AR: Elderly lawyer shot while deputies served warrant

[puma guy]

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.

In Las Vegas SWAT executing a drug warrant ended in the death of Trevon Cole who was not the correct person the officer pulled the warrant on. That officer in the dead of night kicked in a bathroom door and ended Mr Cole's life. For a little marijuana in the toilet and a tube of chapstick. I have to question the logic of using SWAT routinely instead of in extraordinary circumstances.

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.

[seamusTX]

The last time I checked, death was about as serious an issue as there is.

- Jim

[KD5NRH]

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

With a chunk of fabric? The only one it might actually help with is the brass, and if that was a real concern, they'd be mandatory at crowded ranges.

Funny how every range I've shot at does require the safety glasses the cops don't seem to feel a need for, though.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[Excaliber]

WARNING: This is LONG because it's not a simple topic.

Folks, the concerns Charles has raised are genuine.

I have watched the transition from a mindset of service and keeping the peace in a community with the support of its members to one where far too many (though by no means all) officers feel free to unnecessarily confront and even abuse citizens and their precious constitutional freedoms with impunity in some agencies. Those who have entered police work recently see it only as it is today, and the current environment is seen as normal. I have seen it change from what it was to what it is, and in too many agencies what I'm seeing is not good. There is clearly a trend at work here.

As with any organization, what takes place at the level of execution is a direct reflection of the competence, principles and integrity of the person at its head. I see an increasing politicization of police chiefs and a decreasing concern with constitutional law enforcement. This parallels the flagrant disregard of the constitution we see in our federal judicial, legislative, and executive branches, and is part of the same process. It produces a type of law enforcement that sees citizens as subjects rather than people to be served, and is most certainly a threat to personal freedom.

In my agency, anyone who strayed into this mindset got an immediate and memorable yank back on his leash and lots of supervisory attention to remind him of his mission and his role. I see less and less of that these days, and a sharp increase in outrageous abuses of police power with no consequences to the officers involved - just losses to innocent citizens.

Erik Scott's case is one of the most egregious recent ones, but it is sadly not the only one. There are far too many situations where officers step far outside the law with no repercussions at all, and a number of them have been detailed on this Forum. There will be more.

The overuse of SWAT and heavy handed warrant service tactics is indeed a concern. It is a creeping case of "if you've got a hammer in your hand, everything looks like a nail." Simpler, gentler approaches are cast aside for a military approach that endangers the innocent and severely undermines the trust and support of the community that is essential to the success of the law enforcement mission.

A tactical team is not needed for every warrant, and warrants for any but the most proven dangerous suspects don't need to be served at O Dark Thirty. Folks in my agency and many others used things like telephones and their imaginations to make warrant arrests. (You'd be surprised how many folks will show up at the police station when they get a call from a stranger who reports he found a check for $267.30 made out to them and turned it into the police, who are holding it at the front desk). One of my friends, a LT in a sheriff's department, acquired the all time one year felony arrest record for his agency this way while assigned to light duty at the front desk due to a knee injury. (He was really good on the phone ).

In my opinion, too many police leaders have lost sight of what their authority is for.

I always spent time with each of my officers to convey my expectations to him or her, find out his or her aspirations and how I could help achieve them, and answer any questions they might have. They had plenty, and it gave me a great opportunity to communicate vision and purpose to make sure we all operated from the same sheet of music.

When we got to the question part, one officer left me speechless for a few seconds, and that didn't happen often. It was a brutally honest question, and he was extremely sincere in asking it. He had grown up in the nastiest housing projects, kept himself clean, and worked extremely hard to pass the police test and had just graduated from the police academy. When we got to the question part, he said simply "What does it feel like to have all that power?"

I realized he was looking at the fact that with a command I could make very consequential things happen, and did so every day. I felt the responsibility of command to make the right decisions each and every time because lives and other very important things often hung in the balance. He saw just the raw power involved, and was awed by it.

My answer to him was that the power he spoke of wasn't mine at all. It was temporarily entrusted to me for safekeeping by the people of the city to be used in their behalf, and I was able to use it only as long as I did so in their interests. Furthermore, when I decided to retire and took off the captain's badge, that power would pass to the next person it was pinned on who would be entrusted with the same mission. He understood, and it changed the way he looked at command authority and his own dealings with the public.

This is a perspective that I see fading in many agencies, and the communities they serve suffer greatly as a result. We need to see that agency heads are appointed on their ability and commitment to keep the peace with service and adherence to the constitution in mind.

If we fail to do that, there's lots of historical precedent to show us where we're headed.

[chasfm11]

As with any organization, what takes place at the level of execution is a direct reflection of the competence, principles and integrity of the person at its head.

Excaliber, what an excellent post!

I do not believe that LE organizations exist in a vacuum. The point that I quoted from you post covers all of governmental agencies and the impact is similar across them. Not all agencies have the power over life and death that LE groups do but can affect us in many other ways. The problem is the same. LE exists within multiple levels of government and each host organization can have an influence over LE in principals and integrity - positively or negatively.

The fundamental truth is that larger organizations either actively work at serving their constituencies or the power that they have corrupts them to believe that people serve them. How many for-profit companies get to the point where they exist for themselves, not their customers? In a truly free market (not propped up by corruption and governmental intervention) the customers of the company would correct that self-serving flaw. In governmental agencies, there is no customer correction and corrections through the ballot box are too diffused to be of much use. Outside of that, a citizen uprising has to be of significant size before any changes are made and often those are done on a token or appeasement basis even then.

There is more at work than problems with LE in the Erik Scott matter. Our "free press" should have helped the citizens to demand a full accounting of the situation but has been woefully lacking in the duty. I had high hopes with the demise of the major print media to a secondary role that Internet reporting would help to shine the spotlight on questionable police situations. That may happen but it hasn't yet and that removes a check and balance with LE activity. Someone from the outside needs to be constantly looking and asking questions. I place a large part of the blame for the overuse of SWAT with the news media.

Our daughter has been a police dispatcher for quite a few years and often sees the inside of stories that are otherwise poorly represented to the citizens of her town. Even with a well intentioned chief who, from all outward appearances, is a principled man, it is all too easy for the vast array of rookie officers that he commands to mis-step. While I understand need to keep personnel matters an internal issue, the failure to actively pursue them internally reinforces for those involved that they can get away with more than they should. Of course, the same could be said for doctors and the medical profession.

Many blame the citizens for not being more involved and, to some extent, that is probably true. Citizens can only act upon the information that they have and there appears to be a loose conspiracy to prevent them from having that information. How many besides those on this forum have even heard about this event let alone the possible LE abuse overtones that it has?

Thanks again for your insight on this matter.

Chas

[Rex B]

Bravo!

[Cobra Medic]

I saw a signature that sums it up. SHOOT THE NINJA!

[gigag04]

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Rex B]

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

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..... 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.

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.

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.

[gigag04]

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

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..... 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.

[Rex B]

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

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..... 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.

[gigag04]

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]

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

Most of the pictures did not show eye protection.