Re: That is the reason for using the swat

MidicPeterson wrote:

<snip>
> What puzzles me is this: Extremely dangerous animals are captured
> routinely with little risk to the animal or capturers via the use of
> tranquilizer darts fired from air rifles.  Why is this technique not
> employed in cases like this? (ie, someone who is quite dangerous but
> who is not a criminal.)  Are there medical, legal, or law enforcement
> reasons for not using such an approach?  It seems simple and obvious
> to me, but perhaps I'm missing something.


There are a number of reasons, animals do not have the intelligence to 
remove the dart from themselves after being shot.  There is a rather 
long delay between administration of the drugs and them taking effect 
(due in part to the IM injection method).  During this time, a person 
knowing he will be disabled soon, would be even more dangerous than he 
was to start with and could cause much damage to himself or others 
during this time.  There is also a very high risk of death or serious 
injury to the person from the drugs themselves or during the 
administration of such.  The liability for such use is extremely high, 
especially in the overly litigious USA.  An officer must still get 
within range and fire a dart (most of the darts used for animals have a 
short range and marginal accuracy).  Such administration would not be 
useful for a barricaded subject.  Even the tranq darts used on animals 
quite often do not work correctly.  Most often, the animal must be shot 
many times over a period of 20 to 30 minutes to get enough of the drug 
into the system to have the desired effect.  An overdose can easily be 
fatal.

Note that other methods of delivering "knock-out" gases have been used 
in other countries with marginal results and they often kill a 
significant percentage of the people they are used on.  The US legal 
system wouldn't stand for such use.  We can't even forbid convicted 
felons from watching cable TV.

Having said all this and not knowing where or what department was 
involved in the incident stated, there are much more effective methods 
of dealing with such subjects.  We can Monday morning quarterback this 
incident all day long, but will never have the actual info the officers 
had who were entering this room (risking their own lives in an attempt 
to save others).  I have to wonder if your facts are wrong, as "tear 
gas" is a very ineffective tool that is rarely used.  With that, I would 
provide the following modern tactical methods of dealing with psych 
subjects.

Attempts would be made to obtain audio and video surveillance of the 
interior of the room.  After failed negotiations, there would need to be 
something to trigger a forceful entry.  Either eminent danger to the 
person's self or others would need to exist prior to an entry.  Tactical 
entries are extremely dangerous and no police department is going to 
risk officer lives for no good reason.  They could continue negotiations 
for days if needed unless something indicates the person is going to 
cause harm.  A new device that is being widely used is the Taser.  It 
looks like a pistol, but fires a pair of electrodes to deliver an 
electrical shock to the subject.  Incapacitation is instant and there 
are no permanent side effects.  One possible scenario would be for 
officers to make a dynamic entry using a "flash bang" distraction device 
to cause initial disorientation of the subject.  If the subject is not 
immediately overwhelmed and surrenders, then he can be immobilized with 
a Taser.  No one dies, no one injured, and the police dept looks good.

Fortunately, such non-lethal take downs are occurring more and more as 
departments get the equipment and training to do it.  It is a good thing.