In this era of tight budgets, smaller cities and towns should consider disbanding the local SWAT team. They’ll save money on training, equipment and overtime. They’ll be returning to a less aggressive, less militaristic, more community-oriented method of policing. And though there always will be crime, it seems unlikely that should they do away with SWAT, towns like Eufaula will suddenly find themselves overwhelmed by school shootings, bank robberies and terrorist attacks.
Radley Balko writes in the Washington Times.
One of the commenters of the article nailed it in my opinion. Balko does the selective stats and anecdotal evidence things wayy to much. It's just Anti-cop noise (go to his blog and find two positive remarks about police officers, you might be there a while….).
All "anti" people do this (anti-gun nuts, for example, can tell you bad stat after bad stat about guns, but can't name any good ones, they know if they did, they'd defeat their argument).
The problem isn't smaller departments having SWAT capabilites, it's SWAT overuse/misues in Drugs War crap usually by Bigger agencies and the Feds.
Any and all police tactics should be reviewed based on realistic and factual needs of an agency, rather than the blanket 'OMG their dressed like Army ninja's and have "assault" rifles paranoia'.