Militarized police

[sir shovelhands]

Why would you need a no knock warrant for an active shooter? Even a hostage is an exigent circumstance and doesn't require consent or a warrant. These warrants and their execution are a whole other thread though.

Never said anything about no-knock warrants being issued for active shooters...

I said that only 7% of SWAT raids (deployments, or whatever the proper term is) are for active shooter or hostage situations.

The overall thrust of my argument being: what warrants the massive increase in the use of SWAT over regular police? Violent crime has plummeted to rates not seen since the early 70s. Maybe I'm missing something, but as an insider you might have some info that would provide understanding.

Again, I care not that they have better armaments and cool vehicles.

[Daniel75]

Nowhere in my post did I say there was an increased frequency of botched raids, I said

"My problem is not with the equipment, it's with the unnecessary increasing frequency of the use of such equipment and tactics like no-knock raids, especially for petty crimes. Look at statistics for the use of SWAT and tactical teams over the past 30 years. In 1980 there were 3000 SWAT raids a year. Now there are 80,000. Only 7% of which involve an active shooter or hostage."

Then I said that a no-knock raid at my own home would likely end in my death, similar to what happened in other cases, per my link.

That is all.

You're attacking an argument I never made.

Yet you posted a link and used its information as a talking point. If you're assuming the fact you used from the article to make your point, surely the rest of the article is "true" and open to debate (which TVC destroyed on cross examination ).

[Pullersboy]

I understand the overreaching government. I think almost everyone thinks they overreach but the only disagreement might be where.

You claim there is a difference between two sides.... overreaching vs. protection. Why are those mutually exclusive? In other words, what does providing armor have to do with overreaching?

When I started in law enforcement, probably 75% of officers nationwide carried revolvers. After the Miami FBI shootout, the switch to almost all pistols was fairly swift. The police found out that 5 and 6 shot revolvers weren't the best option. When I started, soft body armor was available but not so widely used. Now is is almost universal. I think a majority of police agencies (and still many out there) did not allow patrol rifles. Then the North Hollywood shootout happened and we found out that the second largest police agency in this country could have an entire shift pinned down by two guys standing in the open... because they had no access to rifles.

Do those protections make for an overreach?

Again, I understand a government that intrudes on liberties but you mention overreaching and protection in the same sentence as a point of disagreement. What does one have to do with other?

While I doubt that anyone disagrees with officers wearing body armor, they still don't want the officers entering their homes forcefully without a valid warrant. I agree. What does the body armor or pistol or patrol rifle have to do with violating rights?

It seems like actions are the problem with government intrusions, not the piece of equipment carried. Take the police out of it and think of our military. Do we want any less than the best protection available? Yet a governor can activate the National Guard and possibly intrude on citizen's rights. Is it the equipment owned by the military that is the problem or would it be the government that uses the military personnel for unlawful means?

For the record, I am against an overreaching government and that goes from local all the way up to the top. It would not be hard to come up with a laundry list of things Obama has done that I do not believe are lawful and apparently some federal courts have agreed.

I still don't see why officers should go unprotected because if a government wants officers to violate people's rights and the officer is willing, equipment isn't going to help or hurt. In fact when the situations arise where officers do cross the line whether intentionally, accidentally or unknowingly... I'll bet the equipment had no bearing on it.

What am I missing?

Not missing a thing. This is on point and very well stated. I guess folks that are worried about an overreaching government by police officers being ordered to take action also have to remember that the officers themselves are also citizens. Most are extremely patriotic and are PROTECTORS of citizens' constitutional rights as much as the same citizens physical well being. Officers that would partake in such an action willingly. While we have our issues here in the US, this is still not soviet Russia. The officers have a choice. Belive me, I am one myself. I have been for 10 years. Before that, I was a Marine w/ a tour in Iraq under my belt. If it ever even looked like something like this was on ACTUALLY on the horizon, I'd bail from my job in a heartbeat and defend my home, my family and my freedom, just like most Americans would. Those of you who have it in yur heads that the police are some sort of extension of the federal government, here to hold citizens w/ a boot to the neck are killing me. You really should come up with something else to worry and stress about. I'm not saying don't be prepared for the worst that could happen. I'm just saying don't obsess. The paranoia will lead you to an early grave.

[sir shovelhands]

Yet you posted a link and used its information as a talking point. If you're assuming the fact you used from the article to make your point, surely the rest of the article is "true" and open to debate (which TVC destroyed on cross examination ).

Huh? I posted a map, not an article. Is any of the map data false? The whole purpose of that link was to show that avoidable deaths were caused because no-knock warrants were issued instead of knock and announce. As I gave a hypothetical example of in the sentence beforehand.

Where do you two keep getting the idea I stated that there was an increased frequency of "botched raids"? Please, quote me on it.

[Pullersboy]

Nowhere in my post did I say there was an increased frequency of botched raids, I said

"My problem is not with the equipment, it's with the unnecessary increasing frequency of the use of such equipment and tactics like no-knock raids, especially for petty crimes. Look at statistics for the use of SWAT and tactical teams over the past 30 years. In 1980 there were 3000 SWAT raids a year. Now there are 80,000. Only 7% of which involve an active shooter or hostage."

Then I said that a no-knock raid at my own home would likely end in my death, similar to what happened in other cases, per my link.

That is all.

You're attacking an argument I never made.

No-knock warrants are tough to get nowadays. The officer/ detective must articulate to the judge that will be signing the warrant a necessity to have a no-knock warrant. By default, they are all knock and announce. A judge will only sign off on a no- knock if there are circumstances that dictate the necessity. For example, narcotics dealing location, with lookouts, known weapons inside, known violent offenses at the location, etc, etc. Even then, in the county I work in, many judges are very reluctant. If it's a warrant for counterfeit money, for example, we're you'll be seizing printers, check stock, etc, etc good luck getting a no knock, even if it is a known violent offender that's the suspect.

The reason SWAT teams run more warrants no than they used to is that it's substantially safer when they do it. They typically have much better and more refined training than other officers. They have "Special Weapons" and use "Special tactics" hence the name SWAT. While those special weapons include sniper rifles and things if the sort, they also include things like flash/bangs and distraction devices. This allows the team to make entry while the people inside are momentarily distracted and/or disoriented. This gives the advantage to the officers and lessens the chance that a subject inside the structure can arm himself and shoot the officers, requiring them to shoot back. This is obviously not good for anyone involved. Using SWAT teams more frequently is safer for the citizens and the officers. There's a lot to be said about training. When you make entry, and adrenaline dumps and you've got a dozen cops running through a Crack house with weapons out, you'd darn well better hope their well trained. I've entered houses where we had multiple people running through the house to back rooms where they may be attempting to arm themselves. We have to send two officers from the stick to chase them. Now we'really all immediately split up and having to fill holes and be aware of where the other two went. Well, when the stick hasn't even made it all the way into the door and two guts gad to take off, weapons discipline becomes extremely important all of a sudden. BTW, we usually would have a house cleared (primary) in 8-14 seconds. Things are moving fast. What do you think happens when you bust through an interior door of a house and find a room with 12 Crack heads and convincted felons in it? Right...you have no clue, huh? This stuff about "unnecessary no knock search warrants" is silly. How would you know what makes it "necessary"? But you want to sit at your keyboard and be a critic. I'll bet when cops shoot an armed gunman, you're the guy that says "Why didn't they just shoot the gun out of his hand?" Or, " Couldn't they have just shot him in the Leg?"

Unless you've ever done this stuff, there's no way you can comprehend the amount of traing, background work, administrative work, and planning that comes into effect just to execute one search warrant. I've had guts come on loan to my team from elsewhere in the department just to run around with us and see how we work, what we do and how it all comes together. We ran a program for years where we had someone on loam to us from patrol for two weeks at a time. They Were NOT INCLUDED On entries or any other tactical situation that came up. They wre7there to observe and train with us to gain a better understood what we did and why. Every single person that went through that program while I was the team leader said they had no idea what goes into these operations.....and these are the cops themselves. They all seemed to enjoy it and benifit from it. My point is that I've seen a lot of speculation and ideas thrown around in here that come from reading an article or hearing what someone said etc, etc. Heck, even most cops don't know how these operations work. How could someone who has no concept of tactics have any idea what equipment or gear is necessary or prudent? To say something is an "overreach" because it's military issue is just silly and spoken from lack of education on the subject at hand. I'm not calling anyone stupid. I'm just saying that it appears there are some here who are uninformed and uneducated on the subject of tactics.....but then again, everybody's a Tactical Timmy nowadays, right? And, everybody's a Monday morning quarterback.

[Living4October]

Blows my mind how many paranoid, insecure, or both people there are on here. Never once did I think the green screen would be the place where the anti police individuals spend their time. The men and women in blue would tell the govt to f-off if they tried to order us to take guns away from Americans.

[justletmein]

You guys expect them to respond to any issues that arise when you call 911, let them have the tools they feel necessary to do so. You want to argue they won't need it? I bet the odds of them using that armored vehicle are a hell of a lot higher than you using your CCW. Noodle on that for a minute...

[Lungbustr]

Blows my mind how many paranoid, insecure, or both people there are on here. Never once did I think the green screen would be the place where the anti police individuals spend their time. The men and women in blue would tell the govt to f-off if they tried to order us to take guns away from Americans.

Oh of course they would buddy. Let's not forget it has happened before here in the U.S. Like someone stated above those armored vehicles are great for flood rescue, or maybe gun confiscation during floods.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/24/a-decade-later-remember-new-orleans-gun-confiscation-can-and-has-happened-in-america/

[Buff]

I have an ideal.
Let us quit spending a billion dollars a year to keep pot heads from smoking dope.

Seems to me that if they need all this armor just to serve warrants on dopers, it would be a lot easier just to make the drugs legal.

I would make a really poor policeman as I just can't find a way to care about what folks do to themselves

As far as the government has the long term goal of using them to help disarm the country.
Those poor suckers over in Europe have already proved you can't really use them on large groups of people.

A wine bottle full of gas is all it takes to shut one down

[Happy Buddah]

Surplus vehicles that help the LEO's stay safe (makes since).
Instead of the vehicles being surplused for pennies on the dollar they are still being reconditioned and utilized for intended purposes and thats keeping people safe.
Probably a blast to drive and rides as smooth as a chuck wagon.

[XBowHunter]

With all due respect, I don't recall those shooters or any of the other mass shooters engaging any police vehicles, armored or not. Most police carry individual AR's, shotguns and side arms which allows fire equivalence if not superiority in most active shooter cases.

The GPD officer killed two AK carrying terrorists with his service pistol.

Im serving my country, when deployed I expect to travel and see that equipment. I don't want to see it rolling down the streets of America.

well said

[XBowHunter]

Totally agree just trying to understand the need for DPS to own all of these boats when we have coast guard, Border Patrol, and Homeland Security! And yes I know they were paid for by found drug money.

this is a major conflict of interest imo

it makes drug busts more appealing than going after violent criminals.

[XBowHunter]

Nice boat

[ATTACH]777354[/ATTACH]

now i'm jealous...

[RLB]

With all due respect, I don't recall those shooters or any of the other mass shooters engaging any police vehicles, armored or not. Most police carry individual AR's, shotguns and side arms which allows fire equivalence if not superiority in most active shooter cases.

The GPD officer killed two AK carrying terrorists with his service pistol.

Im serving my country, when deployed I expect to travel and see that equipment. I don't want to see it rolling down the streets of America.

Thank you for serving our great country.

If our President and politicians would take care of business, you wouldn't have to see it rolling down the streets of America.

[Pullersboy]

I have an ideal.
Let us quit spending a billion dollars a year to keep pot heads from smoking dope.

Seems to me that if they need all this armor just to serve warrants on dopers, it would be a lot easier just to make the drugs legal.

I would make a really poor policeman as I just can't find a way to care about what folks do to themselves

As far as the government has the long term goal of using them to help disarm the country.
Those poor suckers over in Europe have already proved you can't really use them on large groups of people.

A wine bottle full of gas is all it takes to shut one down

Potheads aren't the problem. It's dealers and suppliers of this dealers and beyond. If we were really serious about shutting down the drug trade (or at least making a serious dent) we would go after the large manufacturers 1st....the cartels. I'm talking offense. Not just sea & air patrols and hoping we catch it at the border. As far as the execution of warrants is concerned, we are often targeting meth, heroine, crack, and powdered cocaine. This drugs are highly addictive and makes folks do violent things to innocent people just to get their next fix. They also make folks break into houses, cars, shops, stores buildings to strip copper, and anything else you can think of. They commit armed robberies and in some cases have and will continue to kill to get more of that drug. I'm always amazed by the sentiment that "why do we care what other folks put into their own bodies?" We care and it's still illegal and should remain that way because people do terrible things INNOCENT people so they can get their next hit. Like some of my other posts, Ill say this again, I guess you'd have to have some actual experience in dealing with the mess to have a concept of what I'm talking about. These people will starve their own children for their next hit. When you see a small child that's been starved to death because his mother was so focused on narcotics that she let him starve, then come to me and tell me we should legalize this garbage.

And, thus is only talking about the violence of the users. The innocent bystanders that are killed when drug dealers get sideways with one another is a whole other matter. These folks are animals they often rule their neighborhood with an iron fist and violence just like some dictator from another country. They recruit young children to hold and transport their poison. I once caught a 9 year old with a cargo pocket FULL of crack and heroine in a sandwich bag. HIS MOTHER was the local drug dealer. When she noticed us around, she gave it to her son and told him to take off walking with it. This stuff is horrible!