Talk:SWAT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SWAT is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SWAT article.
Article policies
SWAT was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: November 2, 2006

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] GA nomination

This article meets the criteria I feel, it is well written, covers a wide rang of points regarding the subject, doesn't trigger POV alarms for me either. It has images (though one seems to have temporarily disappeared in the last 20 minutes). It is factual and verifiable, though the one place where it may be let down is the number of references, however the references given are good reliable references which make up for the lack in number. Therefore, I have nominated it for GA, and we'll see what happens. If anything, it will give us some points to improve.--SGGH 21:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] In the beginning...

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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)