TexasCHLforum.com

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:49 am**

Don't know about what is in patrol vehicles, but for SWAT teams, aren't the "ar15 type rifles" actually M-16's?

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:15 am**

The Annoyed Man wrote:
texanjoker wrote:Here we go again. I have yet to see a LEO carrying a bayonet... Sure we do have rifles. Since this forum likes to compare leos to chl so many times all I can say is that if you want to take my ar15 type rifle that I use at work go ahead..... right after you turn in yours. If you don't believe an leo should have a ar15, then you must also believe a normal citizen or chl holder has no need.
I actually posted this article in another thread, two days before this thread was started: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=835882#p835882" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyway, I absolutely do not have a problem with police having an AR15 AND a shotgun AND a big ol' night stick AND pistols and suppressors and big scary knives and something with a rock & roll setting, and anything else you need in order to be an effective cop. CAVEAT: I want access to all of those things too without getting hassled by The Man to have them. It's my 2nd Amendment right. "ARMS," of which the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed, is inclusive of, but not limited to, guns. Any kind of gun. Any kind of knife. Any kind of bat, sap, club, kubotan, nunchucks, whatever.

Here's what I do have a problem with: The Department of Education using a SWAT team, for which they have no justifiable purpose, to carry out a no-knock warrant on a middle aged woman to collect a delinquent college loan. You can never convince me that DOE needs a SWAT team. Please.

Why does Fish & Wildlife need SWAT? To raid a guitar factory, for allegedly illegal wood products? Really? Couldn't they have just send over a couple of agents with a warrant, asking to see the wood? It's not like Gibson was trying to hide anything. They thought they were acting within the law, and that they had nothing to hide. Please.

Has any police officer ever been indicted for murder when executing a no-knock-kick-down-the-door warrant on the WRONG address caused a homeowner to defend themselves with deadly force, leading to the homeowner being shot dead by police? If not, why not? Is the innocent homeowner's life worth less than that of the cop who murdered him?

I WANT LEOs to be well equipped. A) I just don't want them to have stuff I can't have; and B) I think the increasing militarization of policing defeats the purpose of community policing, which I believe to be far more effective in dealing with the general public for 99.99% of all LEO interactions. What did cops do to serve warrants before everybody and their uncle got a SWAT team? Go back to doing that. It was better. Nowadays, people see black up-armored tactical vehicles bearing a dozen heavily armed paramilitary troops descend on their neighborhoods to snatch some skinny dude for selling crack, and they don't see Officer Friendly, there to improve their neighborhood. No. What they see is an invading army of people who smash doors and break stuff and then leave.

Not good community relations, if you ask me. And police cannot be effective if communities won't trust them and work with them. SWAT is a deterrent to those kinds of relations, and it ought to be used as absolutely sparingly as possible.

And there doesn't need to be a SWAT team for every federal initialed agency in competition with every other federal agency for the biggest budget and the shiniest toys. The DOE? Really?

Spot on, as usual, but the last bit was the part I find I agree with the most. Its not just the fact that there are heavily armed police units, but that there are way too many heavily armed police units, those that you called out being excellent examples of this.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:36 am**

texanjoker wrote:Here we go again. I have yet to see a LEO carrying a bayonet... Sure we do have rifles. Since this forum likes to compare leos to chl so many times all I can say is that if you want to take my ar15 type rifle that I use at work go ahead..... right after you turn in yours. If you don't believe an leo should have a ar15, then you must also believe a normal citizen or chl holder has no need.

Like others, I'm a lot more concerned about the tactics than the armaments. The police should have whatever weapons work best for them. I absolutely support them having AR-15s. I don't want to see any officer show up at a gun fight and be overmatched by the criminal.

But the problem is different than that. For me, poster child of it was the Boston bomber search. I don't care if they carried pea shooters or bazookas, the actions taken were WRONG! I'm all for sending SWAT on to serve a felony warrant. We've had at least one tragic incident in the Dallas area recently where sufficient force wasn't available during the serving of a warrant and an officer lost his life. That is wrong, too.

For me, the problem isn't isolated to the police department. Recently, Ft. Worth sent a contractor who tore down the wrong house. How does this happen? It is simple, really. The matter gets caught up in the the mindless process and no single person is responsible for the outcome. Ft. Worth is now tripping all over themselves, trying to figure out what went wrong. Even they cannot figure it out easily. If Mayor Price had to personally sign off on the demolition order and then stand up in public after the fact, the error would not have happened.

I'll take it one step further. The mentality behind the problem is the same as the schools and the "zero tolerance". Judgement and responsibility have given way to policy. "Who gave the order?" is the question that needs to asked. For every SWAT deployment, a single individual should have to sign off, taking responsibility for sending them and for the results of that activity. Allowing the decisions and the ultimate responsibility to be attributed to the mindless bureaucracy is why the wheels are coming off the wagon. It is the equivalent of a "designed by a committee" product. Those things never go well. Allowing the Department of Education to have a SWAT team where the responsibility is NOT (and never will be) with the head of that department is like playing Russian Roulette with a 5 shot revolver and 4 cartridges. The likelihood of something bad happening far outweighs any possible good.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:43 am**

baldeagle wrote:
texanjoker wrote:Here we go again. I have yet to see a LEO carrying a bayonet... Sure we do have rifles. Since this forum likes to compare leos to chl so many times all I can say is that if you want to take my ar15 type rifle that I use at work go ahead..... right after you turn in yours. If you don't believe an leo should have a ar15, then you must also believe a normal citizen or chl holder has no need.
Am I allowed to take this as tongue in cheek? Because if you were serious when you wrote this, it's the worst strawman argument I've seen in a long time.

Absolutely..... since I would hope by now you know I am very pro 2nd amendment...

One thing I do say in seriousness though, it is not just the federal police that is militarizing.... we have everyday people running around in their tacticool clothing (5-11 type pants, covert shirts) carrying all sorts of arms. I think society in general is at that level living life via call of duty along with some le type agencies. We also have a whole new generation of le's coming from the wars...

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:09 am**

texanjoker wrote:. We also have a whole new generation of le's coming from the wars...

And learning the trade from the established administration.. regardless of the trainee officer background.. LEOS' like you, the TO's and the admin folks writing the internal policies., THEY set the tone...

In a few weeks I hope to be able to provide a specific and perfect example of how an officer with good morals and background transferring to a new department can become involved in an illegal event due to the status quo, mindset and established norms of the LEO's working in the new department.
This is no different than a US Military member departing service and being trained by the Academy and his TO.. regardless of that formor military members backgound.. when he is taught....everyone is a suspect... have a plan to kill everyone you meet.. Hard and fast keeps US safe... you do whatever you need to do to get home at the end of the shift... then that is the new established norm he will conform to (or quit)

This will ring true ...because it is.. my belief is, based on daily encounters over the past 5 years with local, and federal law enforcement officers, is the established norms of today's law enforcement agencies, that there safety is paramount,, and above the safety of those citizens on the street. ..
The issue I have with that.. 10~20 years ago.. that mindset was a working norm..

BUT,,it was different..
It was the established norms of yesterdays law enforcement agencies, that there safety is paramount,, and above the safety of those known criminals on the street.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:12 am**

While the article is limited, this is a perfect example of why SWAT type teams are needed for some scenarios.. IMO this should have been a no knock or at the very minimum a high risk warrant service. Sure knock if you must, but follow that up with an immediate breech with flash bangs, ect. Knocking on the door of a murder suspect resulted in an officer being shot. Part of a swat response would be the armored rescue vehicle being driven to the house. The vehicle is not armed, but a very useful tool. Especially when you get pinned down by gun fire.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/23/su ... -warrants/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A police officer was shot Tuesday when gunfire erupted as law enforcement tried to serve arrest and search warrants on a suspect in the killing of a 6-year-old girl whose naked, bound body was found wrapped in a tarp on a residential North Texas street, authorities said.
The officer was one of at least five who went to the home in Saginaw, just outside Fort Worth, to serve the warrants, said Damon Ing, a Saginaw police detective. FBI spokeswoman Katherine Chaumont said once the officers knocked, they were confronted by an armed suspect who fired on them. One of the officers returned fire, striking the suspect, she said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/23/su ... z2ZyZHCKsL" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:18 am**

texanjoker wrote:While the article is limited, this is a perfect example of why SWAT type teams are needed for some scenarios.. IMO this should have been a no knock or at the very minimum a high risk warrant service. Sure knock if you must, but follow that up with an immediate breech with flash bangs, ect. Knocking on the door of a murder suspect resulted in an officer being shot. Part of a swat response would be the armored rescue vehicle being driven to the house. The vehicle is not armed, but a very useful tool. Especially when you get pinned down by gun fire.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/23/su ... -warrants/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A police officer was shot Tuesday when gunfire erupted as law enforcement tried to serve arrest and search warrants on a suspect in the killing of a 6-year-old girl whose naked, bound body was found wrapped in a tarp on a residential North Texas street, authorities said.
The officer was one of at least five who went to the home in Saginaw, just outside Fort Worth, to serve the warrants, said Damon Ing, a Saginaw police detective. FBI spokeswoman Katherine Chaumont said once the officers knocked, they were confronted by an armed suspect who fired on them. One of the officers returned fire, striking the suspect, she said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/23/su ... z2ZyZHCKsL" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No disagreement to your observation or position here... Nor do I see what others have written in this thread as a disagreement.. SOME tactical situations deserve a SWAT response.. no argument.

It is the proliferation in the use of SWAT or worse, heavily armed but under trained officers to conduct tactical entries when none is needed.... Yes I know,, you never know when the housewife behind the door your knocking on is really the partner in crime to a serial killer.. such is the risk LEOS signed up for... and all other things considered... it is THE reason they became cops for many of them..... managed risk, adrenalin rush, the hunt, the knowledge they took a bad guy off the street..

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:39 am**

here's one of the problems with the SWAT stuff though....

even though we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions, cities are acting like teenagers when it comes to these units...

"oh, San Antonio has a couple of these units. I know we're sitting here in quiet little Schertz, but we need one to keep up with them." So what happens? It gets pulled out for domestic disturbances a couple of times a year!!! it's ridiculous, expensive and asking for someone to get hurt.
(oh, and it gets pulled out for parades

???)

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:04 am**

LabRat wrote:I'm a supporter of the police in general; but only to a certain point.
They have a dangerous job; I'm taking nothing away from that aspect.
And there are units that do their job with dignity and professionalism; but a few bad apples will ruin an entire barrel if not kept in check. So goes one; so goes them all.

"Power corrupts and absolute power is really kind of neat."

Some Militarized police units or departments apparently have little or no "effective" civilian oversight.
Civilian oversight boards can be a rubber stamp for the IA units or the Chief of Police and bureaucratic city governments.

How many times do you see where the decision was "the actions of the police officers was deemed justified."

That may be because sometimes, the police have the goods on the civilian overseers who have been turned into rubber stamps, and as long as they go along, they get along. If not, well, they are outed, indicted, ruined.

Like in Mexico, the choice may be lead or silver.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:20 pm**

JALLEN wrote:
LabRat wrote:I'm a supporter of the police in general; but only to a certain point.
They have a dangerous job; I'm taking nothing away from that aspect.
And there are units that do their job with dignity and professionalism; but a few bad apples will ruin an entire barrel if not kept in check. So goes one; so goes them all.

"Power corrupts and absolute power is really kind of neat."

Some Militarized police units or departments apparently have little or no "effective" civilian oversight.
Civilian oversight boards can be a rubber stamp for the IA units or the Chief of Police and bureaucratic city governments.

How many times do you see where the decision was "the actions of the police officers was deemed justified."
That may be because sometimes, the police have the goods on the civilian overseers who have been turned into rubber stamps, and as long as they go along, they get along. If not, well, they are outed, indicted, ruined.

Like in Mexico, the choice may be lead or silver.

On the counter side of that argument a civilian review board is usually politically driven, and from a group that does not understand police tactics, policy, deadly force law and what it is like to face a deadly threat. In most cases I read the actions WERE justified. A perfect example was a recent racially driven incident in Austin. The officers did good. Unfortunately a BM died. The officers were cleared by APD, the grand jury and then in a civil suit by the civilian jury. The police monitor, a former female sheriff is always trying to make a name for herself in the news and she recommended the officer be fired. Be fired for doing his job? I would not want my freedom and future in such a persons hands.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:44 pm**

chasfm11 wrote:I'll take it one step further. The mentality behind the problem is the same as the schools and the "zero tolerance". Judgement and responsibility have given way to policy. "Who gave the order?" is the question that needs to asked. For every SWAT deployment, a single individual should have to sign off, taking responsibility for sending them and for the results of that activity. Allowing the decisions and the ultimate responsibility to be attributed to the mindless bureaucracy is why the wheels are coming off the wagon. It is the equivalent of a "designed by a committee" product. Those things never go well. Allowing the Department of Education to have a SWAT team where the responsibility is NOT (and never will be) with the head of that department is like playing Russian Roulette with a 5 shot revolver and 4 cartridges. The likelihood of something bad happening far outweighs any possible good.

I agree in theory, but it's not the way the system works and never has been. Whether in LE or the military, the grunts always take the blame and the brass only takes the credit.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:27 pm**

In any case, I have far less problem with local communities wanting to hire and equip a SWAT unit......if that's what they want. I don't recall ever being asked or even consulted before DOE got themselves a SWAT unit. Do any of you recall it ever being reported in the media, or having a congressman bring it to the nation's attention? I sure don't. It's not the idea of SWAT that I have problems with, its having SWAT in the hands of federal agencies, particularly agencies which are not law enforcement in the traditional sense.

What has happened......and what explains the Dept of Education having a SWAT unit......is that Congress mindlessly passes laws they never even read, and then, in those laws they didn't read, they tasked various federal agencies with enforcing the laws in question. So, laws having to do with the DOE have to be enforced by the DOE. That means that the DOE now needs armed agents. And because they need armed agents, they now require a SWAT team so that they can raid the homes of middle-aged women who commit student loan fraud. How dumb is that? Here is a list, taken directly from the DOE website, of the investigations/prosecutions so far for 2013:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/o ... ear%202013

Investigation of Alleged Test Cheating at D.C. Public Schools PDF (2.77M)
January 17, 2013

Embezzlement Of Government Property And Aggravated Identity Theft. Albany, GA., July 15, 2013

Indiana Resident Pleads Guilty to Theft of Public Funds. Hammond, IN., June 28, 2013

Former Pennsylvania Charter School Operator Pleads Guilty To Federal Income Tax Fraud. Mount Pocono, PA., June 13, 2013

Former President Of Galiano Career Academy Agrees To Plead Guilty To Theft Of Federal Funds, Obstruction, And Aggravated Identity Theft. Orlando, FL., June 13, 2013

Former Accounting Employee Pleads Guilty To Stealing More Than $75,000 From Charter School. Washington, DC., June 10, 2013

Shanera Washington-Sylve Charged With Financial Aid Fraud. Marrero, LA., June 10, 2013

Three Charged With Mail Fraud & Identity Theft . Madison, WI., June 05, 2013

Former Testquest Manager Pleads Guilty To Defrauding Federal Government By Falsely Claiming To Have Provided Tutoring Services That Were Paid For With Federal Funds . New York, NY., June 05, 2013

For-Profit School in Texas to Pay United States up to $2.5 Million for Allegedly Submitting False Claims for Federal Student Financial Aid. Abilene, TX., May 31, 2013

Lawrence Non-Profit Settles to Resolve Allegations of Federal Grant Fraud. Boston, MA., May 24, 2013

Dallas Woman Charged With financial Aid Fraud. Dallas, TX., May 22, 2013

Syracuse Woman Sentenced in Aggravated Identity Theft Case. Syracuse, NY., May 17, 2013

East St. Louis Couple Plead Guilty to Federal Student Aid Fraud, Mail Fraud, and Wire Fraud. East St. Louis, IL., May 01, 2013

Cranberry Township Woman Pleads Guilty in Student Loan Fraud Scheme. Pittsburgh, PA., April 25, 2013

Brenda Velázquez-Corchado, Found Guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds. San Juan, PR., April 19, 2013

Former Pontiac Schools Associate Superintendent and Chief Financial Officer Sentenced to 12 Months in Federal Prison. Detroit, MI., April 17, 2013

San Diego College Pays $700,000 and Former Financial Aid Director Pleads Guilty to Resolve Allegations of Financial Aid Fraud. San Diego, CA., April 15, 2013

Four Akron residents indicted for conspiracy involving Student financial aid and fake G.E.D. Certificates. Akron, OH., April 03, 2013

Two Former Executives of Athletic Equipment Company Admit Extensive Fraud on New Jersey Schools. Newark, N.J., April 02, 2013

Chairman Of The Board For The Paideia Academy/Employee Of St. Louis City Treasurer's Office Convicted Of Fraud Charges. St. Louis, Mo., March 26, 2013

Criminal Charges Filed Against Four Separate Student Aid Fraud Rings. Detroit, MI., March 26, 2013

Former Pennsylvania Charter School Operator Charged With Federal Income Tax Fraud. Mount Pocono, PA., March 26, 2013

Corcoran Resident Arrested for Student Aid Fraud. Fresno, CA., March 26, 2013

Former Financial Aid Advisor Arrested for Stealing Over $62,000 in Student Financial Aid. Boston, MA., March 22, 2013

Princess L. Eatmon Sentenced to Prison. Albany, GA., March 21, 2013

Leader of Federal Financial Aid Fraud Conspiracy Receives 13 Months. Columbia, SC., March 20, 2013

Columbus Man Charged With Fraud Involving Federally Funded Tutoring Program. Columbus, OH., March 13, 2013

Former Lakeland Student Indicted On Fraud Charges. Cleveland, OH., March 05, 2013

Former Intermediate Unit Executive Director Fred R. Rosetti Sentenced To 33 Months' Imprisonment. Scranton, PA., March 05, 2013

Guilty Pleas in Federal Student Financial Aid Fraud Schemes. Sacramento, CA., February 11, 2013

Waterloo Man Receives Additional Prison Time For Failing To Surrender For Service Of Federal Sentence. Waterloo, IA., February 05, 2013

Three Indicted in FAMU Computer Hacking Case. Tallahassee, FL., February 05, 2013

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Sues TestQuest, Criminally Charges One Former TestQuest Manager, And Announces Guilty Pleas Of Two Former Directors At Princeton Review For Defrauding Federal Government Into Paying For Tutoring Services That Were Never Provided. New York, NY., January 29, 2013

District Man Sentenced to Five Years in Prison, Led Failed Scheme to Deceive a Federal Judge. Washington, D.C., January 28, 2013

Pinellas County Man Sentenced To Nine Years In Federal Prison For Student Loan Fraud. Tampa, FL., January 23, 2013

Additional Charges Filed Against Charter School Founder and Co-Defendants. Philadelphia, PA., January 22, 2013

Virgin Islands Senator Pleads Guilty to Operating and Participating in a Criminal Enterprise that Engaged in Bribery, Mail Fraud, and Wire Fraud. St. Thomas, VI., January 17, 2013

Painting Contractor Sentenced in Bidding Scheme. Pittsburgh, PA., January 16, 2013

Dontreal Jenkins and Trevayne Jones Convicted of Embezzlement of Government Property and Aggravated Identity Theft. Albany, GA., January 14, 2013

Dallas woman charged with Financial Aid Fraud?!?!?! OH MY GOD!!!! Somebody call DOE SWAT!!!! Cheating in D.C. public schools!?!?!?!?!? GREAT GOOGLY MOOGLY!!!! Somebody call DOE SWAT!!!

See how dumb that is? In all of the entire United States of America for the first 7 months of the year, there are just 40 cases involving either investigation of, the filing of charges (or additional charges) against, or the conviction of of someone committing fraudulent activity. And for this, we need a whole federal alphabet police agency with a SWAT team? How much did this cost the taxpayers, and for an agency which does not have a constitutionally mandated mission, no less.....?

So if either Dallas or Bug Scuffle, Texas wants to have its own SWAT unit, and they are willing to pay for that with their taxes, with the full knowledge of the taxpayers, that's fine with me. You just can't convince me that any federal agency outside of these three—FBI, BATFE, and SS—needs to have anything remotely like a SWAT unit. If some other unit needs SWAT, let them call up the FBI and ask. But sure as hades the DOE doesn't need one.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:48 pm**

texanjoker wrote:. We also have a whole new generation of le's coming from the wars...

I understand what you're saying, but consider we also had a whole new generation (my father's ) of officers following WWII (the Greatest Generation)....as well as Vietnam (my generation)...and we didn't have these issues that are concerning so many of us. This is really about the change in the overall attitude, training, mindset and tactics that have taken place in the last 20 years...the "us vs. them" perspective. I know how my dad felt about personal liberty because he instilled those same beliefs and values in me, and he would be appalled at instances like this one we are discussing if he were alive today.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:22 pm**

talltex wrote:
texanjoker wrote:. We also have a whole new generation of le's coming from the wars...
I understand what you're saying, but consider we also had a whole new generation (my father's ) of officers following WWII (the Greatest Generation)....as well as Vietnam (my generation)...and we didn't have these issues that are concerning so many of us. This is really about the change in the overall attitude, training, mindset and tactics that have taken place in the last 20 years...the "us vs. them" perspective. I know how my dad felt about personal liberty because he instilled those same beliefs and values in me, and he would be appalled at instances like this one we are discussing if he were alive today.

Chas.

TexasCHLforum.com

Rise of the Warrior Cop

Re: Rise of the Warrior Cop

Re: Rise of the Warrior Cop

Re: Rise of the Warrior Cop

Re: Rise of the Warrior Cop

Re: Rise of the Warrior Cop

Re: Rise of the Warrior Cop

Re: Rise of the Warrior Cop

Re: Rise of the Warrior Cop

Re: Rise of the Warrior Cop

Re: Rise of the Warrior Cop

Re: Rise of the Warrior Cop

Re: Rise of the Warrior Cop

Re: Rise of the Warrior Cop

Re: Rise of the Warrior Cop