Rise of the Warrior Cop

[Pete]

Originally Posted by 18C4V

.......Large cities can have officers on scene in seconds depending on time (commute traffic, baseball games, foot ball games, etc). Smaller agencies will have longer response times.

Did you mean seconds? Or more like minutes for a response?

It takes me about 2 minutes to get the one mile to Food Lion. Granted I don't have a Blue Light - but everybody has to get to the car, crank it up, back it up (notice all the cops in my neighborhood don't back into their driveway) and get rolling then turn in and stop.

[18C4V]

Originally Posted by Pete

Did you mean seconds? Or more like minutes for a response?

It takes me about 2 minutes to get the one mile to Food Lion. Granted I don't have a Blue Light - but everybody has to get to the car, crank it up, back it up (notice all the cops in my neighborhood don't back into their driveway) and get rolling then turn in and stop.

Seconds as in police officer onviews the incident vs being dispatched. During one of our big weekend events, police officers onviewed multiple shootings and caught the suspects since officers were on scene in seconds.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by 18C4V

Seconds as in police officer onviews the incident vs being dispatched. During one of our big weekend events, police officers onviewed multiple shootings and caught the suspects since officers were on scene in seconds.

Could you explain to me what "onviews the incident" means? To me it sounds like they were prepositioned because of something happening.

[18C4V]

Originally Posted by Pete

Could you explain to me what "onviews the incident" means? To me it sounds like they were prepositioned because of something happening.

On view is a term that we (my city) uses when an officer, or deputy, (uniformed or plain clothes) and Inspectors see's something and calls it on on a radio vs being dispatched.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by 18C4V

On view is a term that we (my city) uses when an officer, or deputy, (uniformed or plain clothes) and Inspectors see's something and calls it on on a radio vs being dispatched.

Oh, I see. So what % of the total crimes in your area are "on viewed".

[18C4V]

Originally Posted by Pete

Oh, I see. So what % of the total crimes in your area are "on viewed".

Don't know. I'm not on patrol anymore and I haven't had to look at the stats in years. We have a data base for crimestats by districts. Each of our 10 districts and Airport will have different stats based upon population density, officers, issues, etc. The more busier districts will have more on view incidents vs the slower districts.

[Pete]

I just wanted to know how well "on viewed" stats fit in with SWAT Team use.

Seems to me there would need to be a SWAT Team every 10 blocks or so.

With officers on duty every police department is going to have "on viewed" incidents.

But I'm willing to bet "on viewed" is a very small percentage of total crimes in any given city.

And most of the major events/perps named in this thread were not "on viewed".

[18C4V]

Originally Posted by Pete

I just wanted to know how well "on viewed" stats fit in with SWAT Team use.

Seems to me there would need to be a SWAT Team every 10 blocks or so.

With officers on duty every police department is going to have "on viewed" incidents.

But I'm willing to bet "on viewed" is a very small percentage of total crimes in any given city.

And most of the major events/perps named in this thread were not "on viewed".

That's a good question. Are you talking about full time SWAT Units, Part time, or regional or agencies with a combo? Most major cities have a matrix or risk assessment that dictates when SWAT usage is covered. When I was on the part time team, I on viewed lots of stuff and that was because SWAT was a collotoral assignement and my main assignment was patrol. Being on the full time SWAT Platoon and a SWAT Team Leader, I don't on view anything since my job scope is different.

Of course every dept will have on view incidents, my point and I'm willing to bet is the larger agencies will have the staffing and resources to on view more than smaller agencies.

[Sdiver]

Here in Colorado we have the dubious honor of suffering through two of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history; Columbine H.S. and the Aurora Theater shooting.

At Columbine, PD was one scene within a few minutes, but did not go inside the building. They waited for SWAT to show up, before entering the building. This gave the two shooters (I refuse to mention their names, or any other mass casualty shooter, giving them the fame they crave) time to enter the library and inflict the most damage. Once SWAT arrived on scene and penetrated the building, did the two shooters then take their own lives.

It was because of this incident and the incident at Platte Valley H.S. in Baily, that PDs here in Colorado (don't know about the rest of the country) changed their tactics when involved in an active shooter incident.

Now instead of waiting on SWAT, LEOS are now trained/given the green light to enter the building/area and neutralize the shooter, if possible. This was the case in Aurora.

Granted, the LEO station was less than two miles away from the theater, and when the first 911 calls came in, PD was on scene in a matter of minutes. They surrounded the building and had actually entered the theater, but had to pull back out due to the home made "gas" that that shooter had deployed.

This shooter hadn't realized that PD would be on scene as quickly as they were, seeing that he hoped that his improvised explosives that he had in his apt. would have distracted the PD enough that he could have gotten away, as was almost the case. He in fact, almost did get away. He had just exited the theater out the back and was noticed by several LEOs who were securing the back. The LEOs thought he was SWAT, seeing that he (the shooter) was dressed as one; tactical clothing, body armor, k-pot, gas mask, ect. It wasn't until one of the LEOS radioed command asking if SWAT was on scene, that they were told that SWAT hadn't even left the station. It was then that the LEOs in the back did a 180 and secure the shooter.

The problem with the Aurora theater incident was coordinating the other responding assets (EMS and Fire).

IMO ... SWAT teams are over rated. Yes, they provide a valuable asset to the mix, but to use them as they have been/are being used is just short of the U.S. becoming a militaristic country.

As has been mentioned, NASA, Dept. of Fish and Game and the Education Dept ( ) as well as several other govt. depts. all have SWAT teams. This not only borders on the absurd, but crosses into the realm of, "You've got to be fucking kidding me". Next thing you know, anyone who is on a PDs SWAT team will want to be wearing berets.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Sdiver

Here in Colorado we have the dubious honor of suffering through two of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history; Columbine H.S. and the Aurora Theater shooting.

At Columbine, PD was one scene within a few minutes, but did not go inside the building. They waited for SWAT to show up, before entering the building. This gave the two shooters (I refuse to mention their names, or any other mass casualty shooter, giving them the fame they crave) time to enter the library and inflict the most damage. Once SWAT arrived on scene and penetrated the building, did the two shooters then take their own lives.

It was because of this incident and the incident at Platte Valley H.S. in Baily, that PDs here in Colorado (don't know about the rest of the country) changed their tactics when involved in an active shooter incident.

Now instead of waiting on SWAT, LEOS are now trained/given the green light to enter the building/area and neutralize the shooter, if possible. This was the case in Aurora.

Granted, the LEO station was less than two miles away from the theater, and when the first 911 calls came in, PD was on scene in a matter of minutes. They surrounded the building and had actually entered the theater, but had to pull back out due to the home made "gas" that that shooter had deployed.

This shooter hadn't realized that PD would be on scene as quickly as they were, seeing that he hoped that his improvised explosives that he had in his apt. would have distracted the PD enough that he could have gotten away, as was almost the case. He in fact, almost did get away. He had just exited the theater out the back and was noticed by several LEOs who were securing the back. The LEOs thought he was SWAT, seeing that he (the shooter) was dressed as one; tactical clothing, body armor, k-pot, gas mask, ect. It wasn't until one of the LEOS radioed command asking if SWAT was on scene, that they were told that SWAT hadn't even left the station. It was then that the LEOs in the back did a 180 and secure the shooter.

The problem with the Aurora theater incident was coordinating the other responding assets (EMS and Fire).

IMO ... SWAT teams are over rated. Yes, they provide a valuable asset to the mix, but to use them as they have been/are being used is just short of the U.S. becoming a militaristic country.

As has been mentioned, NASA, Dept. of Fish and Game and the Education Dept ( ) as well as several other govt. depts. all have SWAT teams. This not only borders on the absurd, but crosses into the realm of, "You've got to be fucking kidding me". Next thing you know, anyone who is on a PDs SWAT team will want to be wearing berets.

You left out the SRO, who was on the scene, exchanging a few rounds and then retreating to the parking lot.


LEOs, let me riddle you this.

We all know that judges issue warrants that they shouldn't, informants lie, as do ex-es, people make mistakes with addresses, departments like to use their tac teams, etc.

If you conduct a no knock at 0400 and breach my door, who is at fault if I grab my carbine and attempt to defend my family from an armed home invasion?

Several officers and my family or I could be killed.

Do you think this is in accordance with the Constitution and the concepts of freedom and liberty that this nation was founded on?

Is it wrongful to resist armed home invaders?

Let's say that someone you have crossed calls in a report that you are running a meth lab out of your home and that you are heavily armed at all times. You are probably unaware of this.

What would you do if your door were breached and armed intruders entered your home in the middle of the night, unannounced?

Would you be justified in using lethal force to defend your lives and property?

Why you and not me?

Citizens are being wrongfully killed by these teams and policies.

TR

[Stobey]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

I've discussed the militarization of American Law Enforcement before and it needs to end. MRAPS, Drones, machineguns, it needs to end.

I agree 100% Team Sergeant! Thank you for saying it out loud. This is something that I noticed years ago, and it bothered me; but most people I mentioned it to either didn't see it or did not understand the ramifications of what they were seeing.

The latest TV "example" of the warrior wannabes can be seen on the show, FLASHPOINT (on ION Television). This trend is very disturbing, especially when one considers the sort of "transformation" that we currently see in the U.S. I wish it would alarm more people because I don't like what I'm seeing. It does not bode well for the constitutional protections that so many have taken for granted.

And thank you, Richard, for the post.

[Paragrouper]

If the police are truly interested in doing

"Whatever I need to do to get home safe,"

try knocking first.

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by Paragrouper

If the police are truly interested in doing

..... try knocking first.

Doesn't get more simple than that.....

A big part of the problem is the attitude change from "To Serve and Protect" to "We owe it to ourselves to be sure to live at all costs".... No longer do police officers perceive their job as a public service; it is all about law enforcement (as already mentioned here).

This delta in attitude drives the wedge of perception between the public and the police. Citizens see every day that the police have the full backing of the agency and legal system such that any negligence is explained away as being in accordance with department policy or that the officer acted appropriately.....Lost is the priority of protecting the innocent. If something goes wrong, something else gets blamed....

Right up to the point that a dash cam video is released showing two officers conspiring to blame a third driver for the accident that the officer caused.....LINK...The video given to the attorney's was edited and disciplinary action did not come about until the full video was released.

According to the tape, Officer Dewey Pressley took the lead in the plot, saying, “Well, I don’t lie and make things up ever because it’s wrong, but if I need to bend it a little to protect a cop, I’m gonna.”

He then tells another officer: “I will write the narrative out for you. I will tell you exactly how to word it so it can get him off the hook. You see the angle of her car? You see the way it’s like this? As far as I’m concerned, I am going to word it she is in the left-hand lane. We will do a little Walt Disney to protect the cop, because it wouldn’t matter because she was drunk anyway.”

Shit like this does not help perpetuate the claimed nobility of the profession....

I know, it's only a few bad apples but the Good Apples need to clean their own house .....

[Stobey]

Originally Posted by ddoering

SWAT teams allow the Feds to get around that pesky Constitutional constraint about using the military against Americans on US soil.

I don't have any tinfoil hats; but the above thought by ddoering (QP) nails it succinctly.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many "SWAT" teams the DHS has? And although the threat of terrorism on U.S. soil is no longer a vague threat, can anyone tell me why our government apparently views returning veterans, Second Amendment supporters, pro-life advocates and Christians as more of a threat than the Muslim Brotherhood, who are desirous of “…eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions". (from “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America”, written by Mohamed Akram, May 19, 1991) ? Just asking...


http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/17/ho...-supremacists/

[Richard]

Originally Posted by STOBEY

...as more of a threat than the Muslim Brotherhood...

I think "more of" is a misstatement and that, based on our broad historical experience with home-grown terrorism, a more accurate term should be "as likely as" in the eintopf of threats we face on an on-going basis and can never discount.

http://terrorism.about.com/od/origin..._Terrorism.htm

Richard