User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 8:56:52 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every pissant federal department does not need a SWAT team, and only have them for prestige. But once you have a SWAT team you have to use it, justified or not, or risk losing funding for a SWAT team that spends a million dollars a year on salary, ammo and training and spends all their non training time sitting around the cafeteria at the federal building playing hearts in their 5.11s. BLM trains in multicams, ATC (? new blurry camo) and MarPat camo. What do they train for? No idea, the have their faces painted in camo too. To me, it is silly that their department needs a tactical response team. Not only is it disjointed looking because they don't all match uniform-wise, they also range in physical fitness from twig-boy to chunky lady. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 8:58:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Population: 2,200
Quote HistoryQuoted:
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:00:21 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right because having an FBI HRT to respond to national incidents, is the same as having a SWAT team in every town with over 20,000. Actually better, because more is always better right? How many incidents has your home town had where a bus driver kidnaps a kid, and holds him hostage in a bunker laden with victim initiated explosive devices? Maybe every school needs a swat team. Check that, make it every bus. You can never be too safe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span
SWAT ops such as the HRT hostage rescue in south AL with bunker guy ended in gun fire, bad guy dead, hostage unharmed and no injuries to rescue team, Much win. Right because having an FBI HRT to respond to national incidents, is the same as having a SWAT team in every town with over 20,000. Actually better, because more is always better right? How many incidents has your home town had where a bus driver kidnaps a kid, and holds him hostage in a bunker laden with victim initiated explosive devices? Maybe every school needs a swat team. Check that, make it every bus. You can never be too safe. Actually in that area I would want HRT to respond because several years back the local SWAT team "sniper" shot the hostage. You apparently don't follow my posts very well. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:01:42 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Involved in energy production - their team is most likely intended for defensive use in and around their facilities like the units operated by DoE. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tennessee Valley Authority Involved in energy production - their team is most likely intended for defensive use in and around their facilities like the units operated by DoE. Especially the TVA Nuclear power plants! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:05:21 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Population: 2,200 Quote HistoryThat's only the 10th time this has been posted. Does anyone even know where this is from? Serious question, because I do not. With as much as it is used I'm hoping for a little context. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:09:10 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's only the 10th time this has been posted. Does anyone even know where this is from? Serious question, because I do not. With as much as it is used I'm hoping for a little context. Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's only the 10th time this has been posted. Does anyone even know where this is from? Serious question, because I do not. With as much as it is used I'm hoping for a little context. iirc it was actually posted on that local LEA's website from about 10 years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:10:05 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
"Elite" SWAT Team As of late, the New York City Police Department's vaunted Emergency Service Unit (ESU) has been mired in a series of controversial and embarrassing misfirings of their weapons which insiders attribute to reduced training.
An exclusive report featured in the New York Daily News highlights an increasingly troubling trend of negligent firearm discharges by ESU officers. The recent incidents portray the elite squad as trigger-happy or amateurish rather than the highly skilled and world-class professionals they are commonly known as. On the evening of November 30, a member of the ESU sniper team safeguarding the annual holiday festival, accidentally fired a rifle round.
The mishap happened about 90 minutes after the ceremony had finished and the sniper teams were pulling out of their positions. Four days prior to the Rockefeller Center incident, an ESU detective accidentally fired a shotgun round while emerging from his vehicle as he was responding to a report of a barricaded gunman at West 136 Street in Harlem. In the early morning hours of January 22, the third and final accidental discharge occurred and resulted in an unintentional shooting that left an elderly man severely wounded. I love New York. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:11:09 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FBI-HRT is nothing to set your watch by. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To be honest a SWAT/SRT op that ends in gun fire is a failure. We train with as much (if not more) no shoot scenarios than shoot scenarios. SWAT ops such as the HRT hostage rescue in south AL with bunker guy ended in gun fire, bad guy dead, hostage unharmed and no injuries to rescue team, Much win. Right because having an FBI HRT to respond to national incidents, is the same as having a SWAT team in every town with over 20,000. Actually better, because more is always better right? How many incidents has your home town had where a bus driver kidnaps a kid, and holds him hostage in a bunker laden with victim initiated explosive devices? Maybe every school needs a swat team. Check that, make it every bus. You can never be too safe. FBI-HRT is nothing to set your watch by. If I had a clue it would be because I jacked off to Tom Clancey like half of the wannabe JBT's in this thread. Since I don't, I haven't a clue about HRT. Are you suggesting that they lack timeliness or competency? I assumed that they have higher than average competency since they get Federal funding, they would have a larger than average budget. And since the FBI is bigger than most LE departments, they have a bigger candidate pool of more qualified applicants. But like I said I don't really know, and that could be way off. Is there something you care to share to enlighten the crowd, or is it G14 classified? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:14:04 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I had a clue it would be because I jacked off to Tom Clancey like half of the wannabe JBT's in this thread. Since I don't, I haven't a clue about HRT. Are you suggesting that they lack timeliness or competency? I assumed that they have higher than average competency since they get Federal funding, they would have a larger than average budget. And since the FBI is bigger than most LE departments, they have a bigger candidate pool of more qualified applicants. But like I said I don't really know, and that could be way off. Is there something you care to share to enlighten the crowd, or is it G14 classified? There is a difference between a SWAT from a large agency that trains and is used on a daily basis compared to a federal team that trains and is rarely used. 2-3 warrants a day were common for us. Then there are the barricades and other major incidents. Just look at the SWAT competitions and see how they do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:39:44 PM EDT
[#10]
It seems like there are two different arguments going on here.
One is the militarization of the police/ZOMG tactical cargo pants debate we seem to hold every week. Not particularly interested in that. Local/state cops have a lot to deal with, and although I'm not comfortable with that personally, you can at least make a somewhat sensible case for it. The second is the proliferation of armed wings of federal regulatory authorities. I would have thought it was a given that with the possible exception of the USSS that a federal police force is not something we need in this country. Is federal policing even allowed by the Constitution? Turn it around. If you read that a foreign country had armed wings of the forest service, bureau of land management, department of education, etc., you'd be justified in assuming it's a totalitarian country. It's wrong, and it's shameful that it's happening here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:44:40 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a difference between a SWAT from a large agency that trains and is used on a daily basis compared to a federal team that trains and is rarely used. 2-3 warrants a day were common for us. Then there are the barricades and other major incidents. Just look at the SWAT competitions and see how they do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If I had a clue it would be because I jacked off to Tom Clancey like half of the wannabe JBT's in this thread. Since I don't, I haven't a clue about HRT. Are you suggesting that they lack timeliness or competency? I assumed that they have higher than average competency since they get Federal funding, they would have a larger than average budget. And since the FBI is bigger than most LE departments, they have a bigger candidate pool of more qualified applicants. But like I said I don't really know, and that could be way off. Is there something you care to share to enlighten the crowd, or is it G14 classified? There is a difference between a SWAT from a large agency that trains and is used on a daily basis compared to a federal team that trains and is rarely used. 2-3 warrants a day were common for us. Then there are the barricades and other major incidents. Just look at the SWAT competitions and see how they do. Is that really a good or appropriate measure? Maybe they are good at really special things? 
How on earth did cops ever serve warrants before SWAT teams? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:47:00 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a difference between a SWAT from a large agency that trains and is used on a daily basis compared to a federal team that trains and is rarely used. 2-3 warrants a day were common for us. Then there are the barricades and other major incidents. Just look at the SWAT competitions and see how they do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If I had a clue it would be because I jacked off to Tom Clancey like half of the wannabe JBT's in this thread. Since I don't, I haven't a clue about HRT. Are you suggesting that they lack timeliness or competency? I assumed that they have higher than average competency since they get Federal funding, they would have a larger than average budget. And since the FBI is bigger than most LE departments, they have a bigger candidate pool of more qualified applicants. But like I said I don't really know, and that could be way off. Is there something you care to share to enlighten the crowd, or is it G14 classified? There is a difference between a SWAT from a large agency that trains and is used on a daily basis compared to a federal team that trains and is rarely used. 2-3 warrants a day were common for us. Then there are the barricades and other major incidents. Just look at the SWAT competitions and see how they do. Federal teams do a LOT more than warrants. The mission set is global and goes well beyond traditional LE. USMS SOG had an office in Baghdad and did court security, prisoner handling, and other missions for the trial if Sadam. DEA has counter narcotics programs in Afghanistan. Same for many other agencies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:47:24 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is that really a good or appropriate measure? Maybe they are good at really special things?
How on earth did cops ever serve warrants before SWAT teams? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I had a clue it would be because I jacked off to Tom Clancey like half of the wannabe JBT's in this thread. Since I don't, I haven't a clue about HRT. Are you suggesting that they lack timeliness or competency? I assumed that they have higher than average competency since they get Federal funding, they would have a larger than average budget. And since the FBI is bigger than most LE departments, they have a bigger candidate pool of more qualified applicants. But like I said I don't really know, and that could be way off. Is there something you care to share to enlighten the crowd, or is it G14 classified? There is a difference between a SWAT from a large agency that trains and is used on a daily basis compared to a federal team that trains and is rarely used. 2-3 warrants a day were common for us. Then there are the barricades and other major incidents. Just look at the SWAT competitions and see how they do. Is that really a good or appropriate measure? Maybe they are good at really special things?
How on earth did cops ever serve warrants before SWAT teams? Badly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:51:26 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's only the 10th time this has been posted. Does anyone even know where this is from? Serious question, because I do not. With as much as it is used I'm hoping for a little context. Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's only the 10th time this has been posted. Does anyone even know where this is from? Serious question, because I do not. With as much as it is used I'm hoping for a little context. I'm betting Tazewell, VA PD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:52:10 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It seems like there are two different arguments going on here. One is the militarization of the police/ZOMG tactical cargo pants debate we seem to hold every week. Not particularly interested in that. Local/state cops have a lot to deal with, and although I'm not comfortable with that personally, you can at least make a somewhat sensible case for it. The second is the proliferation of armed wings of federal regulatory authorities. I would have thought it was a given that with the possible exception of the USSS that a federal police force is not something we need in this country. Is federal policing even allowed by the Constitution? Turn it around. If you read that a foreign country had armed wings of the forest service, bureau of land management, department of education, etc., you'd be justified in assuming it's a totalitarian country. It's wrong, and it's shameful that it's happening here. According to the original Constitution, the military can be used for federal policing or combating "domestic enemies." Although the standing Army was pretty non existent during peacetime. It was only after the civil war that Posse Comitatus Act was passed prohibiting the use of federal troops for domestic policing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:52:20 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Badly. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I had a clue it would be because I jacked off to Tom Clancey like half of the wannabe JBT's in this thread. Since I don't, I haven't a clue about HRT. Are you suggesting that they lack timeliness or competency? I assumed that they have higher than average competency since they get Federal funding, they would have a larger than average budget. And since the FBI is bigger than most LE departments, they have a bigger candidate pool of more qualified applicants. But like I said I don't really know, and that could be way off. Is there something you care to share to enlighten the crowd, or is it G14 classified? There is a difference between a SWAT from a large agency that trains and is used on a daily basis compared to a federal team that trains and is rarely used. 2-3 warrants a day were common for us. Then there are the barricades and other major incidents. Just look at the SWAT competitions and see how they do. Is that really a good or appropriate measure? Maybe they are good at really special things?
How on earth did cops ever serve warrants before SWAT teams? Badly. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:59:33 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Badly. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I had a clue it would be because I jacked off to Tom Clancey like half of the wannabe JBT's in this thread. Since I don't, I haven't a clue about HRT. Are you suggesting that they lack timeliness or competency? I assumed that they have higher than average competency since they get Federal funding, they would have a larger than average budget. And since the FBI is bigger than most LE departments, they have a bigger candidate pool of more qualified applicants. But like I said I don't really know, and that could be way off. Is there something you care to share to enlighten the crowd, or is it G14 classified? There is a difference between a SWAT from a large agency that trains and is used on a daily basis compared to a federal team that trains and is rarely used. 2-3 warrants a day were common for us. Then there are the barricades and other major incidents. Just look at the SWAT competitions and see how they do. Is that really a good or appropriate measure? Maybe they are good at really special things?
How on earth did cops ever serve warrants before SWAT teams? Badly. For who? Seems a SWAT team kicking in my door is about the least preferred method of receiving my share of protection and service. I know I must deserve it if there is a warrant... Probably. As I said earlier, it's going to go a lot better for us all if you just knock and talk like a normal person. Maybe that's just me. Way easier to reason with than intimidate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:05:35 PM EDT
[#18]
You really believe that if it wasn't for the SWAT team, the officers would just saunter up, knock, and say please?
Seriously 
In your military career, would you prefer to have an infantry squad execute a particular battle drill or just find a few random soldiers from whatever MOS and have them do the same job? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:17:45 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Federal teams do a LOT more than warrants. The mission set is global and goes well beyond traditional LE. USMS SOG had an office in Baghdad and did court security, prisoner handling, and other missions for the trial if Sadam. DEA has counter narcotics programs in Afghanistan. Same for many other agencies. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I had a clue it would be because I jacked off to Tom Clancey like half of the wannabe JBT's in this thread. Since I don't, I haven't a clue about HRT. Are you suggesting that they lack timeliness or competency? I assumed that they have higher than average competency since they get Federal funding, they would have a larger than average budget. And since the FBI is bigger than most LE departments, they have a bigger candidate pool of more qualified applicants. But like I said I don't really know, and that could be way off. Is there something you care to share to enlighten the crowd, or is it G14 classified? There is a difference between a SWAT from a large agency that trains and is used on a daily basis compared to a federal team that trains and is rarely used. 2-3 warrants a day were common for us. Then there are the barricades and other major incidents. Just look at the SWAT competitions and see how they do. Federal teams do a LOT more than warrants. The mission set is global and goes well beyond traditional LE. USMS SOG had an office in Baghdad and did court security, prisoner handling, and other missions for the trial if Sadam. DEA has counter narcotics programs in Afghanistan. Same for many other agencies. And don't forget that FBI HRT has worked with the JSOC units overseas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:35:11 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You really believe that if it wasn't for the SWAT team, the officers would just saunter up, knock, and say please? Seriously
In your military career, would you prefer to have an infantry squad execute a particular battle drill or just find a few random soldiers from whatever MOS and have them do the same job? Actually, we have found cordon and knock to commonly be more effective than cordon and kick in most instances. The training part is common sense. But I don't think it is really that unique of a skill set is it? Is it really a "Special Weapon or Tactic" or is it just a group of cops doing a common task with an average weapon? Or are we just using the "special" cops because... Well we have them? Room clearing was "special" in the military because in recent history our conventional military has trained to fight wars primarily away from urban centers. Only the "special" people were "specially" trained for raids in an urban environment. Of course that has all changed. So are regular infantry guys who clear mud huts "special." How about MP's or Artillery Soldiers? Then the mil got tired of fighting everyone. They finally figured out that kicking in people's doors for no reason can provoke an unnecessary deadly incident, or at the very least pisses people off. If there is an effective cordon, then we can usually knock and talk. The gig is usually up by the time we get to the door (that is probably different and easier for a LEO in the US). Might as well announce. They will invite you in, or try to run. Doors will remain working, and the guy gets caught. No mistaken or unnecessary lethal escalation in the wrong house. I guess Mayberry is more dangerous than Baghdad and Kandahar City now. Extremely dangerous and well organized criminals require a daily response from a team with "special weapons" trained in "special tactics" in every neighborhood to kick in doors. America is now worse than a 3rd world country with an active insurgency that supports international terrorism. Might as well jack off to Judge Dredd while we are at it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:47:14 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually, we have found cordon and knock to commonly be more effective than cordon and kick in most instances. The training part is common sense. But I don't think it is really that unique of a skill set is it? Is it really a "Special Weapon or Tactic" or is it just a group of cops doing a common task with an average weapon? Or are we just using the "special" cops because... Well we have them? Room clearing was "special" in the military because in recent history our conventional military has trained to fight wars primarily away from urban centers. Only the "special" people were "specially" trained for raids in an urban environment. Of course that has all changed. So are regular infantry guys who clear mud huts "special." How about MP's or Artillery Soldiers? Then the mil got tired of fighting everyone. They finally figured out that kicking in people's doors for no reason can provoke an unnecessary deadly incident, or at the very least pisses people off. If there is an effective cordon, then we can usually knock and talk. The gig is usually up by the time we get to the door (that is probably different and easier for a LEO in the US). Might as well announce. They will invite you in, or try to run. Doors will remain working, and the guy gets caught. No mistaken or unnecessary lethal escalation in the wrong house. I guess Mayberry is more dangerous than Baghdad and Kandahar City now. Extremely dangerous and well organized criminals require a daily response from a team with "special weapons" trained in "special tactics" in every neighborhood to kick in doors. America is now worse than a 3rd world country with an active insurgency that supports international terrorism. Might as well jack off to Judge Dredd while we are at it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You really believe that if it wasn't for the SWAT team, the officers would just saunter up, knock, and say please? Seriously In your military career, would you prefer to have an infantry squad execute a particular battle drill or just find a few random soldiers from whatever MOS and have them do the same job? Actually, we have found cordon and knock to commonly be more effective than cordon and kick in most instances. The training part is common sense. But I don't think it is really that unique of a skill set is it? Is it really a "Special Weapon or Tactic" or is it just a group of cops doing a common task with an average weapon? Or are we just using the "special" cops because... Well we have them? Room clearing was "special" in the military because in recent history our conventional military has trained to fight wars primarily away from urban centers. Only the "special" people were "specially" trained for raids in an urban environment. Of course that has all changed. So are regular infantry guys who clear mud huts "special." How about MP's or Artillery Soldiers? Then the mil got tired of fighting everyone. They finally figured out that kicking in people's doors for no reason can provoke an unnecessary deadly incident, or at the very least pisses people off. If there is an effective cordon, then we can usually knock and talk. The gig is usually up by the time we get to the door (that is probably different and easier for a LEO in the US). Might as well announce. They will invite you in, or try to run. Doors will remain working, and the guy gets caught. No mistaken or unnecessary lethal escalation in the wrong house. I guess Mayberry is more dangerous than Baghdad and Kandahar City now. Extremely dangerous and well organized criminals require a daily response from a team with "special weapons" trained in "special tactics" in every neighborhood to kick in doors. America is now worse than a 3rd world country with an active insurgency that supports international terrorism. Might as well jack off to Judge Dredd while we are at it. ouch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 11:05:26 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Every pissant federal department does not need a SWAT team, and only have them for prestige. But once you have a SWAT team you have to use it, justified or not, or risk losing funding for a SWAT team that spends a million dollars a year on salary, ammo and training and spends all their non training time sitting around the cafeteria at the federal building playing hearts in their 5.11s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:03:05 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually, we have found cordon and knock to commonly be more effective than cordon and kick in most instances. The training part is common sense. But I don't think it is really that unique of a skill set is it? Is it really a "Special Weapon or Tactic" or is it just a group of cops doing a common task with an average weapon? Or are we just using the "special" cops because... Well we have them? Room clearing was "special" in the military because in recent history our conventional military has trained to fight wars primarily away from urban centers. Only the "special" people were "specially" trained for raids in an urban environment. Of course that has all changed. So are regular infantry guys who clear mud huts "special." How about MP's or Artillery Soldiers? Then the mil got tired of fighting everyone. They finally figured out that kicking in people's doors for no reason can provoke an unnecessary deadly incident, or at the very least pisses people off. If there is an effective cordon, then we can usually knock and talk. The gig is usually up by the time we get to the door (that is probably different and easier for a LEO in the US). Might as well announce. They will invite you in, or try to run. Doors will remain working, and the guy gets caught. No mistaken or unnecessary lethal escalation in the wrong house. I guess Mayberry is more dangerous than Baghdad and Kandahar City now. Extremely dangerous and well organized criminals require a daily response from a team with "special weapons" trained in "special tactics" in every neighborhood to kick in doors. America is now worse than a 3rd world country with an active insurgency that supports international terrorism. Might as well jack off to Judge Dredd while we are at it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You really believe that if it wasn't for the SWAT team, the officers would just saunter up, knock, and say please? Seriously
In your military career, would you prefer to have an infantry squad execute a particular battle drill or just find a few random soldiers from whatever MOS and have them do the same job? Actually, we have found cordon and knock to commonly be more effective than cordon and kick in most instances. The training part is common sense. But I don't think it is really that unique of a skill set is it? Is it really a "Special Weapon or Tactic" or is it just a group of cops doing a common task with an average weapon? Or are we just using the "special" cops because... Well we have them? Room clearing was "special" in the military because in recent history our conventional military has trained to fight wars primarily away from urban centers. Only the "special" people were "specially" trained for raids in an urban environment. Of course that has all changed. So are regular infantry guys who clear mud huts "special." How about MP's or Artillery Soldiers? Then the mil got tired of fighting everyone. They finally figured out that kicking in people's doors for no reason can provoke an unnecessary deadly incident, or at the very least pisses people off. If there is an effective cordon, then we can usually knock and talk. The gig is usually up by the time we get to the door (that is probably different and easier for a LEO in the US). Might as well announce. They will invite you in, or try to run. Doors will remain working, and the guy gets caught. No mistaken or unnecessary lethal escalation in the wrong house. I guess Mayberry is more dangerous than Baghdad and Kandahar City now. Extremely dangerous and well organized criminals require a daily response from a team with "special weapons" trained in "special tactics" in every neighborhood to kick in doors. America is now worse than a 3rd world country with an active insurgency that supports international terrorism. Might as well jack off to Judge Dredd while we are at it. Since it is so bad here feel free to move, and take your drama with you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:03:11 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ouch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You really believe that if it wasn't for the SWAT team, the officers would just saunter up, knock, and say please? Seriously
In your military career, would you prefer to have an infantry squad execute a particular battle drill or just find a few random soldiers from whatever MOS and have them do the same job? Actually, we have found cordon and knock to commonly be more effective than cordon and kick in most instances. The training part is common sense. But I don't think it is really that unique of a skill set is it? Is it really a "Special Weapon or Tactic" or is it just a group of cops doing a common task with an average weapon? Or are we just using the "special" cops because... Well we have them? Room clearing was "special" in the military because in recent history our conventional military has trained to fight wars primarily away from urban centers. Only the "special" people were "specially" trained for raids in an urban environment. Of course that has all changed. So are regular infantry guys who clear mud huts "special." How about MP's or Artillery Soldiers? Then the mil got tired of fighting everyone. They finally figured out that kicking in people's doors for no reason can provoke an unnecessary deadly incident, or at the very least pisses people off. If there is an effective cordon, then we can usually knock and talk. The gig is usually up by the time we get to the door (that is probably different and easier for a LEO in the US). Might as well announce. They will invite you in, or try to run. Doors will remain working, and the guy gets caught. No mistaken or unnecessary lethal escalation in the wrong house. I guess Mayberry is more dangerous than Baghdad and Kandahar City now. Extremely dangerous and well organized criminals require a daily response from a team with "special weapons" trained in "special tactics" in every neighborhood to kick in doors. America is now worse than a 3rd world country with an active insurgency that supports international terrorism. Might as well jack off to Judge Dredd while we are at it. ouch. Theres no "ouch" to what he said. he is just rambling as usual. For starters, the only areas that have "daily" SWAT call outs anywhere in the country are the big cities and yes, I'd say that places like LA have sufficient levels of crime to justify "daily" SWAT use. "Mayberry" doesn't HAVE "daily" need for SWAT, but what "Mayberry" tends to have is a regional or multi-agency team that's comprised of patrol officers for whom SWAT is a secondary role. Nor are American LEOs "kicking in every door" as he claimed. Just another example of a guy rambling on here and having no clue about what he is talking about |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 4:15:27 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ouch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You really believe that if it wasn't for the SWAT team, the officers would just saunter up, knock, and say please? Seriously
In your military career, would you prefer to have an infantry squad execute a particular battle drill or just find a few random soldiers from whatever MOS and have them do the same job? Actually, we have found cordon and knock to commonly be more effective than cordon and kick in most instances. The training part is common sense. But I don't think it is really that unique of a skill set is it? Is it really a "Special Weapon or Tactic" or is it just a group of cops doing a common task with an average weapon? Or are we just using the "special" cops because... Well we have them? Room clearing was "special" in the military because in recent history our conventional military has trained to fight wars primarily away from urban centers. Only the "special" people were "specially" trained for raids in an urban environment. Of course that has all changed. So are regular infantry guys who clear mud huts "special." How about MP's or Artillery Soldiers? Then the mil got tired of fighting everyone. They finally figured out that kicking in people's doors for no reason can provoke an unnecessary deadly incident, or at the very least pisses people off. If there is an effective cordon, then we can usually knock and talk. The gig is usually up by the time we get to the door (that is probably different and easier for a LEO in the US). Might as well announce. They will invite you in, or try to run. Doors will remain working, and the guy gets caught. No mistaken or unnecessary lethal escalation in the wrong house. I guess Mayberry is more dangerous than Baghdad and Kandahar City now. Extremely dangerous and well organized criminals require a daily response from a team with "special weapons" trained in "special tactics" in every neighborhood to kick in doors. America is now worse than a 3rd world country with an active insurgency that supports international terrorism. Might as well jack off to Judge Dredd while we are at it. ouch. Yup a load of BS dumped on you can hurt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 4:19:53 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Federal teams do a LOT more than warrants. The mission set is global and goes well beyond traditional LE. USMS SOG had an office in Baghdad and did court security, prisoner handling, and other missions for the trial if Sadam. DEA has counter narcotics programs in Afghanistan. Same for many other agencies. Sorry but agencies you mention SHOULD NOT be involved in a soveriegn nations matters. It is up to that country to deal with it.... I guess we need to be involved in every country in the world and have our various agencies stationed in every country in the world. Some people cannot even begin to understand liberty & freedom and how it relates to international relations with soveriegn countries. oh wait....you are going to tell me next that we were INVITED by the people that we appointed to be in charge of those countries while we were in a military role within those countries. I say if the Afghans want to grow fucking poppies...it is up to them. As someone mentioned in this thread much of the shit going on is a direct result of the so called "war on drugs" fuck it...legalize it all...let the druggies kill themselves off...problem solved those that cannot stomach that thought obviously are either 1. Power Hungry and want to control or 2. Submissive and want to be told what to do. I personally value liberty a bit more |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 4:51:32 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It seems like there are two different arguments going on here. One is the militarization of the police/ZOMG tactical cargo pants debate we seem to hold every week. Not particularly interested in that. Local/state cops have a lot to deal with, and although I'm not comfortable with that personally, you can at least make a somewhat sensible case for it. The second is the proliferation of armed wings of federal regulatory authorities. I would have thought it was a given that with the possible exception of the USSS that a federal police force is not something we need in this country. Is federal policing even allowed by the Constitution? Turn it around. If you read that a foreign country had armed wings of the forest service, bureau of land management, department of education, etc., you'd be justified in assuming it's a totalitarian country. It's wrong, and it's shameful that it's happening here. Why would you spare the USSS and get rid of all other federal LE agencies? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 5:53:11 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Theres no "ouch" to what he said. he is just rambling as usual. For starters, the only areas that have "daily" SWAT call outs anywhere in the country are the big cities and yes, I'd say that places like LA have sufficient levels of crime to justify "daily" SWAT use. "Mayberry" doesn't HAVE "daily" need for SWAT, but what "Mayberry" tends to have is a regional or multi-agency team that's comprised of patrol officers for whom SWAT is a secondary role. Nor are American LEOs "kicking in every door" as he claimed. Just another example of a guy rambling on here and having no clue about what he is talking about Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You really believe that if it wasn't for the SWAT team, the officers would just saunter up, knock, and say please? Seriously
In your military career, would you prefer to have an infantry squad execute a particular battle drill or just find a few random soldiers from whatever MOS and have them do the same job? Actually, we have found cordon and knock to commonly be more effective than cordon and kick in most instances. The training part is common sense. But I don't think it is really that unique of a skill set is it? Is it really a "Special Weapon or Tactic" or is it just a group of cops doing a common task with an average weapon? Or are we just using the "special" cops because... Well we have them? Room clearing was "special" in the military because in recent history our conventional military has trained to fight wars primarily away from urban centers. Only the "special" people were "specially" trained for raids in an urban environment. Of course that has all changed. So are regular infantry guys who clear mud huts "special." How about MP's or Artillery Soldiers? Then the mil got tired of fighting everyone. They finally figured out that kicking in people's doors for no reason can provoke an unnecessary deadly incident, or at the very least pisses people off. If there is an effective cordon, then we can usually knock and talk. The gig is usually up by the time we get to the door (that is probably different and easier for a LEO in the US). Might as well announce. They will invite you in, or try to run. Doors will remain working, and the guy gets caught. No mistaken or unnecessary lethal escalation in the wrong house. I guess Mayberry is more dangerous than Baghdad and Kandahar City now. Extremely dangerous and well organized criminals require a daily response from a team with "special weapons" trained in "special tactics" in every neighborhood to kick in doors. America is now worse than a 3rd world country with an active insurgency that supports international terrorism. Might as well jack off to Judge Dredd while we are at it. ouch. Theres no "ouch" to what he said. he is just rambling as usual. For starters, the only areas that have "daily" SWAT call outs anywhere in the country are the big cities and yes, I'd say that places like LA have sufficient levels of crime to justify "daily" SWAT use. "Mayberry" doesn't HAVE "daily" need for SWAT, but what "Mayberry" tends to have is a regional or multi-agency team that's comprised of patrol officers for whom SWAT is a secondary role. Nor are American LEOs "kicking in every door" as he claimed. Just another example of a guy rambling on here and having no clue about what he is talking about Then I guess we don't really need SWAT except in big cities? That was my point by the way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:00:28 AM EDT
[#29]
The police are not being militarized. They're not using similar weapons and vehicles. They are not intentionally being separated from their communities. The role of the police has not changed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:16:59 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I had a clue it would be because I jacked off to Tom Clancey like half of the wannabe JBT's in this thread. Since I don't, I haven't a clue about HRT. Are you suggesting that they lack timeliness or competency? I assumed that they have higher than average competency since they get Federal funding, they would have a larger than average budget. And since the FBI is bigger than most LE departments, they have a bigger candidate pool of more qualified applicants. But like I said I don't really know, and that could be way off. Is there something you care to share to enlighten the crowd, or is it G14 classified? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To be honest a SWAT/SRT op that ends in gun fire is a failure. We train with as much (if not more) no shoot scenarios than shoot scenarios. SWAT ops such as the HRT hostage rescue in south AL with bunker guy ended in gun fire, bad guy dead, hostage unharmed and no injuries to rescue team, Much win. Right because having an FBI HRT to respond to national incidents, is the same as having a SWAT team in every town with over 20,000. Actually better, because more is always better right? How many incidents has your home town had where a bus driver kidnaps a kid, and holds him hostage in a bunker laden with victim initiated explosive devices? Maybe every school needs a swat team. Check that, make it every bus. You can never be too safe. FBI-HRT is nothing to set your watch by. If I had a clue it would be because I jacked off to Tom Clancey like half of the wannabe JBT's in this thread. Since I don't, I haven't a clue about HRT. Are you suggesting that they lack timeliness or competency? I assumed that they have higher than average competency since they get Federal funding, they would have a larger than average budget. And since the FBI is bigger than most LE departments, they have a bigger candidate pool of more qualified applicants. But like I said I don't really know, and that could be way off. Is there something you care to share to enlighten the crowd, or is it G14 classified? Define "More Qualified Applicants". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:30:36 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The worst thing is that the public seems to accept and want it. I'm in Boston now, and there are Boston Strong signs all over the place. Should be Boston Submit. Hence, the reason SWAT teams are so common. The most vocal in society are the old people and females, and both groups like big strong forces to protect them from the scary world or enforce their nanny will. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Last year's Boston marathon was the ultimate example of the over-militarization of police. The worst thing is that the public seems to accept and want it. I'm in Boston now, and there are Boston Strong signs all over the place. Should be Boston Submit. Hence, the reason SWAT teams are so common. The most vocal in society are the old people and females, and both groups like big strong forces to protect them from the scary world or enforce their nanny will. Well, I can think of one exception, right off the bat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:33:28 AM EDT
[#32]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:35:07 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tell me back then how many people were familiar with the process to acquire one? I'm sure back then people did not use trusts like they do today. So realistically you would have to follow the non trust route. From this approach and understanding most people probably did not understand the process please tell me how many people you think owned machineguns back then. I'm willing to recon not a lot in regards to individuals. Also back then you didn't have the ability to just download the forms online like you can now. So imagine how much longer the process took and how many people were probably deterred. "Back then" all you had to do was go down to your local hardware store. The "process to acquire one" was: 1. Pick out the one you wanted. 2. Give the hardware store guy the money. 3.Leave the store with your new machine gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:35:40 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryTerrorists detonate a bomb in a US city and immediately evac the scene. What's the problem with performing a search of the surrounding area with equipment appropriate for the level of force they've been shown to have available to them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:38:13 AM EDT
[#35]
"FBI-HRT is nothing to set your watch by."
Really? I can tell you don't know the color of the boat house at Quantico.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:38:21 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Terrorists detonate a bomb in a US city and immediately evac the scene. What's the problem with performing a search of the surrounding area with equipment appropriate for the level of force they've been shown to have available to them? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Terrorists detonate a bomb in a US city and immediately evac the scene. What's the problem with performing a search of the surrounding area with equipment appropriate for the level of force they've been shown to have available to them? Weren't you in the Bundy thread talking about how the guy on the overpass shouldn't be pointing guns at people? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:39:30 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Weren't you in the Bundy thread talking about how the guy on the overpass shouldn't be pointing guns at people? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Terrorists detonate a bomb in a US city and immediately evac the scene. What's the problem with performing a search of the surrounding area with equipment appropriate for the level of force they've been shown to have available to them? Weren't you in the Bundy thread talking about how the guy on the overpass shouldn't be pointing guns at people? Edit: oh, you're talking about the protestors aiming guns at feds? Yeah, completely different situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:41:48 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Edit: oh, you're talking about the protestors aiming guns at feds? Yeah, completely different situation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Terrorists detonate a bomb in a US city and immediately evac the scene. What's the problem with performing a search of the surrounding area with equipment appropriate for the level of force they've been shown to have available to them? Weren't you in the Bundy thread talking about how the guy on the overpass shouldn't be pointing guns at people? Edit: oh, you're talking about the protestors aiming guns at feds? Yeah, completely different situation. American in his own house with a camera. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:43:30 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
American in his own house with a camera. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Terrorists detonate a bomb in a US city and immediately evac the scene. What's the problem with performing a search of the surrounding area with equipment appropriate for the level of force they've been shown to have available to them? Weren't you in the Bundy thread talking about how the guy on the overpass shouldn't be pointing guns at people? Edit: oh, you're talking about the protestors aiming guns at feds? Yeah, completely different situation. American in his own house with a camera. Yep, and that poor journalist in Iraq only had a video camera. I can't blame a guy looks for bombers for being wary of some kind of optic being pointed at him from a window. Windows don't always give perfect transparency both ways, you know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:44:09 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Terrorists detonate a bomb in a US city and immediately evac the scene. What's the problem with performing a search of the surrounding area with equipment appropriate for the level of force they've been shown to have available to them? Quote HistoryQuoted: Terrorists detonate a bomb in a US city and immediately evac the scene. What's the problem with performing a search of the surrounding area with equipment appropriate for the level of force they've been shown to have available to them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:46:14 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's a number of things wrong with you. The first is that you see nothing wrong with armored vehicles rolling down our streets pointing guns at citizens. Open your eyes Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Terrorists detonate a bomb in a US city and immediately evac the scene. What's the problem with performing a search of the surrounding area with equipment appropriate for the level of force they've been shown to have available to them? "Open your eyes". I bet next you'll call me a sheep. 
You're chasing men who have been shown to use explosives, with no knowledge of what other firepower they could have. Using equipment appropriate for that kind of threat is, well, appropriate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:50:16 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Define "More Qualified Applicants". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
SWAT ops such as the HRT hostage rescue in south AL with bunker guy ended in gun fire, bad guy dead, hostage unharmed and no injuries to rescue team, Much win. Right because having an FBI HRT to respond to national incidents, is the same as having a SWAT team in every town with over 20,000. Actually better, because more is always better right? How many incidents has your home town had where a bus driver kidnaps a kid, and holds him hostage in a bunker laden with victim initiated explosive devices? Maybe every school needs a swat team. Check that, make it every bus. You can never be too safe. FBI-HRT is nothing to set your watch by. If I had a clue it would be because I jacked off to Tom Clancey like half of the wannabe JBT's in this thread. Since I don't, I haven't a clue about HRT. Are you suggesting that they lack timeliness or competency? I assumed that they have higher than average competency since they get Federal funding, they would have a larger than average budget. And since the FBI is bigger than most LE departments, they have a bigger candidate pool of more qualified applicants. But like I said I don't really know, and that could be way off. Is there something you care to share to enlighten the crowd, or is it G14 classified? Define "More Qualified Applicants". I believe that the FBI has some "higher" standards for applicants compared to most agencies. At least that was the impression I got when I looked into switching over. As an example, I believe the FBI HRT claimed to only be hiring former military SOF and SWAT LEOs, after completing a selection program. I don't know how true that was, I just got the info from their web page. A lot of departments I looked into were much easier to get hired into than anything in the FBI. But they didn't hire straight into SWAT (I wouldn't either). You could try out after a few years if you wanted. I do understand that concept is extremely flawed. Better on paper isn't necessarily better. A guy with a CJ degree might be stupid as shit, and a guy with a HS diploma might be a genius. A "SOF Operator" might be a clown, and the local self taught three gun guy at the range might be a badass. There is also a much wider variety of agencies and departments out there now than there was 7 years ago when I was looking into it. Various levels of funding. Different training for different threats. The FBI could do what the mil does, and disqualify people for tattoos. We all know that dirty inkies can't shoot straight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:55:31 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Open your eyes". I bet next you'll call me a sheep. You're chasing men who have been shown to use explosives, with no knowledge of what other firepower they could have. Using equipment appropriate for that kind of threat is, well, appropriate. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Terrorists detonate a bomb in a US city and immediately evac the scene. What's the problem with performing a search of the surrounding area with equipment appropriate for the level of force they've been shown to have available to them? "Open your eyes". I bet next you'll call me a sheep. You're chasing men who have been shown to use explosives, with no knowledge of what other firepower they could have. Using equipment appropriate for that kind of threat is, well, appropriate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:59:16 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"pointing guns at citizens" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Terrorists detonate a bomb in a US city and immediately evac the scene. What's the problem with performing a search of the surrounding area with equipment appropriate for the level of force they've been shown to have available to them? "Open your eyes". I bet next you'll call me a sheep.
You're chasing men who have been shown to use explosives, with no knowledge of what other firepower they could have. Using equipment appropriate for that kind of threat is, well, appropriate. And? Being a citizen suddenly means you can't be a threat? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:02:38 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And? Being a citizen suddenly means you can't be a threat? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And? Being a citizen suddenly means you can't be a threat? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:04:27 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good point. Cops should continue waving the guns around in everyone's faces. I'm glad we cleared that up and figured out where you stand, just in case anyone else was wondering. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And? Being a citizen suddenly means you can't be a threat? Cut the strawmen and useless hyperbole. You're hunting an unknown number of bombers. You see an optic of some kind in a window. You don't aim and dwell on it until you can verify it's safe? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:04:50 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Terrorists detonate a bomb in a US city and immediately evac the scene. What's the problem with performing a search of the surrounding area with equipment appropriate for the level of force they've been shown to have available to them? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Terrorists detonate a bomb in a US city and immediately evac the scene. What's the problem with performing a search of the surrounding area with equipment appropriate for the level of force they've been shown to have available to them? In that particular case I would prefer that the stencil on the side say "BPD" rather than "Military Police". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:06:32 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In that particular case I would prefer that the stencil on the side say "BPD" rather than "Military Police". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Terrorists detonate a bomb in a US city and immediately evac the scene. What's the problem with performing a search of the surrounding area with equipment appropriate for the level of force they've been shown to have available to them? In that particular case I would prefer that the stencil on the side say "BPD" rather than "Military Police". That would require BPD to keep a stock of those vehicles. Something I'm sure Bettendorf would scream about. Instead, they borrowed them from local units that had them. Would you rather they start searching immediately or take time to repaint the vehicles so as not to offend people? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:08:27 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That would require BPD to keep a stock of those vehicles. Something I'm sure Bettendorf would scream about. Instead, they borrowed them from local units that had them. Would you rather they start searching immediately or take time to repaint the vehicles so as not to offend people? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Terrorists detonate a bomb in a US city and immediately evac the scene. What's the problem with performing a search of the surrounding area with equipment appropriate for the level of force they've been shown to have available to them? In that particular case I would prefer that the stencil on the side say "BPD" rather than "Military Police". That would require BPD to keep a stock of those vehicles. Something I'm sure Bettendorf would scream about. Instead, they borrowed them from local units that had them. Would you rather they start searching immediately or take time to repaint the vehicles so as not to offend people? I was in Boston that week. Up-armor Humvee's were overkill, as were the door to door searches. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:08:33 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cut the strawmen and useless hyperbole. You're hunting an unknown number of bombers. You see an optic of some kind in a window. You don't aim and dwell on it until you can verify it's safe? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Cut the strawmen and useless hyperbole. You're hunting an unknown number of bombers. You see an optic of some kind in a window. You don't aim and dwell on it until you can verify it's safe? You've convinced yourself that it's acceptable behavior. I have not. I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
