|
I tend to agree that it's a question of leadership, and training. I think a huge part of this equation is the vastly differing training levels of not just SWAT, but police officers in general.
For example, my brother is a former 11B, that consequently worked alongside SF in Iraq. He just graduated from the police academy about two months ago. In his class were two former Rangers, along with a total of about fifteen military veterans.
According to him, the class ran from some absolutely fantastic potential officers and leaders, all the way down to a few guys/gals who would literally squeal every time they had to fire their gun during training. One particular individual managed to lodge cones from the driving course in the wheel well of their vehicle on multiple occasions. Some couldn't even finish their runs/jogs/minimal physical standards. It didn't matter, they all graduated.
Why are the standards there if they aren't upheld? Just another form of participation medal at the public's expense? Basically if you don't quit, you get a badge, if in fact, you make it to the police training academy? By his account, his class had mostly quality candidates, so why allow the candidates who can't meet the standard through?
Which leads me to another point. I'm not sure about how it is in other parts of the U.S., but around here, military veterans are on a distinct and separate list from their civilian counterparts. Other places get points added to their overall scores for selection for past service. Overall, I think this is a noble idea, and a practical one. I, for one, would much rather have my brother trying to save my butt in one of these situations, instead of somebody who had never fired their weapon in a situation of any "live" scenario. By the same token, I have a friend who is a police officer who has told me he'd much rather me fire his gun should the need arise. After seeing him in action, I think that would be best for all parties involved as well(and I am certainly nobody of distinction when it comes to firing a gun). That being said, in other aspects, he's an absolutely fantastic officer.
As noted, there is a fine line being drawn here.
How do other LEO's and QP's feel about that preference?
Is this treatment contributing to the "rise of the warrior cop" ? Or is it just simply better to have veterans trained in the combat arms branch specifically on the force due to their training?
Are having more veterans on these police forces and SWAT teams creating a greater culture of "warrior-cop" preference through their shared experiences and training? Or is the "warrior-cop" theme leading departments to lean towards selecting these veterans for officers/SWAT teams due to their credentials(for obvious reasons)? Could all this fit in neatly with our current seeming obsession with "direct action" missions that have been discussed here previously?
|