7/03/2014 2:29pm, #131
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
I read the article linked. I oppose this as a policy. It would have been nice if Supreme Court rejected this but ultimately the responsibility lies with citizens and their elected officials.
7/04/2014 9:55am, #132
SWAT Teams are used in hostage situations, shootings, drug/-related, weapon traffic crimes and terrorist counter measure, just as all the SWAT Teams over the world.
So seeing their field of operations, they should be paramilitary, by outfit, equipment and tactics.
BTW, aren't those crimes normally dealt with on federal level?
In Belgium, the SWAT teams are always under federal jurisdiction, some teams are mobile while other teams are local.
So why could that not be the case in the US?
FBI SWAT has 56 teams, with the majority being mobile. So if all the State and interState SWAT Teams are moved from local level to federal level (by becoming FBI SWAT teams), yet staying 'localized', you would have the 'problem' of police becoming too militarized fixed for civilian and LEO point of view.
- FBI SWAT teams increase from 56 to 107+
- Same equipment and training for all teams (FBI SWAT have some great stuff)
- DHS financial support can be used more efficient
- visible difference between SWAT and LEOs (beat cops)
- Local based teams can be given assignments by local police chiefs (in case of drug/weapon related raids)
- If members of FBI SWAT move to another state, they can be assigned to the local team there.
- prevents small sheriffs and police departments to create a 4 man SWAT Team.
- ....and probably another dozen reasons that I can't think about.Originally Posted by Jiujitsu77Originally Posted by HumanzeeOriginally Posted by jk55299 on Keysi Fighting Method
7/04/2014 11:14am, #133
The problem in most rural areas is the nearest FBI field office can be an hour away AND most of these field offices do not have a tactical team.
Four agencies in my county each contribute an officer to our regional SIRT (Southern Illinois Response Team). These guys are paid by their local agency, but their training (8 hours every two weeks) is reimbursed by the fed. They are trained by / with FBI & DEA teams in WMDs, Hostage, and all other tactical aspects of law enforcement.
No sheriff or chief I know of would ever want a 4 man SWAT Team. Contrary to what the movies and television would have you believe, not every officer yearns to be SWAT. Conversely, every agency in my area has officers trained in Active Shooter. The first two officers on scene are effectively the SWAT Team for that incident, while they are waiting on other assets.
This is a necessity in order to preserve lives. Example: If someone is inside my community high school shooting it up, I am not going to wait for SWAT. I am going in (with or without the second man) to engage the shooter.
The next officers on scene will either be investigating an officer-involved shooting OR avenging my death lol. Active shooters aren't there to take hostages, they are there to get their fifteen minutes of fame by killing kids.
The Columbine (Littleton, Colorado) school shooting illustrated the exigency of getting inside and taking care of business instead of waiting up to an hour for SWAT to arrive, assemble, brief and get inside to take care of business.
IMHO, SWAT is necessary, but not every department needs one. I am, therefore, agreeing with you for the most part but trying to separate fact from fiction or misconception.
I was the chief of a small agency (8 officers); I assigned one officer to our regional team. He was training every other Wednesday, and two weeks every summer. During a four year period, he responded to about fifteen requests for execution of high-risk search warrants and two barricades.
During that time period (and as yet) my agency did not require that team to respond for any reason. The other three agencies in my county also contributed a man or two and they have not utilized their services either.
7/10/2014 10:06am, #134
9/11/2014 8:45pm, #135
MRAP for the San Diego School district, kind of don't know what to think about that?
I mean its cheap for them to have it but I am having a hard time thinking of a good reason for them too have it.Of the single rapier fight between valiant men, having both skill, he that is the best wrestler, or if neither of them can wrestle, the strongest man most commonly kills the other, or leaves him at his mercy.
–George Silver, Paradoxes of Defence
9/11/2014 9:09pm, #136
9/12/2014 10:53am, #137
9/23/2014 11:45am, #138
9/23/2014 1:09pm, #139
LOL. It is simple fear mongering, is it really that hard to understand? Remember how much flack the police received during Columbine? Remember how much they received during Sandyhook?
This is nothing new. We get scared, we overreact, we applaud the upgrades and then get angry when it seems to have gone to far. Or, we get angry when it is used against regular citizens.
9/23/2014 1:21pm, #140
Looks like the San Diego School district is going to return the MRAP
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...918-story.htmlOf the single rapier fight between valiant men, having both skill, he that is the best wrestler, or if neither of them can wrestle, the strongest man most commonly kills the other, or leaves him at his mercy.
–George Silver, Paradoxes of Defence