[2CAVTrooper]

“I didn’t say that.”

You implied it did you not?

“But they sure can do it [the training] w/o the police.”

The police were the ones who developed such tactics.

“See the above; but that also begs the question: do police need military-style tactics? (That is SWAT.)”

In some cases they do. In dealing with gangs/drug cartel members, bank robberies, hostage rescue, counter terrorist ops, barricaded subjects, etc.... All of which are far beyond the capabilities of a regular beat cop.

[OneWingedShark]

“I didn’t say that.”

You implied it did you not?

No, I did not imply it; the next sentence in the paragraph "but they sure can do it [the training] w/o the police" clears up my stance to exclude that possibility.

“But they sure can do it [the training] w/o the police.”

The police were the ones who developed such tactics.

Irrelevant. Indeed, such tactics could be developed independently in wargaming scenarios. {An amateur in war concentrates on tactics, or admittedly the small-to-medium group leader, the real masters concentrate on logistics.}

The reason is that tactics are ever-changing, every element of METT-TC alters what tactics might be applicable; also, never forget that the enemy is learning/changing his tactics, too.

“See the above; but that also begs the question: do police need military-style tactics? (That is SWAT.)”

In some cases they do. In dealing with gangs/drug cartel members, bank robberies, hostage rescue, counter terrorist ops, barricaded subjects, etc.... All of which are far beyond the capabilities of a regular beat cop.

Your thinking on this is three kinds of screwed up, probably from flat-out acceptance of the Drug War.

1. Any sort of SWAT-like action is, by its very nature, more lethal. (Usually for the 'civilian' victims.)
2. Given the above, this requires much less emphasis on guilt and more on "catching the bad-guy." That is, it fosters the attitude that innocence/guilt do not matter... "and if they do, then the victims must have been guilty otherwise no action would have been taken against them" sort of circular reasoning.
3. Both of the above, combined, engenders a "might makes right" attitude among jurisprudence, and since government is the strongest (and the controller of the "justice system") then it must be the most righteous. (IE Government action is good & right because it is the government.)
   Thus the classical thoughts of American Jurisprudence of innocent until proven guilty, better to let one guilty escape punishment than destroy the life [or reputation] of the accused who is innocent, and the punishment should fit the crime* are utterly subverted and eroded into nothingness.

* Are you going to argue that they really need SWAT teams to dispose of raw milk? (Again, destroying property before the accused was found guilty.)