Don't presume to patronize me Swatdog.  Please bother me with facts.  I want to read what you have say.  As far as my facts: HISTORY.  Read a book or 2 about police states and then you might have a faint idea of why I will NEVER just cops with military hardware.  You don't need it, you shouldn't have it, period.  You have superior numbers, that should be enough.  And frankly bud, I've seen the kind of piss-poor training my local "Critical Situation Response Team" receives and it is kind of frightening.  

Bottom line here is:  SWAT with [i]good[/i] training can save lives, problem is all too often SWAT is poorly trained.  Example: Waco.   Example: Ruby Ridge.  Example: Lubbock.

Small departments by and large [i]cannot[/i] afford the expense to properly screen and train SWAT officers, thereby making them a hazard to the community.  Furthermore, the department has to justify the expenditure of precious funds by using SWAT more and more frequent when it is probably not necessary.  This puts already inadequately trained officers, armed like soldiers, in situations where fucking up will get people killed.

That is my logic.  Prove it wrong.

I find it ironic, on a site devoted to military style rifles, that a lot of you think that the weapons, equipment people carry effects thier mindset. What if the same standard was used to judge this site??

If there was a true link then none of YOU should have AR's, lbe, alice packs, cammo, or any military style gear.

I don't think anyone here would want those generalizations or stereotypes applied to them so please don't apply it to others.

Having said that I keep saying SWAT, LEO or for that matter the fire dept, EMS or any orginazation or business that deals with life and death issues [b] Should be well trained, led, and supervised [/b]. To get into any organization like that they should be decent, mature, well educated, and commited to their career path. Not to mention that their performance should improve with experience and they should strive to do the job the way they know it should be done.

First: You already have your mind made up about LEO's not needing full-auto weapons so I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.

Second: When someone is trying to shoot you, there's no time to think about him standing trial.  You shoot to stop the suspect from killing you.  Putting a three-round burst into a suspect who is trying to shoot you is just good policy.  You may want to consult BIll Jordan's book, "No Second Place Winner" so that you can get the proper mindset on this.


Third: Sometimes we "Protect and Serve" by "neutralizing" bad guys.  Again, Bill Jordan's book is a good place to start learning about this.  You may also want to consult other writings by Rex Applegate, Jeff Cooper, Charles Askins, and Wyatt Earp.  The ideas I'm expressing are nothing new and they certainly weren't started by SWAT officers.  I don't know how much good it will do because I suspect you have your mind made up about us being the bad guys with an "executioner" mentality.

Fourth: I made no comment about your proposed law because I had no comment to make about it.  If you want to work on getting that law passed then I urge you to write your legislators and get the ball rolling.

But are we ordinary citizens placed in a position of power over other people?  No.  Are we routinely placed in positions where a split second means the difference between life and death?  No.  Does the average citizen have access to FA?  No.  Not a realistic comparison.  I'm starting to think you are really grabbing at straws.

you're both right.  the type of weapon a SWAT member carries in and of itself has little to do with his mindset.

[b]AND[/b] power corrupts.  but they still are citizens, part of a civilian police force as opposed to SS- or NKVD/KGB-type officers.  we actually have much to be thankful for.

I'm a well-educated man with a college degree.  I am also an amateur historian specializing in Texas History and WWII w/ an emphasis on the European theatre.  I'm a member of the NRA and the Texas State Rifle Association.  I know all about the dangers of a police state.  That being said, a SWAT officer with a fully automatic weapon cannot be demonstrated to be any more dangerous than a patrol officer with a pistol, a shotgun, and a 2000 lb patrol car.  It's not the tools that make police states; such Tyrannies are constructed of policy and laws.



In reference to the "logic" you quote at the end of your post, you have yet to support the above listed contentions.  "You don't need it?"  Why not?  Explain.  Secondly, how will superior numbers alone prevent terrorists from executing every hostage they are holding?  How can superior numbers of untrained officers rout a group of 4 bad guys armed to the teeth in a barricaded hostage situation?  Do you propose to advocate a swarm technique a la the Mexican Army at the Alamo?  4000 Mexican soldiers expended a great many men to rout 186 men.  So to recap: Why? and How?  You have yet to provide any logical arguments for these two issues which are the crux of our disagreement.



I've seen this myself in other departments.  There's no excuse for it.  You should contact your local department and request that your officers receive more and better training.



The first two examples were not caused by bad training.  There were many, many errors in both cases including tactical errors in the face of known facts and training, piss poor (criminal in fact) ROE, mismanagement of resources, blurry chain of command, violations of policy and law, etc.  However, no matter what you may think of the alphabet police and Lon Horiuchi, the FBI's HRT is still widely regarded (in both the police and military) as one of the finest tactical units in the US.  Waco and Ruby Ridge were major fuck-ups but it cannot be demonstrated that poor training was behind those debacles.  (Although the training of the US Marshalls and the ATF is suspect in my book after having seen them in action at Mid-South- I kicked their ass on the steel.  Ha!) As for this latest mess in Lubbock, you are probably right but let's wait for the investigators and the Grand Jury to sift through it.

(continued)

Yes, this can and does happen.  When it does, it needs to be dealt with quickly.  There's no place on SWAT for fatbodies or amateurs.



While this may seem to be the natural conclusion, there's no evidence to support this assertion.  In my own department, our Administration is so PC that we are rarely used.  In fact, in my own and other departments Admin. is so scared to use us they allow untrained officers to risk their lives and the lives of suspects by doing dynamic entries and Buy-Busts which SWAT SHOULD be allowed to run but is not due to PR concerns.  So which is better: Have a SWAT team but don't use it because of PC and allow other untrained officers to risk death due to lack of training OR use SWAT where it should be used without regard to PC and media perception?




I hate to tell you this but I have formally studied Logic.  Thus far you have failed to provide any logical statements whatsoever.  Therefore, there are no statements for me to disprove.  Certainly, you have made several assertions but you have provided no logical reasoning or hard evidence to support those assertions.  No offense meant but both of your main assertions are based on emotion and fear of an impending police state rather than hard logic.

A lot of the people here have more access to weapons than I ever will.

I work for a 330 person SO in a county of a little less than 500,000 made up of 1,100 sq miles. My SO handle the jail, patrol, civil paper service, airport, and recreactional patrol. there are appx 700 full and part time officers throughout the county. There are 2 TRT/ERT teams in the county made up of about 40 officers. We also have a 4 person EOD team that is the only team for appx 75 miles in any direction.

Members of both TRT/ERT are part time, meaning the have full time duties as patrol officer, detectives, or jail staff. They train appx 8 hr per month and 2 wks during the fall. I think the call out rate is something like 1 time per month. As far as I know our TRT team has NEVER fired lethal ammo since it was formed 25 years ago(execpt for 1 ND, no one was hurt). Neither has the ERT team (city dept.) Usually the get calles out with the Hostage Negotiation Team HNT. Yes they have used flash bangs and lest than lethal rounds. Nor have they ever entered the wrong address.

As far a I know there is no call to "justify" TRT spending the powers that be feel it is neccesary to have TRT as a force option just like they feel HNT is neccesary.

As far as I know TRT has 2 M16's and 3 MP-5's-post '86 LE/Govt only guns, that they traded for with a 1920-1930 full auto thompson SMG. We also have 2 other old tommies. That is all the weapons TRT owns. Individual officers are allowed to carry approved weapons, no one gets letterhead for auto weapons.

Well as far as grabbing at straws, as many point out police officers are citizens. If you want to restrict their access to weapons you are in effects resctricting CITIZEN's acces to weapons. Yes you have a point I REGULARLY get into situations that may end up in deadly force being used. I  think I should have reasonable equipment for that. Oh, in case you are wondering only 1 deputy currently on the SO has used deadly force as a Deputy. 1 other used deadly force prior to being a Deputy, as a PO. So I think we have a history of responsible weapons use. If you want to judge US judge US by OUR actions.

Fine.  We all need commandos on our police forces to protect us from terrorists (I've never seen any in my neck of the words, but since you're the expert, you must know).  SWAT has never fucked up.  It has never been a danger to police officers or citizens.  Power hungry cops have never slaughtered citizens.  

You are sooo right Swatdog.  Nobody can dare refute anything you say.

Not what I'm saying. Saying SWAT is eveil is like saying guns are evil or cars are sexy. It is how SWAT is used, and they MUST be accountable for thier actions like anyone else.

Refute away, I don't mind debate but I don't like attacks or generalizations.

It depends on who and what you're after.  Sometimes it's safer for the public at large if we take the bad guys down at the house rather than try to get them out somewhere else and risk a gunfight in public.  Also, warrants sometimes are also issued for evidence or fruits of the crime, not just for people.  Dynamic entries aren't done just for the hell of it.  Dynamic entries are done because they have been clearly demonstrated to be safer than other forms of warrant service.  They are safer for the officers and they are safer for the suspects as well.  If they weren't, we wouldn't be doing them.




Not at all.  The above statement is false and incorrect because banning guns cannot be logically demonstrated to save even one child's life.  Having a well-trained SWAT team prepared to handle hostage situations and active shooter situations CAN and HAS been demonstrated to save lives.

(continued)

No, it is not SOP.  We have no disagreement here.



How much is "far too often?"  How many times has this happened in the last year?  Numbers?  Sources?  Documentation?  Is it REALLY "happening far too often" or does it just seem that way?  If anything, this issue is much like school shootings where the media provides greater and more intense coverage than ever before.  Although the average American believes that more kids are being killed in schools than ever before, there are actually less kids being killed since 10 years ago.  Since Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Mena in Denver, there is certainly more media coverage and scrutiny given to SWAT mishaps.  However, SWAT is becoming more professional as time passes.  The SWAT teams of today are much more professional and better-trained than the SWAT of a decade ago.  While I admittedly have no hard numbers at this time, it stands to reason that this growing professionalism should be leading to less mishaps and mistakes; not more.  So in response to your statement about "reactive behavior," maybe it's not police officers who are the ones being "reactive" about this issue.




Again, we have no disagreement here.  This IS SOP where I work and it's SOP for most other departments as well.  That's why SWAT officers must be put through a rigorous selection process which includes at least one or two "acid test" scenarios.  Departments which do not subject SWAT candidates to the proper amount of hell during selection are selling their communities short.

Well...(long pause)....I guess any meaningful discussion between us is over.  If you can't debate me on the issues then I suppose sarcasm will have to suffice.  I won't even begin to address your individual statements above.  I'm truly sorry you decided to bow out of the discussion.  Take care.

Thanks Bro'.  I really do appreciate the thought.  I'd have a beer with you anytime.  If you ever get through the DFW area, email me and maybe we can meet.

i disagree.  safer for the officers, not safer for the suspects.  it's a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality.



yes, it CAN save lives, but how many lives have to be lost to save others?  the ratio should be zero to "_".  there should be no lives lost sincy you're in the business of saving them.  i'm speaking of innocents.  not suspects.

continued...

ONCE is far too often.  multiple times, no matter how many less than successful missions, is far too often.  to use your logic, the woman who lost her husband protecting himself from the no-knock raid by the SWAT teamn is far to often.  i'm sure she'll tell you it wasn't worth it.  or anybody who lost relatives who happened to be in the bad guy's house when SWAT serves the warrant.  SWAT is a useful tool, but if it doesn't work, fix it or stop using it.  i'm not seeing either one happen.

second, those SWAT team member WERE being reactive.  they didn't think and they panicked.  not only did they suck at their job but if they're going to panick at the sound of a single shot, it shouldn't be their job in the first place.  369 rounds.  how many men fired wildly and blindly into that house?  tell me who's being reactive.

I think the public has a perception problem.  Average joe citizen looks at the Military and the police in two different ways.  He see's the military as our mighty, win at all costs, highly trained force, whose goal is to kill people and break things. and with that, casualties are acceptable.
On the other hand, the police has usually been portrayed as the people we look to for help, ranging from a lost dog to shootouts with the bad guys. The idea is, the police are here to protect us from harm and serve our communities when needed.
So basically we have two defined groups with two different goals to accomplish. therein lies the problem.
Swat crosses the line of regular cop and moves very close to a military unit, both in tactics and weapon and gear. Americans are not used to seeing military units conducting "operations" in their neighborhoods and are suspicious of these actions.
The media doesnt help either. Think about it, how often do you hear about a swat operation that went well ?? thats not to say they dont happen, but they get little coverage.  On the other hand, the screw ups get huge airtime, both local and national. I do feelthere is a need for swat units, however, I also think they are being used to often and in situations that really dont warrant their use.
I think the "grey area" between LEO and military is the problem, and thats how we see and perceive them.
rant over
carry on......
[x]

i think we're getting away from the issue and i'm guilty of that too.

correct me if i'm wrong:

those of us opposed in some form to SWAT are not against the JOB SWAT does (for the most part).

we are against the methods SWAT uses to do those jobs.  here's why:  there's a law that prohibits the military from acting against U.S. citizens.  okay.  SWAT, in using military tactics, is bypassing that law.  throwing it out the window.  it's simply the military under a different name.  

if SWAT team members are: trained by military, dress like military, carry military-only weapons, have military support gear, etc, then are they not, in effect, military?  (walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it's a duck) and in using all of this stuff on U.S. citizens, for whatever reason, are they not simply substituting civilian SWAT members for military personnel, in effect.  a rose by any other name is still a rose.  this defeats the whole purpose of the law.

additionally, the use of military tactics, etc. by SWAT is just one step closer to things like SS, NKVD, KGB, or any police state.

therein lies the problem.

I'm sorry to have to say this because it's going to sound rude but here it is:  You simply do not know what you are talking about.  I have been involved in many dynamic entries and I have received training in this skill by some of the finest operators anywhere.  It is NOT a "shoot first, ask questions later" skill.  What kind of training do you have in this area?  What real world expereince have you had in this field?  Have you attended even a basic SWAT school?  

It's a strange situation when those who would not presume to criticize the work of a short order cook are all too ready to question SWAT tactics and claim knowledge of skills they themselves do not have.





Yes, we should always strive for zero defects.  There's no doubt that the ratio should be zero to whatever.  However, this is a practical impossibility when human beings are involved in the equation.  Mistakes will happen.  People on both sides will be hurt.  Police work is inherently dangerous.  We always strive for perfection and excellence.  We strive to minimize the risks as much as possible.  Neverthless, risk will always remain. Risk is a constant in this business; especially when dealing with bad guys.  There's just no getting around that no matter what path you decide to take.

Been sitting here reading all the posts on this subject and been thinking how to best respond.

swatdog is absolutely correct on who is going to go in and stop the bad guys when it's your wife and child on the end of bad guys gun?  Who do you want to enter a room full of innocents and a couple of bad guys and have the training and dicipline to take the shot and make it count?  Do you want a patrol officer who on the average shoots his duty weapon, once a year for qualifications or do you want someone who has spent hours and hours on a range every month practicing shoot or don't shoot situations?  Do you want someone who is so dedicated to this field that they volunteer their time and assets or do you want someone who can barely clear their holsters?

You got to decide, you can't sit on the fence?  Let's look at another situation?  An active shooter in a school who takes hostages.  Do you want officers who have no training in proper entry techniques, pinpoint shooting, proper take down and arrest procedures, advanced first aid; to go in and attempt to rescue your child?

We are not the military but the military has some of the absolute best trained people in world.  We wear the uniforms for many reasons but mainly because they are functional and won't light up like match, not unlike the typical polyester uniforms worn by patrol.  Things happen, Lubbock is a tragedy but that aside they have a very good and professional team, that probably suffered from an administrative problem, like most of us suffer from.

It kinda really gets to me when you have people who sit on the sidelines who bitch and moan but have no clue what these guys do.  Most of us do it because of our intense passion for this speciality.  I know many of these type of men/women and most of them are quite professionals who do this because it is just an extension of the protect and serve saying.  

Our crime is growing and getting more sophisticated, so we as police officers and departments, must grow to meet the threats of our society or it will devour us.  The criminals are keeping up with technology, why shouldn't we?  We must be able to take the fight to the bad guys and the only way we can is if; we train harder, longer, bleed more in training, shoot better, run better and communicate better.

I will ask you again, it's your daughter in a school with bad people.  Who do you want?  An under equipped, under trained patrol officer or a highly trained, highly devoted, highly dedicated SWAT trained officer, who knows the risks and are willing to do what it takes to make sure your precious little daughter or son comes home?  

Decide, you can't sit on the fence...........
time is ticking away...........

ps-
Take sometime, go and talk to the SWAT team, watch them train, see what their lives are like and what they are putting on the line for all us.  Walk a mile in their shoes, I bet you will see they are not to differant from yourself!

i refer you to the links in Garand Shooters post.  maybe not all have a "shoot first" mentality, but it's obvious that some do.  and that's too many in this business.

as far as criticizing the cook, i'm not worried about that cook no-knocking my residence in the middle of the night and shooting me because i grab my gun to protect myself from the intruder.  i am worried about SWAT doing that.



yeah, inherently dangerous to innocent people.



just one question:  how many innocent lives have to be taken to warrant saving that one life?

please read my post above if you haven't.  we're starting to split hairs on the issue and getting away from the bigger picture.

As I have already stated, the big difference is that SWAT operates under extreme scrutiny and legal restraints.  SWAT must abide by civilian law and all operations are to comply with State law, local law, and department policy.  If someone is hurt, people are suspended pending the outcome of a Grand Jury investigation.  There is both departmental and citizen review of mishaps.  The military has nothing like this.  In fact, in Danny Coulsen's book, "No Heroes," Charlie Beckwith (the founder of Delta Force) was shocked and appalled at the amount of legal constraints and accountability his team would be under if ever they had to act on American soil.  SWAT is NOT the military no matter how much you or other critics claim that it is.  The claim that SWAT is somehow a version of the military is completely false.  The military simply does not have the constraints and legal accountability that SWAT operates under.  It really is just that simple.  Trust me on this:  If we WERE the military, we would just call in an airstrike on the target and be done with it.  If we WERE the military, we'd just assasinate the bad guys on every operation and be done with it.  If we WERE the military, we wouldn't be required to get a judge's permission to enter a house to get a bad guy...we'd just go do it.  But since we ARE NOT the military, none of this happens.  I hope you can understand the difference.

Any of you find it odd that many of the members here are totally against civilian law enforcement arming themselves with subguns/M-16's, dressing up like ninjas, and utilizing military type tactics when many of us on this board are organized in the same type things.

Most of us here own AR's, HK's, AK's etc.. Every night we sit here and talk about such things as self protection and rights and wrongs.
We talk about the latest tactics and training and equipment. Many of us are better equipped than most police departments and some military units.

Take a look at what kind of damage YOU could do if YOU went "bad". What kind of person or team would it take to resolve such a situation? Do you think the average street police officer is capable of handling such and incident armed with his trusty Glock 22?

I agree with most of you that a lot of these departments are becoming carried away with creating SWAT type teams and arming them to the teeth without giving them the required training. It makes me sick flipping on the news and seeing five over weight, over worked "individuals" dressed in the latest ballistic nylon armed with an UMP with every accessory bolted to the gun trying to work as a "team" in a SWAT operation. But, there is a NEED for SWAT type teams. I just think they should be a lot better regulated.

If you want to role play, grab your SIG, Glock or HK pistol and come over to my house. "DONT BOTHER TALKIN, CAUSE I AINT COMIN OUT!!!"

Now what?

SWAT teams are like women. cant live with'em, cant live without'em. [:D]

seriously though, the post on this topic are some of the most intelligent i've seen to date. even i have mixed feeling here.

i dont see how SWAT could threaten American sovereignty under posse commitatus law. if a SWAT team tried to subjugate the populace they would be wiped out despite their training. SWAT teams are small...too small to pose any real "threat". i'd think this is different then a military with vast resources. such as tanks, gunships, APC's and the like. boy talk about an us vs them mentality!! i agree with swatdog and garand_shooter. this is not a simple issue to weigh because of some of the SWAT members attitude.

here are a few suggestion that may help remedy the situation:

1. have each state build a SWAT academy. this way all swat teams who serve in their own state receive the same traing. kind of like state police.

2. use only a merit based system. the good'ol boy system would probably be hampered by using a state based SWAT academy.

3. make the nomex suits that SWAT members wear the same color as the state police (unless its too light) this would help civilians recognize the ninja looking people to be police officers. the S W A T written letter in white across their back wount help someone who is looking at them from the front

i personally believe that SWAT teams should be local (state) and not federal when dealing with internal conflict. i know the HRT team is well trained, but they are federal. the constitution does'nt even grant the FBI powers to exist on the federal level. i however do realize the FBI serves a valued role in stopping crimes across state line and would oppose its disolution.

by keeping the SWAT teams local and not federal, this would help defray the political factor.

SWATTED lib [:)]

I respect your opinion Swatdog, but I don't feel that I can debate a person who has no respect for mine.  My position is based on fear.  To not fear events like Lubbock, Ruby Ridge, and Waco (just to name a few) is insane.  SWAT went bad on all those occasions.  You commented that FBI HRT is the best tactical team out there, what does it say when they fuck up?  It says that they are dangerous.  If it can happen to the best out there, surely the worst will FU in a bigger way and more frequently.

You also claimed that I don't use logic.  Personal attack, thank you.  I did use logic, I gave examples supporting my opinion that SWAT is dangerous that you conviently ignored.

Debate with you is futile.  You say that we are not worth giving facts to, but attack us when we don't use facts, that is the stench of hypocrisy.

I bow out of any further discussion with you, because you are unwilling to concede anything.  I have conceded that a well trained and led SWAT team can save lives.  You simply refuse to believe that the majority of SWAT teams out there simply don't have the funding to do either.

The real reason we don't need swat is the infrequency of situations that really warrant their use. If you get rid of the drug war (AS WE MUST) and we are not raiding houses for un-constitutional purposes (AKA gun laws, tax laws) then all we are left with is the VERY infrequent situations of multiple heavily armed, armored, and trained bad guys, which to be honest damn near don't exist. Then and only then would a swat team be useful, but NOT required. Any PD worth its salt should have some snipers and AR's in the trunks. THE INCREDIBLE COST OF SWAT both in civilian lives\freedom and MONEY is ridiculous. All that money out of the pockets of the locals to protect us from whom? Gangs? THE DREADED DRUGDEALER? Or these mythical, trained, armored, mercenaries of death, out to take down my house and kill my family for no reason. If these guys do show up I can use the money I saved in not paying for SWAT and dispatch them with my laser guided, turret mounted, GE Mini-gun.

PS: I don't hate swat members, I'm sure most are well intentioned.

Hello Einz. Glad to see everyone has managed to keep this topic on the facts (mostly). As for Einz and him being baracaded in his house, good now I know where you are, ever notice how quiet, dark, cold, hot, uncomfortable ect. it gets when your water/ gas/ electric gets turned off ? It's kind of like that old song "time is on my side" I have the patience of a saint and more games than parker brothers. For everyone eltse I have decided to compile a list of the weapons an operator can find himself facing and those a SWAT team member can expect to see.

SWAT:
Pistols (various)
Rifles (various)
Improvised munitions (pipe bomb)
Operator:                        
Pistols (various)                
Rifles (various)            
Belt fed MG
Improvised munitions (C-4 ect.)  
Grenades (various)
Mines (AP/AT/directional frag/bounding AP)
Rocket/rifle propelled grenades
Automatic Cannon (20mm and greater)
Mortars (various caliber/payload)
Artillery (various caliber/payload)
Armored vehicles (all with their own sets of goodies)
and so on and so on and so on.

I have also enjoyed swatdogs view on things but he does tend to digress into the emotional side of things i.e. what if it was your wife/child/cat/goldfish ect. BTW I understand you're from Texas Go Lance! And I have also enjoyed arladys counter points (never fight with anything that bleeds once a month and dosen't die). And garand man for starting this thread and keeping it above board (for the most part) and for all of the members reading this stuff for not slinging mud. and and and (I love that word)

Semper Fi
oh yeah what gunplay said !
                                               

Okay, I guess I'll weigh in here too, having some experience on the dynamic entry end of things (not law enforcement, rather policy enforcement).

SWAT operators should be highly trained, dedicated individuals with a team mentality.  Most are.  But the problem rests in the fact that most departments have a part-time team that doesn't train enough together.  Training is the way you prevent accidents and perfect your skills.  Skills needed in performing dynamic operations (not just dyanmic entries) are very perishable as Garand Shooter mentioned.  Unless you train constantly, you can't keep up that level of skill you need to perform at your peak (and after a while, I gotta say, that training can get old).  I will give you that yes, there are some bad operators out there, but 99% are not.  SWAT's not like the military where we can just boot somebody that isn't cutting the mustard.  There are politics involved because it's a civilian agency.

Now, for those who bash SWAT and think that it's a "shoot first" thing.  You are completely wrong (just like thinking civilians that have a gun and some web gear are "operators").   Swatdog is dead-on when he describes the selection process.  I know military operators that went to LE and couldn't get on the tactical team precicely [i]because[/i] of their SF experience.  I've trained with SWAT guys and the ones I've worked with were humble and knew their capabilities.  In fact, if you look at the op tempo of a major metro unit (Miami, Houston, LA) it far outpaces any military unit.  Given that tempo, the error rate is actually very very low.  The reason military units train with SWAT guys is to learn from them in most cases.

Most SWAT dynamic entry techniques are designed NOT to kill, but to stun bad guys so they can be taken down without a loss of life.  Anyone who believes otherwise is probably related to Dale Gribble.  Fostering some kind of fantasy-land "us-versus-them" mentality is just stupid.

So, yes, I think SWAT provides a valuable service (especially if my family needs them when I'm away).  Swatdog, keep up the good work.

-SARguy

Without splitting hairs, could we not put Ruby Ridge and Waco in the same topic as the state and local agency teams?

My reasons are those were totally screwed up missions that should have never occurred and they were botched at the Federal level.

I take it some what personal if anyone compares the local agency teams to the likes of the ATF.  We all know that these guys were originally formed for regulatory purposes only not enforcement all the way to what they are today.

To address the issue of state level training.  Here in TX and like other places, we have a professional organization that is raising the bar to a much higher standard.  This organization is attempting to say, "hey this is the industry standard.  We will no longer get our training from places that put on schools/training by people who have never been on a team or teach such a lousy school that it truly puts the team in danger to use what they were taught. Get on board with the standard or get off!"

Check out www.ttpoa.org

Many other states have associations that are very active in raising the industry standard.  There is even a National organization that is there for those who don't have a state wide one or is helping out to help improve the state level associations.  The training is there but like most things cost money and if your team budget gets axed because of the bean counters (like my agency/team) then you got a problem.  

Anybody feel like being benevolent, we are looking for some much appreciated assistance...[:D]

went to bed last night and didn't get a chance to respond to this.  so here goes.

i must confess to arguing two different issues (the particulars fo the lubbock incident and the generalities of the usage of SWAT) at once which would explain the misunderstanding you have that i am arguing that the whole SWAT picture is a "shoot first" mentality.  

let me clarify.  do i?  no.  not in theory.  i don't believe that SWAT members are trained to shoot first.  however, i do believe that the SWAT members in lubbock had that mentality.  how else do you explain 369 bullets being fired without the suspect so much as firing a single one?

and as Garand Shooter has illustrated, it definitely seems to be the mentality of many SWAT teams throughout the country.

so to recap.  do i believe SWAT is a "shoot first, ask questions later" organization?  no.  do i believe that MANY members of SWAT teams have this?  yes.  i'm sorry my argument confused you.

continued.  darn that 3500 character limit!



i don't need to be a short order cook to know that my food isn't done properly.  i don't need to be in customer service to know that someone has lousy people skills and gives rotten customer service.  i don't need to be a police officer to know that you don't approach a vehicle you've stopped like your grandmother's the driver, old, sweet and harmelss.  and i don't need to be a SWAT member to know that the job isn't being done right and innocent people are dying because of it.

i don't believe that SWAT [b]is[/b] the military.  i believe that SWAT is getting to do things the military can't simply because it's made up of civilians.  there's little to no difference in training, tactics, and, in many SWAT members it seems, mindset.  and i think that allowing SWAT to do what the military can't is skirting a law enacted to protect civilians.  and it's obvious why that law was enacted when you look at lubbock and the other debacles.

i am opposed to the connections between SWAT and military because the line is a fine one and very easily crossed or erased completely.  you say there's a system of checks on SWAT members.  THANK GOD.  it's there...for now.  however, don't police have some level of immunity (for lack of a better word) in doing their job?  what happens when that immunity gets extended to cover the actions of SWAT members?  what happens when they won't be held accountable for their actions because it was all in the line of duty and "we can't shackle their ability to do their job by punishing them every time they do something wrong?  you see, then they might start thinking about things other than their jobs, like how to do their job within the legal constraints of the state."

if it's my family in their, i damn sure want those SWAT members thinking about their legal constraints.  i don't want 369 bullets sprayed wildly into a building where my family is held hostage.

LOL!!!!  i'm gonna take that as a compliment.  [:)]

Swatdog,

 You are seriously misinformed if you think the military has more restrictive ROE than most U.S. cops during various LIC operations.  I have never been a cop (though dated a LASO dep. for a short while) though I have few hundred thousand rounds of door kicking practice, worked with local SWAT type units on various TRUEX (and similar exercises), and had the "pleasure" of  those folks HQ N. of El Paso.

 How many SWAT teams snipers get charged for killing, on film (both USMC and some press), a pregnant female who is readying a RPG to shoot your position?  Somalia a Marine Sgt. was court-martialed for just this.  The aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone and during Allied Farce were not allowed to return fire and the AAA/SAM fire was deemed ineffective.  How many troopers are fired upon in the Balkans but not allowed to return fire?  The embassies in various African countries taking fire from observed individuals but Marines not allowed to return?

 The usual scenario during a TRUEX is for the civilian law enforcement to be shocked at the restrictive overseas ROE (every time in my experience but a few report otherwise).  The civilian organizations like the reduced crime around the hit site and want more active participation of the military, generally a no-go.  

 I have ridden along as an observer on a couple of high risk, bad neighborhood dynamic entries with different civilian organizations.  Completely different standards of what is high risk and threatening.  No need for real security, etc.  Now this might bring complacency and if a SWAT unit ever has to engage a real high threat with real security in a hostile environment it will probably suffer for it.  Early-Chow-Recruit is in the correct direction with additions of having to get in and out of a hostile environment.

 SARguy somewhat misses the mark on the call-out rates.  More uses reduce the time to train and bring on a sense of complacency.  As SARguy is probably well aware pilots fly more enforcing the various no-fly zones fly more than in CONUS but their skills and senses have been dulled.  They’re not as ready for the real serious threats.

 There are more differences.  Most mil. units will use an explosive entry if able and most civilian organizations use dynamic entry.  

 Who had the most restrictive ROE during the LA riots?

 One of the best observations was from a green beanie buddy "The cops should go in pre-wired to not shoot and need an excuse to shoot, we need to be pre-wired to shoot and find an excuse to not shoot."

BeeKeep: I think those are 5"  heeled pumps.  They hold like a Railroad Spike!![;)]

Well, I've tried to stay out of these COP forums for the most part, but this one really is becoming a battle.  I'm not going to rant  from behind my computer about something in which I have absolutely no experience(Like some individuals on this thread).  No, reading about SWAT activity in the newspaper does not count as experience.

My conclusion, regarding the opinions expressed here and in the constant cop bashing posts that plague this forum, is that these people are either jealous, criminals themselves, or just enjoy being hypercritical of other's professions.


That is all....Oh, and SWATDOG FOR PRESIDENT!!!

Why???  Because common sense is a great quality, and if you gonna talk the talk, better have walked the walk.

FOFG brings up a great point.  The high op-temos I'm talking about are with major metro depts, not the 95% that make up the PT teams.  It's the PT teams that train 2 hrs a month that is where you get the problem.  I think the mentality is that dressing up and standing on the firing line is training.  It isn't.  It costs money to train and sadly, most depts want to say they have a team but won't dedicate the funds to do it right.  Garand is correct too about the "us vs them" going both ways.  Although the majority of officers I know don't feel this way.  Sadly, it's the loudmouth critics on both sides that often gets heard and gives the bad name.

As a matter of terminology, explosive entry is dynamic entry.  Clearing by fire is a last resort when your intel knows for sure you only have hostile threats.  Explosive entries are not designed to kill anyone, they are designed to get in.  Flashbangs are for stunning.

Good call as well on the permissive environment SWAT generally operates in.  But good perimeter security is still an absolute must in SWAT operations to keep the bad guys from getting in or out while the entry team does its thing.

Take care guys (and gals),

-SARguy

SwatDog,

This post is kind of similar to the one by Garand-Shooter.  No knock raids scare me big time.

If I hear a break in, I don't know it is the police.  I do know that I have done nothing wrong so I assume crooks.  Thus I pick a weapon to defend myself while the wife tries to get a hold of 911 on the cell phone.

Now, exactly what Garand shooter mentioned happens.  Your team enters the bedroom and sees a man with a gun pointed at them.  I figure this where I take the 3 round burst and am put out of your misery.  Hopefully, you won't kill the wife as she tries to defend her dying husband.  But since I know her, you will probably have to shoot her to.

After the tensions die down, your team realizes, oops wrong house.

2 dead innocent people.  What is the disciplinary action that would be taken by your team?  Would it just be a reprimand, or would people get fired?


I design jet engine parts.  If one of parts fails because I did not do my job, (design, planning, manufacture) people may die.  If I screw up to the point where people do die, my career would be over and I would be fired for incompetence immediately.

No, your job is also a life and death situation in which people can easily be killed.  Obviously alot of planning goes into your operations.  But do you know who to expect inside?  Do you have photos of the target?

It would seem to me that hitting the wrong house is completely unacceptable.  Especailly when it results in the death of innocent people.  So if your team hit the wrong house, would whoever planned the mission, or said this house be fired?  

Does your department announce that you are the police before you break in?

I do believe swat has a place in law enforcement.  However, I don't think no-knock raids are acceptable for the reasons mentioned above.  While a no-knock provides an advantage to the police officers.  (maybe, bad guys are going to arm up whether they now it's police or not)  It provides a deadly dissadvantage to the average Joe Schmoe who won't shoot at police and probably will NOT arm himself is a SWAT team coming in.  Be he WILL if he thinks it's a crook here to rape is wife and daughters.  So what is your departments policy on No-knock raids?

And when things go horribly wrong at the fault of the team, how are they punished?