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.

 

Please stop acting like every single drug dealer in the world is Tony Montana.

 

Aren't no knock warrants by definition approved by a judge? You bring up one was altered, then that is on the police commander that made that decision.

 

But this discussion wasn't about No Knock Warrants, it was about SWAT teams having better equipment. Which you still have explained to me why that is bad, other than bring up example of warrants gone wrong. There have been several officers killed this year serving warrants, so let's not act like they are going to arrest choir boys, this is a dangerous job and I want them equipped as safely as possible.

 

Proper intelligence on who the warrant is being served should tell when it's needed to up the ante Baghdad-style. Police get equipment like this and can't wait to use it at every turn to justify having it, to the point that you've got 12 guys storming a house to arrest one guy with an ounce of weed and a handgun, while his wife and kids are in the other room. It's extreme overkill. Killing a fly with a wrecking ball.

 

When these guys don this equipment, there are too many of them who can't keep their noggin in charge of their testosterone, and unnecessary deaths happen as a result. Whatever happened to proactive police work?

 

Not every drug dealer is Nino Brown. Especially in Kentucky.

 

Why should it bother the police to have to give a reason for a no knock warrant? If they have proper intel they should be able to justify it pretty easily, if not maybe they should wait until they can. I'm not asking then to go in to a known dangerous situation in regular gear. But if they feel that strongly about it why not be up front about it? Especially when there might be children or other innocent people in the house. If the judge isn't willing to risk a no knock warrant then it is on them, not the police.

 

Exactly. Especially in a rural state such as Kentucky, where everybody knows everybody, there's no excuse for police not knowing exactly what they're walking into. It's usually no secret who the whacked-out gun nuts are in town.

Is this a big issue in rural areas like Kentucky? Most issues brought up seem to come from metro areas much bigger than Kentucky.

 

The murder rates in a city like LA for instance shows there a lot of Tony Montana and Nino Brown wanna-be's.

Threads like this will eventually lead to me bouncing from this website. No shortage of uneducated opinions posted like they're factual. I could pick the 20 least used SWAT teams in the country and have an article completely opposite of the original posters story.

 

People expect the cops to know everything and every criminal and every move they make because there's "no excuse" for not knowing the drug users and dealers, but then the same people cry about cops harassing them and needing to leave people alone to do what they want.

 

If it wasn't for the fantasy football stuff and UK stuff I'd have been gone a long time ago.

Here's a search warrant being served in Evansville over threatening comments toward the police made on a message board. This wasn't a case of a mistaken address, but the warrant identified the wrong people as responsible. I don't think this is reasonable.

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6e7_1407930108

The treats were posted using their wireless router. The guy who did it connected to their router.

Is this a big issue in rural areas like Kentucky? Most issues brought up seem to come from metro areas much bigger than Kentucky.

 

The murder rates in a city like LA for instance shows there a lot of Tony Montana and Nino Brown wanna-be's.

 

Here's the point I was trying to make with firearms being found in only 35% of the SWAT raids in the report. SWAT was developed for use in situations like a barricaded suspect, hostage situation, active shooter etc. They weren't meant to serve warrants. Due to some drug dealers being very well armed I can understand SWAT being used to serve warrants in situations where the police believe there is high risk to the serving officers. I don't have any objection to that. I don't have any objection to SWAT having specialized weapons or tools to do so. I do have a problem if they are being used simply to serve warrants to prevent a drug dealer from flushing evidence. When heavily armed men break down doors and rush in unannounced there is too great a risk that someone's nerves (police or suspect) gets the best of them and someone gets hurt. Especially children or innocent people that might be in the house but not be suspects. I feel the fact that firearms were found (and the key word is found, not used by or attempted to be used by the suspects) at a lower rate than the firearm ownership rate of the general public shows that either the police have extremely poor intel or they are trying to prevent the destruction of evidence. I tend to think it is the latter more often than not. I have an even bigger objection when the judge that signs the warrant is not informed that it will be served as a no knock warrant. If presented with that information the warrant might not have been signed in the first place. For example, if you go to a judge and ask for a warrant to search a house because a suspect sold to a CI you'll probably get a warrant. Now if you go to the judge and ask for that same warrant as a no knock warrant to prevent the destruction of evidence there's going to be a lot more question concerning other people in the house etc. I feel like the judges deserve to be presented with that evidence or at least the reason for deciding to bust the door down vs knocking. I feel by using SWAT in the way they are being used in a lot of cases that a lot of people, police, suspects and bystanders are being put at risk needlessly.

Please stop acting like every single drug dealer in the world is Tony Montana.

 

 

 

Proper intelligence on who the warrant is being served should tell when it's needed to up the ante Baghdad-style. Police get equipment like this and can't wait to use it at every turn to justify having it, to the point that you've got 12 guys storming a house to arrest one guy with an ounce of weed and a handgun, while his wife and kids are in the other room. It's extreme overkill. Killing a fly with a wrecking ball.

 

When these guys don this equipment, there are too many of them who can't keep their noggin in charge of their testosterone, and unnecessary deaths happen as a result. Whatever happened to proactive police work?

 

Not every drug dealer is Nino Brown. Especially in Kentucky.

 

 

 

Exactly. Especially in a rural state such as Kentucky, where everybody knows everybody, there's no excuse for police not knowing exactly what they're walking into. It's usually no secret who the whacked-out gun nuts are in town.

You really don't have a clue about reality do you?

 

Dont you think if "Everybody knows about everybody" as you think is the case in your fantasy world, then there would be no need for warrants for drug dealers etc because everyone already knows who they are and should be able to arrest them before they even get to big etc.

 

Seriously, what fantasy world do you live in?

 

There was a arrest made on my street not more than 6 months ago that started as 1 officer responding to the home and things escalated because this kid who was dealing drugs ended up having an arsenal in his parents house where he was living and he ended up refusing to come out while threatening the officers and keeping his girlfriend in the house and wouldn't release her and guess what? The Swat team was called out and they were finally able to arrest the subj without anyone getting hurt. If they knew ahead of time what type of weapons etc. the subject had at his disposal they would have responded in kind originally. This is a very nice subdivision of 300k+ homes yet because " everyone" doesn't know everybody the police didn't know what they were running into.

 

Trust me, no one in my neighborhood knows whether or not if I have any weapons in my house, not sure how they would, yet you believe everyone knows everything which is pure fantasy.

Here's the point I was trying to make with firearms being found in only 35% of the SWAT raids in the report. SWAT was developed for use in situations like a barricaded suspect, hostage situation, active shooter etc. They weren't meant to serve warrants. Due to some drug dealers being very well armed I can understand SWAT being used to serve warrants in situations where the police believe there is high risk to the serving officers. I don't have any objection to that. I don't have any objection to SWAT having specialized weapons or tools to do so. I do have a problem if they are being used simply to serve warrants to prevent a drug dealer from flushing evidence. When heavily armed men break down doors and rush in unannounced there is too great a risk that someone's nerves (police or suspect) gets the best of them and someone gets hurt. Especially children or innocent people that might be in the house but not be suspects. I feel the fact that firearms were found (and the key word is found, not used by or attempted to be used by the suspects) at a lower rate than the firearm ownership rate of the general public shows that either the police have extremely poor intel or they are trying to prevent the destruction of evidence. I tend to think it is the latter more often than not. I have an even bigger objection when the judge that signs the warrant is not informed that it will be served as a no knock warrant. If presented with that information the warrant might not have been signed in the first place. For example, if you go to a judge and ask for a warrant to search a house because a suspect sold to a CI you'll probably get a warrant. Now if you go to the judge and ask for that same warrant as a no knock warrant to prevent the destruction of evidence there's going to be a lot more question concerning other people in the house etc. I feel like the judges deserve to be presented with that evidence or at least the reason for deciding to bust the door down vs knocking. I feel by using SWAT in the way they are being used in a lot of cases that a lot of people, police, suspects and bystanders are being put at risk needlessly.

 

You don't have a clue as to how the real world is. You site one report as the Gospel on the evils of SWAT or SRT teams.

 

Judges are provided all the information when obtaining a warrant. A judge is not going to sign something that is vague. Warrants are very specific in their scope.

 

I don't think you give law enforcement enough credit for doing an extremely dangerous job. I suggest you go ride with your local agency and see how things are done. You will probably change your mind.

You don't have a clue as to how the real world is. You site one report as the Gospel on the evils of SWAT or SRT teams.

 

Judges are provided all the information when obtaining a warrant. A judge is not going to sign something that is vague. Warrants are very specific in their scope.

 

I don't think you give law enforcement enough credit for doing an extremely dangerous job. I suggest you go ride with your local agency and see how things are done. You will probably change your mind.

 

 

 

Did you read the report? This wasn't a couple of raids. It was taken from over 800 uses of SWAT over a 2+ year period. It also detailed how in many of these cases SWAT was used to serve warrants to prevent the destruction of evidence--not because they expected an armed confrontation. That is born out by the fact that firearms were found on the premises in only 35% of all the cases studied. That is a lower rate than gun ownership in general. Before you tell me I no clue what I'm taking about or of hands perhaps you should actually read the article cited to begin the thread and address the facts and figures in it.

Did you read the report? This wasn't a couple of raids. It was taken from over 800 uses of SWAT over a 2+ year period. It also detailed how in many of these cases SWAT was used to serve warrants to prevent the destruction of evidence--not because they expected an armed confrontation. That is born out by the fact that firearms were found on the premises in only 35% of all the cases studied. That is a lower rate than gun ownership in general. Before you tell me I no clue what I'm taking about or of hands perhaps you should actually read the article cited to begin the thread and address the facts and figures in it.

 

I did read the article. First, it is by the ACLU which, to me, gives it a biased slant to begin with.

 

All warrants were signed by a judge. Again, to repeat, judges do not decide police tactics.

 

SWAT is not only used for when guns are involved. Agencies are not using SWAT to serve warrants for just a couple of ounces of weed either.

 

I would ask that you contact your local agency and do some ride along time if they allow and see how law enforcement operates.

So for those of you against the use of SWAT as it has evolved to its current form I will give you a scenario and you are now the police officer.

 

You have obtained a warrant for arrest and the search of Johnny's house. Johnny has sold weed to an informant three times in controlled buys. On one occasion Johnny had a revolver in his hand when he answered the door. He told the informant that he trusts nobody and that he is not getting robbed by some punk, and the cops are not sending him back to prison. Johnny has been arrested several times, mostly for drinking, fighting, and minor drug stuff. He did serve 18 months for a burglary and resisting arrest conviction. Johnny has been out for a year, has no job and spends his time drinking, fishing, and hunting. Johnny usually sells by the ounce and buys by the pound which he gets from two different sources. You don't know either source but Johnny claims his guys are real big wigs and not to be messed with. Today Johnny has told the informant that he can sell him two ounces after he re ups and told the informant he can drop in sometime after noontime. As you obtained the warrant another officer watched the house and saw a man arrive 10 minutes ago and carry a package inside. As far as you know Johnny and his visitor are the only people in the house.

 

It's high noon (that's when warrants should be served right?) you and the other two officers that are working today are ready to go. You send the rookie around back to cover back door. You and the other officer are going to the front door. Are you ready? .........Are you ready?

 

 

........or should we wait and call SWAT?

While I question certain police practices that can appear over-the-top, I suspect those are statistically rare. Some of you guys are going way too far in your vitriol toward a group that, for the most part, keeps the peace across our country.

Just because some county in South Carolina has a 50cal machine gun on a Humvee doesn’t mean they’re gonna start firing it into a crowd. When facing a potentially dangerous situation whether it’s on the street or at a personal residence, the show of overwhelming force significantly reduces potential harm to the police and to bystanders. Who gives a crap if they’re wearing camo? More hyperbole. If they wore all black you’d accuse them of trying to be ninjas.

When serving a no-knock warrant at odd hours at the home of a suspected criminal, the first priority IMO is the safety of the officers involved. The second priority is the safety of residents of the home. If I’m a drug dealer and I live in a house with a number of family members, I am the one putting them at risk, not the police.

If you have a case to make regarding excessive force, provide some statistics. How many warrants were served in the US last year? How many resulted in injury/death to the suspected criminal or a resident of the home? 10%? Well then we have an epidemic. 0.00001%? Well maybe you’re overstating how crazy all our enforcement officers are.

Enough with the hyperbole. It means nothing to me. I am open to reasonable, fact-based arguments. Make your case logically or you’re going to lose the audience you’re trying to persuade.

While I question certain police practices that can appear over-the-top, I suspect those are statistically rare. Some of you guys are going way too far in your vitriol toward a group that, for the most part, keeps the peace across our country.

Just because some county in South Carolina has a 50cal machine gun on a Humvee doesn’t mean they’re gonna start firing it into a crowd. When facing a potentially dangerous situation whether it’s on the street or at a personal residence, the show of overwhelming force significantly reduces potential harm to the police and to bystanders. Who gives a crap if they’re wearing camo? More hyperbole. If they wore all black you’d accuse them of trying to be ninjas.

When serving a no-knock warrant at odd hours at the home of a suspected criminal, the first priority IMO is the safety of the officers involved. The second priority is the safety of residents of the home. If I’m a drug dealer and I live in a house with a number of family members, I am the one putting them at risk, not the police.

If you have a case to make regarding excessive force, provide some statistics. How many warrants were served in the US last year? How many resulted in injury/death to the suspected criminal or a resident of the home? 10%? Well then we have an epidemic. 0.00001%? Well maybe you’re overstating how crazy all our enforcement officers are.

Enough with the hyperbole. It means nothing to me. I am open to reasonable, fact-based arguments. Make your case logically or you’re going to lose the audience you’re trying to persuade.

 

Some people don't want to post statistics unless they are cherry picked to make LE look bad. I've asked for similar stats with no results so far.

Interesting post that I saw on Facebook today. It comes from the Criminal Justice Graduate Student Association of Eastern Kentucky University...

 

On behalf of the Criminal Justice Graduate Student Association of Eastern Kentucky University, we express our deepest support for the family of Michael Brown and solidarity with the community of Ferguson, Missouri. As budding scholars and practitioners in the Criminal Justice field we would be remiss to not recognize the deeply ingrained institutionalized racism that pervades policing and law enforcement throughout this country making, sadly, the events that have unfolded in Ferguson unsurprising, though no less unacceptable.

 

Policing in this country over the past several decades has shifted further and further away from the idea of police as “peace officers” and closer to a more militarized outlook, viewing the people of our communities as combatants. Young Black men specifically, minorities and the poor in general, are often seen as the most dangerous of these perceived combatants. This is certainly the case with Michael Brown’s shooting and the aftermath of militarized police crackdown on protestors who have had no official avenues to express their mounting outrage as nationally, the body count from excessive police-perpetrated violence rises. We share this outrage.

 

Reform is needed from the national, to the local, and the individual level if we are going to create a police force of the future that is cognizant of, and responsive to, the realities and needs of all populations within a community without resorting so rapidly to violence and deadly force. In pursuit of this we fully support the list of actions developed by Sociologists for Justice, who currently have the signed support of nearly 1,200 (and counting, please see references for a link to their website) sociologists and criminologists across the United States. In particular we support the following national legislative action recommended:

 

“Legislation requiring the use of dash and body-worn cameras to record all police interactions. Data from these devices should be immediately stored in tamper-proof databases, and there should be clear procedures for public access to any such recordings….

 

Federal legislation, currently being developed by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), to halt the transfer of military equipment to local police departments, and additional legislation to curtail the use of such equipment against domestic civilian populations.”

 

Additionally we fully support the list of recommendations developed in a recent blog post by Dr. Kishonna Gray of the School of Justice Studies at Eastern Kentucky University. Dr. Gray’s recommendations are directed at local police departments and, if headed, would go a long way toward mending an ever-growing divide between the police and the communities they are trusted to protect and serve. In particular we want to highlight the following recommendations:

 

“Take Community Oriented Policing Seriously

Let’s try community policing again. Cops get out of your cars. Citizens are not enemy combatants. They are people who want to talk to you. We stare at you driving by for a reason. Yes we’re probably ticked off but get out and talk to us….

 

Diversity Training for Police

Existing diversity training for police officers is awful. For those policing marginalized communities, they know nothing of the communities they serve. Don’t just put this important task into the hands of the person who took a sociology course in race relations. Hire an actual professional and make sure the training is on-going. One time in the academy? The lesson won’t stick.”

 

As a people we must demand accountability from our officers and our policymakers. Our aim is a society where all people can expect respect and true safety when interacting with the police. We have a long way to go. The slaying of Michael Brown and the militarized response to protestors in Ferguson is just a small window into much larger problems. The loss of life at the hands of the state, the slaying of young black men, is not acceptable. We will not sit idly by any longer.

 

-The Criminal Justice Graduate Student Association of Eastern Kentucky University

 

Gray, K.L.

 

http://uprootingcriminology.org/blogs/im-scared-boogeyman-ahem-mean-protect-threat-matter-big-black/

Edited August 29, 201412 yr by AverageJoesGym