The role of context in understanding the use of tactical officers: A brief research note

A small body of research suggests that the use of police tactical officers has become normalized in that they now commonly respond to “routine” calls rather than being restricted to high-risk situations. However, this research has tended to rely on crude data (i.e., call type), which fails to account for the context of the calls (e.g., the presence of potential risk factors that might warrant tactical resources). In this brief research note, we sought to expand upon previous literature by examining the risk factors associated with tactical calls in a Canadian police service. We found that various risk factors were present in many of the calls that tactical officers responded to, some of which might be classified as “routine” (suicide threats, well-being checks, domestic disturbances, etc.). The presence of such risk factors highlights the need to consider context when attempting to understand the use (and consequences) of tactical officers. More rigorous tracking of these factors by police services will facilitate such research and inform policies around the use of tactical resources.

Misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, and malicious accusations: A reply to Walby’s (2021) SWAT Everywhere?

To develop a more informed understanding of why tactical officers are used in Canada, we interviewed patrol and tactical officers from three Canadian police services (Jenkins et al., 2020). Interviewees indicated that tactical officers tend to be used on calls that go beyond the capabilities of patrol officers, including high-risk calls and calls unfolding in special environments, and that their use results in reduced threat to police and public safety. In response, Walby (2021) has argued that evidence-based policing (EBP) research of the sort we conducted is inherently biased. He also criticized our understanding of existing literature, took aim at our research methodology and conclusions, and questioned our academic integrity by claiming that we were paid by the participating police services to conduct the research. While Walby makes some valid criticisms of our research, his response is riddled with misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, and malicious (unfounded) accusations. After setting the record straight with respect to allegations regarding our nefarious motives to conduct the research, we argue that Walby completely misrepresents EBP research when he argues that it aims to support harmful police practices in exchange for financial support. We then correct numerous instances where Walby either mischaracterizes existing research or misrepresents our views (and those of our interviewees) when it comes to the use of tactical officers. We conclude by calling for more inclusive conversations to take place to address the issue of police militarization. These conversations must include community members, but they must also include the police.

An exploration of the use of tactical officers in three Canadian police services

In order to better understand the use of tactical police resources in Canada we interviewed patrol and tactical officers ( N = 28) from three Canadian police services. A thematic analysis indicated that tactical officers are primarily responding to calls beyond the capabilities of patrol to resolve optimally which included high-risk calls as denoted by the presence of risk-factors and calls unfolding in special environments. Further, tactical officer response is thought to result in a reduced threat to officer and public safety. Our findings suggest that in contrast to previous claims, tactical officers are often responding to calls where significant risk is present.