Over Use Of SWAT Teams?

[AverageJoesGym]

The thread about the shooting in Ferguson, MO brought up again the issue of the militarization of our law enforcement agencies. While doing some research I came across an article that contained a link to a PDF file of an ACLU report on the use of SWAT teams. What it contains should alarm everyone. This report examines 800 uses of SWAT teams by 20 agencies over the period of 2011-12.

 

SWAT teams were originally designed for use for extreme situations like a hostage or active shooter situation. Increasingly they are being used to serve warrants for drug offenses etc. In the report 62% of the times SWAT was used it was used for drug searches. 79% of the time it was deployed it was used to serve warrants. It should alarm everyone that this is the direction that our law enforcement community is going. The very tactics used create a feeling that the public is the enemy in these situations. The report also shows that these deployments disproportionately occur against people of color.

 

You'll have to download the PDF and it is a long report but one that everyone should read.

 

War Comes Home

[AverageJoesGym]

Quotes like this one in the report are especially chilling:

 

Not even Keene city officials believed that the city actually

needed the BearCat to thwart terrorism. To explain why the

police included the word “terrorism” on their application

for federal funding for this purchase, a city councilmember

said, “Our application talked about the danger of domestic

terrorism, but that’s just something you put in the grant

application to get the money. What red-blooded American

cop isn’t going to be excited about getting a toy like this?

That’s what it comes down to."

 

This is a councilman talking about how the local police force was able to procure the money to purchase a BearCat--they cited potential terrorist concerns at their annual Pumpkin Festival--I'm not making this up.

[JCVD]

I didn't read the report, but is there anything about the weapons these drug dealers have? Often times they have more than just a pistol as a weapon. These guys have higher powered weapons nowadays. Wouldn't we rather our officers be safe going in to these high risk situations

[AverageJoesGym]

I didn't read the report, but is there anything about the weapons these drug dealers have? Often times they have more than just a pistol as a weapon. These guys have higher powered weapons nowadays. Wouldn't we rather our officers be safe going in to these high risk situations

 

In only 35% of the cases used in the survey was any type of handgun found, and in the majority of those cases it was a handgun. The disturbing part is many of these raids are not done because of the possibility of the suspect being armed--it is done under the "potential to destroy evidence" clause.

[woodsrider]

In only 35% of the cases used in the survey was any type of handgun found, and in the majority of those cases it was a handgun. The disturbing part is many of these raids are not done because of the possibility of the suspect being armed--it is done under the "potential to destroy evidence" clause.

 

Did you seriously say "only 35%"? I don't consider 35% low. But since you think that isn't very many, are we OK sending under prepared cops into 35% of these raids? How different would those 35% have been without the use of SWAT?

[LIPTON BASH]

Part of the problem is the assumption of violence before any threats are made.

[stickymitts]

35% seems pretty high to me considering they have very little intel before going in. How often do you hear SWAT is rolling in?

[Jumper_Dad]

In only 35% of the cases used in the survey was any type of handgun found, and in the majority of those cases it was a handgun. The disturbing part is many of these raids are not done because of the possibility of the suspect being armed--it is done under the "potential to destroy evidence" clause.

 

So walking in on armed felons 35% of the time is a suitable risk for Law Enforcement to take on with just a couple of officers and no extra protection. I would rather police officers be prepared and supported every time with extra manpower and equipment than risk sending two guys to knock on a door 1 time unprepared for what they may come across.

 

Just this week in po-dunk little ol' Somerset two deputies went to serve an EPO on a man. Just serving papers no risk there right? Man comes to the door holding a pistol that he refused to put down. Luckily for all involved even though he refused to put the gun down he didn't raise it or point it at the deputies. Two deputies several years ago in Jessamine Co went to serve papers on a man, he came out with a semi-auto rifle and killed both of them. Again they were just serving papers, not going to search for drugs.

 

You never know what is going to happen, THERE ARE NO ROUTINE CALLS.

 

A Humvee, Helicopter, Kevlar Helmet, Bullet Proof Vest, Patrol Rifle, Bullet Proof Shield don't violate anyone's rights or break any laws...they are tools used by cops to protect themselves and others.

[AverageJoesGym]

Did you seriously say "only 35%"? I don't consider 35% low. But since you think that isn't very many, are we OK sending under prepared cops into 35% of these raids? How different would those 35% have been without the use of SWAT?

 

35% seems pretty high to me considering they have very little intel before going in. How often do you hear SWAT is rolling in?

 

So walking in on armed felons 35% of the time is a suitable risk for Law Enforcement to take on with just a couple of officers and no extra protection. I would rather police officers be prepared and supported every time with extra manpower and equipment than risk sending two guys to knock on a door 1 time unprepared for what they may come across.

 

Just this week in po-dunk little ol' Somerset two deputies went to serve an EPO on a man. Just serving papers no risk there right? Man comes to the door holding a pistol that he refused to put down. Luckily for all involved even though he refused to put the gun down he didn't raise it or point it at the deputies. Two deputies several years ago in Jessamine Co went to serve papers on a man, he came out with a semi-auto rifle and killed both of them. Again they were just serving papers, not going to search for drugs.

 

You never know what is going to happen, THERE ARE NO ROUTINE CALLS.

 

A Humvee, Helicopter, Kevlar Helmet, Bullet Proof Vest, Patrol Rifle, Bullet Proof Shield don't violate anyone's rights or break any laws...they are tools used by cops to protect themselves and others.

 

It is estimated that 39% of US households contain at least one firearm. That means that statistically they were found at a lower rate in the households raided by SWAT in the study. You would think if they were considered that dangerous they would have been found at a rate of AT LEAST the national average. Perhaps this means SWAT should serve every warrant?

 

The problem is that in many of the cases the justification for the use of SWAT teams was to prevent destruction of evidence. And in many cases in the reports regular warrants were turned into "no knock" warrants by the SWAT team on their own for this very reason. THEY, not the courts made the decision to breech by breaking down the door. Yes, I see that as a violation of rights. If you have a high suspicion that the suspect is violent, then fine, use force to enter. Since the SCOTUS has ruled that evidence found in instances where forcible entry was made to prevent loss of evidence even if it wasn't pre-approved these types of raids have become more and more common.

[Jumper_Dad]

Part of the problem is the assumption of violence before any threats are made.

Serving a warrant on a drug dealer, what would you consider the chance of violence may be? Would you rather wait until the first two uniformed officers are shot before calling out SWAT or what ever Special Response Team there is.

 

There is an inherent danger to most calls, some a lot more than others.

 

If a policeman pulls a car over for speeding, he's going to be cautious but will approach the car the same way we've seen 100's of times. If that car is known to be stolen he approaches it with gun drawn and takes an entirely different approach to handling the situation regardless of who may or may not be driving it.

 

If they are coming to serve a warrant for flagrant none support there will probably be a couple of officers serve that arrest warrant. If they are serving an arrest warrant based on a multi-count indictment of violent/drug/weapons related felonies there is a much better chance of the arrested person resisting with some violence. So they would be prudent for the safety of all to take overwhelming force to ensure safety for everyone.

[Jumper_Dad]

It is estimated that 39% of US households contain at least one firearm. That means that statistically they were found at a lower rate in the households raided by SWAT in the study. You would think if they were considered that dangerous they would have been found at a rate of AT LEAST the national average. Perhaps this means SWAT should serve every warrant?

 

The problem is that in many of the cases the justification for the use of SWAT teams was to prevent destruction of evidence.

 

So destruction of evidence is fine with you also?

[stickymitts]

It is estimated that 39% of US households contain at least one firearm. That means that statistically they were found at a lower rate in the households raided by SWAT in the study. You would think if they were considered that dangerous they would have been found at a rate of AT LEAST the national average. Perhaps this means SWAT should serve every warrant?

 

The problem is that in many of the cases the justification for the use of SWAT teams was to prevent destruction of evidence.

 

The only thing that is relevant is that the police/SWAT need to be called. I'm fine with SWAT showing up if they think they're needed. It's not like they are picking a house to "practice" on and randomly searching for weapons.

[AverageJoesGym]

So destruction of evidence is fine with you also?

 

It is if it prevents a flashbang being thrown in the crib of a 19 month old baby because a CI told them that he purchased $50 worth of drugs from a suspect that didn't turn out to live at the house and wasn't there--but that 19 month old and 3 other kids were. Or the Grandfather of 12 that was killed while already on the ground with his hands behind his head when a nervous SWAT member accidentally discharged his weapon--even though they had already arrested the suspect in the parking lot prior to the raid. Or the 7 year old who was killed when a flashbang landed in her bed, caught it on fire which caused her to run out of the room where she was immediately shot and killed. Yes, I'm fine with none of those happening.

[Jumper_Dad]

It is if it prevents a flashbang being thrown in the crib of a 19 month old baby because a CI told them that he purchased $50 worth of drugs from a suspect that didn't turn out to live at the house and wasn't there--but that 19 month old and 3 other kids were. Or the Grandfather of 12 that was killed while already on the ground with his hands behind his head when a nervous SWAT member accidentally discharged his weapon--even though they had already arrested the suspect in the parking lot prior to the raid. Or the 7 year old who was killed when a flashbang landed in her bed, caught it on fire which caused her to run out of the room where she was immediately shot and killed. Yes, I'm fine with none of those happening.

 

That's avoiding the question...those were horrible accidents that no one is in favor of...but to act like they are the norm is crazy. Your smarter than than.

 

Just because someone has a great flushing toilet shouldn't absolve them of the crimes they have committed.

 

There accidents all the times involving trains, planes, trucks through negligence...should we shut down all transportation in the country?

Edited August 14, 2014 by Jumper_Dad

[theguru]

One problem is the first time a department decides against using a SWAT Team and the police either get out gunned and/or someone gets hurt or killed the consequences could be very severe.

 

In short, the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't