The point of my original post was to examine our terminology, not our practice or procedure. Back in the 1960’s the LAPD created what has become the predecessor of the modern police tactical team. They called themselves “SWAT – Special Weapons and Tactics”. But 40 some years later there are many tactical teams that go by a different name. Teams use anything from “SERT – Special Emergency Response Team”, to “TRT – Tactical Response Team”, to “ESU (NYPD) – Emergency Services Unit. So why did those agencies decide to move away from “SWAT”. Maybe it was because some in the police field think their way of doing things are bigger and better than the next guy and they wanted to be different. Or maybe it was because the communities we serve didn’t like the thought of a heavily armed police force sitting in their backyard ready to pound them into submission – land of the free and all. It was the 60’s after all, and the Cold War was hot, along with the very touchy experience our country had with civil rights. So many of us changed our names … but we didn’t take the teams away, and we didn’t stop doing what we were created to do.

Our team is called the ESS – Emergency Services Squad. And that name probably describes our missions more accurately than say “SWAT”. Why is that? Because as time has gone by we’ve added to our mission not taken away. Our team is far better trained and better equipped than it ever has been. Changing our name did not change our mission or dictate how we do business. New training and equipment has sometimes done that but not the name change. But the name change may very well have kept those funds coming from the community (albeit our current economy). Our Bear Cat has the words “Emergency Response Vehicle” on its sides. Why that name? Because our city (an affluent suburb to a major Midwestern city) can swallow that name better than say “Armored Police Vehicle”. And we’ve performed emergency rescues on several occasions with our Bear Cat, including rescuing patrol officers pinned from a hail of gunfire from an EDP with military training. In that particular incident we proved the value and diverse uses of the Bear Cat by “creating an opening for dialogue” when we rammed the vehicle in the garage completely through the back of the house and into the backyard. We know that our Bear Cat is used mostly to transport our Entry Team to search warrant executions and barricaded subject calls, but we don’t have to stick that out in the face of the citizens. The sheep don’t often like to see the teeth of the sheep dogs, so we hide the teeth in a different name.

And I do believe that we have to take into consideration “the perceptions of the misinformed or misguided”. Like it or not, those are often the people who don’t find a way of getting out of jury duty – even at the Federal level! And some of those citizens might just make it to the bench too! Someone once said, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”. And those are often times the citizens we deal with. And the citizens, like it or not, are our bosses. They, and they alone (through the Constitution and statutes), give us the authority to do what we do. And if they want, they can limit what we do too. That’s the joy, and sometimes heartache, of living in a free society. And I don’t want us to be limited in our mission because some slick attorney, misguided judge, or just plain ignorant juror decides to view our actions (by our own terminology) as darker than they actually are. You might say that we can testify to the differences and that will be sufficient, but will it be? I don’t know, and that’s what has me thinking (haven’t decided yet remember). Some juries and judges favor us, and then sometimes we get old ladies getting paid $1 million for spilt coffee and the U.S. Supreme Court reversing ITSELF by telling us we can’t search vehicles after a lawful arrest out of that vehicle.

I look at this discussion almost like a verbal judo discussion. Nothing in what I’ve brought, thought, or hope to get across is meant to encourage us to change the way we do business or to somehow lower our standards. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. But maybe we can do business better and ward off an attack before it happens. Maybe the old adage, “walk softly, but carry a big stick” could be the sum of the thought for this topic. We can walk softly with the terms we use for the public, to avoid their undue and often misguided scrutiny of our actions, and yet we can still carry a very big stick and accomplish the mission! If that’s PC, but it saves our teams and our abilities to carry out our missions, than I guess I’m O.K. with that. My God, did I just say I’m O.K. with some kind of PC? I’ve gotta go do some Cross Fit to feel better about myself. Great discussion, I hope to hear more!

When in court, Police Snipers explain that the purpose of snipers in law enforcement is to save lives. We can even explain the differences between Military snipers and Law Enforcement Snipers. We should never short change ourselves and soften what we do to appeal to the perceptions of the misinformed or misguided. This is one instance where political correctness is not accurate and by changing the title and definition of what we do, we lower our standards of what we expect from our profession.