TexasCHLforum.com

Remember too that we are producing more battle-trained soldiers, who come home looking for a career. Their background leads many to law enforcement. Inevitably some will try to mold their units toward what worked in the military.

Seems like the NCOs go into law enforcement, the officers go into politics. Have you noticed all the current candidates who are recently retired young military officers?
Overall I'm OK with both, especially the latter.

I think Chas. and I did the same thing : Google Images for "SWAT Team"

Most of the pictures did not show eye protection.

gigag04 wrote:

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.

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 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.

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.

gigag04 wrote: 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.

Again, the problem is the blurring of lines between military and civilian LEO. The common jargon just reflects that.

This was a thoughtful response. I think we all understand that you are a good guy doing his duty as best you see fit.
But until decent cops like you recognize this in yourselves, see this as a legitimate concern and make a decision to change the course in whatever way you can. the militarization and alienation can only progress. That is not a future America that I want for my heirs.

Bravo!

gigag04 wrote: By why not let the better equipped, specifically trained, people deal with it.

No argument there, as long as due diligence is done beforehand in member selection, training, ROE.
I'd also want the highest confidence in the person who decides whether a tactical team is the proper solution to a problem.

If my neighbor (who I've never met) down the street is dragged out of his home in handcuffs while the whole block stands in their yards watching, it goes down a whole lot better when the local beat cop is the one loading him up. When a quasi-military group in black hoods does it, some of us get a knot in our stomachs. A few of us will go to the trouble to find out what really went down.

I realize that from an LEO's perspective, letting the SWAT team deal with a probably violent arrest beats the heck out the old-fashioned way.
I also understand that for an LEO to be nominated to the area SWAT team is quite an honor. It is recognition that you are among the most able in your dept.

From the public perspective though, it makes us uneasy. At least those of us who are aware of history.

For a look at the down side Google "NRH SWAT shooting"

Charles, thank you for so eloquently expressing the thoughts I was trying to convey. I agree with you on each point.
I too am greatly concerned at the militarization of our police forces, and the "need" for a SWAT team in every suburban PD.

I do acknowledge that the rise of violent gangs in formerly quiet middle-class neighborhoods requires a forceful response.
I do not want to live in a place where law enforcement is "the biggest gang in town" as someone recently quoted.

I realize that in many cases it may make the most sense. If it's a repeat offender known to you, then I'm fine with anything you can legally do to make his life "inconvenient". I would hope that the warrant for the schoolteacher who forgot to pay a speeding ticket could wait until daytime.
The way you originally stated it made it sound like you did it for entertainment during the boring hours

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.