Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 12/8/2001 5:18:46 AM EST
I posted this in a thread that got locked: "A question: Is the report of the SWAT team's ineptness established fact, or is it a report from the same biased media who reported 35 people shot yesterday in error? One minute the media has the shooter using "assault weapons", "shooting 35 people", etc etc and you can see through the story by checking out the facts. Heck- read some of the ranting posts about that on this board. I see no evidence that the "facts" were checked out here. If they were, please enlighten me. Or is this a case of media sensationalism? Thanks to whomever has the facts and can post them." SUPRISE SUPRISE- no answer. I find it quite interesting that the very same people who post volumes against the police from a news account will be up in arms over the media use of poor weapon terminology. In this case the exact same media who totally screwed up the # of people shot, the weaponry involved, etc are given total reliability in some other story.... Suspicious or stupid? I quite early in my membership here came to the conclusion that no facts posted will be taken seriously, so I rarely do post anything. Perhaps this board will raise the bar. Comments welcome.
Link Posted: 12/8/2001 5:34:46 AM EST
First off This is not meant as an insult just a guess from what I personally have observed. Yes the media does get the facts wrong on just about everything. As for the SWAT teams ineptness about the only time I see the SWAT teams on the news is when the screw the pooch. Not saying this is anormal thing for SWAT teams but a Cop doing their job is not news. A Cop or anyone else screwing up IS news. With that said alot of people here go by available info not neccesarily the whole truth. If a SWAT team saves 100 hostages and an Hour later serves awarrent on the wrong house which one will make the news? Does the Good of the one Negate the bad of the other? Just a couple of thoughts. AdTechArms
Link Posted: 12/8/2001 5:47:48 AM EST
No insult taken at all!! Relax on that score. I honestly think if the swat team screws up they should be taken to task- at a bare minimum (no one hurt) the policy and procedures should be reviewed and fixed to prevent this. But my point was that certain people believe the media hook, line and sinker on anti-cop stuff but these same people get real upset when they catch the media with wrong data or distorting information. The police and media will never have a great relationship- when we do our jobs well they hear noting until the end. It is called protecting the integrity of the case. It is the media's job to get a story and get viewers. These things clash. Sometimes they work together (missing child reports), but mainly it is an antogonistic relationship. This affects the "objectivity" of the media. All IMHO.
Link Posted: 12/8/2001 5:51:19 AM EST
Consider this: Most people posting here (including me) have have already made up their minds about whatever they're saying. Few *real* questions ever get asked, at least on the GD forum. Plus, I really don't think the cop bashers have the ability to think critically about what they're saying. For example, changing social conditions have created the kind of police we have now... good and bad. Would SWAT have been created if normal policing had been enough? I don't think so. It was a reaction to changing times and a changing need in law enforcement. Maybe there are some abuses, but as stated above- it works the vast majority of time, IMO. I trust and believe in LE, but am not naive enough to think it works 100%, all the time. Nothing does. Keep up the *good* work, people!
Link Posted: 12/8/2001 2:53:25 PM EST
Media plays a large part in this. Just like gun owners, they are only shown where something goes wrong. As for arguments here, most people have already made up there mind, so arguing is pointless. Also, nobody actually READS and COMPREHENDS what is being posted, and just gets angry and jumps to conclusions. My problems with SWAT teams are that they aren't used in the proper situations. They(or rather the brass have them) execute no-knock searches where nobody is in danger and raise the bar for accidents and shootings, but then stay back when people ARE in danger and don't do a thing. Like I said, it is there bosses not them who do it. Thank the liberals for that. I'm sure they are good men, but they are being used for the wrong reasons. MHO
Link Posted: 12/8/2001 4:41:02 PM EST
Liberty- can't argue with you on the misuse. It has happened and will happen again. I have never experienced that, but I have heard of it too many times. That, IMHO, is a political thing -show you are the boss/in charge/whatever and if you got them-use them. On the flip side- I have been present when they were not going to be used due to the road supervisor having an axe to grind. True story- a man is making threatening phone calls to his hospital up the road and says he has an AK-47 and will be using it on them. Local records indicate he does own the weapon. No phone contact with him- phoine is now "dead" according to the phone company (sounds like a bad day already huh?) The road supervisor, in an effort not to use swat, tells one of the patrol guys to go up to the door and knock to see if he will come out. The first cop, being a little salty, says F@#$ no! The rookie near him hears this and is hesitant. The old salt tells the supervisor - This is a high risk callout-liabilty-, etc etc and he caves in and swat is called out. Later on (if interested) the guy answers bullhorns and gives up without incident. Its true because it happend to me. FWIW- Columbine was a wake up call to LE. Not for what you think though. The administrators used to wait and wait and wait and to hell with the conditions of people inside unless you had a verified immediate emergency. Why- lawyers, deep pockets and liability. Now- if there is a need to go in quickly-you should do it and to hell with your lawyer. Lives are more important than money. The public now supports that and the lawyer scum (but there are some good ones) recognize that, so the wait them out thing is going out the window in certain situations. Usually now the get rich lawyer scheme is to scream racial type violations. Just my opinion- hope you aren't bored with my long winded response
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 8:12:19 AM EST
Mike-T, From my point of view, I think SWAT type teams could come a long way by simply exercising some caution in the way they deal with the public WHILE NOT IN A GUNFIGHT. I personally have been pushed to confrontation by a highly verbal, new member of a local SWAT team. The comment was "we know you have guns, so if we were told to take down your house, we'd come in shooting" My response was, "why would you come to my house, I am not a criminal?" To which, he replied... "you just don't worry about that, if we decide to come in your house, you best just get outta the way." Until the unlikely event someone off-sets that action, why would someone in my shoes feel the need to treat SWAT with a fair hand? Granted, this is one young man, and most likely, he is a stark contrast to the majority of SWAT team members, who take the whole US Constitution, law thing seriously... but that one renegade with his willingness to wipe his shoes with my rights... that did a whole lot of hurt to the SWAT cause... at least in my mind..
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 8:46:09 AM EST
Ugh. That guy should have put his brain in gear before his mouth.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 9:11:16 AM EST
medicjim, As you indicated, you had a [b]confrontation[/b] with an individual. When a contact between an officer and a civilian degenerates into a confrontation, responsibility for the confrontation is often shared equally. Every agency I'm aware of has procedures for dealing with issues between it's officers and the public. If you have a problem with that officer, you should take it up with his superiors rather than painting a whole group with a broad brush and calling their integrity, ability and dedication to service into question.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 9:25:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/10/2001 9:23:51 AM EST by medicjim]
Dave G - agree with you 100%. The confrontation was not the issue, what was at issue is the fact that someone with that type of mindset was allowed into an SWAT team. SWAT requires superior intellect, motivation and accountability...they must be super-men, at least in my mind. My comments were meant to lend insight, not question integrity...
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 10:07:30 AM EST
medicjim, The problem is that this forum is supposed to be a place for officers to exchange ideas, experience and knowledge with each other and to provide a forum for positive communication between law enforcement and non-sworn folks who wish to engage in civil discussion of law enforcement issues. It absolutely is not going to become a clearinghouse for complaints against individual officers, groups of officers or law enforcement as a whole. I haven't seen anything on this thread that wasn't covered in one form or another on the original thread on GD that was locked. Therefore, this one ends here.
Top Top