TheAgitator.com
Bruce Schneier
Wednesday, November 19th, 2008He responds to my Fox column to say he has no interest in heading up the TSA.
His reasons are sound, and I’m sure he’d turn it down—about as sure as I am that Obama (or any president, frankly) wouldn’t have the good sense or guts to nominate someone like him—someone who dares to question the security state.
At the same time, it sorta’ reminds me of what a retired police chief once told me about how he staffed his SWAT team. He said he’d ask for volunteers, then disqualify every officer who raised his hand. He added, “The guys who want the job are the last ones who should have it.”
Alas, that’s true of many government positions.
“At the same time, it sorta’ reminds me of what a retired police chief once told me about how he staffed his SWAT team. He said he’d ask for volunteers, then disqualify every officer who raised his hand. He added, ‘The guys who want the job are the last ones who should have it.’ ”
I remember you mentioning this before, Radley. It’s a good story, and I rather like the chief’s vetting process (popular phrase at the moment, so I couldn’t resist!). SWAT doesn’t necessarily have a good name among the rank-and-file either, at least where I live. I grew up around my local P.D., and I remember hearing patrol officers make cracks about SWAT guys and complain about all the “special” people in the department (this usually means those outside patrol). Aside from that, SWAT was mocked for always taking a long time to suit up and prepare for their “missions” prior to arrival at a scene.
After the incident at Columbine High School, this agency began training its patrol officers to make entry immediately, cover each other, and capture or kill active shooters if possible before SWAT even arrived. I believe this is the way to go. In a critical incident, the primary job of ANY police officer should be to preserve life and stop threats as soon as possible. Keeping this in mind, the issue of SWAT becomes moot in a quick developing situation such as a school shooting. And, as your work suggests, using SWAT reflexively for minor matters is wrong and dangerous. So, if we were doing things right (read: in a manner consistent with the constitution), it seems to me there just wouldn’t be much for SWAT to do. That would be fine with me, and fine with a lot of the LEO’s I know.
>> Alas, that’s true of many government positions.<<
Correction: that’s true of _all_ government positions.
(Instead of elections, maybe we should have lotteries to determine who gets stuck with the job each year.)
ArmsAndTheLaw.com linked to an article on anti-mass shooter tactics that says much the same thing, that after Columbine SOP for most PDs became the first five or so patrol officers that showed up immediately launched an assault. After Virginia Tech they realized that as soon as any opposition appeared, the killers would suicide, so now the first officer is supposed to go in alone and aggressive, because for the Virgina case, every minute meant three lives and a wounded.
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=d26c29ff-f134-4202-bc40-947534a6de3c
One might make the argument that the most immediate response would come from people holding concealed carry permit holders.