Talk:Police tactical unit

Edits and reverts - Police tactical unit

Hello @Melbguy05:. I am writing to you here because you reverted twice my contributions to this article. Correcting a word here or there, or asking for a reference is fine. Reverting twice the whole contribution makes me wonder about your understanding of the term : collaborative project. A quick look at your own talk page with a word search shows that the word "revert" appears there quite often too...

Before moving to substance, I'll make two last comments about form :

• I have moved your comments from my talk page to here. My point : if this is a collaborative project, then this talk page is the right place.
• Reverts should be used only for cases of vandalism or gross errors. It you intend this article to be part of Melbguypedia, with each single word chosen and approved by yourself, then, you should move it out of Wikipedia. If not, then let's all agree on the content and wording together. Do you agree?

Now, let's talk about substance. As I mentioned in my edit'scomment, the current definition (a specialized, highly-trained police unit that responds to and resolves high-risk incidents, including terrorist incidents) is far too restrictive. That's why I added typical PTU missions such as serving of search warrants for dangerous persons, arresting or neutralizing dangerous or deranged armed persons and intervening in high risk situations such as shootouts, hostage situations etc. I didn't feel it was necessary to add references since these missions are specifically listed in the documents already present in the reference lists for both the PTU and SWAT article. The one written by the National Tactical Officers Association is a good example. Since you are the one who added this reference to both articles, I assume you've read it. You may feel it necessary to explain that not all countries agree on every definition but PTUs do get involved in far more mission types than the wording "responds to and resolve high risk incident" suggests. If you really think other references are needed, this should be no problem but, once again, I think what we have is plenty.

The introduction was intentionally restrictive to avoid using types of taskings (missions) to describe a police tactical unit. As there is so much variance between units of taskings with a restrictive definition all units could be encompassed. I have slightly reworded your introduction changed missions to taskings and included may be.--Melbguy05 (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

In order to save time (we've wasted enough), I have marked-up your comments below. I hope this is not to confusing for anyone who will read this page.

• Hi Domenjod, I reverted your edit to the article. The sources use the term high-risk incidents/situations as the definition Police services/forces all use different definitions for their unit. There is no consensus in academic work on a definition. The United States has a definition by the National Tactical Officers Association which I inserted at the start of the List of special law enforcement units and it has been moved to the SWAT article with a new section - Definition. The article needs a list of the duties/roles, similar to functions in the introduction of the Special forces article. I don't have a source that concisely lists these and different countries use different terms unlike those internationally standard military terms.

Already answered to that point above.

• Your edit had permanent units -the units can be full time and also part time units.

Not sure I agree with the wording "part time unit" but this is (in my opinion) a moot point. There are indeed units that only setup specialized groups when an emergency occurs (the Paris BRI being one. Also, many (most?) US SWAT team members are assigned "regular" police missions when there is no emergency). But even if, for example, firemen clean-up and maintain their equipement when there is no fire, they are still full-time firemen (I am not talking about part-time volunteer firemen here). The main point is that these units are setup, staffed and trained in order to be able to respond as full-time PTUs when the need arises. But if you think the wording should be changed (or explained), no problem. The key point here is to acknowledge the fact that the police forces of the world have come to realize that some type of missions cannot be undertaken by the average policeman, unless in an emergency. Hence the need to form, staff, equip and train specialist units.

Perhaps you mean "dedicated" - "Police tactical units are dedicated units". As the word permanent relates to time for example "lasts for ever". --Melbguy05 (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure of the significance of legal trained as a police officer, whether tactical or not, is.

Trained on the specicic legal aspects of armed intervention. These can vary from a country to another but while most police officers are allowed to shoot only in self defense, PTU/SWAT team members involved in solving terrorist incidents (or, for exemple, prison riots) may have different rules for opening fire. This point can also be discussed in the talk page.

You might mean tactical officers may have been granted an authority to use lethal force in certain situations. If so, this would fall under Use of force training, that tactical officers may receive additional use of force training.--Melbguy05 (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure what you meant by psychological aspects.

Mainly the negociation part, but can include other aspects. For example, preparing the personnel to deal with situations of extreme violence (before, during and after).

Still not sure why it needs "psychological aspects". Not all tactical units have negotiators as some police forces have dedicated negotiator units. I'm not sure that they are prepared for situations of extreme violence, similar to the preparedness of a member of a special forces unit, as both can develop Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). During a selection course they have psychological testing/screening to determine their suitability to serve in a tactical unit.--Melbguy05 (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• For the equipment, there is a paragraph that they are similarly equipped to military special forces.

I don't have a problem mentioning this early in the article. This article is already more than a stub but there is room for much more info.

A Penitentiary unit wouldn't be considered a police tactical unit as it is not part of the police, limited to working in the confines of a prison and are similar to a police riot unit.

I don't disagree but, as there are enough similarities in selection, tactics and equipement, this warrants a mention - or maybe a note.

Customs do have tactical units such as in Europe and in the United States and Customs would be considered police. I will add Customs.

You will or any contributor will. Remember, this is collaborative effort.

We may want to also include naval search/boarding parties. This brings us back to the first contribution that you reverted (the one about the legal consequences of PTU actions). In my opinion, since the equipment and tactics can he so similar - and because there are situations when Police/Gendarmerie type PTUs can be involved alongside military special forces (during "Peace building" missions in war-torn countries for example), I think it is useful to remind the reader about the legal context and the control role of the judiciary authorities in PTU operations.

Your edit about the legal consequences of PTU actions. The mandate section has "is to use only minimal force sufficient to subdue suspected criminals, including negotiation." so I don't see a need to add "Most of their actions end up with a court appearance." with this difference already highlighted. Military units also have their own "control and supervision" the same as a law enforcement unit.--Melbguy05 (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Regards, --Melbguy05 (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

In light of the above, I am reverting your last revert. Not in order to start an edit war but so that all contributors (not only you and I) can see my changes, can comment and can participate (hopefully starting in the talk page).

There are other points that come to my mind. For example VIP protection, which is one type of mission undertaken by some PTUs (and already documented in the references) but I won't make any more changes until there is an agreement on the points already mentioned.

Regards, --Domenjod (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Domenjod: It's been a while since I have looked at the article and never got around to replying. I have commented above.--Melbguy05 (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello again to @Melbguy05: and to any interested contributor. After re-reading the above, I have made a few additional changes (English is not my mother language so I don't always get everything right in the first place).

More importantly, in my opinion - and after re-reading some associated articles (SWAT for example), I would like to stress that :

• PTUs are Law enforcement units. Police Tactical unit as an article title, is easy to use but seems too restrictive (see remarks above about customs, penitentiary units, naval boarding parties, not to mention those units that are Gendarmerie and not Police units). Something like Tactical law enforcement unit or Special law enforcement unit, although it is a bit of a mouthful, is really more accurate and covers the subject in its entirety. Personnaly, I also like very much the term Intervention unit that we use in France and in other European countries but I realize this may not be widely accepted elsewhere.
• In the same vein, we should restore (in a different form if wording is a problem) the paragraph I had added about one key difference between the actions of the military (special forces) and the law enforcement units (PTUs or SWATs or what have you) being the interaction of the latter with the judiciary system.

Comments anyone? Regards, --Domenjod (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)