TexasCHLforum.com

I'm bowing out of this thread because it's going to look like I have an overall negative view of law enforcement. That's not the case at all! I've set out my concerns about the trends I see in law enforcement and my fears of how this will negatively impact the all important relationship between COPS and the community.

Chas.

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?

gigag04 wrote: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.

You can't be serious; they are worn all the time. And they are protecting their faces from what, being identified? Have a look here. http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&sour ... =&gs_rfai=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

gigag04 wrote: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...

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

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. You chose only to take issue with the comments about SWAT. 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." That would be akin to me comparing you to some officers who have gone to prison for civil rights violations.

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?

gigag04 wrote: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.

Reread my post; my comments about warrants were not limited to "no knock" warrants. My only reference to "no knock" warrants was that they heightened the risks. And let's be intellectually honest; a "no knock" warrant requires no announcement by the officers. However, you can bang on the door, yell "police" then kick the door in a second later and you have not executed a "no knock" entry. Those are done quite frequently. This is precisely what you could do during one of your 3:00 am warrant executions you mentioned and it would not be a "no knock" execution.

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.

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.

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.

Chas.

From the news report, it appears that the LEO's didn't do anything wrong. The warrant was served during the day and the officers identified themselves as LEO's. The man pointed two guns at them and got shot. That's a righteous shooting. If the facts are other than as reported, then that could change my opinion, but at this point I have no reason to doubt the officer's statements.

This thread has morphed to a wider discussion of serving warrants in general and I agree with many Members that tactics used to serve warrants have gotten out of hand. I was a COP for 15 years and during those years in Friendswood, there were relatively few warrants to serve that involved violent crimes or drug crimes. I served quite a number of warrants so I understand the task from a LEO's point of view. Nevertheless, what I experienced didn't come close to what officers with large departments deal with on a regular basis.

In my view, except in very rare circumstances, warrants should be served at a time and in a manner that minimizes the risk of injury or death to the citizen. This is not in the wee hours of the morning when they are asleep. Being awakened from a deep sleep by the banging on their door and screaming, or with officers crashing through the door or "making a good pull" with a wench truck and tearing out an entire wall, is a formula for someone getting shot. No one can be expected to be awakened in that manner and be fully alert and able to respond calmly. For all practical purposes, it sounds and appears to the home owner to be a violent burglary. Remember, this is an arrest warrant not a death warrant. These risks are amplified when serving so-called "no knock" warrants, but they are not limited to those circumstances.

I cringe whenever I hear a LEO proclaim that "officer safety" is paramount. No it is not! When I was a COP that was not my attitude because that places the officer's life above those he/she swore to protect. While I appreciate the job LEO's do, the good ones at least, none of us who wear/wore the badge were drafted. If you are not willing to do the job in a manner that provides the greatest safety to the very people you swore to protect, then do something else.

In the last 30 years, we have seen the gradual militarization of our nation's police forces and that is worrisome. I was in a meeting a few years ago when a former Texas Speaker of the House made the comment, "what has happened to today's law enforcement officers? I used to respect them, but no more because . . ." Before he could finish his sentence a retired DPS Lieutenant said "I'll tell you why! Because training and attitude has changed, that's why. No longer do we teach our cadets (not DPS) that they serve the public or that they should befriend the public. Now they are taught that they are the pointy end of the spear and that their job is to punish, not apprehend and let others decide guilt, innocence and punishment." I believe the LT. was right.

When I was a younger man, TV shows like Joe Forrester (Lloyd Bridges) and Adam 12 (Kent McCord & Martin Milner) were hugely popular. They portrayed police officers as your friends, part of the community, men who employed physical violence only when necessary and only to the minimal level necessary. Today, virtually every COP show has officers busting heads, making snide condescending comments, and generally violating the Constitution on a routine basis. So-called reality shows like COPS and Dallas SWAT are/were popular and which footage did they chose to show? Why the footage with head busting and "good pulls" that brought down entire walls of a home.

In response to the Watts riots in 1965, many large city departments started forming SWAT teams. Joseph McNamara, then-Police Chief for San Jose, California, issued a warning in the mid 1970's against this step toward militarizing the police. McNamara was and I presume still is rabidly anti-gun, so I discounted his concerns as being indicative of his overall dislike of guns. However, 30 years later I believe his warnings were somewhat prophetic. In the early days, SWAT teams were used in only the most violent of situations; now they are deployed virtually anytime the patrol officer doesn't want to deal with a situation, or his/her department won't allow them to do so. And why do SWAT officers wear ski masks, if not to hide their identity and appear more sinister and menacing? I understand the need to hide the identity of an undercover officer, but not SWAT officers.

My concerns are shared by many many officers I know, most of whom are 50 years old or older. I love COPS and I love the U.S. Marines, but I don't want to send the Marines into our cities anymore than I want to send COPS to Afghanistan. Each have their functions and their theater of operations and they shouldn't be mixed. I guess at the end of the day, I want Joe Forrester back.

Chas.