Instead, the board drew its conclusions from examining other SWAT incidents, conducting interviews and reviewing internal documents. In many ways, their conclusions echoed the concerns Bratton had raised going in.
One of the most pressing issues, the board members concluded, is the "insular" culture of SWAT. They said there has never been a woman in the unit and there is very little turnover.
The panel criticized the rigorous physical tests and scenario simulations that, for more than a decade, every officer has had to pass to gain entry into the unit's multi-week training school.
The selection criteria, they wrote, "under-emphasize negotiating skills, patience, empathy and flexibility while over-emphasizing physical prowess and tactical acumen."
The board members also recommended that Bratton do away with the SWAT policy of selecting applicants only from the department's specialized Metro Division and open the tryouts to the entire department.
The findings apparently had an effect. Department officials recently imposed a shorter, less rigorous set of tests, according to several sources, including SWAT officers who said they were briefed on the changes. Several SWAT members pointed out that the more rigorous testing regimen was vetted by city and police officials about 10 years ago. The changes, they said, are a dangerous watering-down of standards.
"I don't care if you are male or female as long as you can do the job, and this is one way we know," one SWAT officer said. "It is intense. It was trying to simulate as best as you can the stressful environment we work in. We need to see how people are going to react."
The issue prompted the wives of several SWAT officers to write e-mails to top police and city officials, asking them to do away with the new criteria.
"It is widely believed this is an attempt to be politically correct and allow a female officer on the team," one wrote in an e-mail, a copy of which was obtained by The Times. "We will not sit quietly by and allow you to compromise our husbands' safety."
After examining a handful of cases, the panel also found in SWAT a "trend" of resolving confrontations with suspects -- especially those in excitable states or the mentally ill -- by using physical force instead of exhausting the possibility of a peaceful end through negotiations. A related shortfall, they said, was that commanding officers have too little say in the decisions that SWAT teams make in the midst of crises.
The board members recommended that Bratton implement a model in use in New York City and other eastern U.S. cities, in which negotiators and tacticians work separately.
SWAT members, several of whom were involved in operations examined by the board, rejected that notion.
"It makes me sick to my stomach that they are drawing these conclusions after the fact. They weren't there. They didn't see what a maniac she was -- how she tried to stab us with that knife," said one, referring to a case in which the panel harshly criticized SWAT officers for using Tasers, non-lethal projectiles and tear gas to apprehend a woman.
"We never go tactical unless we have to. We've talked to people until they literally fell asleep. But sometimes there are situations when negotiations don't work."
--
joel.rubin@latimes.com
