training to deal with those things. Don't you ??

------------------
-Essayons
 
Jordan, well said.

We do not need military cops!

We do not need SWAT that just stands around like they did in Colorado.

Unless you are in the military, military retired reserve, etc, YOU ARE A CIVILIAN! Rob, I know you cannot understand that concept.

Rob, get a copy of the Law Enforcement News Vol.XXV No. 507 March 15, 1999. An interesting look at Diallo shooting. Got almost none of my reading caught up while in Canada, but did read this issue. Be sure and read the history on these ' friends ' of yours. GLV

------------------
 
GLV, when someone in a thread discussing LE and non-LE uses the term "civilian" to refer to the latter, most people can figure it out.
Besides, I provide the following for your education:

(from Collier's Dictionary)
Civilian- n. 1. Any person not an active member of the armed forces or of an official force having police power.

Both of you post from the comfort provided by Military and LE personnel, I hope you enjoy your freedom and comfort. When you are ready to put on the uniform or the badge, feel free to tell everyone how you don't need the special equipment and training.

furthermore, GLV, if you still think the SWAT guys in Colorado just stood around, then you REALLY DO need to catch up on your reading.

[This message has been edited by Rob (edited May 30, 1999).]
 
This really is a timely and controversial topic. Recently this was brought up in the Law Enforcement community itself, when a criminologist from the University of Kentucky published a paper entitled "Too Much SWAT" or something similar. I read a rebuttal to it in Law and Order Magazine a couple of months back.

Yes, there have been some notable misuses of tactical teams at all levels from local to federal. But then again, ther have been a lot of successes that almost never get any press.

Now we have more pending legislation that is once again driving a wedge between the police and law abiding citizens, especially gun owners.

To add to that we are faced with the fact that a law enforcement agency can be and usually is sued for anything that happens, they took the wrong action, they didn't take action etc.

So now put yourself in the position of being chief of a small agency. You probably don't have the money for a SWAT or tactical team. But you are faced wth a barricaded suspect, crack houses or meth labs. What do you do? Do you wait for a State or Federal response (which will probably take two or more hours) or do you try to have a limited capability do deal with these things while waiting for the big boys? If you choose to wait for state or federal assistance, people may die, including some of your officers and probably, you and the agency will lose in court for being inadequatly prepared to deal with the situation. If you choose to form your own SWAT team and something goes wrong or you don't have the resources to adequately train and equip them, you will once again lose in court.

So what do you do?

I think the answer is that we have to have this capability, but we need to be real careful how we use it. Law Enforcement administrators need to recognize that the militarization of the cop on the beat, rightfully scares many people. So they have to resist the temptaton to show off the SWAT team by not utilizing them to secure mom and dads house so the dectives can search junior's room for the four pot plants that are listed on the search warrant.

If you properly select your team you shouldn't have to worry about the desire to kick in doors with your MP5.

You guys who think that we shouldn't have SWAT would probably change your mind if you were unfortunate enough to be stuck in a convenience store or bank lobby when a robbery went wrong.

This truly is a double edged sword. I believe the problem lies not with the fact that SWAT exists, but with how some agencies choose to use it. This you can effect. You will have better luck at the local level then at the federal level. Talk to your councilman or county board member all agencies even the federal ones answer to civilian authorities, the same ones we elect. Believe me at the local and county levels agencies will respond to public opinion.

Jeff
 
We should not condemn all SWAT or all police officers on the bad traits of a few, that's
somewhat like painting all gun owners as bad or evil just because of the actions of a few.

The problems in the Colorado school shooting are well documented and most of us with any tactical experience can visualize the reasons for delay. Just think of the problem of
knowing it could be ANY of the students that are involved in this so each student must be
considered as possibly hostile, so you can't just point them to the door and say "go". Plus just think of going into a large, complex building for the first time and having to safely clear it, and awesome job add in the fire alarm and sprinkler system and you can see some of the problems
 
Civilian, Websters disagrees. Nothing about police powers in my copy of Websters Dictionary.

Rob, the amount of police abuse of power continues to rise throughout the country. It will continue to rise as long as the citizens of this country are willing to trade FREEDOM for something they think is SECURITY. History shows they will get neither.

It will only change when the citizens of this great country are willing to become responsible for themselves, and stop asking the government to take care of them.

Do I expect to live to see change? No, what I expect to see is what we are seeing in NYC. The Street Crimes Unit has stopped and frisked 45,000 individuals, and seized 2072 guns. That comes to 4.6% of those stopped. What about the 43,000? What kind of questions did they have to answer? What kind of ID did they have to provide? Wonder what the cops used for probable cause? I don't guess you need pc in NYC. I wonder if color, or race had any bearing? Notice that Street Crimes Unit is mostly white.

Today we live in a police state. I fear the police much more than I fear the criminal. I know what the criminal wants, and I can handle that. The police want POWER. That scares me. GLV
 
My problem is not w/ the fact that SWAT exist, I quite agree that there are time and places for them. I think their use has expanded from what it originally intend, like the above, hostage rescue,etc. I do not agree
w/ these no knock entries. what the hell do they expect when you crash somebody's door down. At my house, expect to get shot. Even though I live in a smaller community, than alot of you, we have our crack gangs, meth labs, weed growers, and other assorted idiots. they bust meth labs ( it seems like almost daily ) w/o the use of swat, or other
paramilitary tactics. Like someone else in this thread said, if the boys are trained to bust the door down & go in balls to wall, then they want to use it. the adrenalin rush is a drug, like alcohol, or any of the above.
it came be habit forming. I know, i've experienced it, not from a law enforcement, or military angle, but i've experienced it.
I know it's hard on the streets for the leo's out there,kinda damned if you do & damned if you don't. and i know how i'd feel if i were out there ( y'all you never let me in).
I just think a change in the way the teams are used need to be confined to a little narrower set of circumstances. i don't intend for this to be a flame on leo's it's not, just an opinion from one that see's ,however real it may or may not be, tactics similar to
what was used in Germany.

------------------
fiat justitia



[This message has been edited by longhair (edited May 30, 1999).]
 
GLV,

You really make my head ache sometimes.

Websters New World Dictionary, published by Simon & Schuster, Second College Edition (page 260, right column):

Civilian n. 1.Any Person not an active member of the armed forces or of an official force having police power./

That point having been well made, I must say that I do not consider LEOs to be another arm of, nor on par with, Military Personnel. I've been in the military, I am an LEO and I am also a Civilian.

Colloquially, we regularly refer to non-LEOs as civilians.. and, as a technical matter of word use, it is also clearly proper. If that ruffles your feathers, I am sorry.

On the SCU issue, I talked with a hispanic officer that is really tired of hearing about how the SCU is a racist organization. Hell yes more blacks and hispanics were frisked, guess what, more blacks and hispanics live in the nieghborhoods targeted by the SCU. Guess what else, those neighborhoods were targeted because of the amount of violent crime not becuase of the color of the residents.

Last week about 150 cars were stopped in a project and talked to about a murder case. While the detecives were talking to them, their tags were run. 8 tickets were written, and one man was arrested for for driving a stolen car. All 8 tickets were written to blacks and the suspect was also black. only 2 or 3 of teh cars stopped even had whites in them. Every car coming through that corner while we were there was stopped. The reason that corner was chosen was because it was where one black man was killed by another, according to the witnesses. Does the fact that mostly blacks were stopped and only blacks were cited or arrested suddenly make us Racists? I think not.
------------------
-Essayons


[This message has been edited by Rob (edited May 30, 1999).]
 
It is not SWAT's fault. LE simply enforces the State's rules according to the State's rules. Unfortunately the State is out of control in many aspects (BATF in its entireity, subversion of the Constitution by the courts and law makers, legalized theft by LE, the Drug War, the new Thought/Dress Funny/Play with Toy Guns/Video Game War, etc.)

"Civillian" don't security gaurds do this too now. I know prison gaurds do. Perhaps even meter readers too?
 
Ultimately, I think we have to make an acknowledgement that there are many right-wing folks on here who does not believe in excessive regulation and policing, if at all. There really isn't anything wrong with that notion, as it's one that has been with us since the very beginning of this country's (USA) history. And we should also acknowledge that there are folks on here who believe that the country may be a bit more complex from its humble beginnings, and may require a slightly different, more specialized and organized model to help maintaining our quality of life. Who's right? We all have our opionions, but frankly, I think it's the one that is more appriopriate to handle the situation now, whatever that may be. And what we do may change from day to day, who knows? In short, we're all from the same camp, and we really should be focusing our energy our common enemy: Folks who think we shouldn't even be armed at all. Folks who think everything will go all peachy keen if guns never existed. Those are the real "threat", especially when they hold political positions. So let's just say we agree to disagree, and acknowledge what we're debating isn't really that big a deal, and move on to the Rosies and Jane Fondas, for they are those who truely need to hear our side of the story.
 
Before anyone agrees to anything, I wanna make it perfectly clear that I'm one of the guys who thinks people should police themselves. I do not believe we need a more complex struture.. in fact, I say we go all the way back to the Social Contract and start again. I'll shake hands with my nieghbor and we can agree to work together.. To hell with everyone else, until we personally shake their hands and come to an agreement.

But, As long as we have a government that is supposed to protect me and some dude 1000 miles away I've never met equally, and provide certian things whether I want them or need them, and that structure includes having a very few people stand up and defend the comfort and freedom of a great many, then I want those guys standing up to have the best equipment and training they need to staty one step in front of the real badguys.. not the guys who are threat to the State, but the guys who are a threat to innocent citizens who want to sit at home and question whether or not LEOs should have automatic weapons and training in clearing rooms.

------------------
-Essayons
 
not saying swat teams aren't needed, just that they seem to be somewhat overused of late. some things i find disturbing are the call for more and more firepower. what happened to 1 shot 1 hit? would we be better served by more training and better proficiency with weapons normally in a squad car?seems like the more rounds are available, the fewer hits . ie: new york shooting: 56 rounds 14 hits? just one example, maybe not the best.

if im wrong somebody show me. can't learn
unless somebody points out your mistakes !

BTW, as a firefighter and paramedic, it took 275 hrs of training annually to meet my state and departmental requrements. leos in my area required 60 hrs annually.
we trained with the tools that would save our lives every day. it would seem to me that leos would benefit from the same, train until the actions are automatic, because too often you have to make the right decision with too little time and too little info. you can second guess yourself later in the debrief, but you have to be alive to do so.
too little training often results in sloppy habits, because the "big one " doesn't happen every day, and you get used to handling the routine. then something out of the ordinary takes you down because you didn't recognize the warning signs. the best equipment and intentions won't help unless you are prepared to use them. on the other hand, a well trained person can handle something before it gets too big. iknow i'm generalising and some of my parallels won't hold up, but am i going in the right direction?? cmore
 
Rob, suggest you look at page 180, New Websters Dictionary. ISBN 0-7172-4671-X
Also, Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary. Nothing about armed police in either of these. You must be using a new age special dictionary for police only, civilians ( citizens? ) probably can't buy one without a permit.

Today, I worry much more about some type of law enforcement breaking my door down than I do about a criminal doing the same. Cops seem to run almost 100% on information recieved from informants, or those arrested who attempt to lesson punishment by informing on others. Does not matter if information is correct or not. The people next door can ' inform ' on you -- just for the hell of it. No facts, just bs, and you can have police knocking on your door, or kicking it in with a no knock warrant.

Police officers get their MP5s from the armory. Citizens pay several thousand dollars, get an extensive background check, wait months, and then get to pay $75.00 dollars for each magazine. I could go on but it would be a waste of my time.

We have given our law enforcement an unbelieveable amount of power. Some understand the proper use of this power. Many do not. It well get worse before it gets better. More innocent civilians ( citizens?) will die at the hands of the police. Few will object because it is not happening to them or theirs. To quote our president " mistakes were/will be made ". GLV
 
Back
Top