TexasCHLforum.com

http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-swat-te ... d=13640112" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Edited to add- it got out of hand a long time ago. http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/ ... ez-affair/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

VoiceofReason wrote:http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-swat-te ... d=13640112


Edited to add- it got out of hand a long time ago. http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/ ... ez-affair/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Storie defended the long delay in allowing paramedics to enter the home, saying of the SWAT team, "They still don't know how many shooters are inside, how many guns are inside and they still have to assume that they will be ambushed if they walk in this house."

Questions: It takes an entire SWAT team over an hour to clear a house? IF they had discovered another potential shooter...what was their plan (starve him out)?

The unfortunate case of José Guerena is already under discussion:
viewtopic.php?f=108&t=45194" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blo ... _blog.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But the Department of Education told Reason Magazine Wednesday that the SWAT team raided the house because of a criminal investigation, not a student loan.

“The Inspector General's Office does not execute search warrants for late loan payments,” the statement said. DoE did not get into the specifics of the case, but says “the offices conducts raids on issues such as bribery, fraud, and embezzlement of federal student aid funds.”

Let's let the truth come out a bit more before we blindly follow MSM spins on a story...even you anti-black-hood-swat types should appreciate that sentiement :)

I'm not a "type," thank you, and I don't care for the implication of phrases like "blindly follow MSM spins."

Even in the case of a suspected non-violent felony, I still don't think an armed raid is appropriate. Usually suspects in these cases have a known residence and place of business where they can be arrested.

Obviously in this case they raided the wrong place and failed to arrest the suspect, while endangering and terrifying innocent people.

- Jim

Reminds me of a novel that I have read 2-3 times where the state of Texas secedes from the US. I specifically recall the Treasury SWAT team being called in by the Feds to recapture the Mint (not really a Mint, but a place where Federal Currency is produced) in (Austin?).

Scary thoughts.

gigag04 wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blo ... _blog.html

But the Department of Education told Reason Magazine Wednesday that the SWAT team raided the house because of a criminal investigation, not a student loan.

“The Inspector General's Office does not execute search warrants for late loan payments,” the statement said. DoE did not get into the specifics of the case, but says “the offices conducts raids on issues such as bribery, fraud, and embezzlement of federal student aid funds.”

Let's let the truth come out a bit more before we blindly follow MSM spins on a story...even you anti-black-hood-swat types should appreciate that sentiement :)

I am not an “anti-black-hood-swat type”. As a matter of fact I am very pro LE. I have done that.

SWAT serves a very useful purpose. I just believe there is a tendency to overuse SWAT and it gives a better argument to the “anti-black-hood-swat types”.

In many cases (such as with Jose Guerena and especially Elian Gonzalez) if a uniformed officer (backed up by SWAT) had knocked on the door and given the occupants time to open it and treated the occupants with some respect, violence could have been avoided (and yes I would have had no problem being that uniformed officer).

In the case of Elian Gonzalez one or two uniformed officers could have entered the house and removed the boy. Instead look at the image of law enforcement the public was left with.

Being pro Law Enforcement and still having friends in Law Enforcement, I am concerned about the bad image, over use of SWAT, gives the public. All it takes is one or two botched raids on the wrong house for the public to start believing “this could happen to me, I could be thrown to the floor of my own home and guns pointed at my wife and children”.

With better intelligence and more planning, many of the incidents that get in the news media wouldn’t.

All of the officers of the S.O. I was with went to great lengths to gain the respect of the law abiding people and instill fear in the criminals. Law enforcement today is getting the image of heavy handed paramilitary “enforcers”.

A lot of people have seen video on television of these tactics in other countries. It shouldn’t be the norm in this one.

VoiceofReason wrote:

gigag04 wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blo ... _blog.html

But the Department of Education told Reason Magazine Wednesday that the SWAT team raided the house because of a criminal investigation, not a student loan.

“The Inspector General's Office does not execute search warrants for late loan payments,” the statement said. DoE did not get into the specifics of the case, but says “the offices conducts raids on issues such as bribery, fraud, and embezzlement of federal student aid funds.”

Let's let the truth come out a bit more before we blindly follow MSM spins on a story...even you anti-black-hood-swat types should appreciate that sentiement :)

I am not an “anti-black-hood-swat type”. As a matter of fact I am very pro LE. I have done that.

SWAT serves a very useful purpose. I just believe there is a tendency to overuse SWAT and it gives a better argument to the “anti-black-hood-swat types”.

In many cases (such as with Jose Guerena and especially Elian Gonzalez) if a uniformed officer (backed up by SWAT) had knocked on the door and given the occupants time to open it and treated the occupants with some respect, violence could have been avoided (and yes I would have had no problem being that uniformed officer).

In the case of Elian Gonzalez one or two uniformed officers could have entered the house and removed the boy. Instead look at the image of law enforcement the public was left with.

Being pro Law Enforcement and still having friends in Law Enforcement, I am concerned about the bad image, over use of SWAT, gives the public. All it takes is one or two botched raids on the wrong house for the public to start believing “this could happen to me, I could be thrown to the floor of my own home and guns pointed at my wife and children”.

With better intelligence and more planning, many of the incidents that get in the news media wouldn’t.

All of the officers of the S.O. I was with went to great lengths to gain the respect of the law abiding people and instill fear in the criminals. Law enforcement today is getting the image of heavy handed paramilitary “enforcers”.

A lot of people have seen video on television of these tactics in other countries. It shouldn’t be the norm in this one.

Well said VoR! You hit the nail on the head (IMO of course). LEO work is a thankless job and I have the utmost respect for anyone working in that profession. But it's SWAT I have a problem with (and again, not all of it...just the perceived overuse and massive amount of errors).

ssnstump wrote:Since When is the Dept of Education a law enforcement agency?

Since when has it been Constitutional?

Also, there's is an excellent article regarding SWAT teams at http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/balko ... r_2006.pdf.

Here is another article about SWAT

They raided the Mayors house, killed his dogs, and handcuffed his mother-in-law and wife for hours on a easily verified bogus charge. The state government responded with reporting requirements.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/01/4 ... ds-per-day" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tomneal wrote:Here is another article about SWAT

They raided the Mayors house, killed his dogs, and handcuffed his mother-in-law and wife for hours on a easily verified bogus charge. The state government responded with reporting requirements.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/01/4 ... ds-per-day" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Maryland Police are a special bunch...

What would YOU do in this situation?

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=BHjjF55M8JQ[/youtube]

Here is the same video in a news story for some back story.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=UK3u-C__4T8[/youtube]

While this may not have been a SWAT team affair, as alleged it comes close -- deputy sheriffs with a K9 break down a door after a false report, and the dog chews on an innocent man's arm. This one happened close to home for many of us.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chr ... 16023.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While it can certainly be argued that the LEOs had good cause for their unauthorized entrance, the alleged use of excessive force arguably gives rise to good questions. While more will surely come out, it appears that the LEOs offered no excuse for either not recalling the dog or using a dog not adequately trained to the handler's recall.

I do not make it a habit of criticizing well-meaning LEOs, having been one myself for a very long time, but this one does not pass the smell test for me. At least not yet, without more coming out of the sheriff's office other than just "If we hadn't gone, it would have been negligent. These things happen."

What things happen, Deputy? The issue as I see it, is not that you made an illegal entry, but rather that uncalled-for excessive force was inflicted upon an innocent man. That, I would think, was clearly either intentional or grossly negligent.

I suspect we will see this one again in the courtroom, unless the DA settles for a sizeable sum of the taxpayer's money just to keep it invisible, as so often happens -- too very often. If these settlements came out of a law enforcement agency's operating funds, rather than general funds, lessons might be learned and repetitions prevented.

Elmo

Wow!

From my reading, they could simply have cuffed the guy and questioned him peaceably.

I suspect we will see this one again in the courtroom, unless the DA settles for a sizeable sum of the taxpayer's money just to keep it invisible, as so often happens -- too very often. If these settlements came out of a law enforcement agency's operating funds, rather than general funds, lessons might be learned and repetitions prevented.

If the victims (I do mean victims) file a state civil suit, the agency's insurance carrier will defend it and settle it. The cost may be reflected in higher premiums next year.

Federal civil-right lawsuits are more complicated. I don't pretend to understand them.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote: If the victims (I do mean victims) file a state civil suit, the agency's insurance carrier will defend it and settle it. The cost may be reflected in higher premiums next year.

- Jim

That is not always the case, Jim. Many municipalities pay these settlements of lawsuits resulting from a law enforcement agency's activities out of the municipality's general fund, which means directly by the taxpayer, as such lawsuits are not insured. Those municipalities are self-insured, and the cost of these settlements are accepted as a cost of doing business, for which the municipality budgets. In any event, even if insured, such events, as you say, result in the increased premiums you mention, which, again, are paid by the taxpayer. No matter how you look at it, we taxpayers are footing the bill for things like this.

I hasten to add that I do not know which is the case here.

Elmo

It was a precinct constable adventure. I didn't notice that earlier.

In Harris County they perform more front-line law-enforcement functions than precinct constables normally do. (I've seen them performing traffic stops.) I don't know whether they would be self-insured under the aegis of the county or what.

- Jim