We just have different opinions on the matter. IMO, if you need six officers to safely execute the vast majority of "routine" warrants, then I question the training of that particular department.

 

What about a burglary in progress in a residential area? Is 6 too many then? Or should it be 4? Maybe 8? How do you determine the correct amount of officers needed?

This kind of thing happens all the time which drives me crazy when people complain about SWAT teams and equipment police dept's have as being too powerful and overkill etc.

 

Exactly because those armored more durable vehicles(formerly military vehicles) and semi-automatic rifles(media calls them assault rifles) are making it really unfair to the common criminal.

So now who's the one taking isolated incident and justifying over aggressive behavior ? No one has ever said being a cop isn't dangerous there is risk. But the general public doesn't lose their rights so a cop can feel safer. Not how it works.

 

What exactly about making police safer causes the general public to lose their rights?

 

Was thinking the same thing. Most citizens have the right to the same equipment police departments do with very few exceptions when it comes to vehicles and weapons.

So now who's the one taking isolated incident and justifying over aggressive behavior ? No one has ever said being a cop isn't dangerous there is risk. But the general public doesn't lose their rights so a cop can feel safer. Not how it works.

 

Police saftey does not trump the general public. Do we have to go over this again ? Example after example has been posted of either a swat strike gone wrong or used in a non violent crime .

 

Any murder of a police officer is sad and terrible. But we can't keep adding risk on the general public . My question is does Jumper_Dad now think swat should be used in all situations? If so that is not only insane but without logic.

 

So when someone has a warrant for a non violent crime but there's a known threat of a person being armed and dangerous then swat shouldn't be used? You're looking at this with a simple point of view on a subject/situation that is often very complex. A lot of times agencies nowadays use a matrix to decide whether or not a swat presence is necessary. Granted just like the use of camera's or tazers etc not ALL agencies do this but a lot of them do.

So now who's the one taking isolated incident and justifying over aggressive behavior ? No one has ever said being a cop isn't dangerous there is risk. But the general public doesn't lose their rights so a cop can feel safer. Not how it works.

 

There have been enough go wrong that, coupled with situations like Ferguson, the public seems to be becoming more and more wary of police tactics and equipment. This is not just a few people either. Legislation is being implemented that will curtail or stop the 1033 program and others like it. I read today where a city council has told their police force to get rid of or destroy their MRAP vehicle.

 

Can you provide some stats on # of times a swat team is called out nationwide each year vs # of incidents you feel are too much each year? I'm curious as to how you are able to justify such a claim?

 

What special tactics and or weapons were used in Ferguson that should make people wary of police?

Are you saying it is wrong for the police to serve the warrant. Not kicking in a door, but attempting to make contact with the individual that the officer is charged with serving the warrant on?

 

Why would it be wrong to serve the warrant?

 

I am saying that if an officer is serving a warrant for a misdemeanor and the person doesn't answer the door then it is not wise to kick in the door.

 

Surely we agree on that, correct?

Can you provide some stats on # of times a swat team is called out nationwide each year vs # of incidents you feel are too much each year? I'm curious as to how you are able to justify such a claim?

 

What special tactics and or weapons were used in Ferguson that should make people wary of police?

 

Shooting tear gas and rubber bullets at an obvious news crew with no protestors around comes to mind...

No, I should have put that. Just my opinion, and not even really sure why I think that, to be honest. Maybe just human nature, and the pack mentality that can occur with groups of people.

 

I get what you're saying but this is also why cops now go through a rather grilling process just to get hired(doesn't mean they'll last). Polygraph, psychological examinations, interviews with panels. Most police officers have leadership qualities and type A personalities. They don't just sit back and let something they know to be wrong happen. That's what makes them good at what they do.

Shooting tear gas and rubber bullets at an obvious news crew with no protestors around comes to mind...

 

After they were told how many times to disburse from the area? Should the police officers just say "ok well you called our bluff you don't how to obey our orders. Can I get you anything?" Don't get me wrong I've heard of some stuff happening that was over the top but that's not one of them and certainly not something that should make the public WARY. Last I checked rubber bullets and tear gas have been around for decades.

Here's a ruling that came out this week where the US Court of Appeals denied a police force's motion to grant them immunity from a lawsuit after a 2008 raid left a bystander dead and the subject of the warrant wounded. The raid was carried out when an exotic dancer tipped of police that the homeowner had some cocaine. The team busted down the door, threw flashbangs, hit the homeowner with a rifle butt and shot his friend 6 times as they watched television. Only a small amount of drugs (not enough to be considered for resale) and no guns were found. 2 officers expressed reservations about the amount of force being used to serve the warrant before the raid. This ruling affirms a court ruling that the police responded with inappropriate and unnecessary force given the nature of the warrant. This ruling will likely be referenced in other lawsuits of a similar nature now that a precedent had been set and affirmed by an appeals court. The police department had previously offered the plaintiff $3.5 million to settle the case and he refused. It will likely cost them much more now.

 

 

 

Court: Cops can?t claim immunity after SWAT team fatally shot man while looking for cocaine

 

So you had to go back to 2008 to find something. Yea I guess I get it now.:ohbrother:

The point that the court made with this ruling is that they view that type of force being used to serve that type of warrant as being excessive, thus they are not immune from lawsuits when a situation like that goes bad. I'd say this will have an impact as to when SWAT/SRT is used to serve warrants.

 

In that situation under those circumstances. You can't blanket one scenario with every other you don't like or agree with. That's not how case precedent works.

Shooting tear gas and rubber bullets at an obvious news crew with no protestors around comes to mind...

 

It doesn't matter who you are. If you're the pope and the police give you an order to disburse from the area and you choose not to then things are likely to escalate. I'm not sure how that's hard to understand? The media is not above the law.

Shooting tear gas and rubber bullets at an obvious news crew with no protestors around comes to mind...

 

Perhaps I should give a different angle. Do you think the protesters stick around if there's no one there to acknowledge/report their protests? Again if you can't grasp what I'm saying then so be it, but I tried to give more than one reason as to why the reporters/instigators are no different than the protesters. A lawful order from a police officer to leave an area due to public safety concerns while trying to maintain order does not get trumped by the fact that they're just there to watch the show.

It doesn't matter who you are. If you're the pope and the police give you an order to disburse from the area and you choose not to then things are likely to escalate. I'm not sure how that's hard to understand? The media is not above the law.

 

Go watch the video of the incident. They were not ordered to disburse. They were not mixed in with the protesters, they were simply filming. At this time there was no curfew, no designated area for media. They simply decided to toss some tear gas at the Al Jazeera news crew. It was pretty blatant.

 

How about the officer pointing his rifle at a group of protesters and telling them that he would bleeping kill them? They had to remove that guy. Last I heard he's still suspended.

 

Pointing their laser sights on their sniper rifles at protesters with their hands up? What purpose did that serve other to inflame the situation? Their crowd control tactics were abysmal at best.

In that situation under those circumstances. You can't blanket one scenario with every other you don't like or agree with. That's not how case precedent works.

 

In one 2 year study where SWAT was used to serve warrants over 800 times firearms were found on site in only 35% of all cases. That's below the national average of 38% of households that have guns. That means these guys were so dangerous that they needed SWAT to serve their warrants but you were more likely to encounter a gun knocking on Tamsin doors. The SWAT teams were largely being used to prevent the destruction of drug evidence--no exactly what they were designed for.