Originally posted 07/06/2011 on lubbockonline.com. I've included the comments on this one. Good information.
Alternet.org asked an interesting question yesterday. "Why Do the Police Have Tanks? The Strange and Dangerous Militarization of of the US Police Force." I know about the 'war on drugs' and the 'war on terror' but are SWAT teams and armored personel carriers really necessary?
U.S. law prohibits the use of the military to enforce U.S. law. That is what civilian police are for. The purpose of the military is to protect us from invasion and kill the enemy. The mission of the civilian police is supposed to be to enforce the law and protect the citizens. "To protect and to serve" was the slogan on the police cars in Adam-12, the late 60's TV police drama. What happens when you give military hardware to police and train them in military tactics, tactics designed to kill the enemy?
For one thing, you see SWAT teams being used to serve search warrants, whether they are needed or not. You see military style raids used to quickly resolve standoffs. A little over a month ago a little girl in Detroit was shot and killed when the SWAT team raided the home she was in. The only shot fired (under disputed circumstances) was fired by a SWAT officer and hit her in the neck. A stun grenade thrown in the window allegedly singed her blankets (or her, depending on who's telling). Almost 10 years ago in Lubbock Sgt. Kevin Cox was fatally shot by friendly fire in standoff that might have been better handled by waiting out the man inside the house than by military style operations - though the situation did fit department guidelines for calling the SWAT team. Just last week in Lubbock the SWAT team was used to serve at least one search warrant. The performed admirably, but were they necessary?
For the past 50 years, give or take, US law prohibiting use of the military to enforce US law has been increasingly subverted by militarizing our civilian police forces. There are good reason the police should not be militarized, but all of them are for the good of the citizens. The only ones who actually benefit from having a militarized police force is the government. When the military and the police are one we have a police state, and we are moving in that direction, slowly but surely.
Original Comment by AmericanFirst:
ReplyDeleteBert
Let me give you some information that is not presented here and then answer that question.
First, let me make something perfectly clear. In no way, shape, form or fashion am I implying that you have in any way deliberately left out facts? I can say without a doubt that you have always been as honest as possible in your blog and other postings. This is a case where some information is just not known by the general public or memory sometimes fails to recall some things.
Second, I was a member of a SWAT team in the 70's. This was when SWAT teams were just starting to catch on and departments. We did not have all the gear they have now and the training was not as intense as it is now since we were breaking new ground in some areas. We did have an old retired APC given to us by the military. We had to purchase most of our own equipment like bullet resistant vests. I realize many tactics and policies have changed over the years, but basics remain the same.
Remember the North Hollywood shoot out where two full body armor gunmen with automatic weapons shot up the responding Los Angel’s police officers who were only armed with pistols and shotguns? How many times have several officers put themselves in danger driving a regular police car in between a suspect and a downed officer to rescue that officer before he died? An armored SWAT vehicle ensures they will not have rounds entering through the thin metal of a regular police car wounding or killing more officers.
For the most part the bad guys today are better armed than our police departments and/or National Guard units. Drugs and other contraband are big business that they are willing to go to any length to maintain control over it. Look at what is happening in Mexico today and realize it could be happening in the United States tomorrow. In fact, it is happening on a more subdued scale.
Many of these warrants that SWAT is used on are bad guys with a history of violence. A SWAT team has a chilling effect on these individuals when they realize they are going to loose if they start anything. SWAT needs to keep their skills honed and only so much training can be fit into their schedule between regular duty and time off. The keep their skills honed by being part of the serving of these felony warrants where trouble may start.
There are mishaps and mistakes that happen in all aspects of life. The only difference is some result in injury or death. It will happen sooner or later, however, continued training and getting experience through actual call outs help cut down on those mistakes and mishaps.
There is so much more that could be said here to get the other side of the story, but time and space does not allow it.
I do not want a military styled police force either and have had some concern with what I see in some larger departments and some training overall. However, we must remember times are changing and police departments must adapt to those changes and sometimes it is a military style approach out of necessity.
Original Comment by rk miller:
ReplyDeleteSWAT Overkill (pardon the pun)
"I do not want a military styled police force either...." -- A1st
Neither do I. It sends a chilling effect throughout the law-abiding community, as well as with the bad guys. I would keep the visibility of the SWAT teams veeerry low profile -- like our military special operations units. The bad guys will know they are always around, but the rest of us will probably feel less anxious, not seeing them in the news every other day.
Recall the bobbies in London. For years they were armed only with billy clubs. Now they carry automatic weapons and wear armor. It sets the tone for the English society.
Original Comment by kubota2:
ReplyDeleteAmericanfirst
Great answer to the question. Many times just the show of force stops any more action before anyone gets hurt. A prime example is when the red lazer was placed on a suspects chest. When they realized the red dot was on them, most knew what could follow, and they gave up with no other problems. I also have began to worry about some departments and their move toward the military dress just to "look bad" so they can impress (in their eyes) the public.
Original Comment by AmericanFirst
ReplyDeleterkmiller
I think that is a very good idea about keeping SWAT team’s low profile. Some officers say the more flamboyant approach scares the bad guys. However, I agree with you. The bad guys will spread the word about a SWAT team very fast through their grapevine.
Original post by rk miller
ReplyDeleteA1st
Agree. For example, until the Somali pirate operation and the Bin Laden operation, public awareness of the SEAL teams was muted. However, the bad guys around the world sure know they are out there.
Original post Americanfirst
ReplyDeletekubota2
I forgot about the laser pointer. We did not have many of those items now used by SWAT. However, to look down and see that red dot on your chest can have a very sobering effect.
You are right that many times SWAT is a deterrent against violence by show of force. I would rather have it that way than like here lately where two officers were killed trying to serve a warrant or where four were shot trying to serve a warrant.
I get an alert whenever an officer is seriously injured or killed anywhere in the US. It has gotten very deadly for officers this year. It seems like we are getting an officer either severely injured or killed about every week.
Original comment by AmericanFirst
ReplyDeleterkmiller
One down side to keeping a SWAT team low profile is the anti-police agitators that will try to make sound sinister like the SWAT team is doing things that they do not want people to see.
Original comment by Bert Knabe
ReplyDelete@Americanfirst
Thank you for the excellent input. I haven't left out any facts that I have that support the idea that police do need military hardware. The article on Alternet gave more reasons that police don't than I could quote without having my own 4 page article. They cited a 1999 report by the CATO institute, among others. I downloaded the report last night but haven't had time to read it yet. I expect it will disagree in some points with what Alternet has to say.
I'm not entirely in agreement with the article, but rereading my post I see that doesn't show. SWAT teams definitely do have their place. The big question raised by the article, one I think does need to be asked, is whether the large amount of military hardware being supplied to civilian police is necessary. You've given a couple of good reasons a department might need some military hardware, but is an occasional need reason to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for an APC? Here is one example from the article:
Not to feel left out, the Special Emergency Response Team (SERT) in Lancaster, Penn., was recently seen sporting the Lenco BearCat, a camouflage colored Humvee-styled tank that can knock down a wall, pull down a fence, withstand small-arms fire and deliver a dozen heavily armed police officers to a tense emergency scene. The BearCat was purchased a year and a half ago with a $226,224 grant from DHS, yet it has spent nearly two years sitting in a garage at the county's Public Safety Training Center.
If there isn't a need for the vehicle in well over a year (had there been an incident that needed one before?) should the money have been spent? According to FBI statistics there are about 50 officers killed feloniously every year nationwide on average.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2009/data/table_01.html
The Alternet article uses that as proof positive the reasons given for police needing military hardware are bunk. I disagree. Pulling numbers off a table can be used to prove anything, but I think it does warrant further investigation. Is there evidence that there would have been more deaths without military hardware? Or might there have been fewer? Ok, that last is unlikely. Barely possible, but very unlikely.
There is a need for SWAT teams, in some places, anyway. But does every city need one? Does Lubbock? I honestly don't know. Do we need enough paramilitary police units nationwide that supplying them has nearly grown into an industry in it's own right?
Original comment by Americanfirst
ReplyDeleteBert
I believe that some departments are caught up in the moment and go overboard in obtaining military style equipment. However, I must admit I am not up to date on current threats and tactics that the major police departments face today.
There is no doubt that things are getting worse and the bad guys do not give up like they use to, but many times choose to shoot it out. Again I use the cartels as an example. If they can basically control and keep an entire country held hostage, then serious consideration should be given as to what law enforcement needs to counter act them before they can get a hold in the United States. They are using public lands in the United States to grow marijuana with armed thugs to protect them. They have access to all sorts of weapons and not necessarily from the United States.
I definitely believe that Lubbock PD and Lubbock SO need SWAT teams not only for the Lubbock area, but also to assist the surrounding smaller towns that do not have the resources to form much less maintain a SWAT team.
It is true that a armored vehicle may set the majority of the time. I can name you items like emergency generators, emergency lights, tornado shelters, and etc., that set idle for months and even years. However, when you need them, you need them right then. An example is a hospital cannot wait for someone to find a generator when the power goes off in the middle of a surgery. That armored vehicle may set idle for a long time, but when the time comes it is needed and it is used to save lives was it worth it. I would think so.
A lot of the critics do not look past their noses when it comes to finding fault and that is why I do not waste my time reading their garbage. They have an agenda and everything is written or produced to further that agenda.
In summation, there is a fine line between a police agency being properly equipped some of which will be military equipment and going too far in “gearing up”. The proper procedure is to bring ones concerns before their representative at the city or county level if they feel it is necessary.
I see no problem with a blog like this one bringing up the subject for opinions and debate because we will all learn from it and have a better perspective of the situation.
Original Comment by Americanfirst
ReplyDeleteBert
There is one more thing I would like to address that really gets on my fighting side.
The way statistics turn lives into cold hard uncaring numbers.
(According to FBI statistics there are about 50 officers killed feloniously every year nationwide on average.)
Translated-only about 50 officers are killed by someone intentionally. Well the majority of those officers left spouses without a husband or wife and children without a father or mother. They had loved ones like mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, and so on. They had dreams and aspirations jut like anyone else.
Those statistics fail to mention all the officers that are killed in car wrecks responding to help someone or die of a heart attack while in a foot chase or attempting to take down a suspect. Several officers have died of heart attacks during training this year. Actually the number of officers dying in the line of duty every year is between 150 to 200. That does not include those who die off duty at home due to stress related illnesses from the job.
Americanfirst
ReplyDeleteYou make very good points. And I share your distaste for statistics pulled out of tables with no real context. Would any of those officers be alive today if they had worn body armor? Or had use of an APC or other hardware? Or might more have died if those things had not been available?
I see what you're saying about the other job related deaths suffered by police officers. The author wasn't dismissing or trying to trivialize other officer deaths. He pulled that statistic because he was trying to counter the argument that increased danger posed by more violent, better armed criminals warrants the use of military training and hardware. It was a targeted argument. Of course, I've already noted that pulling the statistic out like that without any context is misleading, if not intentionally deceptive, and ultimately meaningless.
I'm not saying we should get rid of our SWAT teams. I am saying that it's right to ask questions and examine the programs.
Original post by AmericanFirst
ReplyDeleteBert
I understand where you are coming from about not getting rid of SWAT teams, but scrutinizing and questioning programs to ensure they remain within the parameters of being a police function and not a military special ops squad and I cannot agree with you more.