[ghoul2]

As a separate issue: why the "shock and awe" response to what is (even allegedly) a non-violent crime? Why the assault rifles? Why could he not have been arrested by just a couple agents walking upto the door, knocking, serving the search warrant, and then maybe having the techs step in to conduct the search and seizure?

Why does US Law Enforcement so dramatically escalate every contact with a citizen? Everytime they do this, they risk accidental injury to the people, kids, pets.

What in this particular situation necessitated a SWAT-level treatment?

Maybe the law should be fixed such that warrants have to specifically include firearm authorizations.

[polartx]

>Why does US Law Enforcement so dramatically escalate every contact with a citizen?

US LEOs are indoctrinated with the belief that they are 'at war'. Convincing the public of this is imperative to retaining authority, securing more funding, and receiving immunity from any consequences of their actions. One way they accomplish the above is by never passing up an opportunity to dress up like an army man and publicly display force

[wtvanhest]

Requiring the warrant to specify the level of force could be interesting. Are there good reasons why this could not be done?

[mox1]

At a federal level, this is mostly done. Before executing a search warrant, feds usually pull criminal background and check gun registries. Then look at the reason for a search warrant (drugs, guns, terrorism, etc.).

In theory, they combine those things to decide whether to just knock on the door and walk in or bring SWAT along.

This happens different between agencies and what parts of the country.

But, codifying these guidelines / rules into a law probably wouldn't hurt. Sometimes it is hard to capture the nuances of the situation into a formal law though.

Also, remember that like 10-100's of these things are probably executed daily, peacefully, without any conflict or issues. You only hear about it when they go wrong (or some asshole fed is in a bad mood or something I guess).

[tropo]

They check gun registries? Why?

I suppose that registered guns suggest that someone is not criminal, because the alternative assumption should be unregistered guns.

[khedoros]

Well, if they're going to arrest someone, they'd have a belief that they're a criminal. If there's evidence that they have a gun (e.g. entry in the gun registry under their name), then they'd have to consider it an attempt to apprehend a presumed-armed, suspected criminal.

I don't see why a registered gun would be a point in their favor. They probably registered their car, paid their taxes, and stopped at red lights too.

[turar]

It was FBI though, so it was at federal level?

[gist]

I honestly don't think that being rude and/or hurting feelings (or scarring a baby) really enters into law enforcement of this type (also see my other comment).

[nickysielicki]

You're moving the goal-posts. I don't think that being rude or hurting feelings should cross their mind.

Bringing a gun escalates things immediately. If I was in that home and I was carrying a gun, and if a handful of people abruptly came in with assault rifles, I'm liable to react very differently because it's such an affront to what feels reasonable. I think it's more reasonable to think that this is a terrorist attack and to react accordingly, rather than the reality of people acting as an agent of the government bringing deadly force in droves because someone grabbed a file from a public FTP server.

If I had seen 5 men in suits and shades peacefully walk in without any kind of weapon, I'm not going to think anything of it. They're putting themselves at risk. It makes no sense.

And the honest answer as to, "why?" is that the people who kick in doors are complete meatheads who think that morality and legality strictly align. They think if someone has broken the law, they deserve anything that is coming. They don't care about anyone's safety, they care about taking baddies.

[polartx]

It wasn't long ago that an officer serving a warrant for a non violent offense threw a grenade into a baby's crib (yes, the baby was inside).

Now I'm not sure where their training draws the line on infant collateral damage: Don't shoot in rooms with babies? Shoot around the babies?

But imagine if the rule was: Don't upset the children. (silly I realize, but thats how what-ifs are played). It seems like decisions would be made resulting in fewer grenades landing in bassinets.

[tcdent]

This is a culture that believes prosecuting to the "fullest-extent of the law" is the right thing to do, regardless of the actual human circumstances.

[gist]

Two reasons perhaps. Publicity and safety of the officers. How do they know how this person is going to react (or anyone else in the house)? And the publicity is much greater with a greater show of force (hence a deterrent) as well with a shock and awe response.

[basseq]

> How do they know how this person is going to react (or anyone else in the house)?

This is always true. By that logic, we should SWAT every warrant, every traffic stop, every parade. There should always be a threat assessment.

This would imply it's all #2 ("publicity"). Which means police forces and public defenders are using the threat of extreme violence as... a PR move? Against American citizens who are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

[zbobet2012]

Research on the subject says this is more dangerous for the cops then the calmer approaches.

The irony is cops do this to protect themselves, and statistically speaking it has the exact opposite effect.

[dragonwriter]

If the research says that then either:

(1) The law enforcement decision makers are unaware of the research (which is unlikely), or

(2) The stated motivation is not the actual motivation.

[PKop]

Or (3) they don't believe the research and trust their "instincts", right or wrong.

[sheepleherd]

Or (4) they do believe the research, and they use it in their calculation that says that while they should err on the side of caution and should overdo force "a little bit" just in case, that they should be careful not go too far...

... which turns out to be the same calculation they used all along.

[geggam]

but they have cool toys and can pretend they are actual badasses when they raid your home and shoot your dog.. .even tho many of them cant qualify to get in the military ( too fat )

[ivl]

It makes it harder to feel much pity when things go 'wrong' for them, then.

[pipermerriam]

Can you provide a link to said research?

[Zombieball]

I think you are right about the publicity and show of force. I can't imagine it takes more than a couple police officers to arrest a single suspect in a house in a safe manner.

[wavefunction]

Pretty sure you could send two officers to the door.

Knock.

Depending on the response from the inhabitant, either take them into custody or call for backup.

[dragonwriter]

> How do they know how this person is going to react (or anyone else in the house)?

Well, you could do some basic investigation before an arrest, which would both give you in most cases a good idea of the threat profile and often give you a better idea if the information you've been fed actually accurately represents the facts.

Its not "investigation" is, you know, right there in the name of the agency, or anything.

[pg_is_a_butt]

he made the "people in charge" look like fools... (granted, they were idiots acting like fools, and if anything he was trying to help)

"people in charge" only stay in charge when they don't look like fools. so anyone pointing out the king isn't wearing any clothes must be tied to a stake and burned for all to see.

also, your dog must die.