[Volundr]

> Because you're serving a warrant on a dangerous suspect, who you have reason to believe has community support?

This feels like a contradiction to me. If the suspect is perceived dangerous enough that we need the no knock, surely they are also dangerous enough we need to be prepared for strong, armed resistance right? Body armor, shields etc? All things that are decidedly not 'plain clothes".

I mean if they have that much community support that you are afraid someone will see you coming and tip them off, are you also not afraid that once you've kicked this person's door down you've now got hostiles both inside AND outside?

[ethbr0]

SWAT teams are one option, but they're not the only option. Sometimes surprise might be more beneficial.

Presumably not even the police want to be shooting it out in the middle of an apartment complex.

And I guess the general calculus is that even the most aggressive neighborhood bystanders in America are usually less dangerous than a criminal suspect.

But it speaks to the contradiction: the entire point of a no-knock is surprise.

But legal, authorized surprise is practically incompatible with the second amendment (as currently interpreted) and stand your ground laws (as increasingly being passed).

So... that leaves us in the ugliness of reality.

[cochne]

It might be more about preventing them from destroying evidence.