This is a discussion on LA Swat within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; did anybody here about l.a. swat being told to soften up so females could join? what is this world coming to? i suppose next the ...
March 24th, 2008 06:20 AM
did anybody here about l.a. swat being told to soften up so females could join? what is this world coming to? i suppose next the women will want shoes and vests that match thier rifles and makes a fashion statement
March 24th, 2008 10:31 AM
The LAPD's assault on SWAT - Los Angeles Times
Would you rather have an elite fighting force made up of the best cops, or of officers who 'look like L.A.'?
By Robert C.J. Parry
March 16, 2008
On a Sunday afternoon in the summer of 2005, Jose Peña fueled himself with cocaine and grabbed a 9-millimeter pistol. Waving the gun at the head of his 19-month-old daughter, Suzie, he told the LAPD officers who arrived at the scene that he was Tony Montana -- the character played by Al Pacino in "Scarface" -- and that he was going to kill his daughter and himself. He'd already shot at her sister and at the police, so the threat was believable.
The situation was straightforward: If an LAPD SWAT crisis negotiator couldn't dispel Peña's narcotic fantasies, the little girl's life would rest with a SWAT rescue team's ability to cross a 50-foot alley, access the building, find and enter the room he was in and save Suzie before Peña pulled the trigger.
Now imagine for a moment that you were in Suzie Peña's position. Would you want the police SWAT team coming through the door to be the best of the best -- the toughest, most highly trained, most elite tacticians in the Los Angeles Police Department -- or would you want the team to "look like L.A."? Would you want rescuers who had not lost a hostage in three decades, or would you want a team with heartwarming, multicultural diversity?
The answer is pretty obvious, no? You'd want the best. That's what Suzie got, and even so, the results were tragic. According to the L.A. district attorney's office, Jose Peña emerged from the building and a gunfight ensued. When Peña retreated to his office, four SWAT officers crossed the alley in a matter of seconds, entered the building, took fire through the walls -- fire that struck one officer -- and entered Peña's office. There, they exchanged more shots with the gunman, who was standing behind a desk with Suzie. In the chaos, both Jose and Suzie Peña were killed.
Suzie is the only hostage ever lost by LAPD SWAT during its 35 years.
Shortly after her death, Police Chief William J. Bratton appointed a board of inquiry to examine the incident. Its mission, he said, was to investigate the officers' tactics and other factors in the shooting. "For the safety of the public and officers, we need to understand intimately what transpired in that incident," he said at the time.
In fact, the board did nothing of the sort. None of the SWAT officers from the Peña shooting were even interviewed by the panel, according to multiple sources. Indeed, the board's eight members included fewer tactical experts (one) than attorneys (three). In its final report, the board acknowledged that it had been "ultimately precluded from gaining a full and complete understanding of what transpired in Peña until after this report was finalized."
What's more, Assistant Chief Sharon Papa privately promised the team shortly after the incident that the report would be aired openly, according to officers who were present. That didn't happen either. The final report -- completed 15 months ago -- has not been released. Many senior department officials have never seen it, and Times reporters have repeatedly requested it but have been turned down. I received a copy earlier this month from a source.
The report shows that instead of fulfilling Bratton's promises, the board used the Peña case (with Bratton's encouragement) as a way to push for a series of politically correct changes within SWAT -- changes that many cops believe will have absolutely no benefit and that they believe will endanger the lives of citizens and cops alike.
From the start -- before the panel examined any evidence -- Bratton made it clear that increasing SWAT's diversity was particularly important to him. In November 2005, he privately addressed the board about his goals for their inquiry. The final report quotes him: "I'm looking to create change within SWAT. The qualifications to get in are stringent. But are they too stringent? There are no women and few African Americans.... Are there artificial barriers for getting into SWAT that the 'good old boys' network has maintained?"
Bratton's assertion that SWAT has few African Americans is not accurate. Eight of the 63 SWAT members are black, sources say, -- even after the death of Officer Randal Simmons on Feb. 7. That's 12.6% in a department that is 12% African American.
Nevertheless, in keeping with Bratton's wishes, the final report devotes substantial space to how to bring in female and black officers. "The absence of women ... and the low number of African Americans in SWAT should be addressed and dealt with, and the membership of SWAT should be reflective of the community," the report says, although it offers no qualitative or quantitative evidence that this change would save a single life or lead to a single suspect's apprehension. The unit, the report says, has become "insular, self-referential and resistant to change."
The report goes on to say that "there is no task in SWAT that a woman could not perform" and that the selection criteria has "underemphasized negotiating skills, patience, empathy and flexibility while overemphasizing physical prowess and tactical acumen."
But SWAT officers who have actually entered houses to rescue hostages from killers (as they did Feb. 7 in Winnetka, resulting in the death of Simmonsand the wounding of Officer James Veenstra) say there is no such thing as overemphasizing tactical acumen or physical prowess for such assignments.
Yes, they say, there are probably women on the force who could and should be admitted to SWAT, but they should be required to meet the same standards as other applicants and should be chosen for skill, not for diversity. The reality, SWAT members say, is that the standards for tactical success apply to everyone equally. Upper-body strength is vital to holding a 12-pound rifle stone-steady to hit a deranged killer while avoiding his hostage in a whirlwind of chaos.
In general, the final board report offers little or no persuasive evidence as to why SWAT should change. "SWAT performs in a disciplined and exemplary manner consistent with its fine reputation," the report acknowledges. "It has been and remains a source of great pride within the LAPD."
In fact, according to the report itself, out of 3,771 missions SWAT has performed from 1972 to 2005, suspects have been apprehended without any "untoward" incident in 83% of the cases. (The report does not define "untoward.") It notes that SWAT members have killed a suspect only 31 times in 33 years -- that's less than 1% of all engagements, often with the city's most deranged and violent criminals.
What's more, SWAT has lost only one hostage -- Suzie Peña -- and the way to ensure it doesn't happen again is to maintain and raise standards, not to lower them out of political correctness.
None of that matters, though, to the brass. "Bratton wants a woman on SWAT regardless of whether she's 110 pounds soaking wet and completely incapable of pulling 200 pounds of Jimmy Veenstra and his gear out of a house in the middle of a gunfight," said one officer who survived the Winnetka shootout in which Veenstra was extracted by his teammates while under fire.
Based on the findings of the report, the LAPD has just instituted a new selection process for SWAT, according to a SWAT veteran who helped in the redesign. Instead of picking cops on the basis of their ability to handle weapons and stress, the new standards specifically exclude video-based shooting simulator evaluations and "Hogan's Alley," a daunting series of pop-up targets representing armed crooks and hostages. A simulated raid with flash-bang devices that previously disqualified many candidates who accidentally shot the "hostage" is also gone.
The new test's only physical challenges are a modest physical fitness qualification and a modified obstacle course. "My preteen daughter could pass that," one officer said. Applicants' scores will now largely come from an oral interview conducted by non-SWAT and non-LAPD supervisors. In essence, the test is largely subjective.
Another coming change that SWAT officers criticize is one that would allow officers from anywhere in the department to apply to SWAT, rather than limiting it (as it has historically been limited) to officers from the elite Metropolitan Division. SWAT had argued to the board that continued selection from Metro was "a nearly fail-safe way to select the best of the best," and the final board report acknowledged that using only applicants from Metro "has produced remarkable cohesion, consistency, mutual trust and commonality of outlook."
But the board of inquiry ultimately claimed that including people from other divisions "could bring a wider perspective and greater gender and racial diversity." So the plan to broaden the pool of applicants is expected to go into effect next year.
There are a variety of innocuous recommendations in the board report, such as improvements in risk management, trend analysis and data analysis. The report calls for new accountability measures, including "Compstat-like accountability." (Compstat is Bratton's signature system for tracking crime trends.) The report also recommends providing all personnel with take-home cars, something the team has requested for years.
But it is the change in the selection process and the opening up of SWAT to applicants from outside Metro that have motivated SWAT officers' wives to launch an unusual e-mail campaign directed at Bratton and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, stating in part: "We are concerned with the safety of our husbands ... if they are expected to go into these highly dangerous situations with someone who got in under a compromised standard."
The report says, "SWAT culture and insularity pose a certain danger to the LAPD and the Los Angeles community as a whole." But the report is based on misconceptions.
SWAT is not a lily-white redoubt of old prejudices. Simmons and Veenstra (who is of Asian ancestry) illustrate this. Suzie Peña's attempted rescuers had names like Perez, Sanchez and Gallegos. Bratton may not know this; at the annual SWAT dinner, I saw him come in and talk to a couple of senior managers and deputy chiefs for 30 minutes and then leave, having barely acknowledged the officers -- black, white, Latino or otherwise. That evening, he forfeited his last chance to talk to Simmons, who died 10 days later.
SWAT is too important to this city to be weakened in the name of political correctness. Unless the Police Commission or other officials act, the LAPD will make social experimentation a higher priority than tactical excellence.
Robert C.J. Parry is a businessman working on a book about his experiences in the Army National Guard in Iraq.
You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.
March 24th, 2008 10:46 AM
It's really not an issue of race or sex - it's an issue of capabilities. They need to focus on recruiting the most capable regardless of gender or race. PC run amok in the land 'o fruits and nuts.......
The LA SWAT record appears enviable, too - quite amazing!
March 24th, 2008 10:57 AM
What do you expect from the "land of the granola bar"? Nothing but nuts, fruits, and flakes. There are some sensible people there but I imagine they are out numbered at least 100 to 1.
To those on the board from Cali:
Glad to see you are the sensible ones. Too bad you are so out numbered there.
March 24th, 2008 01:52 PM
I don't mean to sound sexist, but quite frankly...when stuck between a charging bull ramped up on meth/pcp/drug of choice and swat...I want the swat GUYS to be built like blockheads. It's simple mathematics and physics. Force=Mass x Acceleration. Women just aren't physically built for swat. As to the Race/Color issues...what issues? Who cares if they're white, black, or freakin purple!
I want the guys that are not only the smartest (which has nothing to do with sex or race), but also the strongest and the fastest. I don't care how much H2H training a 100-130lb woman on swat has...she doesn't have a snowballs chance down under to stop a 250-300lb raging bull if confronted face to face sans already drawn firearm. Another obvious point...are they going to be able to easily toss me over a shoulder and haul my hindquarters out if I become disabled in the struggle....answer: Probably NOT.
Please take a moment to help a Veteran and one of our own: gofundme.com/5d9dfa2s
March 24th, 2008 03:42 PM
Give them what they want. If good people leave Cali, we can let it burn.
March 24th, 2008 05:01 PM
Oh jeese, dont even get me started. And it isnt just in CA, and it just isnt SWAT.
"Just blame Sixto"
I reserve the right to make fun, point and laugh etc.
March 24th, 2008 05:06 PM
It's not rocket science, really...
1) Define the requirements for the job based on the most realistic scenarios that the employees will face.
2) Create uniform, objective, stringent standards, based on these job requirements, that all candidates must pass, for both physical and mental tasks. If "personality" is important to the job, administer the appropriate subjective tests/interviews AFTER the objective standards have been met.
3) Open it up to all comers, with the understanding that there will be no mens/womens standards, just as there will be no short/tall standards or white/black/green standards.
A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.
March 24th, 2008 05:22 PM
I think they should do away with the selection process altogether. Why exclude anyone?
Instead they could rotate officers onto the team, say on a weekly basis. That way everyone would get a turn and no one would feel left out.
March 24th, 2008 05:36 PM
Hey wait...you're onto something ....Oh nevermind. Isn't that what they're already effectively proposing?
Originally Posted by Blackhawk6
Please take a moment to help a Veteran and one of our own: gofundme.com/5d9dfa2s
March 24th, 2008 05:37 PM
What a tragedy.... I had heard LAPD SWAT was one of the cutting edge units in the entire country....
Those people get what they deserve.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry
March 24th, 2008 05:42 PM
My former boss to me:"Yes, your unit is the best-qualified for this mission, but you have been the assault element on the last two operations. We need to give someone else a turn."
Originally Posted by SIXTO
You just can't make stuff like this up. Absurd!
March 24th, 2008 05:51 PM
Perhaps we could get some volunteers from the street to make life nicer for the scum bags. If my life is on the line, I want the best qualified on my team. Sooner or later, the bad guy is going to win even with the best going against him. I feel for the team.
Les Baer 45
N.R.A. Patron Life Member
March 24th, 2008 07:29 PM
Like someone was getting out earlier, when you're in a bank holdup/robbery, who do you want storming the building, the best trained, strongest marksmen, or a potentially underqualified person that was selected for some politicians chance of getting elected. I know who I want my life staked on.
Also, thugs aren't scared enough of the police at the moment, yet alone when it becomes a sissy deversified PC squad.
March 24th, 2008 07:49 PM
For that matter, they could bring "democracy" to the team environment and have a lead "facilitator" (didn't that phrase originate in California???)............
BE PREPARED - Noah didn't build the Ark when it was raining!
Si vis pacem, para bellum
NRA Life Member
By llred in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: July 17th, 2009, 01:13 PM
By ArmyCop in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: November 12th, 2008, 08:28 PM
Search tags for this page
l.a. s.w.a.t. physical fitness standards
la swat standoff with maniquin
lapd pistol qualification
lapd swat pistol qualification
Click on a term to search for related topics.