zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. arrrg+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-06-11 08:19:39
What you say is obvious is not obvious at all. I expect police not to shoot back if the situation is such that the person that is shooting back could reasonably act in self defense (as was here the case).

Then I expect police to take the strategy of simply retreating and getting to safety.

Obviously that’s associated with a higher risk for the police but to my mind that is a risk police have to accept if they want to be able to execute search warrants like that. It comes with the territory.

The other alternative is to not execute search warrants in that way.

replies(2): >>GVIris+4r >>crafti+PO
2. GVIris+4r[view] [source] 2020-06-11 12:30:14
>>arrrg+(OP)
> The other alternative is to not execute search warrants in that way.

When you boil it all down, this is the answer. The main reasoning behind no knock warrants is to prevent evidence destruction. The harm of a drug dealer flushing some drugs down the toilet versus potentially killing innocent people isn't even in the same ball park. And really, how many flushes can some get in the 15-30 seconds that it takes for cops to rush into the house?

Sometimes the argument is that no knocks are for armed and violent suspects but even then it's not clear a no-knock raid makes it any safer for anybody. Police could just as easily wait until someone leaves the house in the morning and execute the arrest with far less risk.

Seems like no-knock raids should be outright banned for local law enforcement at the least.

3. crafti+PO[view] [source] 2020-06-11 14:54:45
>>arrrg+(OP)
> Obviously that’s associated with a higher risk for the police but to my mind that is a risk police have to accept if they want to be able to execute search warrants like that. It comes with the territory.

I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about this as I'm a former service member who is generally kind of paranoid of people breaking into my safe spaces. In the Marine Corps, there's pretty much two tactical options we are trained to choose from when taking fire: either immediately assault the enemy with fire and maneuver, or break contact and find cover.

An immediate assault should only be used if you know the relative size of the enemy, you're rules of engagement support an assault, and there's no hard cover available. Immediately returning fire increases the likelihood of getting your people killed, but retains the initiative, which is great if the enemy force is likely to advance on your position. There is no benefit of doing this if the enemy is just going to sit behind cover taking pot shots; better to draw them out and gain the cover advantage.

All of that is to say that the police had NONE of those qualifications. There is literally no reason not to pull back. By returning fire, they put themselves in MORE danger, and for no reason. That is the reaction that untrained animals take, not a disciplined unit.

[go to top]