The Case for SWAT Teams
It’s a difficult time to defend SWAT teams. On May 5, 2011, during the morning hours, a Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department (Tucson, AZ) raided the home of Jose Guerena, his wife Vanessa, and their four-year-old son. Guerena, 26, a Marine veteran of two combat tours, worked in a nearby copper mine. Vanessa, seeing armed men in their yard, warned Jose, who sent her and their son to hide in a closet. Taking up his AR-15 rifle, Jose waited in a hallway, ready to defend his family. Within minutes, despite never taking his rifle off safe and never firing a shot, he would die in a fusillade of 71 bullets. The police would not allow medical personnel to tend to him for one hour and fourteen minutes. By then, he was long dead.
The Guerena raid was one of four conducted in the same general area that morning, in response to a drug investigation, which apparently somehow involved Guerena’s younger brother. While the police have labored mightily to implicate Guerena in the drug trade — they breathlessly publicized the discovery of a Border Patrol baseball cap and a bullet resistant vest — they found not so much as a single marijuana seed or any other real indicators of drug involvement in his home.
I posted a tactical analysis of the police raid on May 28 on the Confederate Yankee website, where I co-blog with Bob Owens, whose PJM story on May 25 generated considerable public interest in the case. That analysis was based on currently available information in the public domain and on the 54 second video of the raid released by the Pima Co. SD. The SWAT action on that May morning will surely be used in future textbooks as an example of how not to conduct SWAT operations. So disorganized were the police, so uncoordinated were their tactics that they can scarcely be called tactics. Their uncontrolled, panicky barrage of fire — 22 out of 71 rounds fired hit Guerena and they hit at least one other home in the area — and their circle-the-wagons non-response to the aftermath of their raid raise many questions, not only about that particular incident, but about the wisdom and utility of having SWAT teams in general. How should we respond?
Over the last three decades, SWAT teams have become more and more common in law enforcement organizations (LEOs), large and small, across the nation. In many cases, teams are established to meet real or perceived needs. In some, they are a matter of institutional prestige, a sort of law enforcement “keeping-up-with-the-Joneses.” This trend has, unfortunately, sometimes produced teams in search of missions rather than teams who respond to a predictable number of legitimate missions.
It has also diverted attention away from the original, valid purpose of SWAT teams. They exist because day-to-day patrol forces are generally not prepared, in training, experience, or equipment, to deal with more complex tactical situations. The classic SWAT callout is a barricaded hostage taker who will usually be talked out by a skilled negotiator without a shot being fired. The most likely alternative is ending the situation by means of a single shot fired by a police marksman. A less common alternative is a “dynamic entry” by a heavily armed and armored entry team. In such cases, the likelihood of suspects or police officers being injured or killed is dramatically increased. The real problem is that such tactics also greatly increase the probability of innocents being injured or killed. The Cato Institute has published a map — available here — that illustrates the problem.
Should SWAT teams exist? The answer is a carefully qualified yes. There are indeed situations that require equipment, knowledge, training, and abilities that a patrol force simply does not have. Throwing unprepared, untrained officers into such situations virtually guarantees that they — and others — will be unnecessarily injured or killed. Police supervisors and administrators must be experienced and smart enough to know what they can’t handle the situation and when they must back away rather than charging blindly ahead. They must resist the often overpowering police tendency to “do something,” regardless of the potential consequences.
The same is true for SWAT teams. A poorly chosen, poorly trained, and underequipped SWAT team is in many ways even more dangerous than patrol officers who have gotten in over their heads. SWAT teams will commonly be used in situations that are even more inherently dangerous than those faced by cops out of their depth — situations that require a very high level of training and skill.
SWAT teams present many problems for police administrators. They are, particularly for smaller police departments, very expensive, not only in terms of dollar outlay for necessary equipment, which can easily exceed $10,000 per operator, but in terms of consumables, such as ammunition, and man-hour replacement. Training costs are also very high, and often continually incurred.
To learn and maintain necessary skills, SWAT teams must routinely practice together. Forming a team from the ranks of a single LEO usually requires assigning officers from most bureaus; several detectives, several supervisors, patrol officers, etc. When the team trains, those officers aren’t available for their regular duties, and many have to be replaced, often by calling in other officers at overtime rates to work extra shifts. This not only strains already tight manpower budgets, but contributes to illness and stress among those who have to fill in and, as a result, lose sleep and time with their families.
So long as SWAT teams can break into people’s homes and kill them based on suspicions, we no longer live in a free country.
Which is an excellent argument against the issue of “no knock” warrants. Without them SWATs doing as you describe are in deep doo doo.
Five years ago my next door neighbors had a meth lab and a small number of customers. My neighbors and I continually called the police about it but nothing was done. The neighbors went broke – drugs aren’t THAT profitable – and sold the house to a young professional couple.
About a year later I was leaving my house at night to pick up my son at his Cub Scout meeting when I heard an “Excuse me!” A figure all in black was approaching me. I was momentarily concerned but I then saw her badge via the streetlight. I looked up at the neighbor’s house and saw other figures in black around the house. Didn’t see any AR-15s.
I was asked about the drug dealers, in a way that told me the police still thought they were living there. I started laughing, but was polite enough to stop and not tell the officer why. I explained that the dealers were no longer there. I was asked if I knew where they moved and I said no, but the new owners might.
It was obvious that the officer’s caution and my chance exit from my house likely saved an innocent family (they had a baby by then) from being victimized by a no-knock police entry.
Another reason why these entries need to stop.
First they came for the suspected drug users, and I did nothing because I am not a drug user. Then they came for the student loan defaulters, and I was current on my student loans, so I did nothing. Then . . .
Good article. You’ve answered at least the first question to pop into my head whenever I read about a SWAT raid gone wrong: “What was SWAT doing there in the first place?” LEOs seem to use tactical teams for everything now. The reasons you provide make sense.
One thing I’m not sure about, though. Most of the phoney-baloney excuses these officers and department give for busting down doors, terrorizing innocent people, and shooting dogs seem to be along the lines of “We didn’t know what to expect” or “We were afraid for our safety.” Regarding the first excuse, I thought police were supposed investigate suspects BEFORE attempting to arrest them. One would think that experienced detectives could “detect” whether a suspects is likely to be armed and/or violent.
Regarding the second excuse – are police really so afraid and risk-averse that they feel the need to “go in heavy” in every situation, just in case? “You never know what you’ll run into” is a poor justification. And if they’re really that concerned about what they’ll run into, see previous paragraph.
Is it really that dangerous out there? Are cops really that scared? I’d like to know.
“Is it really that dangerous out there? Are cops really that scared? I’d like to know.”
My impression of the average LEO, never mind the average adrenaline hopped up SWAT jockey, is that if ending the life of an innocent means they are sure they get to go home–they’ll empty the magazine every time. What SWAT really seems to be about, this poster’s apologies about what it should be notwithstanding, is the attitude that the trigger will get pulled first and at the earliest opportunity, until the slide locks back the last time, and questions will be asked after the presumed perp is cooling off if ever.
The answers never seem to almost never include the answer, the LEOS screwed up, and someone among needs to go to prison.
It is possible the grandmother that was ventilated on the pretext of a fraudulent warrant in Atlanta shows how grotesquely thuggish SWAT needs to be before they face even vaguely appropriate censure.
Yes, there is a bit of that “me vs. them” in SWAT culture. But more of the problem lies with vastly unqualified leadership and extremely poor mission selection, IMO. When an officer gains rank he/she goes through a mindset change that completely alters their enforcement persona, and they are no longer capable of making citizen-neutral public safety decisions. Everything is measured against perceived politics. Everything.
“It’s a difficult time to defend SWAT teams.”
That would be because they are ludicrously overused, their tactics cannot be distinguished from home invastion robberies, mis-employment is all but entirely consequenceless legally–and when they do things like wait a half-hour or more to call medics to their victims–they are acting like bloodthirsty savages.
The only difference between how Seal Team 6 treated bin Laden, and how that SWAT team treated Guerena, is that Bin Laden deserved to be executed in cold blood.
There is no other difference.
i’m sure there is nearly an infinite amount of difference between seal team 6 and your run of the mill swat team
discipline
talent
professionalism
mission clarity
etc
i do, however, agree with the comparison of swat teams being more of a pseudo military strike force than the law enforcement team sent to investigate some poor sap who is falling behind on student loans
I referred solely to there being little to no distinction in how they treated their targets. Of course the Seals expended far less ammunition per target, they can shoot straight.
Actually, there is a lot of difference between how military assault teams like Seal Team 6 interact with their victims and how SWAT teams do. You’re more likely to survive a military raid if their mission is to take you alive. They have discipline and are held accountable for their actions.
The cops are just armed thugs who don’t care whether you live or die, and the fact that they are almost never prosecuted criminally when they shoot up someone’s family, demonstrate that.
Take away their toys until they prove worthy of them.
Please take note I say nothing about the general case except that SEAL teams are far better shooters than SWAT teams.
All those members of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department SWAT team of Tucson, AZ who took part in the murdered of Jose Guerena while raiding his home and terrifying his family should be arrested taken into custody and charged with 1st degree murder.
I agree, absolutely. The disregard for the safety of the innocents in the immediate area is appalling. These clowns need to be made an example of. There is no logical reason to have denied first responders access to Mr. Guerena for OVER AN HOUR!!! They, from Dupnik on down the chain of command, should be charged with and prosecuted for first degree murder, especially the lieutenant in command on the scene. Those sorry ass excuses for policemen committed the act when they made the conscious decision to deny Mr. Guerena medical attention, which would have saved his life. They are no different than those two pieces of excrement who murdered Dr. William Petit’s family.
Find a sturdy tree and some strong rope.
I have noticed that, since Bill Clinton, our military has become more like a police force, and our police departments have become more like a military organization. Something is very wrong.
hmmm – meanwhile in the UK – the soft, liberal, everyone must win prizes and no-one is to blame culture has turned our once proud police FORCES into police SERVICES…….
Gramsci’s “long march through the institutions” has a vice-like grip on the body politic. There are VERY few elected politicians who grasp this – even fewer who can make a difference …….
“Gramsci counseled his side to begin a “long march through the institutions,” by which he meant the capture of the cinema, theater, schools, universities, seminaries, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and courts. It is past time to begin a long march in a new and better direction” from http://www.virginiainstitute.org/viewpoint/2005_09_5.html but there are plenty of other references…..
Funny – I was thinking the same thing.
The first time I trained on room-clearing in Marine Infantry school in 1989 we were taught to toss a frag grenade into each room, wait to it to detonate – then enter and hose the room.
The last time I did it 16 years later in the National Guard, we were training with a SWAT on how NOT to kill everyone in the building.
You’re right OldSoldier. I remember the same thing during my SOI days Camp San Onofre in 1992 but the difference is that we were conducting urban warfare training and house to house fighting, not operating in a law enforcement capacity. Then again, back then we were trained that the only time you discharge your weapon was to apply deadly force…no such thing as warning shots, remember? My, things have changed. Nowadays warning shots are part of EOF and people would be surprised at how many times I’ve seen reports of folks in Iraq or Afghanistan catching a ricochet.
“National Guard, we were training with a SWAT ”
Do you NOT see a problem with this? I say abolish SWAT murder
I had mixed feelings about it.
All the team members I met were Army or Marine Vets and seemed to have their heads on straight. It’s a regional team that only gets used for specific reasons.
Since then I’ve only seen them used once – for a hostage situation that was an obvious SWAT scenario (and ended peacefully). I wish all teams were that restrained.
The first time I trained on room-clearing in Marine Infantry school in 1989 we were taught to toss a frag grenade into each room, wait to it to detonate – then enter and hose the room
From instructions to Red Army soldiers at Stalingrad: “When you enter a romm ever do it in pairs: you and a grenade, both without impedimenta: you with no backpack and grenade without its safety pin, grenade goes first. After it detonates fire an SMG burst in case there is something left then move to next room”.
No reasonable person thinks that there should be no SWAT teams. A person could question the use of SWAT teams and who should field a SWAT team. If HWEs Department of Education does in fact have a SWAT team that might be worth questioning. Should every College and University PD have a SWAT team? Should small local police departments have SWAT teams? The question isn’t about Swat teams but who should field a team. The second issue is the mission statement and use of these teams. I know most of the members of SWAT teams are dedicated, honest and hardworking, but they should not be used without some oversight. I don’t know who should oversee them but their dedication might be working against them sometimes, and they MAY be used more often than they should be used.
No reasonable person should think there should be no SWAT Team? Really?
Ok then. Please justify why the town of Ithaca, NY has not only a SWAT team but a $100K+ mobile command vehicle. I’ll let you look up the size and demographics of Ithaca, NY so as to not bias you with my opinions.
I eagerly wait your justification.
It is thoroughly amazing how day-by-day and year-by-year U.S. Marshall’s Fugitive
Apprehension Teams all over the country make dangerous arrests of armed fugitives with extremely few shots fired and/or officers or suspects wounded/killed. Well trained and competently led teams of officers from many agencies operating under that authority seem to know what they’re doing. Most SWAT teams, not so much.
I concur with most of Mike McDaniel’s points, except that any SWAT team without battlefield qualified leadership should stand down until that situation is changed.
They need qualified leadership, not necessarily “Battlefield qualified.” They need to return to (adopt?) the ethic that if it is necessary to discharge a firearm, then someone screwed up blindingly. And enforce that in training and on the ground.
I’d be a lot more comfortable with SWAT teams if the individual cops and their leadership could be criminally prosecuted and sued all to hell in egregious cases. It would put the fear of the Law back into them. as it is now, they’re damnear invulnerable.
While most cops are without a reasonable doubt honest and hard working, the “Blue Wall of Silence” means they cover for the bad actors in their ranks. Some cops are little more than bullies with a badge and gun. Some others are hopelessly corrupt. So long as the honest police officers tolerate the bad actors in their ranks, they will be perceived as no better than the worst cops on their force.
Your second sentence negates the first. The “Blue Wall of Silence” means that cops cannot be honest or trustworthy. The system has been so corrupt for so long, they think they’re honest.
A necessary evil is still evil.
“While most cops are without a reasonable doubt honest and hard working, the “Blue Wall of Silence” means they cover for the bad actors in their ranks.”
The second sentence negates the first. The “Blue Wall of Silence” means that there can be no (OK, there must be a few) honest or trustworthy cops.
The system has been so corrupt for so long, they think they’re honest.
A necessary evil is still evil.
The news today is a violent home-invasion service of a warrant by a SWAT team from the Department of Education! Initially, it was reported to be an effort to collect a delinquent student loan, but the government is now saying it was really for something else vaguely more significant but unmentionable.
When the Department of Education has a SWAT team, you know that the police state is already here. Now DOE is claiming they were really not trying to collect a loan, but is also refusing to explain what they were trying to do, or why they needed to serve a no-knock warrant at 6 AM for what they vaguely state may be a case of embezzlement or fraud. If the man’s estranged wife is the embezzler, why did they not spend the effort to actually know the address where she lives? Embezzlers are not violent criminals, probably won’t run or resist arrest, and are not likely to flush their ill-gotten gains down the toilet, if they haven’t spent them already.
Unless the federal Educators are conducting this type of invasive and risky type of action frequently, they are also unlikely to be well trained and proficient in these sort of tactics, as this article explains.
First however, let’s hear an explanation of why the Department of Education even has its own police force. Is the FBI not up to the task of enforcing federal law anymore?
According to the home owner, they did knock. They just used the standard LEO practice of only giving the citizen 30 seconds to respond and open the door.
Embezzlers are not violent? I should have you meet my ex wife. She was not only violent, but repeatedly threatened to kill me or have me killed.
Thing is you don’t know what you’re going to find when you SWAT a house. Even if your “target” is not violent and cooperative, there’s still the possibility of an ambush as what happened in Oakland not so long ago where they lost 4 cops shot dead in one incident.
SWAT teams don’t get deployed for little stuff. There’s obviously more to this Stockton Dept of Education story that is being covered up. And once the decision to use SWAT was made, they do research who is likely to be inside, get copies of the floor plan and grab any other info that will give them a tactical advantage. Or at least it’s prudent to do so.
Atlanta PD disbanded it’s Red Dog unit after they killed a 92 year old great-grandmother.
It only took 39 shots to bring her down.
Defend that Mike.
Dear Tolbert:
Defend that? May I suggest that you take the link to my analysis of the Guerena shooting (I am posting updates as pertinent information becomes available). I suspect you’ll find that I do not, in fact, attempt to defend the indefensible. You might also take not of the fact that I did not attempt to do that in this PJM post which was focused on quite a different topic.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the case you mention to comment intelligently, however, as this article makes clear, competent SWAT teams work very hard to entirely avoid using deadly force. When they must shoot, they strive to do it with great precision and economy of expended rounds. By those standards alone, what you suggest does seem excessive if not indefensible.
SWAT should be used for:
* Hostage situations
* Big shoot-outs like the Hollywood bank job
* Terrorism
They should NEVER serve a search warrant.
Got a dangersous suspect? Wait for him to leave home – arrest him on the street. Then search his stuff in peace.
The problem with NEVER using SWAT to serve a search warrant is there are times and situations where it is necessary: In my state, for example, you can enter a residence fo effect an arrest without a warrant if there is a felony abscounder present inside and you know for certain that he/she is in fact inside.
The alternative that sometimes is resorted to out of necessity (unless you prefer the felons, some significantly dangerous, to run amok) is to obtain a search warrant based upon probable cause to search the residence for the felon.
Family members often conceal such persons leaving little alternative.
Again, for SWAT to serve this, most units determine whether or not they can serve the warrant under a SWAT capacity based upon a risk assessment that must demonstrate “high risk” status. This gives numerical scores to various factors and the final number determines if it is a go or not. If this practice is followed, there is little chance that someone without a significant criminal history as well as other aggravating factors has a SWAT team knock in their door at 0300 hours.
During the years I worked at the Stockton Police Dept (82-97) policy was SWAT serves all warrants.
The reason? Officer safety. One or two street cops with handguns
do not have the firepower or resources to safely do this.
Warrants were often served around 5am, for tactical advantage. If the warrant was endorsed for night service they could be served anytime but generally Judges didn’t like getting awakened at night so the rule was you gotta have something good before calling a judge at home.
SWAT teams are getting a bad rap right now because of several incidents where they did not perform due diligence, research, training or whatever due to poor leadership.
If you SWAT a house you need to be damn sure you have a good reason based on reliable info. But once you have a good reason, you hit the house hard and make it safe then and only then do you figure out who is inside, who is involved, and who is not.
Cops risk their lives daily for you, and they will give their life to protect you – but dying for you is not their goal. Their goal is to go home to their families at end of shift.
I view SWAT teams as middle aged guys playing out their Rambo/Special Ops fantasies on the taxpayer’s dime. That alone is bad enough, but they routinely kill innocent people and behave in a manner consistent with a Police State. And once they have a SWAT unit, there will be pressure to use it, “Just to be safe”.
There was a time when the worst bad guys were taken down by plain old cops and detectives with .38 spl revolvers. A guy who can shoot straight with a .38 and make his first shot count will beat a guy who can’t most days of the week whatever the bad guys have.
In school shootings, the first cops on the scene should break out the 12 Gauge Pump and go into the school looking for the shooter. That may be more dangerous that hiding behind your cop car and waiting for the experts, but it is much more likely to end it with the lowest losses. Cops are paid to risk their lives to save the innocent. You know that 19 year old Marines would do it that way for far less pay, and wouldn’t need a command post to run the operation.
I am for getting rid of all SWAT teams and using the money saved to put more patrol officers on the street. The militarization of our police needs to stop and we need national legislation stopping it.
“In school shootings, the first cops on the scene should break out the 12 Gauge Pump and go into the school looking for the shooter. That may be more dangerous that hiding behind your cop car and waiting for the experts, but it is much more likely to end it with the lowest losses.”
- I’m willing to bet that your average, veteran street cop would like to run to protect the innocent in such a situation. Of the few officers I’ve known in my life, I know THEY all would.
I’m willing to bet onereason they are prevented and must wait on ‘Special Weapons’ is because of (ready for it?) insurance and lawsuits.
I might be wrong, but I’ll bet that’s pretty close.
Mike, you are very right! The majority of guys in blue (if not vast majority) would quickly face danger in such a scenario. The reasoning of having SWAT is to accomplish the more difficult situations that require special weapons and training that, yes, require significantly more training. I imagine there are certain liabilities in using or not using whatever is in question.
What doesn’t get mentioned in these blogs it seems are the number of situations that are resolved by means of some of these special tools such as chemical munitions, less-lethal impact rounds, and so on that do not result in deadly force being applied.
What also seems to be missed are the numbers of police assaulted or killed in any given year. A far greater number are shot and injured rather than shot and killed.
“I’m willing to bet one reason they are prevented and must wait on ‘Special Weapons’ is because of (ready for it?) insurance and lawsuits.”
Sounds believable to me.
The other likelihood is they haven’t been certified for that action. We just had a case where various police and fire rescue people let a guy drown because none of them had the proper water rescue certification and it was against policy for them to jump in the water and save him without said certification. They had to get civilians to wade in and drag the corpse to shore.
That is bureaucratic rule making run amok, which could be tied to fear of lawsuits.
Whatever the reasons, things have changed. I want to change them back.
Yeah, your example is a classic case of someone making decisions who shouldn’t be. I do not desire to be the fellows in the boat who watched the guy die in the water in front of them, nor have to go to sleep at night having done nothing. The problem that I have seen is alot of administrative sorts arrive at the position intent on proving the peter principle to be correct. Additionally, there are some who become paralized out of fear of being sued if they make a bad decision (which those sorts seem so prone to make).
Lots of administrators, few leaders.
I think our hyper-lawsuit driven world seeks administrators rather than leaders, and that to our mutual harm.
The drowning in Alameda City, CA was slightly different. Somewhere in city govt/fire dept mgmnt they decided that even though they were an island city on the san francisco bay, they didn’t need water rescue capability so they retired their boat. Stopped training FF’s in water rescue, and did not equip them with the special boots they’d need to avoid drowning themselves in the quicksand like bay mud.
That plus FF’s are not cops, and cops are not FF’s. This was a potentially violent and possibly armed male who wanted to die. FF’s policy is to standby and wait for the police crime scene to be safe.
Solution – put a couple cops and FF’s on a boat.
But it does sound like dispatch forgot to call one of the nearby fire depts who still HAD shallow draft boats and could have arrived in time to save this guy.
This is not the first time people have died in Alameda County due to an inadequate or delayed response…the reason it’s news is because it was caught on film.
For the record, the most cutting-edge methodology requires a risk assessment prior to utilizing SWAT for a search warrant or arrest warrant. These assessments require a number of factors (criminal history, history of criminal use involving weapons, explosive pressence, etc.) to be reviewed and scored. A team’s SOP will state what that score must register to use a SWAT team, or at least a full-battle-rattle team (some agencies will still allow use of SWAT for the operation, although they will be dressed in regular patrol attire without “special weapons”, primarily due to manpower and comfort level in operational terms.
Without knowing the particulars of, or even if, an assessment was done for the young Marine’s incident, based on information released I cannot think of how his assessment would have warranted SWAT fully geared-up.
SWAT does have viable uses, including that of smaller, multi-agency composed teams.
Folks, there are still a number of those wearing blue, who use good judgement and whom would quickly put themselves at risk for those whom they serve.
There may well be officers of good judgment who put themselves on the line, however these same people take a see no evil, hear no evil , and most of all speak no evil when it comes to the indiscretions of their fellow men in blue.
Yeah, not so much. I’ve known a number of fellows who were properly run out of the business, usually due to their co-workers forcing the issue by bringing errors, whether competence or in judgement, to a supervisor’s attention.
This happens fairly often during field training, in spite of competitive hiring processes. Are there some who slip through? Yes, but likely in no greater numbers (and perhaps far less) than so many other professions.
For those of you who seem to think the popo are frightened cowards you are, in most cases, way off of the mark and likely do not know many. The two-edged pony is that, due to the lawyers and all of you people who have done nothing while liberals took over the country, to use force the usual standard is “in fear of one’s safety or that of another.” If you want that to translate into “the cops are cowards” then you are an idiot.
Finally, to those who think the SWAT guys are lurking in waiting to take your guns, again, you are way off of the mark. Most SWAT guys I know are generally gun enthusiasts and tend to be politically right of center.
I’m not from either coastal regions, but in the midwest, this is typically the way it is.
I have a fair amount of legal experience in these matters. IMO the situation won’t be improved until the civil liabilty exposure of insurance companies for local governments from SWAT team misconduct motivates underwriters to adjust premium and deductibles based on objective training criteria for SWAT teams. Those criteria already exist, as explained on the Confederate Yankee link and in some of the reader responses by former law enforcement officers.
Something like this actually happened in California, where I practice, for law enforcement firearms use policies, for handcuff policies, for officers protecting the heads of arrestees when getting in and out of LEO vehicles, etc. Insurance underwriting and police training developed well-known standards in these matters.
When public entities are offered lower premiums & higher deductibles for meeting such standards, as opposed to higher premiums and lower deductibles for not meeting them, market forces will start to operate. Law enforcement organizations with el cheapo SWAT teams existing mostly for prestige purposes (most municipal police departments) will find those costing them significantly more to operate then expected due to vastly greater insurance premiums, just as LEO’s with poorly trained officers discovered when insurance companies started forcing a choice between spending money on insurance premiums or on standardized & better training & official policies.
Then they may choose to give up their own SWAT-in-name-only teams and contribute, with a pool of other smaller LEO’s, to funding (at at least county level, or a group of counties in rural areas) to a shared SWAT team operated at a higher level. Market forces would then mandate that such SWAT teams be called in only for real needs which locate LEO’s can’t meet with their own resources.
I believe there’s another factor going on, when it comes to the proliferation of SWAT teams: the fantastic balkanization of law enforcement in the United States, and the proliferation of law enforcement agencies.
Most people imagine that their local police do all the local policing. However, these days, there typically are multiple agencies involved. Here in Los Angeles, Los Angeles International Airport has its own police force. The city has a separate force for dealing with the city’s park system. Believe it or not, the city’s library system has a separate police force too (yes, they have guns–better not let those overdue library books sit too long!). Then we have county sheriffs; typically every county in the U.S., save one like San Francisco (where the county and the city are one and the same) every county has a sheriff, and a bunch of deputies. Most states have at least one law enforcement agency for statewide operations, and some have multiples, again, California for instance having the CHP, the California Bureau of Investigation, and the State Capitol Police, among others. At the Federal Level, it’s not just the Department of Education that serves warrants and conducts raids. Everybody down to (last I heard) the Postal Service has a law enforcement arm, with guns and badges and supervisors and arrest powers.
The ubiquity of these agencies means that they’re all competing for “business” with each other. Whenever one agency or department makes a large bust, of drugs, say, other agencies which could have been in on the bust but weren’t get jealous. Each entity, as a result, tries to crowd out the others and get there first, so that they’ll be the ones holding the press conference. The post-mortem after the Waco raid of the Branch Davidian compound made it clear that the ATF supervisors involved *wanted* a raid, so that their guys would be sauntering around casually cradling automatic weapons, wearing windbreakers that say “Federal Agent” on the back. Very sexy on the evening news. One of the motivations for this was supposedly that the supervisors involved had been told that Congress might hold hearings the next year considering shutting their agency down, and transferring all personnell and responsibilities into the FBI. That of course would be Armageddon, so in the aftermath of Waco the Bureau has gone back to the drawing board, and now they’re ATFE, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and *Explosives*, because of course the terrorists use IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they *might* do it here, too, right? It’s good for the organization to be in the middle of things.
The thing is someone needs to *regulate* this. When the Bell salary scandal happened, it surprised me to learn that California has an actual *law* restricting how much money a particular city official can make (Bell officials circumvented the law by having the city pass a referendum making the city a “charter city”, which for some reason took them out from under the jurisdiction of the law). I would propose that states should pass a law regulating which law enforcement agencies can form SWAT teams, and what sort of standards they should have. How often they should train, how much they should shoot, etc. If an agency can’t fulfill these requirements, then they shouldn’t be allowed to form or keep a SWAT team, period. If they need one, they have to call the neighboring city, county, state, whatever.
Oh, and I agree with the one commenter that the individuals should be charged, though I’m not sure murder is the appropriate charge. Definitely manslaughter, though, and I would start with the supervisor, and perhas the sheriff himself as an accessory. My guess is the local District Attorney won’t prosecute like that, so I would suggest a Federal investigation, perhaps one of those “deprived of his human rights” things that the left loves so much, because they allow the government to circumvent the double jeopardy rule. But it’s hard to argue that they killed this guy without justification, and just labelling it an accident and the victim collateral damage seems very wrong.
The S in SWAT stands for “special”, is that like special as in those who ride the short bus?. My own state, the People’s Republic of Maryland, aka, Taxachusetts on the Chesapeake, as financially strapped as it is, recently purchased an armored personnel carrier that sits in the Jessups barracks, waiting for the call. Which begs the question, what call ?. When MS13 gangs start toting RPG’s ?. Or to assist in shooting the mayor’s dogs:
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-07/justice/mayor.warrant_1_dead-dogs-cheye-calvo-trinity-tomsic?_s=PM:CRIME
That’s what SWAT squads are more times than not,dogs off the leash.
Thank you! The Great PG County Sheriff’s Department Dog-Shooting Expedition should be mentioned every time SWAT abuse is brought up. And it’s not just PG – they’re doing it in Virginia, too. And every time it happens, the LEOs claim they were “in fear for their safety.” Does’t matter whether they shot a vicious pit bull, an attacking Doberman, a toothless old golden retriever, or a French Freakin’ Poodle – the story is always the same. “The dog was uncontrolled and the officer feared for his safety.” You almost get the impression that it’s now SOP to shoot any canine that shows a hair during a police operation regardless of the circumstances. Cop sees a dog looking at him from around the corner, cop goes around the corner and shoots the dog. I don’t understand it.
It’s difficult not to come to the conclusion that a substantial number of police officers a) are cowards or b) enjoy shooting dogs.
Bugs, in point of fact the concept of shooting the dogs isn’t very common any more but was a remnant of a practice of former sodiers (predominantly Vietnam Veterans) who in large part, were the chief organizers of the SWAT concept, which began in the late 1960′s and 1970′s. The term “hush puppy” referred to a silenced weapon used to dispatch sentry dogs by special operation units in the peopl’s republic of south vietnam.
Since the ‘police’ seem never to be prosecuted when they kill someone ‘accidentally’, why do they need special training, to avoid shooting the wrong person? If the default position is, “We never make mistakes”, then …
If the people are not protected by the law, it will eventually work the other way around. The very cynical position, seeming less cynical after every “Oops, sorry we shot your…”, is “What the hell, going to be killed regardless, might as well shoot first”, isn’t it?
I am truly sorry for your loss and the loss to the Iranian people of one of their most important voices.
Siamak Pourzands last act was not one of escape or weakness,it was an act of brave defiance in the face of repeated torture,imprisonment and brutal repression.
This world has too many people but not enough human beings,may your fathers spirit live on and inspire others because the world needs more like him and like you too Banafsheh,keep fighting the good fight for that day when Iran is liberated from the Islamist fascists who aim to eradicate Iranian culture , freedom of expression and the soul of Iranian civilization.
Armed, frightened, strong men in possession of automatic weapons turned loose on the community is a flawed idea. Take away their toys and check for counter-phobia. SWAT teams serve to diminish the traditional respect for the police of this country.
There is not enough information in this report to reach conclusions, but if a citizen is armed in his own house, and is shot, in a fusillade of 71 bullets, by police, without discharging his weapon, it smells. If it was a drug bust, but nothing was found, it smells more. If the shot suspect did not receive medical emergency aid for over an hour, it reeks.
The SWAT officers better hire lawyers. The local government better hide their cookie jar. Tort liability lawyers will shop for a new house.
State terrorism ALWAYS smells.
When I go to the local gun club to practice, if there are LEOs there practicing, I move to the far end of the firing line. These people are bad with firearms!..Far too often I have seen LEOs approaching stopped cars with their hands on their weapons, which indicates that they are in fear. I rarely see LEOs in a protect and serve mode but rather are hidden behind objects waiting at the bottom of hills to trap speeders.
My point is that we need FEWER of these liabilities on the street. Take their guns away, give them better training, and change their mission to one of actual protect and serve.
SWAT teams are fine. No knock warrants are not fine. No knock warrants to collect a student loan are extremely not fine.
SWAT teams are fine. No knock warrants are not fine. No knock warrants to collect a student loan are extremely not fine.
I had a girlfriend once whose brother actually ran a tactical training school for police and SWAT. It was interesting to watch to say the least. I actually got to participate once in a simulated ‘domestic disturbance that turns violent’ call.
It really was fascinating to watch. The one thing I noticed when they were milling around before or after was a real difference. Most of the standard cops we across the board, personality wise. The tactical cops were REALLY different. Almost to a man (again, I say ALMOST) they were a-holes. They really had this self image that they could do no wrong. They would even sometimes get angry when the instructor corrected them on specific maneuvers. Their attitudes seemed to be “it’s right, because I’m doing it that way.”
I remember wondering why there was such a huge personality difference.
A weapon that can not be used properly needs to be remover from the arsenal. From Mr. McDaniel’s article I get the impression that many, if not most SWATs are being misused. If this is the case they are a positive danger to the public that overrides their limited usefulness. Since politicians tend to bury their mistakes we have no idea how many unjustified deaths have occurred at any or all levels of government. The logic that follows is to end the SWATs.
SWAT (STATIST WEAPONS AND TERRORISM). Exists primarily for the day when the ruling elites decide to call the patriots’ refusal to take their orders,surrender their weapons,or stop anti statist blogging,drug dealing,terrorism, or hate crimes so that they can murder them.SWAT is the KGB in potentia.
It is time for people to face facts way too large of a percentage of the average LEO’s are adrenaline junkies with an US vs THEM attitude. Couple that with the refusal to police their own ranks of officers who are at best a menace to the public and you have a recipe for disaster. Add to that dip$it judges who will sign no knock warrants for j walking just because a cop or DA asks for it you shouldn’t be surprised that innocent citizens get KILLED.
The Mike McDaniel’s always come out to shill for the police repeatedly telling us it’s an isolated incident, it’s only a few bad officers, we the people don’t understand the stress of the job. Sorry Mike but now it’s become frequent incidents and police departments and fellow officers shield the “few bad officers”. Also if the stress of the job is too much how dose this compare with the stress of watching husband/Daddy shot 80 times and left to die.
Yes, SWAT teams have their place. So do nuclear weapons, but we don’t give them to every nickel-and-dime one-dog burg in the country. Nor do we generally allow HHS to launch them.
The reason for the increase in SWAT teams is active shooters. Why does the Ithica, NY police need a SWAT team? Because if someone is shooting up a school, church, WalMart, ect. you need a faster response than waiting on a state police or federal SWAT team.
A second issue is the number of shots fired or how many times a subject is shot. In 1986, nine FBI agents in Miami where in a shooting with two bank robbers armed with assault weapons. The agents were armed with .357 revolvers and one shotgun. Both bad guys were shot and killed in the first ten seconds of the gunfight. The problem was the bad guys didn’t realize they had sustained mortal wounds and kept fighting for six minutes. Two agents were killed and six more wounded in the fight.
Real life isn’t TV and people don’t drop dead when they get shot. It takes a brain shot or the loss of at least 25% of the blood in the body for someone to drop. That takes alot of rounds to immediately stop a threat.
In my academy days (CFCJTA 93-02), we heard a lot about that shootout. One thing our rangemaster pointed out is that because they trained primarily at indoor ranges, the FBI guys had been taught to catch their brass while reloading.
We were told that at least one of them was found dead with brass in his hand. We also were told that as a result of the ineffectiveness of the .38SPL, new standards were set for their handguns. If you shoot a .40 or a 10mm, you can thank the FBI for it, and the men who died in Miami.
it is SWAT that is/are the problems ..it is the people behind them that need to be purged.
there is NO EXCUSE for what has been happening lately and I blame the obama administration and eric holder in the DoJ for 99% of the problem.
Mr. McDaniel:
Well written piece, and to the point. I couldn’t agree more with the premise that many of today’s so-called swat units have morphed into something other than that which they were first intended to be. And you are spot-on regarding the political and budgetary ramifications of departments and specialized operations and gear.
At the moment I am in a multi-task mode with other projects and unable to respond to this thread as I’d like to. But let me say this, I am retired from one of our nation’s largest police departments. The middle of my career was spent as the department’s swat team commander, during which I was personally involved in over 1500 real-life, real-time, crisis-level tactical operations. I was honored to command a full time team of 60 officers and supervisors with an independent, stand-alone infrastructure, vehicle fleet, state of the art armory and multi-million dollar budget. My special operations experience spans years of training, research, systems development and academic study, as well as being a precipient witness and/or principal to countless cases of civil litigation. I was also honored to have worked and trained with the most highly skilled and mission-capable law enforcement and military special operation units ever produced by the USA and the UK.
With respect to the so-called “swat teams” we see today, I am embarassed by what I see.
There is no doubt that circumstances exist that require SWAT-types of responses …. BUT having said that, they need to be controlled and accountable. You don’t turn a guard dog loose to play in the park with other dogs and children and then walk away to have a latte.
Osama Bin Laden is in Hell wearing a TUSCON SWAT T-shirt, and he is celebrating the murder of a Marine that his fellow Jihadists failed to kill.
I’ll learn to spell eventually.
Osama Bin Laden is in Hell wearing a TUSCON SWAT T-shirt, and he is celebrating the murder of a Marine that his fellow Jihadists failed to kill.