I remember when the movie SWAT (Sony Pictures; 2002), starring Samuel L. Jackson and Colin Farrell was first advertised. I just knew that the bad guy in the movie would be a SWAT cop. Sure enough, when I watched the movie on DVD, there it was. Movies, TV’s The Shield and the police continue to disappoint with Arnold’s latest movie Sabotage (Open Road Films; 2014) focusing on a bunch of DEA agents gone bad.
The daily news continues to feature anti-LE views including alleged police abuse in Ferguson, Missouri and elsewhere.
Nowadays we have the left of the political spectrum attacking police with “journalists” reporting on police abuse and SWAT teams on a daily basis. And the right side worrying about black helicopters and “jack-booted thugs” kicking in doors – and there you are, a member of the thin blue line standing in the middle it all…
Deadly Force
Sad thing during the post incident massive media blitz on Ferguson as I detailed in Ferguson: Facts and Force very little factual information and legal standards were making it into the reporting. In all the reportage which I viewed, there was only one reference to Tennessee v. Garner and none to Graham v. Connor. There has been a tremendous rush to judgment in this case. Truth is that until we know the “facts” of the case and a proper investigation completed, we cannot determine if this was a lawful use of deadly force. But that doesn’t stop the talking heads on TV from hours of coverage. As to multiple rounds fired and other firearm related issues, any officer with any time on the street knows the physics of bullet impacts (they don’t pick people up and knock ‘em back six feet). In order to stop a determined assailant multiple rounds are frequently necessary which can be fired in only a couple of seconds. Further, we don’t shoot to wound, and much more about the realities of use of deadly force that are not explained by the media.
Riot Control
I was in a riot in 1990. Large college related parties off campus led to thousands of uninvited guests arriving and furniture burnt in the middle of the street which created safety hazards and threatened power poles and lines. When the FD showed up to extinguish the flames they and their apparatus were attacked by a storm of thrown beer bottles. Our officers and the firemen pulled back and na “Officer in Trouble” call went out. Like many officers that day, I had no riot helmet and we had no riot shields. Further, we had no plan and no training since the academy. I saw several officers injured with bottles to the head. At one point a veteran supervisor threw an old CS grenade, which had been in his trunk for years, at the crowd. I was glad when it failed to ignite because the wind was blowing towards us and none of us had gas masks.
Although we dispersed the crowd, it was not “fun” or enjoyable. It led to massive retraining in Mobile Field Force, chemical munitions and the purchase of riot shields and gas masks. Since then that training and those tactics have continued to be used over the years in other riots.
If you ask me if I’d go back and handle that crowd without helmet, gas mask and shield or no chemical munitions, I’d tell you “no.” Why then do police officers who are properly prepared and equipped to deal with violent mobs and crowds get flak from the media and public for handling those confrontations correctly? Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the Missouri officers in these riots take fire? Weren’t the protestors throwing Molotov Cocktails, burning and looting? Heck, they even assaulted news reporters who were totally sympathetic to their actions “I can’t believe they’re throwing rocks at us, we’re the media, don’t they know we’re sympathetic?” Officers were supposed to forgive reporters who were using a boarded up fast-food restaurant to “recharge their cell phones” despite over 60 police orders to vacate the area and the premises. Paramilitary, of course it’s paramilitary. It also works.
As a chemical/impact munitions and riot control instructor my rule is “gas early, gas often, gas, gas, gas…” I don’t want my officers to go hands on if at all possible. Use chemical munitions, sting ball grenades, kinetic energy impact munitions and tactics to drive the rioters out of the area. Even then, with hard case rioters, arrest teams and hands on may be necessary. And it will not look pretty.
Riot control and riot duty stinks. It’s long, hot, arduous and not least, extremely dangerous. Yes, with hours of mandated overtime, tempers and nerves can be strained (I won’t excuse an officer who lost his cool and threatened the media with a carbine…). And yes, police know that everything we say and do will be captured by at least two cell phone cameras at every incident and then plastered all over YouTube.
SWAT
SWAT teams save lives. That is their function. As a former SWAT operator and team leader for 12 ½ years, in the middle of the crack wars, I’ve had several of my brothers shot in police narcotic search and arrest warrants. Yes, police tactical teams have changed the way they do business over the years and treating the residence like a barricade and ordering the suspect to surrender may be preferable to a raid, but narcotics dealers and guns go hand in hand. Would the public rather the police engage in these arrests in public places? A hyper-violent armed criminal suspect who wants to shoot decides the course of his actions not the police. Police tactical teams do not make these shootings happen, armed criminal suspects do.
Professor, and former police officer, David Klinger did a study of police tactical teams published in 2008. His research indicates, “The SOS also identified several hundred (455 counted and 538 estimated) cases in which suspects discharged firearms but SWAT officers did not fire their weapons. While in many such cases the suspects actions did not present an imminent threat to innocent life (e.g., barricaded suspects who fired shots into furniture inside their house), in many other situations SWAT officers held their fire in the face of rounds directed their way. This aspect of the SOS data suggests that SWAT officers frequently display considerable restraint in the face of serious threats to their safety.”
Militarization of Police
Okay, so the police in Missouri who responded to the looting, burning and rioting brought MRAP’s – Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles to the area. Let me get this straight: police are being shot at and the media begrudge the police for wanting an armored vehicle around? You don’t want police performing in dangerous conditions to wear body armor or helmets? Then you get up there and work a skirmish line Skippy, cuz I’ve played that game.
This whole “militarization of Mayberry” crap is a red herring. Why have police updated from revolvers to semi-autos, started wearing body armor, changed from wool uniforms to modern synthetics? Because as advances in equipment and technology have occurred, uniforms and equipment have changed. This is true of every uniform from football to postman. When police in the 20’s and 30’s faced Baby Face Nelson and the John Dillinger’s of the day, they upgraded armament to include long-guns such as Thompson Sub Guns. We have attempted to learn from the FBI shoot-out in Miami, the North Hollywood bank shootout, Columbine, on and on. Would the media mandate we respond to these types of incidents with six shot revolvers and 12 bullets in cartridge loops on our leather belts as in days of old?
It is interesting to note that since we began wearing body armor in the 1970’s, officer deaths have declined. It scares me to think what the number of officers killed in the line of duty would be if we were mandated to remove our body armor and were restricted to 1970’s emergency medicine?
Wrap-Up
“Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with you.”
- Nitty Gritty Dirt Band
And so here we are the thin blue line protecting the citizens of this country from anarchy and crime. I still believe that the vast mainstream of America cares and supports its police officers. This though law enforcement is under constant attack by the popular media and extremists in this culture, whose goals are certainly questionable, mystifying, and dangerous to officers on the street. And so, we must continue to persevere…
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!
- Tommy by Rudyard Kipling
