Quote Originally Posted by Lady's Human View Post
SWAT/QRF have their place.

However, the tactics and equipment have entered into mainstream police work instead of being reserved for situations that they are really called for.

A few years ago I was leaving work and saw the local PD surrounding a house. They had 20-30 officers, all dressed in full combat gear performing a textbook military cordon and search. The state police were there as well, directing traffic.

What was the incident which called for the level of force? They had a kid holed up in the house who they wanted for a weapons charge and posession off mary jane. The weapons charge? Posession of a knife. Not firearms, not explosives, a pocket knife that the kid had when he was stopped and frisked for an earlier possession charge. He missed his court date, so they came out after the dangerous fugitive with everything in their arsenal.

Another fine example of SWAT/QRF existing where it doesn't need to? Some of local police where I used to live in Massachusetts (rural/suburban area, old mill towns) decided to try for a bond bill to outfit an area-wide SWAT force. They wanted an APC or other armored vehicle, weapons, combat gear, etc. You could tell the generational gap in the police forces requesting the equipment and funding. The younger chiefs were all in. The older, cooler heads, however, who were chiefs of some of the smaller PD's in the area were the nails in the coffin for that boondoggle. They very loudly asked "what in hell do WE need that for?"

The problem with giving the police the military weapons and funding for military gear is the simple fact that once a police force has the equipment, they're going to use it to justify the expense, even when the equipmeent and tactics aren't needed, and can inflame the situation markedly.

The situation in Washington State could have been handled more effectively with a porposal which was lfoated after the Connecticut shooting: An armed police officer on patrol in the building.

You cannot legislate the wild points in statistical data out of existence. Shootings have happened throughout the history of firearms. No matter what you do, you cannot prevent the lone nut from causing damage without removing freedom from everyone.
I understand the need for a measured response in certain situations?

My point was the people who had a bug up their arse about a PD showing up to a riot in armored cars are the same people who would want the same PD to show up at a high school shooting with the same show of force?

-----

One of the dumbest uses of an armored car was back in the 80's where the LAPD bought two armored cars and fitted them with a long steel pole with a plate attached to the end.

They would then drive up to a 'crack house', punch a hole in the wall and raid the place.......The only thing it accomplished was putting a hole in the wall and letting the people inside know that someone was trying to come in?

Overkill for sure.

After the homeowners/community 'leaders' made a stink about the practice, they stenciled "Hostage Rescue Vehicle" on the side.

Even then?

During the famous bank shootout in North Hollywood years later, the PD used a Brink's truck to rescue some of the POs and citizens that were pinned down during the event.

--------------

The peanut heads in Ferguson, MO are bothered by the cops showing up loaded for bear when they take to the streets because they believe they have the right to burn, loot and destroy their neighborhoods.

If the cops stood by and let the 'hood burn to the ground, you'd surely hear about the PD's lack of response in dealing with the morons?

Damned if they do?