IDEA: What is the stance on having patrol supervisors take the lead on tactical situations. It would work a little bit like the following:
If a patrol supervisor (Sergeant+) is in-game, they are to respond to the tactical situation and take command.
If a patrol supervisor is NOT in-game, then tactical units (SWAT, CRT, FNG, etc…) would simply take command.
I thought of this idea in a realistic manner, in every single law enforcement department, there’s always some sort of supervisor calling the shots. With that, this could prove to reduce the stepping on another’s toes, and reduce inter-departmental conflict. Some questions that have been posed are:
Why should this come to fruition?
Well, it could limit inter-department conflict having one individual calling the shots rather than a group of people.
How could it work?
An extra set of training would be required for the supervisor to actually know what they’re doing. With that, POST could open up a optional curriculum; a “leadership” class, so to speak. Upon passing the leadership class, one would be “certified” for becoming a supervisor. Departments could also use this as an extra factor in deciding who should be put into a leadership position.
It could also be an independent course offered internally be department commands.
It could also make the idea of being a “patrol supervisor” much more realistic. Currently, most supervisors just approve patrol logs, host some trainings, and respond to bullshit ass complaints of “fAlsE aRrEsT”. With this, it could actually bring some leadership to Firestone.
Comment your thoughts on this down below!
Absolutely not. Under no circumstances will I allow any uniformed employee to take any form of control over any tactically demanding situation. Their duties have been reduced to perimeter maintenance and nothing further. This is how it has always been with me, and how it always will be.
Well, realistically, tactical personnel do take command from Sergeants and Corporals given the circumstance. Normally for us, once it’s high command, tactical units cannot force command to be handed over, however, Lieutenants usually just hand over command anyways. Going back to Firestone, I’m under the belief that Sergeants and below should surrender tactical situation commands to tactical officers, however, Lieutenants and above should be able to make the choice, as they should have the necessary leadership and experience to handle and command the situation anyways.
These individuals would be certified on how to effectively run a tactical scene. The curriculum would obviously be created with input from experienced tactical operatives.
That wholeheartedly defines the entirety of the SWAT division.
SWAT is there to execute. Since when does calling the shots = executing. That’s what the issue tends to be with tactical units, knowing the difference.
SWAT is not there to solely execute. Our duties vary widely outside of actuation - including but not limited to negotiations, assigning posts to other units on the scene, and determining the best course of action. You have reduced SWAT to people who just go through the motions / commands they are given, when in reality it is us giving the commands.
But that’s exactly where the issue lies, Lidels. Tactical units are “assigning posts” and “deciding the best course of action”. Isn’t that literally the job description of a Supervisor? Aren’t supervisors supposed to “assign posts” and “decide the best course of action”. While the job of tactical units has expanded exponentially, you’ve left the position of being a supervisor redundant.
Both of you have great ideas and opinions but you both fail to see each other’s opinion and how it directly aligns with yours.
Firestone needs balance, we have tactical units for the reason of seniority, as they have more training.
Tactical/High Risk Scenes scenes basically run like this: on seniority and who is online.
Normal LEOs → SWAT → DHS/CRT → FNG (When Deployed)
Not too long ago I responded to a hostage situation at SCMC. S2 was on-scene as well as tactical operatives. I was told by S2 to establish a perimeter, so I did so. The SWAT operative comes up and dismisses me from the scene. S2 gets on the radio and tells me to return to the scene, SWAT tells me to leave again, that I’m no longer needed there. In this case, where the hell is the command, there’s a lot of walking on other’s toes, and ultimately leads to conflict where there isn’t a place for it.
You’re comparing these duties on incorrect levels.
This is true for UNIFORMED supervisors on UNIFORMED operations, where they hold their experience. On the other hand, TACTICAL units have the experience when it comes to the TACTICALLY demanding calls.
what lidels said
@Fastbird4 Pretty sure being a Supervisor qualifies as some form of seniority. My point proven once again, we’ve made the position of being a supervisor redundant.
That uniformed sergeant would have the mandatory tactical leadership necessary to make those decisions should this come to fruition.
So the lets say the Captain of Community Relations in SCSO (for Example), should out-command SWAT/CRT because he is the highest rank online?
us tactical units trained for hours to learn the stuff we know. we arent gonna give it over to someone who just copied notes down at a 30 minute course
What happens when an Operative disagrees with a Supervisor? What experience with ‘these types of situations’ does the Supervisor have other than training? Furthermore, you fail to realize that Supervisors don’t have access to the entirety of the information they need to make an educated decision related to the situation, what with J-OPS, classified channels and information and more.
Just because you’ve got three chevrons does NOT make you qualified to call shots.
Development is a non-issue, all of that can be made to fit.
How does that relate to anything I said?