SHOOTING is not part of "break and rake"! It involves taking a hooligan tool or such and breaking the glass of a window, raking the remaining shards from the frame so you don't get cut on entry, and pulling out any blinds, curtains, etc. so you can see inside.

My take on this is that some one had an ND while the break and rake was being conducted, and everyone got excited and didn't want to miss the shooting. Note: not one officer had a TARGET! They were blindly firing into a building. End result: dead cop. At least no innocent civilians were killed. Piss poor training, along with being too eager to kill contributed to this. Controlled aggression is the trademark of a professional.

I disagree strongly with law enforcement officers wearing military style uniforms and carrying military style weapons and using military tactics. The use of these items in a civil situation noticeably changes the mindset of an individual as well as a group (anyone dealing with SWAT types will be hard pressed to disagree). Adding further to an us vs. them mentality is the continuous training ventures between the police and the military. These training missions do more harm than good to the cause of civilian law enforcement by reinforcing a combative mentality (this mindset can be seen in the various web pages of their departments). It is IMHO that if an agency feels that they need this capability they should take a serious look at themselves first. No one fights harder for a program than a man protecting his ego and paycheck.

AGREED 100%

i used to argue with boyfriend that SWAT in and of itself was guiltless, much as guns are.  it was no/poor/bad training and nincompoops (sorry Garand_Shooter, had to call names here) that destroyed the integrity of SWAT missions.  i mean, afterall, those bad guys can be dangerous, right?

but after more and more episodes of what just happened, i began to seriously rethink that kind of thing.  sure, i still believe that SWAT in and of itself is guiltless.  but i think it goes against the very grain of a CIVILIAN police force.  SWAT belongs in the military since it employs just about everything military: outfittings, gear, weapons, tactics, you name it.  and since we can't have our military performing police duties, by default, SWAT is a no-no for civilian police departments.

it's bad enough for cops when the bad guy gets arrested and blames the cop.  at least we know who was right and who was wrong.  but SWAT crosses that line or erases it completely.  it's no wonder that LEOs are getting bashed.  

Very well said.

The "break and rake" in this incident was supposed to be a preliminary step; they were opening a window so they could introduce tear gas into the house. Break & rake is just what others here have described, and it only entails firing a weapon at a clear defined threat that can only be stopped with deadly force.

The real story on this, as I have heard it from various sources so far is:

1). A guy got into a series of disturbances with his wife. The first was a verbal only argument and was handled by patrol officers.

2). The guy got into a major row with his wife, committing an assault and she left. He indicated to her that he was suicidal. He also took a bunch of their furniture into the front yard and set it on fire.

3). Patrol officers came back. He refused to come out. They also learned that he had a large collection of firearms in the house. They backed off and SWAT and negotiators responded.

4). Negotiations don't seem to be working, and the negotiators fear that the subject is about to kill himself. The on-scene commander authorizes SWAT to introduce gas into the house to get the subject to come out, using the "break & rake."

5). During the maneuver, someone on the SWAT team has a negligent discharge and strikes a SWAT officer in the head, just under the brim of his helmet. He is killed immediately. Thinking they are under fire from the house, the other SWAT officers lay down heavy suppressive fire into the house. The subject is wounded by the fire.

6). The SWAT officers near the house run out of ammo, or nearly so, and they are evacuated along with the dead officer by other SWAT officers.

7). The subject in the house gives up about two hours later after gas is finally introduced into the house.

Most of that is pretty standard, except for #s 5 & 6, and probably happens in Lubbock or any other city of the same size a few times a month, if not more frequently. The original negligent discharge is bad, but may be more of one of those senseless tragedy things. I have big problems with the rest of the team firing weapons into a house without clear targets that represent a threat. That is not any kind of valid SWAT tactic. Quite the opposite. Normal SWAT tactics stress extreme fire discipline. Weapons are only discharged at a known, visible threat that can only be stopped by deadly force. What happened here indicates a lack of training and discipline, and probably outright panic after the officer was killed.

You have to remember that the best people don't always get picked for the SWAT team. Being such a high profile and "cool" job, politics has a big part in selection. In a city near me I have a good friend who is a decorated vet who served almost all his time in SOCOM, and a level headed guy. Last time his department had SWAT tryouts, this fat, donut eating MOFO with no tactical knowledge got picked over him. Why? Because the other guy was better buddies with the higher ups and a "yes" man.

The problem is natez, that very few departments maintain a high level of training and discipline in their SWAT officers when the budget starts to get tight.  As the budget gets tighter and less experienced, poorly disciplined officers are becoming members of SWAT the department begins using it more to justify the expense.  Incidents like these are not commonplace, yet, but they are becoming more and more frequent because of the proliferation of SWAT teams.  Every cop wants to have "high-speed, low-drag, way-cool" stuff.  I've heard many times that guys who join SWAT are "quiet professionals" who have only a desire to serve the community.  I'm not convinced.  I believe it is far more likely that they want to be a member of what is best described as cop commandos so they can have bragging rights and cool guns.  Most of them eventually come to realize what kind of responsibility they have and [i]become[/i] "quiet professionals."  

SWAT is still dangerous, as exhibited by the incident in Lubbock.  Furthermore, we can see from the North Hollywood bank robbery that SWAT will most likely not be there when [b]truly[/b] needed.  I simply cannot justify such a huge expenditure of money for what is a (in my view) a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and will most likely never be needed in all but the largest cities.

As seen with any specialized group of operators who built their unit from savy individuals who are known for thinking "outsidethe box" these units are soon infiltrated by two dimensional individuals who water down the efectiveness of the team and jeporadize the integrity of all decisions made both under duress and in day to day matters. Most recently we are reaping the benefits of these second generation "operators". Also I'm extremely wary of anyone who tries to inundate a conversation with words like tactical, individual, legitimate target ect. this all sounds like an impromptu snow job.

I agree that SWAT guys shouldn't be trained with Mil.  They are usually trained for things with extreme fire discipline, so the officer killed is a sad example of a screw up.

As for the original idea of Break and Rake by Garand Shooter, that is not usually done by SWAT.  More likely to be employed as Brake and Rake by the local hoods.

The guys already posted this but "stressed to fire only at defined targets of threat".

Sorry to hear about the panic and officer down,
Ice

Don't forget the tactic of clearing by fire.  [heavy]

If we pay money for a SWAT team, they have to do something to justify their existence.  SWAT could be on the chopping block at the next budget meeting.
.
$$$$$$ vs. SWAT
.
For the simple folks out there:
Military-Kill people.
Police-Help people.  

Exactly.  The guy was posing no serious danger to anyone but himself - and even then, if he was serious he could have done something before anyone got there.  It would seem logical to turn off the utilities, surround the place and wait until he gets thirsty/tired/whatever.  Maybe get a relative/friend/NRA rep to talk with him.  While on the topic of police use of firearms, why is it that basic safety rules like 'don't point a gun at someone you don't intend to shoot' and 'finger out of the triggerguard until on target' aren't universal practices in the civilian police environment?  After all, those safety rules are there for a very good reason - they prevent an oops from becoming a death.

There is another conundrum with SWAT operations. Sometimes, the more active trains are less trained than less active ones. Teams that work in bigger cities, with several call-outs and missions a week, often do not have time to train as much as teams that have less operational activity. I do not know if that is the case with Lubbock or not, but it can cut into effectiveness.

As far as initiating force against a suicidal subject, that is the last option, because obviously it can cause a hesitant person to commit suicide. When it becomes clear to the commanders at these scenes that the person is going to commit suicide, then action is usually taken, with the goal of preserving the life of the suicidal person. In this case, they attempted to use chemical agents, which are pretty low on your use-of-force scales.

As far as letting the person kill themselves, that is not an option. A person who is suicidal (under most circumstances, barring things like terminal illness) is someone who generally suffers from a medical problem, their mental illness, that renders them incapable of making rational decisions. That person does not have the capacity at the time they are suicidal to make a rational decision to terminate their own life. If a police department were to do nothing in this type of situation, they would open themselves to tremendous civil liability.

Why risk anyone's life to prevent it? Because that is what you pay police officers, firefighters and EMTs to do. They will not and should not needlessly risk their lives, but they should take reasonable steps to save the person. Would you feel differently if the person was a relative of yours?

Training these teams adequately is very important, and their existence and use should be debated in public, to keep them on their toes and to keep them from getting excessive. While all of the facts about this case are not out yet, it seems clear that there was poor training and leadership. Remember though, for every one of these incidents that go to hell in a handbasket like this one, there are thousands that are resolved without any injury to anyone.

Bravo!   This one gets Cut and Pasted into the scrapbook.  very well said.

Firstly, SWAT is [b]always[/] an escalation of force. [b]always[/]



NO.  
1)Police are paid to protect me from their (sucidals in this case) outburts of violence that may threaten the rest of the public, not hte suicidals welfare.  That is his own personal matter.

2) Firefighters are to rescue those after an event has occured.

3) EMT's are to stablize for transport to a medical facility.

None of these agencies are paid to indict a matter of conscience into the situation, but instead are to prevent it from affecting anyone else around or to deal with that if it has done so.



NO.  If anyone is going to address a relative of mine in this kind of situation it should be family, not a show of force and 'come out with your hands up'

Zaz

There seems to be a lot of very misinformed people here expressing thier opinions about SWAT.  Quite frankly, I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend the time it would take to educate everyone on why SWAT is absolutely necessary and why it is morally, ethically, and legally correct for SWAT to train with the military.  However, please just let me ask this:  If your wife or child were taken hostage by armed bad guys, who would you want to go in and rescue them?  The average patrol officer who never trains in Hostage Rescue and CQB or would you want a SWAT team that had been trained in hostage rescue and CQB? Would you care at that point if the SWAT guys had learned their techniques from the military?  Wouldn't you in fact be happy that your loved one was rescued by personnel who had been trained by some of the best operators in the world?  Time and time again situations have arisen in the US where the average police officer was not properly equipped or properly trained.  SWAT teams save lives, contrary to popular belief and media coverage.  In fact, that is the primary mission of SWAT: To Save Lives.  When someone is killed, even the bad guy, the mission is considered to be a failure unless it is an extreme hostage rescue scenario.  As much as I wish it were not true, the days of Andy Griffith and Barney Fife are long gone.  In today's world, when the SHTF, Barney would be immediately killed by the bad guys and then Andy would have to kill the bad guys as best he could with his deer rifle.  

As for the "military" clothing and gear, it has nothing to do with "looks."  There is a very real and distinct purpose for all of it; and looks isn't part of that.  My team has received training from former Delta operators, former SAS, former SEAL's, (we even have some of these on the team) DOE personnel, in addition to joint training with the Rangers.  That being said, we know what our mission is and we all still have to work within the laws of our state and the under the Texas and US Constitution.  One last thing that you should all think about; no SpecOps team, whether police or military, is trained to simply "go in and kill everybody." Delta (CAG), SEAL's, SAS, GSG9, GIGN, and the like are tasked with missions requiring critical thinking which include varied rules of engagement.  What this means is that sometimes even the military teams are expected to fire only if necessary.  While law enforcement is not the military and SWAT must fall under the auspices of civilian law, the skills required for Hostage Rescue and CT are the same.  The missions are often almost identical as is the danger involved.  The problem with SWAT in the US is that we are undertrained.  SWAT teams should be full-time specialists who do nothing but train for the worst.  Lubbock PD has a part-time team.  They have good guys but an Administraton, like most other police administrations, that is too worried about public image and political correctness.  The result is that Administration skimps on training time.  I will not make any comment on culpability here.  I will say that this issue will most likely be found to be directly related to training time and the importance that the Administration placed in it.

Swatdog:  Read Posse Comitatus Act and tell me again the legality of law enforcement training with the military.

And, if my wife or children were in that situation I would want negotiators, not SWAT guys around.  

The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the military being used on US soil against US citizens.  It has nothing to do with civilian police training with the military.  If you want to interpret it that strictly, let's do away with all semi-automatic pistols in police departments everywhere.  Let's get rid of any form of "paramilitary" command structure, and any technology or techniques that have ever been used by any military force anywhere.  The military teams use both heavy and light-weight body armor so let's prohibit the police from using that too.  Night vision, shotguns, GPS, K-9, helicopters, and even the radios that police use are also used by the military.  I suppose we need to do away with those too.  Let's keep this in a realistic perspective.  Just because something has a military foundation it does not automatically mean that it is evil or wrong to use it for a civilian application.  Despite the fact that SWAT has received training from military sources, SWAT is not the military.  SWAT teams must still follow the laws of the US and their State as well as the standard force continuum for their department.

As for your wanting negotiators instead of SWAT: That's fine but what are you going to do when the bad guys start shooting the hostages in the head?  Tell me how the negotiators are going to handle that?  What good will they do your wife or child then?  At some point, you must be ready to use force.  That force must be the proper kind of force and those applying it must be properly trained in its application.  That's where SWAT comes in.

I'm not trying to be rude or hateful but you seem to have a very unrealistic view of what SWAT is and what the duty/mission of SWAT is.  I hope you will re-think your position on wanting only negotiators to handle hostage situations.

Now you're getting the idea.

Swatdog asked:

"If your wife or child were taken hostage by armed bad guys, who would you want to go in and rescue them?"
------------------------------------------------

Not the local swat club that's for sure, with their half-ass training they are more likely to shoot each other or innocent bystanders. I'd rather do it myself with a few fellow Marines that actually care about my family.

IMHO,
If my family were in a hostage situation, getting them back would be my only concern.  If you are negotiating with a somewhat rational individual this may work.  If you are trying to negotiate with a lunatic, have a sniper turn his head into a canoe for all I care, as long as my family is safe.  SWAT is a necessity.  Look in Califoria when those few guys came down the street wearing that full body level 3.  All the 9mm rounds in the world wouldn't have brought those guys down.  If SWAT had been there It would have taken a few well placed sniper rounds and it would have all been over.  You guys sound like a bunch of left winged anti-gunners.  If a situation gets out of hand and lethal force is required, either because you fear for your own life or the life of another, then the only rounds fired should be to kill.  If this is true in the civilian world how much more true is it in the line of duty.  As long as the officer is able to articulate in court that he was in fear of his life or the life of another, then lethal force is acceptable.  The job of the Police is to serve and protect the civilian population.  If that means killing some lunatic with a hostage to save the hostage, by all means kill him.  Its funny how one misuse of a gun brings all this media attention to gun control when there are thousands of cases of the legitimate of a gun where lives were saved or crimes stopped.  I think most people here are doing the same thing with this case.  There are two sides to every story.  I know quite a few police officers and several active military personel, All of them are down to earth people who beleive in personal freedoms just like me.  When put in a situation like the one listed above who knows what anyone would have done.  If a guy beside me had his brains blown out I can't say what I would have done.  The situation obviously was out of hand and the unfortunate shooting of one of the SWAT members is sad.  As far as everyone opening fire on the house, this was probably from lack of discipline as stated in a previous post.  You must also remember that this story is coming from a newspaper who last time I checked most media is VERY liberal.  My cousin who is a police officer told me a story of a girl who survived a stand-off between her boyfreind and police.  After it was over she went over to her boyfreinds freinds house.  The Police showed up here as well to serve a warrant and this resulted in a armed stand-off as well.  To make a long story short, the girl was shot and killed as well as one of the freinds.  When my cousin entered the house less than a foot away from the girls hand was a MAC-10 and nobody else had been near the door (they had been at windows).  When the news came on the next day it reported that this "innocent girl" had been gunned down.  Its interesting how the media twists things to meet its own agenda.

I hope you don't really believe this.  Would you really have police officers on patrol with only a revolver and no vest or radio?  Please tell that you're being sarcastic.  BTW: The world is round nowdays.  Never mind....I won't even try to bother you with facts.  Take care and see ya later.

I've got to say i agree a lot more with swatdog on the need for SWAT teams. There is no way the military can respond as quickly or with the right amount of force. I also will say that there are probably too many agencies who have swat and dont need it.
Take LA for example. For the most part there is no military base nearby. When the NoHo shootout was going on, what should the LAPD have done? Call in the SEALs from San Diego? Or the reservists from their LA armories? it would have taken hours. in this case a well trained (big budget) swat team put an end to this incident (at least with one of the BG's) before more could get hurt.
I also wonder so many of you are against the police using "military weapons". Isnt that why we all have AR's? Wouldn't you use your "military weapon" to defend yourself? of course. Image is nothing, or something like that. If i was an officer i'd want the best.
 Now let me also say, as most of us shooters know, training, training, training. Too many small police forces don't have the budget or time. Thats not to say that all small dept's cant have swat teams either. and any swat team that picks its members by politics and not ability, well thats as bad as affirmative action.
In the end, i feel that SWAT should only be used for violent or potentially violent situations (like kidnappings). No-knock drug raids and suicides dont fit the bill to me.

How about this for a compromise: If you want a SWAT in your city, then the civilians would be allowed to buy and own the SAME weapons and equipment and receive the SAME training as SWAT.
All of this would be made available to civilians at the same LEO market rates.

Here I am again, Joe Dirtbag. Maybe tomorrow I can return to my normal happy self....Oh yes please if my wife and children were taken hostage....let's see-no wife, no children. Let's say my mother was taken hostage...well the swat team would eat a doughnut and call the meatwagon. Get my point....armed, free citizens
don't need no stinking SWAT to take care of them. And the situation in Kalifornication--try that in Gunbarrel Texas.....

You said it, Bro'.  For some reason, the same people who can clearly see that the media has misrepresented the gun control issue literally jump at the chance to decry all SWAT teams and SWAT operations when they hear of only a few ops gone bad.  They never stop to think of the hundreds if not thousands of operations that end perfectly and with no casualties.  They also never seem to stop and think about the slanted view of the subject they have been presented with.  Contrary to some people's views of SWAT officers, most SWAT guys are conservative, gun-owning, loyal Americans who vote for and support personal freedom.  At least half of my teammates are members of the NRA and we are all conservative types who support RKBA.  

Mistakes are made in every organization everywhere in the world.  We should not and do not excuse them but neither should we demonize an entire system or practice based on a few isolated incidents.  Hell, that would be like someone saying that people shouldn't be allowed to own semi-automatic, magazine fed, military- style rifles because they have been used in mass shootings, are too "militaristic" and because there's no legitimate need for "civilians" to have them.  Of course we all know that's BS.  Let's stop thinking micro and start thinking macro.

First, I personally believe that no civilian police officer has a legitamate reason to carry a full-auto. SWATDOG if you disagree I would love to hear your reasons. Second, as I have said before and IMBROLIGIO (or sumtin like that) said I think a law should be passed stateing:
 
   No Law Enforcement agency whether local, state or federal is alowed to posses or use against the citizens any firearm, item, device, or machine not readily available to the citizens at large.

The only thing I think Police should be allowed to have that civilians are not is radios of a different frequency so criminals can not interfere with communications in an op. Citizens should be allowed to moniter with scannerts and the like but not be able to add there two cents in a tactical situation.

As for SWATDOG's response to the wife and kids. In Lubbock they most likely would have been shot or killed by the 369 rounds fired. (another reason to ban police from Full-Auto.

"Well, I wouldn't want the Lubbock SWAT team, or most of the local ones around here doing it."

Then who would you want to do it?  Somebody HAS to do it so how are we going to prepare for this?

"That would depend on the trained they brecievd and if the had adopted the US vs THEM and we are coming home no matter who we have to harm attitude."

You assume an Us vs. Them attitude from the start.  It appears you are biased from the outset and so it's hard to have any reasonable discussion here.  No matter how many times I tell you there is no Us vs. Them attitude, you will tell me there is one just as many times.

"So train them properly"

They did...they call it SWAT.  ALthough we can't get enough training.

"Yes, but they also cost lives, sometimes innocent bystanders, sometimes the criminals (and lets not discount the death of someone just because they may ahve broken the law, we are supposed to have the presumption of innocence. The question is, in many cases is the risk of them costing a life greater than the odds of them saving one."

Again, we never discount the life of the suspect.  Also, how many is "many cases?"  How many cases, exactly, are you talking about?  It's clear that the benefits far outweigh the risks in this issue.

"Yeah, but Andy and Barney were not likely to break down the wrong door and shoot a man as he reaches for his gun because he thinks he is going to be the subject of a home invasion, or fire 389 rounds at a man to stop him from commiting suicide, then charge him with murder when they hit one of thier own."

Actually, they were and are.  They were also likely to shoot the wrong person and get killed right after that.  That's another reason SWAT was formed. Youre rhetoric here is exactly what I was talking about earlier.  You are taking a few extreme examples and you are trying to apply them to the entire SWAT concept.  This is no more true than saying that all soldiers in Vietnam were baby killers or that all owners of "assault rifles" are mass killings waiting to happen.  This is pure fearmongering extremism and it gets us nowhere in this issue.  Make no mistake about it, there are legitimate reasons and situations for having SWAT.  That is not subject to change or speculation.  These problems will not simply go away.  I'd like to hear your proposal for how to deal with them.

As I recall, it was the willingness of the gun store owner to bend the waiting period that eventually led to an end in that issue.  Though as I recall one of the bgs then waited a while for medical assistance... it's a cop's absolutely necessary but rather difficult and often thankless job to collect evidence and get 'em to trial, not to execute 'em.

I said: The missions are often almost identical as is the danger involved.

Your answer: "There is one of the problems.. when SWAT teams start believing they the equals of the military and face equal risks, they have already begun to adopt the very attitude many here are worried about. If you actually think going into a house with one or 2 armed criminals(most likely untrained in any tactical areas and armed with a lorcin or maybe a tec-9) when you have total control of the exterior situation, superior numbers and firepower, and superior technology is the same as going into a forgein nation into a situation where you are surrounded by unfriendlies, do not have control of your surroundings, are facing a well armed, well trained, and numericly superior enemy then you need to rethink just what you do."

Brother, I have run warrants in neighborhoods that looked more like Mogadishu than the US.  Think about a house with 6 to 8 armed male suspects (shotguns, rifles, and pistols) with guard dogs and barricaded doors.  Put that in a neighborhood rife with criminals and active gang members and tell me that's not real danger.  However, this is getting off subject here.

"While I am sure you would love to do nothing more than cool guy training, the problem is that when you fund a full time, or even part time, team and there are not enough situations that come up to warrant its use, you will see them used in many situations that do not warrant the escelation of force. It has happened, and will continue to be a problem."

It only takes one incident to justify the existence of a full-time team.  The largest hostage situation in the Western Hemisphere occurred in Plano, Texas.  90 children were held hostage by a man with a gun.  Do you think those kids or their parents cared how many other operations that SWAT team had been on or would ever do again?  If a SWAT team saves only a few lives, or even one life, then it's existence can be justified; especially to eh citizen who was saved by them.  Ask the woman in California who was saved by the SWAT sniper if her city should have a SWAT team.  What about all those kids on that bus in FLorida?  The parents of those kids are probably glad that there was a SWAT team there who were trained to conduct a bus assault (a tactic learned from Delta and the SAS) to take the bad guy out and to save their kids; regardless of whether or not they did enough operations to "justify" their existence.  You train for the one bad mission.  That's all that counts.


"To pass off all the blame on the administration is a cop-out(no pun intended) as those who did the deeds did them knowing what the were doing."

I'm not passing all the blame onto Administration.  What I'm saying is that SWAT guys are alsways asking for more training time and it is always being refused.  Later, when things go bad as a direct result of improper or too little training, it's not entirely the fault of the people at the scene.  The whole department must share in the blame; including the operators who messed up.

Full-auto is a useful tool for handling an armed opponent; especially in CQB.  It really is as simple as that.  A three round burst to center mass is much better and more efficient than one or two.  Also, when dealing with an active shooter, it may be necessary for cover fire.  I have seen this work with simmunition when doing simulated school shooting scenarios.  Admittedly, this would be rare but it could happen.  When the "Texas 7" were loose and thought to be in my area, you can bet full-auto was a valid option for 7 guys armed with 14 .357 magnums and rifles and shotguns.  To be blunt, there's no valid reason NOT to have it.  If you're concerned about "trigger happy" cops, don't be.  Trigger happy people press that trigger regardless of whether the weapon is full-auto or semi-auto.  Again, training takes care of overzealous pressing of the trigger.  As for control of that weapon on full-auto; this is a training issue as well.



It's already like this where I live.  Of course bad guys use scanners too which is why my team uses encryption.



This is a strawman argument/response.  You haven't anwered the question here.

All true and correct.  We do not disagree here.  What I'm trying to tell you is that, despite reports to the contrary, there are already very real and very stringent limitations on the use of force and tactics by police.  When it comes to No-Knock Entries, those cannot be done without the authority of a judge (usually elected by the community in which the raid is taking place) who has approved the affidavit and signed the warrant.  When it comes to hostage situations and other crises, SWAT is governed by the law and the use of force policy in exactly the same way as every patrol officer.  Even with these controls at the outset of any operation, there is accountability after the fact if someone gets hurt.  There is control, accountability, and limitations on SWAT the likes of which the military never dreams of having to deal with.  This is why the question of Posse Comitatus is a non-issue.

I'm not saying that there have never been abuses or problems.  What I am trying to get you and other critics to understand is that the sky is not falling with regards to SWAT and that the benefits have been shown time and time again to far outweigh the costs.

i have some questions.

are SWAT members [i]only[/i] SWAT members 100% of the time?  do they sit around and wait for situations to occur?  or are they police officers with special training that come when called/needed?  if yes to the last question, what do SWAT members do when not needed in a SWAT situation?

Sooo, after all this yappin, how much confidence do you think the people of Lubbock have in their local LEO's now ????
BTW, as for swat training with the military, the Posse comitatus act may state that the military cant be used against americans on their own soil, but thats exactly what we have with swat teams. Only thing is they can get away with it cuz they are leo's not military. They go train with the military, employ military tactics, use military weapons, gear and vehicles.
Protect and Serve....remember ???
[%(]

keep in mind i'm not arguing your point, just your logic...for the time being.  my jury is still out.



why would anybody knowingly enter a house with 6 to 8 armed male suspects with guard dogs and barricaded doors...in a neighborhood rife with criminals and active gang members?  that's the ONLY place you can serve that warrant for him, huh?



kinda like "If it saves one child's life, then it's worth banning all guns foreve," huh?  



how much training does it take for someone to learn NOT TO SHOOT at nothing?  is it SOP to spray a house with bullets just because you hear a shot fired, even though you know damn good and well that 1) you don't know where the shot came from, and 2) you don't know who fired it, and 3) you don't have [i]any[/i] target to shoot at?  

there was no THOUGHT in this incident.  and that's happening far too often with similar indidents.  it's this kind of "reactive" behavior that so many here on this board are worried about.  it takes all the responsibility away from the SWAT member to think through the situation and asses each and every new development as it happens.  while additional training may help in those situations where quick reaction is required, it will never substitute for good old-fashioned common sense.  if the SWAT members don't have it to begin with, no amount of training in the world is going to help the situation.

Any police officer who discharges his weapon in the line of duty should be prepared to answer for his actions.  If in fact the officers fired in a residential area without a clear target they should all be disciplined.  Firing at an unknown target in a residential area should be a well known bad idea.  This SWAT team's actions certainly call into question their training and leadership.  

SWAT teams should be held to a higher standard than regular officers.  They receive special weapons, special training and are should be some of the best trained officers in the Department.  I realize that they are human beings and like the rest of us they make mistakes, but shooting wildly in an urban environment should not be one them.

[size=6]B[/size=6]

SWATDOG Trigger happy cop with SEMI shoots acouple of rounds. Trigger happy cop with FULL-AUTO empties magazine. As for the statement about three rounds center mast you are right that is a very effective tool to kill the "suspect". Why not neutralize him (one-two shots) so he can be tried by a jury as our legal system states instead of killing him? Or are those black hoods instiling an exicutioner mentality?? I still believe there is no good reason for an officer whose job is to "Protect and Serve" to have a full auto. BTW I noticed you did not comment on the law I proposed.

I am not !!!!........Ya big bully...

BTW, thanks for the gif file locations[:D]