Should SWAT be serving search warrants on non-violent crimes?

[Shadow8088]

MSN Entertainment -

According to one part of the video, SWAT was used because someone in the house had a legally owned handgun....
Something about this just doesn't feel right...

at least they didn't put the vicious dog down...


if this is a dupe, my bad...

 

[curraheeguns]

SWAT is routinely used in Indy for search warrants for non-violent crimes.

 

[phylodog]

It typically has more to do with the history of the person being dealt with than the current crime the warrant is for. We have a large number of convicted murderers walking the streets of Indianapolis. If they allegedly commit a crime and become the target of a warrant, chances are the SWAT team will be called in to deal with them regardless of the current crime. That being said, just because the SWAT team serves the warrant doesn't mean flash bangs are tossed, doors are rammed and the team moves quickly through the house. Quite a few are served by sitting outside and making announcements over the PA.

 

[Tactical Flannel]

I don't see an issue.
Whether its a "SWAT" team, several uniformed patrol officers or Detective types, what does it matter. It actually makes sense to me to have a SWAT team do it leaving the patrol guys working the roads to respond to calls for service and Detectives to investigate their cases allowing SWAT, theoretically the guys/gals most practiced in serving warrants, to do their niche.
And like phylodog said, just because its "SWAT" doing a warrant service doesn't mean flashbangs are being tossed, doors rammed, windows raked, gas used and machine guns waved. Believe it or not, even SWAT guys have a lower setting. Not always high speed low drag.

Stay safe

 

[Liberty Sanders]

There was no justification for the use of SWAT in this situation, none whatsoever.

 

[Beowulf]

This has become a major issue over the past few years. More and more non-violent crime warrants are being served with SWAT teams as a way to justify their budgets, but then when you send in a tactical response team to handle a warrant, they have a nasty tendency to escalate things that shouldn't be (bust in, go for no-knock warrants, shoot dogs, etc).

Radley Balko talks about this in his book, Rise of the Warrior Cops: The Militarization of America's Police Forces. He covers the history of this progression and has plenty of examples of how this goes horribly wrong.

Basically, when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. The fricking FDA has a SWAT team now and they've used it to conduct raids of farms that are selling unpasteurized milk. That's how absurd this has gotten.

 

[sheriff125]

deleted...

 

[chevyguy]

[/QBeowulf, I think you forgot to included the biggest part of the "militarization" of police. That being that criminals have the same stuff. Please remember that criminals almost always have the bigger stick first.UOTE] Yeah well most criminals don't have MRAPs sitting out back of their houses. But by golly our county sheriff does. It also just happens to say Swat team on it. Heck right now the sheriffs office parking lot looks more like a national guard armory.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Time to stop the "no knock" raids, too.

Man Charged With Killing Burleson County Deputy No Billed by Grand Jury

This death certainly could have been avoided.

 

[sheriff125]

deleted...

 

[jbombelli]

Beowulf, I think you forgot to included the biggest part of the "militarization" of police. That being that criminals have the same stuff. Please remember that criminals almost always have the bigger stick first.

A more important consideration than what the criminals have is what WE have. The police, as agents of the government, should never be permitted to have anything we the people cannot have. The police have armored vehicles. I can go buy an armored vehicle if I want to spend the money so I don't care. The police can buy body armor, but so can I, so I again don't care. The police can buy handguns, rifles, shotguns... but so can I. I however cannot go buy a new M4, so likewise no government agent should have them. Period. That is a slap in the face to everything the 2nd Amendment is all about.

 

[edporch]

NO.
SWAT (Special Weapons And Tactics) should only be used when the situation CLEARLY calls for it, which is not often.

Overusing them is just a way to justify the expense of having them, at the expense of endangering innocent people.

Having SWAT busting into people's homes is about the "best" way I know to get non-violent people killed in the belief they're defending their homes against invasion.

If I was sitting in my living room, and the door suddenly was broken in and people came rushing in, I'd have my gun in my hand as a reaction to it.
Though I wouldn't fire unless a target was identified, I'd probably be shot before I could put my gun down after I'd seen they're police.

NO, using SWAT unless needed just endangers too many innocent people.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Most MRAPS and other things like that are free for police agencies, and may not be the best option but free beats half a million in tax money for something that is used once or twice a year. LE or not I love the idea of a vechicle that can be taken into a active shooter situation such as a school and remove children or people without exposing them.

Since when do they remove children from an active shooter situations, they make them hunker down in a nice little target ball

 

[Trigger Time]

No.
Another issue though that will always have strong opposing views and no agreement.
If you want it changed contact your state representation and get a law passed making it illegal for the police to do it. That's the only way to ensure it's not abused.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No.
Another issue though that will always have strong opposing views and no agreement.
If you want it changed contact your state representation and get a law passed making it illegal for the police to do it. That's the only way to ensure it's not abused.

I think it depends. Even if the crime is non-violent, it should depend totally on the possibility of a violent reaction when that person is trying to be detained. Say a person is in possession of hours of child porn that he downloaded from the internet. Let's say this guy has a wife, and kids, and is well known in his area. If that guy is caught, his world is destroyed, and despite his crime being non-violent, there is a very real possibility of this concluding in violence. Hopefully the violence is self-inflicted, but you never know.

 

[Trigger Time]

I think it depends. Even if the crime is non-violent, it should depend totally on the possibility of a violent reaction when that person is trying to be detained. Say a person is in possession of hours of child porn that he downloaded from the internet. Let's say this guy has a wife, and kids, and is well known in his area. If that guy is caught, his world is destroyed, and despite his crime being non-violent, there is a very real possibility of this concluding in violence. Hopefully the violence is self-inflicted, but you never know.

See that's where I don't agree with you and others on it. That's pre-policing. Your accelerating the use of force based on an assumption. So your just raised the percentage of a chance of violence in my non-cop opinion. This is the whole reason our rights are being eroded (patriot act), because of assumptions of things that don't typically and regularly happen.
how many swat officers are killed vs innocent people and even the suspects? I don't know but it would be interesting to see some stats to have the info for the discussion.

 

[Lebowski]

Q: Should SWAT be serving search warrants on non-violent criminals?

A: No.

Plain and simple.

SWAT should be used during situations where violence is likely or already happening. Using it against someone with no history of violence or to serve a warrant for a non-violent crime is ridiculous. Just go knock on the door like the good ol' days, send someone to stand in the backyard if you think they may run out back or something. Seems to be more practical than dressing a team up to knock, wait 2 seconds, then bust down a door.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

A more important consideration than what the criminals have is what WE have. The police, as agents of the government, should never be permitted to have anything we the people cannot have. The police have armored vehicles. I can go buy an armored vehicle if I want to spend the money so I don't care. The police can buy body armor, but so can I, so I again don't care. The police can buy handguns, rifles, shotguns... but so can I. I however cannot go buy a new M4, so likewise no government agent should have them. Period. That is a slap in the face to everything the 2nd Amendment is all about.

Actually, that should be the other way around. The government can have them; there is no reason why you should not be able to have them as well.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I think it depends. Even if the crime is non-violent, it should depend totally on the possibility of a violent reaction when that person is trying to be detained. Say a person is in possession of hours of child porn that he downloaded from the internet. Let's say this guy has a wife, and kids, and is well known in his area. If that guy is caught, his world is destroyed, and despite his crime being non-violent, there is a very real possibility of this concluding in violence. Hopefully the violence is self-inflicted, but you never know.

Stop him outside of his home. If he is well known in the area and has a wife and kids it must be out from time to time. Let the detectives do some detecting.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I guess I don't understand the issue. No police serving warrants shouldn't be able to "no knock" except under certain judicially-specified conditions, but SWAT cops are just cops who work and train together to perform specific tasks. As Phylodog said upthread, there's no reason they can't serve warrants just like any other street cops would do. The issue isn't the team, but how the team operates, and THAT is a supervisory and political-level command function. ANY warrant team that exceeds its authority in serving a warrant should be disciplined and its supervisors disciplined and/or removed by higher authority, but there are some very good reasons for teams to work together when serving warrants, mostly involving knowing what each member is going to do and having worked out contingencies and procedures for conducting the service and subsequent arrest. More than a couple officers serving warrants have been murdered because they weren't being watchful and didn't consider their arrestee a threat.

Let me reiterate my position: I don't believe police should be breaking down doors to serve warrants unless they have been specifically authorized to do so in the warrant process, but I think it is beneficial for the police serving the warrants to be trained and practiced in working with one another (SWAT team or otherwise). It's safer for the police and, ultimately, safer for the arrestee.