gigag04 wrote:I think there is some hyperbole affecting perceptions.
No, my comments are made based upon personal observation during and after I was a COP, as well as discussions with officers from the Houston Police Dept. and other agencies. They are also shared by a former Speaker of the House and a retired DPS Lieutenant. I don't expect you to tell us where you work, but what is the size of your department and your city?
gigag04 wrote:I dont know a swat team that wears ski masks...those I know wear ballistic helmets. If they wear a balaclava it's to protect their faces...not hide them, and they are usually open faced.
You can't be serious; they are worn all the time. And they are protecting their faces from what, being identified? Have a look here.
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&sour ... =&gs_rfai=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
gigag04 wrote:They are not called in "whenever the officer doesn't want to deal with it.". They are called when there is a greater than normal likelyhood of a violent encounter, for example:
Barricaded subject
No knock warrant (issued by a judge)
Hostage taker
Just to name a few...
How many departments have you worked for? Which ones allow the use of SWAT teams only in the situations you listed?
gigag04 wrote:In my opinion, the fear of LE tactical teams is akin to people's unreasonable fear of "Assault Weapons." The gear they use is for a purpose.
The thrust of my post was the militarization of police departments, but I see you didn't respond to that. You chose only to take issue with the comments about SWAT. Understand this, I'm not fearful of "LE tactical teams" I'm commenting on their usage. The only equipment I mentioned was a totally unnecessary mask. I don't appreciate comparing my concern over this issue with people who have an irrational fear of so-called "assault weapons." That would be akin to me comparing you to some officers who have gone to prison for civil rights violations.
gigag04 wrote:It would be unfair, and unsafe to task a patrol officer with the tasks of a tac operator.
Here we go with my military jargon -- "tac operator." That's precisely the problem, you can't appreciate the difference between a police officer and a soldier. Are you suggesting that barricaded suspects, hostage takers and no knock warrants didn't exist prior to the creation of SWAT teams? Of course they did and patrol officers routinely handled the job. BTW, are you former military?
gigag04 wrote:Also - I think depiction of serving a warrant is a little exaggerated. No knock warrants are less than 1 in 500 (guesstimate) warrants served by the dept.
Reread my post; my comments about warrants were not limited to "no knock" warrants. My only reference to "no knock" warrants was that they heightened the risks. And let's be intellectually honest; a "no knock" warrant requires no announcement by the officers. However, you can bang on the door, yell "police" then kick the door in a second later and you have not executed a "no knock" entry. Those are done quite frequently. This is precisely what you could do during one of your 3:00 am warrant executions you mentioned and it would not be a "no knock" execution.
gigag04 wrote:And sometimes, these no knock warrants are search warrants. These are not used on schoolteachers and the like... They are proven criminals with a track record of violence, drug trafficking, and aggression.
Really? How do you know? What if the accused is innocent? What if you get the wrong house? This too is indicative of the problem, you clearly take the attitude that if a warrant is issued, then the citizen somehow less important, in spite of the fact that they haven't even been charged with a crime, much less convicted. Some people fit your description, but not all and you would treat them all the same.
gigag04 wrote:Most of the posters on this board do not ever have to deal with this segment of society.
I have; the fellow officers I spoke of have also, and none of us share your opinions.
gigag04 wrote:LE has changed significantly over the years and continues to evolve to meet the changing operating environments offered by society.
That's one very lousy excuse and it's also groundless. Law enforcement has most definitely changed, but not to meet "changing operating environments." It is becoming a military force and that's dangerous to a free society. That's an opinion shared by many who have worn the badge, including ranking officers, as well as elected officials. I'm hardly a bleeding heart liberal. I'm a former COP and a life-long conservative, death penalty supporting Republican. If the concerns I've expressed are not addressed by those who are responsible for their departments (city counsel, county commissioners, etc.) then law enforcement will alienate its strongest supporters.
Chas.