Email from "CH":
A friend of mine and I are having a debate about SWAT teams.My reply:
I believe they are almost completely unnecessary. He disagrees.
The sticking point about this is whether SWAT teams, or even the normal police, take fire from houses they serve warrants at. I've only been able to find one news story on Google that references the death of a SWAT officer, from LAPD (only fatality on their SWAT team in the 41 years it's been in existence according to the article.
Are my research skills merely poor or is being in SWAT as safe as I think it is? I am hoping you are more connected than I am about this stuff and have more information available to you.
I'm not aware of anyone who has compiled the SWAT-exclusive statistics you are looking for and presented it in a paper for peer review--particularly with context of what prompted the raid. You are correct about the LAPD fatality being a singular event.Anybody?
You get a fair overview of deployments here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4803570.stm
But you also get different pictures depending on whether you consult Radley Balko or the NTOA, who offer the self-serving assertion that use of overwhelming force decreases the chance of fatalities because people don't dare resist. So their official position actually appears to support yours, that they don't encounter that much return fire--but it's almost a chicken and egg proposition.
Tell you what--let me do a post on this on WoG. I'll keep your name confidential and repro this exchange, and then ask people to offer insights on where we can find this info.
David,
ReplyDeleteGlad to see you mention Radley and his white paper at the Cato institute. That should be enough to cause anyone to question the need for para-military police tactics. The cure is pretty clearly worse than the disease for lots of reasons.
Scott
robscottwilk@yahoo.com
David,
ReplyDeleteI don't necessarily agree that SWAT teams have no use, but I do think they are far overused. I think there are certain situations where a SWAT team, or some type of paramilitary team is a good idea in police work, but those instances are few and far between, and certainly not common enough to justify a different team in every county of the USA.
Ultimately, I think it's more of an issue of having to justify their cost. That is, if you only use a team once per year, it's not worth paying all the additional training requirements. And some departments end up using the teams as a recruiting tool. And if one department has a team, and a second doesn't, more recruits will try for department one instead of two. In order to be competitive, department two is forced to run a team of their own, creating a duplication of services, while watering down the overall quality of both.
I completely disagree with Jim. there is no need at all for SWAT teams in any police department. If you are paying attention, SWAT teams are rarely used for the purpose they were sold to us on and they regularly maim and kill innocents. The other side of the coin is they get the sheep used to seeing military personnel on American streets, give all police an US vs. THEM attitude and now you have a para - militray team itching to show how macho they are by gettting out there and using all of their deadly toys. No thanks, give me back the old days of police being peace officers and knowing their community.
ReplyDeleteThe only SWAT activity I have any personal experience with was a man I knew of who told a friend that he didn't want to come out of his house. So the local SWAT team surrounded the house and ordered him out. Then they shot him to death when he refused and admitted he had access to guns.
ReplyDeleteThe local citizens sang the praises of the brave enforcers.
Swat teams have no legitimate place in law enforcement. Period.
ReplyDeleteI am not going to debate it or present support for that position because anybody too dim to understand it already is too damn stupid to pay attention to anything.
Really, straightarrow? I'd like to have them on hand and at the posts whenever some jackass like the VA Tech guy goes running around, rare as it may be. I'd prefer having armed normal folk even more, but whatever ends up with actual mass killers as a pile of bloody paste works for me.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to taking care of a guy that left a personal weapon and seven reliable eye-witnesses at the scene of the murder, has a rap sheet the size of a hardcover novel, is known to have holed up with enough food to last for the statute of limitations, and has sworn to kill any police officer that comes for him, it's pretty much the same deal.
There are situations where it's justified and even rather useful. Sending in SWAT teams is safe, while sending in underequipped police officers is not.
The problem is not the capabilities (other than the trained ability to shoot dogs, which is just a waste of time). The problem is the idiots sending highly-armed quasi-military groups to do jobs that there's jack need for them, and highly-armed quasi-military groups with idiots that can't read a street address.
It's not the need to justify expenses (if you've seen police stations, you'll know that cops don't tend to care much about that), it's about bad judges, overzealous prosecutors, and poorly-trained marksmen.
Living and working in Baltimore, I'd say there is definitely a need for SWAT in some cases, but I also agree they need to use them only when needed, and get the warrants and addresses right. If they use that much force they need to be responsible.
ReplyDeleteAnon -
ReplyDeleteSo tell, me how much good did SWAT do at VA Tech? What about Columbine?
It seems that SWAT or no SWAT, a shooter will continue until he's either out of ammo or has allocated a round to his own head.
Bill hit the nail on the head.
David, I wish I had some useful statistics to contribute, but I do not. You might try the article "Overkill" by the CATO institute. It's available at the following link:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476
M1T--I linked to 'Overkill' in my post--see highlight under Radley Balko's name.
ReplyDeleteI also recommend Overkill. Here is a great link for an online Cato resource. http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is that while having a SWAT team can make sense, there should be a legal requirement that shots already be fired BEFORE their deployment. Otherwise, the LEO's should serve warrents the old fashioned way.
When it comes to taking care of a guy that left a personal weapon and seven reliable eye-witnesses at the scene of the murder, has a rap sheet the size of a hardcover novel, is known to have holed up with enough food to last for the statute of limitations, and has sworn to kill any police officer that comes for him, it's pretty much the same deal.
ReplyDeleteYour comment is frightening. Replace "murder" with "gun-crime", and it describes all of us patriots.
As a supporter of the "Militia Movement", I'd like to say that one of our reasons for developing is because of over-militarized LE armies having standoff's with people that come close to the description you posted.
And one of the main reasons we are opposed to paramilitary "SWAT" teams.
C.H.
anon, you are one of the dim to which I was referring.
ReplyDeleteyou would be hard pressed to provide any proof that a SWAT team ever was an improvement over normal LE operations. However, I would not have any trouble showing where they were a decided negative and often a fatal negative to innocents.
But you kiss all the ass you want. Just so long as you make it a personal experience and don't try to convince me that I should.
M1Thumb - "So tell, me how much good did SWAT do at VA Tech? What about Columbine?"
ReplyDeleteJack shit, because they weren't set up for rapid response on this sort of thing in the local set-up. VA Tech was a particularly bad case, with a long lead time between the known "shit's hit the fan" moment and anyone actually thinking for a second.
This idiots won't stop until they take a nice chunk of lead to the face, but that doesn't mean it needs to be from their own gun.
CharletonHeston- Your comment is frightening. Replace "murder" with "gun-crime", and it describes all of us patriots.
I doubt every patriot has stated that they'd go on a mass killing of police officers. Huffman, for example, or Sebastian of SnowflakesinHell, seem to be rather opposed.
Moreover, I suppose replacing the concept of "murder" with "like ice cream", we'd probably be shooting up every fat person on the continent. That doesn't make it a relevant complaint, anymore than the argument that the death penalty for multiple homicide will result in a death penalty for tearing off mattress tags.
straightarrow -
I provided a google link with a description of law enforcement officers who had been shot while serving warrants, and I'd assume you can figure out how to modify it for stab wounds and other fatalities.
Meanwhile, SWAT team fatalities remain impressively low.
So, yes, I think it's clear that there can be some rather nice benefits from such.
I won't deny that they've done a lot of harm. I think the sames true for a lot of law enforcement. The fun thing, however, is that you can tie it a hell of a lot more easily to corruption or idiocy than any specific methodology. For some strange reason, they're far more reliable indicators. They also tend to have even fewer beneficial aspects.
Swat teams?
ReplyDeleteAs in a few heavely trained and well equipped officers who are called out to deal with hostage situations and alike?
Those are good. Keep one-three operational squads per state which can be airlifted to wherever they are needed once a month or so.
Militarised police forces?
HELL NO!
No knock warrants, dynamic entries and powertripping cops with machineguns? Cannot work out well! It results in the loss of innocent lifes as well as the lifes of these officers.
Enforcers are not too bad IF they are only enforcing laws that are legitimate. If they enforce even ONE "law" that should not be a "law" then they are evil. No wiggle room. Militarize these enforcers' weapons and tactics and you mutiply the evil that can be unleashed geometrically.
ReplyDeleteKent, the story you told gave me the chills. What kind of person rats his friend out to the swat team for "refusing to leave the house"?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous- It wasn't his friends; it was his family.
ReplyDelete"Meanwhile, SWAT team fatalities remain impressively low."
ReplyDeleteHell yes, they're impressively low. How much risk is there when they attack unarmed innocent families and kill them all before they even know the door has been knocked down?
DUH!
Any mouse, the fact that you post that way speaks volumes about you. Of course SWAT didn't do jack at VT, there was already someone shooting innocent people there and they do not like competition. Disband tham all, lay off the bullies that go for that sort of thing, and send them to Afghanistan where they belong. Having a para-military squad on every police department is not remotely compatible with a free society. You are dim.
ReplyDelete