zlacker

> Obviously nobody expects the police not to shoot back when fired upon.

I do.

They should temporarily cover to safety, understand the situation, announce themselves and attempt to de-escalate.

Only if gunfire persist after that, it's reasonable to use deadly force. That's the LAST thing they should do (because in fact, mistakes at that point will be final, with mortal consequences)

>>berdar+(OP)
Does identifying work though? What's stopping an intruder from doing that? I just don't see how no-knock warrants like this are supposed to work.

>>Mirior+Go
I imagine if they retreat to cover that would allow for a large response by uniformed police in marked vehicles, at which point it would be more clear who they are.

>>berdar+(OP)
I agree in principle, but this might not always be realistic. bullets from a rifle can easily penetrate an unarmored vehicle or residential structure and kill people on the other side. frankly, I think the police should be expected to take a bit more personal risk to avoid killing civilians (even if they are in the wrong), but you have to consider that other people could be in danger. if it's a populated area, it might not be okay to just let the person keep shooting until the police figure out what's going on. of course, every shot the police fire also endangers bystanders, so they need to take that into consideration too.

>>berdar+(OP)
>"mistakes at that point will be final, with mortal consequences"

Absolutely true, but you seem to expect them to care about that fact. Recent evidence shows that their selection & training eliminates caring about such issues.

Obviously, this drastically needs to be changed.

>>berdar+(OP)
> attempt to de-escalate.

"I know that I just kicked down your door in the dead of night guns draw to gain the element of surprise because I anticipated or wanted an altercation but now that I know you have a gun and are actively trying to kill me, I'd like to ask you to calm down."

>>Mirior+Go
I just don't see how no-knock warrants like this are supposed to work.

This IS how they work. The police kick down your door, sometimes lob in a few stun grenades, then charge in like they're Rambo. Violence is a feature, not a bug, of this system.

The reason no-knocks are used in drug cases is, ostensibly, to prevent destruction of evidence. But, police have come to rely on them (along with armored SWAT teams) for damn near ALL warrants, not just know violent drug offenders.

It's high time we banned no-knocks. It's high time we introduced a higher bar to arrest-via-home-invasion. It's high time we held judges accountable for signing warrants. And, probably biggest of all, high time to end the war on drugs as it currently exists.

>>alista+eM
Clinton's ATF actually sought a no-knock warrant for the original Waco raid, but the judge denied it because the evidence sought (illegal machine guns) can't be quickly destroyed.

They used no knock tactics anyway, including climbing into upstairs windows with assault weapons.