How Military Culture Turned America Into the land of SWAT

[ballen0351]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[granfire]

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]

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]

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]

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]

we just watched too much bad TV...

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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