4 ms·

I don't think that just because they were wearing bulletproof vests you can reasonably infer "SWAT". Many law enforcement agencies have written or unwritten req

I don't think that just because they were wearing bulletproof vests you can reasonably infer "SWAT". Many law enforcement agencies have written or unwritten requirements to wear bulletproof vests when in the field. http://www.bja.gov/Publications/PERF_BodyArmor.pdf http://www.bja.gov/Publications/PERF_BodyArmor.pdf "Our first main finding was that almost all law enforcement agencies (99.4 per- cent) from across the country report that their officers wear body armor when on duty." - BJA/PERF Body Armor National Survey - page 36

DanBC 13y ago
Ignoring the word "SWAT" for the moment this was a raid on corporate offices for people smuggling honey. I'm not sure why officers were armed. I guess I can understand why they wear protective clothing (but are shootings in that situation common?) Are honey smugglers really going to shoot law enforcement? You need lots of people in the raid to prevent employees shredding and deleting everything.
- a3n 13y ago
  > I'm not sure why officers were armed. My assumption is that any officer who is armed at the moment is always armed, and any officer who is always armed will be armed when he visits you. In other words, being armed in this instance may not be particularly interesting. Now, if they had their arms drawn at the ready, that might be more than interesting.
  - NickNameNick 13y ago
    Police in NZ are not routinely armed, at least, not with anything more than some pepper spray and a batton. I am aware that this is not the case in many other parts of the world, but I still pay attention to the difference between 'normal' and armed police.
    - hrkristian 13y ago
      It's the same in Norway, not sure about the other Scandinavian countries. Of course, our distinction between 'normal' and 'armed' police has no bearing in the US where the environment is completely different and armed civilians is almost an everyday occurrence.
- dm2 13y ago
  I think the difference is "armed" verses "guns drawn". You can't expect anyone to raid an allegedly illegal operation or building or confront someone without at least having a weapon on them. A gun in my face or pointed at me without me presenting any danger to that person would be unacceptable. It's not easy to properly assess a situation when you are waving a gun around. Requiring an officer/agent to draw his weapon would give him a few extra critical seconds to judge whether or not someone/something is an actual threat. If an officer/agent busts into a room with a gun drawn and I set down a water bottle too fast or startles my 30 pound dog, then I or my pet has the chance of being shot unnecessarily, that's unacceptable and is something that needs to change.

DanBC 13y ago

Ignoring the word "SWAT" for the moment this was a raid on corporate offices for people smuggling honey. I'm not sure why officers were armed. I guess I can understand why they wear protective clothing (but are shootings in that situation common?) Are honey smugglers really going to shoot law enforcement? You need lots of people in the raid to prevent employees shredding and deleting everything.

a3n 13y ago
> I'm not sure why officers were armed. My assumption is that any officer who is armed at the moment is always armed, and any officer who is always armed will be armed when he visits you. In other words, being armed in this instance may not be particularly interesting. Now, if they had their arms drawn at the ready, that might be more than interesting.
- NickNameNick 13y ago
  Police in NZ are not routinely armed, at least, not with anything more than some pepper spray and a batton. I am aware that this is not the case in many other parts of the world, but I still pay attention to the difference between 'normal' and armed police.
  - hrkristian 13y ago
    It's the same in Norway, not sure about the other Scandinavian countries. Of course, our distinction between 'normal' and 'armed' police has no bearing in the US where the environment is completely different and armed civilians is almost an everyday occurrence.
dm2 13y ago
I think the difference is "armed" verses "guns drawn". You can't expect anyone to raid an allegedly illegal operation or building or confront someone without at least having a weapon on them. A gun in my face or pointed at me without me presenting any danger to that person would be unacceptable. It's not easy to properly assess a situation when you are waving a gun around. Requiring an officer/agent to draw his weapon would give him a few extra critical seconds to judge whether or not someone/something is an actual threat. If an officer/agent busts into a room with a gun drawn and I set down a water bottle too fast or startles my 30 pound dog, then I or my pet has the chance of being shot unnecessarily, that's unacceptable and is something that needs to change.