The United States Of SWAT?...

[Synthaholic]

^ spoonman funny ..... NOT!!!

civilized society, google it. When you agree to live in it, you agree to let the police handle peace-keeping in 98% of instances. Don't like it? Move to Idaho or Wyoming and go off the grid.

if police were handling peace keeping in 98% of the instances we wouldn't have such high crime rates now would we? This is still america, not the government controlled communists state you are trying to create. I'll live where I choose. I'll protect my rights and interests as i ma constitutionally guaranteed. I will continue to support organizations that protect my rights, as millions of others will do as well.

you need to put a bushmaster in your avie

Bush Master:

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

if the clingers like m15shooter, 2ndamendment, & others weren't buying all the military-style, fire sticks, maybe SWAT wouldn't need to get all that over-the-top equipment. That ever occur to you OP? BTW- I served Wonder how many of the overt clingers on this board served?

Like I said in a previous post. Almost Nobody had ARs or AKs when I was growing up in the eighties.
Now they are everywhere. I blame the State for ratcheting up the pressure and people responded accordingly.

A history lesson for you dumbass:

UT-Austin clock tower rampage: Cops didn't have sniper rifles; Bad guy did. Lots died.
North Hollywood shootout: LAPD had pistols; 2 robbers had full auto AK's. LAPD had to go to a gun store and beg for AR15's to fight back.
LA Riots: LAPD grossly outmanned, outgunned.
That piece of shit Bill Ayers, who bombed cops. Now they have armored cars.
Pittsburgh shootout; 4 cops with pistols killed by 1 madman with an AK47
LA County ambush/house burn: Man on 2nd floor with rifle kills several cops from long distance shots
Chicago Housing Project shootings: Thugs using rifles from high rise floors to shoot at CPD patrolmen...with pistols.

That's a few of the most famous ones right off the top of my head. The 60's-80's saw lots and lots and LOTS of incidents where cops were outgunned and/or outmanned. The Hell Angels, street gangs, Mexican drug cartels. Regular ass crazy people with big guns.

The criminal element went to bigger guns first. The cops responded. The criminal element started toying with bombs and sniper rifle ambushes. So the cops went to armored cars.

Government and police are RARELY proactive. 99.9% of government action is reactive. Remember....you rapid gun nuts always say "When seconds count, the police are minutes away". Police react. And their equipment and weapons of today are a reaction of past incidents.

Shut the fuck up douche bag. I dont need some pinhead like you to tell me the ownership of so called assault rifles by the average American have sky rocketed over the last ten years.
People no longer trust the government and you're seeing the result.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I don't think there is anything faux about it. Cops these days are pussies, and compensate for that by arming themselves to the teeth and using force as a first resort rather than last.

So when they are responding to take on TERRORISTS who blew up two bombs and shot and killed a fellow cop already.........they shouldn't respond with their own armor and guns?

When you put on a vest and pick up a gun, and run into some of the shit American cops go into, then you can talk shit.

Until then, you are the only "pussy" around sitting on the couch watching others do life's dirty work.

The point is that most people were shocked to see that Boston had this militarized police force - the point of this thread.

But there is no doubt that nowadays cops will mace you, taze you, or brutally take you down as a first resort, because they are fearful instead of being trained to be capable.

Not as shocked as I was to see a picture taken from what looked like a 2nd floor apartment window...a picture of an armored vehicle pointing what looked like a grenade launcher (with coaxial machine gun) pointed at him. It looked like something from the Soviet Union...but it was Brookline, Massachusetts.

 

[Jarlaxle]

So when they are responding to take on TERRORISTS who blew up two bombs and shot and killed a fellow cop already.........they shouldn't respond with their own armor and guns?

When you put on a vest and pick up a gun, and run into some of the shit American cops go into, then you can talk shit.

Until then, you are the only "pussy" around sitting on the couch watching others do life's dirty work.

The point is that most people were shocked to see that Boston had this militarized police force - the point of this thread.

But there is no doubt that nowadays cops will mace you, taze you, or brutally take you down as a first resort, because they are fearful instead of being trained to be capable.

Sounds like Boston should be APPLAUDED

They have a very well trained, well armed SWAT unit obviously. BUT, people were surprised to see it when it was tracking down those murderous terrorists.

Which means....Boston has a team like that ready; And they use it very sparingly and ONLY for the most serious situations. Which is exactly what SWAT should be. Well armed, well trained; And rarely deployed, only for scenarios where it is truly necessary.

Not just Boston...in addition to Boston, every nearby town, and the MA State Police, there were SWAT teams there from as far away as Providence, Hartford, and Manchester.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I can absolutely agree with the horror that is a raid on the wrong house, or the unnecessary killing of a dog.

To demand that the police get ALL information on a warrant 100% correct is very reasonable. No reason other than sloppy or lazy work that a warrant is issued for the wrong house.

As for the dogs...tragic, and I'm a dog lover. In my days on patrol, I almost got bit a few times just to avoid shooting an aggressive dog. Thank God I never had to shoot one.

The dogs don't have to be "aggressive". They kill five-pound pugs. They blast terrified beagles with shotguns. They do it for the sheer JOY of it!

Bluntly, I suspect about one cop in four (and probably one SWAT cop in two) meets the clinical definition of a sadist, a psychopath, or both.

 

[Spoonman]

Like I said in a previous post. Almost Nobody had ARs or AKs when I was growing up in the eighties.
Now they are everywhere. I blame the State for ratcheting up the pressure and people responded accordingly.

even so, the frequency they are used to kill someone is so small. a few high profile caases that have been escalated by a media frenzy gives them a bad name.

That's true. A majority of incidents where cops are shot are done with pistols. But like you said, sometimes an explosive or high powered rifle are used.

And those incidents will occur again.

The question is...WHERE? They happen in big cities, small cities, rural counties. You never know when or where one of those scary incidents will happen. Can you blame the cops for preparing just in case THEY are the ones who will face that incident?

Its no different than a gun rights advocate wanting to pack a gun in a bar or movie or anywhere else....despite the fact that the odds of ever needing it are less than 1%.

cops are handicapped. you won't get any argument from me there. but their biggest handicaps come from liberal laws, liberal lawyers and judges protecting the rights of criminals and being handicapped by having to play by the rules and laws against a foe that totally disregards them. our military faces the same challenges. still not sure how any of this gives politicians the right to infringe on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens.

 

[Synthaholic]

So when they are responding to take on TERRORISTS who blew up two bombs and shot and killed a fellow cop already.........they shouldn't respond with their own armor and guns?

When you put on a vest and pick up a gun, and run into some of the shit American cops go into, then you can talk shit.

Until then, you are the only "pussy" around sitting on the couch watching others do life's dirty work.

The point is that most people were shocked to see that Boston had this militarized police force - the point of this thread.

But there is no doubt that nowadays cops will mace you, taze you, or brutally take you down as a first resort, because they are fearful instead of being trained to be capable.

Not as shocked as I was to see a picture taken from what looked like a 2nd floor apartment window...a picture of an armored vehicle pointing what looked like a grenade launcher (with coaxial machine gun) pointed at him. It looked like something from the Soviet Union...but it was Brookline, Massachusetts.

It's gotten way out of whack. And when there are incidents of over-use of force, it gets whitewashed and dispensed with.

 

[KNB]

cops are handicapped. you won't get any argument from me there. but their biggest handicaps come from liberal laws, liberal lawyers and judges protecting the rights of criminals and being handicapped by having to play by the rules and laws against a foe that totally disregards them. our military faces the same challenges. still not sure how any of this gives politicians the right to infringe on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens.

In one paragraph, you go from "Why should we follow the law if criminals don't?" to "Why does the government disregard the law whenever it suits them? That's a threat to freedom."

You don't see the contradiction there, do you?

 

[Spoonman]

cops are handicapped. you won't get any argument from me there. but their biggest handicaps come from liberal laws, liberal lawyers and judges protecting the rights of criminals and being handicapped by having to play by the rules and laws against a foe that totally disregards them. our military faces the same challenges. still not sure how any of this gives politicians the right to infringe on the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens.

In one paragraph, you go from "Why should we follow the law if criminals don't?" to "Why does the government disregard the law whenever it suits them? That's a threat to freedom."

You don't see the contradiction there, do you?

I think you need to tone down the pot smoking there bro if you got that out of that paragraph

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Maybe the police just want to be as well-armed as the rightwing gangs.

The police have nothing to fear from the vast majority of gun owners,right wing or otherwise.
It's those pesky gang members and drug dealers.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

if the clingers like m15shooter, 2ndamendment, & others weren't buying all the military-style, fire sticks, maybe SWAT wouldn't need to get all that over-the-top equipment. That ever occur to you OP? BTW- I served Wonder how many of the overt clingers on this board served?

Like I said in a previous post. Almost Nobody had ARs or AKs when I was growing up in the eighties.
Now they are everywhere. I blame the State for ratcheting up the pressure and people responded accordingly.

even so, the frequency they are used to kill someone is so small. a few high profile caases that have been escalated by a media frenzy gives them a bad name.

Exactly. The people committing the majority of gun crimes dont want an assault rifle.
It wont fit in their pants.

 

[paulitician]

The point is that most people were shocked to see that Boston had this militarized police force - the point of this thread.

But there is no doubt that nowadays cops will mace you, taze you, or brutally take you down as a first resort, because they are fearful instead of being trained to be capable.

Not as shocked as I was to see a picture taken from what looked like a 2nd floor apartment window...a picture of an armored vehicle pointing what looked like a grenade launcher (with coaxial machine gun) pointed at him. It looked like something from the Soviet Union...but it was Brookline, Massachusetts.

It's gotten way out of whack. And when there are incidents of over-use of force, it gets whitewashed and dispensed with.

Yup.

 

[paulitician]

This is a very fair article folks. Give it a read. It doesn't bash cops. I states there is a legitimate need for SWAT teams, just not so many, and not for petty incidents.

And I agree. SWAT is a very well armed, well trained unit. And the more and more of them you get, the more watered down the talent level and training becomes, until you have some teams that are just regular young cops who threw on some tac gear.

SWAT should be reserved for only the most serious incidents, which DO occur in America, in every state, and in every city.

But, just like some of the peaceful people of foreign countries, no one wants a military roaming their streets kicking their doors.

Keep SWAT elite, and keep it an uncommon and sparingly used tool.

Well said. Thanks.

 

[paulitician]

Interesting read on the Militarization of our domestic Police Force.


Military-style units from government agencies are wreaking havoc on non-violent citizens.
By John Fund

Regardless of how people feel about Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management over his cattle’s grazing rights, a lot of Americans were surprised to see TV images of an armed-to-the-teeth paramilitary wing of the BLM deployed around Bundy’s ranch.

They shouldn’t have been. Dozens of federal agencies now have Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams to further an expanding definition of their missions. It’s not controversial that the Secret Service and the Bureau of Prisons have them. But what about the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? All of these have their own SWAT units and are part of a worrying trend towards the militarization of federal agencies — not to mention local police forces.

“Law-enforcement agencies across the U.S., at every level of government, have been blurring the line between police officer and soldier,” journalist Radley Balko writes in his 2013 book Rise of the Warrior Cop. “The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop — armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.”

The proliferation of paramilitary federal SWAT teams inevitably brings abuses that have nothing to do with either drugs or terrorism. Many of the raids they conduct are against harmless, often innocent, Americans who typically are accused of non-violent civil or administrative violations.

Take the case of Kenneth Wright of Stockton, Calif., who was “visited” by a SWAT team from the U.S. Department of Education in June 2011. Agents battered down the door of his home at 6 a.m., dragged him outside in his boxer shorts, and handcuffed him as they put his three children (ages 3, 7, and 11) in a police car for two hours while they searched his home. The raid was allegedly intended to uncover information on Wright’s estranged wife, Michelle, who hadn’t been living with him and was suspected of college financial-aid fraud...

Read More:
The United States of SWAT? | National Review Online
DRUDGE REPORT 2014®

At first glance of the title, I assumed I'd disagree with your thread.

But, I read it, and agree. There is NO need for a SWAT team at many of the government bodies that are creating them.

There is an absolute need for SWAT teams at certain levels of policing. County sheriff's departments, especially urban ones, need one. Cities that are metro areas of 500K or more need one. Smaller jurisdictions can, and often to, sign mutual aid agreements so that if the day ever comes where they have an incident requiring a SWAT team, that the nearest team can come to their aid.

Hostage situations, barricaded violent criminals with guns, high risk drug warrants, etc, etc. All need a SWAT team response.

But I agree. The Dept of Agriculture does NOT need one. If they one day did, then whatever jurisdiction they go to would have a county sheriff or city police that could assist.

80% of SWAT teams are very professional and capable, full of men who are physically fit, calm under pressure, and good at weapons and tactics.

But sometimes I get disgusted when I see something like a tiny college campus police dept with a SWAT team that has some clown who is 5'5 350 lbs wearing tactical gear.

Fair assessment. Glad you read the article. Too bad many on the thread chose predictable knee-jerk responses, rather than actually reading the article. It's not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. It's much more than that.

 

[bucs90]

Interesting read on the Militarization of our domestic Police Force.


Military-style units from government agencies are wreaking havoc on non-violent citizens.
By John Fund

Regardless of how people feel about Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management over his cattle’s grazing rights, a lot of Americans were surprised to see TV images of an armed-to-the-teeth paramilitary wing of the BLM deployed around Bundy’s ranch.

They shouldn’t have been. Dozens of federal agencies now have Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams to further an expanding definition of their missions. It’s not controversial that the Secret Service and the Bureau of Prisons have them. But what about the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? All of these have their own SWAT units and are part of a worrying trend towards the militarization of federal agencies — not to mention local police forces.

“Law-enforcement agencies across the U.S., at every level of government, have been blurring the line between police officer and soldier,” journalist Radley Balko writes in his 2013 book Rise of the Warrior Cop. “The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop — armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.”

The proliferation of paramilitary federal SWAT teams inevitably brings abuses that have nothing to do with either drugs or terrorism. Many of the raids they conduct are against harmless, often innocent, Americans who typically are accused of non-violent civil or administrative violations.

Take the case of Kenneth Wright of Stockton, Calif., who was “visited” by a SWAT team from the U.S. Department of Education in June 2011. Agents battered down the door of his home at 6 a.m., dragged him outside in his boxer shorts, and handcuffed him as they put his three children (ages 3, 7, and 11) in a police car for two hours while they searched his home. The raid was allegedly intended to uncover information on Wright’s estranged wife, Michelle, who hadn’t been living with him and was suspected of college financial-aid fraud...

Read More:
The United States of SWAT? | National Review Online
DRUDGE REPORT 2014®

At first glance of the title, I assumed I'd disagree with your thread.

But, I read it, and agree. There is NO need for a SWAT team at many of the government bodies that are creating them.

There is an absolute need for SWAT teams at certain levels of policing. County sheriff's departments, especially urban ones, need one. Cities that are metro areas of 500K or more need one. Smaller jurisdictions can, and often to, sign mutual aid agreements so that if the day ever comes where they have an incident requiring a SWAT team, that the nearest team can come to their aid.

Hostage situations, barricaded violent criminals with guns, high risk drug warrants, etc, etc. All need a SWAT team response.

But I agree. The Dept of Agriculture does NOT need one. If they one day did, then whatever jurisdiction they go to would have a county sheriff or city police that could assist.

80% of SWAT teams are very professional and capable, full of men who are physically fit, calm under pressure, and good at weapons and tactics.

But sometimes I get disgusted when I see something like a tiny college campus police dept with a SWAT team that has some clown who is 5'5 350 lbs wearing tactical gear.

Fair assessment. Glad you read the article. Too bad many on the thread chose predictable knee-jerk responses, rather than actually reading the article. It's not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. It's much more than that.

I always try to be open minded on this topic, and I have a view from having worked for a big police dept. Its just not debatable- there are a few bad apples in uniform. Like any profession. But, police work attracts many of the same alpha male types that military service does, and many who truly have a desire to serve society in harms way. But, just like the military has some rogue criminals in their ranks, so do the police. And ALL GOOD COPS- all of them- want nothing more than for bad apples to be weeded out.

With that said, I also try to convince people who, like you, take notice of the bad apples to ALSO not make knee-jerk reactions when a story about one of these rogue cops goes viral. Don't lump in all 3,000,000 American cops with the 1 dumbass criminal-in-uniform whose picture is on Page 1 of the news that day.

There is a middle ground, sensible discussion on this topic, and those who don't knee jerk and generalize should have it. For example, I don't look at anyone who criticizes a police action as a bunch of whining hippy criminals like some cops do. And I wish people would stop looking at everyone who wears a uniform as being one of those bad apples.

But damn, it is true- those bad apples sure spoil the bunch. One great failure of police departments nationwide is good PR. They NEVER ever show the good deeds they do, and rarely defend themselves publicly, or do anything to show just how isolated the bad apples are. When under attack, many PD's take a bunker mentality, when 95% of officers are screaming behind closed doors to just release all the truth and good things they do.

Good article though. That guy does a great job discussing this issue.