NEWS: Use Of SWAT Teams Out Of Control?

The use of SWAT teams by U.S. police has jumped from about 3000 annual deployments in the 1980s to 40,000 annual deployments at the present time. Police officials believe the deployments are necessary to fight crime, whereas the critics believe that the SWAT units are being used more often in situations where violence is unlikely and that the individuals that are attracted to join such units are those that like to carry guns and shoot people.



The intent of these paramilitary police units is to threaten and intimidate the public. All to often we have seen these jack booted thugs used to surpress and stifle peaceful protesters that have opposed the "world trade organization" and the war in iraq.

I guess we better be careful where we go, who we see, what we do. It could be any one of us with a bullet in our heads.

Just before i left Arizona, a woman tried to pass off a bad prescription, and the cops promptly shot her and killed her.

Why bother with the judicial system anymore? Normally, this woman would have gone to jail, had a hearing , gone to jail. They took her life away in a second.
:shk: Its a darn shame.

I think one reason for the incread number of deployments is the simple fact that the number of swat teams is increasing. Back in the 80's (at least where I live) there weren't any swat teams, now pretty much all the surrounding counties have them.

More proof that the US arms training is shoot 1st, think later.

It makes me glad our police and public dont have guns, youre more likely to be shot by your own gun than a criminal and I think I remember reading more police were shot by their own weapon too rather than a criminals one.

Personally I know of a situation where Customs officials and "troops" raided a place i worked for... (manufacturer of auto parts)

They came in with full armor and assault rifles, then had us all drop what we were doing, then escorted us thru a search and into a "internment area" for questioning...

the funny thing was, they said they had surveilled us for over a month... and for some reason couldn't give us a reason why they needed to do anything more than request info thru official methods. (we were investigated and absolved of any wrongdoing)...

The whole thing didn't make sense... it was all caused by one statement of heresy by an iranian who had met us at a tradeshow...

he said we had offered him autoparts...(the reason they investigated us)
we offer parts to everyone that walks by at a tradeshow... that is what they are for... as to whether we can actually sell them is determined later when they want an order...

the point is this: they had NO reason to think arms were even needed... they had NO reason to fear anyone that works for us (most are conservative Christians, none had records) they had NO reason to Charge in Raid style and order us to the floor... and they certainly had no reason to rough up the one guy that asked questions of "what the hell is going on here?"

poor decision making? nope... just gun happy paper pushing idiots trying to feel big...
bad formula for law enforcement.

I see some of the above reactions as over reaction. There is nothing wrong with having that many swat teams. Keep in mind they are essential simply because of the number of automatic weapons on the streets these days.

I mean use some common sense if you were a policeman in this day and age would you go around in teams of two or three? No of course you wouldn't! I mean get real this is just moving with the times so they can cope with the thugs.

Frankly I think the authors title is just hyped up trying to make it a larger issue then it is.



[edit on 3/21/2006 by shots]

[edit on 3/21/2006 by shots]

the individuals that are attracted to join such units are those that like to carry guns and shoot people.

There have been many critics of paramilitary-type SWAT teams and some of those are the very people you would never suspect, but since we do have them and there are situations that do justify their use, I couldn't imagine a better population of individuals to recruit from than the one you describe.

There's an interesting discussion of the matter here:

Chris Roach

shots, did you see Lazurus' post before you posted? I'm hoping not. It seems like you are advocating a police state. That wouldn't fly even in Canada and we're pretty laid back.

Keep in mind they are essential simply because of the number of automatic weapons on the streets these days.

If this is the only rationale for SWAT teams then they need to be disbanded immediately. Except for the notorious North Hollywood incident a few years back, the use of automatic weapons in the commission of crime is minuscule to nonexistent.

Ever think that maybe crime is up? Ever notice how many times on the news now you hear about some moron locked in a house with a hostage or himself and 3 guns?

Try to find a comparison of how many less police officers are killed each year in comparison to previous years when SWAT may not have been involved as much. If it saves lives, then it is worth it.

dgtempe, do you have a link or know what city that occured in?

Originally posted by esdad71
Ever think that maybe crime is up? Ever notice how many times on the news now you hear about some moron locked in a house with a hostage or himself and 3 guns?

That's a damn good point. Maybe the news is part of the problem. To have a fire you need 3 things, ignition, fuel and oxygen. Fuel is the population base, the ignition is, well let's face it, is 9/11, that was 4 going on 5 years ago with NO new incidents. The oxygen, the thing that keeps fuelling the fire? The media.

Tell me I'm wrong, please.

intrepid
The oxygen, the thing that keeps fuelling the fire? The media.

Not surprisingly, "the powers that be" which own the media are the same people which own the politicians. And they have a vested interest in feeding the public irrelevant news, while their lackeys in government do the dirty deeds that insure that they will always be "the powers that be".

shots, did you see Lazurus' post before you posted? I'm hoping not. It seems like you are advocating a police state. That wouldn't fly even in Canada and we're pretty laid back.

Yeah I saw it and no I am not advocating a police state. All I am saying is they are essential in this day and age.

Now if they could ban automatic weapons I would agree with you. Until that changes, I am all for swat teams since they are highly trained to deal with most situations, notice I said most not all.

Shots

Will you please provide some documentation that automatic weapons are used by US criminals to such an extent as to warrant SWAT teams. SWAT teams exist because there is a need for such under certain conditions. However, unless you have proof, there aren't enough instances of the use of automatic weapons against law enforcement to justify more than a few regional teams, much less the hundreds that now exist.

[edit on 2006/3/21 by GradyPhilpott]

Google "US gangs" and that should give you an idea of why SWAT is needed?

from dgtempe
Just before i left Arizona, a woman tried to pass off a bad prescription, and the cops promptly shot her and killed her.

The topic of this thread is SWAT teams. Are you saying that the SWATs were called out because of a bad prescription? Or was it just regular cops, who just drew and fired because she had a bad prescription?

My $.02 worth:


They break out the swat in order to justify PAYING for the swat. If they don' t use them, the funding dries up and then the boys dont get to play with their rifles anymore. Its completly unneccesary.

There is a new show on court tv called Dallas Swat or something similar. Ive watched it 3 or 4 times now. So far, every call theyve been on has been some warrant. They proceed to tear out the front window and destroy these mostly allready poor people's homes in attempt to apprehend someone who is "innocent, untill proven guilty".

Now, after the 15 "big tough cops" apprehend the 19 year old drug dealer and leave, who is going to fix mom's house? Why do they need that many people to do the job? If they know this guy well enough to arrest to him, they know him well. He has a routine. Why not catch him in public? If he's considered armed and dangerous, then pounce on him.

What the swat team has done, in effect, could ruin someone elses life. To those with alot of money and insurance, you might think its no big deal. But to someone without that much, seeing the damage done to the homes, I know would completly ruin me.

Now, Im not saying that a swat team isnt completly unneccesary. But I do think that most cops get off on playing "barney bad-a**". They know that by playing to our fears we will think we need them to get those evil, dangerous people. Keep em scared.

Theres other ways to serve warrants, then destroying a house is all Im saying.

They really trash a place, too. And leave it for the owner to clean up and pay for.

Another reason that deployments are on the rise, imo, is that they use them as a live training session. Otherwise, they just get rusty sitting around waiting for a real call.

The thing that is most frustrating, I think, is the fact that so often their rentention and deployment schedule is motivated by budget concerns and not law enforcement concerns.

Just like the stupid helicopters, they are really handy in a handful of situations, but most of the time they just sit on the pad and look expensive. But if the copter isn't used a certain number of times per year, it get cut.

The same is true of the SWAT team, I believe. They're a budget item like everything else, and they have to prove their usefullness to insure their own job security.

That means deploying the SWAT team when an officer with a bemused smirk would have been sufficient.

Wasteful and wrong-headed, in my opinion.

Originally posted by jsobecky

from dgtempe
Just before i left Arizona, a woman tried to pass off a bad prescription, and the cops promptly shot her and killed her.

The topic of this thread is SWAT teams. Are you saying that the SWATs were called out because of a bad prescription? Or was it just regular cops, who just drew and fired because she had a bad prescription?

You mean, did they have those mean looking outfits on with the helments and upper gear said "Swat"? That i dont know. I do know it was a group of about 25 "cops" that ambushed her and shot her in the back.
Arizona style.