TexasCHLforum.com

Yes. They are TCLEOSE mandated curriculum.

flintknapper wrote:

Purplehood wrote:There are Police that are exclusively concerned with Public Safety. I like them.
There are Police that are exclusively concerned with being the Police. I don't really like them.
Fortunately for me, I have seen far more of the first category than I have of the second.

Yes, for now......but I worry that a combination of cadets from the "ME" generation... combined with current attitudes/training (leaning towards paramilitary) will result in further erosion. Not a good thing....IMO.


Or maybe its all just "Progressive Policing" these days.........

Of which training do you speak?

Kind of an interesting twist to the argument...

When I go to google images and type in swat, I see majority of the folks wearing goggles...I see a few in the "ski mask."

I see very few with a mask and no eye pro, there are some..

That is...if goggle images is the definitive source on SWAT

seamusTX wrote:Do you think human beings in general or criminals have changed since the days of the James Gang, Bonnie and Clyde, and Al Capone?

Maybe not the depravity aspect. But from a technological aspect, a tactical aspect, and a capability aspect, absolutely - do you not?

Rex B wrote:But if those are hazards, as someone else pointed out, why no eye protection? If there are splinters in the air, the periphery of my face is secondary to my eyesight. And brass? I assume ejecting brass.

I'm not sure where this no eye protection idea is coming from. When breaching, everyone I know, both our team, and others in the area, wear goggles, either Oakley or Wiley X usually.

If we are considering google the authoritative source on swat:

Rex B wrote:I won't presume to speak for Chas., whose post your are responding to. But a couple of points:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:And why do SWAT officers wear ski masks, if not to hide their identity and appear more sinister and menacing?

gigag04 wrote:The piece of fabric doesn't actually make a person more lethal or dangerous, but it makes them look scarier..... The hood has a practical use.

I think that's the point - Making LE look scarier is a big negative to the general public. I don't WANT my LEOs to look scary. Imposing, unstoppable etc maybe.

That was a terrible misplaced modifier on my part. I do not mean the scariness is the practical use - that was closing my though on the comparison to "assault rifles." The only practical application I meant was the protection from brass, splinters, and flashbangs.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gigag04 wrote:I think there is some hyperbole affecting perceptions.

No, my comments are made based upon personal observation during and after I was a COP, as well as discussions with officers from the Houston Police Dept. and other agencies. They are also shared by a former Speaker of the House and a retired DPS Lieutenant. I don't expect you to tell us where you work, but what is the size of your department and your city?

This comment is what I was referring to - when you say "virtually anytime" I feel that is an exaggeration. There are stringent criteria when, how, and why SWAT is called out to an incident. In larger departments, these situations occure more frequently due to the law of averages, but they are no less high profile. I feel this is why people feel that they are used at such a high rate. My dept is +- 135 sworn. I'd be happy to disclose where I work through PM or at CHLF day in private.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gigag04 wrote:They are called when there is a greater than normal likelyhood of a violent encounter, for example:

Barricaded subject
No knock warrant (issued by a judge)
Hostage taker


Just to name a few...

How many departments have you worked for? Which ones allow the use of SWAT teams only in the situations you listed?

Just the one. And none of the departments I know of limit the use of SWAT simply to the situations listed. As I said those are a few examples. It is summed up in the first line of the meeting the criteria where there is a greater than normal likelihood of a violent encounter.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gigag04 wrote:In my opinion, the fear of LE tactical teams is akin to people's unreasonable fear of "Assault Weapons." The gear they use is for a purpose.

The thrust of my post was the militarization of police departments, but I see you didn't respond to that.

Then I owe you an apology, I misread your posts - I believed them to primarily to be focused on the militarization of LE as seen by modern SWAT teams.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Understand this, I'm not fearful of "LE tactical teams" I'm commenting on their usage. The only equipment I mentioned was a totally unnecessary mask. I don't appreciate comparing my concern over this issue with people who have an irrational fear of so-called "assault weapons."

The comparison was made because of your comments about the intimidating hood (or ski mask) worn by some swat teams:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:And why do SWAT officers wear ski masks, if not to hide their identity and appear more sinister and menacing?

The piece of fabric doesn't actually make a person more lethal or dangerous, but it makes them look scarier. Similar to some people's fear of big black rifles, if you can follow the simile. I understand you are a champion of 2A causes and I apologize sincerely, if you felt I was grouping you in with gun grabbers. I only intended to draw a comparison of a similar fear based on appearance and that was the first example that came to mind. (I'm not saying you are "afraid" of hooded SWAT teams either). The hood has a practical use in protecting the wearer from brass, flying splinters or shrapnel, and shielding from flashbangs.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gigag04 wrote:It would be unfair, and unsafe to task a patrol officer with the tasks of a tac operator.

Here we go with my military jargon -- "tac operator." That's precisely the problem, you can't appreciate the difference between a police officer and a soldier. Are you suggesting that barricaded suspects, hostage takers and no knock warrants didn't exist prior to the creation of SWAT teams? Of course they did and patrol officers routinely handled the job. BTW, are you former military?

To be fair, you did not respond to my comment on the dangers of certain tasks and the need for specially trained groups to answer these threats. Instead, I feel you drew some far reaching conclusions on my (un)ability to distinguish between military and LE. I'm not former military, though I am pursuing an aviation slot in the army reserve. Highly trained, tactical experts are considered operators, regardless of what patch they wear on their sleeve...SWAT, HRT, DEA FAST, Marshal's SOG, CBP BORTAC, etc for LE. Delta, SF, Seals, Rangers, Pararescue, Recon, etc for military. While they are very separate organizations with different missions, the need to kick in a door and place precise surgical shots on target is not exclusive to either side. This is not the ONLY thing that these groups can do, but that example speaks to specific training and tasking. Sometimes these groups train together to hone these specific skills, yet they still have mission specific training they conduct amongst themselves. My father served in US Army Special Operations both in uniformed and clandestine capacities for the first third of my life, as such I grew up all over the world and met some really cool, capable personalities. I understand the differences between their jobs, and my job.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gigag04 wrote:And sometimes, these no knock warrants are search warrants. These are not used on schoolteachers and the like... They are proven criminals with a track record of violence, drug trafficking, and aggression.

Really? How do you know? What if the accused is innocent? What if you get the wrong house? This too is indicative of the problem, you clearly take the attitude that if a warrant is issued, then the citizen somehow less important, in spite of the fact that they haven't even been charged with a crime, much less convicted. Some people fit your description, but not all and you would treat them all the same.

You know as well as I do that a no-knock warrant has to be approved by a judge. These are not rubber stamped, but the history of the individual is presented and he or she makes the determination. Do they get the wrong house? Sure - unfortunate side of the law of averages. We see this in officer involved shootings where the officer misses as well - but I don't think taking guns away from cops is the answer. My argument here is that yes mistakes can and have been made, however I think the no-knock warrant is a valuable tool when used properly, and that it should not be discarded. Again, you paint me with a broad brush when you say that I clearly take a certain attitude. I doubt that a single post on the internet could CLEARLY define any attitude I hold, especially one about the importance of the citizens of the city I serve. I'm tempted to be offended and take these repeated generalizations as a personal attack against my character. Nothing could be farther from the truth as far as my love and respect for the constitution and the people of this country. I'm going to assume that you did not intend the personal remarks to come across as they did, as I have known you through this board for years.

I understand you are no longer posting in this thread, so if need be, we can discuss this privately - I did want to follow up as promised a post a thought out, unheated reply, from a real computer. Last night was busy and I didnt get the chance.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Most of the posters on this board do not ever have to deal with this segment of society.

I have; the fellow officers I spoke of have also, and none of us share your opinions.

This does not mean I am alone in my opinions, simply that you haven't met someone that shares it. I appreciated the breadth of people you have discussed with, however, I know many that would agree with me. I don't understand the point's relevance to our discussion though.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gigag04 wrote:LE has changed significantly over the years and continues to evolve to meet the changing operating environments offered by society.

That's one very lousy excuse and it's also groundless. Law enforcement has most definitely changed, but not to meet "changing operating environments." It is becoming a military force and that's dangerous to a free society. That's an opinion shared by many who have worn the badge, including ranking officers, as well as elected officials. I'm hardly a bleeding heart liberal. I'm a former COP and a life-long conservative, death penalty supporting Republican. If the concerns I've expressed are not addressed by those who are responsible for their departments (city counsel, county commissioners, etc.) then law enforcement will alienate its strongest supporters.

The operating environment has definitely changed - I'm not sure what time frame you were sworn, but 40 years ago, crack cocaine was not a rampant problem. The public generally supported the officer, and the entitled welfare culture was less prevalent. I understand that both sides are to blame for any public distaste of LE. It does not change the environment I work in. I encounter 50yo crack addicts that had been beat down by officers 30 years ago. These officers are long gone, and that behavior is no longer common place in LE, however, it does not undo his experience. Cars are equipped with computers, videos, GPS, and all sorts of lighting. Call response times are down, productivity is up (you can do more with less staffing). A tactical response can be garnered in sometimes less than an hour if need be. More and more departments are requiring some level of formal education, with a preference towards a 4 year bachelors degree. This is a vastly different playing field than those that have gone before me.

Protect sides of face and neck from shrapnel, debris, flagbangs, hot brass...

To name a few.

Chas, I appreciate your thoughts and questions (and your service!). I'm at an ODJ at a bank right now, so that post was longer than I think I could handle on my phone.

I'll review and post later if it's slow.

What is the old fashioned way exactly?

I'm looking for firsthand LE experience in dealing with violent offenders and taking them into custody.

Also, It's not "just letting them do it" - we can if need be. And I have. By why not let the better equipped, specifically trained, people deal with it.

I think there is some hyperbole affecting perceptions.

I dont know a swat team that wears ski masks...those I know wear ballistic helmets. If they wear a balaclava it's to protect their faces...not hide them, and they are usually open faced.

They are not called in "whenever the officer doesn't want to deal with it.". They are called when there is a greater than normal likelyhood of a violent encounter, for example:

Barricaded subject
No knock warrant (issued by a judge)
Hostage taker


Just to name a few...

In my opinion, the fear of LE tactical teams is akin to people's unreasonable fear of "Assault Weapons." The gear they use is for a purpose. It would be unfair, and unsafe to task a patrol officer with the tasks of a tac operator.

Also - I think depiction of serving a warrant is a little exaggerated. No knock warrants are less than 1 in 500 (guesstimate) warrants served by the dept. And sometimes, these no knock warrants are search warrants. These are not used on schoolteachers and the like....

They are proven criminals with a track record of violence, drug trafficking, and aggression. Most of the posters on this board do not ever have to deal with this segment of society. LE has changed significantly over the years and continues to evolve to meet the changing operating environments offered by society.


Please forgive typos...I'm on my phone.

Rex B wrote:The way you originally stated it made it sound like you did it for entertainment during the boring hours

Nope - the only time I go serve class C warrants is when it's a known thug, gang banger, etc. Other than that, I find them on traffic stops about 5 times a month.

Our detectives only investigate Class B's and above, these warrants are served as soon as possible to close out the case, and get criminals behind bars before they act again. Sure some will bond out before I even turn in the arrest paperwork, but that's what we have to work with.

seamusTX wrote:"How dare you sleep under the blanket of protection that I provide and then question the manner in which I provide it."
—Col. Nathan R. Jessep, played by Jack Nicholson, A Few Good Men



- Jim

Question away - serving a warrant is a executing court order...not some cops good idea.....

Rex B wrote:

gigag04 wrote:To answer some of the questions:


Warrants can be served at any time, even Sunday. I frequently wake people at at 0330
to serve a warrant. It passes time and keeps me busy.

If it's not a warrant for a violent felony, that's just wrong.
It increases the odds that something will go wrong, and it makes the police look like gestapo.

I appreciate the difference in opinion. However, I have a job to do. There are numerous non-violent offenses that people still need to go to jail for: burglary, theft, embezzlement, etc. Even Family Violence assault causing bodily injury is only a Class A misdemeanor.

It sounds ideal to have warrants served politely, during working hours, and every complies. That simply is not the case, people commit crimes and don't have a desire to answer for them. Warrants are served every day, our detectives get the warrants and let patrol know to go serve them. It's just how things work. I don't see this as "just wrong." This isn't Ruby Ridge...we don't take unnecessary risks.

Deleted and reworded below****

To answer some of the questions:


Warrants can be served at any time, even Sunday. I frequently wake people at at 0330
to serve a warrant. It passes time and keeps me busy.

Long rifles - I would bring a long gun to serve a warrant on a person known to be armed.