# How Military Culture Turned America Into the land of SWAT



## Makalakumu (Jul 7, 2013)

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/“wh...a_book_the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/



> Sal Culosi is dead because he bet on a football game  but it wasnt a bookie or a loan shark who killed him. His local government killed him, ostensibly to protect him from his gambling habit.
> Several months earlier at a local bar, Fairfax County, Virginia, detective David Baucum overheard the thirty-eight-year-old optometrist and some friends wagering on a college football game. To Sal, betting a few bills on the Redskins was a stress reliever, done among friends, a friend of Culosis told me shortly after his death. None of us single, successful professionals ever thought that betting fifty bucks or so on the VirginiaVirginia Tech football game was a crime worthy of investigation. Baucum apparently did. After overhearing the men wagering, Baucum befriended Culosi as a cover to begin investigating him. During the next several months, he talked Culosi into raising the stakes of what Culosi thought were just more fun wagers between friends to make watching sports more interesting. Eventually Culosi and Baucum bet more than $2,000 in a single day. Under Virginia law, that was enough for police to charge Culosi with running a gambling operation. And thats when they brought in the SWAT team.
> On the night of January 24, 2006, Baucum called Culosi and arranged a time to drop by to collect his winnings. When Culosi, barefoot and clad in a T-shirt and jeans, stepped out of his house to meet the man he thought was a friend, the SWAT team began to move in. Seconds later, Det. Deval Bullock, who had been on duty since 4:00 AM and hadnt slept in seventeen hours, fired a bullet that pierced Culosis heart.
> Sal Culosis last words were to Baucum, the cop he thought was a friend: Dude, what are you doing?



When the police are militarized, the government collects the ultimate dossier on everyone, and violence is used increasingly to solve all problems, you live in an unfree country.  Of course Libertarians have been explaining that this would happen for years.  The more our culture worships the Imperial military industrial complex, the more it's violence will be used against us.  For those of you who think that voting for big government in the form of "defense" is a good thing, well here is the unintended consequence that always follows in the wake of big government.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 7, 2013)

And the Fairfax County Police Department handled this incident very openly.  Report to the Community

I'll have more to say on this in a bit, when I have some time.  I actually do agree that there has been an over-militarization (for lack of a better term) of the police of late.  It ain't all our fault, though...  I'll be glad to leave my body armor and sidearm home, if you can guarantee the bad guys will do the same.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 7, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> And the Fairfax County Police Department handled this incident very openly.  Report to the Community
> 
> I'll have more to say on this in a bit, when I have some time.  I actually do agree that there has been an over-militarization (for lack of a better term) of the police of late.  It ain't all our fault, though...  I'll be glad to leave my body armor and sidearm home, if you can guarantee the bad guys will do the same.



This is fair and would be a good thing. However, how much federal money is coming in to make this kind of environment possible?


----------



## K-man (Jul 7, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> This is fair and would be a good thing. However, how much federal money is coming in to make this kind of environment possible?


If this is even 10% true you have big problems with your system of policing. 

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/28/nine_terrifying_facts_about_americas_biggest_police_force/

:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 7, 2013)

K-man said:


> If this is even 10% true you have big problems with your system of policing.
> 
> http://www.salon.com/2012/09/28/nine_terrifying_facts_about_americas_biggest_police_force/
> 
> :asian:



Do you have anything like this in Oz? When I have travelled and explained what happens here in America, most people are simply shocked.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 7, 2013)

My PD has as much in common with the NYPD as K-Mans police will....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Jul 7, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> This is fair and would be a good thing. However, how much federal money is coming in to make this kind of environment possible?



I run my Dept. SWAT team...I had a whopping 6K of grant money to spend this year...I purchased one night vision device for our sniper rifles...

Because for all the uneducated opinions on tactical teams, if our snipers cant make a shot in the night and someone gets killed people will be critical that in this high tech age that we didn't have the capability. 

If I'm lucky I will get the same next year...I had nothing the year before...Id like to get a throwable robot. That way the next time we have a barricaded gunman we can toss a robot with a camera vs a person who may have to kill or be killed.

Our vests are due to expire this year too....don't quite know where I'm going to find the money to replace those.

Of course some people would say that the cop getting killed is something we should prefer over us having NVGs or robots or body armor...of course they will never be in the position of ordering a man to his death....



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Jul 7, 2013)

Gear and equipment isn't "militarization".....application is. Cops in the 30's/40's had Tommy guns and armored cars...

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Jul 7, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Our vests are due to expire this year too....don't quite know where I'm going to find the money to replace those.



I think it's less about a SWAT team having the right equipment--of course it should--and more about the ever-increasing use of _Special _Weapons and Tactics. They're less special when they become standard procedure for relatively minor arrests.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 7, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I think it's less about a SWAT team having the right equipment--of course it should--and more about the ever-increasing use of _Special _Weapons and Tactics. They're less special when they become standard procedure for relatively minor arrests.



That's really the issue. It seems like "shock and awe" is becoming the norm. Overwhelming force for everything without regard for circumstance.


----------



## K-man (Jul 7, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Do you have anything like this in Oz? When I have travelled and explained what happens here in America, most people are simply shocked.


Nothing like you have. In Australia we have State Police forces with their separate chain of command, all responsible to the State Governments. Any evidence of corruption or inappropriate behaviour and there can be an external investigation. We also have much lower ratios of police to population than you have. 

Another interesting thing I saw on TV the other day was an Australian who married an American lady and joined the police force, I think in California. He was only being paid $30k. He had to work a second job in security to make ends meet. That doesn't seem a great set up for a professional police force. :asian:


----------



## Carol (Jul 7, 2013)

K-man said:


> Nothing like you have. In Australia we have State Police forces with their separate chain of command, all responsible to the State Governments. Any evidence of corruption or inappropriate behaviour and there can be an external investigation. We also have much lower ratios of police to population than you have.
> 
> Another interesting thing I saw on TV the other day was an Australian who married an American lady and joined the police force, I think in California. He was only being paid $30k. He had to work a second job in security to make ends meet. That doesn't seem a great set up for a professional police force. :asian:



Sounds like there is some important data missing from the TV scenario.  Starting pay for an officer where I live in NH is over 50k, and our cost of living is nothing like California's.   Some police officers (like some college professors) are among the highest paid public employees in the state (in general - not just here)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## arnisador (Jul 7, 2013)

Carol said:


> Some police officers (like some college professors) are among the highest paid public employees in the state (in general - not just here)



In many places a police officer can double his salary with enough overtime. Of course, that's a lot of hours--but often at time-and-a-half.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 7, 2013)

arnisador said:


> In many places a police officer can double his salary with enough overtime. Of course, that's a lot of hours--but often at time-and-a-half.



On the job OT is primarily court OT...which means you have to make arrests to get it. I used to do off duty security gigs to make some extra cash....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Jul 7, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> That's really the issue. It seems like "shock and awe" is becoming the norm. Overwhelming force for everything without regard for circumstance.



A lot of things "seem like the norm" in the Internet age....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 8, 2013)

Tgace said:


> A lot of things "seem like the norm" in the Internet age....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



And then some things shouldn't occur at all, IMO. SWAT teams for poker games at the VFW? Sheesh. Talk about spitting on those who "fight for freedom"! Hippies ain't got nothing on that.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 8, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> And then some things shouldn't occur at all, IMO. SWAT teams for poker games at the VFW? Sheesh. Talk about spitting on those who "fight for freedom"! Hippies ain't got nothing on that.



That is true...there have been some questionable decisions made....did you read the report supplied by Jks though? The rationale is at least plausible in this case.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Jul 8, 2013)

Carol said:


> Sounds like there is some important data missing from the TV scenario.  Starting pay for an officer where I live in NH is over 50k, and our cost of living is nothing like California's.   Some police officers (like some college professors) are among the highest paid public employees in the state (in general - not just here)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



That really depends on agency and location...in some smaller PD's 30K would be pretty good. My starting pay was around 38. Not sure what the rookies make now....

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 8, 2013)

Carol said:


> Sounds like there is some important data missing from the TV scenario.  Starting pay for an officer where I live in NH is over 50k, and our cost of living is nothing like California's.   Some police officers (like some college professors) are among the highest paid public employees in the state (in general - not just here)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Depends on very many factors -- but lots of places in the US don't pay their cops particularly well.  Virginia State Police start at $36207.  Roanoke City PD starts at $35445.  While there are plenty of places that pay police well, there are also plenty where cops work two jobs or spend a lot of time working details and OT assignments.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 8, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> And the Fairfax County Police Department handled this incident very openly.  Report to the Community
> 
> I'll have more to say on this in a bit, when I have some time.  I actually do agree that there has been an over-militarization (for lack of a better term) of the police of late.  It ain't all our fault, though...  I'll be glad to leave my body armor and sidearm home, if you can guarantee the bad guys will do the same.



OK... I promised more.  Here it is...

Lots of people are complaining about "militarization" of the police, and they point to incidents like this one and tactical teams in general, patrol rifles, semiautomatic sidearms, body armor (especially external vest carriers) to support their complaints.  Let's take them in turn:  Tac teams.  Tactical units were a response to rising violence and situations that ordinary patrol units weren't prepared for.  Especially early on, they did rely a lot on military equipment and tactics.  However, a modern tac team uses gear and equipment more aimed at the police market than the military market -- and many of their tactics are quite different from the military.  There has been and continues to be some overlap, especially in urban combat scenarios.  But there are key differences: cops hit resistance, they can't pull out for air/artillery support.  Cops have to be much more concerned with innocents in the crossfire than a soldier in a war zone.  A tactical unit is used when there is reason to anticipate violence, or weapons.  Some other units use tac team tactics in lower risk situations because of the targets, like a gang unit. 

Patrol rifles are also a response to what's happening on the street.  We've learned that sidearms are not enough in some cases (North Hollywood bank robbery, active shooters) and that we can't always hold the scene and wait for SWAT to show up.  The answer is to provide a patrol officer with sufficient firepower to respond to the threat with a reasonable expectation that they will succeed, rather than simply be cannon fodder.  The semiauto sidearm is pretty much the same thing:  a 6 gun just wasn't turning out to be adequate.

Body armor...  It's hot, it's uncomfortable -- but I am almost never in uniform without wearing it.  If you're a welder, you wear eye protection.  If you're working on a construction site, you wear a hard hat and steel toe boots.  For a cop, we face the risk of people shooting at us.  The answer to that, to give us the best chances of going home healthy at the end of our shift, is to wear body armor.  I happen to prefer, for myself, an under-the-uniform or "covert" carrier for my armor, but lots of agencies have added the option of an external vest carrier.  Some officers find them more comfortable, or that it's easier to be able to take them off in the station and cool off for a bit.  (It's not uncommon for me to be able to wring my shirt out after a shift in the summer...)  But sometimes, the public sees an external vest and assumes that they're seeing some sort of tactical or special response team (like a street crimes unit), when it's just a patrol officer with an external vest carrier.  (Incidentally, I don't prefer them because they don't seem to  make a huge difference in comfort, too often they don't get laundered enough, and they ride up when you're sitting.  Oh -- and there's the possibility that I might have to run out and forget to grab it...)

Where I have a problem with the "militarization" in police work is when the police unthinkingly adopt or try to adopt military tactics or equipment without examining the difference in the application.  Approaches that work well for a soldier with a squad of 8 or more operating in a combat environment aren't necessarily right for a cop, often with maybe one partner, operating in a predominantly civilian environment, where most of the people we encounter are NOT criminals.  And that's the other problem...  It's very easy for othering and separation from the public at large to occur, since so often we're dealing with people who lie, steal, and are generally not nice.  (By the way... the public feeds that, too, when they use cops as threats to their kids to eat their veggies, or try to fib their way out of a ticket.  You know you were speeding or whatever... don't lie.)  I see too many cops who don't get out of their cruiser except to respond to a call, write a ticket, or get some lunch.  They drive around with the windows up, and even act annoyed if someone talks to them... then they wonder why someone treats them like they're strangers and some form of occupying army, rather than the folks who serve and protect.


----------



## Carol (Jul 8, 2013)

This gets exacerbated by some of the overzealous politicians behind some of the decisions.  For example, last year the city of Keene (home to a large state college and known as an area for a lot of political activism) was selected by DHS to get a Bearcat.  The purchase would be paid for by federal dollars, but the city would have to maintain it, make it available when mutual aid is needed, etc.  The mayor announces "We're getting a tank!" and half the town freaks out.  My own city has had one for 10 years and no one has batted an eye.  Our mayor hasn't made a bit deal of it, and it has likely been used more of a relief resource than anything else (keeping officers warm while in a drawn-out situation during cold weather, etc).


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 8, 2013)

*Most LEO I know make a decent living*.  Decent is the word here.  Not too much, not too little.  With high risk and little thanks for their efforts at times.  When I worked for the DNR in a law enforcement capacity the pay was decent. (actually for me at the time it was good)  Yet, I was quite a bit younger and in my life position now the pay would not be as good.  Most of the LEO's that I know are from bigger cities or work at universities at the moment with a few being on tactical teams. (those areas generally are paid more but they are a far cry from being over paid)  I do remember more than a few friends though working as part time police officers before they got a full time job.  There pay was so poor that they typically worked another full time job doing some thing until they got that full time LEO job.  Some of them made just above a dollar more than minimum wage and yes these were guys who had already gone through the police academy.  I knew one guy who worked part time like this for about 5 years and eventually landed a full time gig making around $27,000 and boy was he happy!  *In general our police are underpaid overall in my opinion*.  I am not surprised at all to hear of someone in a Californian small town making $30,000 to start.  Not surprised at all!!!  Nor am I surprised one bit by TGace stating that he had a whopping $6,000 to spend on gear, etc. for his SWAT team last year.  I would imagine that to be more the norm than the exception.


As to equipment that our police are utilizing.  Well think about what jks9199 wrote above about patrol officers having sufficient fire power.  When an officer responds to an incident we want him or her to have the tools to do the job if necessary.  That would include them having the capability to utilize a rifle, shotgun, semi automatic handgun, taser, expandable baton, knife, pepper spray, handcuffs, etc.  They of course also need some protection ie. vests, etc.  They need a well equipment car with computer hook up, video cameras, etc.  Now that is just for an individual officer working alone.  However, say an officer comes across a armed hostage situation, etc.  Then they are probably going to need backup and local or county, state swat, etc.  We live in a pretty violent society with crime happening every day.  We need personal that can handle a violent situation when needed.  Just look at my blog post yesterday detailing a dangerous situation that resulted in a good outcome for the intended victims: The Instinctive Edge  Thank god for the officer who acted in the end.  In some areas like New York where 911 happened we probably need a show of force in certain areas so that criminals and terrorists and the like understand that there are people around who can handle the job.  I can remember being there just after 911 and seeing a good show of force and I was okay with it.  Made me feel a bit safer.   Yet, there of course needs to be balance.  That balance may be a little hard to achieve and it would appear that in some areas they went a little over board.  So at some point a correction will have to be made.  

As to improper use of force, police brutality of the occasional misappropriation of manpower of SWAT, etc.  Officers acting improperly or being aloof, etc.  I have not met an officer that I know who would not roll their eyes when they hear about such things.   *Meaning they don't like it either because it makes there jobs harder and diminishes their chosen profession!

As to the idea of "Shock and Awe".  *Well let me tell you if you are involved in a dangerous situation wouldn't you want to have serious and I do mean serious people, equipment and over whelming manpower with you?  I do not know of anyone who would answer "No" to that.  That is unless they are not mentally unstable! 

In regards to politicians!  Well they screw a lot of things up.  However, we all know that already!!!


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 8, 2013)

Carol said:


> Sounds like there is some important data missing from the TV scenario.  Starting pay for an officer where I live in NH is over 50k, and our cost of living is nothing like California's.   Some police officers (like some college professors) are among the highest paid public employees in the state (in general - not just here)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



About 1983, my then operations officer and I were contemplating retiring from the military. He had heard of some crime scene processing jobs in California. I called. The jobs started at about 16K per year. I thought I had heard her wrong. She confirmed that. Then I asked if it was negotiable based on experience. Nope. As it turned out, we both spent several more years in the military.



arnisador said:


> I think it's less about a SWAT team having the right equipment--of course it should--and more about the ever-increasing use of _Special _Weapons and Tactics. They're less special when they become standard procedure for relatively minor arrests.





Makalakumu said:


> That's really the issue. It seems like "shock and awe" is becoming the norm. Overwhelming force for everything without regard for circumstance.



I think I know what you are trying to say Makalakumu, but shock and awe is better than death.  The New York Police Department used to allow they could sometimes end a hostage or barricade situation simply by racking a shotgun loudly.  Was that intended to scare and intimidate?  Certainly.  Did it work?  Apparently it often did.  That as opposed to breaking in and shooting the suspect and maybe being shot as well.

Are there abuses?  Statistically, it figures there will be.  If it is systemic in a department, that is a big problem.  If it happens only by an occasional officer, I would hope their own department will take them down if there is no other way to correct it.

On an unrelated topic, did you know there are MA instructors that are reported to abuse their position and trust by engaging in sex acts with students, sometimes against their will?



jks9199 said:


> Depends on very many factors -- but lots of places in the US don't pay their cops particularly well.  Virginia State Police start at $36207.  Roanoke City PD starts at $35445.  While there are plenty of places that pay police well, there are also plenty where cops work two jobs or spend a lot of time working details and OT assignments.



Point taken.  Many places require high standards, including education, or you can't be hired.  Then you get hired and your job is to take on many people who are bound and determined to show you and their peers, that they are tougher and don't care how bad they hurt you to prove it (but don't hurt them).


----------



## arnisador (Jul 8, 2013)

When we talk about police pay, let's put in the broader context of compensation--the pension benefits are usually excellent, which compensates in part for the pay. (I'm not saying that's good or bad, just that you have to include the whole package.) But in a lot of places I am surprised at how low starting salaries can be for a life-risking job.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 8, 2013)

As to the above link about the NYPD, I personally doubt that all happened, at least in a short period of time as implied.  NY is a big place and there are other PDs there, sometimes they all get lumped together.  But I wonder if anyone could find a link to an article on what the members of the NYPD have done that is good?  I have heard of, and talked to NYPD who were present during 9/11.  I never heard anything bad, only good.  

My daughters and their friend took a weekend trip to NY shortly after they graduated high school.  My wife and I and the other parents were on pins and needles as you might imagine.  When they returned, they related that while they were trying to check into the hotel where they had reservations, they were accosted by two of New York's finest.  They began to ask them what they were doing and why they were there.  They answered honestly as they had been taught.  The officers then told them a few blocks away were some other hotels, about the same price, that were better and didn't tend to rent rooms by the hour as did the one they were about to check in to.  They went to the other places and found the neighborhoods and surrounding indeed better.  Sort of sorry for the officers.  The girls could think of no better way to say thanks than to go to the precinct station on their way back home, and drop off flowers for the two officers.  :wavey:  :wavey:  :wavey:

Anyone else know of any good stories about local or other police officers?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 9, 2013)

Plenty of input to bash law enforcement officers. Nobody wants to share anything about them doing any good for anyone.

A shame.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 9, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> Plenty of input to bash law enforcement officers. Nobody wants to share anything about them doing any good for anyone.
> 
> A shame.



Eh, no, not a shame--just a discussion. No one has disputed that having police is a net positive nor even that SWAT capabilities are sometimes needed. It's about the increasing use of what looks to all appearances to be (para)military police on ever slighter grounds.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 9, 2013)

I have to admit that some of these 20 man PD's using Tac Teams that use 3/4's of their department to execute arrest warrants that wouldn't meet the thresholds on most therat assessments are not helping....

However the argument using sheer numbers of SWAT uses prove noting eithe IMO....somehow were supposed to think that uniformed or plainclothes officers kicking in a door is somehow "better" because they are not wearing helmets or carrying M4"s...a cop serving a warrant is a cop serving a warrant regardless of what he's wearing/holding. What is improtant is that the right tactics/approach is being used no matter the gear.


Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Jul 9, 2013)

Tgace said:


> However the argument using sheer numbers of SWAT uses prove noting eithe IMO....somehow were supposed to think that uniformed or plainclothes officers kicking in a door is somehow "better" because they are not wearing helmets or carrying M4"s...a cop serving a warrant is a cop serving a warrant regardless of what he's wearing/holding.



In principle, yes. But we know that imagery matters...and that mistakes made with more firepower can be more deadly than mistake made with less...and that people are only human and can get "caught up" in a big event like the ones we're talking about. A 5 year old is going to experience and remember his dad's arrest in very different ways if it's two plainclothes cops who never draw their weapons vs. 20 men in military outfits barging in with rifles at the ready. I want police to be safe but I also want the citizenry to not feel as though they live in a police state.



> What is improtant is that the right tactics/approach is being used no matter the gear.



Agreed.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 9, 2013)

arnisador said:


> In principle, yes. But we know that imagery matters...and that mistakes made with more firepower can be more deadly than mistake made with less...and that people are only human and can get "caught up" in a big event like the ones we're talking about. A 5 year old is going to experience and remember his dad's arrest in very different ways if it's two plainclothes cops who never draw their weapons vs. 20 men in military outfits barging in with rifles at the ready. I want police to be safe but I also want the citizenry to not feel as though they live in a police state.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.



Thing is...many people cant tell the difference between a SWAT team and a group of plainclothes. My narcotics unit has been called SWAT by offenders simply because we wear external vests with POLICE labels on them and our lead man carries a shotgun when we execute our own warrants. We are not a SWAT team (even though I and one of my detectives are indeed SWAT members). 

We (narcotics) are about 50/50 on forced entry vs a ruse or waiting for a suspect to leave and take him down outside of the house. Some of these people are not the types you Barney Fife around with...some you can simply talk to, others you don't want to give the option to think about what they are going to do. 

And this may sound harsh but I don't care what the 5 yo's experience is in comparison to the tactical necessity . The fathers actions are what caused the situation...if the threat assessment indicates an increased risk then we use the tools and tactics accordingly. Its safer for them and its safer for us.

Id have to see some sort of evidence that more mistakes are being made with "more deadlier firepower" because....as with civilian shootings...handguns account for far more shooting stats than rifles/carbines. 

Its the decision to make forced entry....regardless of who is doing it and what they are wearing that is the root of most of the horror stories. Careful consideration of the situation and the need to force entry needs to be made. Sometimes its needed sometimes its not.

The REAL problem...as its almost always is...is leadership decision making. Not equipment.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 10, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Eh, no, not a shame--just a discussion. No one has disputed that having police is a net positive nor even that SWAT capabilities are sometimes needed. It's about the increasing use of what looks to all appearances to be (para)military police on ever slighter grounds.



I'm sorry, I missed anyone saying having police is a net positive or that sometimes SWAT is needed, other than those that support law enforcement.  But I took the tenor of yours and Makalakumu's comments to be you were against it most of the time.  If I am wrong, my apologies.  

And don't get me wrong.  I understand that some police have done things that at worst were violations of law, and at best put them and their departments in a bad light.  I wish that didn't happen, but it does.  COPS are human too.  And they often get punished for what they do.  The general public just doesn't hear of it that often.  

But it is equally wrong when people make statements that imply police acting badly is a norm, at least imho.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 10, 2013)

Tgace is absolutely right in that tactics, strategy, leadership and sound decision making in good police work is so very important.  The vast majority of police matters are handled appropriately with good leadership and sound decision making that keep the officers safe and whom ever is involved also safe.  *Our law enforcement community is actually better at this than they have ever been*.  They are more educated, better trained, better equipped and have a huge amount of overall experience built up over hundreds of years of perfecting this craft!  That does not of course mean that mistakes are not made or that bad decisions do not happen.  Of course they do!  However, our Law Enforcement community learns from every mistake made and our legal system also helps in this process by ruling on what is legal or illegal for them to do!  Then they go and put everything into real time, real life action.  This is a really tough, hard and often thankless job that is some times just not compensated enough!


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 10, 2013)

Most of the time when the paper or internet says SWAT was involved they weren't.  Just because 5 cops knock on your door and 2 have shotguns that's not a swat team.  When I shot someone in 05. The papers said repeatedly it was a swat raid.  It wasn't there where 3 cops and he called 911 and kept hanging up thats why we where there.  Don't believe everything you read folks.


----------



## granfire (Jul 10, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Most of the time when the paper or internet says SWAT was involved they weren't.  Just because 5 cops knock on your door and 2 have shotguns that's not a swat team.  When I shot someone in 05. The papers said repeatedly it was a swat raid.  It wasn't there where 3 cops and he called 911 and kept hanging up thats why we where there.  Don't believe everything you read folks.




BUT THEY WERE WEARING BLACK FATIGUES!

oh well...
I guess desk jockeys get excited over action just as regular Joes...(yes, the original wording was crude...)

I guess the issue is - as usual - blown out of proportion (unless you are the family of the victim, of course) but it's a case of human error that sadly cost a life. 
Most of us are lucky enough were these situations cost us a fender, maybe or whatever negligable item...

But I guess the cluster started with the Zealot instigating illegal behavior thus causing the wreck. 


if the story is correct, that is. 

(damn, journalism sucks these days...)


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 10, 2013)

As for pay and benefits also don't believe the hype.  I started looking for a new job a few weeks ago to be closer to home.  My local sheriff department the best salary they could offer me was 29000. Entry lvl is 24000. The retirement was same plan as county roads guys work until your 65 get 45%   The next county over same thing 32000 to start same retirement plan.  I make over 70k where I am now with little to no OT I try not to work any if I can help it.  Thats with 20 yr retirement at 50%.  Guess who didn't leave his job.  Police pay is hit or miss.  When I left my first police job I made 14 bucks an hour in 2001.  When I left my last PD for my current one I instantly got a 23000 pay raise.  Even with in states pays can range drastically.  I know guys that came here from PA and they made 16 an hour up there with no retirement no health and no equipment they had to buy their own vest and guns.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 10, 2013)

granfire said:


> BUT THEY WERE WEARING BLACK FATIGUES!
> 
> oh well...
> I guess desk jockeys get excited over action just as regular Joes...(yes, the original wording was crude...)
> ...



I hear that same old BDU or black fatigues thing thrown out a lot as well.  You know why a lot of PDs moved to them.  My duty uniform shirt costs 89.00.  You can buy 2 sets of BDUs for one of my shirts.  PDs are switching because they are cheap.  And officers like then because they are comfortable.  I like my external vest carrier because I can take it off if I'm at the station doing paperwork.  Wearing a vest for 12 hours straight sucks. it has nothing to do with looking cool or being SWAT


----------



## granfire (Jul 10, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I hear that same old BDU or black fatigues thing thrown out a lot as well.  You know why a lot of PDs moved to them.  My duty uniform shirt costs 89.00.  You can buy 2 sets of BDUs for one of my shirts.  PDs are switching because they are cheap.  And officers like then because they are comfortable.  I like my external vest carrier because I can take it off if I'm at the station doing paperwork.  Wearing a vest for 12 hours straight sucks. it has nothing to do with looking cool or being SWAT



I was being mean/sarcastic :angel:

but dang...90 smackers for a stupid shirt?! It'll better be from Calvin Klein!


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 10, 2013)

granfire said:


> I was being mean/sarcastic :angel:
> 
> but dang...90 smackers for a stupid shirt?! It'll better be from Calvin Klein!



Nope.  It's essentially a dress shirt, used as a field utility, probably with a zipper replacing most of the buttons (though the buttons remain).  You can get an idea by looking at Galls.com.  Plus sewing patches, etc. on... 

That's one of the problems with patrol uniforms right now.  We don't want a soft, beat up military fatigue look -- but what we do isn't really something to be wearing polyester or blend dress clothes, either.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 10, 2013)

granfire said:


> I was being mean/sarcastic :angel:
> 
> but dang...90 smackers for a stupid shirt?! It'll better be from Calvin Klein!



I didn't mean you.  This topic cones up a lot on some jeep and offroad forums I go to.  Its always about the BDUs and external vest carriers  people don't realize that stuff is just cheaper.  I personally can't understand why they spend somuch on our uuniforms to begin with but I'm not in charge.ccid be going to DERMO and getting all the old woodland BDUs I can find for free.  Save the city some money


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 10, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> Nope.  It's essentially a dress shirt, used as a field utility, probably with a zipper replacing most of the buttons (though the buttons remain).  You can get an idea by looking at Galls.com.  Plus sewing patches, etc. on...
> 
> That's one of the problems with patrol uniforms right now.  We don't want a soft, beat up military fatigue look -- but what we do isn't really something to be wearing polyester or blend dress clothes, either.



Yeah plus we have a mesh type spandex in the armpit area.  Huge waist of money in my opinion.  I can button my own shirt don't need a zipper but who am I?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 10, 2013)

We moved to BDUs for night patrol because we kept tearing up uniforms.  Polyester pants don't hold up well to the work we do.  But people started sending letters to the paper about thus very topic about all the swat guys running around at night and they mayor told the chief no more BDUs for patrol.


----------



## granfire (Jul 10, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I didn't mean you.  This topic cones up a lot on some jeep and offroad forums I go to.  Its always about the BDUs and external vest carriers  people don't realize that stuff is just cheaper.  I personally can't understand why they spend somuch on our uuniforms to begin with but I'm not in charge.ccid be going to DERMO and getting all the old woodland BDUs I can find for free.  Save the city some money



Lobby for Mossy Oak or Real Tree! Thatt'll get'em talking in town! 

but seriously!
(gonna ask my nephew next time I see him, he's with the county...)


----------



## granfire (Jul 10, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> Nope.  It's essentially a dress shirt, used as a field utility, probably with a zipper replacing most of the buttons (though the buttons remain).  You can get an idea by looking at Galls.com.  Plus sewing patches, etc. on...
> 
> That's one of the problems with patrol uniforms right now.  We don't want a soft, beat up military fatigue look -- but what we do isn't really something to be wearing polyester or blend dress clothes, either.



So there is a market for some inventive designer? (not me, mind you...)

But I bet you: somewhere behind a desk some lame desk jockey is dreaming his action hero dream, making you all wear black BDUs....

Just like some lame Army cripple wanted to be a paratrooper or Green Barret and was able to get them all to wear black ones! 

I looked at the page...the uniform shirt kind of got me, ranging from 49-149 dollars...I am floored!
Might have to give my favorite nephew a bit of folding money next time I see him...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 10, 2013)

BDU's are comfortable, durable and inexpensive.  Makes perfect sense to go to them because of the budget.


----------



## granfire (Jul 10, 2013)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> BDU's are comfortable, durable and inexpensive.  Makes perfect sense to go to them because of the budget.



But it's a PR nightmare....

So Real Tree and Mossy Oak!


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 10, 2013)

Its only a PR problem because people don't know what they are talking about.  Like Carol said when you get elected officials calling a bearcat a tank or every time 2 or more officers back each other up people call it a swat raid you will have this issue.  And when you find out the truth is no fun like BDUs are cheaper that's why we wear them nobody cares.


----------



## granfire (Jul 10, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Its only a PR problem because people don't know what they are talking about.  Like Carol said when you get elected officials calling a bearcat a tank or every time 2 or more officers back each other up people call it a swat raid you will have this issue.  And when you find out the truth is no fun like BDUs are cheaper that's why we wear them nobody cares.




LOL you don't think for a second _reason_ is gonna help you out?!

:lol:

There are people who will not believe you, no matter what:

Person: "SWAT TEAM!"

Cop: "I just wear this because it lasts longer and I can get 4 outfits for the price of one shirt of the other uniform"

Person: "uhm, uhhh.....SWAT TEAM!"

(I see that in other areas of 'discussion' a lot...)


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 10, 2013)

And for those that think SWAT is overused wait and see what happens when we put restrictions on them.  
What's is safer for all involved both officer and suspect.  Highly trained officers that serve warrants all the time or the alternative of 
I have a warrant I now need to go find 5 or 6 officers not busy that can help me.  So 2 will come from school resource officers and 3 more from desk jobs that haven't worked the streets in years.  Now we all go off to serve a warrant together.  
That's when bad things will happen.  There are 1000s of SWAT teams used every day across the country and yes they make mistakes but limit the use and then see what happens


----------



## granfire (Jul 11, 2013)

we just watched too much bad TV...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 12, 2013)

The reason why SWAT is being overused is complicated. On one hand, so much pointless stuff is illegal, using SWAT expanding as a futile way of increasing force to stop black markets that cannot be controlled. On another hand, the military industrial complex is the biggest business in government. It influences just about everything in our lives.  I see all of the social "wars" as offshoots.  

Specifically, in this case the"experts" and gear manufacturers get paid when SWAT tactics are used more frequently. Both of these create a system that is very hard to reform because of the special interests involved. If we reduce the number of laws, that eats into paychecks. If we restrict the use of SWAT tactics, that eats into paychecks. More government "defense" spending means more laws, leading to more SWAT and more jobs. 

The cure is less government on all fronts. We need less spending, less laws, fewer public jobs and no public sector unions. We also need some SWAT, because sometimes that is what it takes to get the bad guys. So, rather than focusing on SWAT maybe we just need to focus on the government that creates the environment where the mission of SWAT can creep.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 12, 2013)

SWAT is supposed to be used when a threat assessment calls for it, or when the situation obviously necessitates it (ex: a gunman shooting up the neighborhood from his rooftop).

"If" SWAT is being overused...and I see no evidence that the bulk of uses were not within assessment thresholds. Only the horror stories that make the news....it's because of warrant service. 


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 13, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> The reason why SWAT is being overused is complicated. On one hand, so much pointless stuff is illegal, using SWAT expanding as a futile way of increasing force to stop black markets that cannot be controlled. On another hand, the military industrial complex is the biggest business in government. It influences just about everything in our lives. I see all of the social "wars" as offshoots.
> 
> Specifically, in this case the"experts" and gear manufacturers get paid when SWAT tactics are used more frequently. Both of these create a system that is very hard to reform because of the special interests involved. If we reduce the number of laws, that eats into paychecks. If we restrict the use of SWAT tactics, that eats into paychecks. More government "defense" spending means more laws, leading to more SWAT and more jobs.
> 
> The cure is less government on all fronts. We need less spending, less laws, fewer public jobs and no public sector unions. We also need some SWAT, because sometimes that is what it takes to get the bad guys. So, rather than focusing on SWAT maybe we just need to focus on the government that creates the environment where the mission of SWAT can creep.



Stop.

The only time various gear manufacturers and "experts" get paid regarding a tactical unit is when they buy their product.  Yeah, some units bring in Tony Blauer or Jim Wagoner or Rory Miller or the guys at Team One or whoever for training.  They'd do that whether the tac unit deployed or not.  Most of those guys don't make the majority of their money training SWAT...  Manufacturers only  make money on a SWAT op if it's a consumable item, like flex cuffs or flash bangs.  Vests, coveralls, knee pads?  Most of that stuff lasts years, as a general rule.  They don't drive the use of tactical teams.  Now, the "tacticool" aspect of some products marketed to cops and the like?  That does drive seeing that stuff on the street.  The old joke is that if you want to sell something to a cop, paint it black and mark it "TACTICAL" in nice bold letters.  Lots of guys buy silly stuff because it's "tacticool"... even though there are identical products on the market for less.  Or the stuff is useless.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 13, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> Stop.
> 
> The only time various gear manufacturers and "experts" get paid regarding a tactical unit is when they buy their product.  Yeah, some units bring in Tony Blauer or Jim Wagoner or Rory Miller or the guys at Team One or whoever for training.  They'd do that whether the tac unit deployed or not.  Most of those guys don't make the majority of their money training SWAT...  Manufacturers only  make money on a SWAT op if it's a consumable item, like flex cuffs or flash bangs.  Vests, coveralls, knee pads?  Most of that stuff lasts years, as a general rule.  They don't drive the use of tactical teams.  Now, the "tacticool" aspect of some products marketed to cops and the like?  That does drive seeing that stuff on the street.  The old joke is that if you want to sell something to a cop, paint it black and mark it "TACTICAL" in nice bold letters.  Lots of guys buy silly stuff because it's "tacticool"... even though there are identical products on the market for less.  Or the stuff is useless.



The incentive for the mission creep of SWAT is not something you need to be an expert to see. It's political. there's too much money in making thing illegal.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 13, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> The incentive for the mission creep of SWAT is not something you need to be an expert to see. It's political. there's too much money in making thing illegal.



Yout assuming that limiting SWAT will mean cops still wont enforce the laws.  You forget SWAT didn't make anything illegal your elected officials did.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 13, 2013)

Also I'm not sure what mission creep is.  Swat officers are still police officers doing a job designated for a police officers.  It doesn't change the outcome or goal if the offer is on SWAT or traffic or K9 or patrol.  They are still a cop.  Most departments don't have full time SWAT teams.  I've been on SWAT for 2 different departments both were part time teams.  Which means it was a secondary responsibility to my normal job.  So the only benefit to using SWAT is it will be safer for everyone and the operational portion will go faster and smoother.  I'm not sure how you can have mission creep for something that's going to happen regardless of who does it SWAT or no SWAT


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Also I'm not sure what mission creep is.  Swat officers are still police officers doing a job designated for a police officers.  It doesn't change the outcome or goal if the offer is on SWAT or traffic or K9 or patrol.  They are still a cop.  Most departments don't have full time SWAT teams.  I've been on SWAT for 2 different departments both were part time teams.  Which means it was a secondary responsibility to my normal job.  So the only benefit to using SWAT is it will be safer for everyone and the operational portion will go faster and smoother.  I'm not sure how you can have mission creep for something that's going to happen regardless of who does it SWAT or no SWAT



Most of the guy's I know on SWAT teams are exactly as described above.  Part time teams that are secondary to their full time LEO position.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jul 13, 2013)

K-man said:


> Nothing like you have. In Australia we have State Police forces with their separate chain of command, all responsible to the State Governments. Any evidence of corruption or inappropriate behaviour and there can be an external investigation. We also have much lower ratios of police to population than you have.
> 
> Another interesting thing I saw on TV the other day was an Australian who married an American lady and joined the police force, I think in California. He was only being paid $30k. He had to work a second job in security to make ends meet. That doesn't seem a great set up for a professional police force. :asian:



I doubt very much 30K is accurate unless it was something like a small 1 or 2 man police force for a small town in the Sierra where they may not have much money.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Yout assuming that limiting SWAT will mean cops still wont enforce the laws.  You forget SWAT didn't make anything illegal your elected officials did.



That was actually my point. Society needs SWAT in some cases, but politics creates the environment where it's mission can creep.


----------



## granfire (Jul 13, 2013)

But it seems more a matter of (mostly) the media going nuts: there are guys on the scene not wearing uniforms but fatigues, it's SWAT...

My husband and I used to laugh - over 16 years ago - when they showed cops on COPS running through the night in dress shoes...I am sure the aspect would have been true for the uniforms as well...

now the practical, durable clothing is more prevalent away from the movie and TV screen...we see thye guys in black and we scream SWAT!!

Of all the things politicians screw up, I don't think this is their fault...


----------



## Tgace (Jul 13, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> That was actually my point. Society needs SWAT in some cases, but politics creates the environment where it's mission can creep.



What do you think our "mission" is?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 13, 2013)

Tgace said:


> What do you think our "mission" is?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



SWAT's, and the police in general, mission is not to terrorize the public. When doors get kicked down and cops dressed like stormtroopers barrel into a house or business that isn't engaged in anything overtly dangerous, the message sent to the public is terroristic. Follow the law or else.

For those of you who don't think this is a problem, think again. America has cops beating down the doors of health food coops for selling raw milk. 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9MVwdv5HBVQ

Is there such a safety concern here that the cops have to point guns at everyone, break stuff, and destroy property? SWAT officers don't need to do things like this, but our society would turn them into official, legalized, terrorists.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 13, 2013)

Here is a SWAT raid on a family home.  The cops had a search warrant for marijuana.






They killed the family dog in front of a seven year old kid.

This is government approved terrorism.  Don't use pot, kid and neighbors, or this will happen to you!


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 13, 2013)

Here are the stormtroopers breaking up political protests.






Same concept.  Same principle.  It's government terror and this sort of thing is slowly getting worse.  One day people are going to wake up and not recognize their country.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 13, 2013)

You think this is somehow better...different..or worse than cops hosing down and beating civil rights protestors in the 60's? Or the gvt using troops to clear out draft protestors during the Civil War? Policing was "better" in the 1950's according to you? Do you have any idea was policing was actually like as recently as the 1980's?

You "sky is falling" types seem to have some rosey colored versions of history when you say things are "getting worse"....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Jul 13, 2013)

Tgace said:


> What do you think our "mission" is?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



Still haven't gotten your expert opinion on what the SWAT mission is...

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 13, 2013)

Tgace said:


> You think this is somehow better...different..or worse than cops hosing down and beating civil rights protestors in the 60's? Or the gvt using troops to clear out draft protestors during the Civil War? Policing was "better" in the 1950's according to you? Do you have any idea was policing was actually like as recently as the 1980's?
> 
> You "sky is falling" types seem to have some rosey colored versions of history when you say things are "getting worse"....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Why do past abuses excuse current ones?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 13, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Still haven't gotten your expert opinion on what the SWAT mission is...
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



I'm not an expert and that is probably what is actually needed here. You don't need to be an expert to look at what is happening and judge it. IMHO, I think the experts are probably part of the problem. There aren't enough average people in that group to inject a different perspective. For instance, maybe an average person could say that you don't need to terrorize little kids on the suspicion that there might be a little pot on the premises. Maybe an non-expert could say that cops don't need to raid groceries with guns drawn and breaking things for the crime of selling raw milk.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 13, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Why do past abuses excuse current ones?



They don't...but the "sky is falling" histrionics are hyperbole. On the continuum of policing we have seen vast improvements in recent history. 

This topic is similar to all the "most violent period in history" chicken little ****....ignoring the fact that both interpersonal violence and war deaths have been showing sharp declines when seen through the lens of time vs cherry picked youtube videos/news articles and blogs.....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Jul 13, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Here is a SWAT raid on a family home.  The cops had a search warrant for marijuana.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While I don't know the details of this warrant (and I doubt you do as well)...the reason for the warrant is but one factor in a threat assessment...and a low value one at that.

What if the target in your "only a marijuana warrant" is on parole for murder?

What if the target has a criminal history of resisting/violence/weapons?

What if the confidential informant in the case tells you he has seen weapons in the residence and the target and his 3 brothers are all known gang members?

What if the structure is known to be barricaded and you need breaching expertise?

What if the real investigatory purpose is to get a violent probationer  known to be involved in criminal enterprise back behind bars and the most solid case you have is a "marijuana warrant"?

The "they used SWAT only for a xxxxxx warrant" is meaningless when it comes to a valid reason to use SWAT...to someone who knows what valid reasons are.


Is that to say that some PD's are NOT misusing their Teams? Hell no...I KNOW that some are. Am I ready to buy this "mission creep" claptrap whole cloth? Uhhhhh.....

No.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Jul 13, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> SWAT's, and the police in general, mission is not to terrorize the public. When doors get kicked down and cops dressed like stormtroopers barrel into a house or business that isn't engaged in anything overtly dangerous, the message sent to the public is terroristic. Follow the law or else.
> 
> For those of you who don't think this is a problem, think again. America has cops beating down the doors of health food coops for selling raw milk.
> 
> ...



SWAT?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/04/the-rawesome-raid-and-raw-milk-controversy/



> While the raid itself appears to have been pretty by-the-book, rather than a SWAT-style raid as originally reported by Natural News, the absurdity of the raid itself is not so much in its tactics but in the fact that its happening in the first place.





Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 13, 2013)

Tgace said:


> They don't...but the "sky is falling" histrionics are hyperbole. On the continuum of policing we have seen vast improvements in recent history.
> 
> This topic is similar to all the "most violent period in history" chicken little ****....ignoring the fact that both interpersonal violence and war deaths have been showing sharp declines when seen through the lens of time vs cherry picked youtube videos/news articles and blogs.....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



If I could go back in time and talk to myself 20 years ago, I don't think I would have believed the my future self if he told me that I would live in a country where people could be labeled a terrorist, have their rights stripped with no trial, and be thrown in a hole with no possibility for redress.  I don't think I would believe the future me if he told me that everything, including my position on a moment by moment basis would be tracked and recorded into a data base that could be searched to make a file on me for whatever political purpose.  I think my past self would stare bug eyed if my future self told me that grocers would be raided with guns drawn for the crime of selling raw milk.  I especially wouldn't believe that people would even think of raiding a VFW, a place where veterans "who fought for freedom", for a little gambling.  

Something really has changed with the mindset of government and it's officials.  Yes, maybe somethings have gotten better, but that in no ways means everything has.  In fact, I think in many ways, especially in ways that involve civil rights, drugs, and politics, it's gotten so much worse.  Yes, abuses happened in the past, but I think the difference is that we're seeing an erosion of the fundamental values that could possibly have led to some accountability.  

The fundamental moral decency of people who serve the government appears to be eroding.  Duty and obedience have become higher virtues than just about anything else.  How else can you explain why a man would blow Bingo's head off in front of a seven year old boy?  How else can you explain why a man would terrorize a business owner for selling medicine?  How else can you explain why a group of men would kick down a grocer's door, threaten his life, and arrest him for selling raw milk?  How else can you pepper spraying beautiful young women at point blank range without even a flinch of emotion.  

This is a slow lurch toward sociopathic behavior, IMO.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 13, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> If I could go back in time and talk to myself 20 years ago, I don't think I would have believed the my future self if he told me that I would live in a country where people could be labeled a terrorist, have their rights stripped with no trial, and be thrown in a hole with no possibility for redress.



Yeah that would be as crazy as say....throwing Japanese Americans into internment camps......

Or Feds raiding speak easys looking for booze....

The whole "getting WORSE" thing.......hyperbole.....


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 13, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Yeah that would be as crazy as say....throwing Japanese Americans into internment camps......
> 
> Or Feds raiding speak easys looking for booze....
> 
> ...



Dude, if you're right, there never were any good old days. Lol.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 13, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Dude, if you're right, there never were any good old days. Lol.



There weren't...that's what I'm trying to say. 

Sure some things can use improvement....sure some royally ****ed up stuff happens...but "worse" or "never seen this before"? That's more political opinion than historic fact.

LE service is more "your local corner store" than "national chain store" While most laws are very similar nationwide and our gear/tactics/etc are more alike than unique, HOW we operate and make decisions is more varied than the unitiated realize. 

There are examples of cops doing thing my PD would NEVER do....but we all get painted with the "THE POLICE ARE....." brush. 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 13, 2013)

So all the examples you posted would have been different had non swat officers done the warrant?  Dogs would have been not shot if normal cops did the warrant?  I've shot dogs it happens.  I've shot more dogs in regular duty then I have on SWAT raids


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 13, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Still haven't gotten your expert opinion on what the SWAT mission is...
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



He has no clue but he knows its creeping


----------



## granfire (Jul 13, 2013)

It's to acquire Shetland Ponies and strive for world domination...
Or was that Mini Donkeys and cats? 

No, wait, that's DHS....


----------



## Carol (Jul 15, 2013)

I noticed something with the Trayvon protests.  I couldn't watch much for news last night with my cable box acting up, so I went online and found a couple of live streams.  One was an semi-independent journalist (his feed was hosted by an online mag), walking with the protesters in NYC.  He commented on the police presence, including the terror unit supervisors he passed as he went by.  After the NY fellow went offline, I found references to a live chopper feed from one of the TV stations.   I caught part of that then went to Twitter to find another citizen journalist to follow once the chopper ran low on fuel.

One thing that appeared consistent with the two cities is that the LEOs were -- more often than not -- in a standard uniform.  I didn't see many at all in an external vest, or carrying riot shields, etc.


----------



## granfire (Jul 15, 2013)

Carol said:


> I noticed something with the Trayvon protests.  I couldn't watch much for news last night with my cable box acting up, so I went online and found a couple of live streams.  One was an semi-independent journalist (his feed was hosted by an online mag), walking with the protesters in NYC.  He commented on the police presence, including the terror unit supervisors he passed as he went by.  After the NY fellow went offline, I found references to a live chopper feed from one of the TV stations.   I caught part of that then went to Twitter to find another citizen journalist to follow once the chopper ran low on fuel.
> 
> One thing that appeared consistent with the two cities is that the LEOs were -- more often than not -- in a standard uniform.  I didn't see many at all in an external vest, or carrying riot shields, etc.



I am thinking - since this is dealing with what it's essentially a mob with less brain than an amoeba - showing up in fatigues and external vests would only pour oil into the flames. Riot gear (I am sure the helmets and shields are within easy reach...) would be like lighting a fuse on a powder keg....


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 16, 2013)

Carol said:


> Sounds like there is some important data missing from the TV scenario. Starting pay for an officer where I live in NH is over 50k, and our cost of living is nothing like California's. Some police officers (like some college professors) are among the highest paid public employees in the state (in general - not just here)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I've seen recruitment posters for PD here in San Francisco, advertising starting pay around $80k.

Regarding college professors, some of them are well paid, depending on their subject.  Others are among the lowest paid public employees.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 16, 2013)

http://www.ehow.com/about_5432055_police-officers-starting-salary.html



> The starting salary for a typical police officer ranges between $25,000 and $52,000. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says the average annual salary of all police officers working in the United States was $47,460 as of May 2006. The middle 50 percent of police officers in the U.S. earns between $35,000 to just under $60,000 a year, while the highest 10 percent earned more than $72,000 a year.
> 
> Read more: http://www.ehow.com/about_5432055_police-officers-starting-salary.html#ixzz2ZFscXoHX




http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=71



> Average starting salaries for entry-level local police officers in 2007 ranged from $26,600 per year in the smallest jurisdictions to $49,500 in the largest. Overall, the average starting salary earned by entry-level officers was about $40,500.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 20, 2013)

http://rescuehumor.com/police-militarization-history-lesson-and-reality-check/


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 21, 2013)

Tgace said:


> http://rescuehumor.com/police-militarization-history-lesson-and-reality-check/





> Time for a recap. Various talking heads and conspiracy theorist are postulating that police militarization is the first step in declaring martial law and turning the USA into some dictatorship. These people point to the use of military weapons and military vehicles by local police as facts to support their theories.
> But the fact is cops have had machine guns and armored cars for decades. If these are the first step in martial law, how long does it take to make this first step? Seriously we have been taking this first step since the early 1900s. Is this some kind of multi generational conspiracy?
> More likely the conspiracy theories and the bleeding heats have never studied police history. What they see as Police Militarization, is nothing more than good officers using the tools needed to keep the public safe AND ensure they go home alive at the end of shift.



So, the truth is that the cops have always been tools of those in power?  I'm not sure that is the case.  I think if we look at the powers of the average sheriff, we find that police are just local people working together to keep the peace and limit outside influence on their jurisdiction.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 21, 2013)

Don't confuse the history of policing in the old West which was centered heavily (and in some places still is) on the role of the Sheriff and the history of policing in the more heavily populated urban centers of the Northeast and the original colonies.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 21, 2013)

What is the definition of military equipment anyways? Except for a relatively small number of items, when it comes to individual items civilians have access to it. Almost all of the equipment we are talking about civilians have access to. 

This is a rhetorical discussion that doesn't really make sense once you think about it. The tactics and application differ wildly as does the mission.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 21, 2013)

It doesn't matter whether it's literally SWAT or not--this is the type of thing that's problematic:

*Police raid felt like home invasion*

The woman and her boyfriend had just finished a late dinner:



> Goldsberry, 59, said she had looked up from the sink to see a man wearing a hunting vest.
> 
> He was aiming a gun at her face, with a red light pinpointing her.
> 
> ...



The marshal who led the raid was interviewed and spoke candidly about it:



> [Deputy U.S. Marshal Wiggins] said they had a tip that a child-rape suspect was at the complex.
> [...]
> The tip was never about Goldsberry's apartment, specifically, Wiggins acknowledged. It was about the complex.
> 
> But  when the people in Goldsberry's apartment didn't open up, that told  Wiggins he had probably found the right door. No one at other units had  reacted that way, he said.



Yes, if you don't want police entering your house without a warrant you're probably guilty of something--given that the Fourth Amendment is as good as dead these days. The woman had a CCW permit and had reached for her gun when she saw the gun pointed at her and was worried it was a home invasion. Do police like it when you use your Second Amendment rights? Well:



> [The woman said]I was thinking, is this some kind of nutjob?
> 
> No,  just a well-trained officer who knows how to go after a man assumed to  be a dangerous felon, but isn't so good at understanding a frightened  woman confronted with an aggressive armed stranger coming after her in  her own home.
> 
> ...



Yes--if you don't open the door for a warrantless search (they were actually just asking for police ID before opening it), that's justification for doing a warrantless entry and search. It's Catch-22: If you ask for a warrant, they don't need a warrant; here they merely asked for ID--not even a warrant--and the marshal used that to conclude they were guilty.

How can even U.S. Marshals--and yes, I know they have particularly extensive authority--search every apt. in a complex base on a single (and, as it turns out, inaccurate) tip?


----------



## arnisador (Jul 21, 2013)

Tgace said:


> This is a rhetorical discussion that doesn't really make sense once you think about it. The tactics and application differ wildly as does the mission.



It makes sense to me. When to use what tactic is a matter of judgment and choice, based on many factors--and the concern is that the point at which certain tactics are authorized has steadily dropped. It's true that there are more situations that are more dangerous but the level of threat required for letting loose with paramiltary tactics seems also to have dropped.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 21, 2013)

arnisador said:


> How can even U.S. Marshals--and yes, I know they have particularly extensive authority--*search every apt. in a complex* base on a single (and, as it turns out, inaccurate) tip?



Where does it say they did THAT? Knock and talks are not searches and don't require a warrant.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 21, 2013)

What I understood is that they asked people if they could go in and search their apts. and when this couple asked for ID first they took that as license to charge in. It's possible they didn't end up searching every single one of them.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 21, 2013)

*Rise of the Warrior Cop *
*Is it time to reconsider the militarization of American policing?*

From the author of a recently released book, _"Rise of the Warrior Cop"_:



> Since  the 1960s, in response to a range of perceived threats, law-enforcement  agencies across the U.S., at every level of government, have been  blurring the line between police officer and soldier. Driven by martial  rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment[...]American police forces  have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield [creating] a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop&#8212;armed to  the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing  threat to familiar American liberties.



He talks about hos this has always been a special concern in the U.S. and how we got here, starting in the 60s in L.A.:



> Americans have long been wary of using the military for domestic  policing. Concerns about potential abuse date back to the creation of  the Constitution, when the founders worried about standing armies and  the intimidation of the people at large by an overzealous executive, who  might choose to follow the unhappy precedents set by Europe's emperors  and monarchs.[...]During the Reagan administration, SWAT-team methods converged with the  drug war. By the end of the 1980s, joint task forces brought together  police officers and soldiers for drug interdiction. National Guard  helicopters and U-2 spy planes flew the California skies in search of  marijuana plants. When suspects were identified, battle-clad troops from  the National Guard, the DEA and other federal and local law enforcement  agencies would swoop in to eradicate the plants and capture the people  growing them.



Recently there has been...



> an alarming degree of mission creep for  U.S. SWAT teams. When the craze for poker kicked into high gear, a  number of police departments responded by deploying SWAT teams to raid  games in garages, basements and VFW halls where illegal gambling was  suspected.[...]Assault-style raids have even been used in recent years to enforce  regulatory law. Armed federal agents from the Fish & Wildlife  Service raided the floor of the Gibson Guitar factory in Nashville in  2009, on suspicion of using hardwoods that had been illegally harvested  in Madagascar. Gibson settled in 2012, paying a $300,000 fine and  admitting to violating the Lacey Act. In 2010, the police department in  New Haven, Conn., sent its SWAT team to raid a bar where police believed  there was underage drinking. For sheer absurdity, it is hard to beat  the 2006 story about the Tibetan monks who had overstayed their visas  while visiting America on a peace mission. In Iowa, the hapless holy men  were apprehended by a SWAT team in full gear.



It's an attitude issue among LEOs and those who wish to join their ranks, he suggests:



> Consider today's police recruitment videos (widely available on  YouTube), which often feature cops rappelling from helicopters, shooting  big guns, kicking down doors and tackling suspects. Such campaigns  embody an American policing culture that has become too isolated,  confrontational and militaristic, and they tend to attract recruits for  the wrong reasons.
> 
> If you browse online police discussion  boards, or chat with younger cops today, you will often encounter some  version of the phrase, "Whatever I need to do to get home safe." It is a  sentiment that suggests that every interaction with a citizen may be  the officer's last.



He suggests a return to a greater emphasis on community policing.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 21, 2013)

arnisador said:


> *Rise of the Warrior Cop *
> *Is it time to reconsider the militarization of American policing?*
> 
> From the author of a recently released book, _"Rise of the Warrior Cop"_:
> ...



Yawn. Balko is a hardcore libertarian who writes for HuffPo..hardly an unbiased opinion there.

Read this:

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/21/radley-balko-frets-over-warrior-cops/


----------



## Tgace (Jul 21, 2013)

> _If you browse online police discussion boards, or chat with younger cops today, you will often encounter some version of the phrase, "Whatever I need to do to get home safe." It is a sentiment that suggests that every interaction with a citizen may be the officer's last._



Yeah I wonder where that comes from?


----------



## arnisador (Jul 21, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Yawn. Balko is a hardcore libertarian who writes for HuffPo..hardly an unbiased opinion there.
> 
> Read this:
> 
> http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/21/radley-balko-frets-over-warrior-cops/



Well, he begins by agreeing about a key case:



> His tale begins with a review of the story of Matthew David Stewart,  a person who wound up in what was certainly a questionable case of  police force employed during his arrest on charges of growing marijuana  plants in his home.[...]The Stewart case described in the article is another case where things  not only turned out badly, but could have been even worse. When police  are invading a home to arrest a suspect and seize contraband, its  hardly an unreasonable assumption that the suspect may react violently  in an attempt to defeat the police and escape. Stewart may have  thought he was being invaded by other criminals, but it was his choice  to grab a gun and start shooting.



This is part of the point. I keep being told here how great guns are for home defense, but here's two stories (with the one about the woman and her boyfriend) where people are breaking in without announcing they're cops, the homeowner/resident gets their gun, and the response seems to be that "it was his choice  to grab a gun and start shooting" in response to unannounced entry. What's the message here? Don't fire until you can be certain it's not just cops who are not announcing themselves to be such, or not providing ID when asked to do so? The woman didn't even fire and it was still held against her by the marshal that she picked up her weapon. Bursting in unannounced and then complaining when the person picks up a weapon--this makes sense to you?


----------



## arnisador (Jul 21, 2013)

Lots of jobs are dangerous. As Balko points out, "To Protect and Serve" sounds better than "It's Us Against Them". The point is that most of us aren't doing anything wrong but, like the woman in the previous story, are treated as criminals regardless.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 21, 2013)

Sure lots of jobs are dangerous but if you cant differentiate between the societal value of soldiers, firemen, cops, EMT's etc and cashiers, cab drivers and fisherman than I see no point in talking to you any longer here.

Sure lots of jobs are dangerous. Firemen have dangerous jobs too...we don't expect them to go into a fire without their helmets or a fire axe. I accept the risks of my job but I'm not throwing my life away simply to make someone feel better. 

Frankly I don't care what you feel if I approach your car with my hand on my gun. As long as I'm expected to execute warrants on possibly armed individuals Im wearing a helmet and a vest. 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 21, 2013)

An interesting take on the issue:  Next time you think, "I don't like cops"



> The other day, someone whom I adore made  mention to someone else how, &#8216;they didn&#8217;t like cops&#8217;, because they get  to do things the rest of us are not privileged to do only because  they&#8217;re the law.
> 
> This common paradox within our society  today intrigued me to the point of wanting to talk about it in a few  insignificant and meaningless words.
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2013)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ls-raid-animal-shelter-kill-ba/#ixzz2apW6EBik



> Two weeks ago, Ray Schulze was working in a barn at the Society of St. Francis no-kill animal shelter in Kenosha, Wis., when officials swarmed the shelter with a search warrant.
> &#8220;[There were] nine [Department of Natural Resources] agents and four deputy sheriffs, and they were all armed to the teeth,&#8221; Mr. Schulze told WISN 12. &#8220;It was like a SWAT team.&#8221;
> *PHOTOS: What are the chances?*
> The agents were there to retrieve a baby deer named Giggles that was dropped off by a family worried she had been abandoned by her mother, the station reported. Wisconsin law forbids the possession of wildlife.
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 3, 2013)

Well that was just plain stupid..but has nothing to do with SWAT.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Well that was just plain stupid..but has nothing to do with SWAT.



Maybe, but notice that the person victimized described it as SWAT...it's an image problem.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> SWAT



I think you may be using this term in a more limited, traditional manner than the general public is. You can't keep words from acquiring broader meanings. Heck, I still bristle when I see a *KARATE *sign at a TKD school, but what can you do?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2013)

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/w...al-care-so-cops-kill-him-in-his-nursing-home/

95 year WWII veteran refuses medical care, gets rowdy at the nursing home, and cops show up in body armor, with riot shields, tazers and beanbag guns. Veteran gets thoroughly electrocuted and shot in the stomach with a beanbag round. He dies. There is a problem with the culture of police if something like this can occur.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/w...al-care-so-cops-kill-him-in-his-nursing-home/
> 
> 95 year WWII veteran refuses medical care, gets rowdy at the nursing home, and cops show up in body armor, with riot shields, tazers and beanbag guns. Veteran gets thoroughly electrocuted and shot in the stomach with a beanbag round. He dies. There is a problem with the culture of police if something like this can occur.



You left out the part about him armed with a butcher knife.  Also all cops wear "body armor" and what were they supposed to do?  Walk up to the guy and use some "karate" and take the knife away.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 3, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I think you may be using this term in a more limited, traditional manner than the general public is. You can't keep words from acquiring broader meanings. Heck, I still bristle when I see a *KARATE *sign at a TKD school, but what can you do?


Which is fine but this entire thread is about figuring out the problems and the facts.  And the fact is that wasn't a SWAT it was barely law enforcement.  No offense to any DNR cops but we call them trout troopers and deer detectives around here and they have very limited authority to do police work.  I suspect its true there aw well which is why they took deputies with them in case something serious happened.  
Here its DNRs policy that if they try to arrest someone and that person refuses or resists they are to back away and call local law enforcement.


----------



## granfire (Aug 3, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You left out the part about him armed with a butcher knife.  Also all cops wear "body armor" and what were they supposed to do?  Walk up to the guy and use some "karate" and take the knife away.



[yt]prK6Lk3k68E[/yt]


----------



## Tgace (Aug 3, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I think you may be using this term in a more limited, traditional manner than the general public is. You can't keep words from acquiring broader meanings. Heck, I still bristle when I see a *KARATE *sign at a TKD school, but what can you do?



I'm using it accurately. A SWAT Team is a specially trained unit within a police department. Either a PD uses its SWAT team or it doesn't. A group of detectives wearing exterior body armor is not SWAT...any more than a dude wearing a Gi as a Halloween costume  is a Martial Artist.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You left out the part about him armed with a butcher knife.  Also all cops wear "body armor" and what were they supposed to do?  Walk up to the guy and use some "karate" and take the knife away.



Officers reported that a knife was pulled, but no knife was found at the scene.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> but no knife was found at the scene.


According to the guys family not the police


----------



## billc (Aug 3, 2013)

> Frankly I don't care what you feel if I approach your car with my hand on my gun.



I personally would think that it should just be common training technique for officers to approach cars ready to fight.  I saw the video of the State Trooper who pulled over a car and was mobbed by the 4 or 5 guys in the car, dragged off camera onto the side of the road and murdered.

My brother, a cop, stopped a car once for speeding.  He got up to the car and noticed that all three or four guys in the car had duct tape over their finger tips...called for back up...sure enough, a hardware store had been robbed and he caught the guys.  As a cop, you don't know who is in that car you are approaching so yeah...have your hand on your gun...I won't be offended...


----------



## arnisador (Aug 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> I'm using it accurately. A SWAT Team is a specially  trained unit within a police department. Either a PD uses its SWAT team  or it doesn't. A group of detectives wearing exterior body armor is not  SWAT...any more than a dude wearing a Gi as a Halloween costume  is a  Martial Artist.






Language moves on, dude.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> According to the guys family not the police



Assuming there was a knife, could you take it away from a 95 year old man without tazoring and blasting him with beanbag rounds?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 3, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Language moves on, dude.




It's not language..it's definition. A SWAT Team is a special unit. SEALS are a special unit. Just because someone says "they came in like SEALS" doesn't make us SEALS. A SWAT team is a specific, defined, thing.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Assuming there was a knife, could you take it away from a 95 year old man without tazoring and blasting him with beanbag rounds?



I once had to help 4 officers restrain a man in his late 80's...dementia..WWII vet who probably thought he was fighting the Japanese again. You ever try that? Assuming you could simply take a knife away from any grown adult is a recipe for getting yourself killed.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Assuming there was a knife, could you take it away from a 95 year old man without tazoring and blasting him with beanbag rounds?


Could I?  maybe I could  Would I? nope Why should I?  When does someone with a knife become not dangerous?  85? 75? 65?  55?  45?  If he was a febal old man why did staff and his family even call the police? 
Ive had my fill of old vets I was on the street 7 months when a WW2 vet shot thru the door at me thinking I was a Nazi he was having flash backs to the war.  missed my head by about 8 inches.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 3, 2013)

I know this stuff comes with the job, but stories like this can be found ALL over the place:

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/06/dr_christopher_duntsch_plano_s.php



> All things considered, Mary Efurd is one of the lucky ones. She walked into Dr. Christopher Duntsch's Texas Neurosurgery Institute in Plano on July 25, 2012 and emerged with her life. The same can't be said at least two of his former patients, who died after Dunstch botched their surgeries, according to the Texas Medical Board.



Doctors kill more people every day than cops do, wheres the profession wide condemnation of them?

View attachment $Infographic-Firearms-vs-Doctors-Drugs.jpg

Don't be afraid of getting killed by a cop...be afraid of that guy checking your prostate.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 4, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Officers reported that a knife was pulled, but no knife was found at the scene.



Once again, the poor understanding of "use of force" and "deadly force" as police are actually authorized to use.  If a suspect has a knife and you believe that they have the intent to use it on you or someone else, it is a deadly force assault.  Guess what?  Bean bag rounds and TASERS are NOT what is supposed to be used in a deadly force assault, your firearm is.  The fact that the police were attempting to use LESSER levels of force to try and get the suspect under control without striking him or shooting him is lost on the unfortunate part that he died as a result of their use of force.

It's a no win situation.  If they would have gone in and used striking techniques, then everyone would be on here talking about how the police should have just used a TASER instead.  If they would have used a TASER, people would have been on here suggesting they did something else.

Police use (for many agencies) what's called a "+1" response of force.  This means that the police will use one level higher of force than the suspect.  Why?  Because we are not paid to get into an equal contest with a suspect.  We are paid to get the suspect under control as quickly as possible to keep ourselves safe and the suspect safe in the long run.  So, if a suspect attempts to punch/kick and officer.  That officer is allowed by law to strike the suspect using an impact weapon to keep a tactical advantage.  This is in contrast to civilian self-defense that requires an equal response of force.

So, do police use a "shock and awe" approach sometimes?  Yep, because we want to get in their as fast as possible and have the suspects as confused as possible so it doesn't escalate into something more.  We try to take away the time factor that they can mount a violent response to the situation.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 4, 2013)

Tgace said:


> It's not language..it's definition. A SWAT Team is a special unit. SEALS are a special unit. Just because someone says "they came in like SEALS" doesn't make us SEALS. A SWAT team is a specific, defined, thing.



But paramilitary tactics and gear used by police is something beyond just specific teams and people describe it as SWAT-like because it used to be limited to certain teams in certain situations.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 4, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Doctors kill more people every day than cops do, wheres the profession wide condemnation of them?



Beyond all the more obvious reasons why this is a senseless attempt at distraction, you go to see a physician--teams of physicians don't burst through your door with firearms in their hands.


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2013)

> you go to see a physician--teams of physicians don't burst through your door with firearms in their hands.



The physician mistakes that kill more people are made in a situation that they control, they make all the decisions, there is usually no time pressure or threat of physical harm to the physician as he is making his decisions for the patient and it is done in a nice air conditioned office with magazines in their lobby, and muzac playing...and they kill more people than cops...


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 4, 2013)

punisher73 said:


> Once again, the poor understanding of "use of force" and "deadly force" as police are actually authorized to use.  If a suspect has a knife and you believe that they have the intent to use it on you or someone else, it is a deadly force assault.  Guess what?  Bean bag rounds and TASERS are NOT what is supposed to be used in a deadly force assault, your firearm is.  The fact that the police were attempting to use LESSER levels of force to try and get the suspect under control without striking him or shooting him is lost on the unfortunate part that he died as a result of their use of force.
> 
> It's a no win situation.  If they would have gone in and used striking techniques, then everyone would be on here talking about how the police should have just used a TASER instead.  If they would have used a TASER, people would have been on here suggesting they did something else.
> 
> ...



I understand the point you are making.  I'm sure that procedure would have you do what you are describing and that the police were using lesser methods.  However, we are talking about a 95 year old man.  Sometimes the "procedure" might simply be overkill.  This strikes me as the same overwhelming force idea that comes from military doctrines.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 4, 2013)

http://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/statistics.htm



> The public constantly scrutinizes police officers. Episodes where police engage in excessive use of force have been well publicized in the media. Television shows regularly portray excessive use of force. Widespread media attention tothese events unfortunately conveys the impression that rates of use of force, or excessive use of force, are much higher than what actually occurs.



All that's really changed is the Internet.....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 4, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I understand the point you are making.  I'm sure that procedure would have you do what you are describing and that the police were using lesser methods.  However, we are talking about a 95 year old man.  Sometimes the "procedure" might simply be overkill.  This strikes me as the same overwhelming force idea that comes from military doctrines.



First, the subject was NOT electrocuted.  The Taser delivers a carefully designed and thoroughly studied electrical pulse which, when it works, incapacitates a subject doing minimal harm, and with less chance of serious injury to both the subject and the officers.  

Second, SWAT or Tac team is a specific term.  Unless you happen to be Humpty Dumpty, we can't make them mean what we want, when we want to.  It's a special purpose police unit, using special weapons and tactics (hence the acronym) to respond to situations that are beyond the typical capability of a "normal" police officer.   Using a few tactics from the SWAT arsenal doesn't make an action a SWAT operation anymore than putting boxing gloves on a TKD or BJJ student makes them a boxer.  

Look, the particular situation described here is a no-win.  The cops were stuck making the old man do something he didn't want to, and especially if he was armed, they were really over a barrel.  I"m waiting for a similar mess where I work; we've got a lot of older folks with various cognitive issues, and some of the caregivers are clearly over their heads.  The day's going to come where I or one of my colleagues has to forcibly deal with some of these people -- and it's going to end no prettier than the case here.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 4, 2013)

billc said:


> The physician mistakes that kill more people are made in a situation that they control, they make all the decisions, there is usually no time pressure or threat of physical harm to the physician as he is making his decisions for the patient and it is done in a nice air conditioned office with magazines in their lobby, and muzac playing...and they kill more people than cops...



...and they are treating people who often are in danger of death or serious injury without treatment. But most people will meet with a physician during a year; many fewer will have an interaction with a LEO. So, what's it look like on a per-encounter basis?


----------



## arnisador (Aug 4, 2013)

Tgace said:


> All that's really changed is the Internet.....



...raising awareness. But no, there's more than that--it's a trend of increasing paramilitary police.

*Small-Town Police Departments Are Getting Billions In Big Military Hardware*




> military  hardware is increasingly showing up in small-town police departments. Part of what's known as the "1033 Program" passed  by Congress in 1997 and meant to augment police departments fighting  the drug war, military gear is showing up in large numbers, and in some  unlikely places[...]With little oversight and a "if I don't get it, someone else will"  mentality among police chiefs[...]:
> 
> --  Morven, Ga.: Despite having an ankle-deep creek as it's deepest body of  water, the police chief got his hands on three boats, scuba gear, and  rescue rafts.
> --  Rising Star, Texas: With a population of 835 residents, and only one  full-time police officer, this department netted more than $3.2 million  in property over 14 months.
> ...



​


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 4, 2013)

arnisador said:


> ...raising awareness. But no, there's more than that--it's a trend of increasing paramilitary police.
> 
> *Small-Town Police Departments Are Getting Billions In Big Military Hardware*
> 
> ...



So SCUBA and rafts are military gear, 3.2 million of what property it doesn't say but you know its military hardware?  M-14 rifles haven't been standard issue in the military since the 70's.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 4, 2013)

arnisador said:


> ...and they are treating people who often are in danger of death or serious injury without treatment. But most people will meet with a physician during a year; many fewer will have an interaction with a LEO. So, what's it look like on a per-encounter basis?



Sure lets look at it.  I work 40 hrs a week Id say 48 weeks a year.  I come in contact with 100 people a day sometimes more sometimes less.  Lets see 4800 people a year x 15 years Ive had contact with 72000 folks give or take and Ive shot 1.  Hmmm yep were are out of control.  Now Ive been personally shot at about 4 times in that same time frame so if we are our of control you guys are off the charts


----------



## Tgace (Aug 4, 2013)

And I don't say this to excuse or minimize the LE **** ups that happen, but the idea that policing is somehow "worse" now than in decades past is laughable. Having worked with cops who policed in the 60's through the 90's I have heard stories that would shock you. 

Saps, lead knuckled gloves, shooting at cars during pursuits, bribery, drinking while on the job (actual "lounges"/bars INSIDE police stations), cops eating their guns before the FBI could close in on their mob connections. If you have a time machine...go back to the 70's and mouth off to a cop and come back and report the results (if you can speak)...

While we should always be alert for problems and looking to do better...I assure you we are FAR better policed today than we were in decades past. This "things are getting worse" thing is an ignorance of history. Things are "different"....


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 4, 2013)

Tgace said:


> And I don't say this to excuse or minimize the LE **** ups that happen, but the idea that policing is somehow "worse" now than in decades past is laughable. Having worked with cops who policed in the 60's through the 90's I have heard stories that would shock you.
> 
> Saps, lead knuckled gloves, shooting at cars during pursuits, bribery, drinking while on the job (actual "lounges"/bars INSIDE police stations), cops eating their guns before the FBI could close in on their mob connections. If you have a time machine...go back to the 70's and mouth off to a cop and come back and report the results (if you can speak)...
> 
> While we should always be alert for problems and looking to do better...I assure you we are FAR better policed today than we were in decades past. This "things are getting worse" thing is an ignorance of history. Things are "different"....



As cynical of power as I am, posts like this give me hope that I'm wrong.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 4, 2013)

Tgace said:


> And I don't say this to excuse or minimize the LE **** ups that happen, but the idea that policing is somehow "worse" now than in decades past is laughable. Having worked with cops who policed in the 60's through the 90's I have heard stories that would shock you.
> 
> Saps, lead knuckled gloves, shooting at cars during pursuits, bribery, drinking while on the job (actual "lounges"/bars INSIDE police stations), cops eating their guns before the FBI could close in on their mob connections. If you have a time machine...go back to the 70's and mouth off to a cop and come back and report the results (if you can speak)...
> 
> While we should always be alert for problems and looking to do better...I assure you we are FAR better policed today than we were in decades past. This "things are getting worse" thing is an ignorance of history. Things are "different"....



You make a good point. I think you're right on professionalism, and that's great and to the credit of police depts. and orgs. enforcing higher standards. But the growing use of paramilitary raids is a separate matter. The drug wars explain some of it but there are too many examples of this approach being over-used.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 4, 2013)

arnisador said:


> You make a good point. I think you're right on professionalism, and that's great and to the credit of police depts. and orgs. enforcing higher standards. But the growing use of paramilitary raids is a separate matter. The drug wars explain some of it but there are too many examples of this approach being over-used.



So what is a paramilitary raid?  There are only so many ways to go into a house mainly the front door if I go through the front door just like a solider goes through a front door its merely a coincidence since there are only so many ways to go through a front door.  So what's a paramilitary way and non paramilitary way to go through a front door?

When I was in the Marines most of our raids on targets involved helicopters and cover fire   never used cover fire on a police raid


----------



## arnisador (Aug 4, 2013)

The gambling story was a good example, I thought.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 4, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The gambling story was a good example, I thought.



So how would you do it different?  

How should police do their jobs to make happy?

That sounds like I'm being a smart *** but im not I just can't word it better but as a non officer how would you like to see things done


----------



## arnisador (Aug 4, 2013)

A gambler? Send two uniformed cops to the door. When he comes to answer, tell him he's under arrest. If that's too worrisome, watch him in the morning for a couple of days and arrest him when he goes to his car for work.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 4, 2013)

View attachment $police1.jpg

View attachment $machine-Police.jpg

My Chief just told me he came across an early 1900's photograph of an officer from our dept with hand grenades. Apparently during the first Red Scare police were training to fight infantry style battles.




PS-THAT'S a "Machine Gun".


----------



## Tgace (Aug 4, 2013)

[h=3][/h]What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.


[h=3]Ecclesiastes 1:9[/h]


----------



## Tgace (Aug 4, 2013)

arnisador said:


> If that's too worrisome, watch him in the morning for a couple of days and arrest him when he goes to his car for work.



We do that ALL the time...we call it a "road kill".


----------



## Tgace (Aug 4, 2013)

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/bullet-bouncer-on-car-saves-police-from-thugs/#more


Those cops and their "tanks" what happened to "protect and serve"? Wheres "officer friendly"??


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 4, 2013)

arnisador said:


> A gambler? Send two uniformed cops to the door. When he comes to answer, tell him he's under arrest. If that's too worrisome, watch him in the morning for a couple of days and arrest him when he goes to his car for work.



And when you knock he says screw you barricades himself inside?  
Reminds me of a story on Tampa IRS agent goes to arrest a guy on a warrant for not paying taxes.  Not big deal it was like 13000 in taxes of I remember .  IRS agent knocks in door guy let's him inside.  IRS agent say he has a warrant and the guy freaks and stabbs him to death.  So now what?  We say oh well it'd his job as long as we don't offend anyone.  Police serve 10s of thousands of warrantsa year and a small % ate messed up.  But there is a real reason we do things the way we do.  Its not to look "cool" or feel like a Navy Seal.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 5, 2013)

arnisador said:


> ...raising awareness. But no, there's more than that--it's a trend of increasing paramilitary police.
> 
> *Small-Town Police Departments Are Getting Billions In Big Military Hardware*
> 
> ...



Sounds like someone's abusing the intent of the program.  Not surprised; it's pretty much guaranteed.  But you might also want to look deeper.  For example, that chief in GA may be the chair or host of the regional rescue/dive unit that might encompass several departments.  And the guy in TX?  He's probable a golden child to the residents and council... after all he's getting "all this stuff from Uncle Sugar!"  Maybe some of those equipment sales or grants should be better documented and better justified -- but if they played the game, they got the stuff, y'know?

The DHS grants go a lot of directions; for several years, my salary and some other costs were paid by federal grants related to fighting gangs.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 5, 2013)

arnisador said:


> A gambler? Send two uniformed cops to the door. When he comes to answer, tell him he's under arrest. If that's too worrisome, watch him in the morning for a couple of days and arrest him when he goes to his car for work.



Did you read the report published by Fairfax County PD?  It explains why they used the approach and tactics that they did.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 5, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> Did you read the report published by Fairfax County PD?  It explains why they used the approach and tactics that they did.



I did. Sounds like their massive firepower approach resulted in a needless death to me.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 6, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I did. Sounds like their massive firepower approach resulted in a needless death to me.



http://www.policeone.com/police-humor/articles/6361622-Leaked-memo-Mayor-opposes-law-enforcement/


Found a place for you to move arni

Mayor Pipe suggested that employees of the police department now be called &#8220;law enrichment helpers&#8221; and that all traffic stops and other citizen-helper interactions begin with the police personnel saying &#8220;I&#8217;m really sorry to trouble you, but...&#8221;


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 6, 2013)

By the way



















The above story is fake lol.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 6, 2013)

I was pulled over for a taillight out in Col. and the police officer gave me his business card in case I wanted to call and complain about him!


----------



## Tgace (Jan 2, 2014)

Hmmm double tap in wrong thread


Sorry


----------



## Tgace (Jan 2, 2014)

Your right...this is unheard of....back in the old days cops didn't ...

...oh wait....


View attachment 18210

My Chief just told me he came across an early 1900's photograph of an officer from our dept with hand grenades. Apparently during the first Red Scare police were training to fight infantry style battles.

View attachment 18211

PS-THAT'S a "Machine Gun".[/QUOTE]




Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## wimwag (Jan 2, 2014)

Tgace said:


> I run my Dept. SWAT team...I had a whopping 6K of grant money to spend this year...I purchased one night vision device for our sniper rifles...
> 
> Because for all the uneducated opinions on tactical teams, if our snipers cant make a shot in the night and someone gets killed people will be critical that in this high tech age that we didn't have the capability.
> 
> ...



How do your vests expire?  Do you fire a few rounds of 5.56 at them when Blackhawk releases new gear?  Please tell me how this works because I own a 2 vests and neither of them are expired or will begin to rot like canned goods.


----------



## wimwag (Jan 2, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Gear and equipment isn't "militarization".....application is. Cops in the 30's/40's had Tommy guns and armored cars...
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



They had those because of the outlaw of alcohol, which by the way only made the problem worse.  Another example of government overreach and the disaster that ensues.  The most terrifying words an American can hear are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."


----------



## wimwag (Jan 2, 2014)

Tgace said:


> What do you think our "mission" is?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



Your mission is to obey orders and toe the line.  If you see something illegal being done by another officer, shut your mouth. If you don't, you're fired and any number of 24 year olds will replace you.

Unfortunately, police are often used to protect an agenda.  Take for example the SWAT raid on a DC lawyer where a warrant for legally owned guns turned up a defective 20 ga shotgun shell and an empty .270 casing.  Felony charges for a piece of metal and a decades old dud?


----------



## Tgace (Jan 2, 2014)

wimwag said:


> How do your vests expire?  Do you fire a few rounds of 5.56 at them when Blackhawk releases new gear?  Please tell me how this works because I own a 2 vests and neither of them are expired or will begin to rot like canned goods.



The manufacturer no longer guarantees vests after 5 years. If a cop gets shot through a 10 yo expired vest we will loose any lawsuit filed.....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Jan 2, 2014)

wimwag said:


> Your mission is to obey orders and toe the line.  If you see something illegal being done by another officer, shut your mouth. If you don't, you're fired and any number of 24 year olds will replace you.
> 
> Unfortunately, police are often used to protect an agenda.  Take for example the SWAT raid on a DC lawyer where a warrant for legally owned guns turned up a defective 20 ga shotgun shell and an empty .270 casing.  Felony charges for a piece of metal and a decades old dud?



Haters gonna hate....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## wimwag (Jan 2, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Haters gonna hate....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



You got no argument. Truth is what it is.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 2, 2014)

wimwag said:


> Your mission is to obey orders and toe the line.  If you see something illegal being done by another officer, shut your mouth. If you don't, you're fired and any number of 24 year olds will replace you.
> 
> Unfortunately, police are often used to protect an agenda.  Take for example the SWAT raid on a DC lawyer where a warrant for legally owned guns turned up a defective 20 ga shotgun shell and an empty .270 casing.  Felony charges for a piece of metal and a decades old dud?



Yup and all owners of assault rifles are risks to society...we don't need all that advanced military hardware on the streets.

P.S.- If you read any of my posts here defending the 2nd and gun ownership you will see that's sarcasm....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## wimwag (Jan 2, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Yup and all owners of assault rifles are risks to society...we don't need all that advanced military hardware on the streets.
> 
> P.S.- If you read any of my posts here defending the 2nd and gun ownership you will see that's sarcasm....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



I'm sure nobody here owns any select fire rifles...


----------



## Tgace (Jan 3, 2014)

wimwag said:


> I'm sure nobody here owns any select fire rifles...



Neither do we.....

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## wimwag (Jan 3, 2014)

Bull.  H&K lists their select fire 416 and grenade launcher as for sale only to military and law enforcement.  Maybe the patrol rifles are semi auto...


----------



## Tgace (Jan 3, 2014)

wimwag said:


> Bull.  H&K lists their select fire 416 and grenade launcher as for sale only to military and law enforcement.  Maybe the patrol rifles are semi auto...



We (My PD) have nothing like that....


----------

