Talk:SWAT/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Links in Organization

There are links in that section that lead directly to the web pages of the NYPD and Emergency Services web pages rather than the Wikipedia article. I don't know how to correctly work with links to fix them.

Recommend, if you think it's appropriate, that SWAT be added to Category:Counterterrorism.

Left unsaid?

Wouldn't it be wise to add a couple paragraphs on incidences like these: http://www.reason.com/0604/co.rb.rant.shtml And more notably: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf 69.152.238.73 20:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy, a paper that quotes WP as a source. Tychocat 09:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

picture

That picture.....where did it come from? Because something about it looks fishy. Those don't appear to be swat officers, as evidenced by a private security arm patch. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire!

It's the bizarre, apparently painted-on, facial hair that would make me suspicious! -- Necrothesp 16:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the image description from the website it was taken from, they are "the roving SWAT guys patrolling the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system during the heightened security days of the pre-election". --tomf688^{talk} 00:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The more recent picture looks weird too. The guys look way too young to be in any kind of special response team. And how come all the guys have UMPs except the guy in the back with a Beretta? Some guy 06:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

top

There might be a mention of the upcoming movie... ? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:26 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

And the game SWAT 3 by Sierra, which has a lot of info on SWAT Tactics. Doidimais Brasil 21:18, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

article of the week

I know there's a lot of information on this page (technically), but I think it has a long way to go and is all jumbled together. Anyone else agree? I would nominate it, but it's not quite a stub.

No, this should NOT be an article of the week. It reeks of pro-SWAT and especially pro-LAPD biases. While it is not worth flagging as POV, it is not a good example of NPOV to hold up to new viewers. There needs to be some toning down, some acknowledgement of critics (and I am sufficiently pro-police myself that I can't represent them), and a more neutral discussion of the history. clarka 28 Sept 2004

I agree with the comment above. This is not a good example of encyclopaedic material. This is sufficiently far from my areas of interest that I can't be bothered to start improving it by deleting all the unnecessary superlatives, but someone should.--81.42.154.191 00:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can't we rename this Los Angeles SWAT or something or merge into the LAPD article? It seems to have virtually nothing about any other SWAT unit. And the claim that the LAPD SWAT is "somewhat similar" to the SAS is rather peculiar. The British police forces have their own equivalents to the SWAT units. The SAS are soldiers (as the article says). -- Necrothesp 13:14, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggest it would likely be better to expand on other units. I was thinking of mentioning Toronto's ETF (Emergency Task Force), although I wondered what to include, other than the fact it exists... Krupo 21:33, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

I wrote a page on the RCMP Emergency Response Team... Never heard of the ETF, though... Andrew Morritt 23:16, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Toronto "SWAT" unit. Very professional. Made the news recently when a sniper had to take out a man holding a woman hostage in front of the main train station. They, probably like many such units, consider it a successful mission when no one's harmed. Funny fact about their history: around since 1965, originally created to deal with strikes(!) More info on their site. [1] Krupo 03:27, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

I'm thinking there's a strong implication here the history of the SWAT concept is NOT the history of the LAPD SWAT unit. I agree. Further, the simple and entirely incomplete listing of a couple of major crime events in Los Angeles is not particularly useful. I'm thinking that I'll try write a section that lists one or two recent major call-ups that had lasting repercussions for police work (the SLA shoot-out was the first time anyone outside of the LAPD knew that SWAT weapons were semi-auto, for instance; and Columbine caused a heckuva lot of Big Changes in how SWAT works with regular cops). Tychocat 14:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup begun

I am in the process of cleaning this up... very POV at points, the training section contains history, no discussion of common tactics (I'm not a SWAT officer, but I've studied enough military tactics and theory to know what is common), etc.. I'll be working on this when I get time (which is rare enough, working 11-12 hours a day). Let me know what you think of the work I've done so far. DoomBringer 29 June 2005 07:45 (UTC)

I've done a big bit of work on this page. Someone else can remove the NPOV tag, after you read it and see if I fixed the issues. I hope I did! DoomBringer 9 July 2005 08:15 (UTC)

Source?

"In 1983, SWAT supervisors are said to have taken part in coordinated training with somewhat similar response teams in Europe, including the German GSG-9, French GIGN and British SAS. At the time, a US legal principle called the Posse Comitatus Act was generally believed to prohibit such cross-training of SWAT with elements of the U.S. military (although the SAS is itself a military unit)." Can anyone cite a source (or even cite its relevance) for the above? I'm going to remove it otherwise. DoomBringer 9 July 2005 08:15 (UTC)

source?

SWAT does not usually operate between the hours of 2100 and 2200 source?Dave 06:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect and a blanket statement. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

sources?

Can someone tell me where all the material on CQB, tactics, room clearing, team structure (e.g., all the stuff that's unsourced, unverified, and undocumented, appearance of original research) came from? It's a huge block of text that looks entirely unencyclopedic, and looks more like an instructional manual (I notice no one's documented how to drive the various cars in WP). I'm writing up new sections of history to replace all the unsourced-unverified-and-undocumented-appearance-of-original-research material there, and am on the verge of editing down a lot of possibly fanciful cruft (someone thinks it comes from game manuals?) unless someone wants to 'fess up and document the stuff. Tychocat 11:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

GSG9

Small error: The German GSG9 is a federal police force (part of the Bundespolizei) specialized on counter-terrorism, not "normal" hostage situations. A SWAT would be more equivalent to the SEK/MEK Units formed on state level. I changed that. Unfortunately there is no entry for SEK/MEK Units in the english Wikipedia... 85.176.77.65 14:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I can support this, SEK's/MEK's are usually supporting the "normal" police in their respective region, while the GSG9 unit is active in whole Germany and might be used to protect diplomats etc. If u doubt it have a look on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Spezialeinsatzkommando#Einsatz_durch_SEK_oder_GSG9.3F 78.48.233.130 (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed paragraph.

In 1983, SWAT supervisors are said to have taken part in coordinated training with somewhat similar response teams in Europe, including the German GSG-9, French GIGN and British SAS. At the time, a US legal principle called the Posse Comitatus Act was generally believed to prohibit such cross-training of SWAT with elements of the U.S. military (although the SAS is itself a military unit).

Incorrect. The posse comitatus act applies to the US military against direct armed actions against our own populace. It has nothing to do with SWAT operations, as SWAT teams often cross train with members of both the US military (especially 19th and 20th SF groups), and foreign militaries. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Removed

I feel that this article is improved enough to qualify as NPOV now. Feel free to re-add it if you see specific problems (please put notes here on what they are, be specific!). DoomBringer 05:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Charles Whitman and the UT Austin Tower shootings

I've always been told that SWAT teams were, in part, formed as a response to the Charles Whitman incident at the University of Texas at Austin Tower. That article mentions the fact as well. I don't know it for a fact, so I don't want to edit this article yet, but does anyone know anything else about the connection between Charles Whitman incident and the formation of SWAT teams? DoorFrame 04:25, 1 August 2005

Well, if anything, it led to SWAT's creation, mostly as an "awareness" kind of thing. They saw what some loony did, and looked at how the police responded, and how it could be better. I don't know of any specific links, but it probably is just an example they saw and acted on. DoomBringer 07:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

More focus on less than lethal weaponry?

A lot of this page has a lot of focus on rifles and SMGs, but other than flashbangs almost no mention of weapons made to be less than lethal. I know recently in nearby San Jose SWAT officers used a taser to subdue a deranged father who was holding his own child hostage, and here in San Francisco news reports tell of SWAT firing riot guns and baton rounds at hostile suspects occasionally.

Also is the G36 detail even relevant to the article? It just seems to make a case about how great a gun it is, and I agree it's very good but none have been made about the M4 so why so much on the G36?

The G36 is largely unused in the American SWAT community. Sorry but it's true. It's not THAT great of a gun, especially not for police purposes, it cannot compete with the M4. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In 1956, while a member of Brigadier General Thomas Van Natta's staff, I wrote the first paper entitle, "Special Weapons and Tactics. In 1967, several months before Whitman and the University of Texas incident, I reprised the paper for University of Iowa Professor Stuart Holcomb. After an undergraduate student assistant termed the idea and paper "luncacy," the professor gave me an "A." The original idea, which included development of a .50 caliber sniper rifle, didn't get a kinder assessment from the military. Today, with SWAT teams and .50 caliber rifles all over the place, no one ever mentions my name. Odd, isn't it? Incidentally, the reason for the original discussion and the original idea was the incident at the No Gun Ri Bridge, during the Korean war. The whole matter is discussed in a book I wrote years ago, too. It's all beginning to piss me off, frankly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luebbert (talk • contribs) 22:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Women???

The article never says anything about women. Are women elligable for S.W.A.T? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemininauwku (talk • contribs)

Depends on department, but in most cases, yes. However women make up a relatively small percentage of patrol officers, and within that most do not pass the physical and mental tests for SWAT operations. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

LAPD SWAT logo

This article is not about the LAPD SWAT team. How does this add anything more to the article than a seal of the Supreme Court does? It doesn't, really; it just shows that the LAPD has a SWAT team which has a logo. It's not relevant for the article. Put it on the LAPD article instead, not here. --tomf688^{talk} 02:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is about SWAT groups in general, this includes the LAPD team. The logo is useful for foreign and/or inexperienced people, and surely must stay. --Nkcs 23:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

LAPD has the US's most famous SWAT team. Showing their SWAT logo contributes to the article, showing people what SWAT logos look like. It should stay. Your supreme court argument is irrelevant and fallacious. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My argument is that instead of a logo which doesn't add much (the Supreme Court logo doesn't do any better than the LAPD logo, since most people won't read it anyways; that's my "irrelevant and fallacious" point), a better image would be a SWAT team in full gear, or a team conducting a raid, as that illustrates what a SWAT team is, which is the point of the article. And who determined the LAPD has the most famous SWAT team? Why not the NYPD? The Chicago PD? The Houston PD? --tomf688^{talk} 01:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

LAPD SWAT is very nearly the oldest. Daryl Gates basically wrote the definition for modern SWAT operations, even to this day. LAPD tested and refined almost the modern tactics, especially the more paramilitary ones. They're most famous because they have 3 video games, a TV series, and a movie made entirely about them.......Does NYPD, CPD or Houston? No. The closest would be any of the Texas police departments that are featured on Texas SWAT or whatever that show is called. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that there is an actual photo about a SWAT team, I've moved the LAPD logo down to the history section and given it context (a better caption). --tomf688^{talk} 00:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Name of article

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to change the article's title to special response team or something more general along those lines. Running through the list of teams listed in the article, a large percentage don't use "SWAT" as their name. Keeping this title as SWAT seems a bit too... specific. --tomf688^{talk} 01:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

'disagree : SWAT is the more common colloqialism for the name, and also the most famous. A large portion DO still use SWAT as their name. Those that don't still can be listed in the list on the page ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Synonyms for SWAT

I think this section is irrelevant and unnecessary; nearly half of the article is a list about other SWAT teams, and we already have the "SWAT units in the United States" section, which documents all American tactical units, and the "Similar units outside the United States" one, which does the same with foreign groups. --OneEuropeanHeart 01:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll remove it. If someone disagrees with this, please discuss it here. --OneEuropeanHeart 01:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

As a 12 year member of the Vancouver(British Columbia,Canada)Police Department's Emergency Response Team (ERT)I should let you all know that almost all major North American police departments have modeled their SWAT or ERT teams on the tactics developed by returning Vietnam veterans who chose a career in law enforcement in the LAPD or LA Sheriff's Departments.They set the standard as to what strategies and tactics would soon become the norm that other jurisdictions would adopt as standard operating principles. We have become the pioneers of SWAT/ERT. In the early days there was no one to teach us nor any courses to go on to advance our skillsets.

• Tactics have changed hugely since then, as has the technology and equipment. The changes I've seen in the past 20 years have been big. I've seen a lot of tactics and toys come and go. What we do in building clearing, active shooter scenarios etc. today are much different than we did back in 1987 when I started. I can't see any resemblence between how we handle those things and tactics from Vietnam. Might have been true back then, but they aren't modelled on them now from what I can see. 13:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In Vancouver, we were fortunate to be able to do exchange programs with the LA Sheriff's Dept. on a regular basis.

In my opinion,the LA Sheriff's Dept.Special Enforcement Bureau (SEB) is the absolute best SWAT team in the world. I know that because of the expertise and experience that they possess. They are so highly regarded in the SWAT/Special Forces community that the the British SAS, the US Navy SEALS and the US Marine Corps train with them on a regular basis.

Although the LAPD was the first police agency to create a SWAT team, kudos to them for their vision, their tactics are second to the LA Sheriff's Department's SEB unit.

I can't find a confirming source for the statement the first SWAT team was created by the Delano, California, police department. Neither the city's website (http://www.delano-ca.org/welcome/city_profile.htm), nor the department's pages (http://www.delano-ca.org/departments/police.htm), mention such an accomplishment.

Google feeds me three instances where Delano is given this credit, and all three are this selfsame Wiki article.

"Shooting Times" magazine credits the LAPD with the first SWAT team (http://www.shootingtimes.com/handgun_reviews/st_0212_lapd/). The LAPD's own website takes credit for the first SWAT team (http://www.lapdonline.org/search_results/content_basic_view/849). One of the external links listed to the article also says the LAPD was the first (http://www.specwarnet.net/taclink/Police/LAPD_SWAT.htm).

In Daryl F. Gates autobiography, "Chief: My Life in the LAPD" (Bantam Books, 1992, paperback), Gates describes a slow process whereby the first SWAT team, then officially Platoon D of the Metropolitan Division, was formed sometime in 1967. He recalls a Department suspicious of the paramilitary organization and tactics (developed in conjunction with the Marines and other military units), and how the teams initially had to buy or build their own gear with their personal money. Parenthetically, Gates also describes his first name for the new unit, "Special Weapons Attack Teams", which was soundly shot down by then-deputy police chief Ed Davis. In any case, there is absolutely no mention of the city of Delano, its police department, or of seeing inspirational TV coverage of the Delano PD.

I am willing to make changes in the indicated paragraphs, but I'm hoping the original author(s) might come forward to source the Delano references, rather than me just bulling through like the noob I am.

Tychocat 11:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the references to Delano PD's alleged development of the SWAT concept; at best, it appears to be original research (no one here seems to know where it came from); and, at worst it's unverifiable. I can put it back, if needed, of course. Tychocat 12:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Added links to the LAPD's website to document their development of SWAT, and of the role Officer John Nelson played in the development. If anyone cares, I also checked the edit history and found the Delano material came from one anonymous contributor back in February. Oh well, if he/she wants the material back, we can talk.

I've also completed a draft of a section on recent trends in SWAT history: The SLA shoot-out started a re-arming of SWAT teams; and, the impact of Columbine on SWAT teams and police. I'm now in that picky verification and documentation phase of research, and if anyone has any trends to mention, let me know. Keep in mind I don't necessarily want to know about things that one department or another did, but incidents which had national impact on SWAT teams across the board. Tychocat 18:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Weaponry

I cleaned up a few things in the section, "Structure: Element vs. Team", particularly pertaining to snipers. Lots of the information in that section was pure junk, like the claim that "police marksmen prefer "hollowpoint bullets"" and that "hollowpoint bullets lose velocity faster than fully jacketed rounds".

This is nonsensical garbage.

The round used by pretty much ALL military and LEO snipers is the 168 grain Sierra Matchking Boattail Hollowpoint bullet, and while it is officially called a "hollowpoint" round, it is not. A true hollowpoint bullet is designed to expand upon impact with flesh; the "hollowpoint" on the Sierra Matchking is a byproduct of the manufacturing process and is NOT designed to facilitate expansion.

Another glaring inaccuracy in that section was the claim that police snipers use semi-auto rifles like the HK PSG-1.

That is wildly inaccurate; the PSG-1 is a very rare and extremely expensive rifle, usually going for over $10,000.00. The vast majority of police departments do not have the funds to waste on a rifle like that, and it isn't the best choice anyway as bolt-guns almost identical to what our military snipers use can be purchased for a fraction of the cost and are definitely just as accurate, if not more accurate. Bolt-action rifles are inherently more accurate than semi-automatic rifles.

Virtually all professional, government-employed marksmen in the United States, particularly civilian agencies, use bolt-action rifle, typically built on a Remington 700 action. The majority of police sniper engagements usually occur at distances of less than 100 yards. Contrary to popular belief, the FBI has never conducted any study of the distances for U.S. sniper engagements. This is a myth that has been repeated so often by so many so-called authorities that is has finally taken on an air of legitimacy. The best information on this is derived from an American Sniper Association (ASA) study. While not every Departmenr responded to their nationwide survey, as best we can tell, the true average engagement distance for U.S. police snipers is approximately 57 yards. The shortest recorded sniper shot for U.S. police sniper was 5 yards. The longest was 400 yards in the Washington D.C. area.

why

Why does everyone seem to forget about the cool guys with the funny vests that say TEMS, or PARAMEDIC in Day-glo letters? Don't they deserve some recognition in the SWAT page too; at least as part of the tactics? We're cool too, don't forget about us, with all your LAPD D Platoon coolness. Even those who aren't priviledged to live or work in LA, and lead normal, relatively boring lives elsewhere. All kidding aside, I think there should be a TEMS article attached to the SWAT article. And under other circumstances, i'd even offer to write it. But I'm not. Just tossing the idea out there.

CHEERS

21. Cops are wonderful assessment tools at a HazMat incident. Send them in with a lit road flare. If they don't pass out or blow up, it's safe.-THE RULES OF EMS

I think this is getting a tad far afield from the core concept of the article. I should hope you might at least include a mention of their accomplishments in paramedics or TEMS articles, rather than just criticize. However, I am in the process of adding some recent developments in SWAT, and shall make mention of the appearance of paramedics on SWAT call-outs.

Tychocat 11:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone and done it. Modified the opening paragraphs to reflect the unverified nature of the claim that Delano PD developed SWAT first. I've also written a letter to DPD asking for comment, so updates may occur on this point. And for heaven's sake, if the original author(s) want to put their original two cents back in, please do. I'm not trying to maintain a canon (that the LAPD had the idea first), but the Delano claim is so unusual that I had to challenge it. If there's a reference to back this up, I'm good for it. I'll even write it. Tychocat 11:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Video Games tactics used as real world 'tactics'

Is there a chance the supposed 'tactics' section can be reworked to remove the blatant use of video/computer game alleged tactics from game manuals. "Optiwands" and "swithes to primary weapon after mirroring under the door" etc etc are all references plucked straight from SWAT 2/3 & 4 computer game-land and aren't reflective of real world terminology or actions.

I think maybe a "prominant SWAT teams" header might also be of use, mentioning some or the larger US teams and some of the internationally comparble teams.

• There is actually the underlying problem that most of the material you refer to (Tactics, Room Clearing, and so on) all badly need work to get sources and documentation added. Please feel free. I am dealing with other matters in the history section. In regards to "prominant SWAT teams" (sic) I see no need to add another button-collection to Wikipedia, not to mention judging who is or is not on the list. We already have a list of SWAT groups in and out of the U.S., so I think we have the international thing covered. Tychocat 01:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only USA

Not only the USA deploys SWAT teams. The Canadian police have some, and so do many NATO countries!

• I agree with you, SWAT is no longer restricted to the USA, several major Canadian cities have their own SWAT teams (sometimes shortened to just Tac Teams). --Gimpy 00:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• The fact that SWAT-type teams exists outside of the United States is a given, and noted in the article with several examples. A complete listing of such, if that's what you're asking, is just a button-collection. What the article needs is an expansion into areas of progression and trends of encyclopedic note. Tychocat 05:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Also one of the newest forming states Kosovo has indeed a SWAT team which is called SWAt team snake indeed wikipedia has inforamtion on it. Hit a search on it.

• Yeah, everyone's got a SWAT unit of some form. That's why I don't want a never-ending list of SWAT units. Also, please sign your comments. Tychocat 04:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Big Edits

Sorry to be so melodramatic, folks, but I've just about completed my latest revisions to SWAT history, whereby I delete out a lot of the LAPD-only references, and replace it with items I can document as having caused national changes in the way SWAT works, i.e., Columbine and the SLA Shoot-out.

Also, unless someone can document and verify where the material on CQB, tactics, and so on, comes from, I'm gonna REMOVE IT from the article as unverified, undocumented, unencylopedic, and possibly original research. It also looks like an instructional manual.

If someone wants to 'fess up and document the sources for this material, great. Otherwise, for the reasons given above, I'll edit it out. If there's any objections or questions, let me know, I want to give a few days notice before I do this thing. Tychocat 03:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum I guess people aren't reading the talk page before adding stuff. Please note that I'm about to radically dump at lot the unattributed, undocumented, and unverified original research off the article - this includes all the CQB, instructional manual tactics, and so on. So please don't bother adding more things to these areas, unless you want to (hint) document and source the all this stuff. If I don't get any commentary from the old hands around here, I'm going to assume they're good with the noob bulling through the china shop. (grunt, snort) Tychocat 02:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Last Call - I've updated the history section as promised, but will put off for a day or so the deletes of the unattributed, undocumented, unverified original research of the CQB, Tactics, Structure, and Room Clearing sections. But that stuff will go. Tychocat 23:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Added unreferenced tags Sections so indicated will go Saturday, 17 June 2006. Tychocat 13:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Done As promised, the aforementioned material deleted. Can be replaced as documentation and sources found. I would look real hard at anything that looks like an instructional manual, too. Tychocat 07:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested and requested tweaks

I intend to preform these tweaks if no objection is reached.

• Collect all inline external links into a "referance" section
• Break the LAPD SWAT stuff to their own article. While interesting (I actualy enjoyed reading about it and would like to read more, preferably every major deployment), article should be more about SWAT in general rather than about LAPD SWAT. Granted a short and brief info about swat in LAPD (how it started) and how it spread to other police departments in the US as well as internationaly should be presented.
• Renaming this abriviation to its full name: Special Weapons and Tactics. But then there is NASA example. I am not too certain with this.

--Cat out 20:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds good, I have attempted to generalize the article from an LAPD-only story, but there's a lack of hard information (that I can find) as to national trends. I did what I could, regarding changes in tactics and equipment due to the SLA shoot-out, and Columbine. Please be real careful regarding documentation and verifications, is my main deal. Oh, and the renaming is fine by my two cents. Tychocat 09:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I request info explaining the SWAT's structure. Stuff like "who is 10 David" etc. --Cat out 20:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• I personally dislike that kind of detail, since there's no universal structure for SWAT. Not even the LAPD uses the original four-man squad concept, for instance. You easily end up with an endless discussion of every SWAT team in the world that way. Plus, it tends to violate WP:NOT in becoming a user guide. Tychocat 09:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Right, so its history, LAPD SWATs history. Perhaps on a seperate article this can be covvered with greater deal. --Cat out 20:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Question about SWAT

One thing the article doesn't answer is how exactly the SWAT get called (I can't describe it well). Ie, do they sit around a SWAT office waiting for a call? Or are they on duty as police and when they get a call they head to the office and suit up? Or do they hang around at home first?70.66.9.162 09:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm, good point. I can do that, though it will take a few days to cobble together the documentation. Thanks! Tychocat 10:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That depends on the unit. Large units like LAPD SWAT have full time SWAT officers, that basically just train all day until they get a call out. However, most smaller departments have SWAT reserve officers: they patrol normally, or do their normal sworn duties (i.e. patrollers patrol, sergeants supervise, lieutenants push paper etc.) but in event of a call out, they suit up and head out. My team leader when I was in the Army was a Tallahassee Police Department SWAT officer...he carried all his SWAT issue gear in the back of his cruiser. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Added section as mentioned above under "Organization". Documentation included. Tychocat 08:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted JTF2 link......

Yesterday, I posted a link to Canada's Joint Task Force 2, and today I found that someone deleted it....Why? JTF2 is a similar unit outside of the US....It's Canada`s own unit....Please keep the link an If someone deletes it again then please email me and let me know why you deleted it...

Thanks

jordan_pickell@hotmail.com

PLEASE NO SPAM !

• That seems to be a military unit. SWAT is not a military unit, SWAT is a police unit. Thus the Canadian JTF2 is NOT a similar unit to SWAT, just like GSG9 and SAS are not. SAS is a military unit and GSG9 is a unit of the Federal Police, comparable to FBI units in the US.--Fogeltje 30 September 2006 14:50 CEST

Actually, GSG-9 is very similar to SWAT. While they retain counter terrorism duties, GSG9 officers are still members of the federal police and as such perform police duties when needed. That's from the article on it here. GSG9 is just the federal version of SEK. Since a single federal unit is easier to denotate than multiple state units, GSG9 belongs more than SEK does. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The German SEK is the equivalent of SWAT in Germany and they belong to the German Bundesländer (somewhat comparable to a US State). GSG9 belongs to the Federal Police which is somewhat like the American FBI. SWAT is not of the FBI but part of the police departments. Therefore the SEKs are more similar to SWAT than GSG9. GSG9 are only used in the most extreme cases, most cases involving armed suspects involve either SEK or MEK. Therefore SEK should be listed, not GSG9. Both SEK and GSG9 were created after the so-called Munich Massacre in 1972 when it became apparent that the German police was not adequately equipped to deal with events of that magnitude. Had GSG9 and SEK existed then, I think GSG9 would have been called into action, considering the scale and international relations involved.Fogeltje

You're correct, and I'm correct, but its semantics. They both should be included, but since we're aiming for 1 per country, it doesn't really matter too much. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I know, hence I added the SEK at first instead of replacing the GSG9 link. I shall try to inquire on the German wiki if someone can elaborate more on situations when SEK is used and hwen it is deemed necessary to involve GSG9, but as far as I know GSG9 is really only used in the most extreme situations when even the SEK is deemed to be insufficient. Perhaps we could name them both in a single sentence, for example "SEK/GSG9, SWAT units in Germany" or something like that. Though on the other hand, it would most likely lead other people to do the same with other countries. Fogeltje 23:00, 10 October 2006 (CEST)

We could get away with it by doing "SEK/GS9" (each wikilink to respective article) followed by "State/Federal Police SWAT, Germany." That way it's only one line and one entry. Any other country with a split state/federal system would be able to do the same. For instance, if the individual swiss canton's had one, but the federal swiss government also had one (I don't think they do, but that's the first example that comes to mind). Odds are no other country other than germany adequately fits this bill, so it works out.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would work, I have changed the link accordingly Fogeltje 7:42, 11 October 2006 (CEST)

Units that DO NOT belong under the international SWAT section

• SAS- military unit, not police. CO19 is the equivalent.
• KSK- military unit. GSG9 is the federal police equivalent. SEK is the state unit. However GSG9 is more appropriate for the entry due to its federal status.
• Spetsnaz- military unit. OMON is its equivalent
• Det-88: Counterterrorism unit, not SWAT. Performs a non-comparable mission.
• SAF: unconventional warfare unit by military police.
• JTF2- Military unit. RCMP special operations is the equivalent.

Also, redlink units do not belong under the international swat section: Once they have an article written about them, they'll be notable enough for inclusion. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 11:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about gendarmerie units, like the French gendarmerie, the Spanish Guardia Civil and Italian Carabinieri which are officially titled as military police units. Should their special units be listed under SWAT which is a civilian police force (opposed to military police). Right now we have the special unit of the Gendarmerie Nationale and I was wondering if it's appropriate. --Fogeltje 22:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, CO19 is an equivalent UK unit, not the equivalent UK unit. CO19 is the unit within London's Metropolitan Police that handles this sort of thing; other constabularies have their own firearms and tactical units.

Torak 16:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination

This article, as of Nov 2, 2006 is not yet at the standard for good articles. Major issues include:

• Lead is too short. See WP:LEAD.
• Needs more images (many should be public domain -- try federal govt sites) and an image link is broken.
• Inadequate references -- some sections don't use inline refs, and some are entirely unreferenced.
• Section "SWAT in Popular Culture" seems to be largely irrelevant.
• Needs more discussion on the spread of SWAT teams, and their impact on crime and society.
• The prose is pretty uneven, and needs a rewrite in many places.

Twinxor t 06:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No critical point of view desired?

@Scimitar:

You removed proven facts. Please don't do that again - this is a neutral page.

Point of issue (belong to: SWAT duties / Swat duties include: )

• Neutralizing suspects that falls from grace with RIAA

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SWAT&oldid=101578130#_note-0)

91.64.14.152 17:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Even with that source, I doubt that your link constitutes a conspiracy between SWAT and the RIAA. SWAT is charged with serving warrants pertaining to any number of crimes. There is nothing so special about this case that it deserves a special notice.

Oracle7168 06:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

a request...

I came across an 'almost' Orphan Article that I think somehow tied to this one OR should not exist at all, but not being knowledgable enough, might I ask for your input? please see Hostage Barricade Team Exit2Dos2000^{•T•C••} 01:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Special force or not?

How come SWAT isn't listed OR categorized as a special force? Is it because it's not military? Wikipedia has listed a bunch of divisions within the Police from various other countries, so what's the difference. Why isn't SWAT listed, while others are? GoogleMe 21:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Specifically which foreign units are listed as special forces? If they are (for example) French GIGN, German GSG9 or Spanish GEO, then the difference probably lies in the difference between a national paramilitary police force e.g. French gendarmerie, Spanish Guardia Civil or German grenzschutzpolizei (spelling?) and regular local police forces e.g. a city police force like LAPD, the British Metropolitan police etc etc. Editus Reloaded 21:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The German Bundesgrenzschutz doesn't exist anymore. It has been renamed to Bundespolizei which functions as a federal police organisation, which means GSG9 is now a comparable unit to the SEK, but on federal level and not state level. However, the GSG9 can also operate abroad, for example as protective detail for embassies or for high risk operations, like airliner hijackings. The emphasis of GSG9 emphasizes counter-terrorism. This makes it different from SWAT.--Fogeltje (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Confusing

[...]for marksmen (snipers).

I don't understand what the point is of the parentheses, as marksman and sniper are not the same job. The way this is written, it is implied that these terms are synonyms. They aren't. --70.131.90.151 (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In many agencies, the terms ARE used interchangeably. It's probably no small coincidence that the biggest organization for US law enforcement riflemen is called the American Sniper Association. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

---

This article has become a teenage 'fan-boy' centre piece again.

• • • S.W.A.T (Special Weapons And Tactics) is an elite counter-terrorist tactical unit, similar to the U.S. Navy Seals or Germany's GSG-9 unit, in American police departments, which is trained to perform exceptionally dangerous, high-risk, counter-terrorism operations that fall outside of the abilities of regular patrol officers.***

SWAT is similar to the US Navy SEAL Teams? In appearance with respect to weapons and equipment but certainly not in mission profile, level of training or requirements considering there is no "standard" across the US for law enforcement tactical teams.

Not all "SWAT" units are equal, not all, contray to popular belief, perform, of have the ability to mount the very specialised task of hostage rescue, and certainly the great majority are no-where near the required level of having a "counter terrorist" capability.

Nor do they all train with elite Military units, such as the incorrectly labelled "Seals" (SEALS being an accronym must be in captials) as named here. GSG-9 as mentioned numerous times in edits is a federal counter-terorist unit, the US equivialnt would be the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team, and NOT a local or State Police/Sheriff SWAT team.

Again this entire article needs cleaning up as it has again been filled with wishful thinking and information based on tv, movies and the dreams of those who play video games etc.

YEPPOON —Preceding unsigned comment added by YEPPOON (talk • contribs) 04:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the previous statement. The SWAT Teams ARE indeed elite counter-terrorist special operations units similar to US Navy SEALS and GSG-9. I personally worked on SWAT for several years and during that time we cross-trained with many different agencies including the Navy SEALS, German GSG-9, and SAS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.232.179.120 (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is saying that SWAT teams don't do counter-terrorism. But do you realize that most readers will take the text you are inserting to mean that SWAT teams do only counter-terrorism and nothing else? Looie496 (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a SWAT veteran myself (since we're going to talk about original research). The vast majority of SWAT deployments in the US are for that "boring stuff" like barricaded suspects and warrant service. For every terrorist incident you could come up with, there are thousands of warrant services. Might not be as sexy sounding, but that is our bread and butter. That's the norm. Placing such an emphasis on CT is really doing a disservice to those guys out there doing the "boring stuff" day in and day out. Plus, something else you may not have considered: There are loud SWAT detractors, like Peter Kraska, who try to make a name for themselves by harping on the "militarization" of the police and the supposed over-use of SWAT. This kind of military comparison and de-emphasis of the life-saving aspects of SWAT simply gives them more ammo for their argument. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about this Peter Kraska guy! But as a SWAT officer I just want SWAT to be represented with respect and nothing less. SWAT must be portrayed as being on the same level as all other Special Operations units like the Navy SEALs and GSG-9 and others. If people constantly downgrade our status then we become perceived by the general public as inferior to other units! We are SWAT officers and we have to conduct ourselves as an elite special operations unit, in much the same way as the elite warriors of past history, whether it be the Ninja, Samurai, or 300 Spartans! We must maintain our fierce reputation and strike fear into the minds of criminals, hostage takers, terrorists and other punks! In this way, we deter criminals from acts of crime, this is one small but effective element of "Crime Suppression."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.232.150.91 (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So in the interests of clarity, when was the last time a SWAT team was inserted into hostile territory by submarine using a swimmer approach to the shoreline, then operated in a non-permissive environment for a protracted period whilst conducting interdiction of opposing force activities?

ALR (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. But you also have to remember that a lot of people who read this article are looking for a reason to gripe and complain about the "militarization" of the police blah, blah, blah. I don't plan to make their job easy for them. And, let's not forget, this is an encyclopedia. Things should be more academic. I spent today sitting in a class taught by LTC Dave Grossman. During the class "The Bulletproof Mind", we talked about the very issues you are talking about. Yes, swat is the pointy end of the stick. Yes, there is reason to be proud. We do things that Army SF aren't there for. SEALS do things we aren't there for. Everyone has their role in the big picture. But while we have some functions that overlap, many don't. SEALS don't serve search warrants on a meth lab. We do. We don't do long range patrols behind enemy lines. SEALS do. But one thing I think you seem to lose sight of.... the average agency is small. They don't have all the whiz-bang, state of the art, latest high tech pieces of hardware. Most teams aren't full time. Many have a long wish list and only half the gear we list. You have to remember, this article isn't about your team. Not about my team. It's about the general concept.

Some critics say?

The article you cited from the AP doesn't say what you said at all. It says: "The lack of cooperation from those involved in the raid prevented investigators from making any conclusions about the amount and type of training received by the Emergency Services Unit before the raid, the report said." Please don't try to summarize in your own words. That's why we check sources and use quotes. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the actual article: [2]

Counter terrorism

Given the current fetish for adding multiple instances of Counter-Terrorism into the article, is it worth trying to unpick what some SWAT teams are capable of, rather than just use the generic label?

I would contend that CT is a portfolio of disciplines, which includes the type of operation inferred in the usage here; kicking the doors in. CT encompasses addressing the recruitment of potential belligerents, disruption of the logistical and intelligence collection activities of belligerent organisations, reduction of the opportunities for a successful attack, suppression or disruption of information around events, promotion of alternative interpretations of terrorist activity plus a slack handful of other topics. Is it being suggested that SWAT teams are capable of the full range of these activities? I would suggest not, sine your average SWAT team doesn't have the resources to engage in overseas aid and denying opportunity to belligerents...

I think it's worth being more specific.

ALR (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute your criteria. Counter-terrorism is most definately part of the SWAT mission. My position has been that while we train for it, we also train for many other missions and when actually deployed, it will most likely be for something other than CT. CT shouldn't be front and center. Since the other editor used "since 9/11" as a benchmark, I will too. Since 9/11, my team has served piles of warrants, taken down grow houses, dealt with barricaded subjects, hostage situations, made a ton of high risk arrests and a bunch of other stuff. But we've deployed for exactly zero terrorism incidents. Train for it regularly, but not had to actually do it. And that's what I said above. I'm plenty proud of what SWAT does, even the "boring" stuff like serving warrants. Trying to sex it up with peacock terms and military comparisons just isn't needed. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute your criteria. In what way? I'm not disputing that SWAT teams are capable of the door kicking element, but front line, day to day officers also undertake some CT activities, but probably don't label them that way. Lift a target or another offence, based on intelligence, and you significantly reduce the risk.

fwiw in many ways if it gets to the door-kicking stage then the CT effort has pretty much failed, but from a commanders perspective having the capability in the suite of options is useful. The fact that it's essentially secondary to the main effort is better as it means I'm not resourcing a dedicated, but little used, capability.

ALR (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at your criteria, nobody really qualifies for CT. For example, the SEALS do the "door kicking" part, but they aren't out running HUMINT sources. They aren't intercepting communications on a big scale. They aren't tasking satellites, performing surveillance overflights or even doing in-depth intel analysis. There are people that all do those jobs. Similarly in law enforcement, we have intelligence detectives running informants, analysts doing what they do etc. You may not realize it, but local and state SWAT teams often augment the Federal ones or handle things on a more immediate basis if needed. If some terrorist decides to take the federal courthouse in my city, it will be local SWAT handling it for quite a while. And if it is an active shooter, it will be all over before the FBI or USMS teams get there. SWAT has a definite CT role. They are a vital part of domestic CT response. Period. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We're getting there, you've identified some of the key points I've been trying to get at. CT is not a single activity, it takes contributions from a range of different bodies and organisations to achieve the end result. What I'm trying to lead you to is indicating in the article which part of domestic CT response do SWAT contribute to?

ALR (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The answer varies greatly depending on agency. That's why I'm in favor of leaving it more generic. In LA, where you have a large intelligence section, SWAT doesn't do much in the way of running sources, gathering intel (except for tactical intel) or surveillence. But in a medium size dept. or rural dept, you may very well have SWAT operators involved in surveillence. If you look at counter-terrorism as being a combo of intelligence, operations and support; SWAT is operations. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we're starting to get some clarity around this, although it's probably worth drawing out something that's still not clear. You say that officers who are SWAT trained may be involved in surveillance etc, but would that be a primary role and also employed as SWAT, or conducting that as a SWAT officer? I hope you can see the distinction that I'm trying to draw out.

ALR (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your question, the "distinction" or what you are getting at. And it looks to me like you are trying to put too fine of an edge on it. Let's make this a lot simpler: If there is a terrorism incident and a SWAT team responds to counter it, are they not countering it? Do they not train to counter terror attacks? Isn't that counter-terrorism in the most simple form of the term? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, bluntly, this article leaves a lot to be desired. Some of that is structural, some of it is the tendency to get into weedsy detail without contextualising in the first place. There is a problem with individuals trying to litter the article with the CT label whilst not reflecting the wide range of other tasks which SWAT teams conduct.

I have some ideas for what to do in improving the CT article, which is similarly badly structured, verbose and opaque. Once I've tried to improve that then it should make things a little easier in developing more clarity.

fwiw if a CT operation gets to the point of stopping an event in progress, the CT effort has failed miserably. That said, I'll acknowledge that my knowledge of the topic is probably significantly deeper than that of the majority of WP readers and my attempts to improve the information content are probably beyond what the majority require.

Suffice to say that whilst I've been trying to assist with your problem editor my thinking around the topic in this context has gone further than is useful for you.

ALR (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you have bothered to read my responses to others or if you've limited yourself to the responses to you. I have maintained, from the start, that CT was being over-emphasized and that the focus on it was overshadowing the missions that are much more common. That doesn't diminish the fact that counter-terrorism IS a part of most SWAT teams missions. You seem to be dismissing the operational role in favor of a "whole team" concept. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get some clarity around what is meant by CT in this context, although tbh you weren't the point of raising the issue. From the responses below I wasn't aware that SWAT teams had 14yos :)

Anyway, I'm not dismissing the door kicking element, I'm just conscious that if it gets to that, the rest of the system has failed. It's more productive to use SF to interdict the training, than let it get to the stage where a domestic operation is going on.

ALR (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the intro of the article on counter-terrorism: "Counter-terrorism or counterterrorism refers to the practices, tactics, techniques, and strategies that governments, militaries, police departments and corporations adopt in response to terrorist threats and/or acts, both real and imputed." I'd say that SWAT falls right into that definition, wouldn't you? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be fairly clear from my previous comments that I don't much rate the article in question, you'll see that I've already culled some material from it. I'm going to try to improve it, although most of the sources I have access to are classified, which doesn't much help. I'm not disputing that SWAT fulfills a subset of the CT task, but what I'm suggesting is that there is some clarity around what that subset is, as a mechanism for managing the uncritical usage. Clearly there is no appetite for the precision which I would expect, but I acknowledge that I'm not coming at the topic from the US perspective.

'tis largely no problem, this article belongs to you and I'll leave it alone. Having tried to provide some outside, informed, perspective on things I have no real interest in ending up in conflict over it.

I hope you manage to make some progress in making the article informative and balanced.

ALR (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the view taken by user Niteshift36! As SWAT officer, my unit has been training for counter-terrorism with various other units around the world as well as private training schools like Blackwater USA and Trojan Securities International. While it is true that the average under-funded SWAT may not have the same training as the U.S. Navy SEALs, all SWAT teams are proud members of the small Special Operations community, regardless of financial situation, and have the reserved option of undergoing additional training in all aspects of Navy SEAL, GSG-9, or Israeli counter-terrorism warfare tactics should the respective SWAT choose to do so. Especially since we live in a post September 11 environment, all SWAT units may potentially respond to terrorist attacks carried out either by Al Qaeda or domestic American terrorists like Ku Klux Klan or MS-13. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.232.150.91 (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think you've rather missed the point of what I suggested. Counter-terrorism is a broad subject with a range of functions and activities involved in it, some of which SWAT teams are trained in, and some of which they're not. I find the SEAL comparison to be specious, since the role of SEAL units is much, much, more than merely hard knock which I get the impression you are on about. SEAL teams are military units and as such have a military, rather than law enforcement, tasking. I note that you haven't responded to my point about the comparison above.

By the way, *NEWS FLASH* terrorism doesn't just revolve around a post 9/11 world, in the UK we've lived with terrorist activities for a very long time, in the order of a few hundred years in various ways, although in the modern CT context probably mainly since the 1920's with the Fenian seperatists leading to the creation of Eire, then since the 1960s the activities of both sides of that particular spat.

The point of this topic is, what segment of the portfolio of CT activities do SWAT teams carry out? Be specific about that in the article. Do you run HUMINT sources? do you run covert OPs? do you conduct the financial and commercial analysis required to identify funding and logistic routes for terrorist activities? Do you conduct the information operations or disruption of information operations around the recruitment and radicalisation process with respect to militant islam? Merely throwing around the CT label without any qualification is meaningless. What tasks is it you do.

ALR (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with user ALR! My SWAT unit is very well funded and we have received counter-terrorism training to the point where we are in no way inferior to any other counter-terrorist unit, we are the BEST! All SWAT officers on my unit train in all aspects of martial arts, law enforcement, as well as counter-terrorism to the point of mastery and high combat proficiency! If you want to oppose us, we will "smoke" you at the next international SWAT competition! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.232.150.91 (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You disagree with the questions I'm asking? All the hyperbole is largely irrelevant if you're not actually reading what's been written and the questions that have been asked.

I'll try again, although recognise it's probably a futile exercise.

Which CT tasks do you train for?

Just as a matter of interest, when was the last time a SWAT team was used to interdict a training camp in the FATA?

ALR (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering that SWAT's main job is not to fight terrorist extremists but hardcore thugs and dangerous criminals I don't think it should be a prominent focus in the intro. I support the inclusion of "counter terrorism" in the intro, considering that if there WAS a terrorist plot they would probably be the ones taking them down. However, I disagree with any addition of SWAT being a "counter terrorist unit" as that is far from their primary function - it is simply something that they are trained for. In my workplace I am "trained" to help assist people during a fast-moving fire. However, that is not in my job description since I never actually do it.
...Unless we want to debate current government's efforts trying to make all criminal acts defined as "terrorism". --mboverload@ 20:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

First, let me say that I read what you wrote and reverted. It tells me a lot about your views. Just FYI, I am a combat veteran of the US Army. So I've done your "badass" thing already. While you are getting exercised over your political view of what is or is not terrorism, you completely ignore the fact that terrorist are here. Domestic and foreign, both here. And as I said, if and when the next terrorist attack happens in the US, it will most likely be a SWAT team dealing with it, be it a federal, state or local one. And unlike other countries, the US doesn't rely on the military to handle those issue in the domestic arena. Little thing called Posse Comitatus Act gets in the way. So if you have 6 terrorists, whether they are islamofacists or domestic groups, take over a school like was done in Breslan, Russia, it will be SWAT handling it, not SEALS, not Delta. As for your analogy about work, you are trained as a layman. You are not an expert. Your company has not felt a need to employ or train experts for that task or to equip you with anything beyond rudimentary equipment. SWAT operators are not layman. SWAT operators are trained to a sufficient level of expertise. Considering how tight our budgets are, the money isn't being spent because someone wants to shop. It is spent because it is needed. God willing, those skills and equipment won't need to be employed, but they are ready and waiting if they are needed. And if they are employed, they will be employed by highly trained experts, not laymen. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

--

I think people have missed the point with what "counter-terrorism" actually means with regards to a 'tactical' team and in the context of this article. This is not a debate as to what "terrorism" is, but rather what skills/abilities a team requires to be able to declare itselfas having a "counter terrorist" capability. Just becase a local SWAT team would arrive on the scene, and possibility have to deal/resolve a terrorist situation doesn't mean it has a CT capability.

To have a true counter-terrorism capacity a team must have certain skill sets and capabilities...like those the FBI's HRT has, such as fast roping, aircraft boarding, under and over water ability, explosive breaching etc etc to name but a few. These are skills etc that most teams do not have. This is why there's a FBI Hostage Rescue Team in the first place.

These skill sets require lots manpower, lots of training and a lot of constant funding...which the vast majority of SWAT teams do not have, simply because they do not require them, nor can they justify, for the simple fact they'd never use them in their day to day tactical operations. A 12 member local Sheriff's office SWAT team can't be expected to have the same capabilities as the FBI's HRT or GSG-9 etc. This isn't a pissing contest as to who's the better "door kickers" or "shooters" as the vast majority of operators and teams are on par with each other, it's the simple fact that as a tea they do not possess the equipment and capabilities required for specialist recovery operations.

This is not to in anyway denegrate any Local or State "SWAT" team, it's simply to point out that having a national level counter-terrorism skill set and capability is something only a few law enforcement teams have. The responsibility for domestic counter terrorism operations on US soil rests with the FBI's HRT...their sole reason for being set-up.

A true "counter terrorist" operation is akin to the Iranian Embassy Siege, the Japanese embassy hostage crisis or the 1994 Air France flight 8969 rescue by GIGN. A local Department SWAT team cannot be compared fairly with the federal CT agencies that performed in those operations, nor should they be expected to as it's not their role. Nor can it be expected that a local SWAT team possess the ability to have the skill sets for such operations.

SWAT teams are fantastic at what they are designed and expected/equipped to do, that is provide tactical support and options to law enforcement agencies that are beyond the ability and skills of 'patrol' officers. Counter-Terrorist teams have abilities and skill sets that go above and beyond that as that's what's required of them.

~~YEPPOON~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by YEPPOON (talk • contribs) 10:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability?

The list of teams outside the US is quite extensive. Unfortunately, many of them are links without articles. Obviously, every SWAT team in the US is not listed. Only notable ones are, all of which have articles. I don't see a need to list every unit that can be found outside the US. So I'd propose deleting units from the list that don't have their own articles. This is not US bias, since all US entries have an article listing. Opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Popular weapons source

In the "SWAT equipment" section, the source used for most of the statements is a May 1997 Popular Mechanics article about weapons used by LAPD SWAT. There's a few problems with this:

1. The source does not back up the statement. It doesn't prove anything about what's popular with police today, it shows what was used by one specific department 12 years ago. WP:OR states that a source must "directly support the information as it is presented." The sources used do not directly support the given information and thus cannot be used as they are now.

2. The cited source contains obsolete information. For example, the article states LAPD uses Colt 1911s, which was true in the past, but it would take less than half a minute of searching to find sources that LAPD's current pistol is the Kimber Custom II. And the Benelli M1 is not even marketed anymore due to obsolescence, let alone popularly used by police. The point is, the article is demonstrably dated so using it as a source is probably deceptive.

3. I'm not going to say Popular Mechanics isn't a reliable source for firearms information (I'll concede that it would be if it were up-to-date), but it's not exactly American Rifleman.

It doesn't matter how iconic weapons like the MP5 are as police weapons. If no one can produce a reliable source that they are popular weapons for SWAT use in modern times, it shouldn't be mentioned here. Verifiability, not truth. 69.234.100.196 (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• 1) The source shows what was in use at that point. It is a reliable source. It lends support to the text. Have you considered trying to find sources yourself?

2)I know the LAPD has changed to the Kimber (which is still a 1911). You're not telling me something I don't know. The source shows the firearm was their standard (a standard that was kept with the change to the Kimber). Further, your cmplaint about the M1 not being sold anymore isn't valid. Just because it's not currently in production doesn't mean it's not in service. I carry a gun on a regular basis that hasn't been made in about 10 years.....not in production, but still in service.

3) Popular Mechanics meets every criteria of being a reliable source. They are doing straight reporting on the matter. I can easily find tons of stuff to support much of what is said there (and I'm not the one who put them there BTW), but much of it would be from manufacturers websites and might not meet the RS criteria.

I spent only a few minutes finding the sources. I found your edit summary of "looks like it was written by a kid trying to show off what he saw in video games or on TV" to sound a little too sarcastic and decided to throw a few sources in for you. Instead of peppering every other word with a fact tag, perhaps you might consider trying to contribute some sources to the article yourself and improve it. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I added a number of other sources for you. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Nicknames" Entry

In the summary box at the top of the page, there is a list of nicknames for SWAT teams. It has zero references and I've never heard half of those in my life. I already delrted HRT (Hostage Rescue Team), as that is not a SWAT unit but a hostage rescue and counter-terrorism unit operated by the FBI. SWAT teams are local-government run, while HRT is part of a Federal entity, the FBI. If anyone has references or good reasons to keep the other nicknames, please, list them here, but otherwise I might as well delete them because searches for a couple of them found no verifiable sources. Neil Clancy 17:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the section is a mess. There are simply too many there. But in reference to them, I see most of them as valid (just not needed). ESU? NYPD, CT State Police, LA Airport Police. SRT? Pretty common one. ERT? Pentagon Force Protection Agency, Gaston Co. NC, Hartford CT. TRT? Dane Co WI. CIRT? Mercer Co. PA etc......there are more I just don't feel like running them down. But I agree, they probably should be removed. I do have an issue with your statement that SWAT teams are local govt. Most federal agencies have a SWAT team, including the FBI. Hell, there is an article on FBI SWAT. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, upon viewing some of them, that the acronyms are valid for specific SWAT teams around the country. However, I believe we should only include nicknames that are applicable to SWAT organizations nationwide, or at least to a large number of them. If a single city uses that acronym for their SWAT team, it shouldn't be on the list. I would debate that "most federal agencies have a SWAT team", but having viewed the FBI SWAT page and the references used to write it, it appears that the FBI itself designates its teams as SWAT. This raises the question, though, of if this article is concerned with every hostage rescue and counter-terrorism unit that utilizes "special weapons and tactics" in the world, or such organizations in the United States only, or only the local law enforcement teams that are direct "imitations" of the original LAPD SWAT team. Neil Clancy 21:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• You can debate whether or not most federal agencies have a SWAT team or not, but you'd have a difficult time. Whether they call them SWAT, SRT etc., almost all have units of specially trained and equipped tactical officers. We already covered the FBI (SWAT). BATFE, DEA, Fed. Protective Service, ICE, NASA, Dept. of Energy, US Marshals, Secret Service, Border Patrol, Park Police, Capitol Police, Mint Police, NCIS all have tactical teams. Probably a few others I can't think of off the top of my head. About the only ones who don't are ones like Education, Agriculture etc. who have a relatively small number of investigators that are actually law enforcement officers. Further, the secondary mission of FBI HRT is counter-terrorism and other SWAT duties. Lastly, I wouldn't call other teams "imitations" of LAPD. Just because LAPD is the first, doesn't make the others an imitation. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

'Equipment' Section References

All this unnecessarry links in the 'equipment' section can confuse someone. I don't think that for every kind of weapons should be thousands of links to small county polices. There were about ten external links, I earased a few and it looks now better.--Benny 919 (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, just hit the "new section" tab at the top when you're bringing up a new issue on the talk page. As to your stated point-those are not "external links", those can be found at the bottom of the page and are listed in a lighter blue font with an arrow coming out of a box logo, like this: Google. What you deleted were actually references and not "external links". While I agree with you that they are not visually pleasing, all Wikipedia articles must have references, and all material must be drawn from a reliable external source. Please see WP:Verifiability and WP:Citing sources for more information. We must retain references for the information, but one could certainly argue that there were more than necessary in the 'Equipment' section. So if you read the pages I listed above and then come back and write a response here, I'd be happy to work with you to find a solution. Neil Clancy 12:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why on earth did you delete all those references?!?!. I was forced to find and place all of those because some editor filled the article with fact tags (as if there was a question that the MP5 is in common use) on every single weapon and vehicle listed. You undid a ton of work for no good reason. Now I have to figure out if I can fix it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Niteshift he didn't understand what he was doing, it wasn't intentional vandalism. He thought they were arbitrarily placed external links. Thanks for fixing it though. I had asked Juliancolton to revert the page to before the edits for us so we wouldn't have to redo all of the citations, but he said Benny 919 "probably had a good reason for the edits" and that we shoould talk to him before changing it back. I guess that's all irrelevant now though because you fixed it and put the refs back. Thanks for the hard work. Neil Clancy 20:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Flagicons in the "Similar units outside the United States" section

User 87.79.139.215 (talk · contribs) recently made an edit in which he removed all of the flagicons, citing that they were not useful in an alphebatized list and that the MoS advised against how the flagicons were being used. There had also been a tag placed previously by another user which also stated that the section's use of flags went against the MoS on the issue. However, if you read WP:MOSICON, there is no mention of not using flagicons in a list as we have here. In fact, there is nothing in the MoS to advise against the use of flagicons as they are in this article, and we are actually following all of the recommendations of MoS, such as listing the country name with the flag. Secondly, I would argue that flagicons are useful in a list like this, because they provide a quick way of identifying countries for a user who is not looking for a specific item, therefore the alphebatization doesn't matter to them. Flagicons can also be counted quickly, revealing how many items from a specific country are listed. Lastly, I would cite that many other articles use flagicons in a similar manner to the way the SWAT article does. The best examples are firearm articles, such as M4 carbine, FN P90, and Glock pistol. A non-firearm example would be McDonald's. For these reasons, and the fact that the flagicon usage in SWAT is longstanding, I believe we should keep them as they are. Neil Clancy 13:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been weeks since I wrote this and nobody has responded, so the "problematic icon usage" template has been removed. Neil Clancy 22:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• The icons are only part of the problem that list has. Criteria for inclusion is a bigger one. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Semi-protection has been applied to this article for a period of one month. Over the last year, IP vandalism has had to be reverted every 1-2 days, and the rate has been increasing. A resumption of vandal edits following the lifting of the protection will result in its reapplication. In the mean time, if you have constructive suggestions, please use an edit request template or gain an account. Regards, SGGH ^ping! 15:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"Paramilitary"

I don't see how paramilitary (definition:[3]) applies to SWAT. SWAT teams, at least in the U.S., neither act like the military in substance, nor train with them. Paramilitary just doesn't apply here. Perhaps this is different in other countries. I'm referring to these changes:[4]. --→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 04:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• It can be argued (and has been by several academics) that they do share many similarities with the military. But that's debateable depending on the context. But your statement that US SWAT teams don't train with the military couldn't be more wrong. The training is routinely done. They attend the same schools and conduct joint training exercises. To make it even more clear, the US Army Military Police School holds training for civilian law enforcement (using military instructors and using military facilities) in many areas, including SWAT (called SRT in the course title). The mission statement of the Special Tactics Training Division states: "Provide subject matter expertise and specialized training in advanced law enforcement, tactics, techniques, and procedures supporting antiterrorism, and protection efforts to students (Armed Forces, DoD Police, DAC, and Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Officers) in resident and mobile training team environments." [5]. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • They may offer training for SWAT, but they do not train with them. This is in contrast to many paramilitary forces in other parts of the world, where these forces train together, exercise together, and draw on the same pool of recruits for members. --→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 06:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, they do train WITH them. I had both military and civilian in my class. And again, training WITH each other routinely happens, particularly if there is a military base nearby. Not to mention that both civilian and military utilize the same civilian run schools at the same time (Blackwater, Thunder Ranch etc). Law enforcement in general is a paramilitary endeavor. Unfortunately, the definition used by the article on paramilitary takes a very narrow view of the use of the term. The article references the wicktionary definition. But this is the actual wicktionary definition: "1.a group of civilians trained and organized in a military fashion, but which do not represent the formal forces of a sovereign power." Law enforcement is an armed, uniformed force with a formal rank structure, organized into squads, platoon etc that mirror a military organizational structureand they are trained to use firearms and other weapons to, among other things, protect the borders, combat terrorism etc. If you even look at the oath of office for many law enforcement agencies, you'll many similarities in the wording with the oath for military service. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Should any reference to paramilitary be removed? The Special Assault Team also has the same references too, but they have been training with the Ground Self-Defense Forces, FBI SWAT, GSG 9, GIGN and the SAS in the past. Ominae (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• As a point to irony, the word paramilitary occurs 3 times on this page outside of this discussion. I believe we are letting the color of the word paramilitary as denoted in the media color our perceptions to the actual meaning. Paramilitary = Bad Guys (who probably speak Spanish and smoke cigars), SWAT != Bad Guys (who speak spanish and smoke cigars), therefore, and in spite of all definitions of paramilitary being met, SWAT != paramilitary? 67.83.205.76 (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• What does adding paramilitary to the lead add to the article? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

<-I concur with User:Niteshift36. I've worked in and around law enforcement in the United States most of my life and without a doubt (in my part of the US anyway) Law enforcement in general is a paramilitary endeavor - starting with the fact they use a paramilitary command structure & related discipline model. SWAT takes this a step further in that the hardware & tactics they employ are a step closer to military hardware & tactics than those which the average police officer employs. --Versageek 20:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• User:Niteshift36It substitutes logic and meaning for euphemism. Given the incredible frequency and serious personal consequences of SWAT no knock raids post 9/11, I'd prefer not to trivialize such. Also, it's true by every cited dictionary reference, wikipedia's own paramilitary, logic, and even personal anecdote as related by User:Versageek. What does adding a suitable adjective detract from the article, especially when there's clearly notable interest as it's been suggested and discussed by so many people? 67.83.205.76 (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• First off, wikipedia isn;t a source, so their definition means exactly nothing. How about if you answer my question: What does adding paramilitary to the lead add to the article? That would be a good start. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The term "paramilitary" relates to organisation, and judicial oversight (specifically RoL related bodies acting in support of military). It's frequently used in reference to armed bodies. In that sense the whole policing infrastructure could be described as paramilitary, although in western democracy that's an unusual usage. It doesn't relate to the TTPs used in the execution of their Rule of Law duties.

As with all policing activities the SWAT role is in relation to law enforcement and the TTPs available are, in principle, more advanced than those available to the majority of LE Officers in the course of their duties. But the usage boils down to LE, inasmuch as the emphasis on the individual, generally the detention of.

Your assumption that those of us taking issue with the wording are taking our understandings from the media is wrong. Some of us have an intimate knowledge of the subject of Rule of Law and Law Enforcement.

ALR (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Controversies changed to Criticism

I have just removed to to Coatracks from the Controversies section, Neither event seemed that notable. Instead I suggest limiting to criticism of Swat teams from Think tank and academics to keep it balanced The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Name?

Should the name of this page SWAT or S.W.A.T.? Nick O'Sea (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Found the answer the above question at discussion for S.W.A.T. (film) already. Nick O'Sea (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Globalize

Surely the term SWAT is not only used in the US and Canada? I am pretty sure that that term has been in use in Australia and there are definitely equivalent Police units in Australia (ie State Protection Group) and other countries. Or, am I missing something here? nb. I have tagged the page for 'globalisation' – 220 of ^Borg 17:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• The concept pretty much originated in North American and it still is primarily an Anglo concept, although adopted in other areas in the more recent years. Many countries still use the military for this function.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• The Australian concept comes under the page: Police tactical group. New South Wales created their "SWAT"/tactical team, first known as the "emergency squad" in 1945...long before the LA concept began in the 60's and 70's. All around the world police have tactical teams, all known by different names. Most in the US do not even use the name "SWAT" as it is. It's, with only a few Departments, a general term and not a specific name. User talk:YEPPOON

Special force or not

Are SWAT teams special forces or special operations? There has been a limited discussion of this perviously, but it has become an issue so it would be good if we can reach a consensus.

My opinion is that they are not, and that a special force is military. See the following: Special Force (which doesn't count because it's another Wikipedia article), [6] this shows that the definition of a "special force" is tied to being a military asset, ask.com (not reliable). What is the community's opinion on this? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, 'special forces' are primarily military/paramilitary. SWAT is Special weapons and tactics, and is part of a city's police force. I do not think the tag of special forces is appropriate to them. A reliable source can be the LAPD SWAT webpage. In their own words, they are police tactical units in contemporary law enforcement. Open to be proved otherwise. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• They are not special forces, consensus was achieved before and I see nothing indicating it has changed. We routinely have an editor, usually an IP editor, that didn't participate in the discussion before come in and try to force it in, but that is easily fixed. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Reverted to earlier state, as consensus was achieved in the past against adding this, and seems not to have changed. Anir1uph (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Professionalism

I challenge the declaration that the 'professionalism' of the Department was part of the reason people know of SWAT through the LA unit, not because they're not professional, but on the grounds that 'professionalism' isn't a measure that can be assigned unambiguously, and almost by definition has to be used with bias.

Unless wikipedia's job is to distinguish between the professionality of different police departments, delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.54.191 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

General acceptance

What counts as a 'general acceptance' of SWAT as a resource for Los Angeles? What about 1974 made it the magic time of general acceptance? Does anyone know? If not, delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.54.191 (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Vote for SWAT being a Police Special Forces Unit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am initiating a vote to change the first paragraph of the article to say that "SWAT is a Police Special Forces tactical unit" or "SWAT is a Police Special Operations unit" because the fact is that the SWAT is a type of Special Forces unit in the Police force. They use the same tactics and equipment as military SpecOps and in many cases are even trained by the same military Special Forces instructors. Let's change the article now:

SUPPORT for SWAT being a Police Special Forces Unit

117.90.245.113 (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per the earlier consensus. This was already decided and that discussion archived. However, editors like you keep linking it to the military definition and it simply doesn't apply. Military SpecOps and law enforcement have some very different parameters and objectives. Additionally, just because some agency uses a term like "special operations" doesn't make them the equivalent to military special operations. As a side note, I do appreciate the attempt to discuss this time rather than edit war like before.Niteshift36 (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Who are you to judge??? If you don't think SWAT is a Special Operations unit, then prove it with evidence instead of trying to get your gang of wikipedia editor friends to try and force your opinionated and biased point of view on Wikipedia. 49.84.13.116 (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support for the change. 121.232.251.115 (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• How interesting that your IP and edit history parallel the other IP editor. Just FYI, this will not be changed by a mere popular vote.Niteshift36 (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support The previous editors do indeed have a point, as the Swat team is an elite unit within the law enforcement community.And they use the term Special Operations in their units. 180.118.52.131 (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• And another editor from the same city and same provider. Amazing coincidence. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Being an "elite unit" doesn't mean the same thing as "special forces". Additionally, the term special operations can be applied anywhere. A local agency has a "special operations" section, which includes vice investigations, the auto theft unit and gang unit because the all conduct some sort of specialized operations. I think a notice to those previously involved and the law enforcement project is in order. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per discussion here. Reliable sources would be needed to change the existing consensus. Otherwise, the proposed change would be Wikipedia:OR. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 14:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• For those interested, the appearence of socking here has led to a SPI request: [7]. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

To those reading this, the above editors Anir1uph and Niteshift36 (talk) have engaged in so called "sockpuppet investigations" because they both know that they have virtually NO case to justify their biased opinions that SWAT are not Special Operations. They are police haters, and just so you know you two are the ones claiming that SWAT is not a Special Operations unit, so the burden of proof is on you to prove it against the majority consensus of the whole world that SWAT is indeed a Special Operations Unit.

To show you this, even the Los Angeles Police Department SWAT webpage specifically saids: In 1983, the Department sent three SWAT supervisors to Europe to evaluate and develop the techniques employed by military groups such as the German GSG-9, French GIGN, and the legendary British 22nd SAS. The LAPD SWAT did this to learn the Special Forces tactics of GSG-9, GIGN and the British SAS. The LAPD SWAT is also a full time SWAT unit that is in every capability on the same level as any other military SpecOps unit. Are you going to try and claim that the SAS are not Special Forces also??? 49.84.13.116 (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Police haters? You're funny. I guess you haven't read through the archives. Otherwise you'd know how silly that allegation is. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Another sockpuppet. Who they train with is not a the issue. SWAT is a civilian agency, SAS/GIGN etc are military. Legal issues aside, they have different objectives and operational guidelines. SWAT teams often train with fire departments too, but that doesn't make them fire fighters. They train with EMS, but that doesn't make them paramedics. They absolutely learn from military units, but that doesn't make them the same thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

And GSG 9 is German Federal Police Special Operations unit. The fact that both SWAT and SAS, GIGN and the German POLICE GSG 9 all train in the same tactics to the same level qualifies SWAT as a Special Operations unit. Where is your evidence that SWAT is NOT a Special Operations unit. Find me some sources that say that otherwise your argument is weak and pathetically invalid. 117.90.244.192 (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)— 117.90.244.192 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Weak oppose given that "Special forces, or special operations forces are military units" per special forces and my understanding of the term. And Niteshif36t, could you not open a WP:SPI if you've got grounds for suspecting that the IPs are all one person attempting to sway consensus? Ah, you already have. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• SUPPORT 117.90.244.192 (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)— 117.90.244.192 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• How many different people do you plan to pretend to be? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please provide evidence to support your view that SWAT is supposedly not a Special Operations unit. There is no differentiation between so-called military and civilian SpecOps units. The FBI Hostage Rescue Team which if you had actually been an operator for Special Operations units would know that the FBI HRT, which is also a law enforcement unit,is accepted by members of the Special Operations community around the world as one of the best Special Forces units in the world on par with Navy SEAL Team Sixand Delta Force. Even the CIA has their branch of Special Operations operators within their Special Activities Division and they are considered so-called "civilians." 117.90.244.192 (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)— 117.90.244.192 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• There absolutely is a difference between the two. Does a Special Forces team recon by fire routinely? Sure. Can a civilian SWAT team do that? Not a chance. Ever heard of Posse Comitatus? It might not be a big deal in China, but it sure is the law here. FBI HRT does accept members that were SEAL's etc. They also accept members who were never in the military. That proves nothing. The CIA is entirely different from all of this. You can play the "if you'd been...." game all you want sport, I know where I've served. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• How ignorant you are of the laws regarding law enforcement. Don't you know that the ONLY reason why the Posse Comitatus was enacted by Congress for the sole purpose of limiting the power of the U.S. federal goverment in using military operators to enforce the laws of each of the 50 states. Which means that if there is another terrorist attack on American soil, it's NOT going to be any military SpecOps unit that will respond to a domestic terror attack, not Force Recon, not Navy SEALs, not Delta Force. It is the regional SWAT Teams from various police departments and the FBI SWAT or HRT as well as other Emergency Response Teams, Special Response Teams from the ATF and Secret Service Counter Assault Teams that will respond to this immediately threat. The point being, the Police force, being a civilian paramilitary force, serves the purpose of the military in the absence of a military presence in U.S. cities due to the Posse Comitatus law. We the Police SWAT operators ARE the paramilitary Special Operations operators that deal with all the main threats against the people of the USA. Everything from terror attacks to active shooters, hostile barricaded suspects, hostage scenarios, crime suppression against hostile gangs are all dealt with by SWAT and NOT any other military SpecOps unit. 180.118.163.207 (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC) — 180.118.163.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You have to explain why you think that only the military can use the term "Special Forces" or "Special Operations" !

180.118.163.207 (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)— 180.118.163.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• No sock puppet, I have nothing to explain to you. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• To Mr. Niteshift36, you have "nothing to explain" because you have NOTHING to back up your biased point of view that SWAT is supposedly not a Special Operations unit according to your flawed reasoning. 180.118.163.207 (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)— 180.118.163.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support Having read the arguments for both sides I conclude that SWAT being a Police Special Force Unit simply is the more reasonable choice. In addition, SWAT considers itself as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.j.schuster (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Based on what? I always find it interesting when an account that has only 6 edits in the past 2.5 years stumbles into a discussion like this. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• To Niteshift36 (talk), I find you to be very hypocritical and showing a double standard. You accuse the above editor of "stumbles into a discussion" after "only 6 edits in the past 2.5 years" when you are the one who is constantly stumbling onto this SWAT page, to the point of constantly edit warring and babysitting this page. You claim that SWAT is NOT Special Operations, but yet, all the public sources ranging from Police department websites to even Special Forces websites recognize SWAT as a Special Operations unit. If you want to bring your highschool kid fantasy to this page, you NEED to bring sourced material proving and showing that "SWAT is NOT a Special Operations or Special Forces unit" and until you can provide sources for your view you have no justification in putting your opinion here on this SWAT article and despite all your puny and pathetic efforts to try to get administrators to block editors who oppose you and your vandalistic attempts to edit war this page by having your gang of Wikipedia geeks constantly push your POV edits is not only insanely ridiculous, it is in violation of official Wikipedia guidelines on editing pages and maintaining Neutral Point of View. You and your Wikipedia geeks need to get a real life and stop hiding behind the computer screen, get yourself a girlfriend, and do something for real. And as for your claims about serving, which unit did you serve you in?

Are you a SWAT operator? 180.118.163.207 (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)— 180.118.163.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I don't think you served in anything except serving yourself breakfast, lunch and dinner. Judging from your ignorance it sounds like the only unit you served in is in your videogames and movies. Obese weekend warriors and couch potatoes like you are NOT qualified to be editing the SWAT page, you should be editing pages about food, eating and obesity as well as the future diseases you will have due to your obese out of shape body, such as diabetes, cardiac infarction, stroke and fatty liver. 180.118.163.207 (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)— 180.118.163.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The fact remains that all you do is talk and get your gang of Wikipedia friends to help you edit war and push your POV onto the page but you have not even made the slightest effort to provide proof or reputable sources that SWAT is not a Special Operations unit. 180.118.163.207 (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)— 180.118.163.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Unlike you, Wikipedia readers around the world will see the evidence that shows SWAT being a SpecOps unit. I am providing recognized, reputable sources directly from the Police departments themselves as conclusive proof that SWAT is a Special Operations unit, notice that each of these Police departments specificially state "Special Operations" implying that they are indeed Special Forces. There is no possibility that they are using some "alternate" meaning for Special Operations like you previously erroneously suggested. If you want to make that stupid claim that the meaning Special Operations is different for military and paramilitary forces in the Police, you need to get real and get an education on this topic. There is no difference in the way the military and Police SpecOps units use the term Special Operations, they both imply the same thing that the military SpecOps units of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and Marines and the SpecOps units of the Police and Sheriffs departments, FBI, U.S. Marshall Service and Secret Service are all Special Forces. 180.118.163.207 (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)— 180.118.163.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Look below for indisputable evidence from the Special Operations website and Police departments that SWAT is a Special Operations or Special Forces unit:

Here is a list of different Military and Police SWAT Special Forces units listed TOGETHER in the American Special Ops website under the SAME banner and title of SPECIAL OPERATIONS, showing that there is NO difference in the usage of the term "Special Operations" between military and police SpecOps units. Additionally even the American Special Ops site specifically states "Special Weapons and Tactics teams (SWAT) are special operations units in civilian law enforcement agencies such as County Police Departments, Sheriff Departments, US Marshall service, the FBI etc" For more evidence see here:

1.) http://www.americanspecialops.com/special-weapons-and-tactics/

2.) http://www.americanspecialops.com/

3.) http://www.americanspecialops.com/fbi-swat/

4.) http://www.specialoperations.com/Domestic/SWAT/swatops.html

5.) http://www.nashville.gov/Police-Department/Field-Operations/Special-Operations/SWAT-and-Negotiation/SWAT-Team.aspx

6.) http://www.cityofknoxville.org/kpd/swat.asp

7.) Texas Rangers Special Operations Group

Additionally even the military has a military police branch that also includes SWAT, which is virtually identical in function and capability to their "civilian" police SWAT counterpart, none of the "differences" that you are claiming. Read here: http://www.americanspecialops.com/military-swat/

Quit wasting my time and show me the evidence that supports your views otherwise this SWAT page WILL BE CHANGED whether you like it or not due to you lack of ability to provide sources and proof backing up your false claims! Provide sources to support your personal point of view otherwise you have no case or justification for saying that SWAT is NOT a Special Operations unit. 180.118.163.207 (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)— 180.118.163.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Listen jack, I don't give a rats furry butt what you think I have or haven't served in. You're another internet troll that tries to hide behind multiple account. As for your "sources", most don't pass RS. The couple that do don't call SWAT "special forces" and they use the term special operations in a completely different context. I considered the idea that maybe you just struggle with comprehending English, but after your last string of personal attacks, I realize it's a much deeper issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I only engaged in personal attack because you were the first to engage in a personal attack against us! An eye for eye a tooth for a tooth, so quit attacking us if you don't want to be attacked back! Now if we are to be civilised again, let's try to reason with each other. You need open your eyes, each of those Police Department websites and the American Special Ops and Special Operations website all specifically states "Special Operations" in their SWAT page, implying Special Forces, no difference, there is absolutely NO way you can deny that! Everyone of the sources we provided is reputable and legitimate, direct from the respective police departments and organizations, you don't have to be an IQ 200 super genius to understand that! Every Wikipedia reader can see for themselves the reputable evidence provided proving that SWAT is a Special Operations unit. Now if you want to make a compromise with me, I am willing to accept the term "Special Operations" instead of "Special Forces" for use in the SWAT article, what do you think??? :)180.118.163.207 (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC) — 180.118.163.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support This debate is most very surprise, it is must understand, very clear, Swat Team become very good, it is Special Forces, even in Phillipines we have SWAT and it recognize as Special Forces. 114.229.248.69 (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)— 114.229.248.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• And yet another sock. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

More personal attacks against me due to Mr. Niteshift36 (talk)'s inability to provide proof and reputable sources saying that SWAT is not a Special Operations unit. Despite the fact that I have provided numerous sources to back up my position that SWAT is INDEED a Special Operations or Police Special Forces unit. See above! :) 180.118.163.207 (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)— 180.118.163.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• What personal attack? Unless you're now confessing that you are the other IP's as well? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Mr.Niteshift36 Where is your evidence and proof supporting your false POV that SWAT is NOT a Special Operations unit, stop wasting precious time and show some reputable sources otherwise make a compromise with us on using the term "Police Special Operations" instead of "Police Special Forces" for the SWAT article?180.118.163.207 (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC))— 180.118.163.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Mr.Niteshift36 Again, we have presented to you irrefutable evidence proving that SWAT is a Special Operations or Special Forces unit, however you want to call it, and now the millions of Wikipedia readers reading this page every minute can see that you have provided absolutely NO evidence or reliable sources proving your false reasoning that SWAT is supposedly NOT a Special Operations or Special Forces unit. Prove you viewpoint with other evidence because the whole world, millions of Wikipedia readers, are watching and realizing that you have done nothing except edit war....oh did we mention Gang edit warring with your group of Wikipedia weekend warriors...instead of providing evidence to back up your claim that SWAT is not a Special Operations unit....Show me even just one or two sources that back up what you say!!! 180.118.163.207 (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)— 180.118.163.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support 121.232.240.148 (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)— 121.232.240.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename to police paramilitary unit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Obviously, "police paramilitary unit" is not common enough to be the title. I appreciate the thoughtful comments. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

---

SWAT → police paramilitary unit – "SWAT team" is by far the most common term for these units in the United States, but it seems odd to apply it to similar units in other countries (like London's Specialist Firearms Command or Germany's GSG 9). This article needs a more worldwide scope, so perhaps we should rename this article "police paramilitary unit", which is the preferred scholarly umbrella term (although like many scholarly terms it's not super widely known). For quotes supporting this, see the section below. If this proposal fails, I'll propose a move to "SWAT team" instead. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence

• Widely used in policing textbooks
  • "Most large police departments operate or participate as members in a SWAT, tactical, or police paramilitary unit."—Introduction to Criminal Justice, Cengage (2011)
  • "Most police departments in the United States now have police paramilitary units (PPUs)."—Policing in America, Routledge (2014)
  • "Police paramilitary unit (PPU) is a term made popular by Peter Kraska and Victor Kapeller in the 1990s to refer to units within a police department that are organized in a more militaristic manner...The term includes units, also referred to as SWAT teams or special response units, that are 'distinguished by the power and number of weapons'".—An Introduction to Policing, Cengage (2013)
  • Police paramilitary unit has two mentions in the index, where SWAT team has only one. (The page itself isn't available on Google Books)—Introduction to Policing, SAGE (2013)
  • SWAT units is the main term, but also uses paramilitary police units.—An Introduction to American Policing, Jones and Bartlett (2011)
• Other examples
  • "This militarization is evidenced by a precipitous rise and mainstreaming of police paramilitary units (PPUs). These police units, referred to most often as SWAT teams or special response teams..."—Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement, SAGE (2004)
  • "...embodied in what the international literature calls police paramilitary units (PPUs). These units are known most commonly in the United States as SWAT or special response teams."—Justice Quarterly (1997)
  • Google Scholar results for "police paramilitary unit" and "police paramilitary units".

Discussion

• Oppose. PPU is made up predominately by Kraska and most of your "evidence" refers back to him. The first 4 things you cite mention the term with Kraska. Can't see the 5th one. And Ghits are evidence of nothing. The fact is, PPU isn't a popular term at all. It's more akin to a neologism that never really caught on and trying to elevate it here is just the sort of puffery that Kraska seeks. SWAT has become a generic term that is used, even when a unit has a different name (SRT, ERT etc), just like "Band-Aid" is used for adhesive bandages not necessarily with that brand name. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It does seem to trace back to Kraska, but I'm impressed with the fact that pretty much all the policing textbooks I could find used the term. That suggests it's now quite common on the scholarly level. I see the argument for "SWAT team", but to me it just doesn't seem to apply outside the American context. I can see it going either way though.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you put evidence in scare quotes. My evidence might be outweighed by things pointing in the other direction, but it's still evidence. :) —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• 1) It's not a common term. And quotation marks are quotation marks. Calling them scare quotes and needlessly wikilinking to the term doesn't change that. Your "evidence" is a single source, repeated in a couple of venues. What you have not shown is the term being commonly used without Kraska being used. Apparently, I'm not the only one who disagrees. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. A scholarly umbrella term that is not super widely known seems to violate both WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME. And as Niteshift36 mentioned, all that evidence cited above refers back to Peter Kraska, which indicates that it may be a neologism. If the goal is trying to find an article title that fits WP:COMMONALITY, it should be something common, not an unfamiliar neologism, to all varieties of English. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose SWAT is one of the common names, the other common name is police tactical unit or variant thereof, not the proposed title. Tactical team, tactical unit, tactical squad. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. There should certainly be a separate article about worldwide police tactical units (there is already List of special police units), but this article is actually almost entirely about the American version and should be repurposed to be entirely about American units. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article must be supported with references from third-party journalistic or academic articles

In a series of recent edits I have attempted to improve this article by bringing in third party journalistic sources and expanding the description of what SWAT teams actually do in the United States. These edits have been reverted by User:Niteshift36.

This article is in desperate need of sources: many whole paragraphs are currently unsourced and before my editing here, some sections were wholly or almost wholly sourced by links to the Los Angeles Police Department website. This situation is unnecessary: a tremendous number of academic and journalistic sources discuss SWAT teams and their activities in the United States, especially now that there is a national conversation about militarized police forces. According to many sources, most SWAT raids conducted today are used to serve search warrants, many against individuals not suspected of violent crime. Often SWAT teams conduct "administrative searches" without warrants at all: some U.S. counties mandate that otherwise routine searches be conducted by SWAT times.

Perhaps we can begin to collate sources here on the talk page, only remove sources if it is demonstrated that a source is unreliable or unimportant to the subject. For instance the barbershop incident was widely written on throughout the United States, in each case within the context of a discussion regarding SWAT team scope in America. Surely this is therefore relevant?

Lastly, the article lead really needs to describe what a SWAT team actually is and does, and not simply list what kinds of really exciting weapons they carry. Removing the information on how many SWAT raids occur yearly in the United States, and what the vast majority of these raids are meant to do, is equivalent to removing the useful portion of the lead altogether. -Darouet (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• A big part of my revert is that you found a single source, the Salon article, and put a ton of stock into it. You used it for several changes, including to the lead. As I specified, there is an issue with the ACLU cherry-picking some stats and then presenting it like it's an indisputable fact. Yes, many SWAT uses are to serve search warrants and the article already says that serving warrants is part of their normal use. The addition of "not for violent crimes" is misleading. The ACLU can spout this out of context, but they fail to recognize that just because the present warrant is for a non-violent crime, there is no assurance that it will stay that way. To illustrate: Say a documented gang member, with 2 armed robbery convictions has a warrant for grand theft. That's a "non-violent crime", yet there is a persistent possibility of violence, especially if the state is a 3 strikes state and that "non-violent" grand theft will be the 3rd strike that puts him in prison for life. If you're going to present the ACLU version, you have to provide the balance from a reliable source. If not, then we don't include the ACLU version of reality, because it creates a distorted view and a NPOV issue. (No, I'm not saying everything has to show both sides, but in this case, the lack of balance is an issue). And it truly won't belong in the lead, then get repeated almost verbatim in a second section. Next, you made a point about "often" being used for administrative searches. That's an issue. First off, the "often" isn't really that often. You talk about the barbershop case and are looking at it incorrectly. The issue is not whether it happened or if it was discussed in multiple sources. The problem is that you take a very isolated incident and lump it in as an example of something that "often" happens. That's false. It doesn't happen "often". And while the article DOES need info on what a team actually does, it needs it from a source that's not making a point (such as the ACLU). Presenting a number and hearing only the voice of someone who is pointedly against SWAT interpret it is not balanced in any way. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The Salon article is just a summary of what many other sources, including America's leading papers, have been writing. You say that the ACLU has cherry-picked stats, but I've looked online and found no accusations of that kind made against them regarding SWAT teams, and you haven't brought any of those forward. Furthermore, major newspapers cite their statistics and give them credence, so it seems as though the charge that they have messed up their statistics is false. Concerning context, some of the news articles do mention that these are drug search warrants, so that's fine, we should mention that. Some of the news articles I've read mention the availability of statistics on the threat of violence from suspects during these raids, so rather than remove sources that don't give a context you want, you should simply provide those numbers. That will require looking them up. Many articles cover the historical context, which we can do too. As to whether information about barbershop shop raids should be included, that's a matter of due weight policy and notability. If many mainstream articles mention barbershop raids when discussing SWAT raids, it shows you that they consider the raids an important aspect of SWAT policing in the United States, and that noting the raids is critical to giving a balanced perspective on SWAT policing in the United States. Lastly, neutrality is something that's established by the tone of the reliable sources we use, and common sense: it's not an exercise in apologizing for, discounting, ignoring, or arguing against what the vast majority of sources say about SWAT teams. -Darouet (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• BTW, the "exciting weapons" list you (seemingly sarcastically) mention had to be extensively sourced because some other editor breezed in, challenged everything, and then left. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not exactly being sarcastic, I'm just amazed that this is the only part of the article that's sourced! -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. User:Niteshift36 looking through the talk pages I see you've done a lot of great work, and you also know that most SWAT activity is routine - don't you think this should be in the first paragraph of the lead? I very much disagree with your assessment of Kraska though, who is simply documenting what SWAT teams do and how they've evolved. There doesn't have to be anything controversial about that. Furthermore, his discussion of the "militarization" of police is hardly off-base, since this is the point of SWAT teams, and everyone knows that they have grown hugely in number since their inception. -Darouet (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Lastly - you say that the ACLU "cherry picking stats out of context isn't helpful," but these stats have been reprinted by news organizations and appear consistent with research by others. Do we have any publications demonstrating that the ACLU has messed up their stats? -Darouet (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• It really doesn't matter is you like or dislike Kraska. I've read many of his writings for over a decade and I am very comfortable with everything I say about him. He's not simply documenting anything. Kraska has been a crusader for over a decade and will continue to be one. Just because news outlets have repeated a stat doesn't make it a) correct or b) in context. I won't even dispute the accuracy of the number of SWAT uses (raids is a POV word), but I will repeat that they present no context at all and rely heavily on weasel words like "many" and "often" to make their point (and yes, they're making a point). If SWAT serves a search warrant on a Sinola Cartel stash house for drugs, it's a "non-violent crime", but there is nothing non-violent about the Sinola Cartel. Again, if you're going to use the POV writings of the ACLU, you need balance to provide context. You can't only tell half the story and call it an improvement. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, we can't simply discount statistics on the basis of context that we could easily provide, but don't. If warrants are being served for drugs, we can just say that. Agree with you on weasel words, except that if we have the stats we can back up "many" or "often" with numbers - only using those might be better. Anyway thanks for your comments; I'll be able to work more on this shortly. -Darouet (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is, we can't easily provide the context. Take the example I presented of the "non-violent crime" of drug possession that has a very real element of danger. Where will you find that context? Now, if you want to try to be less specific about a ratio/percentage and then balance with the broader point that it's not always what it seems....that may be workable. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not true: we can provide the context and are doing so. If sources provide context but it's not the one you want, then go find other sources and include them too, but don't delete information because it doesn't say what you want it to. -Darouet (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Don't be dismissive with me. It's not a question of the source not saying what I want. You can squelch that noise already. It's the lack of balance. If you can't provide a balanced format, you don't get to include half the story. You have as much of a responsibility to ensure that the info you add is done in a NPOV manner as anyone else does. What you're essentially doing here is demanding that I provide thebalance without even attempting it yourself. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Niteshift36 I'm not dismissing you and I'm sorry if I've given you that impression. I'm spending a lot of time here because it seems to me you are dismissing what all reliable sources are writing about SWAT teams, and removing these sources from the article, because you believe they're leaving out critical information that would provide context to readers. I don't agree: I think that these sources provide plenty of context, and citing them will provide balance that I think is adequate. If you believe that other information is important and must be included, it's not my job to try and find support for your view in the published literature. Frankly, I don't see it, and that's why we disagree about what is neutral in this case. -Darouet (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources and statistics for SWAT teams in the United States

I'm compiling sources here, and noting relevant or important information from them, when I can or have time. This way if a source is removed from the article we can quickly access it here. When adding a source, please note if it is a news article, opinion piece or blog, if possible.

Overall these sources paint a very similar picture, cite the same numbers and experts, and provide some political context (war on drugs, militarization of American policing) for the developments in the use of SWAT teams in the states. For this reason I'm confident we can improve this article. If anyone has any objections to any of these sources (e.g. reliability, POV) please note them here in discussion below. -Darouet (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Textbooks or academic books

Policing in America, by Larry K. Gaines & Victor E. Kappeler, published by Routledget 2014 (textbook), [8]:

• "Myth: Police tactical teams or SWAT units are used primarily in high-risk and very dangerous situations where police are responding to violent crime incidents. Reality: The vast majority of police deployments of tactical teams are used for the service of routine search and arrest warrants."

“Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement,” edited by Larry E Sullivan, Marie Simonetti Rosen, Dorothy M Schulz, M. R. Haberfel, SAGE Publications, 2004 [9]:

• “To some police observers… the traditional delineations between the military, police, and criminal justice system are blurring. In breaking with a long-standing tenet of democratic governance and a central feature of the modern nation-state, the traditional roles of the military handling threats to our nation’s exernal security though threatening or actually waging war, and the police targeting internal security problems such as crime and illegal drugs, are becoming increasingly intermingled. This blurring began with the military’s heavy involvement in drug law enforcement during the Reagan/Bush drug war and has only broadened and deepened over the past 10 years. It is within this broader sociopolitical context that we can understand the recent and certain trend toward the militarization of a key component of U.S. police.”
• “Militarism… is a set of beliefs, values, and assumptions that stresses the use of force and violence as the most appropriate and efficacious means to solve problems… Similarly, militarization… is the process of arming, organizing, planning, training for, and sometimes implementing violent conflict. To militarize means adopting and applying the central elements of the military model or an organization or particular situation.”
• Indicators of militarization include culture: “martial language, style (appearance), thinking;” organization: “martial arrangements such as command and control centers, or elite teams of officers patterned after military special operations squads;” operation: “patterns of activity modeled after the military, such as in the areas of intelligence, supervision, or handling of high-risk situations;” material: “martial equipment and technology.”
• Until recently, these units were only a peripheral part of large police departments’ reaction to the rare hostage, barricaded suspect, or civil disturbance incident. As of 1996, 89% of American police departments serving populations of 50,000 people or more had a PPU, almost double what existed in the early 1980s. Their growth in smaller jurisdictions (agencies serving between 25,000 and 50,000 people) has been even more pronounced.
• There has been a more than 1000% increase in the total number of police paramilitary deployments, or call-outs, between 1980 and 1997. Today, there are an estimated 40,000 SWAT team deployements a year conducted among those departments surveyed; in the early 1980s, there were an average of about 3000.
• These figures would not be as controversial if this increase in deployments was due to an increase in the PPU’s traditional function – a reactive deployment of high-risk specialists for particularly dangerous events already in progress, such as hostage, sniper, or terrorist situations. Instead, more than 80% of these deployments, and hence 80% of the growth of activity, were for proactive drug raids, specifically no-knock or quick-knock dynamic entries into private residences searching for contraband (drugs, guns, money).
• Nearly 20% of departments use their units as least periodically and some cases routinely, as a patrol force in high-crime areas.
• One SWAT commander describes their approach: “We’re into saturation patrols in hot spots. We do a lot of our work with the SWAT unit because we have bigger guns. We send out two, two-to-four men cars, we look for minor violations and do jump-outs, either on people on the street or automobiles. After we jump-out the second car provides over with an ostentatious display of weaponry (quoted from Kraska & Kappeler, 1997)”
• “Of course, a militarized response is sometimes necessary and even unavoidable if done in self-defense or to protect lives in immediate danger… The crisis situation at Columbine High School is a solid example of the necessity of having a professional militarized response to a preexisting crisis… Quick-knock contraband raids and preventative patrol work, however, are examples of proactive violence where civilian police, and political officials who encourage this type of policing, are not forced into these deployments.”
• Social tumult of 1960s including protests, riots, rising violence, other social problems led to police reforms including creation of SWAT teams. The need for such teams was demonstrated by the Whitman sniper shootings in Austin.
• Many police departments of all sizes have developed SWAT teams, often calling them “Special Response Teams,” “Tactical Action Groups,” or “Emergency Response Teams.” Today, SWAT units protect dignitaries, tail criminal suspects, conduct stakeouts, respond to suicidal individuals, serve “search-and-arrest warrants warrants that pose a higher-than-normal risk of injury to officers.”
• Larger police agencies will have full-time SWAT teams, whereas other agencies assign officers to SWAT teams on a part-time basis, or create multi-jurisdictional SWAT teams serving a series of smaller agencies in a geographic region.
• Over time, SWAT team methods and equipment have developed, including in the area of hostage negoatiation.
• Some observers critical of increased use of SWAT teams to serve drug search warrants, arguing that this approach represents the militarization of policing and pointing to mishaps during search warrants as evidence that using SWAT teams for such work is misguided.
• Accidental shooting of 12-year-old in California drug raid led California attorney general to convene fact finding mission with mixed conclusions.

"An Introduction to Policing", by John Dempsey and Linda Forst, Cengage Learning 2013 (textbook, ebook) [10]:

• "SWAT teams were created in many cities during the 1960s, generally in response to riots and similar disturbances. The first SWAT team was the Philadelphia Police Department's 100-officer SWAT squad, which was organized in 1964 in response to the growing number of bank robberies throughout the city."
• "SWAT teams are commonly used around the country but sometimes have other names. Some people believe that the name SWAT sounds a little too aggressive and militaristic, and some cities have chosen variations of the title for the same type of team, such as special response unit (SRU) or special response team (SRT)."
• The number of PPUs has grown tremendously since the 1970s, when fewer than 10 percent of police departments had them; in 1995, 89 percent of departments had such a unit. The use of these units over the years has also changed from handling the occasional dangerous situation call-outs to being involved on a more routine basis in such things serving high-risk search warrants and arrest warrants. Kraska and Kappeler found that 20 percent of the departments they surveyed used PPUs for patrolling urban areas on a somewhat regular basis.
• "Most of these units were created in the 1980s and 1990s, and their use has become more prevalent due to the increased violence in our communities and the use of more lethal weapons by criminals… the effect of these paramilitary units can be particularly relevant when they are seen patrolling the streets with all their militaristic equipment or are present at public gatherings or demonstrations, as in the recent 'occupy' movement around the country."
• "Some critics believe that use of paramilitary units and military-like equipment is becoming more prevalent and is resulting in cases of unnecessary force and intimidation of residents. However, law enforcement would rather overreact in terms of resources than have someone get hurt. In fact, in some cases, police departments have been criticized when they served what should have been perceived as a high-risk warrant without using one of these highly trained teams and it resulted in someone getting hurt or killed."

A. James Fischer book published by ABC-CLIO, 2010 [11]:

• Cites Kraska and Kappeler statistics and studies, 50,000 raids per year, etc.
• Former NYPD commissioner says "where the suspect might be armed, we would call in a special tactics unit. Over time though, it became common [practice] to always use the tactical unit no matter what or who the warrant was for. The used stun grenades each time and looked at it [the raids] as practice."
• In 2006, police made 2 million drug arrests, resulting in the deaths of 2 police officers, a low number due to the military style of the raids.
• More statistics on deaths of civilians, suspects, police.
• Much more: this book will be helpful.

News articles

The Washington Post news article, 26 June 2014 [12]:

• Some SWAT police in Massachusetts are run by "Law Enforcement Councils" (LECs) like the "North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council" (NEMLEC). Some of these LECs, including NEMLEC, have incorporated as 501(3)(c), claiming that they are private corporations and therefore immune from open record requests.
• "…procuring empirical records from police departments and regional SWAT teams in Massachusetts about police militarization was universally difficult and, in most instances, impossible."
• Acquiring data from SWAT teams around the country can be difficult - for instance units can response to requests with claims of exemption - but the Massachusetts LEC SWAT team response is on a different level.
• ACLU is suing NEMLEC, which in 2009 paid "out $200,000 to settle allegations that it made false claims related to the use of Justice Department grant funds.”

The Economist news article, 22 March 2014 [13]:

• Article cites Kraska and his numbers extensively.
• Notes cases involving gambling, cockfighting, under-age drinking, gambling, etc.
• "Because of a legal quirk, SWAT raids can be profitable. Rules on civil asset-forfeiture allow the police to seize anything which they can plausibly claim was the proceeds of a crime. Crucially, the property-owner need not be convicted of that crime. If the police find drugs in his house, they can take his cash and possibly the house, too. He must sue to get them back. Many police departments now depend on forfeiture for a fat chunk of their budgets. In 1986, its first year of operation, the federal Asset Forfeiture Fund held $93.7m. By 2012, that and the related Seized Asset Deposit Fund held nearly $6 billion."
• Article cites ACLU.
• Raids "often" rely on no-knock warrants, "often" at night, accompanied by flash-bang grenades.
• "Others retort that Mr Balko and his allies rely too much on cherry-picked examples of raids gone wrong. Tragic accidents happen and some police departments use their SWAT teams badly, but most use them well, says Lance Eldridge, a former army officer and ex-sheriff’s deputy in Colorado."

The Washington Post news article, 17 February 2014 [14]:

• Data hard to acquire, but where available in Maryland, 4.5 SWAT raids occur daily.
• 90% SWAT raids in Maryland are made to serve search warrants.
• 66% SWAT raids use forced entry.
• Half of raids targeted "nonviolent" crime suspects, "vast majority" for drug suspects.
• 15% of raids involve no seizure contraband, 30% result in no arrests.
• Article cites Kraska, 50-80,000 raids yearly and growing.

The Wall Street Journal Saturday essay article, 7 August 2013 [15]:

• "Since the 1960s, in response to a range of perceived threats, law-enforcement agencies across the U.S., at every level of government, have been blurring the line between police officer and soldier. Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment—from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers—American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield."
• Article cites Kraska figures on growth of SWAT teams: 80% small cities have SWAT team, 50,000 raids/year, etc.
• In Reagan administration, SWAT-team methods converged with the drug war… "Advocates of these tactics said that drug dealers were acquiring ever bigger weapons and the police needed to stay a step ahead in the arms race. There were indeed a few high-profile incidents in which police were outgunned, but no data exist suggesting that it was a widespread problem."
• Raids against gambling: "The past decade also has seen an alarming degree of mission creep for U.S. SWAT teams. When the craze for poker kicked into high gear, a number of police departments responded by deploying SWAT teams to raid games in garages, basements and VFW halls where illegal gambling was suspected. According to news reports and conversations with poker organizations, there have been dozens of these raids, in cities such as Baltimore, Charleston, S.C., and Dallas."
• Examples involving raids against suspected gambling, underage drinking, Tibetan buddhist monks overstaying visas.
• Examples of innocent people killed during raids for drugs or gambling.
• Militarized recruitment videos "tend to attract recruits for the wrong reasons."

Al Jazeera news episode, 28 February 2014 [16].

New York Times news article, 7 September 2014 [17]:

• Begins with discussion Posse comitatus: military forces may not be used as police in the U.S.
• Tracks growth of SWAT teams since inception, originally conceived for dangerous/violent confrontations.
• "To these units’ defenders, the need could not be more fundamental: The world is dangerous. Some drug lords have weaponry that would be the envy of small armies; the police cannot possibly take them on with mere handguns. Terrorism lurks as an ever-present threat. And sudden menace demanding a well-armed police response can arise even in the most tranquil places. Indeed, the roster of place names identified principally with gun horrors has grown long: Newtown, Columbine, Aurora, Virginia Tech. On and on. Not surprisingly, critics of militarized policing have a different take."
• Cites D.C. sergeant Connelly, and researcher Kraska.
• "Now, these teams execute routine warrants in “no-knock” drug raids, bursting into homes with a show of force that often far exceeds the threat to them. The number of such raids has exploded from a few thousand a year in the early 1980s to tens of thousands today. Other critics, like the American Civil Liberties Union, note a stark racial disparity, with blacks and Latinos more likely than whites to be targets."
• Cites Reagan assistant defense secretary Korb.
• "After all that happened in Ferguson, a backlash against militarized policing has gained force."

Le Monde (France's most respected paper) piece on America's militarized police, 21 August 2014 [18]:

• SWAT teams équivalent to GIGN in France.
• Deployed so much more since 1980s that Kraska estimates 80% cities over 25,000 have SWAT teams.
• Cites more Kraska statistics.
• "These units are largely used in low intensity operations, such as the execution of a search warrant. These frightening raids disproportionately target minorities.

Reports

ACLU report, June 2014, [19].

Editorials and opinion pieces

Policeone.com "P1 first person essay", 15 August 2013 [20]:

Children's books

C. D. Goranson book "Police Swat Teams: Life on High Alert," Rosen Publishing Group "Extreme Careers" series, 2003 [21]:

• "Twenty Attention-Grabbing Career Titles Guaranteed to Get Your Middle Schoolers Thinking About Their Future This compelling new series for the middle school reader is designed to appeal to the thrill seeker in all of us. Each book includes information about a different extreme career, with a focus on safety and training. Readers will learn what it takes to get into these professions and what to expect when embarking on one. These volumes also provide information on the exciting aspects of these extreme careers and highlight the possible dangers and risks involved. Colorful photographs and informative sidebars help to make these books an invaluable resource for those young readers looking for a thrilling and fun-filled profession."

Niteshift36 comment

• First, notice how much of this all loops back to one source: Kraska and Balko. We're giving a ton of weight to two crusaders.
  

Second, just because something gets printed doesn't mean it gets included. For example, the thing about MA teams forming a corporation. That is isolated. In the overall topic, it is a minor thing. WP:NOTNEWS reminds us that "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." If Justin Bieber gets a new tattoo, 1000 outlets will publish it, but it doesn't belong in his bio.

Third, what doesn't loop back to Kraska loops back to the ACLU and I've already addressed why publishing cherry-picked numbers, without context, is a POV issue.

Fourth, because an incident gets mentioned as an example of the unusual doesn't mean that it is common place enough to be included (ie the barbershop).

Now I realize this next part is OR, so please don't give me some unnecessary lecture about OR. I'm not submitting it as proof of anything. It's for illustration purposes. I recall an incident where a member of a violent street gang managed a bar and it was suspected that drug dealing was going on there. It was also suspected that there would be weapons on the premises. Because the club controlled who was allowed in, getting an undercover in was difficult, making it tough to get a warrant. State law allows regulatory inspections, without a warrant, on bars. So the Div of Alcoholic Beverage enforcement (a state regulatory and law enforcement agency) conducted a regulatory inspection, with the support of a local SWAT team. Guess what was found? Guns, drugs and documented gang members. Now the ACLU can cite that as "a regulatory inspection", but again, without context, it's misleading. The reality was that they suspected armed felons would be there and found armed felons there. I know you'll reject the example, but it might clarify the issue for others reading. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see my response below. -Darouet (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Specific discussion of source reliability

I strongly recommend that we remove the Goranson book as a reliable source about SWAT teams: his book is meant to advertise SWAT careers to middle schoolers, and there is no evidence that the author has any special knowledge of American policing or contemporary politics. There appears to be no inline sources, and the huge font and big pictures are consistent with the fact that this is a children's book. -Darouet (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'll use the answer you used: Do we have any publications demonstrating that Goranson has messed up his info? The info it's verifying seems pretty uncontroversial. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes: the information is contradicted by the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and two books, all of which point out that SWAT teams were originally created to act as Goranson describes, but actually act far differently, perhaps as much as 80% of the time. -Darouet (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, they don't contradict what he says. Which of those sources dispute "which use military-style light weapons and specialized tactics"? It seems like those sources actually focus on the weapons and tactics, calling them "militarization". Do those sources dispute "that fall outside of the capabilities of regular, uniformed police"? THAT is what is being sourced by that book. Are you telling me that your sources tell us that 80% of the time, SWAT is NOT using military-style weapons? I think you need to re-examine what the source you are contesting actually tells us and compare it to what you are trying to insert. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The sources don't dispute that SWAT teams use military weapons and tactics, they dispute that they deployed "in high-risk operations that fall outside of the capabilities of regular, uniformed police." This is true sometimes, but most of the time it isn't. Thus, Le Monde writes that SWAT units are "largely used in low intensity operations, such as the execution of a search warrant." The Economist, citing Balko, notes SWAT "mission creep" such that "some cities use them for routine patrols in high-crime areas," and citing Kraska, "most SWAT deployments are not in response to violent, life-threatening crimes, but to serve drug-related warrants in private homes." According to The Washington Post, 90% of SWAT raids are launched to serve search warrants, and over half against individuals not suspected of violent crimes. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal back up these descriptions and add more information of their own, including on raids wholly unrelated to situations that might "fall outside the capabilities of regular, uniformed police." These descriptions are consistent with the NYPD police commissioner cited by J.A. Fischer in his academic book published by ABC-CLIO: "where the suspect might be armed, we would call in a special tactics unit. Over time though, it became common [practice] to always use the tactical unit no matter what or who the warrant was for. The used stun grenades each time and looked at it [the raids] as practice." Using reliable sources and not children's books, an accurate first paragraph would look like the following:

Special Weapons and Tactics teams are police units in the United States that use military weaponry and tactics. First created in the 1960s for riot control or violent confrontations with gunmen, SWAT teams would proliferate widely during the 1980s and 1990s during the War on Drugs, and in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. In the United States today, SWAT teams are deployed 50,000-80,000 times every year, 80% of the time in order to serve search warrants, and most often in the search for narcotics. SWAT teams are increasingly equipped with heavy military hardware available from the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and are trained to deploy against threats of terrorism, for crowd control, and in situations beyond the capabilities of ordinary police. Other countries have developed their own paramilitary police units that are also described as or compared to SWAT police forces.

Further lead paragraphs should summarize SWAT team history, note the weaponry/tactics they use, and note widespread criticism of militarized policing, along with police explanations of why they view SWAT operations as necessary.

Niteshift36, you should realize that a children's book is never a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards, arguably not even for information about itself. The guidelines state, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." According to these guidelines, "when available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." That is the reason why Balko and Kraska are so highly cited and respected by major national and international newspapers, and why we should treat them as critical sources as well. The guidelines state concerning newspapers, "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." The fact that so many major newspapers are in agreement should suggest to you that these statements are not controversial. -Darouet (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

First, in your comments above, you call Kraska and Balko "crusaders." Do you have any evidence that is true? You also complain that "much of this all loops back" to them, without realizing that major newspapers around the world cite them both, repeatedly, with credence because they are obviously the two most respected researchers in the field. This points to a significance difference in perspective between your own views and those of established researchers and media, forcing you to consider the most reliable sources as unreliable, and scholars documenting policing trends as "crusaders." I am highly skeptical of the American media and recognize that media or even scholars have biases. However, world public opinion and international news sources, to which I am more sympathetic, may be even more critical of American policing than American news sources.

Second, the deployment of police with military weapons and tactics in situations involving gambling, underage drinking, visa issues, barbershop licenses and ordinary warrant serving isn't equivalent, in gravitas, to the event of Justin Bieber's new tattoo. That's why The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, etc., don't report Bieber's tattoo, but do report on what they consider the misplaced deployed of SWAT police. We shouldn't misleadingly imply in our article that all raids are like this, but major papers note them because they are examples of a phenomenon they and this article must document in order to accurately describe SWAT policing.

We've already discussed Kraska, Balko and the ACLU above.

Fourth, I don't discount your story about the regulatory inspection of the bar where guns, drugs and gang members were discovered. Actually I personally think it's a great illustration of how SWAT teams are used, and the dangers or difficulties that could face police in situations that, to outsiders, could be described as milk toast. But I have a few comments about this. One, I simply can't believe that no reliable sources can be discovered that will recount and illustrate this problem. Two, I believe that readers are intelligent enough to assume that raids serving drug warrants could be hazardous, and for this reason I don't think we need to insert special qualifiers before citing statistics about drug warrants, or other search warrants. Three, and this follows from the first two points, your example is not an argument for discounting the information and context provided by reliable sources.

As a last point, there are a number of things that are disputed by nobody: that SWAT police and raid numbers have grown enormously, and that at least some SWAT raids, and perhaps many of them, are being conducted beyond the scope of how SWAT teams were originally conceived. A person could take different conclusions from this. A critic might say that this represents an unnecessary militarization of ordinary policing, while a defender might call it necessary for the protection of police in a well-armed world. But citing sources on these statistics doesn't demand such a value judgment. Furthermore, even if judgments are noted, criticism of heavy-handed policing doesn't represent a moral condemnation of police officers or a stain on their honor. The point is to accurately document what SWAT teams are and what they do, and right now we're failing to do that. -Darouet (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request

Response to third opinion request:

Tricky issue. We are walking a fine line here to try to maintain NPOV, and it's very easy to go too far in being critical of SWAT deployment or ignoring legitimate concerns. First, the lede. IMO, the Goranson reference is not RS. At best it might be marginally so, but still not suitable for anything contentious. I also think that it's misleading for the lede to state outright that SWAT does "X" when we have credible sources with concerns that they also do "Y" and "Z". I suggest that this section of the lede be reworded to something like " law enforcement units, which use military-style light weapons and specialized tactics. SWAT teams were created for utilisation in high-risk operations that fall outside of the capabilities of regular, uniformed police, and this remains their primary role. Criticisms have been raised that SWAT teams are frequently deployed for routine tasks that could be effectively addressed by uniformed police, leading to [increased risk to public, perceptions of police state, whatever the primary concerns are]]". This means we will need to find another reference to replace Goranson about what the primary role of SWAT is, but that should be easily done for such basic information. As for the more general discussion, the material critical of SWAT needs to be included. Le Monde, WSJ etc are all reliable sources. Articles printed in them can't be simply ignored. At the moment this article has a balance problem because it ignores these criticisms. I think that we need to add a "Criticisms/Concerns" section to this article, as we have to so many other articles. How big that section should be I'm not qualified to judge. If it gets too large it can and should be challenged as a balance issue, but I can't judge that because I don't know what the relative views of experts are in this issue. However clearly some reliable sources have concerns, therefore they need to be mentioned for balance. A couple of sentences under a "Criticism" heading noting that many reliable sources have concerns about how often SWAT teams are deployed for routine functions is essential. FTR, there is no requirement for someone adding material supporting a POV to also add material supporting all the others. For all I know, there may not be any reliable sources supporting the others. Maybe even SWAT commanders agree that their teams are deployed too routinely. If that is the case, then it's not distorted to note that the teams are deployed routinely too often. And if is distorted, then it's up to whoever knows that to bring the issue to the attention of other editors. If an editor believes that there is a balance issue, they can add a dispute tag to the section or the whole article and start a discussion on the talk page. However, they are going to need to bring evidence that there is a diversity of opinion amongst reliable sources. It's not enough to simply claim that other sides should be presented, they will need to demonstrate that reliable sources endorse that other side. We can then reword the article to say that "Group X has criticism Y, which is disputed by group Z because...". But we can't just ignore criticisms referenced to reliable sources. Mark Marathon (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mark Marathon, and thanks for your comment. I agree with much of what you write. I don't agree however that we should try to squeeze new material into a section called "criticism." This is because the article is largely unsourced right now, and the sources I'm proposing to bring in, which include articles, books and textbooks on SWAT policing, don't purport to criticize SWAT policing: they rather describe it, often with ample use of statistics.

For instance, most - almost all - sources state that the primary, contemporary role of SWAT police teams is the serving of search and arrest warrants, usually for drugs, 80% of the time. This isn't a criticism, but rather a description. A number of sources state that 20% of police departments use SWAT police units for regular patrols in "hot spot," low-income areas. This is also description, not criticism.

While I agree that it wasn't my task to find other points of view, I have found one source, in a reliable textbook, that presents a POV supporting more widespread use of SWAT policing. Obviously this is a significant view and, while it may be a minority view within the media or academia, should be presented in the article. -Darouet (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This is where it starts to get really tricky. Just because a source quotes statistics, doesn't mean that it's not a criticism, and just because 80% of a SWAT team’s work is serving warrants, doesn’t mean that 100% of their work isn’t something that uniformed police can’t do safely. Filling an article with such sources can easily unbalance the article. Finding unbiased material on these subjects can be incredibly difficult, because people don’t generally care to publish job descriptions of groups they feel are doing a good job. Usually if someone talks the time to compile and publish the stats, it’s because they feel the stats tell a story that they also want to tell. At this stage I haven't read the sources thoroughly to get a feel for their intent and scope, so I can’t comment accurately. If you are willing to hold off for 3 or 4 days until I get a chance to read them, I can provide an opinion if you wish. Mark Marathon (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I will be very happy to have you read these sources when you can! Agree that finding unbiased material can be hard, either because authors intend to criticize the police on the one hand, or are police themselves on the other. Hopefully the available sources (and I've found quite a few above as well) will give you a sense of academic and media views on the subject. If I get the chance I'll make an effort to include more international news coverage too. -Darouet (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I‘ve looked through the references, and I’m not seeing anything that really makes me change my opinion. While we have a few different sources, it seems like most of them cite Kraska. While his is a valid opinion and needs to be included, we would clearly be violating WP:UNDUE if we were to base the main text of an article on the opinions of one man.

My individual assessment of these references is:

Policing in America

Can’t find the full text. If this is a reputable textbook then it should be fine to include. However the fact that this is a “Myth/Reality list makes me a little nervous. That’s not how textbooks are normally written. It's also interesting that this source doesn't say "serving search warrants" as Kraska does but rather "service of search warrants" which is rather different. More on that below.

Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement

Can’t find the full text. Seems good. However it also seems to contradict the other courses. It says that 80% of operations were drug raids. In contrast your other references claim that the units are mostly used to serve search warrants. Those are two different things, unless the other references are being very misleading when they say “serve search warrants”, and actually mean not just the serving, but the actual room-by-room securing of the building, searching, seizure, arrests etc. I don’t think most people would see it as unreasonable for a SWAT team to be securing the rooms in a crack house or meth lab, for example, which is what a drug raid is or can be. In contrast, breaking down a door, handing the resident a piece of paper and then walking away seems completely unreasonable, and that’s what serving a warrant is. Now maybe by “serving a warrant” those other sources meant “securing the building, doing the search and arresting any suspects” in addition to serving the warrant: ie a drug raid. But if that is what they meant that needs to be spelled out in this article. That sort of misleading phrasing also doesn’t give me much faith in the reliability of the sources. I'm thinking that "drug raid where a warrant was obtained" become "servicing a warrant" which is accurate but ambiguous and then became "serving a warrant" which is misleading and inaccurate. Also references Kraska, and once again we want to avoid undue weight.

An Introduction to Policing

Can’t find the full text. Seems good.

SWAT Madness and the Militarization of the American Police

I can’t find the full text, but it seems like POV work. The use of the word “madness” doesn’t suggest a dispassionate work.

The Washington Post news article, 26 June 2014

Seems clearly RS, but all it’s really saying is that we don’t know anything and can’t find out anything. There’s also no information on whether SWAT units are more likely to be under these LECs than any other police unit, so I’m not sure whether it really says anything we can add to the article.

The Economist news article, 22 March 2014

This seems to be the pick of the bunch: RS, balanced. But essentially still belongs under a criticism section

The Washington Post news article, 17 February 2014 This is an opinion BLOG, so it is very borderline RS. I don’t know enough about the author or the way the blog is edited, but there are certainly grounds for suspicion. At best it meets WP:RSOPINION, so it needs to be attributed directly to the author rather than stated as fact. Because this is one mans personal criticism, I still think it belongs in a criticism section. Also, we need to take care that our paraphrasing is accurate and fai6hfully represents the source. For example, this article never says that “Half of raids targeted nonviolent crime suspects”. It says that half the raids were for nonviolent crimes. 100% of the suspects could have had convictions for murdering police officer for all we know. There is a big difference between a “non-violent suspects” and a “violent suspect for non-violent crime”. I’m generally unimpressed with this source. Statistics like “a third of the raids resulted in no arrests” isn’t really meaningful. How many raids were intended to result in arrests, rather than seizure of evidence? And how many raids that were intended to result in arrest didn’t because the suspect wasn’t home. The statistic seems be trying to imply that the raids were botched, but is essentially meaningless.

The Wall Street Journal Saturday essay article, 7 August 2013

Another opinion piece by the same author. I say opinion because this is the Saturday Essay, which in the past has run such pieces as “America Should Police the World” and “Competition is for Losers”. While it doesn’t carry an editorial label, it clearly is editorialising. So once again, meets WP:RSOPINION at best, and since it’s the same author as the above we risk giving undue weight to his opinions is we focus too much on it.

Al Jazeera news episode, 28 February 2014

Hard to determine if this is RS: the material is scattered, and some of it just quotes other sources, including sources listed above. So we’d need to know what we want to add from this before we could make a determination.

New York Times news article, 7 September 2014Seems OK, but Kraska again

Le Monde. While I read French like a native, unfortunately it is like a native of the New Guinea highlands. I will have to accept that it says what you say. However I suspect that this is yet another opinion piece.

ACLU report. I assume we all agree this is a biased source.

I'm not really seeing anything that changes my mind that most of this belongs in a separate "Criticism" section. I think we should put into the main article something to the effects that most SWAT teams are mostly carrying out pre-planned raids with warrants obtained beforehand rather than spur-of-the-moment responses to violent crimes. That's notable and well-sourced. The material on how much these units have grown is also notable. However the rest seems to be clearly criticism and belongs in a criticism section. Whether SWAT teams are needed to carry out drug raids, whether they are over-used, whether they use the right tactics, whether there is some sort of cover-up etc. These are all issues of opinion. Several of the sources, and all those based on Kraska, clearly imply or outright state that this is the case, but those are all opinion sources. The sources that are clearly RS never make such claims. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mark Marathon, thanks for your comments, and for reading these sources. As a quick note, the 17 February [22] and 26 June [23] WashPo articles, and the Le Monde article [24], are news articles, not blog or opinion pieces. You may be right that the "Saturday Essay" at the WSJ is opinion: I had thought it might be some kind of long-format journalism, but I could easily be wrong (I'm sure regular WSJ readers will know at WP:RSN). Also, the book SWAT Madness and the Militarization of the American Police is published by ABC-CLIO, which makes academic reference works in social sciences. The title probably reflects something of the academic consensus on the issue.

In this case, all but one of the sources above is a news piece or an academic book (with the exception of the children's book of course).

I agree that these sources don't merit any discussion of a cover-up (I don't know if I remember seeing that term in them?), and that we don't need to state that SWAT raids are over-used. I don't agree however that we should take all reliable sources on SWAT policing and place these into a "criticism" section, but leave the rest of the article unsourced. The implication would be that what "we all know" about SWAT policing is so obvious that it doesn't need to be sourced, while sourced information somehow amounts to criticism. This isn't really true. It is more likely that information in reliable sources amounts to criticism only in the eyes of people whose personal views are in conflict with published sources, causing them to view published material as criticism rather than description.

Furthermore, even if we do find criticism, style guides recommend integrating criticism into an article body, per WP:Criticism#Approaches to presenting criticism.

What is an ideal way of moving forward? Perhaps we can begin deleting portions of the article that are either unsourced or sourced to non-reliable sources? Then adding back material and sourcing it, while discussing additions and added content as we go? - Darouet (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd get the article in order before dealing with the lead; that's avoid the need to cite in the lead and would avoid situations where the leads says something that is not said in the article (i.e. as in this diff re. Afghanistan/Iraq). The Weapons section is mired deeply in overcite; contrast the sensible Beretta citing with that for Glock (the less said about the level of H&K MP5 citing, the better!). Bromley86 (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Mark Marathon's concern that the WSJ piece was opinion, Collect's opinion at RSN confirms that this is true. Collect recommends that the source can be cited as opinion. -Darouet (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Used for what? Specifically for what? And Collect is one editor who gave an opinion. I like him, but let's not act like his opinion is law. You didn't even notify anyone else of the discussion, so all he got was your input and said it's an opinion piece and can be cited as opinion. Nobody disputes that. The dispute is how much weight it is to be given. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Niteshift36, I'm referring to this article by Balko in my post above. Collect confirmed this was an opinion piece. -Darouet (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Who disputed that it was an opinion piece? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I was the one who thought it might be long format journalism, not an opinion piece. I went to the reliable source noticeboard to inquire. Collect stated that it was indeed opinion, something that could be inferred for instance by the use of first person writing. -Darouet (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding a POV tag

I'm adding a POV tag to this article because it has a number of major problems, which we are currently working to address. These include:

• The primary description of what SWAT teams are, in the first paragraph of the article, is referenced using a children's book promoting careers with the police
• References providing a more realistic description, including from the New York Times, have been removed.
• Much of the article is unsourced, or sourced to official police websites.
• Almost no information is provided on contemporary uses and abuses of militarized policing in the United States.
• As another editor has pointed out, little context is given to explain how and why these units are used.

We should be able to resolve these problems shortly. -Darouet (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• 1) Is the primary description incorrect?
  

2) More realistic? By what standard?
3) Add sources that support what is there. Official police sites can be good sources, depending on which use we're talking about.
4) What you call "contemporary uses" and "abuses" is being presented with undue weight. Further, it's being presented in a manner to make a point and gives a lot of weight to 2 sources (Kraska et al and the ACLU), both of whom have agendas.
5) then give correct and realistic context, not highlight the minority uses. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

1. ) As shown above, the description is only supported by a children's book and is contradicted by academic and high-quality sources.
2. ) A more realistic description should be judged by the standard of researchers (e.g. Balko, Kraska, Fischer) and high-quality news articles, which I've made available above.
3. ) It would be inappropriate and futile to search for support for a statement not supported by available sources: this may be the reason we are currently using a children's book.
4. ) If anything, the balance of presentation of sources I've given so far is tilted in the direction of insufficient criticism, since the sources are more critical than I am. Also, you haven't provided any sources giving a critique of Balko, Kraska or the ACLU, and I can't find any. On the contrary, from the way they're universally cited, it seems as though major sources agree with them.
5. ) The context I'm providing is given by these articles: I can't just make stuff up. -Darouet (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This is becoming absurd

You have disussions about the same edits taking place in FOUR separate sections. Much of it is repeating yourself and you've pasted in ridiculous amounts of informations, again much of which is repeating a single source. TL:DR is almost appropriate here. If you truly want to improve this article, then try discussing one thing at a time. Trying to "solve" it all in 4 separate discussions is not productive. This article has survived years without these edits, it can probably survive a little longer while things are discussed in a coherent manner. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's actually a pretty simple situation: the article is unsourced, and you removed sources and content I added in an effort to keep the article as is. We discussed the situation in an initial Talk section, which led to no resolution because you didn't want to accept the use of reliable sources I'd found. So, I created another Talk section specifically to list sources, and discuss any that might be problematic. Lastly, I created a POV tag Talk section because that's standard when POV tagging an article. Delete it if you want: I agree it's redundant.

Sourced sections of the article can survive, sure, but unsourced portions should be removed. There's no emergency, true, but I'd rather just improve the article and be done, not waste weeks working on something that should be simple. -Darouet (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• So, instead of a simplified discussion, you decide to force that stuff back in and act like you had some consensus to do it? Um, no. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Look, you asked for a discussion, but now don't want to participate because the discussion is too long. The "discussion" just consists of your objections to academic or journalistic sources generally, and my responses, and presentation of specific sources. Your only comment on the sources so far is that you wish they said something different, and you consider the most respected and cited researchers to be "crusaders," an allegation you haven't yet cared to support with any facts or references. There's no avoiding the fact that good encyclopedia articles requires work, and if you're not willing, then don't participate. For now all you're doing, though you may mean well, is stonewalling efforts to improve the article. I'm going to keep editing but will be happy to discuss any specific content and sources productively. -Darouet (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• No, I asked you to have A discussion, not 4 discussions simultaneously. Don't give me your condescending nonsense about needing "work". I've done work on this article and I've done it for a long time. Your breezing in here with a couple of sources and a burning need to try to make a point is one thing, but to act like you're the only one doing any "work" is pretty much an insult. And oh, do you know why Kraska et al are "the most cited"? Because they're mainly the only academics saying it. When there it only one well, all the water comes from it. There was a point where I thought you were going to actually discuss and build consensus. Now I see that was false hope. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

All I've wanted to do is replace the current false description, sourced to a children's book selling SWAT careers for middle schoolers, with a description supported by contemporary academic and media sources. You have been hugely resistant to even this small thing, have not engaged in productive discussion, and for these reasons I also fear we won't be able to work together. -Darouet (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• That's not all you've tried to do. I've attempted to discuss and you've answered it with ridiculous amounts of cut and pasted material and a refusal to actually discuss the contested material before forcing it back in. I asked for a slow down in the discussion and you've portrayed it as a refusal to discuss and then added a little insulting "you need to work" bullshit to it as well. So please, at least be honest about your actions and stop pretending that you're the poor victim in this. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The material isn't just "cut-and-pasted:" for media articles I sometimes quote, but also summarize relevant material, and for the books cited, I had to write out the text, since it couldn't be copied. I've done all this partly for your benefit, and for others, so that we have a resource we can access while working on the article.

It's true that the first paragraph isn't all I've worked on, but the first paragraph problems are particularly egregious and emblematic of other problems in the article.

I recommend that we get back to the content above and move away from discussions of each other's behavior (I'm guilty of this as well here), because as is obvious above, it doesn't help anything. What do you think? -Darouet (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Niteshift36, as a way of moving forward, what do you think about focusing on the talk page section Specific discussion of source reliability, and in that place, commenting on sources either you or I have added to the list of sources? As a way of beginning this, we could move your comment here to that talk section if you liked… -Darouet (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wicomico County Sheriff's Emergency Response Team (S.E.R.T.) source

I strongly expect that this source took some of it's information from WP, including the relatively uncontroversial points I've used it to support (most common weapons & CQC statements). However, they are experts in the field of what they use, and they added carbines to the list (which this article was missing), so that's evidence of review. So fine for those points, but be careful about using it for anything else. Bromley86 (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Jack Hoxie

The 1960s section of the article refers to Jack Hoxie as a participant in a police-involved shootout, but the linked article says nothing about this, the cited source does not mention Hoxie, and Google has no knowledge of such an event. The reference to Hoxie should either be immediately sourced or removed. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC) I removed it as there is no link between the 1930s Western actor and the founding of SWAT. There may be someone with a very similar name but it is not the same person. Paulwharton (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Children's book as source in the lead

Niteshift36 has once again returned his preferred source for SWAT policing, a children's book, to the lead. I posted this issue previously at the reliable source noticeboard, and the response was the following:

Juvenile titles are rarely "best sources". Use best source - which means the academic ones here.

There are a series of academic sources available, including [25], [26], [27] and [28]. Those sources describe SWAT teams in the following way:

• "The vast majority of police deployments of tactical teams are used for the service of routine search and arrest warrants." [29]
• "Until recently, these units were only a peripheral part of large police departments’ reaction to the rare hostage, barricaded suspect, or civil disturbance incident… There has been a more than 1000% increase in the total number of police paramilitary deployments, or call-outs, between 1980 and 1997… more than 80% of these deployments, and hence 80% of the growth of activity, were for proactive drug raids, specifically no-knock or quick-knock dynamic entries into private residences searching for contraband (drugs, guns, money)… Nearly 20% of departments use their units as least periodically and some cases routinely, as a patrol force in high-crime areas." [30]
• "The use of these units over the years has also changed from handling the occasional dangerous situation call-outs to being involved on a more routine basis in such things serving high-risk search warrants and arrest warrants. Kraska and Kappeler found that 20 percent of the departments they surveyed used PPUs for patrolling urban areas on a somewhat regular basis… Most of these units were created in the 1980s and 1990s, and their use has become more prevalent due to the increased violence in our communities and the use of more lethal weapons by criminals… the effect of these paramilitary units can be particularly relevant when they are seen patrolling the streets with all their militaristic equipment or are present at public gatherings or demonstrations, as in the recent 'occupy' movement around the country." [31]

I agree with Bromley86 that this article is best served by focus on the body before the lead, however we must certainly avoid citing children's books there. Academic books are far more helpful. -Darouet (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Then why are you solely removing a source and not replacing it with something useful? And no, we don't need Kraska quoted again in the article, much less in the lead. You are still ignoring most of what Mark Marathon pointed out. just because the majority of SWAT deployments aren't hostage situations etc, doesn't mean that's a standard part of their purpose. Think of it in other terms: In the vast majority of days, a police officer doesn't shoot someone, but the pistol is still a standard part of his uniform. He will point it at a suspect many, many more times than he will fire, but part of the purpose is to shoot a suspect to defend against death or great bodily harm if necessary. I can give you example after example of agency websites that will say things like "hostage situations" etc. Just because it's (fortunately) not a daily occurence doesn't mean you should exclude it. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Or perhaps a simpler example: A cashier may ring up hundreds of sales a day. They close out the register and cash drawers once at the end of their shift. Even though ringing up sales happens far more often, that doesn't mean closing out the register is no longer a job duty. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Niteshift36, thanks for your reply; based on what you write, I think we can definitely find a solution both of us are happy with, and that is consistent with what SWAT teams are, and what sources say about them. I agree with you that dangerous raids and missions remain an important part of SWAT duties. However, serving search warrants, crowd control at demonstrations, and patrolling are also important functions, not analogous to desk duty, and are described as the vast majority of SWAT activities. So, we can't ignore the largest part of active SWAT service. Why don't we describe both normal and also extraordinary functions?

This is what I propose for our lead paragraph:

Special Weapons and Tactics teams are police units in the United States that use military weaponry and tactics. First created in the 1960s for riot control or violent confrontations with gunmen, SWAT teams would proliferate widely during the 1980s and 1990s during the War on Drugs, and in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. In the United States today, SWAT teams are deployed 50,000-80,000 times every year, 80% of the time in order to serve search warrants, and most often in the search for narcotics. SWAT teams are increasingly equipped with heavy military hardware available from the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and are trained to deploy against threats of terrorism, for crowd control, and in situations beyond the capabilities of ordinary police. Other countries have developed their own paramilitary police units that are also described as or compared to SWAT police forces.

What do you think? -Darouet (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ok, let's do it, but slowly. First thing: "military tactics". that's debateable. In some aspects it's correct, but in some it's not. Military units often train with civilian SWAT to learn some of the room clearing tactics etc because they're different. As an illustration: A squad clearing a room in Iraq may thrown a frag grenade (or two) into a room or even "recon by fire". Obviously a civilian SWAT team won't do that. Or a military tactic of taking out a sentry by means of a sniper before the team approaches a building isn't the norm for a civilian team. I'd be more amenable to "use specialized weapons and tactics". This also takes into account that many civilian SWAT weapons aren't actually used by the military. How do you feel about that? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• As a point of comparison, the National Tactical Officers Association published their national standards. It uses this definition: "A Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team is a designated law enforcement team, whose members are recruited, selected, trained, equipped and assigned to resolve critical incidents involving a threat to public safety which would otherwise exceed the capabilities of traditional law enforcement first responders and/or investigative units."[32] The NTOA is a subject matter expert and the publication lists the experts that produced the document. It was also done in collaboration with the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, which handles the national accreditation process for US law enforcement agencies. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• The California Swat Commission, as set up by the Attorney General, uses this one: "A SWAT team is a designated unit of law enforcement officers who are specifically trained and equipped to work as a coordinated team to respond to critical incidents, including, but not limited to, hostage taking, barricaded suspects, snipers, terrorist acts and other high-risk incidents. As a matter of agency policy, such a unit may be used to serve high-risk warrants, both search and arrest, where public and officer safety issues compel the use of such a unit."[33] Now this is not a childrens book, produced by a state level governmental oversight commission and reported in a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• Or how about this agency definition. It even acknowledges the "search warrant is more common issue" for you: The St. Charles Parish Sheriff’s Office has developed a Special Response Team (SRT) in recognition of the need to execute high risk search warrants and arrest warrants that require special equipment and/or training beyond what is provided to the regular patrol deputy. The Mission of the Special Response Team is to support the members of the St. Charles Parish Sheriff’s Office with a tactical response to Critical Incidents. Critical Incidents are defined as, but not limited to:

•Armed/Suicidal Subjects •Barricaded Subjects •Hostage Situations •Sniper Situations •High Risk Apprehensions •High Risk Warrant Service •Dignitary/VIP Protection •Special Assignments[34]Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Niteshift36, what about using the phrase "specialized or military weaponry and tactics" in order to reflect the fact that sometimes these tactics are military, and sometimes something different? The California SWAT Commission is not an academic, but rather a primary and government source (and 16/26 people on the commission were police or military officials). However, it is really interesting (I'm reading it now), and a good source for what the California SWAT Commission recommends that a SWAT team be. The commission report states that the commission was established in order to respond to tragedies occurring during SWAT raids that could erode community trust, and was meant to make useful recommendations. Their proposed definition is given in this context: "Recommendation – Develop a definition of a SWAT team. Proposed Definition…" While this report and the issues surrounding it can receive more treatment in the article body (I think that would be an improvement), in general I think the proposed lead is consistent with the information in the Commission Report. What do you think about the following?

Special Weapons and Tactics teams are police units in the United States that use specialized or military weaponry and tactics. First created in the 1960s for riot control or violent confrontations with gunmen, SWAT teams would proliferate widely during the 1980s and 1990s during the War on Drugs, and in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. In the United States today, SWAT teams are deployed 50,000-80,000 times every year, 80% of the time in order to serve search warrants, most often for narcotics. SWAT teams are increasingly equipped with heavy military hardware available from the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and are trained to deploy against threats of terrorism, for crowd control, and in situations beyond the capabilities of ordinary police, sometimes deemed "high-risk." Other countries have developed their own paramilitary police units (PPU)s that are also described as or compared to SWAT police forces.

As a side note, I've been planning on adding a section called "contemporary use" to the article. The sources you provide are an excellent beginning to another section that would also be helpful, something like "intent." This would all be within the American subsection, I think. -Darouet (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm aware the California Commission isn't an academic source. I did point out that it was set up by the Attorney General and "a state level governmental oversight commission". What is wrong with a government source? You list is as "a primary and government source" as if all government sources are primary sources and less than desireable. This definition is pretty neutrally worded and was designed to fit for one of the largest collections of SWAT teams in the US. It is pretty close to the NTOA definition, which was set up as a national model. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• The website howstuffworks has been reviewed at RSN. While it's not considered the most in-depth source, as a Discovery Channel property, it is considered generally reliable. They use this: "A SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) team is an elite unit within a police force, used for exceptional situations that require increased firepower or specialized tactics. The officers in a SWAT unit have undergone special training and have access to an arsenal of weaponry, armor and surveillance devices beyond standard-issue police gear. Much of this gear comes in the form of military surplus. Here are a few situations that typically require a SWAT team call-out:

•A high-risk warrant - If the police are going to conduct an arrest at a home, and they know the person is likely to be armed, they will call in the SWAT team to perform the arrest.
•A hostage situation - SWAT team snipers are trained to take out an attacker who is holding a hostage in the event that negotiations break down.
•A barricade situation - When criminals barricade themselves inside a building, possibly with weapons that are fired out at the police or civilians, a SWAT team can launch a powerful assault to end the stand-off.
A high-risk person - If someone needs to be transported, and there is a high chance of an assassination attempt on his life, SWAT team armored vehicles can serve as protection.
•An armed terrorist attack.
•A riot."
So it's a RS, neutral, even mentions the military surplus angle. Not an ideal source, but usable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• And Slate magazine: They get called in when regular police are out of their depth. Since the 1960s, law enforcement agencies have trained small teams of officers for dangerous situations and outfitted them with military equipment. (The letters of SWAT stand for "Special Weapons and Tactics.") Teams are often called in when a gunman barricades himself into a building, especially if he takes hostages. They may also help regular police serve warrants, search for a dangerous criminal, or control large crowds.[35] Niteshift36 (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Niteshift, I'm really not sure what we're arguing about: we have academic textbooks on this subject, which are obviously the best sources available, and we have academic journal articles too, if we need some kind of back-up. Plus, we're proposing text that seems to be consistent with sources you want us to use, whatever their merit. For instance proposed text includes this statement, created in the 1960s for riot control or violent confrontations with gunmen, and trained to deploy against threats of terrorism, for crowd control, and in situations beyond the capabilities of ordinary police, sometimes deemed "high-risk." Maybe, could you mind editing this text box below to let me know what you think should be changed? -Darouet (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Special Weapons and Tactics teams are police units in the United States that use specialized or weaponry and tactics. First created in the 1960s for riot control or violent confrontations with gunmen, SWAT teams increased in the 1980s and 1990s during the War on Drugs, and in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. In the United States today, SWAT teams are deployed 50,000-80,000 times every year, 80% of the time in order to serve search warrants, most often for narcotics. SWAT teams are increasingly equipped with military-type hardware and are trained to deploy against threats of terrorism, for crowd control, and in situations beyond the capabilities of ordinary police, sometimes deemed "high-risk." Other countries have developed their own paramilitary police units (PPU)s that are also described as or compared to SWAT police forces.

• There is my edit. I toned down some language and removed the Afghanistan/Iraq part. The main reason for the removal is that it's not really a factor. The 1033 program has existed since 1990, as a means to transfer military surplus to civilian agencies. In fact, you can even trace Kraska back to pre-9/11 dates complaining about the 1033 program. It ewas first for counter-drug related uses, then in 1997 is was expanded to include counter-terrorism uses. So since the program pre-dates those wars, saying it's related to them isn't actually correct. As for the other question, I'm not sure why you think so-called "academic" sources are superior, but they're not the gold standard. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Niteshift, while I don't agree with all these changes (e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan), I think the onus is on me to demonstrate those deserve inclusion, and I haven't done that yet. The only thing I'd ask is that we keep the "military or specialized weaponry and tactics" text for now, since it was a compromise from our previous versions, and I think we can both agree that's true. Is that alright? Then we can continue to discuss the rest of the article, slowly is fine with me too. -Darouet (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ok with me. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. I also added "the number and usage of" before "SWAT teams increased" because I thought it might be ambiguous, and the change doesn't seem controversial. -Darouet (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Do we need military in there twice? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I feel like that's sort of what SWAT is - militarized police for what are supposed to be military-like situations (terrorism, etc). We've been talking about how they're often used outside these situations, but they're equipped and trained for them. -Darouet (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• And I feel like it's a specialized part of the police that sometimes employs military (or military styled) weapons. I think if we eliminated the first military and left the second one in, that would be every bit as accurate, but not as much "point making". Niteshift36 (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

I just made some edits to the lead-in section for this article, which were reverted by Niteshift36. Since I don't want to start an edit war (and partly to respond to Niteshift's messages to me), I am going to take my issues here.

First, I want to address the accusation that I'm ignoring consensus or disrespectful. Guilty, to a degree. I reject the notion that I am (or am attempting to be) disrespectful. As far as consensus goes, I admit that I didn't read the entire talk page before editing. But that's not what Wiki is about. I shouldn't--and don't--have to read pages and pages of discussion before jumping in to edit. At some point, I think cabals lead to stagnation under the guise of "consensus."

And I'll point out that in the seven years since I last edited this article (and, coincidentally, amazingly, providently, had an argument with none other than Niteshift) this article has not gotten to Good Article status. So. I don't think re-reading all of the previous discussions before editing necessarily gets us to where we want to go, because I think part of the solution is to ignore some of the previous discussion.

Okay, having said that, the lead. What is wrong with it?

• Failure to follow manual of style. Each individual letter of SWAT being capitalized in Special Weapons and Tactics is clearly against Wikipedia MOS, convention, consistency with other articles, and understandability. Writing out the full phrase and bolding both it and SWAT is the correct thing to do, e.g., Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) or similar.

• Generally bad writing. Why are there scare quotes on "high-risk"? This can be written without quotes. What's up with the phrase "(PPU)s"?

• Doesn't provide an accessible overview. The article does not explain in the first two or three sentences the significance of a SWAT team. The article directly goes into the history of a SWAT team and starts giving out statistics. That is not an accessible overview. What IS it? Why do we care about it? What does it DO? I understand that, as humans who look at the news, we all probably know what a SWAT team is. But the article doesn't provide that in a convenient, immediately digestible way. An encyclopedia should write for people as if they were children or intelligent beings who have recently learned English but have little context of what you are talking about.

• Content bias. This is a hard question to address, and there are many facets to it. I'm sure there'll be points I won't address or things that I haven't thought of, etc., but here are some thoughts. SWAT is a primarily American unit/concept. Other countries have tactical units, but they're called other things or are structured differently. Therefore, we write that SWAT is an American unit right in the lead. Which both the current and my version did. Good. But, having done that, we should talk about American-centric things. And Niteshift apparently thinks that the militarization of police is too American-centric. Well, I completely admit that it's American-centric, because we're writing in an article about an American unit. The Ferguson riots have brought the militarization of SWAT and the criminal justice system to the forefront of discussion. We can't ignore this and pretend like it isn't happening. The other thing I'll say about bias/non-neutrality is that sentence about PPUs, which is both non-neutral and just jargony bad writing. It should be taken out completely.

• Unsourced. The entire lead is unsourced. I'll admit that my edits, too, are unsourced, for whatever that's worth. But the difference here, is that my edits were reverted to this amazing, awesome, consensus version. Which, after a year, is still unsourced.

Look, I'm not saying that my edit was amazing, irrefutable, and the best version of the article ever. What I am saying is that I feel my edit had some concrete improvements over the previous version, and they were wholesale reverted to this consensus version without any regard at all for the content. I believe in consensus, but not to the point where people are paralyzed and have to run everything through "the community." Seven years ago, I gave up the fight for this article. This time, I will fight for it, and fight to make it better. erc ^{talk/contribs} 04:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• You are correct that you aren't required to check before making an edit. However, when the edit is reverted and the edit summary talks about talk page consensus, you should then take the time to read it and discuss. That's not a cabal, that's consensus.

• Second, nobody has really tried taking the article to GA status, so saying that it's not at GA status (just like the VAST majority of Wikipedia articles), is really not an indicator of anything. Additionally, what you and I discussed is really not even applicable. We talked about the use of the term "special operations". I supported using it, you opposed it. That term has been removed since then because of....a consensus that was built. Add to that, the version you're looking out now is about 6 months old, not 7 years old.

Now your specific concerns:

1. The use of stylized letters. I truly don't care if the bolding is removed.
2. Go ahead and remove the quotation marks. As for PPU's, in some countries, the SWAT function is handled by the military, in some it's by law enforcements etc. And not all of them are the same and some will handle up to a point, then turn it over to others. So the lead recognizes that in all cases, the function won't be the same. Why is including that an issue?
3. Perhaps some of the wording can be shifted to come closed to the MOS. I don't have an objection to that. It's worth noting that your edits did much more than that.
4. You're off base on your content bias issue. While this article is pretty American focused, it probably shouldn't be. The SWAT concept as we know it originated in the US, but isn't limited to it. So the article should recognize it that way. Your insertion of the Ferguson discussion into the lead is one thing I really objected to. You incorrectly stated that "Partly as a result of the War in Afghanistan and the Iraq War". The 1033 program has been around since 1997, long before either war. Before that, the same program was the 1208 program and that one dates back to 1990. The discussion of so-called militarization of the police pre-dates Ferguson etc as well. Peter Kraska has been beating that drum for years. Granted, he's one of the few who has, but even sources used in this article far pre-date Ferguson. Now, I understand that you may not have become aware of it before than, but your lack of knowledge isn't the criteria. Had you read this article and the sources before then, you'd have known. Now, add to it the fact that most of the objection to what happened there wasn't actually about actions taken by the SWAT team, but over the so-called militarization of the police, Ferguson becomes less relevant to the lead. Trying to shove Ferguson into the lead is WP:RECENTISM. Trying to shove BLM into the lead is even more obvious recentism.
5. The lead is not unsourced. WP:LEADCITE tells us "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." Now, if there is specific material that you think is unsourced elsewhere in the article, point it out. We can either show the source or remove it. But adding more unsourced material, especially material with a bias of your own, doesn't help the problem.

To summarize, you walked away 7 years ago, came back and made a bunch of unsourced additions, reverted their removal and ignored the fact that the lead was a result of collaboration. Then you made a false connection to the discussion 7 years ago (which was a totally unrelated issue) and bemoaned the fact that the article still wasn't a GA, despite the fact that you'd done nothing to move it that way. Now you're going to "fight" to make it "better" (starting with adding unsourced POV material). Did I miss anything? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Militarization of police in the lead?

Hey all, I'm wondering if anyone would object to these two sentences added to the bottom of the current lead? They would summarize scholarly views I've encountered on the subject and written into the article body.

"Some observers, including Radley Balko and Peter Kraska, write that increased use of SWAT teams is a part of police militarization, and indicates an adversarial relationship between police and communities where they work. Others, including den Heyer, write that PPUs demonstrate a professionalization of policing, and that police are rational in attempting to lower risks by conducting raids with SWAT forces."

@Niteshift36: I'm happy to see you're still active here. Any thoughts? -Darouet (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Why in the lead? It's covered in the article. Everything doesn't have to be in the lead does it? And frankly, I don't like putting Kraska and Balko in the lead. Almost everything making this claim is from them. I think we give the opinions of two people far more weight than it deserves. The fact that there is such a lack of diversity should be telling us something. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oh wait, I see you put it back in, regardless of this discussion. Why do I even bother trying to discuss it when you are just going to force it in. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: What? I very certainly did not put that into the lead: I just re-checked my edits and the diffs [36] demonstrate that I did not add the sentences I asked about above.

Why do you object to the Massachusetts example of SWAT police being operated by companies? I think that's interesting and relevant - police forces being run not by the government but by corporations of various kinds. -Darouet (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• No, you just restored the part about uses without bothering to discuss it. Sorry, I should have been more clear. The Mass thing is misleading. First, it's a few departments in a single state. While other complain about the lack of worldview in the article, you want to hyperfocus on a isolated example. Second, it sounds like the SWAT teams are being privatized, as if the officers are from G4S or something. They're all sworn officers from public agencies. They made a structural change so that they team (made up of cooperating public agencies) can apply for grants and administer funds without having to go through a mile of red tape. It streamlines things. This entry gives the false impression that these teams work for a private company. Their authority derives from their agencies and mutual aid agreements. Explaining all would end up giving this isolated example far more space than it merits. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Well we had come to an agreement about the lead after long debate, and I am hesitant to change it without further substantial agreement. I did remove the "80,000" figure because while I'd seen that somewhere, it's not sourced and I don't have the time to look for it now.

Concerning the MA example, I understand the concern to keep the article global. Perhaps, eventually, there can be a separate article dedicated to US SWAT police. I don't entirely understand your commentary on the MA corporations but I will re-read the article while keeping your commentary in mind. -Darouet (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• And then I realized that the material was never sourced elsewhere in the article. I also toned down the "raid" language. It's POV and not accurate. The commentary isn't hard. The SWAT teams aren't being privatized and aren't being run by the private sector. They were just set up as corporations for fiscal administration purposes. The entry sounds like they're contracting with some company. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Re-reading the original article and your critique, I see that the text I added was imprecise. The following text however would be accurate:

A number of Massachusetts SWAT teams are now operated by the North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council, which is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) and therefore immune from FOIA requests."

Do you object to this language? I don't actually propose adding it unless it is something going on outside MA. -Darouet (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• 1) I think it's too isolated to merit mention. 2) Why is "and therefore immune from FOIA requests." so important to the encyclopedia topic? That's a very, very specific factoid about a singular entity. 3) They aren't "operated" by the council, they're administered by them. There is a difference. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, to answer point #2, immunity from FOIA would make civilian and journalistic oversight very difficult, something pretty crucial for police forces, and the reason why Balko's comment was published in the Washington Post. -Darouet (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Again, a handful of agencies in a single state. Why that doesn't seem to matter to you is a bit confusing to me. And it's still misleading. Just because Balko, who exists only to push a POV, has to sell wolf-tickets to keep getting quoted in papers, doesn't make it encyclopedic. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• I hadn't even noticed before, but the last part of the article is an ad for Balko's book. This is starting to look more like an op-ed piece, but he certainly has a vested interest in creating a "crisis". Although the council provides many services (hostage negotiators, motorcycle officers etc), Balko focuses on the single, narrow issue of SWAT because that's the only drum he beats. And it was at least 2 years ago....is any of that still valid? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Balko and/or Kraska are cited in just about every textbook on criminal justice or policing that discusses militarized police. Their ubiquity results from the respect they command in the field, and it's improper for you to repeatedly impugn their research as some kind of personal vendetta or enrichment. The implication is that anyone who documents police militarization or brutality cannot be a valid or impartial source. That's just not true.

I would recommend that we split off that paragraph place it under a new section titled "militarization of police." We could include a few more sources on the topic, including some that I found which defend police militarization from various perspectives. That way readers interested in that particular topic - which looms large in academic and journalistic discussions of SWAT policing - would know where to go if they want to consult the topic. -Darouet (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• It's not improper for me to have an opinion. They are cited everywhere because they're the only ones that have been beating that drum for years. If there are 3 people that talk about it, there's a pretty good chance you'll see the same names over and over. If the topic were actually widely covered, we would have a diversity of names. Haven't you wondered why there's a lack of diversity? You can find a hundred experts on a fighter plane than only a few countries can afford, but only 2 "experts" on a topic that is in most cities? And when they're writing books (ie making money), making TV appearances that promote their books (ie making money) and trying everything they can to keep their names viable because they are making money, I most certainly will call them on it. I've watched Kraska for well over a decade, Balko for a long time. This topic isn't a passing interest for me. I don't make the implication that you somehow claim. It's just that simple. Before we go splitting anything up, I'd like to nail down what it contains. I thought we were talking about the MA item. Aside from the fact that Balko talked about it, I haven't heard much of a reason for including this narrow item in this article. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SWAT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312022924/http://www.itota.net:80/ to http://www.itota.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Routine street patrols

Until recently this article reported that "20% of cities with populations exceeding 50,000 also use SWAT police for routine street patrols, often funded by community policing grants." The information was sourced to SWAT Madness and the Militarization of the American Police, published by ABC-CLIO and authored by James Fisher, former FBI agent and professor of law and forensics.

This information also appears elsewhere. An Introduction to policing, published by Cengage Learning, has now been published in its 8th edition. It is authored by John S. Dempsey, former NYPD police captain and professor of criminal justice, and Linda S Forst, a former Florida police captain and professor of criminal justice. These authors write, "The use of these units over the years also has changed from handling the occasional dangerous situation callouts to being involved on a more routine basis in such things as serving high-risk search warrants and arrest warrants. Kraska and Kappeler found that 20 percent of the departments they surveyed used PPUs for patrolling urban areas on a somewhat regular basis."

Flyte35 removed this information with the edit summary "unnecessary." After my revert, Niteshift36 again removed the information, explaining, "This 'nice to know' point seems more like making a point and truly lacks context." Niteshift, you should really not revert and instead follow the WP:BRD cycle, creating a discussion here if the point is important to you. I'm creating that discussion now so you can explain your reasoning.

While I agree with Niteshift that the information was out of place in the paragraph it appeared in, it would have been perfectly situated in the paragraph immediately preceding it. There is nothing more relevant to our article, SWAT, than what SWAT teams actually do. Niteshift, why is this information about SWAT team usage "nice to know?" Also, why do you feel the information "seems more like making a point?"

Let me know if you both have any objection to placing the information in the article one paragraph earlier. -Darouet (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps including the information about how the use of these units over the years also has changed would be relevant to include, but just saying 20% of cities with populations exceeding 50,000 use SWAT police for routine street patrols does not provide relevant context. Flyte35 (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Flyte35: the text appeared in the "post 9/11" subsection of SWAT#History, in general clearly contextualizing it within the arc of SWAT evolution since the 1960s. For instance, the post 9/11 section begins by describing how SWAT policing changed with the War on Terror. I think if we placed the text into the section paragraph, "By 2005, the number of yearly SWAT deployments...", we would clearly be showing, like sources, that SWAT teams were originally designed for extraordinary situations, but are now used more routinely. Here is what I would propose. What do you think? -Darouet (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Once again, it comes back to Kraska.....everything does. And please, don't tell me I shouldn't revert. BRD is a suggestion. A different editor removed it, you reverted him. I agreed with him and removed it again. That's just the way it goes sometimes. I'll tell you part of my initial reaction is based on what is, in Wikipedia terms, original research. I concede that up front. Let's look at LAPD for example, since that agency is so prominent in this topic. SWAT belongs to the Metro division. Since they don't spend 24 hours a day on SWAT call outs, they still do other police work. So they're out "patrolling" high crime areas. They have their tactical gear with them, in case they do get called out. Now, is that "routine patrol" by SWAT? Or is it routine patrol by police officers that happen to be SWAT? This is even more common with agencies of a smaller size, where the SWAT members are detective, traffic or what have you until they get called out. The other part is the statement that it's part of a community policing grant, without knowing what the grant was actually for. All community policing grants aren't created equal. One can fund programs with cops playing basketball at midnight, the other can fund warrant round-ups in high crime areas. It implies that there is something improper with a community policing grant being used for that. Without knowing the actual context, it's like saying 56% of Americans who committed suicide learned to swim. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is WP:OR, and I agree with the professors and police officers who authored those highly respected textbooks that when SWAT police officers do routine patrol with their gear, that means that SWAT officers are doing routine patrol. The text as I proposed it describes exactly what you're saying. It also doesn't specify that the community policing grants are being misused - something you're implying the text states. -Darouet (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Except you don't know that they are saying "when SWAT police officers do routine patrol with their gear, that means that SWAT officers are doing routine patrol." They're saying SWAT officers are doing routine patrol. You're assuming that they are saying that. It gives the impression that they're rolling out on every traffic stop with body bunkers and MP-5's. And no, it doesn't say the community policing grants are being used....but the implication is there. In the end, OR or not, I oppose inclusion. Just because it's sourced or because some professor said it in (what you claim is a) "highly respected textbook doesn't mean it gets included. As I said in the beginning, this may be nice to know trivia, but including it appears more to be making a point than improving the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's still unclear what your objection is: the sources are both saying exactly what you're saying. SWAT police do routine patrol, and community policing grants support the creation of SWAT teams.

What evidence do you have that this information is "making a point?" And what "point" is that? Information is information. If you believe that the information can be presented with greater context, you can go do research and provide that context. -Darouet (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Let me be clear: Most SWAT members aren't "SWAT police". They are police officers who, usually as a collateral duty, happen to belong to a SWAT team. In the vast majority of cases, SWAT teams aren't staffed by officers who do nothing but SWAT. They are staffed by guys who do their regular police duties all week and, on an occasional basis, get called out for SWAT incidents. An analogy would be a librarian who is a volunteer fire fighter. His day to day job is being a librarian. He trains with the fire dept, perhaps carries his fire gear so that it's available if the fire dept calls him out, but his job is being is librarian. The logic you're employing would have us saying that libraries are being staffed by fire fighters.. I don't need "evidence" that it's making a point. Another editor removed it as unnecessary. I agreed and removed it again. Now you demand that I provide "evidence" of....well, something. I ate a burger today. That's information. Where does it belong in Wikipedia? Information may be information, but not all information belongs in an encyclopedia. The "point" is that you tend to add information that tends to be negative sounding. That's my opinion and, despite your earlier claims, I'm allowed to have those. You're adding something that isn't relevant and gives the impression that community policing grants are somehow being misused. Why don't you try explaining why the information is needed and why the context is correct? (Hint: Just saying it's sourced or that someone who said it is a professor isn't a reason) Niteshift36 (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)