August 2022 Warning Bells article
The phrase “happy hunting” has now apparently been assigned to the lexicon of phrases that indicate that police officers “glorify violence.” At least according to the Los Angeles Times which all too often seems to dictate the attitude of the Police Commission. In the July 26 meeting of the Commission, the Department presented a ten-year examination of SWAT caused by an article in the LA Times according to Chief Moore’s report. SWAT is a specialized highly trained squad of LAPD’s Metropolitan Division. (Metro)
On May 2nd of this year, paramedics requested the police when a suspect displayed a gun. When the officers arrived, the suspect displayed a gun again and went inside an apartment building. Following the rules, the responding officers requested SWAT because they now had an armed barricaded suspect.
SWAT negotiated with the suspect and after failure, it was decided to use tear gas. Gas was introduced into the apartment and the suspect came to a window and allegedly fired a shot at the officers. Two SWAT officers returned fire and the suspect was killed.
Body Worn Video that was reviewed later recorded a SWAT officer in the back of a rescue vehicle saying “happy hunting” to the other members of his squad as they embarked at the scene prior to the shooting. This officer was not one of the shooters. So, what does “happy hunting” mean? Poor choice of words? A wish that the suspect be found and taken into custody? Another form of saying “good luck on your mission?” Or the glorification of violence?” Chief Moore launched a personnel complaint and removed the officer from the field pending the conclusion of the investigation according to the Times. He also instituted a ten-year review of SWAT’s use of force to see if there was a culture of glorification of violence among SWAT officers.
SWAT is no stranger to audits. SWAT is the point of the spear in the Department’s fight against crime. High crimes of violence in a division? Send in SWAT. Armed barricaded suspect? Send in SWAT. High risk search warrant? Send in SWAT. Their job is to routinely handle the most violent suspects and the most complex situations facing the Department. As a result, they spend more time under the microscope than microbes.
In 2008, Mayor Villaraigosa caused a study of SWAT by a blue-ribbon panel. The panel examined SWAT uses of force, culture, selection procedures, and risk management issues for 18 months. They looked at 3,371 SWAT deployments from 1972 to 2005. In 83% of the deployments, the suspect was taken into custody without any use of force. SWAT officers ended up killing 31 persons in self-defense during those 3,371 responses. That is a rate of 0.9%. Over more than 30 years of responses to the worst of situations the result was a less than one percent fatality rate for suspects. Mostly suspects who caused the SWAT response by being armed with deadly weapons. How does that translate into glorifying violence?
Regardless, the blue-ribbon panel examined everything SWAT and decided that SWAT was “insular, self-justifying, and resistant to change.” Also, “often uncritical of its own.” After all, a less than 1% kill rate is not perfect! So, recommendations to change SWAT had to be made in their view.
Previously, to get into SWAT an officer had to first get into Metro and gather experience there. It was believed by the blue-ribbon panel that this requirement deprived SWAT of women, diversity, perspective, and life experiences so SWAT selection should be Department wide. No longer would SWAT members be required to have a Metro background.
Also, the criteria to get into SWAT had to be changed because “the existing selection criteria under-emphasized negotiation skills, patience, empathy, and flexibility while over-emphasizing physical prowess and tactical acumen.” Actually, when putting out a help call, I always wanted a master tactician in great physical shape to respond as quickly as possible. We could empathize later with the suspect(s) who was putting me and my partners in danger.
And, of course, the selection board for getting into SWAT had to consist of outsiders since SWAT personnel sitting on the board might have biases for Metro officers.
Other recommendations concerned training, deployment, take home vehicles, supervision, and other issues. Chief Bratton accepted 14 recommendations of the panel and instituted them all.
In 2016, the Inspector General monitored the entire SWAT selection process and generated another report. They “did not identify any major issues or concerns” but, of course, there is always room for improvement and recommendations were still made.
The report followed the selection process from beginning to end. First an advertisement was put out announcing that SWAT spots were available. To get an oral interview, in addition to four years on the street, an officer had to pass a shooting test with a score of at least 300 out of 400 possible points. Then candidates had to pass the SWAT physical fitness test, a firearms manipulation test, and the SWAT obstacle course. 66 officers started the process. 17 didn’t make it through the shooting requirements. 6 more failed the remaining tests. 43 officers made it to the oral process. 12 officers failed to make outstanding after the oral interviews leaving 31 officers who went into background and package review. 11 didn’t make the final selection list after the review. That left 20 that were scheduled for the 14-week SWAT school. Only 8 made it through the school. The final phase was 6 months of probation while assigned to SWAT duties. One officer was eliminated leaving 7 officers eligible to be made full SWAT members. From 66 candidates only 7 made it. That is an 89% casualty rate. It is a hard road that must be traveled to be counted among the best of the best.
And even then, it seems it can all be lost because of a careless “happy hunting” remark.
In 2022, the latest audit was completed and presented to the Police Commission in response to the LA Times article. So, what was the result of this latest examination? Is there a culture of glorifying violence?
In 2022, the latest audit was completed and presented to the Police Commission in response to the LA Times article. So, what was the result of this latest examination? Is there a culture of glorifying violence?
Ten years of SWAT call outs were audited comprising 1,350 incidents from 2012 to 2022. 92% of the incidents were resolved without any use of force. There were 20 officer-involved shootings in those ten years. (1.48%) 5 SWAT officers were struck by suspect gunfire, 3 of whom were hospitalized. On the other hand, SWAT officers were fired on by suspects 7 times and officers did not return fire. Evidence of glorifying violence seems to be lacking.
Dr. Edrick Dorian of Behavioral Science Services summed it up succinctly in the report. “In my experience as a psychologist consultant on SWAT CNT negotiations for over 16 years, a divisional consultant to Metropolitan Division for over 5 years, and now as the Chief Police Psychologist since May 2021, I have never personally witnessed or heard from my staff of 14 police psychologists any indication of a culture or tendency by SWAT officers to use lethal force unless absolutely necessary. To the contrary, it has been my experience that SWAT officers and leadership take pride in being ‘a life-saving, not a life-taking’ operation, and that the special weapons and tactics at their disposal, including crisis negotiations, are to facilitate that mission.” [emphasis added]
SWAT officer Randy Simmons paid the ultimate price on February 17, 2008, while trying to take an armed murder suspect into custody. I was there that night involved in representing officers in the aftermath. Violence was not glorified by anyone.
Be legally careful out there.
