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

 

 

 

Oh, I could list 25 examples from the last few years with a short Google search. Evidently, it is you that is having a hard time reading or comprehending what is being said. The significance of that article is that the ruling was handed down by a US Appeals Court THIS WEEK denying the police immunity when they use SWAT/SRT in situations that do not call for it--such as minor drug offenses. It is a significant ruling and it will have an impact on when that level of force is used.

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.

 

What region, city or state was studied because I know that's not nationwide and that's the pool you are talking about when pointing out incidents.

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.

 

You know what SWAT stands for, without looking it up? I'd say that T at the end is why they were used, but still doesn't change my question about your previous post?

Oh, I could list 25 examples from the last few years with a short Google search. Evidently, it is you that is having a hard time reading or comprehending what is being said. The significance of that article is that the ruling was handed down by a US Appeals Court THIS WEEK denying the police immunity when they use SWAT/SRT in situations that do not call for it--such as minor drug offenses. It is a significant ruling and it will have an impact on when that level of force is used.

 

 

25 examples with a google search from when? According to who? Again if you cast a wide enough net you're bound to catch a lot of crap.

What region, city or state was studied because I know that's not nationwide and that's the pool you are talking about when pointing out incidents.

 

It was a nationwide study. They did not get cooperation from several agencies and several others did not have accurate records kept. You can scroll down in this category and find the link. There is a thread titled Over Use of SWAT teams.

You know what SWAT stands for, without looking it up? I'd say that T at the end is why they were used, but still doesn't change my question about your previous post?

 

Tactics? What special tactics does it require to serve a warrant for marijuana? Or even a small amount of cocaine for that matter?

It was a nationwide study. They did not get cooperation from several agencies and several others did not have accurate records kept. You can scroll down in this category and find the link. There is a thread titled Over Use of SWAT teams.

 

So who did this poll? The fact that they noted not getting a lot of cooperation is rather telling, unless of course you want to overlook it and just digest the skewed data.

Tactics? What special tactics does it require to serve a warrant for marijuana? Or even a small amount of cocaine for that matter?

 

If you are going in to a building/residence and fear/know the guys on the other side of the door are going to flush the evidence then it may behoove you to use Special(that's what the first acronym in SWAT stands for) Tactics to try to stop them from doing so.

 

I will pose another question for you. If you're trying to work your way of a food chain of suppliers of drugs do you come at the smaller fish with adequate resources or enough to both insure officer safety and give a perception that the police, feds, DEA or whoever else is involved is serious about getting to the top of the food chain? I want an honest answer out of you on how you would do things?

Tactics? What special tactics does it require to serve a warrant for marijuana? Or even a small amount of cocaine for that matter?

 

 

Yea the illegal drug trade of marijuana is only estimated over $140,000,000,000. Why should police officers be concerned about people wanting to protect their chunk of that change.

If you are going in to a building/residence and fear/know the guys on the other side of the door are going to flush the evidence then it may behoove you to use Special(that's what the first acronym in SWAT stands for) Tactics to try to stop them from doing so.

 

I will pose another question for you. If you're trying to work your way of a food chain of suppliers of drugs do you come at the smaller fish with adequate resources or enough to both insure officer safety and give a perception that the police, feds, DEA or whoever else is involved is serious about getting to the top of the food chain? I want an honest answer out of you on how you would do things?

 

I'm not going to bust in the door because a CI told me that they bought $50 of pot from someone at the residence. That's what recently happened in Atlanta--a flashbang landed in the crib of an 18 month old child and severely burned him. Oh yeah, the person that sold the pot didn't even live there. There were 3 other children in the house. I don't need to make a pot bust that badly.

 

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.

 

Why would a sniper rifle have a laser?

I'm not going to bust in the door because a CI told me that they bought $50 of pot from someone at the residence. That's what recently happened in Atlanta--a flashbang landed in the crib of an 18 month old child and severely burned him. Oh yeah, the person that sold the pot didn't even live there. There were 3 other children in the house. I don't need to make a pot bust that badly.

 

Again show me a link all you are doing is saying this happened then that happened and providing no evidence that is disputable.

Again show me a link all you are doing is saying this happened then that happened and providing no evidence that is disputable.

 

Here you go: County Won't Pay Medical Expenses For Toddler Hit With Police Grenade

 

That's a link from last week where they are declining to pay for the toddler's medical bills. There's a link within that story to the original story. No drugs found in the house. The subject of the warrant did not live there. Toys scattered all over the yard but they still busted in and threw a flashbang in the kid's crib then claimed they didn't know kids lived there. Now they won't help with the medical bills. Nice.

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?

 

Agreed. Should the officer just leave if he knows the subject is in the home?

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.

 

So we let anarchy rule and let anyone and everyone do what they want unchecked. Got it. I know all the store owners interviewed have a different take on it. They have lost their business due to the "peaceful protesters" that looted their stores.

 

I'm so tired or hearing arm chair quarterbacks that have no clue as to police tactics saying they are wrong. If you don't like how it's being done, I suggest you enroll in the academy, take the training and work the streets for a few years. Or, contact your Congressman and Senator and try to have the current laws changed.