On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:04 AM, William Attwood <[email protected]> wrote: > I completely disagree with you. With that mind set, you're siding with > guilty until proven innocent, not innocent until proven guilty. SWAT is > used to enter or defend against heavily armed instances where standard > individuals risk loss of life using standard protocols. With your > definition, SWAT is now the guys to use in any and every event.
I agree. I actually know a few LEOs on the SWAT team. They have explained to me that SWAT is only called in as a last resort--if it gets to the point of calling them in it means that all other methods have *failed*. When SWAT goes in, they do so safeties-off, lethal force, shoot-to-kill. They are not the FBI-raid barge-in-with-a-search-warrant-to-seize-evidence team. Sending SWAT to merely seize evidence is like using a 16lb sledge to hang a picture on the wall. You *might* get the results you want, but you have a high risk of causing collateral damage. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
