SWAT: Time to Rein In Excessive Response
In my new home state of Arkansas — a beautiful, reasonably inexpensive place to live, which I recommend to all retirees — we recently had another unfortunate incident that should illustrate that the militarization of local police forces has gone far beyond the needs of the domestic communities those police forces are sworn to protect and serve.
In Pine Bluff, an old, old man, reported to be 107, lost touch with the world in which he had lived so long and became agitated. The old codger fired a pistol at responding police officers, which immediately earned him a deadly SWAT team visit.
Agreed, any perpetrator firing on arriving officers opens himself up to a world of hurt. You simply do not fire at men who are formidably armed and authorized to use deadly force under the auspices of their local government. Responding officers have little to no information upon their immediate arrival on the scene. Whatever transpires in that period of immediacy is usually accepted as the necessary police response required to suppress an extant threat to the public welfare with whatever amount of immediate force is required.
But what is to be said of a heavily armed and armored tactical squad of large, fierce, armed, and armored men, who storm the small confines of a poor old man, who has endured penurious life for more than a century and whose mental faculties have surely by all that time been diminished, and shoot him dead? Yes, they used gas, but their version of events is that the gas failed to deter the intransigent old man. Excuse me, but I was a chemical and biological warfare NCO in the Army, who in years past conducted gas defense training, and I have to tell you: I don’t believe that explanation for a single minute. In the confined space of a small house, the effects of properly deployed CS gas grenades are incapacitating to young, trained, and prepared soldiers in their prime. To an old man over a hundred years, they would have to be damned near lethal.
The explanation that the centenarian would, after such a gassing assault, be sufficiently capable of presenting a deadly threat to authorities would be laughable were it not so tragic. There’s an old military term, gung-ho, which describes an enthusiasm for the task or mission at hand. In my six years in the 101st and 82nd Airborne, it was frequently used in a positive manner, to define those dedicated to the success of a mission, but also in a derogatory manner to demean those who were too eager to accomplish the mission at whatever cost.
And there lies the rub: based upon stories that come to us from around our country, there are far too many SWAT units being deployed to deal with situations that truly do not require their gung-ho military capabilities. It is of a piece with the growing tendency in community governments to over-respond to every minor disturbance, driven no doubt by the legal hyenas always lurking on the tort-defined peripheries of any community incident. I recently viewed a minor fender-bender in New Mexico, and present were seven emergency vehicles, including multiple fire trucks and ambulances, all with lights flashing and far too many personnel acting importantly and officiously. Four-lane traffic had to be directed to side roads — not because of the vehicles involved in the accident, but due to the completely road-covering spread of the various first-responders.
That saddens me, because I’m a believer in effective policing and public safety within our communities. But I am fed up with this gross overreaction to minor disturbances that were once handled by an officer, or two at most, but that now require a major callout of community first responders. Every time all those people roll out, it costs the taxpayers and the insurance companies of the citizens involved unbelievable amounts. Justifications for larger annual budgets are based upon the number of times those units were deployed in the last budget cycle. Enter into this calculus the self-serving machinations of public service unions, and we are quickly looking at a scam of the taxpayers of major proportions. Ask yourself this: “How much is it costing me as a taxpayer to have all those unnecessary firemen and EMTs standing around observing the local cops sort out a fender-bender?”
It’s the first responder equivalent of superfluous highway workers standing around leaning on their shovels while a few of them actually work. The term that survives from my youth is “featherbedding,” and it is apparently alive and well in public-service employment. That is maddening enough, but when such employment overkill and the required self-justifications result in the needless killing of a 107-year-old man, they have progressed beyond political corruption to a deadly vindicating of their existence that is unacceptable to the communities they profess to protect. That is not only sad; in some cases, it should be prosecutable.
And please, spare me, those of you in public employment who would be eager to remind me that I wouldn’t be critical of the excessive turnout of first responders if it were my life on the line. Old, retired businessman and ex-Army NCO that I am, I would be demanding to my last breath:
“Just what the hell is your function here?”
Crossposted at American Thinker
Category: Crime
Oh-and Smitty-follow Poetroopers link to his article at American Thinker (hardly a lefty website) and read the comments. If you think this a something that concerns only one side of the political spectrum you had better think again.
68W58
I don’t need to walk back anything and I sure as hell don’t owe you an apology. If you wish to continue your whining, please do so to someone who cares.
The meaning is the power of interacting with police is almost entirely in YOUR hands. The instances of SWAT raids on the wrong house or innocent people being gunned down in police shoot outs, though highly publicized, are probably on par with the number of vets murdering people.
Speed traps only work if your speeding buddy. I know it’s a difficult concept to grasp. I’m sure, as with everything though, it’s not YOUR fault.
You may want to google what exactly a non-sequitur is since your accusation I made one is way off base.
@87. PT. That reads like a setup to me. You asked a question of me and then you answered it yourself. Maybe the conversation is better that way. In any event, the second part of my sentence, regarding Deputy Fife, is my point; that policy and budgets, grants and the like are not things over which a street officer has control. They are the stuff for elecxted officials. The very pointed attack on officers by some commenters rankles me. The discussion about a police state or army-like police forces does not. Originally, I pointed out that, in my view, pairing the two matters of the shooting of the old man and the militarization of the police hurt both issues. This is what I had in mind, precisely what has transpired.
“Non-sequitur” Latin for “it does not follow” since vets do not have the same authority as cops, it does not follow that whatever concern the public has about vets is the same as it has about bad cops (sorry I can’t upload a flow chart for you Mike).
And, oh yeah, they’re called speed “traps” because they’re totally not set up to trap you into a speeding ticket (and, whatever, I was perfectly willing to pay it, my objection-again-is to how I was treated, but I could totally avoid that in Mike and Smitty’s mind by knowing exactly where the trap was set up).
I never claimed vets had the same authority as cops. You introduced the concept of authority so that fallacy is all yours. I was making a point about public perception versus reality based on media treatment and stereotypes. I know, it was a bit complicated for you.
You could, oh hell, I don’t know….go the speed limit?
i didnt say it was a left or right issue, i said it is sensationalized by the media to up sales. you havent pointed out any problem, only offered criticism and attacks against police.
i have never been caught in a “speed trap”, even since long before i was a cop. pay attention to what you are doing, observe your surroundings. it is clear you werent infantry, or you wouldnt justify speeding with “i missed a sign”. i joined at 17 years old and learned fast not to miss a sign because it can get you killed. i dont know what you do/did in the military, but it failed you if you didnt pick that lesson up.
you have tried to generalize all police by the actions of a extremely minuscule percentage. you blow off that people do the same thing to vets, and wont even give mike’s comparison the acknowledgment it deserves. he is right, because of a tiny fraction of vets being “crazy” all vets get the label; because of a microscopic portion of police being dumb asses, you label us all. this isnt a political issue, it is a societal issue. if you want to break it down by left and right, dumb ass (its easier to remember dumb ass than what ever your numbers are) the left perpetuates the stereo type, the right feeds off it, then the left gets to call the right anarchists. congratulations, you have played into the hands of those you hate so much and in doing so, endanger those who are out to protect and serve you.
you still have not pointed anything out, you have only posted nonsensical attacks against the LEO occupation. if you think there is one iota of logical argument in anything you have posted, please try to find it and bring it out of the garbage you have been spewing.
Yeah Smitty, I’m totally the one who jumped right in and told someone else to “go to hell” and called them a “dumb ass”, those are completely logical responses.
What I have done is point out instances of police misbehavior experienced by myself and others-the way that that’s not the same as the “crazy vet” is that I can blow off the “crazy vet”, but I am forced to deal with the bad cop. See the difference?
Mike,
Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike-the relative authority of crazy vets versus bad cops makes the perception of the two incomparable. Let the left go on about the “crazy vet”, whoever he is, as much as they want. I’ll deal with any vet I encounter on equal terms and, if he is indeed crazy, go about my business. But I don’t deal with a bad cop on anything close to equal terms-and I’m pretty sure you know that. The bad cop has the authority to make trouble for me and bad cops sometimes do that, crazy vets can’t.
@Mike I was speaking of things I’ve seen specifically (i.e., the crack about 95%), that contribute, fairly I’d say, poor perception of LE. It’s hard to generalize much. Certainly, in some places, formal standards have increased at least for some requirements. But, it’s not hard to find departments that, either explicitly, or based on the record, have relaxed their their hardline standards in four areas in particular: (1) “minor” or distant criminal convictions (including DWIs) and prior drug use; (2) education; (3) (by far the most common) fitness; (4) past misconduct by lateral hirers. (Even the FBI — which has the highest entry requirements — has lowered it’s standards in some areas. (Also, while I haven’t looked at the record, that the drastic increase in criminality by DHS employees occurred simultaneous with a sudden hiring increase, makes me wonder.) Sometimes the changes are self-imposed (usually phrased as a “wholeness approach”), in places where recruiting has fallen off, there’s “accelerated hiring,” or there are budget issues. Sometimes the changes are by DoJ fiat. Also, from my own experience of some of those same departments (and I’ll admit, my views can be a bit skewed, because I’ve had a close-hand look at some of the worse, truly corrupt, places), there is also a high-tolerance for lying/dissembling during hiring. (Is it new? Hard to say.) Most often it’s about grades/honors/online degrees and related exaggerated credentials, and past drug use. It’s more commonly ignored if it’s uncovered or suspected later on during hiring (i.e., during the polygraph) or a probation period. Too many poly retakes make it hard not to say it’s a policy. If you really care, I’m sure I can point you where to look. But, it’s not hard to find examples where departments have relaxed the standards. (Whether it’s a good thing is a different question.) @97 Smitty “doesn’t matter what we do, we will always be the most hated profession in America.” Really, the most hated? Sure, the opinion poll results are skewed (i.e., they tend not to include prisoners, felons, the very poor), but law enforcement generally scores (across… Read more »
@103-17thCav: Sheez, man, lighten up. There was no intent to set anyone up. I was merely pointing out that there’s an obvious need for more public discourse on this topic and forums like this could serve that purpose well. From what I’ve read here so far though, I believe it would help the discourse if the LE side could present their arguments with a bit less defensiveness and anger. The name-calling demeans only them not those who have expressed concerns.
Everyone reading here knows, or at least they should, that being a police officer is not an easy profession, both for the LEO’s themselves and their families. At the same time, we all recognize that it’s a voluntary profession and if an officer gets to so despise the citizenry he’s sworn to protect and serve that he can’t be civil to them, then he/she needs to give some thought as to whether they are truly serving both themselves and the public.
As far as the original piece being bifurcated, I can see where you might think that but can you not also see where they are indelibly linked? The killing of the old man happened in a SWAT operation in a small town. SWAT operations represent the first and most widespread incursion of military equipment and spec-op tactics into the civilian law enforcement sector. Now we’re looking at armored vehicles going to campus police forces. In my mind, it’s all part of a continuum that does not bode well for this country.
@109. Hey, first, I will lighten, dammit! Second, dammit!, I love your stuff. Third, there is no third! Dammit!
@Mike
Also, i can think of three or four departments that effectively mitigated their policies re negligent and unlawful discharge after expanding the size of tactical teams. (Those are just anecdotes; no idea if it’s common. But, unlike education and past pot standards, those seem disturbing.)
John C, you had better cite a source fast on your psychopathy claim, or be called out for a liar. ive heard the same thing said about the military and there is no truth to that either.
if police are so respected, explain to me why rap, the most popular musical form in our country, constantly pushes the ideas of police as the villains? people buying the ablums demonstrates their buying of the ideology.
@112Smitty
Inter alia, “Handbook of Psychopathy,” “The Psychopathy of Everyday Life,” “Risk Taking and Psychopathy,” Maddux’s “Psychopathology,” “Measures of Psychopathy in Non-Criminal Populations,” “Violence and Psychopaths,” and (I’m slightly ashamed to admit), “The Wisdom of Psychopaths”
I’ll amend slightly: “Among the professions that attract a disproportionate number of persons who score above the median, and often at the upper end, of a number of traits measured by the assorted psychopathy scales.
Remember, it’s a scale. Just because one scores higher with certain, or even many traits (i.e., risk taking, ability to compartmentalize, responds with impertinent stridency to online comments) doesn’t make him a cold-blooded psychopath,* just like a strong preference for quiet, the sound of water, and solitude, plus an attention to detail, doesn’t make Thoreau autistic.
FYI, country music is the most popular genre (and yet, most people don’t own pick-ups…).
*Also, just saying’, but there’s the ol’ saying, “if you look around the room and can’t pick out the psychopath….”
@113-JohnC
“responds with impertinent stridency to online comments…”
Heh, heh…you really know how to stick it in there, don’t you John. That’s the best line out of the entire thread.
68W58:
I’m not sure how many ways it can be explained to you that perceptions have little to do with reality and we were talking about perceptions. Your repeated attempts at deflection are noted.
JohnC: Honestly I mean no offense but I didn’t understand what you were talking about in relation to your 95% comment as it was written. I think most states follow their own POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) guidelines to determine who is eligible to be hired as an LEO. Not all states are the same. Much like the military is not dealing with, every standard must be legally defensible. Meaning, why must an applicant be able to lift X pounds or run X miles in so many minutes. If they can’t defend the standard in court, that is a problem. You see that on the military side with women in combat and the lowering of many physical standards through the services. About your specific areas, I have seen some truth to that but I don’t know if that is a purposeful lowering of standards OR the reality of a changing society. 1) I was hired with a speeding ticket on my record. Should that have excluded me? I agree there needs to be a line but since, as so many have argued, cops are such assholes, how is one to avoid legal entanglements. 2) Departments requiring any college at all is a growing trend. It wasn’t always that way and can you legally exclude someone for not going to college. What about vets? They have training and life experience that college kids do not and may be better. 3) The standards for hire and different from agency to agency but do not apply to officers already hired. I would agree standards should be maintained and be high but it seems the debate here is that militarization and intimidation of the public is a bad thing. Who is more intimidated, Officer Ricky Recon or Officer Chubby Friendly. What standards would you propose for a PEACE OFFICER vs. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. Can you defend any standard in court? Those are just a few issues and roadblocks that don’t even get it to the LEO Unions. 4) Lateral hires are all the purview of individual agencies. I’m sure its a balancing act… Read more »
Sure Mike-an individual’s or the public’s perception of the police doesn’t have anything to do with actually interacting with them. But, hey, I’m glad you were able to take note of something without a flow chart.
I’m glad you are still showing everyone how dishonest you are by again attempting to put words in my mouth and continue to miss the point.
Once again, I’m not really concerned about the public perception of vets (which is high all the same), but you seem overly concerned about public perception of cops. Obviously you think negative perceptions of cops by Joe public are unfair and media-driven, but I submit that the public is not so easily manipulated and that those perceptions reflect a real problem. Ignore that all you want, but issues like this often come to a head and then it won’t be cops making reforms, reforms will be imposed. Good luck with that.
Because I’m feeling generous, I’ll spell it out in even better detail (no flow charts though, sorry). You contend that cops are getting bad press similar to “crazy vets” and that that is why there is increasing public concern over cop behavior-is that a fair summary of your opinion?
OK then, why is it that vets are held in such high regard and cops are presumably held in somewhat lower regard? I mean others have said on this thread that cops are “the most hated profession”, though I expect that cops are actually held in reasonably high regard (though probably lower than vets). Couldn’t it be that some other factor, like maybe unpleasant experience with “bad cops” has something to do with that difference, and that those experiences stem from those cops abusing their authority and that that is what explains the difference?
I’m not concerned with that either, it was a point that flew over your head but you have latched on to in an attempt to….well, I have no idea what you are attempting to prove by twisting it.
I think you are pretty naive to believe the media doesn’t drive public perception. There are many websites, both right and left, that address media bias. In the end, most polling I’ve seen shows a majority view police favorably so if we are going to “appeal to the people” then I suppose we’re all good and this is just a huge overreaction right?
Also, law makers/elected officials tend to make reforms. I don’t need luck, we’ve been fine so far.
Enjoy your weekend. I’m starting mine now.
I think you are pretty naive to believe the media doesn’t drive public perception.
Aw Mike, now who’s putting words in other people’s mouths? What I actually said was that I don’t think the public is so easily manipulated by the media and things like the failure of gun control support that view-there’s nothing the media has pushed more vehemently or for as long. Anyway, I’m sorry you couldn’t follow my point, I know how hard it is for you sans flow charts.
While we were arguing though an older thread having to do with cop misbehavior resurfaced-http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=36936 Be sure to run over there and tell everyone how wrong they are.
I’m sorry you need peer support and continue your argumentum ad populum. Google it.
When you have a valid point based on some hard facts and not yet another fallacy, we’ll talk. Until then, you can hope on to that thread and maybe get a few back slaps and attaboys. I don’t really care.
Tsk, tsk Mike-if you had gone to the other thread you would have seen Smitty, previously seen here telling me to “go to hell”, discussing misbehavior by a cop involving a member of his own family. If those of us who participated on that thread took his post as evidence of serious police misbehavior how was that “media driven” exactly? Anyway, I’ve supplied at least as many “hard facts” as you have Mike and I’m not particularly impressed with your Latin.
68W, I hope the irony of what a little bitch you are being isn’t lost on you while you’re up on your high horse. You complain about cops being jaded when they deal with rude people day in and day out, and one is rude to you once and you turn more jaded than any cop I have ever met. I think that poster #83 hit the nail right on the head, and it doesn’t look like you are positively contributing to the discussion much.
I am grumpy as hell all the time and nobody complains about grumpy firemen. Police officers show up on my calls all the time, and they get more crap than I have ever received, by virtue of being police. I have had to be brusque with people before, in the course of my duty, sometimes physical when the situation warrants (I am not bragging about it and I get no pleasure from it, lest someone start getting ideas about sadist firemen) but I never hear about people complaining. Cops are people just like you and me, it seems that all their sins are amplified because of their badge and gun. The majority of cops are good guys, but people see one bad apple and paint everyone with that brush, and naturally cops close ranks to protect their buddy who may be responsible to keep them alive on their next traffic stop on a dark backwoods street. Anyone who takes half a second to critically think about that should understand it.
By the way, on a lighter note I decided to be a firefighter because I haven’t ever heard any rap songs called “fuck the firemen” or threatening to kill firemen. I figured running into collapsing buildings was a lot safer than dealing with the public.
Seattle Conservative-so what? If I am an ass, I am not one under color of authority now am I? No one has to put up with my “rudeness” unless they choose to do so, the same can’t be said of misbehaving cops. There’s a reason no one complains about grumpy firemen and I’m sure you know why that is. And it’s true that cops’ sins are amplified by “their badge and gun” that’s exactly as it should be and I don’t accept their excuses as to why the “close ranks to protect their buddy” if their buddy is clearly in the wrong.
Here we are, 126 comments into this thread and most of you have missed my basic premise which is that of far too much over-response by first responders, driven in my belief, not by the first responders themselves, but by the weasel, risk-averse politicians who make the rules governing emergency call-outs.
Yes, I believe a better outcome was assuredly available in Pine Bluff, and the fault lies not just with a perhaps over-zealous member of that SWAT team, but with the politicians who decided to field that team in a small city like Pine Bluff in the first place. They may as well have been trolling for a civil rights lawsuit which they most surely are going to get. You precipitously kill a 107 year old man who could have easily been waited out (his hostages had been released) yeah you damn well better expect a lawsuit. And I’ll wager that lawsuit (which those weasel politicians will settle) will cost far more than the federal grant that funded the SWAT team.
To my way of thinking, in small communities, lacking the proper means of professional oversight, the presence of a para-military SWAT team is akin to owning a really fierce watchdog; yeah, he may protect your family but the same ferocity that makes him effective is a disaster waiting to happen because you can’t predict how he’ll behave in a threatening situation.
Again, I’m not against the concept of SWAT itself; it has its place, perhaps at a regional or state level; but I’m against the concept of SWAT being degraded to a bunch of local good ol’ boys given highly lethal arms and protection, far too much authority, and very little training in the proper application of any of it.
Someone, anyone, please give me a credible justification for a campus police force having an MRAP.
68W58
And they continue to make my case for me.
50+ posts later and Mike and company are still ‘personifying the attitude’.
It’s impossible to have a constructive dialogue with those who listen but don’t hear 68W58. Take this advice from Clemens, “Do not argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
That’s why I bailed on the conversation when I did, and why I won’t engage with them again over this, they provided enough evidence to prove my position, no more was needed.
If you’re interested though, you might take some time to check out a couple of web sites for future use. While some want to claim that the problem is inflated by the press etc., that’s a ‘cop out’, lol. Lots and lots of proof out there. Also lots of proof that the over militarization is happening in our smallest communities. Happy reading.
The Cato Institute’s Police misconduct project page at http://www.policemisconduct.net/
The Cato Institute’s white paper “Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America” at http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/overkill-rise-paramilitary-police-raids-america
And follow the ACLU’s ongoing investigation “The Militarization of Policing in America” at https://www.aclu.org/militarization.
Still with ya PT.
Jacobite-thanks for that. I hang out over on reason.com (I started reading them on deployment as it was one of the few political advocacy sites I could access from my computer at work) and so I have seen a lot of the same sources (as the reasonoids call it, the “Radley Balko nut punch”). I consider myself either a right-leaning libertarian or a libertarian friendly conservative politically and my opinions on this issue are much different than they were just a few years ago.
My opinions have changed a lot in the past few years as well bud, and I’m a right leaning Libertarian as well. I’ll check out reason.com, thanks.
@Mike All of what I said/say relates to a general observation: That LE shoots itself in the foot with avoidably bad P.R./public statements (many of which rely on bad math and/or scary pictures. Show me a department’s public crime stats and press releases, and I can tell you the local election/budget cycle.). So, I wonder if that all explains why the research, fwiw, shows diminishing confidence (and participation) in LE by a traditionally pro-LE group, those with higher-ed. (Kinda like Syria: Maybe bombing them is a good idea; but the (let’s be generous) “arguments” they made give me no reason to believe so.) For example, the 95% referred to an argument LE in Florida was making: Only 5%of people has a CCW license; therefore there’s a 95% anyone CCW is breaking the law. And similarly bad arguments get made about the certainty dog sniffs provide, etc. And saying Sterling Heights, Michigan is just as dangerous as Iraq. Wtf? And so, I wasn’t talking about any department or agency’s exact standards, or whether relaxing them is a good idea by DoJ/court fiat, especially the fitness standards.* That’s all different from handling the P.R. angle. What I was referring to is an example like this: Publishing that you’ve lowered the standards (and, potentially, the quality) for forensic techs, while being oblivious that forensic errors — demonstrable, reversible, tragic errors — at your lab were high and increasing. It seems to me to be terribly thoughtless. The goal is relax standards but show you haven’t dropped quality control (via the back end). As for whether lowering them is a good idea….Re education, I’m sorta with you. Though I’m something of an credential snob, I haven’t seen (though this is just an observation) that, at the local level, college predicts competence or less misconduct, as compared to military service or like avenues. Re a hardline re past behavior, well, I just finished the biography of Adam Brown, so I’d lose that argument even if I cared much. As long as you’re totally honest about it. And, re fitness, the tests were abysmal to begin… Read more »