Or this:

 

The Department of Defense operates the 1033 Program

through the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) Law

Enforcement Support Office (LESO), whose motto is

“from warfighter to crimefighter.” According to LESO,

the program has transferred $4.3 billion worth of

property through the 1033 Program.

Today, the 1033

Program includes more than 17,000 federal and state law

enforcement agencies from all U.S. states and territories.

The amount of military equipment being used by local and

state police agencies has increased dramatically—the value

of property transferred though the program went from $1

million in 1990 to $324 million in 1995 and to nearly $450

million in 2013.

 

Notice the motto: From warfighter to crimefighter.

 

Seems pretty clear.

Or this from a SWAT training program:

 

The militarization of policing culture is also apparent

in the training that tactical teams receive—SWAT team

members are trained to think like soldiers. The ACLU

asked hundreds of law enforcement agencies to submit

copies of SWAT training materials. One response from the

Farmington, Missouri, Special Response Team consisted

of a piece written by Senior PoliceOne Contributor

Chuck Remsberg for Killology Research Group. The piece

summarizes a presentation given at a conference of the

International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms

Instructors and warns that “preparations for attacks on

American schools that will bring rivers of blood and

staggering body counts are well underway in Islamic

terrorist camps.” It further states that “police agencies aren’t

used to this…We deal with acts of a criminal nature. This

is an act of war, but because of our laws we can’t depend

on the military to help us…[T]he U.S. in [sic] the one

nation in the world where the military is not the first line

of defense against domestic terrorist attack. By law, you

the police officer are our Delta Force.” It provides “‘4 Ds’

for Thwarting Terrorists’ Plans to Massacre Our School

Children” and concludes with an admonition to “Build the

right mind-set in your troops."

 

The problem with training like this is not how they respond to school shootings, it is that training like that becomes part of their every day dealing with the public.

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.

 

M-16's are not Semi-Automatic and M-14 are long heavy wooden stock type guns (don't see many departments using them for any reason)...so with the author showing near no knowledge of the firearms he is discussing I wonder how of the rest is just hyperbola on his/her behalf.

 

Maybe they meant Select Fire M-16's and M-4 carbines which are current military issue.

 

But either way some SWAT teams going back to the 70's used military style rifles. The only reason nearly all departments have these sort's of weapons now is because of lessons learned written in the blood of dead law enforcement officers across the country that came up on criminals that had them completely out gunned and over matched.

M-16's are not Semi-Automatic and M-14 are long heavy wooden stock type guns (don't see many departments using them for any reason)...so with the author showing near no knowledge of the firearms he is discussing I wonder how of the rest is just hyperbola on his/her behalf.

 

Maybe they meant Select Fire M-16's and M-4 carbines which are current military issue.

 

But either way some SWAT teams going back to the 70's used military style rifles. The only reason nearly all departments have these sort's of weapons now is because of lessons learned written in the blood of dead law enforcement officers across the country that came up on criminals that had them completely out gunned and over matched.

 

It isn't about the type of rifles used. It is about the fact that once the departments are given this equipment they seem to feel compelled to use it in cases where it was not used in the past. That is why SWAT use has spiked off of the charts in recent years. It is simple math, the more SWAT usage the more accidents will happen. If you have an accident in 1% (and that number is probably high, I'm just using it as an example) of all cases and SWAT usage goes from 4,500 times in a year to 80,000 in a year you have 800 people injured/killed instead of 45.

 

Departments largely have to answer to no one as to when they do or do not use SWAT and they largely did not keep detailed records of the times it was used--that needs to change, wouldn't you at least agree on that point?

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

There is a huge reason why SWAT teams are being used in drug busts etc. and it is because of the firepower the drug dealers have at their disposal these days. I have no problem at all using SWAT teams in incidents like that etc.

 

I don't understand why the increased use of SWAT teams should be alarming or why anyone would be upset about the increase in usage.

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.

 

I have no problem with them using SWAT to execute ALL search warrants. According to this article in Forbes St. Louis is the 2nd most dangerous city in the US. I wouldn't want my son or daughter if they were on the police force executing serrch warrants without the proper protection or equipment.

 

The job of a police officer is difficult enough as it is, why deny then the use of anything that might provide them an advantage or additional measures of security while trying to do their jobs.

 

St. Louis - In Photos: The 10 Most Dangerous U.S. Cities - Forbes

Departments largely have to answer to no one as to when they do or do not use SWAT and they largely did not keep detailed records of the times it was used--that needs to change, wouldn't you at least agree on that point?

Well departments do keep case reports and before they knock on a door (or don't knock) a Judge has to approve the warrant and that there is sufficient evidence to issue a warrant. If one goes bad you have the courts, press and public holding them accountable.

 

Who do you think they should call before deploying SWAT type teams to get approval? If they are to answer to someone it would stand to reason they would have to get using SWAT approved before they are used.

I don't have any problem with the use of SWAT teams, if the definition includes bulletproof vests and equipment to keep police officers safe. However, I do believe that local police departments are being over-militarized and my biggest objection to the militarization of local law enforcement organizations if the source of funding.

 

Money buys influence and control and I absolutely oppose federal agencies sinking their hoods into local police departments. We have seen the same pattern with the federal government using funding to poke their noses into everything from local school district cafeterias to state highway department and traffic laws.

 

I hope those of you who are so opposed to the heavy armaments of the St. Louis area police departments understand that the Obama administration is funding the arms buildup at a fast pace. Not only that, federal agencies from the IRS to the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Postal Service are arming themselves under Obama's watch.

 

I am much more concerned with the threat of the federal government's assault on individual rights than I am of local police departments, but my fear is that local law enforcement agencies will eventually become nothing but puppets of the federal government.

Big city departments may get a lot of federal money, but most smaller ones don't get much if any. They may get a surplus Army Humvee or something, but as far as any operational cash to run the departments, they don't get much if any at most departments.

I stopped reading halfway through this thread. I am appalled that there are people posting that basically consider innocent victims, CITIZENS, collateral damage!

It goes back to the trend of this country to give away some freedom for the disguise of more safety.

I stopped reading halfway through this thread. I am appalled that there are people posting that basically consider innocent victims, CITIZENS, collateral damage!

 

Who did that?

 

Who did that?

 

Every one of you who say "it's a terrible thing, BUT..."

It goes back to the trend of this country to give away some freedom for the disguise of more safety.

 

What does that have to do with police having different equipment.

Every one of you who say "it's a terrible thing, BUT..."

 

Did I once justify an innocent person being harmed? NO, I did not. My point in this entire thread is that police officers need to be prepared for a worse case scenario before things go bad, not retreat when the first two officers get shot and then get prepared. Maybe if you had a child putting there life on the line for people that could care less if he lived or died you would respect the inherent danger involved with law enforcement.