3 ms·

This escalation seems to be due to a number of things: 1) A perceived rise in the weapons capabilities of criminals and terrorists (See: LA Bank Robbery w/ auto

This escalation seems to be due to a number of things: 1) A perceived rise in the weapons capabilities of criminals and terrorists (See: LA Bank Robbery w/ automatics and vests) 2) A great deal of 9/11 DHS money going to local enforcement grants to prevent terrorism and up capabilities (providing the weapons and armor 3) A colossal lack of judgment and an incredibly improper escalation of force employed in civilian targets. It is incredibly maddening and frustrating, but at the same time I can understand it from the Police perspective. Perhaps we can combat this with a few policy and legal related things: 1) Legislation that provides a method to sue the government for excessive force, damages, and property damage 2) Require any urban assault teams to videotape raids and make that content public to the courts to verify accounts 3) Reduce the amount of money that goes to excessive gear, armor, and weapons and free up more money for training on target judgment and force escalation. Not a silver bullet, and it won't bring these dogs, or the man with the book in the previous segment, but it could be a start.

johndevor 13y ago
How about we just eliminate them altogether? There was a time when they didn't exist and life was fine (or arguably better).
- sailfast 13y ago
  While I agree a significant down-sizing of these tactical forces is required, I think a good argument can be made for the capability of police and government leaders to call a specially trained team within a certain timeframe to combat escalated force. If a couple of guys with easily available automatic weapons decide to stroll through a shopping mall it's nice to have that option, but you don't need one in every town, and every police officer doesn't need to be in full tactical kit all the time. I'm speaking out of turn but part of it is also cultural - if you're wearing a vest and you've got the weapons and everything strapped to you looking unsociable with your sunglasses and scowl you're a badass. I gather normal blues don't get the same reaction within the community.
  - zhemao 13y ago
    Yeah, SWAT teams were created for a reason, to respond to crises that the regular police were not equipped or trained to handle (that's why it's Special Weapons and Tactics). The problem here is just that they're being used for routine policing tasks that really should be the purview of regular patrol officers. We don't have to get rid of them entirely, just limit the kinds of situations that they're allowed to respond to. Sending SWAT teams after suspects with no criminal record and who are not expected to be armed is absurd and wasteful.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    > If a couple of guys with easily available automatic weapons decide to stroll through a shopping mall I think that these sorts of incidents, and similarly the Ned Kelly / North Hollywood Shootout incidents, are rare enough that we really should not be wasting resources planning for them. Have a few squad cars have guns locked away in the boot, only to be removed with explicit approval (perhaps unlocked remotely), and then proceed to not worry about something that will almost certainly never happen to you. These things rarely happen despite the fact that the required equipment is readily available. That's because there just are not that many people interested in shooting up lots of people. Particularly the Ned Kelly / North Hollywood situations... there is really no good reason to attempt to arrest those people while the crime is in process. Like how how high-speed chases should be handled, just fall back and arrest them later. Don't confront those people on their terms, use time to your advantage and arrest them later on your terms. That's not the appropriate attitude in every situation (for example, Columbine), but I think it is the appropriate attitude in nearly every situation.
- GregBuchholz 13y ago
  Are Cops Constitutional? http://constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm http://constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

johndevor 13y ago

How about we just eliminate them altogether? There was a time when they didn't exist and life was fine (or arguably better).

sailfast 13y ago
While I agree a significant down-sizing of these tactical forces is required, I think a good argument can be made for the capability of police and government leaders to call a specially trained team within a certain timeframe to combat escalated force. If a couple of guys with easily available automatic weapons decide to stroll through a shopping mall it's nice to have that option, but you don't need one in every town, and every police officer doesn't need to be in full tactical kit all the time. I'm speaking out of turn but part of it is also cultural - if you're wearing a vest and you've got the weapons and everything strapped to you looking unsociable with your sunglasses and scowl you're a badass. I gather normal blues don't get the same reaction within the community.
- zhemao 13y ago
  Yeah, SWAT teams were created for a reason, to respond to crises that the regular police were not equipped or trained to handle (that's why it's Special Weapons and Tactics). The problem here is just that they're being used for routine policing tasks that really should be the purview of regular patrol officers. We don't have to get rid of them entirely, just limit the kinds of situations that they're allowed to respond to. Sending SWAT teams after suspects with no criminal record and who are not expected to be armed is absurd and wasteful.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > If a couple of guys with easily available automatic weapons decide to stroll through a shopping mall I think that these sorts of incidents, and similarly the Ned Kelly / North Hollywood Shootout incidents, are rare enough that we really should not be wasting resources planning for them. Have a few squad cars have guns locked away in the boot, only to be removed with explicit approval (perhaps unlocked remotely), and then proceed to not worry about something that will almost certainly never happen to you. These things rarely happen despite the fact that the required equipment is readily available. That's because there just are not that many people interested in shooting up lots of people. Particularly the Ned Kelly / North Hollywood situations... there is really no good reason to attempt to arrest those people while the crime is in process. Like how how high-speed chases should be handled, just fall back and arrest them later. Don't confront those people on their terms, use time to your advantage and arrest them later on your terms. That's not the appropriate attitude in every situation (for example, Columbine), but I think it is the appropriate attitude in nearly every situation.
GregBuchholz 13y ago
Are Cops Constitutional? http://constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm http://constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm