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

 

So they err on the side of caution...what's the issue again?

So they err on the side of caution...what's the issue again?

 

I thought the issue of the thread was the perceived overuse of SWAT Teams.

So they err on the side of caution...what's the issue again?

 

And YES, err on the side of caution is the name of the game.

I thought the issue of the thread was the perceived overuse of SWAT Teams.

 

I quoted you but that was a general statement. Yes, they may overuse SWAT teams. But, it's justified to err on the side of caution.

 

As you stated in your previous post.

I had no idea that pumpkin festivals were so dangerous. I will steer clear from now on.

I had no idea that pumpkin festivals were so dangerous. I will steer clear from now on.

 

You never know who is going to show up.

 

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? 900K innocent children are purposely killed each year and yet there is less outrage about that than an accident that occurs during a police raid.

 

I don't know how that is avoiding the question. I said I'm fine with evidence being destroyed in cases where the police don't have reason to believe that there is a high probability of violence. If they ask for, and are given, a no knock warrant then fine, use SWAT. If they are bringing in SWAT on their own because they don't want to lose evidence then I'm not okay with even one "horrible accident". SWAT team use has went up to around 80,000 incidents in the last few years, mostly in response to the War on Drugs. How have they helped? Are there any less drugs on the streets than there were 30 years ago?

 

Did you even read the report? It is very sobering. I know you have a vested interest in justifying the actions of the police and I understand that. However, if you try to read it with an open mind and pay attention to the actual statistics I think you'll see that we are moving in a dangerous direction in regard to our civil liberties.

 

If an accident happens during an incident that SWAT was designed for: hostage situation, barricaded suspect, active shooter etc. then I'm more likely to understand it. But when something like this happens I'm not okay with it: A 26 year old Iraqi was veteran and father was shot 22 times because his wife mistook the flashbangs that were set off in his back yard for gunfire. She saw the silhouette of someone outside of her window. She informed her husband, who had her and their son take cover in the closet while he grabbed his rifle and went to investigate. When he was spotted by SWAT through the window they opened fire, 71 rounds were fired, 22 hit him. He wasn't even the subject of the warrant--just defending his home. That one cost the taxpayers $3.4 million and a son his father.

 

I'm not okay with SWAT being used for everyday warrants to prevent destruction of evidence. You should really take the time and read the article. It should give you pause.

It sounded like to keep their funding for these teams and their costly gear the municipality has to show they are used periodically. So in St. Louis county it seems ALL search warrants are executed by a SWAT team by standard.

 

It seems a classic case of government 'use it or lose it' budget approach. So they use it when ever they can.

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.

 

 

Going back to the incident in Somerset: How do you think that would have turned out for the man if SWAT had busted down his door unannounced? It is very likely we'd be reading about how he was killed in a shootout with police. Sounds like the deputies involved did an excellent job to prevent needless loss of life in a tough situation--they should be commended for that. In several cases, however, the use of SWAT just ensured that what might have been a delicate situation turned into a deadly situation.

 

We've got good cops in Pulaski County. I'm very glad for that and respect the job that they do. Nationwide, however, a hard look needs to be give to the militarization of the police. There needs to be more accountability and transparency in operations. Two things that the report shows to be lacking.

I did read it and those accidents were horrible, I think I said that. Unless you are saying SWAT intentionally killed kids or innocents I'm not sure what your point is.

 

Wearing extra armor and bringing extra men did not cause those accidents to happen.

 

Let me just be clear of my perspective...If my son or some of his (and your son's) former teammates are serving a warrant I want them to err on the side of safety and protection EVERY SINGLE TIME...if that means deploying the local SWAT/CRT teams or wearing more protection and using rifles, then so be it. I want those guys to come home at the end of the night.

Going back to the incident in Somerset: How do you think that would have turned out for the man if SWAT had busted down his door unannounced? It is very likely we'd be reading about how he was killed in a shootout with police. Sounds like the deputies involved did an excellent job to prevent needless loss of life in a tough situation--they should be commended for that. In several cases, however, the use of SWAT just ensured that what might have been a delicate situation turned into a deadly situation.

 

We've got good cops in Pulaski County. I'm very glad for that and respect the job that they do. Nationwide, however, a hard look needs to be give to the militarization of the police.

 

I don't know, do you think he was sitting there with the gun in his hand ready or do you think he picked it up when he heard the police at the door? It could have went many ways as well as he could have met them at the door shooting before they even knew he was a threat, thankfully that didn't happen.

What do you Consider the Militarization? Equipment, the color of their clothing, free Humvees received from Wright Patterson?

I did read it and those accidents were horrible, I think I said that. Unless you are saying SWAT intentionally killed kids or innocents I'm not sure what your point is.

 

Wearing extra armor and bringing extra men did not cause those accidents to happen.

 

Let me just be clear of my perspective...If my son or some of his (and your son's) former teammates are serving a warrant I want them to err on the side of safety and protection EVERY SINGLE TIME...if that means deploying the local SWAT/CRT teams or wearing more protection and using rifles, then so be it. I want those guys to come home at the end of the night.

 

My point is that in many of those cases there was no resistance given by the people who were injured/killed. In several of the cases there was little reason to believe that officers were going to be met with violence. Heck, in one of the cases the suspect had already been arrested and they burst in and killed a Grandfather. Using force like that to ensure that evidence doesn't get flushed is only going to ensure that these "accidents" continue to happen--it isn't going to win the war on drugs. It's an accident when you're walking down the street and a piano hits you on the head. It is not an accident when armed men with guns throw stun grenades into a house that they know contains children and people who are not suspects. That is taking a calculated risk. In many cases I don't feel it is warranted--especially when the initial warrant was not a no knock warrant and the police decided to bring SWAT in on their own. If they want to use SWAT they should have to get a warrant saying so.

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

 

It usually comes down to threat assessment and level of danger to those serving the warrant and the general public. As much as people want to believe police officers are cowboys most of the time they're calculated.

What do you Consider the Militarization? Equipment, the color of their clothing, free Humvees received from Wright Patterson?

 

Here's a good quote from the report to illustrate it:

 

As the saying goes, if all you have is a hammer, everything

looks like a nail.

Likewise, if the federal government gives

the police a huge cache of military-style weaponry, they

are highly likely to use it, even if they do not really need

to. Gwinnett County, Georgia, for example, received at

least 57 semi-automatic rifles, mostly M-16s and M-14s,

through the 1033 Program during the relevant time period.

66

A third of Gwinnett County’s SWAT deployments were for

drug investigations; in half of them, the SWAT team broke

down the door to get inside, and there was no record in

any of the reports that weapons were found. In several of

these cases, damage resulted to people’s homes; in one case,

the SWAT team deployed tear gas into a home in order to

serve an arrest warrant, knowing there were people inside

who were not subjects of the warrant. It is not possible to

prove definitively that the weapons procured through the

1033 Program incentivized these deployments in Gwinnett.