cops get gun-mounted cameras

[pcf]

For example, back in the old 6 shooter days officers placed much more emphasis on shot placement. With the emergence of autos many officers found themselves spraying and praying rather than carefully looking for their best shots.

What's this based off of? Law enforcement firearm training has improved by leaps and bounds since the "good ol' six shooter days". That has more to do with increased liability than the platform used. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger hasn't been around that long.

The good:
-Can see around corners without sticking the brain holder into harms way.
-Doesn't require an extra piece of equipment.
-Allows a situation to be assessed and evaluated before entering it.

The bad:
-Requires that the weapon be put blindly around a corner.
-If employed improperly, requires that a weapon be pointed at a target that one does not intend to shoot. It's up there with using a weapon light as a general purpose flashlight.

Great idea, but needs some refinement.

 

[YellowLab]

Cop #1 'Point the camera gun round the corner.. see whats there'

Cop #2 'Duh, o-tay!'

Cop #1 'Adjust the focus... what is that?'

Cop #2 'Duh, o-tay!'

BANG! (Weapon discharges, killing innocent person or unarmed bad guy)

Cop #2 'Duh, dat wasn't da focus, was it?'

Cop#1 'Good thing I have a spare gun to plant'

Just about every one of the 4 rules of gun saftey was broke... but hey, they are cops, serve and protect and all that other blather. They simply CANNOT be expected to play buy the same rules as citizens do.

 

[NineseveN]

Quite frankly my safety does come first in that type of situation. Again sounds like the cop bashers are out in force.
Pat

Cop bashers? Look, you obviously have no argument if you have to resort to the lame old "cop bashers" excuse. Anyone that doesn't agree with you is a cop basher? Sorry, try again, this time, provide an argment so we can talk.


Tell me, exactly why gun mounted cameras are needed instead of fiber optic snake cameras. In what situation as a regular beat cop would you possibly need a camera on your gun over all other options?

 

[YellowLab]

I don't cop bash. I don't have faith in the police either.

I sat on a jury for a drug bust a few years ago.

I won't say the cop outright lied or planted any evidence, but the story/circumstances of the case and the 'evidence' and utter lack of procedural compliance was stunning.

The first thing we did in the deliberation room was cuss at the DA for wasting our time (2 days) with such crap, and then the cop for his 'actions'.

I was a real gong-ho 'support the boys in blue' kinda guy. 2 days later I had nothing but contempt for the police and their attempt to convict someone with such an unbelievable set of circumstance.

Either they had a quota to fill or the defandant was simply dragged through the mud and court to teach him a lesson.

 

[355sigfan]

What type of situation would that be? Anytime you feel the need to draw your weapon?

So you're advocating not only covering innocent people with your weapon, now you want to do it while hiding around a corner and not even knowing what you'll be covering beforehand?
END QUOTE

Lets see active shooter, bulding searches, barricaded gunman ext. Yes you should not cover anything your not willing to destroy. Thats a good range safety rule. But in real life with people shooting back at you its not always practical.

Keep your finger off the trigger until your ready to fire thats the rule to follow. When your searching your muzzle is going to move its the third eye principal. Now if you know there is an innocent person you don't cover them. But until thats been estabished you do cover the threat.


QUOTE
Tell me, exactly why gun mounted cameras are needed instead of fiber optic snake cameras. In what situation as a regular beat cop would you possibly need a camera on your gun over all other options?
END QUOTE

Fair enough it should be obvious. This is a tool that allows you to engage a threat with out exposing yourself to gun fire. If its used properly I see no problem with it.

I have weapon mounted lights on all my duty guns. When searching your muzzle covers everywhere you look. Its possible I could search and find an innocent person and they would be covered with my muzzle until I reconized them. So what. lots of cops have weapon mounted lights yet I have not heard of anyone getting shot beccause of it.


Yellowlab your post is not even worth commenting on. Guns don't go bang by themselves. (assuming the cops will nd and then plant evidence shows you have been watching too many episodes of the Shield) If your post is not cop bashing then what is. If you lost faith in cops because you saw one bad one. It shows your somewhat naive. Every profession has bad people in it. I know there are bad cops. Most don't last long. There are far far more good ones. In general due to the screening process most cops are of higher moral fiber than the average joe. Some things slip through the cracks obviously. And when they do we have monday morning quarterbacks like you to jump all over us.


The good news is people with more educations and less bias are going to be making the decision on rather to use this new tool or not.

 

[Chrontius]

Is it a bad thing...

that my first thoughts were of reality TV and the words "Firefight Live!"

I can see these being seriously cool on pro airsoft/paintball games, especially if you can do all that fun Land Warrior stuff with these. Even more so if you can analyze the footage in real time and paint a crosshair onto a HUD.

Overall:
Very cyberpunk, without being too evil. Therefore, kinda cool.

Edit: I think you guys covered the rest (covering/sweeping) pretty well, so I feel no need to do the same.

 

[Highland Ranger]

Seems like looking around corners needn't involve a firearm.

Also seems like a good way to loose control of your weapon if someone is standing right there and sees the muzzle come around.

"Protect and Serve" disappeared off the cars a long time ago . . . . not all or even partly their fault if some of us recollect back to the crazy 70's.

But its a fact. Your safety is absoutely a secondary concern at best.

 

[NineseveN]

Lets see active shooter, bulding searches, barricaded gunman ext. Yes you should not cover anything your not willing to destroy. Thats a good range safety rule. But in real life with people shooting back at you its not always practical.

What units generally engage barricaded gunmen? Run of the mill patrolmen?

In what ways would this help in your typical active shooter scenario? Is the typical active shooter someone that is hiding around a corner?

How often, percentage-wise, do police officers actually get shot at? You make it sound like a very grave situation of dire importance, how many altercations with gunmen who shoot at the cops occur where this particular piece of equipment would be useful?

Keep your finger off the trigger until your ready to fire thats the rule to follow. When your searching your muzzle is going to move its the third eye principal. Now if you know there is an innocent person you don't cover them. But until thats been estabished you do cover the threat.

And is everyone person you encounter a threat until proven otherwise? I'm not talking about raiding a drug house (where I don't think regular cops should be used anyway, but that's another thread and another day), I'm talking about what the average beat cop experiences, not the fear-mongering illusion that our police live in Beirut or Israel.

Fair enough it should be obvious. This is a tool that allows you to engage a threat with out exposing yourself to gun fire. If its used properly I see no problem with it.

You didn't answer the question. Again, tell me, exactly why gun mounted cameras are needed instead of fiber optic snake cameras. In what situation as a regular beat cop would you possibly need a camera on your gun over all other options? What type of threat? Are you talking about shooting around corners? Are we back to the barricaded suspect scenario again? Or a hostage scenario? Do regular beat cops typically engage the aggressor in these scenarios? Why is a fiber snake not as useful in this situation?

I have weapon mounted lights on all my duty guns. When searching your muzzle covers everywhere you look. Its possible I could search and find an innocent person and they would be covered with my muzzle until I reconized them. So what. lots of cops have weapon mounted lights yet I have not heard of anyone getting shot beccause of it.

Weapon mounted lights are also a poor solution to a largely nonexistent problem. In fact, 52.1% of the police departments surveyed here do not allow weapon mounted lights, indicating that there are serious concerns, most likely arising not from cost (since a little more than 40% allow the lights but make the officer pay for them on their own, eliminating the liability of increased costs for departments) but from a liability and safety standpoint...that and using a proper flashlight technique with a firearm is both just as effective not nearly as dangerous as a weapon mounted light.

Also, consider this article from the same source.

A couple of relevant quotes:

"The gun-mounted light enhances an officer’s ability to identify and engage a target IF THE OFFICER HAS JUSTIFICATION/REASON TO HAVE THEIR GUN DRAWN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

A gun-mounted light is not an illumination tool; consider it to be an element of a law-enforcement weapons system."

"...the justification for drawing and pointing the firearm SHOULD NOT CHANGE SIMPLY BECAUSE THE OFFICER HAS A LIGHT ON THE FIREARM. Officers should still carry an additional flashlight even if they have a weapon mounted light. This reflects on the fact that the time spent using the light as an operational tool far exceeds the time spent firing the weapon with a light. Indeed, similar doctrine has been addressed for many years with relation to lights mounted on long guns.

Again, our position is that when mounted to the gun, the light becomes part of a weapons system. Therefore, we must teach our officers to point the light-equipped firearm weapons system in a safe direction at all times, and point the light-equipped firearm at someone only when justified. Once drawn, however, the light-equipped firearm carried at a ready position can and should project sufficient ambient light for navigation.

Let me guess, those guys are "cop bashers" as well?

Every profession has bad people in it. I know there are bad cops. Most don't last long. There are far far more good ones.

I can definitely agree with everything above except that the bad ones don't last long. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, it depends on if they get caught being bad cops, and how bad they were where they got caught. They still don't always face the same charges as a regular citizen would given the same or similar circumstances, but that's another thread on another day.

In general due to the screening process most cops are of higher moral fiber than the average joe.

What aspect of the police qualification and hiring process ensures a higher moral fiber amongst police officers than of the average joe (which includes doctors, nurses, firefighters, clergy and church staff, career volunteers etc...)? Is this aspect of the process typically uniform across the country?

Some things slip through the cracks obviously. And when they do we have monday morning quarterbacks like you to jump all over us.

When cops, like anyone else, do well, they should be congratulated and thanked, when they do wrong, they should be held to the highest form of scrutiny as would any position that includes serving the public and requiring the public trust. No more, no less.



I eagerly await your answers to the questions I have raised in this post. As an instructor, your assessment and opinion has a little more weight to it, I find some of what you have said a cause for further concern, I'd like some clarifications before I judge too harshly with haste.

 

[Zen21Tao]

I think that the number one reason for a gun mounted camera is so that if a gun fight occurs their is a video available to "save the cops arse." If it really was a "to see around corners" tool, I agree with others that, a snake would be better especially since it isn't adding to the bad guys' weapon count if it is grabbed out of the cops hand. Also a snake doesn't require the to pointed at someone to use the camera.


As for my comment earlier that new technology tends to become a crutch to lean on this comes from simple logic as well as obervations by myself and others. When you only have 6 rounds before the need to reload shot placement is much more vital than if you have 15, 16 or 17 rounds. In fact, I remember reading on another thread a personal obervation of an "old timer" that was a real good hot with a revolver that when he was forced to goto an auto he just emptied a mag a quick as possible not coming near the target. When he was asked why he did this he responded that he thought that was the point of have 16 rounds.

I also agree with those that say a cops number one duty should be toward law abiding citizens. Any officer that would hold his own safety above an innocent bystander should turn in his badge and find another line of work. To many people join law enforcement for reasons other than "to protect and serve." Don't get me wrong, those officers that do put their lives on the line to protect and serve the innocent and hold the safety of innocent citizens as their number on responsibility should be honored and highly valued.

 

[Highland Ranger]

Again, you missed the memo, protect and serve went out with the brady bunch . . . . .

 

[355sigfan]

What units generally engage barricaded gunmen? Run of the mill patrolmen?
END QUOTE

Not all departments have the luxary of a SWAT team. I have faced barricaded gunmen as a patrol officer before I got any swat training. Your run of the mill patrolmen as you so rudely put it have the riskiest jobs. They are the first responders. They often don't know what the situations is before they arrive. They are often outgunned and behind the power curve. They are the ones risking their lives so you can sleep soundly at night. So a little respect is in order. I am tired of arguing with people like yourself who are simply lack adiquate knowledge on the subject to talk intelligently.
Bowing out now.
Pat

 

[warwagon]

Highland Ranger

Try telling that to the guys in blue who were running towards the towers, when everyone was running away.

 

[355sigfan]

How quickly people forget.
Pat

 

[LAK]

The greatest liability with this gadget - apart from just being a gadget adding several moving parts and an electronic device - is that TV screens create a sort of tunnel vison all their own. While officer Joe is searching his screen he is extremely vulnerable at contact and close distances.

I would hate to have that joke in my hands if someone appeared from a very low or high angle at contact distance. Other than for searching now and then in very limited circumstances now and then it is a dangerous gimmick.
---------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[NineseveN]

Not all departments have the luxary of a SWAT team.

Of course they don't, the patrol officers arrive at the scene and assess the situation. If there is a barricaded suspect, and by barricaded I mean they're not going anywhere, the arriving officers call for back-up, scene commanders arrive assume control etc...

Some departments have SWAT from larger departments out on loan in situations such as this; some do not have that luxury. Some departments have what amounts to a tactical response team that while not up to par with SWAT per se; they do have more training and some different tools for different jobs. Anyway, the point is, it does not jive with normal police procedure for the first responder to Rambo it up and run in to engage a barricaded suspect (some rare exceptions may apply), so having the gun cam as part of a the regular patrol officer's daily arsenal is moot. To have this available to them incase of a situation such as this if they do not have the luxury of a SWAT team...well, now we're talking special circumstances, not the average day of a patrol officer's life. Again, this should not be standard issue, and you fail to offer any arguments as to why it should other than pulling the "cop basher" card where it is not relevant and saying police work is dangerous.

I have faced barricaded gunmen as a patrol officer before I got any swat training.

Since you have left the thread, I doubt you'll answer (heck, you failed to answer most any question asked of you while you were participating), but I would ask you to describe this encounter. What you said there can mean so many things. The odd thing is, you survived (I am admittedly assuming here, please let us know if you're dead and I made a mistake) despite not having a gun-mounted camera. So again, how useful is this particular tool for the majority of police work?

Your run of the mill patrolmen as you so rudely put it have the riskiest jobs.

What is so rude about the term "run of the mill patrolman"? Was it because it seems sexist? I should have used patrolperson I suppose. I apologize, I did not mean to offend anyone. If there is something else, I fail to see how it offends otherwise.

They are the first responders. They often don't know what the situations is before they arrive. They are often outgunned and behind the power curve.

No doubt, but cameras mounted to guns will not alleviate these issues any better than fiber optic snake cams do or will. You haven't given an argument for the case for these devices other than, this is dangerous work and I want them. That just doesn't cut it. Now when you start arguing for infrared vision devices, I'll agree with you because those would make a difference...just don't mount them on guns.

They are the ones risking their lives so you can sleep soundly at night.

Okay, this I have to stop you on. One, police officers have no duty to protect anyone. Two, I sleep soundly at night because I have dual security doors, I sleep with a .45 and a .308 auto loading rifle next to me and I am one heck of a shot. I don't sleep better at night because the police can come to my home after a crime is committed and write a report.

I realize that police work is dangerous, but let's not make it out to be something it's not. Policemen and women are not our guardian angels, they have no duty to protect us, they have very little ability to protect us in our homes and their only ability to protect us outside of our homes rests on the chance that a patrol car will be riding by at the moment that something bad happens or that they arrive to the scene of a call before anything really bad happens, or before it gets worse. They do their best, and that's all we can ask, but let's not have any unrealistic expectations of them 'protecting us so we can sleep soundly at night'.

Our police officers do not patrol Beirut or Kabul. The streets are not running with blood, the US is not a war zone. There are some good areas; there are some bad areas. To make every 'burgh, 'burb and beat that an officer can work in sound like Watts is dishonest, it's not like that.

So a little respect is in order.

I'm sorry, you seem to have confused the term "respect" with the idea of ass-kissing. I won't kiss your ass because you were a cop somewhere at some time. I could care less. With your attitude, you might as well have been the mop guy at a peep show joint as far as I am concerned. I give respect when it is earned, wearing a badge does not earn that respect, how you serve does. When you serve with the attitude that your safety is more important than mine, you can kiss any hope of respect goodbye, you haven't earned it. I respect the profession, it's up to the individuals to show that they are professionals through their actions and thus deserve such respect.

I am tired of arguing with people like yourself who are simply lack adiquate knowledge on the subject to talk intelligently.

What have I said that is unintelligent? You have failed to provide any argument whatsoever. I obviously have plenty of knowledge on the subject as you cannot seem to muster even one sentence to counter any point I have made with anything other than cries of "cop basher' and saying police work is terribly dangerous, respect us and give us whatever we want without question because we protect you and we are above reproach - which just doesn't cut it. I've spent nearly 10 years being involved with various law enforcement communities, just because I don't ride around in a black and white and wear a badge does not mean I am completely shielded from experiences with law enforcement. What I am saying here is no different than what a number of national sources on police ethics and training, folks more qualified than you as I understand it, have been saying.

You didn't even bother to try and counter the only source I offered up, because you can't. You have no argument, you simply want whatever you want, the safety of others be damned and you think that cops should be able to operate without question with their own safety being paramount. Sorry pal, no dice. Cops are public servants, you guys should remember who it is that you serve.


Have a day.

 

[Matt G]

If they can get 'em small enough, with recording medium, there will be real value to them in being able to replay the record of what happened when the pistol was shot. I'd rather hang a recording camera with wide-angle lense on it off my pistol than light. Have it activated by the grip safety.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Flash lights, cameras, all excuses to violate the #1 rule of firearm safety,

DO NOT POINT A GUN AT ANYTHING YOU DO NOT WANT TO SEE DESTROYED.

Actually, I believe the rule is "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy!" It is a small difference but an important one. It also explains why some items, like flashlights, are widely accepted on firearms (including at places like Gunsite, the originator of the Four Rules).

 

[wheelgunslinger]

G.I. Joe had this gadget back in the eighties along with voice command firing... this is not news.

On the other hand, a local police officer was investigated after an accidental discharge of his weapon during a house clearing. He was hoisting himself into a mobile home while his gun was drawn and his weapon discharge unintentionally. Inter-limb reflex was the culprit. So, I could see the Glock-cam™ as a liability for officers because of this physiological phenomenon.
Many Gendarmes double as swat and patrol. Like here in my town. Just a few weeks back I witnessed 7 or 8 cruisers pull in, cops jumped out and went to their trunks where they geared up in their SWAT vetement and jumped in the "bus" which took them to their SWAT party.
So, "average beat cop" doesn't always apply.

 

[rick_reno]

If it makes them safter and more effective - I'm all for it. Sounds like a good idea. Personally, I'm waiting for the mini-Krispy Kreme donut maker than can be plugged into the cigarette lighter in the squad car. Love those donuts.

 

[6285108]

I am not big on lights on guns or cameras on guns or the cornershot either.

The Number #1 rule in LE:

Go home to your family at the end of the shift

Swat teams are non existant for 60% of PD's, having a mutual aid contract with a "big" department that takes 1.5 hours for their SWAT to respond is meaningless in all but a very few situations.

If I encounter an active shooter or shooters I am going to assemble what I can as quickly as I can (IE. no freaking SWAT team available for us for at least 45 minutes) I have an entry shield and our department has Semi Auto AR's and full auto M16's thanks to Uncle Sugar. We also have a run of the mill idiot patrolman who is trained as a Sniper, he has his Savage 10FPXP .308and is good or better than any of the "big" department Snipers matter of fact he outshoots them everytime he trains with em.

Barricaded suspect alone...we wait and hope the "experts will get there in time"

Barricaded suspect w/ hostages....we wait, if he becomes an active shooter we do the best we can at the time while the experts are no where to be found (which is where the usually are BTW), hell maybe they'll get there and save the day...not holding my breath tho.

I guess Nineseven figures the LAPD that responded to the North Hollywood deal were pussies (Big Ole LAPD and when did SWAT get to that party????? and remember how the SWAT guys responded to the "wonderful citizen" that was trying to get away).

 

[ball3006]

So, the cop sticks his hand....

holding his gun/camera around a corner to se what's up and the bad guy blows his hand off with a shotgun..........not real smart. I bet the number one reason is to "monday morning quarterbacking" a shoot........chris3

 

[NineseveN]

I guess Nineseven figures the LAPD that responded to the North Hollywood deal were pussies

I guess you better stop guessing, you apparently don't have the cranial capacity to do it well.

We can discuss things, but this kind of childish antagonism just won't do. I also never said or implied "run of the mill idiot patrolman", if you understood what run of the mill meant, you'd have a clue. it means average, mediocre (i.e. non-special unit, non SWAT etc...):

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20010508

May 8, 2001
run of the mill


Ken White wrote:

What is the origin of run of the mill?
The adjective phrase run-of-the-mill means 'merely average; commonplace; mediocre', a sense first recorded about 1930. Also recorded about this time is the literal meaning of the noun phrase run of the mill: 'fabric from a mill as it emerges from the production process, before being sorted or inspected for quality'.

There are obviously many meanings of the noun run, but only a few are connected with the phrase run-of-the-mill. For example, the noun run can mean 'kind, sort, or class of goods'. When modified by the words "average," "usual," "broad," "common," "general," "normal," or "ordinary," run means 'the average or ordinary kind or type', as in "the usual run of voters in the district'. Also, run can mean 'a period of continuous operation of a machine or factory, or the output during this period'. So run-of-the-mill means 'the average output of a mill, neither good nor bad'.

But similar phrases are recorded much earlier than 1930. In a 1909 supplement to the Century Dictionary, the term run of (the) kiln is defined as 'bricks of all kinds and qualities just as they happen to come from the kiln'. And run of (the) mine is defined as 'coal [or ore] just as it comes from the mine, large and small sizes and all qualities together'. A 1952 issue of American Speech defines another phrase with a similar sense: "Fabric which is shipped to a buyer just as it comes from the loom without inspection and without elimination of weaving defects is referred to as run-of-the-loom." A less common phrase is run of the crop, referring to agricultural output. There is also the term mill run, usually referring to 'all saleable output of timber from a sawmill', or to 'timber sawn to the usual specifications'.

All of these phrases have been, and still are, used with similar literal meanings, and they also have the extended sense of 'merely average; commonplace; mediocre'. Here are a few examples of this extended sense: "He thought himself far too good for the ordinary mill run of melodramas which prevailed at that house" (Foy and Harlow, Clowning Through Life, 1928). "Prices of run-of-the-mine books are often more difficult to ascertain than those of $500-plus items" (American Notes and Queries, 1977). Sometimes the literal meaning is combined with the extended sense in a play on words: "But, sadly for run-of-the-loom tapestry lovers, it is a private reception for members of Congress, diplomats and prospective buyers. All the works displayed, valued collectively at more than $200,000, will be on sale (The New York Times, 1984).

From the 1960s on, run-of-the... has been a productive combining form, appended to other nouns in clever coinages: "Taylor's thoughtfully written, low-keyed text proves far superior to most run-of-the-battlefield 'popular' histories" (Publishers Weekly, 1975).

But of all these phrases, run-of-the-mill is the one most commonly used today, at least in the meaning of 'merely average; commonplace; mediocre'.

An alternative explanation of the origin of run-of-the-mill, from the 15th edition of Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, is that as long as there is a steady flow of water, a mill will run smoothly. But I don't think this connects coherently with the sense of 'merely average, commonplace; mediocre'.

Carol

Swat teams are non existant for 60% of PD's

Source this. Where do we find the number of SWAT teams, the number of PD's and their relationships and geographic locations relative of each other? Or did you just pull that number out of thin air?

If I encounter an active shooter or shooters I am going to assemble what I can as quickly as I can (IE. no freaking SWAT team available for us for at least 45 minutes) I have an entry shield and our department has Semi Auto AR's and full auto M16's thanks to Uncle Sugar. We also have a run of the mill idiot patrolman who is trained as a Sniper, he has his Savage 10FPXP .308and is good or better than any of the "big" department Snipers matter of fact he outshoots them everytime he trains with em.

Barricaded suspect alone...we wait and hope the "experts will get there in time"

Barricaded suspect w/ hostages....we wait, if he becomes an active shooter we do the best we can at the time while the experts are no where to be found (which is where the usually are BTW), hell maybe they'll get there and save the day...not holding my breath tho.

And how exactly would a guncam be needed in these scenarios where a snake cam would not do?

If there is a compelling reason for the gun cam over the snake cam, how does the fact that it might be needed in this situation (which I already agreed that for special circumstances it is okay, but should not be utilized for general use) justify using it all the time on a duty gun?

What are the percentages of calls that are included in the above scenarios? How many barricaded suspects and hostage situations does your typical LEO face every day? Does the number of these occurrences warrant spending the money to outfit your patrolmen with guncams if they are only useful in these scenarios?

 

[6285108]

Nine7

Read the first line of my post, and you question my cranial capacity?

 

[NineseveN]

My point about cranial capacity only applies to the realm of you trying to guess what I know, think, feel or understand, nothing more. I am sure you have areas where you intellectually exceed the norm, most everyone does.

 

[6285108]

The national "average" for sworn members of police departments= 26 sworn officers

Most "micro" agencies which are the most common (for every large agency there are about 50 small or "micro" agencies that average 11 sworn officers)

So tell me how an agency of 10 or 11 has a dedicated SWAT team?

My experience is 20 years LEO in dept.'s ranging in size from 20 sworn to 1200 sworn.

The area I am in right know is in Metro Cleveland, OH and of the cities/villages that border mine exactly 2 out 9 have a SWAT team. In my area 22% of the dept.'s have SWAT, therefore 78% do not.

Almost all agencies in cities with pop. of 50,000 or more have SWAT teams

The vast majority of cities/villages/townships in the USA have pop. less than 10,000

The average officer to citizen ratio in the USA is 2.2 officers per 1000 people