A former leader of the Virginia Beach SWAT team writes in response to my Washington Post op-ed last week, which also appeared in Norfolk’s Virginian-Pilot:

In “Overkill is the latest trend in policing” (op-ed, Feb. 7), it is obvious that Radley Balko is misinformed as to why SWAT teams are being used more and more.

I was in charge of the Virginia Beach SWAT team for 2 1/2 years, and we realized the advantages of using a well-trained, disciplined SWAT team for other types of arrests.

It is unfortunate but, in today’s society, the potential for violence is always there. Every day we read about someone being hurt or threatened with a firearm.

Criminals today don’t decide to stop carrying a handgun based on what crime they are committing. Law enforcement has learned that it is safer to utilize a cohesive team of officers who are constantly training to deal with situations where there could be a potential for violence. Their expertise and training actually decreases the potential for violence to everyone involved including the suspect.

Though I wasn’t in charge of the SWAT team during the raid of the Virginia Beach club in 1998, I think it is very unfortunate that Mr. Balko uses the death of security guard Edward Reed as one of his examples for the overuse of SWAT teams.

Mr. Balko fails to mention that the SWAT team was being used that night based on information that individuals involved in the gambling operation were carrying handguns for “protection.” The SWAT team was not being used based on a security guard sitting outside in a parked car.

Mr. Balko also fails to mention that some of the individuals involved in the gambling operation fired shots as the SWAT officers attempted to make entry into the building.

The situation might have been worse had there not been well-trained officers involved. This decision to use the SWAT team was the correct one.

Jack Collins
Virginia Beach

Mr. Collins is right. Members of that gambling operation did fire back as police entered the building. Here’s what he doesn’t mention: The prosecutor in the case declined to press charges against the men who fired back — including the club’s owner — because the prosecutor found it was reasonable for them to have thought they were being invaded by criminal intruders. The club had been robbed just a few months earlier (which would also explain the handguns).

So let’s sum: Police storm a club on a gambling warrant. They shoot and kill an innocent security guard on their way in. Their paramilitary tactics lead the club’s occupants to believe they’re being robbed, which leads to a close-quarters gunfight, putting everyone inside in peril. And throughout all of this, they fail to take into consideration the fact that the club had been recently robbed, meaning a forced, armed entry would in all likelihood cause those inside to believe this was a second robbery, not police executing a warrant.

With all apologies to Mr. Collins and his “well-trained” officers, it’s difficult to see how this situation “might have been worse.” I certainly don’t see how it could have been any worse had two uniformed, clearly marked police officers served the warrant instead of a black-clad band of cops armed more for foreign conflict than for civilian policing.

This entry was posted on Sunday, February 12th, 2006 at 9:01 am by Radley Balko and is filed under Gambling, Police Militarization. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.