Balko: SWAT Team Leader Wants to Throw Flashbang Grenades at Low-Level Offenders
Radley Balko quotes a SWAT team leader as saying the following:
Team commanders must raise the profile of their teams. Stay active. Yes, I mean do warrant service and drug raids even if you have to poach the work. First, your team needs the training time under true callout conditions. If all your team does is train, but seldom deploy, you will end up training just to train. You need to train to fight. You already know that.
Second, make SWAT familiar to senior police staff. Everyone fears the unknown. Don’t let SWAT be that unknown. Make deploying SWAT something that is routine, not something only done after much hand-wringing. “Oh, no! You mean we have to call SWAT? Oh, I don’t know, I just don’t know. Really? Call SWAT? Really?”
Yes, you should have clear guidelines for activating the team. But how many times has the callout of a part-time team been delayed or denied when those callout criteria were met? We really do need to explain that SWAT is less of a threat than the people in the calls we are responding to—you know, those vewy, vewy bad people.
Balko opines:
The author is actually suggesting SWAT commanders lobby to have their teams deployed in situations for which they normally wouldn’t be to ensure they’re in good practice. Put another way, he suggests they practice their door smashing, room-clearing, flash-grenade deploying, and other paramilitary tactics on less-than-violent people, so they’re in better form when a real threat arises. Never mind that there are going to be living, breathing, probably bleeding people on the receiving end of these “practice” raids. There’s officer safety and “SWAT team profile” to think about. It’s just an appalling mindset.
It’s certainly an eye-opening criticism that a SWAT team leader would suggest that his team “practice their door smashing, room-clearing, flash-grenade deploying, and other paramilitary tactics on less-than-violent people.” But did that actually happen in this article?
SWAT teams are capable of deploying without throwing grenades. And any low-level warrant requires a team of police officers to go in with weaponry. I read the article as simply saying that SWAT teams need to stay in practice — not that they need to engage in unnecessary tactics against low-level offenders.
Read the article itself and let me know whether you see anything that justifies this level of outrageous outrage. I’m not seeing it, but maybe I’m missing something?
P.S. I note that he wrote about the Jimmie Duncan case again recently. I have had some points I wanted to make about that for a couple of years, but I still can’t figure out how to take a screenshot from a DVD. Can anyone help me?
Boot-lickin authoritarian killbotz
JD (68ff46) — 9/13/2011 @ 7:44 amPut the DVD into your computer. Fast forward to screen shot. Press SHIFT and PRINT SCREEN in the upper right-hand corner of your keyboard. Open up Microsoft Paint, Word, or Powerpoint. Paste new picture.
Laywers…
heh
EC (dda60e) — 9/13/2011 @ 7:52 amNot surprisingly, Batko’s spin is not warranted, I know unexpected. SWAT teams are a tool,the law enforcement equivalent of special forces, to be used sparingly.
ian cormac (ed5f69) — 9/13/2011 @ 7:53 amThat man needs to be fired and replaced with someone who respects the Constution. Or maybe his team needs to be disbanded.
SGT Ted (5d10ae) — 9/13/2011 @ 7:56 amRadley is particularly sensitive to the militarization of police forces, and he’s not entirely (or even partially) wrong on this topic.
There have been a lot of abuses, particularly when they deploy on incorrect, or outright bogus, information.
Plus, we won’t even discuss the motivation behind the Scott Raid in the Malibu hills in Ventura Co.
Too many SWAT units have performed to a level usually only found in ATF raids.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (89e0e7) — 9/13/2011 @ 7:57 amEC:
That does not work with a DVD. Have you tried it?
Patterico (f724ca) — 9/13/2011 @ 7:59 amSGT Ted – Balko?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:03 amNo you didn’t miss anything. Balko doesn’t like the drug war… and that translates into an animus for no-knock raids and for the SWAT teams that perform those raids. He is constantly on the search for stories that he then (in my view) twists to further his agenda. If a SWAT team member saved a lady from a fire, it wouldn’t surprise me if he hated that too.
steve (369bc6) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:04 amYes, I know all that, but I don’t see how those remarks, apply to that issue, most of them result
ian cormac (ed5f69) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:04 amfrom poor ‘intelligence’ on the target.
SWAT stands for stupid wanton arsehole terrorists.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:04 amHmmm…strange. It worked last time I tried it with WMP.
Try this:
Download VLC Media Player (free). Install and play your DVD. Press Ctrl-Alt-S to take a screenshot.
http://www.videolan.org/support/faq.html
EC (dda60e) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:05 amSGT Ted:
What quote from the piece justifies firing its author? Serious question.
I made an argument in the piece that SWAT teams do not always have to, e.g., throw grenades. Your comment seems to ignore my argument.
Patterico (86fa11) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:06 amI think the “you need to train to fight” line indicates pretty clearly that Balko’s take is accurate, that the SWAT team leader wants to use routine search warrant executions to practice their SWAT-style entry tactics.
Ian, I’ve seen plenty of horror stories, nationally and locally, which suggest strongly that SWAT teams are NOT used “sparingly,” but are in fact being used with greater and greater frequency against people who have not shown any disposition towards violence, and often when there is no actual evidence that anybody in the house being broken into by the SWAT team has actually committed a crime. And, by my reading, the SWAT team leader quoted is also advocating that the SWAT team NOT be used “sparingly,” but that they should be used with greater frequency, so there deployment will not seem to be a “big deal.”
Well, it SHOULD be a “big deal” when the cops decide to do a paramilitary style entry into a citizen’s private home. Cops SHOULD hesitate to do that, they should dither, they should second guess themselves before sending in a SWAT raid.
Patrick, the combination of the “train to fight” line and his urging that SWAT raids be considered “routine” and that cops do away with the “hand-wringing” before calling in SWAT, those 2 factors cause me to agree with Balko’s take on it.
PatHMV (299e25) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:08 amAssuming for the sake of argument that he is 100% right on this topic, his work is undermined if, as here, he overstates or exaggerates. The author didn’t say what Balko claimed he said.
Patterico (86fa11) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:13 amPat,
If you have Corel Draw, use the Corel Capture and set it to capture not the screen but the current window
Then use your media player to isolate the frame and hit F7 (I think) and corel captures the image
EricPWJohnson (2a58f7) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:13 amI agree with Pat. The entire premise of SWAT teams is contrary to the spirit of the constitution. If they’re needed from time to time, in urgent situations, so be it; but to make their use routine? That does violence to what America stands for, and it undermines the legitimacy of the entire government.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:13 amWell here’s a question for you, Patterico. If they’re not practicing dynamic entry, then what, exactly are they practicing? While ‘grenades’ may be a bit of hyperbole, dynamic entry is inherently dangerous to the folks in and around the premises being entered, so there should be a very high standard applied for its use, and it doesn’t appear that that is happening here.
Skip (cd5e00) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:14 am“If you don’t use it, you’ll lose it” animates this guy’s justification.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (89e0e7) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:14 amPlus, in an era of cutbacks due to very tight finances, the proliferation of SWAT units – let alone their deployment –
would seem to be high on pile of expenditures being reviewed for relevance.
This program plays DVDs and has a snapshot functionality built in (under “Video”).
There’s a mac version.
I’ve used VLC for a long time.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:15 amPatHMV,
If you read the piece as suggesting that flash grenades be used in routine drug warrants then we simply disagree. I don’t read the piece that way.
Patterico (86fa11) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:18 amPerhaps the local constable just needs to deputize some concerned citizens to deal with the situation?
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (89e0e7) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:18 amOr, the Mayor could ask the Governor to send the National Guard?
Or, they could just tear a page from the “Willie Wilson Goode” playbook?
It isn’t ignorance of SWAT capabilities or some generalized fear of the unknown that makes senior law enforcement officials reluctant to authorize SWAT operations, it’s the quite rational fear that trigger happy hot heads will bust-in the wrong door and shoot grandma while she’s holding the TV remote.
SWAT teams have a rightful place in law enforcement, and it’s a vital place, but too many egregious mistakes and unconscionable deaths has rendered their use extremely dangerous, dangerous to innocent citizens and dangerous to the careers of high level appointed and elected public servants.
SWAT teams would be well advised to demonstrate their commitment to accurately identifying the correct locations and holding their fire till the target is clearly identified.
ropelight (e80c12) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:21 am“Assuming for the sake of argument that he is 100% right on this topic, his work is undermined if, as here, he overstates or exaggerates.”
Patterico – Balko’s normal style is to overstate and exaggerate. He typically takes an incident, sensationalizes it and beats it to death. His readers, as evidenced by the comments there and supporting comments here, are conditioned to read about dynamic entries gone bad. Does he present statistics about successful dynamic entries for balance?
Balko is not interested in balanced writing and has not been for a long time.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:24 amPatrick, I think that Radley does go-overboard at times, but he does highlight abuses to the system, which need to be brought to everyone’s attention, because the system is being abused.
Even if the “SWAT Team Leader” did not say those exact words, the use of “flash-bangs” (which are very dangerous in that if one goes off next to you, you will suffer some injury, and they have the propensity to start fires) is part of the “dynamic entry” scenario, and Radley was just utilyzing his “journalistic shorthand” to emphasize what types of tactics can be expected.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (89e0e7) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:25 amHe needs to slow down and choose his words more carefully at times, as do we all.
Well true, but as with the last fiasco, with Doofus
ian cormac (ed5f69) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:26 amDupnik’s team, who determined the target.
SWAT is just shorthand for murderous killbotz.
JD (68ff46) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:27 am“it’s the quite rational fear that trigger happy hot heads will bust-in the wrong door and shoot grandma while she’s holding the TV remote.”
ropelight – I agree, but is SWAT typically given their assignments by others or does it choose its own?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:27 amThat subject could be debated. But police make dynamic entries all the time without SWAT teams. And deploying SWAT does not automatically mean flash grenades will be used.
I think some may assume that dynamic entry = SWAT = flash grenades. Not so. You can do dynamic entry without SWAT and you can do SWAT without flash grenades. Cops always serve search warrants armed.
Patterico (86fa11) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:28 amI really don’t see the point in SWAT showing up just to serve a warrant that isn’t for the arrest of a violent person.
I can see that Balko has added a few harrowing details that probably came from his flair for the dramatic. But I agree with his point that using SWAT on routine non-violent matters in order to prepare for hostilities later is a poor policy.
Honestly, I think the US Military would be better equipped to have a few quick reaction forces, built up of non-deployed but experienced room clearing infantry.
Load them up on a helicopter and fly them out if there’s an emergency.
Yeah, I know, that’s illegal. It’s also a better policy than trying to properly locally train regular police officers to be paramilitary.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:28 amWhat I’m saying is that Balko should try to come up with a policy that serves the interests of both his politics and the interest of police having access to an emergency force like SWAT.
The problem they are having now is that it’s difficult to keep these people ready for action, apparently.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:30 amPatrick, you read the piece as the SWAT team leader suggesting that they use normal, regular, non-raid style search warrant executions so that they can avoid “training to train” because those non-raid-style entries will help them “train to fight”? Do you have reason to believe that this particular SWAT team regularly executes search warrants in the same, normal, calm method in which most search warrants are executed by non-SWAT cops?
You read the SWAT team leader’s remarks about wanting other cops to stop “hand-wringing” about calling in SWAT because he (the team leader) wants the other cops to understand that SWAT rarely uses dynamic entry techniques to execute search warrants, and so it’s safe to call on them?
Sorry, that’s just not how I read it. SWAT (“Special Weapons and Tactics”) teams exist precisely to execute those sort of high-risk warrants where dynamic entry techniques are needed. That is their primary mission. If they are used to execute routine search warrants in a routine, non-SWAT-like fashion, then they would not be training to fulfill their mission. The team leader is not advocating finding other missions for SWAT (for example, as a hedge to protect against budget cuts), he’s concerned with training to be better at carrying out their primary mission… which is the dynamic-entry execution of search and arrest warrants.
PatHMV (299e25) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:33 amI go back to #18:
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (89e0e7) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:36 amIt’s budget cutting time, and every dept/office/unit/team within an agency is having to use all of their rhetorical skill to justify continuing their budget at current levels, or with only minor (paperclip-level) cuts.
Ya know if only those teabagging thugs didn’t lower taxes on corporations this would not have happened.
/Sarc off
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:38 amThis must be some of those code words, they are always talking about, the SWAT team leader is just making the point that even when the criteria is warranted, they are not used,
One can use a local example, with two Miami Dade cops, who were shot while serving a warrant on a violent career criminal, they had served warrants
ian cormac (ed5f69) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:38 amon him previously, they should have had a SWAT team as backup, then the memorial service that was featured prominently in the news might not have been neccessary.
It’s a bit of a catch 22. We want them to execute their duties perfectly, but we don’t want them to practice in “game” situations to stay sharp. I don’t like
no-knock raids“dynamic entry” 🙄 but I can also empathize with the SWAT guy and Balko is using hyperbole again.I second the VLC recommendation for DVD screenshots – it works great on both Mac and PC. videolan.org
carlitos (49ef9f) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:39 am🙄 you put the upid in stupid.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:40 amthey had served warrants on him previously
I think the old saying “familiarity breeds contempt” might apply to this situation.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (89e0e7) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:41 amThey knew the guy, and thought that because of their previous relationship, it was a “safe” play.
They obviously were working on inadequate information.
B-but think of teh children 🙄
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:42 am“It’s a bit of a catch 22. We want them to execute their duties perfectly, but we don’t want them to practice in “game” situations to stay sharp.”
carlitos – Maybe as part of Obama’s Son of Stimulus he could start some sort of exchange program where he send SWAT teams (mostly union after all, so it’s all good) to third world hell holes to practice the full range of their capabilities on brown people we don’t care about? Win, win.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:56 am“Make deploying SWAT something that is routine”
I don’t know about y’all, but my whole life is set up so that I never have to go to places where SWAT teams need to be called on a regular basis.
I’d be happy as hell if I never saw another criminal, cop or any other representative of the government ever again.
Dave Surls (96567d) — 9/13/2011 @ 9:02 am“I don’t know about y’all, but my whole life is set up so that I never have to go to places where SWAT teams need to be called on a regular basis.”
Dave – Congratulation. In the gun free liberal paradise in which I live the sound of police and fire sirens normally drown out the sound of my television and make it impossible to talk on the phone several times each night.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/13/2011 @ 9:06 amPatterico, I’m often on your side with respect to Balko, I think he undermines his credibility on the very important issues he covers with exaggeration, misrepresentation of fact etc. You’ve done good work on Balko in the past.
This one is more marginal. Yes, Balko is making a thin inference here, and its an exaggeration of what the article says, but its on the edge of the tolerable rhetorical exaggeration of inference.
But no, it does not justify a call for the firing of the author, who is sadly demonstrating a mentality too common to LEO these days.
SPQR (3944f2) — 9/13/2011 @ 9:27 amMaybe a little background on the author, not Balko is instructive, from a bio on Amazon:
Cpl. Ed Sanow is the senior reserve deputy and a 14-year veteran with the Benton County, Indiana, Sheriff’s Department. He is a Team Leader with the Benton County Multiagency Response Team and the field training officer for the reserve force. Sanow is the author of more than 1,000 articles on ammunition and stopping power. In October 2000, he became the editor of Law and Order magazine
ian cormac (ed5f69) — 9/13/2011 @ 9:33 amThey told me if I voted for McCain ….. Ahhh, forget it. Waaay toooo easy.
glenn (2a84e9) — 9/13/2011 @ 9:49 amian, ah, you don’t want to remind people of Ed Sanow’s books on handgun ammunition stopping power – we’ll get a whole flame war on that subject alone. Might even draw in the Martin Fackler acolytes.
Good spot, I missed that it was him.
SPQR (3944f2) — 9/13/2011 @ 10:10 amThat’s weird. I can’t figure out why that comment gets eaten by the spam filter.
SPQR (3944f2) — 9/13/2011 @ 10:21 amIt doesn’t appear he is a swat team leader, as Radley describes him
ian cormac (ed5f69) — 9/13/2011 @ 10:25 amThe SWAT team commander has one eye on his unit’s funding. In tough economic times, everyone in local government wants to not only be, but seem, indispensable. Yes, the teams need to get in their reps, to stay in good form. But a little showboating for the commissioners at budget time doesn’t hurt, either.
The Sanity Inspector (ef5d4d) — 9/13/2011 @ 10:27 amGreetings:
Back in my college days, I came across a little something called Parkinson’s Law which asserted that “Work expands to fill available staff and space.” When I later, temporarily joined the Federal bureaucracy, I came across a bit of unattributed folk wisdom that indicated “Where you stand depends on where you sit.” Obviously, I see both of these logics at work in your report.
That keystroked, my perspective is a bit different. I live in the San Francisco Bay area, a couple of soviets south of what the locals like to refer to, however mistakenly, as “The City”. A week or two ago, on the other side of the Golden Gate in Marin County, a knucklehead perpetrator barricaded himself and his sweetheart in a motel room overlooking a highway approach to one of the cross-Bay bridges. He then fired one shot from his favorite pistol toward the highway hitting nothing of note. The authorities then decided to close down the access-way to the bridge for the rest of the day and most of the next, in the fine Columbine tradition of establishing the all important “perimeter”. Eventually, the knucklehead and his sweetheart were taken into custody but the disruption to the citizenry’s freedom to travel or do commerce received not a lick of attention in the local media.
As much as I find the “militarization” of the police under the guise of Special Weapons and Tactics disturbing, I don’t find much special about either their weapons or their tactics these days. If it takes them more than 24 hours to deal with a knucklehead in a motel room with a pistol and a sweetheart, what exactly is it that that the taxpayers are subsidizing? Similarly, how is it that elected and appointed officials can summarily concluded that those same taxpayers are to have their rights, to travel and do their commerce, suspended while the officials and SWAT-ers embark on some Hollywood fantasy?
Somehow the SWAT train seems to have gone well off the tracks. I’ll certainly admit to enjoying a bit of dress-up and having all kinds of neat toys with which to play, but the results are what really matter. If what went on in Marin County is the best SWAT can do or are allowed to do, then there are problems on both ends of the SWAT spectrum.
11B40 (23eb81) — 9/13/2011 @ 10:28 amFirst of all, it strikes me that Batko, mischaracterizes the author, then his argument,
ian cormac (ed5f69) — 9/13/2011 @ 10:34 amby misreading the quote, that is separate from who decides to deploy a SWAT team and for what purpose.
11B40 – Were there any endangered plant species around that motel?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/13/2011 @ 10:35 amRe: routine SWAT
Several years ago, a SWAT team was called to my apartment building, because the building’s resident crazy guy (who wasn’t a problem except when he stopped taking his medication and started self-medicating with pot, which alas he did every month or so — he was a relative of the owners) had said the wrong thing to the police team who (routinely) had come out to encourage him to shut up until morning, at which time his family would come out and make him take his medicine again. He had made the empty threat of having a rifle (he didn’t) which was the wrong empty threat to make if you live in a straight shot from a school (which he did).
So the SWAT team came out that morning, mostly for practice, because everybody knew perfectly well that this guy wasn’t really violent and didn’t have a rifle. They knocked on everybody’s door in an orderly fashion, cleared out the building, set up a command post in an upstairs apartment, etc.
Except that I slept through all the knocking on doors part and all the clearing out building part, woke up quietly, got ready for work quietly, and went out the door right into the armed arms of a SWAT team guy! (The HQ was next door. I hadn’t heard that, either.)
The SWAT guy (and his boss, and all the other SWAT guys) was seriously freaked out, and this was in a calm “practice” situation in broad daylight on a quiet morning in suburbia. If I hadn’t been obviously female, nerdy, unarmed, and unthreatening, things might have turned out badly for me. And if it hadn’t been broad daylight and an obvious police guy, I might have reacted differently also. (I mean, geez, guys with assault weapons invading my building??)
As it was, nothing bad happened to me or the building crazy guy or anyone else. But you know, SWAT teams imply a certain escalation level, so live practices need to be conducted carefully.
Maureen (52ffb6) — 9/13/2011 @ 11:00 amSGT Ted – Balko?
Comment by daleyrocks — 9/13/2011 @ 8:03 am
— I thought it was SGT Bilko
Icy Texan (8fba93) — 9/13/2011 @ 11:40 amSkip seems to have skipped a few grades. Maybe it’s not too late for him to go back.
Icy Texan (8fba93) — 9/13/2011 @ 11:42 amAnd calling out the National Guard, let alone the Military, implies a whole ‘nuther level of escalation.
As Rush is fond of pointing out, the military’s job is “to blow things up and kill people”.
LarryD (feb78b) — 9/13/2011 @ 11:53 amI read the article and the author never says exactly what he wants the teams to do when they ‘train to fight’. So the tactics he’s proposing are left to the reader to infer. Since the author proposes low level deployments as a way to practice the use of SWAT tactics in a real world environment Balko’s characterization seems reasonable to me. I don’t see how it would count as practicing swat tactics to calmly knock on a door to ask someone to please come with them. It’s possible that this isn’t the case but I didn’t see where the author made any statements about using tactics not strictly required by the circumstances.
Since Blako specified flashbang grenades in his blog post do you think it’s appropriate to use just “grenades” in your title? I’m asking because when I read your title I assumed his blog post would be about SWAT using or wanting to use other types of explosives.
time123 (03e182) — 9/13/2011 @ 11:54 amBalko undestandably dislikes the drug war. And having seen the daily glorious waste of tax dollars that the criminal justice system burns for mostly nonviolent low level drug offenders, I’m inclined to agree.
But it’s a leap to blame police departments from using force to effect arrests in these situations. Yes, mistakes happen. But I can speak to what I have seen professionally and personally of NYPD. NYPD’s Emergency Service cops in these kinds of raids take every tacitical precatuion to protect not only themselves but also innoncent people. These raids are planned,reviewed, supervised and are not done on a whim. And remember that hardcore drug users are by definiton irratiobal people. Whent hings do go bad(and it’s rare) it’s often because of that irrationality rather than a tactical error. If you want to change the law, fine. But stop blaming the cops for the mess politicians keep
Bugg (9e308e) — 9/13/2011 @ 12:29 pmasking them to clean up the mess no matter what the law is.
Bugg, my own experience with NYPD’s takedown procedure is rather different: A few years ago there was a crazy man on my block, not harming anyone, but wearing underpants over his pants like a superhero, and muttering to himself. I counted over thirty cops that came to capture him; it took them about an hour to corner him, tase him, force him to lie down on a straitjacket, which they then wrapped around him and carried him into an ambulance. I thought at the time that it must be a slow night, and every cop in the precinct wanted to be in on the excitement; I also thought that I’d love to be a burglar breaking into a house one street over.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/13/2011 @ 12:40 pmtime123:
That’s a valid point. I changed the title to add the word “flashbang.” I wrote the headline quickly before leaving this morning and didn’t notice how it could be misinterpreted.
As for the point I am making: I think even some commenters who support Balko’s positions can still see how his hyperbolic reading of the article tends to undercut the force of his argument.
Patterico (48feca) — 9/13/2011 @ 1:15 pmMilhouse-
Bespeaks a job NYPD took great care not to hurt anyone, not the loon, nor themselves not the public. In a litigous age they really have no choice but to act very carefully. Which is why Balko’s article rings pretty hollow, as to NYPD anyway.
Bugg (9e308e) — 9/13/2011 @ 1:45 pmBugg, they weren’t nearly so careful with Gideon Busch. Perhaps they learned from that mistake. But this guy wasn’t waving a hammer; I think they just came for the excitement.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 9/13/2011 @ 1:52 pmI think even some commenters who support Balko’s positions can still see how his hyperbolic reading of the article tends to undercut the force of his argument.
Some might. But it also works the other way.
Your counter-hyperbolic “he never SAID ‘grenade'” works very similarly when you read that letter.
Well, that’s factually true. He didn’t _say_ “And throw grenades”. It’s left for us to infer what he means by “You need to train to fight.”
That’s what I take out of it – hitting hard, fast, violently and “making sure you go home tonight” (Another oft-stated, and -cited example that doesn’t say _exactly_ what you _might_ do to do that.) I presume he means taking doors off hinges, entering quickly in a stack, and yes, tossing flash-bangs to disorient those inside that i read “train to fight” as “presume they’re the deadliest SOB’s you _might_ run across and treat them accordingly.”
It’s certainly what the vernacular means in the various sports and firearms training I’ve had, about “you play like you practice”.
While I understand your point, but I think your quibble actually *enforces* rather than undercuts his point. He didn’t say anything about body armor, for instance, so would assuming wearing body armor be a hyperbolic escalation from his essay? Wearing shoes? Driving a car? I mean, there’s a lot that’s elided in daily conversation that average people *just understand*. (Lawyers might be excepted from that, of course.)
I don’t think you’d kindly take to that kind of evasion from someone you were questioning, or even your kids, without reading between the lines yourself. Perhaps not, but most of us do that.
Alternatively, you should ask the original author exactly where e stands on the continuum of force for “Training to fight”, and if he would then disavow anything above his stated – explicitly stated – force levels?
“Yes, I mean do warrant service and drug raids even if you have to poach the work. ”
Even if you have to break the rules to get the work, do that. That’s what the essayist is saying, and quibbling that he didn’t SPECIFY how he would “train to fight” is extremely nonsensical – even if you’re right, and he’d never, ever, ever, throw a flashbang serving warrants, it’s not what I, and most readers would take from that essay, and that’s his failure, not ours.
“have a “show and tell” with all your cool gear?”
Like that he’s not detailing what all is “cool” about all the gear he’s “serving and protecting” with.
His lack of specificity doesn’t undercut Balko’s concern. But quibbling over what he might or might not be allowed to do does undercut yours.
IMO, of course.
Unix-Jedi (651a1b) — 9/13/2011 @ 1:58 pm(minor edit for clarity…
AHA. PRONOUN TROUBLE.
Sorry.)
* rather than undercuts his {Balko] point. He [essayist] didn’t say anything about body armor, for instance, so would assuming wearing body armor be a hyperbolic escalation from his essay?
Unix-Jedi (651a1b) — 9/13/2011 @ 2:00 pmWhat, they won’t be able to toss “pineapples”?
Rats!
“There are very few problems in life that cannot be ameliorated by the proper application of high-explosives.”
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (89e0e7) — 9/13/2011 @ 2:13 pmMilhouse-
Busch was mentally disturbed and off his meds(and many emotionally disturbed person calls involve such circumstance,s htouigh not all waiving weapons). It’s not smart to waive a metal hammer in an armed cop’s face. But I vaguely recall that was a precinct cop on patrol rather than ESU. Still, was the cop supposed to wait until Busch brained him with a hammer before defending himself? It’s a very hard job. There are bad cops and mistakes do happen.But for the most aprt law enforcement is more professional than Balko would have you believe.
Also a Grand Jury cleared the Busch cops of any criminal wrongdoing.
Bugg (9e308e) — 9/13/2011 @ 2:21 pmbut I still can’t figure out how to take a screenshot from a DVD. Can anyone help me?
RE screenshots. Depends on the program, but most DVD programs already bundled w/computer usually have a camera icon someplace in their setup folder- enable it, adjust your player screen format and click away as the DVD plays or from freeze frame– takes images right off of DVDs.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 9/13/2011 @ 2:29 pmI believe the poit that the sergeant was trying to make, and an awful attempt it was, is that most SWAT entries are NOT violent or dynamic. There is training value in conducting the planning procedures, set-ups, equipment checks, etc.
Frankly, the more times cops do that stuff and become comfortable with it, the fewer times they’ll get jittery when things get dicey.
Robert C. J. Parry (a5133c) — 9/13/2011 @ 2:45 pmHope this helps: Grab screenshots from videos and DVDs. It discusses grabbing screenshots via programs like VLC (mentioned above), as well as other programs like Windows Media Player.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/13/2011 @ 2:51 pmA DVD Screenshot Example.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/13/2011 @ 2:56 pmWhen I say the author didn’t say something that he didn’t say, how is that “hyperbole”?
If you and PatHMV want to take “you have to train to fight” and interpret that uncharitably as “I think we should throw flashbang grenades in situations that don’t call for it, just for the practice,” you can do that, I guess. But it strikes me as being very unlikely that you have accurately interpreted what the guy said. If people were that quick to read malicious intent into your words, I don’t think you would like it very much.
Patterico (f0b2e9) — 9/13/2011 @ 4:37 pmnow colonel must know
ColonelHaiku (601b0d) — 9/13/2011 @ 4:47 pmwhat is a radley balko?
just nom de crayon?
SWAT teams were originally sold to the public as a solution for armed stand offs and hostage situations (I am old enough to remember). No-knock raids were originally sold on the premise that they would be restricted to use on situations where a known drug dealer and several armed minions were present with a large amount of contraband. Both have slowly become standard operating procedure for dealing with the neighborhood pot grower.
Balko may somewhat exaggerate, but the entire War On Drugs is outrageous. If no knock raids had resulted in a serious drop in drug availability or use there might – MIGHT! – be an argument for them. They haven’t. Prohibitions don’t work. Prohibition of a native plant as easy to grown and hard to eradicate as marijuana is absurd, even for a government. It doesn’t quite get to the level of absurdity of outlawing Kudzu in the deep south, but pot is a very hardy plant (if it wasn’t the kind of college age intellectual nitwits who cultivate it with grow lights in closets wouldn’t get anywhere), so it comes close.
The passage Balko quotes is supposedly from a magazine oriented towards sale to SWAT members and leaders. It certainly appears to be calling for use of SWAT teams in ordinary police business, for practice. I can’t imagine what the SWAT teams need to practice, other than SWAT tactics, that they couldn’t practice as ordinary uniforms. So it sure sounds to ME like the writer is calling for high-testosterone raids on people who wouldn’t normally be so targeted. If that isn’t what he’s calling for, it isn’t Balko who needs to tone it down.
C. S. P. Schofield (b8ee74) — 9/13/2011 @ 4:57 pmDonno, Patrick. I’ve trained with a bunch of cops and worry – a lot – about the idea that every stop should be a felony stop (or that every warrant should be served as if it’s a high-risk warrant).
It isolates the police from the people they are supposed to serve; it wastes resources that can and should be better used; and it puts people (including cops, who are at increased risk of blue-on-blue shooting) at risk.
I’m glad we have SWAT teams; there are genuinely bad people out there who need the be taken down using the kind of techniques SWAT uses.
But I think we overuse SWAT – a lot – and I think we have a nation full of undertrained SWAT teams funded by grant money who want to do callouts in oder to keep their numbers up and justify their budgets.
Armed Liberal (0730c3) — 9/13/2011 @ 5:16 pmSending in SWAT teams when it’s not necessary sounds stupid to me, no need for shovel-ready “make work”.
They really have that much free time, money and resources to play around with? If we’re talking about a major metro area I’m guessing there should be enough real, dangerous bad guys to send SWAT teams after.
On doing a screen capture, the “print screen” suggestion above may not always work. A simpler solution would be to install VLC Media Player (free opensource), use it to play the DVD and just select “screen capture” when you want a pic. It will save it as pic in the directory you specify. Another free opensource option would be installing SMPlayer and doing the same to save images from whatever video you’re playing. Both are safe, useful media players.
VLC Media Player
SM Player
Jay S. (237a25) — 9/13/2011 @ 5:16 pmRick Perry will end this SWAT nonsense.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (89e0e7) — 9/13/2011 @ 5:18 pmAfter all, you only need one man –
One Riot, One Ranger!
colonel think SWAT team
ColonelHaiku (601b0d) — 9/13/2011 @ 5:24 pmshould pay schofield a visit
harsh that dude’s mellow
Patterico:
If you and PatHMV want to take “you have to train to fight” and interpret that uncharitably as “I think we should throw flashbang grenades in situations that don’t call for it, just for the practice,” you can do that, I guess.
You’ve inserted words and situations into a context that’s negative, then dismissed it as ridiculous. Now, that’s what you’re complaining that Balko did. But in this case, it’s not really a problem.
That’s actually what I think he meant to say, it’s consistent with what I’ve seen, heard, experienced, and what most people would reasonably understand (IMO) him to be saying.
situations that don’t call for it, just for the practice,”
But your inserted words didn’t explain or demonstrate that Balko is wrong, because that *is* *exactly* what the writer said.
The writer advocated “poaching” situations that do not call for SWAT for practice..
He did say that. Exactly. So your insertion to make the situation more ridiculous actually ends up quoting him.
Now, you’re right, in that he didn’t say “grenade” and “doors off hinges” and “throwing people to the ground and piling on”.
No, he didn’t. But he said “train to fight”. Which in my experience, means do it exactly as you would in a situation that “deserves” it. Or, in his words, otherwise you “Train to train”.
But it strikes me as being very unlikely that you have accurately interpreted what the guy said.
It’s possible that I have. But given the context, given that he’s advocating “poaching” situations where SWAT *is not warranted* and then “training to fight”, I’m pretty sure that Balko and I have completely accurately interpreted what he said, and what he meant.
If people were that quick to read malicious intent into your words, I don’t think you would like it very much.
If I was actively writing about subverting policy and procedure in order to show off a “‘show and tell’ with all your cool gear?” Don’t know that I’d have a lot to complain about.
It’s possible that he did not mean what I, and many people here, thought he did. But the question should be to him, not Balko for “Wait, exactly how are you planning on “training to fight” in situations that don’t call for it?”
It’s not that out of the pale for someone who makes a name highlighting SWAT raids when they are not called for to call him out and presume he means what he and I (and I suspect, his audience) interpret him to mean.
I do think that it undermines your critiques of Balko, who often does very much does deserve them, when you jump on this, which at best is the fault of the writer, for being unimaginable hyperbole.
And what if that’s exactly what the writer meant, what Balko and I read him to mean? Grenades, doors blown open – he does say:
“We can do chemical agents, but we can’t do explosive entry. Whatever it may be, know what you can and can’t do.
Do only what you are excellent at doing.”
What does practicing “explosive entry” suggest to you? (Since the writer is telling you to practice it – poaching causes that don’t call for it – to get it right?)
Unix-Jedi (45cca1) — 9/13/2011 @ 6:46 pmPatterico’s latest attempt to start an internet war: EPIC FAIL.
Half of his regular commentators are wholly or in part taking Balko’s side.
Hahahaha (662143) — 9/13/2011 @ 6:48 pmCowardly drive by’s are so cute.
JD (318f81) — 9/13/2011 @ 6:54 pmSo he wasn’t a SWAT team leader, and he wasn’t recommending something out of Minority Report or Deus Ex, what was the controversial point in this.
ian cormac (ed5f69) — 9/13/2011 @ 7:01 pmFrom Ed Sanow’s article [emphasis supplied]:
Does anyone really think Cpl. Sanow advocates routinely using flash-bangs to serve a warrant? I don’t. To me this seriously undermines the argument that Sanow’s use of “train to fight” is a call to use extreme SWAT tactics in everyday policing. Instead, it sounds like he wants SWAT teams to stay sharp by engaging in real-life policing instead of continual training.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/13/2011 @ 7:02 pmOne advantage of training, is that it can be done (usually) in a controlled environment where you can use all of the tools available to you – such as at a firearms range with protected bays and constructed, Potemkin, dwellings that allows the full use of techniques and tools without the danger of collateral damage.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (89e0e7) — 9/13/2011 @ 7:11 pmThat is just krazy-talk, DRJ. Krazy, I tell you.
JD (318f81) — 9/13/2011 @ 7:11 pm“No, he didn’t. But he said “train to fight”. Which in my experience, means do it exactly as you would in a situation that “deserves” it. Or, in his words, otherwise you “Train to train”.”
Unix-Jedi – I’m pretty sure you have it right because every police department loves to get publicity about excessive use of force when it is not warranted. Then again, I think it’s more likely you missed the author’s intent completely.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/13/2011 @ 7:38 pmWhat’s your experience, exactly? I learned the expression ‘train as you fight’ in the Army, but we shot at eachother with blanks and little damn laser things that NEVER worked. We fired artillery that was simulated by a computer.
I think this is the point where dramatic embellishing ruins the fair analysis and informative purpose I think Balko probably was originally intending. Hopefully, anyway.
You are being pretty circular here. You’re saying Balko must have been making an assumption, and that’s justified because the assumption would say so.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/13/2011 @ 7:42 pm“You are being pretty circular here. You’re saying Balko must have been making an assumption, and that’s justified because the assumption would say so.”
Dustin – To be fair, Balko has an agenda and making the assumptions he has made fits the agenda, but that would be sort of circular as well.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/13/2011 @ 7:52 pmWell, I said hopefully. I have a love hate relationship with Balko, who writes a lot of amazing stuff, but once in a while, I realize he slipped a few little points in there that send a concern into an outrage (such as the idea of throwing a flashbang into my home).
His agenda is actually one I mostly like. But I barely read his work anymore, because once you realize someone is a liar, the spell is lifted. Hell, it’s probably my biggest pet peeve.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/13/2011 @ 8:00 pmWell, wouldn’t the simplest answer be rather than assume what you think Balko assumes from the article be to talk with the author of the article?
Ask him to clarify “train to fight”, does that mean perform regular police work, or practice SWAT procedures in regular call outs? I would think the author should have definitive answers for what he means to say. That way nobody has to guess what he means.
flicka47 (89be91) — 9/13/2011 @ 10:59 pm“Well, wouldn’t the simplest answer be rather than assume what you think Balko assumes from the article be to talk with the author of the article?”
flicka47 – Is there any indication from his post that Balko talked to the author?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/13/2011 @ 11:33 pmI tried to start an Internet war? With mild criticism?
I guess that’s as obvious as the premise that this author wants cops to throw flashbang grenades at potheads.
Patterico (f724ca) — 9/13/2011 @ 11:59 pmEver get the sense that Internet wars are things badly desired by some readers?
Patterico (f724ca) — 9/14/2011 @ 12:01 amThe thought had occurred to me.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/14/2011 @ 12:29 amThe suspicion is SWAT teams are overly used. That they are used for mundane searches and arrests for which a SWAT team is needless overkill.
The problem is gathering accurate evidence beyond anecdotes. The exception is Maryland because of a brand new law passed in reaction to a particularly dumb SWAT raid. And if the evidence from Maryland is representative for the rest of the nation than the fears about SWAT are well founded.
The next question is why are SWAT teams overused so? That’s why the column Balko highlighted from Tactical Response Magazine is interesting. It’s evidence that the push for SWAT overuse comes from the SWAT teams themselves.
Brad (f2bc0e) — 9/14/2011 @ 4:16 amJust what kind of tactics are at issue? The question in this thread has revolved around flash bangs for some reason. Why not read the source instead of speculate?
From the article in Tactical Response Magazine…
In the immortal words of Inspector Harry Callahan, “A man’s got to know his limitations.” So must your SWAT team. Man-up now and draw the line. We can do barricaded gunman, but we can’t do hostage rescue. We can do bus assault, but we can’t rappel. We can do chemical agents, but we can’t do explosive entry. Whatever it may be, know what you can and can’t do.
Do only what you are excellent at doing. Don’t do what you have done once or twice in practice, fully-rested, fully-hydrated, in the middle of a nice sunny day with your full team on-hand. Know the difference. Know what you can do and then find a way to prove it to the administration.
Brad (f2bc0e) — 9/14/2011 @ 4:23 amBrad,
Absolutely nothing in the article suggests that the author intends to use those specific tactics against low-level targets. In context, those are simply situations that can arise, or tactics that some SWAT teams can use when appropriate. The bit you quote about proving the ability to do more extreme tactics comes in a discussion of mock exercises.
The article does not suggest that every routine warrant service become a militarized operation.
Patterico (f724ca) — 9/14/2011 @ 6:59 amThe article does not suggest that every routine warrant service become a militarized operation.
We’re going to have to strongly disagree there. I can concede to you that it might not have meant “and do everything exactly as if you would with the worst possible situation”.
To say absolutely definitively that it did not, when it specifically mentioned practicing those skills and routines?
I don’t think it’s Balko with the interpretation/hyperbole problem.
I (and others) interpret that to say exactly that – you may interpret otherwise, though I don’t see how you can reasonably, that makes it at best “arguable”, and it means that that outcome
is at least possibly suggested.
Not absolutely ruled out as you’re saying, categorically, could not, does not, will not.
That’s the statement where I have to say, no, no, Pat, that’s exactly what he said, it’s what he meant, and if he meant something else, he’d have written it differently. The whole article, as it stands, I read, Balko reads, and many others read to say that’s exactly what he’s saying.
I guess you can quibble over the definition further, but your drawn-in-the-sand-line that he didn’t mean what we interpreted it to mean is incorrect, and detracts from substantiative Balko critiques.
Unix-Jedi (651a1b) — 9/14/2011 @ 9:18 am?
It didn’t because it didn’t.
He said they were using flash grenades based on this source, and no… the source didn’t say that.
Um. If he was saying use flash bangs on innocent people so that swat teams are proficient in using them against violent people, he would have probably said that.
He DID write it differently, and you are just being stubborn about your error.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/14/2011 @ 9:21 amHe DID write it differently, and you are just being stubborn about your error.
Well, not everyone can be perfect and write (in English) every conceivable outcome and possibility as well as you apparently can.
I’m glad to see that if it’s not -specifically- mentioned, it’s not possibly interpretable. This should make many legal cross-examinations much easier in court, and help many a marriage.
“So, Don Gito, this note you wrote that says ‘Rub out Sneezy'”, that meant to kill him, which your hitmen did, correct?”
“No, no, did I _say_ that? No, not at all! I said rub out, not kill”
It’s not worth continuing, if you’re going to claim deniability on something this egregious to the point now that is Sanow shows up and says “Well, that’s what I meant”, that you can’t back down.
Have fun with your euphemisms, kids. Oh, wait, there’s no such thing, I forgot. My bad.
Unix-Jedi (651a1b) — 9/14/2011 @ 9:30 amComment by Patterico — 9/13/2011 @ 11:59 pm
Personally, I think the “Spicolli’s” of the world should have “flash bangs” thrown at them….
The Professional (3f66af) — 9/14/2011 @ 9:48 amBy “Everyone!”
Really, this is a legendary hack job even by Balko
ian cormac (ed5f69) — 9/14/2011 @ 9:52 amstandards
Patterico, with respect, you seem extremely naive about how SWAT teams and tactics are actually used in America today. You seem to believe that there are “nice” SWAT raids and “bad” ones or something. While not every SWAT call out uses flashbangs (like the one that set fire to 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones before the cops shot her in the throat), they all make use of paramilitary equipment and tactics, overwhelmingly against people suspected of purely non-violent crimes.
CTD (7054d2) — 9/14/2011 @ 10:29 amAnd if you’re SWAT team needs to find extra citizens to terrorize in order to “stay sharp,” maybe you should reconsider whether you actually need a SWAT team.
CTD (7054d2) — 9/14/2011 @ 10:31 amWhat in the world does that have to do with your argument?
Just throwing in some tragedy with hyperbole does not help you prove Patterico’s naivete about police work. And frankly, Patterico knows what he’s talking about.
The issue here is not whether there is overuse of swat, but whether it helps one’s case to assert aspects they just made up.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/14/2011 @ 10:32 amWell the piece doesn’t say what Balko promised, Sanow is not a SWAT leader, so ‘fake but accurate’
ian cormac (ed5f69) — 9/14/2011 @ 10:34 amis the watchword, other than that, it doesn’t illuminate any major issues
As pointed out by others, the author is not specific about what kind of tactics paramilitary police should “practice” on us. Therefore we have only our experience and knowledge of history to guide us. And we know that SWAT raids routinely entail the use of paramilitary weapons like explosives and machine guns, as well as dynamic entry tactics and no-knock warrants. Thus it is not some wild supposition to believe that this is exactly what the author meant. Balko most certainly did not make it up.
CTD (7054d2) — 9/14/2011 @ 10:41 amBalko never said the quote was from a SWAT leader. Patterico did.
CTD (7054d2) — 9/14/2011 @ 10:44 amTypical unjustified outrage by the faux right, gun nuts, and libertarians. There is nothing in the article that justifies the practiced outrage. I bet it will get full coverage from Sipsey Street Irregulars, Dave Cordera and such.
Federale (ae10d6) — 9/14/2011 @ 10:59 amUnix-Jedi:
You commonly come on here and say that, while you agree that my criticism of Balko is sometimes on target, this particular time it is not, which sadly undercuts my credibility as to the many valid criticisms of Balko I have had.
Someone more cynical than I might label this a shtick, given that you always disagree, always shake your head sadly, and never list a single specific criticism of mine with which you agree.
I will not be cynical! So that we can know that you are not trying to buy cheap credibility points when you say I am sometimes correct in my criticisms of him, can you tick off, say, three of my criticisms of him that you have agreed with?
Feel free to be specific!
Patterico (77d2b3) — 9/14/2011 @ 12:23 pmIs there a source for this assertion or isn’t there?
Seems a bit silly that Balko’s defenders are both saying ‘the source really does say that if you assume this and that’ and ‘that source wasn’t really the source, and I won’t tell you what was.’.
That’s a lot of twisting. I think Balko has a good point to make, and should stick to the facts instead of reaching too far for dramatic outrages.
‘Oh, and the police shot someone in the THROAT!!!!’ doesn’t help.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/14/2011 @ 12:27 pmWhat on earth are you talking about? Someone said Balko was wrong because he claimed the author was a “SWAT leader.” I was pointing out that Balko never said that, but Patterico did.
And why does it matter who he was? Does that somehow make the thuggish, authoritarian sentiment of the article less terrifying?
And it wasn’t a “someone” they killed. It was a 7 year old girl named Aiyana Stanley-Jones that your tacti-cool SWAT ninja pals lit on fire then shot in the throat. They were looking for a suspect that lived upstairs. Apparently the ‘roid haze precluded them from doing a rudimentary investigation and determining the residence was a duplex with four (now three) children living in it.
CTD (7054d2) — 9/14/2011 @ 1:00 pmGotta love when the leftards don’t get what they want they accuse the right of being draconic.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/14/2011 @ 1:03 pm“overwhelmingly against people suspected of purely non-violent crimes.”
CTD – Can you point me to support for this claim? Seriously.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2011 @ 1:15 pmDrug dealers are peaceful people and only carry weapons for self-defense is what I’ve always been told.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2011 @ 1:17 pmPeter B. Kraska and V. E. Kappeler, “Militarizing American Police: The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary Units,”
Social Problems
13 (1997): 1–18
Although, do you honestly not believe this claim? What do you think most SWAT call outs are for? Why would cities of < 50,000 need SWAT teams otherwise? For the oh-so-common hostage situations in Neenah, Wisconsin? Narcotic warrant service is simply the only thing that occurs often enough in most places for SWAT teams to justify their existence.
CTD (7054d2) — 9/14/2011 @ 1:39 pmThat flashbangs are being tossed into peaceful homes as a matter of policy?
Yes, I honestly do not believe that claim.
Your non linked source from 1997 is not persuading me otherwise.
Also, do you honestly not believe that Balko is playing games with the facts? How many times has he goofed up in this exact way, making an actual problem seem much worse by ramping up the truth a little?
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/14/2011 @ 1:44 pmDaleyrocks – CTD is making shlt up. Period.
JD (352bcf) — 9/14/2011 @ 1:46 pmWhy do you think it matters so much? I don’t, because, after all, no one said this. It was made up. There is no source. Who wasn’t the source is a silly avenue to take the defense.
Stop spinning.
He got the damn facts wrong. Period. Good lord. Why do liars always play it out this way? Find some semantic excuse to justify the embellishment, that we all can see was plainly made up.
Because you’re terrified? If it’s that serious, maybe you should encourage honesty about it. If it’s so terrible, you don’t need to change the truth to get your damn point across.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/14/2011 @ 1:48 pmAnd yes, I am ignoring the lame attempt to make this about a more generalized ‘isn’t it bad if SWAT teams do bad things other than the specific claims made about them out of thin air!?!?!’.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/14/2011 @ 1:50 pmBalko got it wrong, it’s not about using flashbangs.
It’s more about what looks better in the press.
1. Criminal A turned himself in.
2. Criminal B was apprehended by the (pick your city) SWAT team after a forced entry into his residence.
Gerald A (2c96c6) — 9/14/2011 @ 1:57 pmIf people were so concerned about the behavior of SWAT teams vis-a-vis “ordinary” people, there would be a run on the construction of hardened bunkers beneath houses across the land – of course, it’s a lot easier if you actually have a basement or cellar already, which the vast majority enjoying suburban sprawl do not.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks ! (3f66af) — 9/14/2011 @ 2:01 pmKind of reminds me of a cartoon that appeared in a magazine for model railroaders of a mythical fantasy retirement community for same, and all there was were driveways, garages, and stairs leading down to the basement.
Gerald, I bet there’s some truth in that. Departments have to justify their existence. PR matters so much. Some of these guys have unbelievable compensation packages (not that I don’t think police deserve to make a good living, but it should be set completely by supply and demand, not unions negotiating with politicians playing with house money).
I would definitely like to see this kind of unit changed from jurisdiction the state level at least. Let a truly well trained unit handle the true emergencies. Scatter them across the geography in a realistic and efficient manner, and get them off the local police department’s roster.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/14/2011 @ 2:11 pm“Daleyrocks – CTD is making shlt up. Period.”
JD – It appears so.
“In addition to an increase in the number of SWAT teams, their roles have expanded. Traditionally utilized for highly specialized action, such as barricaded suspects and hostage situations, the teams are increasingly engaged in traditional police work, especially work related to anti-drug efforts. The research shows that between 1990 and 1995 SWAT units were employed in their traditional roles for only a small number of occasions. Instead 75% of their activities were devoted to serving “high risk” warrants, such as “no-knock” warrants, mostly drug searches. “In SWAT units formed since 1980, their use has increased by 538 percent,” said Kraska. He added that such units are now being deployed as full-time roaming patrols.”
CTD – Now what would you believe the author you cite means by a “high risk” warrant? Would that be a warrant served on somebody suspected on purely non-violent crimes as you claimed?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2011 @ 2:27 pmNo, the claim that most SWAT call outs are for warrant service for non-violent offenses. I did not honestly think this was controversial in any way.
I said:
You didn’t believe it, and demanded a source:
I gave you one. You summarily dismissed it as too old. What’s the statute of limitations? Do you think most SWAT call outs were for non-violent (i.e. narcotics warrants) offenses in 1997, but not now? Why? Again, I ask what you think most SWAT calls are for today?
CTD (7054d2) — 9/14/2011 @ 2:31 pmYes. Read again. If they suspected them of murder or robbery, or kidnapping, that’s what the warrant would be for. But they largely are not. They are for drugs:
Drug possession, even dealing, is a non-violent crime. Is that so hard to understand? Cops call them “high risk” so they can justify deploying the SWAT teams… because they’re “high risk”… because they had to use the SWAT team.
CTD (7054d2) — 9/14/2011 @ 2:39 pmOh good Allah. Drug dealers are never armed. It is all just hippie communes.
JD (318f81) — 9/14/2011 @ 2:43 pmExactly typical feel good comments.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/14/2011 @ 2:45 pm“Cops call them “high risk” so they can justify deploying the SWAT teams… because they’re “high risk””
CTD – You are kinda slow. Do you smoke a lot of weed?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2011 @ 3:04 pmCTD, it’s clear you are being pretty damn dishonest.
“high risk” = risk of violence. They are specifically saying they use SWAT in the exact opposite way you claimed they said they did. Your ‘link’ (you didn’t link) said the opposite of what you claimed it did.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/14/2011 @ 3:05 pmNow, maybe they are just liars and are using SWAT against folks they do not fear violence from. But that’s not what the article said. And if we’re just to dogmatically interpret what they mean to be the opposite of what they said, then we are not honestly citing them as sources at all. We are just being circular thinkers.
We assume X, and every piece of evidence, no matter what it says, is interpreted as X. Hence, we conclude X.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/14/2011 @ 3:06 pmYeah. Everyone that opposes police militarization, shredding the 4th Amendment, and our disastrous drug war is just a hippie sitting around taking bong rips all day.
Real original. I’ve never heard that one before.
CTD (7054d2) — 9/14/2011 @ 3:07 pmWhat CTD is actually saying is that he is mistaken.
You can tell. Read between the lines.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/14/2011 @ 3:09 pmAnd I don’t mean cocaine lines, CTD, you crazy junkie.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/14/2011 @ 3:10 pmCTD – Most aggressively dishonest Balkobots seem to support drug legalization, so it’s usually a good assumption.
Your circular reasoning is comedy gold.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2011 @ 3:10 pmRon Paul whispering sweet nothings into your ear again?
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/14/2011 @ 3:10 pmI mean honestly this old hehag needs to die.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/14/2011 @ 3:11 pm“Read between the lines.”
Dustin – I don’t want to assume anything.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2011 @ 3:13 pmI am paraphrasing based on this article from 1985 about dolphin safe tuna.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/14/2011 @ 3:18 pmHere’s what Balko doesn’t understand.
What SWAT does is called “dynamic entry”. Its what they train to do. You don’t send the SWAT team to do a search warrant in a white collar case where you’re looking for bank statements and tax returns.
What the author of the article is talking about is “poaching” opportunities to do other dynamic entries. This is because other police squads besides SWAT can do dynamic entries themselves. For example, most municipal police or sheriff agencies, a drug squad can do their own dynamic entries. They have the equipment and train to do it. If SWAT is not available, they don’t want to wait to have a warrant served, so they do it themselves.
Similarly, an agency might have a fugitive squad or violent offender squad that does its own searches, including dynamic entries.
The author is not suggesting that SWAT be used in situations where a dynamic entry is not appropriate — he’s suggesting that the SWAT commanders “poach” dynamic entry opportunities from other squads or agencies in order to stay proficient at the practice. Proficiency leads to fewer mistakes.
Balko on pretends to understand the things he demonizes — he really doesn’t have a clue.
shipwreckedcrew (4ae072) — 9/14/2011 @ 7:09 pmAs I predicted, the gun nut at Sipsey Street Irregulars went nuts: http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/09/swat-commander-lets-practice-on-people.html
Federale (0c08cf) — 9/14/2011 @ 7:28 pmI’am a 2nd amendment type and that offends me.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/14/2011 @ 7:29 pmI located CTD’s source.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/15/2011 @ 8:47 amYes, relying on Balko, will do that for you.
ian cormac (ed5f69) — 9/15/2011 @ 8:55 amMeh.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/15/2011 @ 9:01 amSo am I and Sipsey Street Irregulars (SSI), a pun on Vanderbaugh’s use of the welfare system known as Supplemental Security Income (SSI), offends me as well.
Federale (ae10d6) — 9/15/2011 @ 10:56 amFrom the original article:
“I’m against the notion of a soul as a created “object,” if you know what I mean.”
“Yes, I mean do warrant service and drug raids even if you have to poach the work.”
I agree with Balko. My feeling is that the police are way out of control in our country and civilian government isn’t doing enough to train them to respect the citizens they serve. There are far too many cases of excessive violence by police arresting non violent suspects. Too much abuse of arrest powers against innocent people for the purpose of gratifying the police officers sense of power.
There is also a big problem with prosecutors who are more concerned with advancing their career through obtaining convictions than they are with seeing justice done and protecting the innocent.
I also learned to day that I might be a felon when I use a pseudonym posting a comment. Anonymity is an important aspect of freedom of speech to restrict anonymity it is to restrict free speech.
One last thing… professional courtesy, all police officers are corrupt … they don’t enforce the law against other officers, their friends, or other types of government employees. Any police officer who refuses to extend professional courtesy will be ostracized, so none refuse to do so.
How can the public trust the police when they are all corrupt?????
bg9765roflvk (9717a1) — 9/15/2011 @ 1:37 pmYou never showed that they were. You just assumed that.
You also say you agree with Balko, but then talk about some generalized thing that is not the actual disagreement with Balko’s claimed, which actually appear to be incorrect.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/15/2011 @ 1:59 pmIn other words, you’re fueled by emotion, and don’t care if a lie or two fueled that emotion.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/15/2011 @ 1:59 pmPatterico:
Sorry for the late reply, got busy and sick and haven’t checked back in.
But in TV terms, this is where I, playing a lawyer would point to your statement and say “I rest my case”.
Let’s recap:
You said Balko was out of line for assuming meaning, aka, extrapolating, and only explict words, deeds, and plans could be accurately quoted and condemned.
I said: That’s silly, of course you should be able to extrapolate and infer meaning, it’s how we do things, and based on what he said and how he said it, I read it the same way as Balko, it might NOT mean that, but it’s easily understood to, and if not, it’s the fault of the author.
So we go back and forth, and now you say to me:
Someone more cynical than I might label this a shtick, given that you always disagree, always shake your head sadly, and never list a single specific criticism of mine with which you agree.
With your original thesis, that’s hypocritical.
If I didn’t explicitly say it, then you’re not fairly able to accuse me of meaning something other than what I said!
That was your original stance, remember. Now, note that you’re doing that with me.
I’ll chalk this up to my persuasive methods of argument.
But since I did say it was fine, and normal, to do that, and ask for explanations, I can answer you in part.
I’ve exchanged emails with you on 2 such cases that I’m not at liberty to publicly discuss, one about a FOI request that Balko without question linked to a polemic that was factually incorrect, and did not correct or otherwise note the issued with the polemic he uncritically linked to, and referred to later with the incorrect – or at least disputed – facts as unquestioned.
The second was the destruction of a video by police, Balko linked to the defendant’s lawyers screed about it, and implied mass corruption, but I am aware of (and we discussed) the events in question, and that it wasn’t corruption, but a true mistake. (The lack of the video caused the case to fall apart, which I think was the proper result, due to the mistakes.)
The third would be your explanation of how, legally Haynes could have made the case about the “two hands on the gun” testimony, that fails any sort of common sense check, that Balko has harped on repeatedly. Your explanation made a lot of sense, and while I’m still aghast that all the other issues with Haynes haven’t made him at least anathemic to prosecutors, in that case, you made substantial arguments that Balko ignored even while arguing with you.
Unix-Jedi (651a1b) — 9/20/2011 @ 8:40 am