Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Posted: 8/4/2001 6:47:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2001 7:00:23 AM EDT by Garand_Shooter]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 7:02:03 AM EDT
Notice: There are not any photos below the knee of the subjects. Is the photographer trying to hide the Jack Boots?[:D]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 7:43:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2001 7:53:11 AM EDT by Coversix]
I particularly like the way the second-to-last guy's head is silhouetted in the window of the "high risk" house they're about to enter. {BANG-yer dead} Nice. CS [img]http://www.netsnapshot.com/users/1115/images/O2wX4MCoBQIAAE61jPU_1115_16.pjpeg[/img] Here's a clean link to the maritime pic: [img]http://www.netsnapshot.com/users/1115/images/O2wXVsCoBQIAAFc3wgM_1115_15.pjpeg[/img]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 7:44:47 AM EDT
They do practice with the SEALS and with HCS-5 out of Point Mugu. When Long Beach Naval Shipyard was around they had Navy EOD and Divers there to cover them. I doubt that the Chinese that now own LBNSY don't provide any type of this law enforcement.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 7:50:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 8:46:52 AM EDT
Hmmmm, they have water, and a port? Well they might just have ships in that there port. What if someone on one of them there ships (mostly foreigners at that!) did a really baaad thing. And if the local SWAT had not practiced, hmmmm could get kinda dicey..... Get your tinfoil hats out. Just because local's practice does not mean they are coming for your guns and women. I want my SWAT team to be reallllly good! That way in a situation they are a lot less likely to screw up and cap me!
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 9:01:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2001 8:57:55 AM EDT by Garand_Shooter]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 9:24:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2001 9:23:10 AM EDT by Stg44]
Well we have a port here, and the Coasties will not normally get involved in things when boats are tied up. They do not have SWAT either. The Florida Marine Patrol, now part of the Fish and Wildlife Service, does not have a SWAT team. The just because it's a small town syndrome has gotten a lot of folks killed over the years. That is kinda like the old stat., and it was old when I started almost 20 years ago, of 2.5 shots in 1 second at 7 feet, does this mean you only need a J frame Smith? There is another factor, I know having been SWAT that you get burned out doing the same old stuff over and over. We would do things that were not expected of the team, just to liven things up. It had a secondary effect of building confidence in the team and individuals. Our team still goes out to Camp Rudder (Ranger Camp) and Hurlburt field to do training. They run the confidence course, do the Darby Queen, just for confidence building. We do have the intercoastal waterway, the Port of Pensacola, and the Gulf of Mexico. The Coast Guard cannot handle every contingency that might arise, and we have a fairly sizeable detachment, unlike most areas. BTW, the port authority is often only adminstrative in nature, and has NO law enforcement capability or authority. Major ports, such as New York do, but that is not the norm.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 9:46:24 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 10:08:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2001 10:08:47 AM EDT by Stg44]
My county has approx. 150,000 residents. We are from small urban to very rural with 1550 square miles. Our SWAT gets called out maybe 10-12 times a year. They currently have the best of our less lethal munitions, and training. They recently saved a suicidal, barricaded mans life by shooting him with a 37mm Sage gun. He came out of the apartment with a pistol to his head, and made threatning moves towards the team. Not quite enough for the sniper to take him out. The Sage gunner engaged him, causing him to drop the pistol, and drop to the ground. He ended up with a sore ass, but alive because the team trained for "unlikely" circumstances. We get a lot of "spill over" from Pensacola and Mobile even. We have captured several of America's Most Wanted in the area because it is a large area with a rapidly growing population. So I want my team trained for any forseeable contingencies. This is because as a patrol supervisor, my ass is there first. And if the SHTF, I want the cavalry to be good when they come to get me. Locally, you seem to have problems. Well, that is a local issue, and should be addressed by you and the other voters. A blanket statement about other cities and thier needs seems a bit out of line. I know I don't tell the people of the State of North Carolina what they need to do, so why worry about what some coastal city in MS is doing? BTW, if you belive the national stats on LEO's, most never even draw thier pistols in a career, little lone use it. Well I have beaten that stat all to hell. I have used deadly force, I have taken down an attempted murder suspect who was armed with a sawed off shotgun, I have taken down a suspect that had a pistol screwed in his wifes ear, and the things go on and on. The last one was last July when I captured a suspect who had just tried to kill a narc by running him down. So the "it can't happen here" stuff does not carry a lot of weight with me.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 10:11:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2001 10:17:31 AM EDT by 7_62___for_me]
________________________________________________ Well we have a port here, and the Coasties will not normally get involved in things when boats are tied up. They do not have SWAT either. The Florida Marine Patrol, now part of the Fish and Wildlife Service, does not have a SWAT team. ________________________________________________ [b]The coasties don't have SWAT. So do you mean to say that they do not engage high risk threats either? That is exactly what they do! Boarding small boats loaded with narcotics with armed smugglers, stopping fast boats with force if necessary.[/b] The only good guys are your team, right. I heard about it all week. ________________________________________________ The Coast Guard cannot handle every contingency that might arise, and we have a fairly sizeable detachment, unlike most areas. ________________________________________________ [b]DETACHMENT[/b]? Talk about militarization. Am I wrong in saying this? I'm sure the Border Patrol cannot handle every contigency that might arise with border jumpers too. So should San Diego P.D. train to augment the Border patrols lack of agents?
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 10:20:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2001 10:25:45 AM EDT by Stg44]
I am not down playing what the Coast Guard does. We have a large detachment of COAST GUARD here because of Pensacola NAS, the intercoastal waterway, Eglin AFB, Hurlburt Field, the Port of Pensacola, and 1 hour away the Port of Mobile. That is the detachment I am referring to. I am merely stating that they do not have the capabilities of handling many situations that can arise on the local waterways. As to San Diego, that is a local issue. I do not live in San Diego. So I will withold my comments as to what they should or should not do. I do not think that it is any of my damn business, just like it's none of yours how we do it down here. I was commenting on someone who lives in the mountains commenting on what a coastal community does or does not need. I don't presume to tell him what his community needs. BTW, our team is not perfect. It is made up of human beings, with all the problems associated with being human. However, they do rank nationally in SWAT competitions, and I am proud to have trained most members. BTW, the Border Patrol is a Law Enforcement organization, not military. So how would the S.D.P.D. helping, and I belive the do, be militarization?
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 10:34:03 AM EDT
[b]Stg44[/b] Your right. I don't know what your community needs or doesn't need. To the defense of the boarding team in the small inflatable boat.. I called my wife over and asked her, "Hey, who do you think these guys are?" she said, "SEAL's?" I think that is what the average person would think, but regular joes like me in the Navy are on boarding teams. You don't have to be a SEAL to board cargo ships and what not. My concern is the militarization of law enforcement in our country. I think patrol officers should wear distinct uniforms with cover and all. Leave BDU's and thigh holsters to the special weapon teams.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 10:35:15 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 11:17:28 AM EDT
Boy, it sure is a relief to know that there are folks like Garand Shooter to tell us what each of our communities does and does not need in the way of emergency police services! Garand Shooter, do you hire out your expert opinion to counties and cities who are evaluating their needs? If not, you should think about it- the country needs your help!!!!
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 11:32:29 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 11:36:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2001 11:40:29 AM EDT by Stg44]
Well as to militarization, the days of Sheriff Andy and Barney Fife are over. This is not a huge metropolitan area, Pensacola has less than 1/2 million in the whole county. We have about 150,000 in mine. In land size, we are the 3d largest in Florida at 1550 sq. miles. Small by western standards, but it takes over an hour to drive from North to South, 30 minutes from East to West. We have huge tracts that are state forest, and huge sections that are military. (NAS Whiting Field, Eglin AFB reservation, Camp Rudder Ranger training camp, and on and on) When I came on almost 20 years ago few had Ar's, SKS's and AK's were returned war trophies. Mini14's were scarce. I have been involved in or have friends who were involved in numerous cases in which these types of firearms were involved. The first murder I worked was a double with a mini14, one victim shot 23 times. No it is not common, but it does happen. Just because we had not had a direct hit by a hurricane in 69 years does this mean we do not need to prepare? Well the string was busted wide open a few years ago, and we took two direct hits in 2 months (Erin and Opal) A bank I worked at part time was robbed by a suspect later caught in California after he showed up on Jerry Springer with his transexual partner. He had an M4, MP5PDW, and 2 AKM's, all select fire. Two friends of mine from the next county were wounded by a murdurer with a mini14 with which he shot the hell out of several cruisers. So does being prepared for the unlikely make me paranoid? Maybe, but I intend to do my damndest to make sure all of my squad, and that includes me, go home at the end of the shift. BDU's do not make you militarized. Sorry, but to try to do tactical problems wearing polyster is just not cost effective. The uniforms are expensive, uncomfortable, hot, and will shred easily. Leather is very expensive, our Safariland 070 (SSIII) holsters are about $100 each, and that is just the holster. Throw in a $40 belt, $25 handcuff case, $30 mag pouch, $25 ASP holder, OC pouch, belt keepers, flashlight carrier, and it gets damn expensive. Too expensive to scuff it up when you don't have to. Yep, I carry a personally owned M4 on duty. If that offends you, too bad. Get over this Militarization BS, 'cause that is just what it is, Bull Shit! BTW 7_62_for_me, that is a special weapons team with the BDU's. As to why, see above. Also why Balacava's? Some members are undercover types, also most Balacava's are flame resistant. Go into a meth lab sometime. You will want all the protection you can get. And you seem to be in the military. Aren't you concerned by US forces working the border? How about the marine that shot a goat herder a couple of years ago because he had a .22 to protect the goats? This concerns me a hell of a lot more than local agencys having a tactical team. Local's do have local oversight, unlike the US Military. And yes, I am a Vet.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 12:00:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 12:03:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Stg44: Well we have a port here, and the Coasties will not normally get involved in things when boats are tied up. They do not have SWAT either. The Florida Marine Patrol, now part of the Fish and Wildlife Service, does not have a SWAT team. The just because it's a small town syndrome has gotten a lot of folks killed over the years. That is kinda like the old stat., and it was old when I started almost 20 years ago, of 2.5 shots in 1 second at 7 feet, does this mean you only need a J frame Smith? There is another factor, I know having been SWAT that you get burned out doing the same old stuff over and over. We would do things that were not expected of the team, just to liven things up. It had a secondary effect of building confidence in the team and individuals. Our team still goes out to Camp Rudder (Ranger Camp) and Hurlburt field to do training. They run the confidence course, do the Darby Queen, just for confidence building. We do have the intercoastal waterway, the Port of Pensacola, and the Gulf of Mexico. The Coast Guard cannot handle every contingency that might arise, and we have a fairly sizeable detachment, unlike most areas. BTW, the port authority is often only adminstrative in nature, and has NO law enforcement capability or authority. Major ports, such as New York do, but that is not the norm.
View Quote
You are not fighting a war. You don't need to be trained like Army Rangers. The war mantality will only get more people killed, because cops begin to think everybody is the "enemy." Troopers that I hang out with tell me this all the time. SWAT teams are used in smaller and smaller towns across America with disturbing regularity and it scares the crap out of me. What if the locals need to arrest me for a minor offense, but since they already know I have a rather impressive arsenal send SWAT to capture me? If I saw ninja-clad, submachinegun-wielding JBTs approaching my house all hell would break loose. There is a disturbing trend in America to use SWAT when other avenues (like a uniform walking up and knocking) have not even been tried. SWAT should be used against terrorists and bank robbers (North Hollywood), not arrests. They should only be called when the shit has already hit the fan and no other course of action is available. That's what SWAT was originally for, but SWAT guys wanting to be Rangers have pushed for increased usage.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 12:39:33 PM EDT
Garand Shooter, If you were going to arrest dangerous, armed people would'nt you want the best trained and equipped people with you. It just makes sense. By properly training the patrol officers as to when to call out SWAT you usually alleviate unnecessary SWAT callouts. That has been and will continue to be a problem. However, it's hard to argue with an Officer when he feels the need to call out a tactical team. He is the one on scene and usually has a better perspective on the whole situation. If he truly feels he is in a dangerous situation I would hope he would call SWAT. I would not want to tell his family he died because he was afraid of getting reprimanded for calling out SWAT. On another point, in reference to rappelling and the use of choppers; I know that Oklahoma and other states use choppers for marijuana eradication. Some of the areas used for cultivation are difficult to reach to say the least. On a side note you will find that tactical officers have more interest in firearms. That interest generally leads to more support of the 2nd amendment. Most of the SWAT types are the most progun officers I know.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 12:49:26 PM EDT
Well, I think that some of you will never admit a trained tactical team may be neccesary for police operations. The rest I agree it isn't whether or not there is a team but how and why they are to be used. Garand Shooter, are you sure that isn't a regional team made up of officers from several departments or with a responsibilty to respond to incident outside their normal jurisdiction?? And I think the LEA's have a responsibility to be prepared for FORSEEABLE types of incidents. There will always be a differnce between a tactically sound well prepared, and armed patrol officer vs a team of officers that train together regulary for high risk incidents. rgOOred, what if the Hollywood robbers got to their homes?? Are you saying that knowing what the did you would have patrol officers draw straws to see who will knock on the door?? I didn't think so. I know this may come as a shock but often people don't wanna be arrested they'll try to run, fight, shoot, or drive away from the police. So sometimes the police send more officers that seems neccesary to make sure that Mr. BG realizes he can not meaningfully resist, so he is less likey to. As far as SWAT serving warrants there is a time and a place for it, routine warrant service is not it. But sometimes the stupidest warrants end up in shootouts. It's not the charge on the warrant its the person on the warrant that is a much clearer indicator of how problematic the arrest might be.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 12:57:26 PM EDT
It sure seems difficult to have an honest debate about an IMPORTANT issue like THE MILITARIZATION OF AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT without tempers coming into play. Garand Man, 50 miles down the road from you MY county has a SWAT team. They were traveling to BRAGG once a month and training with DELTA not too many years ago. I'm a vet,and have MANY friends in law enforcement of one type or another, and know ALL of the SWAT members on that team. Every one of them, I'm sorry to say, is either a Special Forces wannabe or ex-vet that still needs his FIX. No one mentioned the federal funding that has so many local departments addicted and losing their autonomy. And the "use em or lose em" theory certainly applies with local SWAT and federal money. Not saying there's no place in America for SWAT - STG44 (did I get your name right?) probably is in an area where it's justified. Garand Man - you're right on track tho - don't back down.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 1:24:24 PM EDT
Militirization................. You do realize that most of the time SWAT or whatever they call themselves are used to deal with ARMED subjects don't you?? Would you rather have them trained in snide remarks and witty retorts? On 60 Minutes not to long ago they had a segment on police marksmen and by extension SWAT. I forgot who but I think Clint Smith (? IIRC, sorry if i got it wrong) said SWAT is like the Fire Dept. You don't care about anything they do until YOUR house is on fire. Then you want the Fire Dept to have a fast truck, that has lots of water, can pump the water quickly, and is operated by guys who know what the are doing. Same thing with SWAT, you do want militirzed. If that means there is a clear chain of command, unit cohesion, and ability to work together. No you don't want it if you are talking about use of force policy or strategy.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 1:34:28 PM EDT
It's difficult to train with the military, use military tactics and equipment, and not develop a military mind-set. The military trains to KILL. The police or local law enforcement, who, by the way, are volunteers who have decided to make a living in this manner, are supposed to investigate crimes and apprehend CITIZENS for the legislative branch to determine if they are guilty of a crime. Different jobs. If you want to train with the military you should join the military.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 1:37:56 PM EDT
Sorry Oly, but in my town of 15,000 people, we DON'T need a SWAT team. Maybe I didn't clarify my position clearly enough. I don't like that SWAT is being used for more and more arrests. They are not only being used for Hollywood bank robbers, and that is not even close to what I was saying. We have a SWAT team in my town, it didn't see any service in the first 3 years of its existence so the town council decided to quit funding it. When that happened, every criminal who "might" be dangerous was arrested with SWAT. Of course, funding was continued. The local cops also painted the nightmare "Hollywood shootout" scenario, which will never, ever happen in small town USA. In the impossibility that it did happen, half the town keep rifles and shotguns in their trucks as well as pistols on their persons. Even a body armor wearing robber would be an endangered species. SWAT allows the wannabe Rangers to play with cool toys and give them bragging rights. They don't serve a function in this area. Incidentally, the State Police have tactical officers, but they are almost never used. Patrol officers get together in a group and enter the house. That tactic has never failed.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 1:48:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Militirization................. Same thing with SWAT, you do want militirized. If that means there is a clear chain of command, unit cohesion, and ability to work together. No you don't want it if you are talking about use of force policy or strategy.
View Quote
Did you miss this? The military trains for armed conflict. The teach how to best avoid getting shot. Which is what I think SWAT is trying to do. The fact is that arrest warrants are mentioned in the Consitution. I don't think the Founding Fathers thought warrants or probable cause was cancelled out if you "out fought the law". Police can use reasonable force to arrest people. If you are resisting the police with deadly force the police can use deadly for on ya'. You wouldn't want to be a victim of a crime and have the police say, "he's too tough to arrest, so we'll just wait 15 years or so until middle age slows him up some". Would you? What if you were wounded in a bank robbery (as an innocent bank customer) and the police sealed the bad guys in the bank are you sayin that the police shouldn't have the means or the privilege to use force to keep you from bleeding to death before the BG's surrender or escape? What if a loved one was a hostage and the BG's were threatening to shoot 1 hostage every 10 minutes would you want the police to "wait 'em out" because sooner or later they'll run out of hostages or ammo?? Do you want SWAT to be some guys who have trained "now and then" or some guys that are seriously commited to being as good as they can be??
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 1:56:07 PM EDT
rg00red, I'm glad you know what is best. If you think "it can't happen here", you are wrong. Some of the goofiest situations I have been in are in "the middle of nowhere". Of course you also say that a properly formed, trained, supervised team is ok with you-them state guys. Most LE SWAT teams are not full time teams. They are officers that have other full time responsibilities. The recieve extra training and get some extra equipment. I kinda doubt that a SWAT team is needed in a 15,000 person town too. But that doesn't mean that they can't be part of a regional team, 1-2 officers each from 10 depts. or soemthing similar. The key is they need to be well led, well trained, and accountable for their actions.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 1:56:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2001 1:57:35 PM EDT by Garand_Shooter]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 2:16:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2001 2:15:54 PM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Well GS, I think you are right if EVERY officer is trained to a high standard you have less need for tactical teams. Especially if they are properly equipped. But many PD's don't issue shotguns because they take to much training time to learn to shoot properly. I was kinda thinking about this and putting it in military terms isn't a large part of the reason Ranger and SF do better in combat because of the training they have received? Sure plenty of other soldiers get as good with weapons craft and movement under fire but the SF guys start better because they are better trained. If you meet an officer that has "extra" training, even if he hasn't been in a SHTF situation will he be more in control than a less well trained officer?? Which do you want near ya' when the SHTF? Part of what happens in many agencies, is when they get one of those SHTF incidents they don't have enough people to handle it. So sometimes having a SWAT team means that they get "called out" for the incident so that patrol resources can go back, mostly, to answering calls etc. I think that is part of the reason they like to have "teams". I can easily think of times when I was outgunned. Local PD finds a drunk guy walking down the road. He's a local so they know him, and he's been decent with them in the past. So they make sure he isn't so drunk he can't take care of himself and give him a ride home. A little bit later a neighbor finds his kid screaming in their front yard. They call the cops. The same officer that gave him a ride home see's the kid and decides to make sure the guy is ok. Goes up an knocks on the door. Drunken guy comes to the door behind a .30-30. Cop gets away from him, we have a stand off with him for 2-3 hours. It's in a subdivision and the best cover I have is 150 yards or so from his house. If I get further back I cant see his house, closer is worse. I have a 12 ga........... One of my co-workers got in a chase with some car-jacking kidnapping drugged up guys who were armed with an STG-44. That is being outgunned.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 2:22:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: rg00red, I'm glad you know what is best. If you think "it can't happen here", you are wrong. Some of the goofiest situations I have been in are in "the middle of nowhere". Of course you also say that a properly formed, trained, supervised team is ok with you-them state guys. Most LE SWAT teams are not full time teams. They are officers that have other full time responsibilities. The recieve extra training and get some extra equipment. I kinda doubt that a SWAT team is needed in a 15,000 person town too. But that doesn't mean that they can't be part of a regional team, 1-2 officers each from 10 depts. or soemthing similar. The key is they need to be well led, well trained, and accountable for their actions.
View Quote
You, like many SWAT guys, have a piss poor attitude. You just can't stand for any puny little citizen to voice objection to having JBTs running around in their very small, relatively crime free town. NOBODY wants what ammounts to a paramilitary unit policing them. Tactical trained officers and SWAT are very different. In an area like mine, where SWAT isn't used for YEARS, it is just a huge waste of money that can be better spent on other things. So yes, I think I do know what is best for my town thank you very much. Militarizing the police is a dangerous, wrongful and stupid practice. It teaches the police to view the populace as the "enemy," instead of customers (which is what we are, because WE pay YOUR salaries). I don't know if you remember this from any of your training, but people are considered innocent until proven guilty. SWAT operates under the pretense that the offender is already guilty. They are trained to KILL, don't forget that. Regional teams do make sense, that is what the VSP has. These guys are very good too. My town has a full-time "Crisis Response Team," not a regional team with other departments. The last time a police officer was killed in this area (I'm including 3 counties that cover the area of RI and CT combined) was when I was in college in the 60s. The need is just not there. If cops started getting killed every year, or even every 2-3 years, I would probably be more supportive of a team on my police department. Police work is dangerous, that's life. If uniformed officers don't like it they should become security guards.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 2:33:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2001 2:30:48 PM EDT by rg00red]
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: I can easily think of times when I was outgunned. Local PD finds a drunk guy walking down the road. He's a local so they know him, and he's been decent with them in the past. So they make sure he isn't so drunk he can't take care of himself and give him a ride home. A little bit later a neighbor finds his kid screaming in their front yard. They call the cops. The same officer that gave him a ride home see's the kid and decides to make sure the guy is ok. Goes up an knocks on the door. Drunken guy comes to the door behind a .30-30. Cop gets away from him, we have a stand off with him for 2-3 hours. It's in a subdivision and the best cover I have is 150 yards or so from his house. If I get further back I cant see his house, closer is worse. I have a 12 ga........... One of my co-workers got in a chase with some car-jacking kidnapping drugged up guys who were armed with an STG-44. That is being outgunned.
View Quote
In the first situation, wouldn't it be better to wait until the guy sobers up and start talking to him, rather than to run in on an armed person with diminished mental capacity? Second situation: How often does this happen? If it happened frequently (like not every ten years, not something that you cops reminicse about when you get together), it might justify the need for SWAT. Crimes committed with automatic weapons make national headlines, because they are incredibly rare. People are still talking about the North Hollywood bank robbery 3 years after the fact because nothing has happened since.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 2:34:27 PM EDT
1) I'm not a "SWAT guy". 2) I've never played one on tv, but I do like dragnet and Adam-12. 3) I'm not the one getting upset. 4) You haven't answered how you would want my hypothetical situations handled. 5) I agreed with you about a town of 15,000 being poorly suited as a SWAT enclave. 6) You seemed to agree with me about needing SWAT "coverage"-VSP. 7) I keep saying properly trained, led, and supervised are key factors for LE/SWAT. There isn't an excuse for showing up at the wrong house.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 2:41:11 PM EDT
Obviously, like many other things, folks have already got thier minds made up. Sorry you don't like the black or camo uniforms. Would you be happier if they arrived in clown suits? Or tutu's? How many of you wear BDU's around when doing chores, or hunting? The mindset of the team is critical. Yep, there can be abuses. But this needs to be handled at the LOCAl LEVEL. If you don't like what your sheriff is doing, then vote his ass outa office. If you don't like what the chief of police is doing, then get on the mayors/city councils ass and get rid of 'em. Poorly trained, selected teams can be dangerous. Don't let your elected/appointed officials get away with it. Make sure if your local agency has a Tac Team that they are selected, trained, and have written policys that insure that they are adequate to your local needs. This ranting about the militarization of law enforcement on a general level is bullshit. It is like me ranting about the militarization of the populace. It is a gross generalization. Our SWAT is tightly controlled. We have written policy and procedures in place that effect everything from who can be on the team, to when and how they are called out. We also have hostage negotaitors who work with the team. They train with the team, and are called out automatically when the team is. Our team is there to resolve issues without the use of force if at all possible. High risk warrant service is a bit of a misnomer. All warrant services can be risky. Some, on thier face can be more hazardous. The person has made threats, is heavly armed, has psychological problems, and on and on. I train my squad and have convincned most to buy AR's so that if we do get into a bad situation, we can hold our own either till the issue is resolved or SWAT can be activated and arrive. BTW-we have joint jurisdiction on the federal property and the state park.so we answer calls a gazillion miles from nowhere in the swamps and backwoods. Yep, I wear BDU trousers to the range, during emergencys, and other training. This with a t shirt that says SHERIFF on the front and has a star and agency information on the back. Sorry, but teams have a legitimate purpose, and are needed. They do, however need to be closely monitered and well equipped and trained.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 2:42:37 PM EDT
VSP does not have SWAT. It has tactically trained officers who are spread over hundreds of miles. To assemble more than 2 or 3 of them would take a day or 3 minimum. I get upset when I have somebody talk down to me like they would a freakin' child. I know more about my area than you possibly could, so how can you presume to tell me that *I* am wrong? You get your motor mouth a runnin' before you even read the full extent of what I write. People are afraid of an occupation army. Cops are training like the army in increasing numbers. People are now afraid of cops. Is that syllogism easy enough to understand?
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 2:44:53 PM EDT
rg00red, 1st situation, WE DID wait him out. The question was have I been outgunned-yes I was not in a good situation in that, I tried to be very small. And so you know the TRT was not called out for that one. 2nd situation, no it doesn't happened that often but you have to be prepared for situations that might REASONABLY occur. The STG-44 (when I drooled on it...errr saw it in the evidence room) was in a pile of 20-25 military style weapons. They didnt get in there to be refinished. One of my other co-workers got on that Highway Patrol show, he was 2nd in a chase with WSP where the guy started shooting out the car at them. ONe of my other co-workers showed up at a prowler complaint and had a 12 ga round (birdshot whatever) fired just over head. Seconds later the homeowner got back on the phone with 911...."I thnk I just shot at a cop".... Police work is dangerous, but the answer is to take reasonable precautions, through training awareness and proper use of force if neccesary with weapons that are capable of responding to the threat. Not saying get out or ignoring the danger.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 2:45:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 2:47:20 PM EDT
STG44: I don't care what police wear. I care about the military mindset of fighting a "War on Crime" and the increase in use of both military tactics and weaponry. If you want to wear BDUs, I don't give a shit. I do give a shit when I see cops who have no Godly business training like troops assaulting houses like Rangers and running around with automatic weapons. That IS militarization, even if only on a small scale. Posse Comitatus, remember it.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 2:51:19 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 3:23:38 PM EDT
Garand Shooter I think we are closer on this topic then we would both want to admit. Yes PD's casue some of it because they are funded to EXACTLY have enough people to run. So it is tough to "take someone out of the schedule" for training. They would rather take 1 person out for ten days then 10 people for a day a piece. I'm not sure "cool guy" training is bad, it just depends what the training is and that it has some relationship to the persons actual job. Getting a "team" together so you can play with your buddies isn't really what people want being done. My point about Ranger training ins't that everyone becomes a Renger but that often the training creates much better, calmer, more efficient performance. Trining isn't exactly like being in a SHTF, but it gets you familiar with what might happen and how to deal with it. So you are calmer and more in control and maybe LESS LIKELY to do something goofy due to stress. Just because a SWAT team is called out doesn't mean they "go in guns a blazing". When I 've had to sit and wait for them they take a long time, they recon, they set up a perimeter, they get briefed about the incident so far, and so on. Most of the time I've seen the Hostage Negotiators get called out with SWAT and sometimes K-9. What SWAT generally does is go int a "wait and see" mode and just wears the person out. I can't think of very many times they have actually done a "dynamic entry". I'm not sure that if SWAT is used that way it is an escalation of force. It is certainly an escalation of CAPABILITY. The .30-30 thing was handled by patrol officers. 6 or something like that and a Lt. I was in a bad situation I was outside the effective ranges of my weapons and I was well within the range of the weapon we knew he had. And the tactical situaition didn't give me a lot of room to change my postion. I'm not sure why an MP-5 gets you going, I think it's not the weapon they have but how it is used if it is used. My uniform isn't very tactical, shiney stuff and all, plus all the do-dads I am required to have. Black BDU's would have been much less showy. The problem if he had decided he was coming out we would have been hard pressed to stop him. He was in a subdivision, if he had just stayed in place and started shooting an evacuation would have been dicey. As it was we had all the surrounding houses called and asked people to get in their basements. I wish I was issued an AR or could carry my own. There is a money politics thing that is taking precedence over my desire to have more capable equipment. THe Texas thing, I keep posting "well trained, led, and supervised". I'm not sure they would meet that standard. The chase was a SWAT guy on patrol and he was also the only guy with training on how to ram a vehicle to spin it without wrecking both cars-Pursuit Intervetion Technique. Of course they don't let the auto weapons of the SWAT truck except for training or a call. How could you be properly armed against an STG-44?? Not sure auto weapons are what you want in most police work but it would be bad to face 'em
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 3:59:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rg00red: VSP does not have SWAT. It has tactically trained officers who are spread over hundreds of miles. To assemble more than 2 or 3 of them would take a day or 3 minimum.
View Quote
I believe the standard is something like 3 in an hour 6 in 1.5 hours. Tactically trained is TRT/HRT/SWAT/ERT however you want to call it they have additional skills and equipment to deal with situations that other officers aren't well suited to handle.
I get upset when I have somebody talk down to me like they would a freakin' child. I know more about my area than you possibly could, so how can you presume to tell me that *I* am wrong? You get your motor mouth a runnin' before you even read the full extent of what I write.
View Quote
Re-read your first post. It is full of assumptions and innuendo. My point was and is if you think nothing bad can happen because you live in a small town you are wrong. It takes one person having the worst day of their life, making some bad decisions to really screw up a community. Did you see the papers recently about the guy from mass. that killed 3 people 1 in Abbington, 1 in Kingston and 1 I think in New Hampshire. I grew up in Mass. I used to work in Kingston, MA. I lived near Abbington. Both are very small towns Kingston is rural near cranberry bogs. Do you think either towns police force would have been ready if the suspect had "holed" up in one of those towns?
People are afraid of an occupation army. Cops are training like the army in increasing numbers. People are now afraid of cops. Is that syllogism easy enough to understand?
View Quote
I'm sure it is, but there are many factors here. Increased call volume, fewer officers, higher cost per officer, increased training requirements, and increased "liability concerns". There are fewer officers having fewer just regular contacts with people. Nowadays people feel it is ok to lie or cheat they are ruder and they think they are the center of the universe. I'm sure you have met people like that. Common sense is becoming lost. A lot of that effects how people view the police not to mention things that the police do wrong and the public knows about. Plus sometimes the police have to deal with the hand they are dealt and there isn't a good solution to whatever situation the are in, only the "best that can be done". 911 call-animal complaint, woman calls complaining about squirrels. An officer is sent out, meets the woman and asks about the problem. Woman "Them squirrels are climbing on the phone lines damaging the wires. I want you to do something". Officer: "like what"? Woman: "Shoot them off the wires!" Officer(trying to get out gracefully) "I couldn't hit squirrels with my pistol." Woman: "then use your shotgun." Officer, (this is happening in a CITY): "Ma'am, I think the shotgun would do more damage to the wires." Guess what that woman was not happy with the police service she received. Complaint- Citizen calls to complain about an officer. He received a citation for 83/55 and was sure the officer didn't know what he was doing. He explained that there was no way he was going that fast, his cruise control was set on 80 mph.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 5:10:53 PM EDT
You know if this was Glocktalk this thread would of been locked a long time ago.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 5:21:26 PM EDT
no, why?
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 6:06:26 PM EDT
The real problems with tactical teams have more to do with crime rates vs funding (which effects training. A city of 10-20,000 probably does not need a SWAT team. They usually do not have the crime rate or incidence of high-risk situations to justify a SWAT team. A city of 30-50,000 may need a SWAT team, depending on their crime rate. A city of 50-100,000 probably does need a SWAT team. Even a city with a very low crime rate of that size will have 1-2 hostage rescues, 5-10 barricaded persons, and 5-20 high-risk warrants that can usually only be resolved by tactical unit. Trust me on this one, this is about how it breaks down. At this level, the city starts having significant civil liability if they DON'T have a SWAT team, because suspects, members of the public and officers will get killed and/or injured in situation that could have been resolved without injury by tactical units. Cities over 100,000 almost always need a tactical unit. The problem comes in with funding. To have an adequately trained and equipped team, the municipality needs to have adequate resources. A city of less than 30,000 or so will rarely have the tax base to support this. I am not just talking about money for high-speed weapons and armor. A city that size may only have a few officers on the street at any time. To take officers off the streets for training cost a lot of overtime, which the small communities can not afford. To make matters worse, there are communities under the 30K population threshold that need a SWAT team, based on their crime rates. Unfortunately, those cities usually have diminished tax bases (usually a direct link to the high crime rates) and can not afford the expense of having a decently trained and equipped team. Conversely, the larger cities that can afford good teams probably have less use for them than those that cannot afford to train and equip one properly. Regional teams are one of the solutions to this conundrum.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 6:07:00 PM EDT
As far as the "militarization" of police forces, with regards to SWAT teams, actually, the reverse is true. While SWAT teams may use military styled equipment, and have a disciplined, methodical approach to tactical problems, that does not mean that they develop a "military mindset," as some here believe. Police officers on a SWAT team still adhere to strict use of force policies, and SWAT teams in this country have spearheaded the use of less-lethal and non-lethal weaponry. This has influenced the military. During the evacuation of Somalia, for example, a US Marine Corps reservist was recalled to active duty to train the Marine unit that was going in to evacuate the last UN units. He was recalled because he was a Law Enforcement expert in less-lethal tactics and munitions (from LA County SO). The militarization is actually working in reverse; US Military units are learning how to apply less force and not hurt innocent bystanders from the police agencies in this country, who have a lot more real life and day-to-day experience in CQB and tactical operations in urban areas than the military does. There are teams that do stupid things. This is mostly due to a lack of training and leadership. The answers to these problems are the establishment of standards for police tactical units. Many states have already instituted these type of reforms, and there is a push among the national professional organizations for tactical officers to broaden this trend. The bottom line is that the proliferation of these teams is one of the reasons why fewer officers are getting killed each year, and our communities are safer.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 6:07:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Originally Posted By Sparky315: Boy, it sure is a relief to know that there are folks like Garand Shooter to tell us what each of our communities does and does not need in the way of emergency police services! Garand Shooter, do you hire out your expert opinion to counties and cities who are evaluating their needs? If not, you should think about it- the country needs your help!!!!
View Quote
If you can't argue with facts, just be a smart ass...
View Quote
Unless you are confessing to a crime or reporting that you have been victimized you are to keep your trap shut. Civilians should be like children: seen and not heard.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 10:13:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: Unless you are confessing to a crime or reporting that you have been victimized you are to keep your trap shut. Civilians should be like children: seen and not heard.
View Quote
That's right, just let the police do their jobs. If they trample all over your rights and destroy your property and reputation, it's no real big deal, right? Police do some God-awful, horrible things and keep doing them until civilians (who you think should keep their mouths shut) speak out and tell them to get their shit straight (Rodney King anybody?). The Rodney King incident was the straw that broke the camels back in LA. Blacks in that area had legitimate complaints about police brutality that were not being heard because the police and the city believed the "Civlians should be seen and not heard" theory. If we don't tell the police what we want (within reason) and complain when we don't get it, the police will do whatever suits their fancy.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 10:26:45 PM EDT
[b]natez[/b]- are you some kind of public relations officer? [b]CIVILIANS?[/b]-- I Thought this has been covered quite a few times here, civilians include LEO's and their agencies. Unless it is a military organization, it's civilian! I guess the militarizaton thing just flies over peoples heads like wind.
Top Top