AR: Elderly lawyer shot while deputies served warrant

[Rex B]

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.

[PUCKER]

WOW Charles, very well put, my sentiments exactly!

[longtooth]

It is all summed up in the one fact. He pointed 2 guns at LEOs. It does not matter if the warent was for traffic or bank robbery, he pointed 2 guns at the officers.

The argument against the Game Wardens & # of officers is no good either. Pretty evident they know who they were going to see. Game Warden most probably knew the woods & area better than the other officers.

[gigag04]

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]

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"

[gigag04]

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.

[Rex B]

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.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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?

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;

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[gigag04]

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.

[Ameer]

It depends what results you want. Serving misdemeanor warrants and civil process during daylight hours reduces the chance of mistaken shootings on both sides.

[KD5NRH]

If they wear a balaclava it's to protect their faces...not hide them, and they are usually open faced.

If it's open faced, then how does it protect the face?

If they really felt the need to protect their faces from anything, they'd protect the most delicate and irreplaceable parts; the eyes. I have yet to see any of them wearing safety glasses with the balaclava.

[gigag04]

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

To name a few.

[flintknapper]

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.

This is perhaps the most accurate and well stated post I've ever seen on this forum.

I hope it resonates with both the citizenry and LEO.....because much needs to change...(for the good of both).

I know that certain folks may think of me as "anti-LEO", but I can assure you....nothing could be further from the truth.

I have simply lived long enough to witness exactly what has been posted above and it concerns me greatly.


Well done Sir.

Flint

[MechAg94]

I think there is some hyperbole affecting perceptions.
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.

I have to agree with the post about about your characterization of no-knock warrants. We have all see multiple articles from around the country about knock and enter warrants that were done with little or no time given for home owners to react. If there is a fear among gun owners, it is the fear that we will react to such an entry and 1) actually kill/injure police officers which would horrify most all of us, and 2) get thrown in jail for many years and have our lives destroyed all because we didn't know who was charging into our house because we couldn't see or were too sleepy/groggy. And you can probably say that this never happens, but there are examples that have occurred for one reason or another. All of us know that if you just knocked on our door or called us on the phone to announce you were there, there wouldn't be any issue at all (with us at least).

Second: I disagree with you that most of us never have to deal with the dirty/dishonest parts of our society. We may not deal with them directly, but we see it and try to avoid it. We know it is there.

[GrillKing]

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.

I agree !!!