Police shoot family dogs while executing search warrant.

[HYHYBT]

Ah yes, let's not arrest criminals when they need to be arrested; let's call ahead and schedule an appointment to not inconvenience them

As if that were the point.

Or even could be mistaken for the point.

[Greenday]

As if that were the point.

Or even could be mistaken for the point.

I don't know, that seems to be what KitterCat just suggested. Trying to make it convenient for the criminal.

Maybe if the guy wasn't a druggie he wouldn't risk his kid seeing upsetting stuff when the cops arrest him for it.

[LeChatNoir]

I don't know, that seems to be what KitterCat just suggested. Trying to make it convenient for the criminal.

Maybe if the guy wasn't a druggie he wouldn't risk his kid seeing upsetting stuff when the cops arrest him for it.

The only evidence I see of him being a "druggie" is that he was found with a small amount of weed and some "paraphernalia". IMO, seeing as weed is less addictive and destructive than, say, alcohol, I really don't equate casual pot smoking as equal to being a bad parent. Of course the law says different, which is why I don't agree that marijuana should be illegal. As long as they weren't toking it up with the kid in the room it shouldn't even be an issue (and I know we don't know even half the details, I am just throwing out the "what if" scenario). Just because someone smokes recreational weed doesn't mean they deserve to have their door busted down in the middle of the night, their home ransacked and their dogs shot (all in front of a child).

[KitterCat]

I don't know, that seems to be what KitterCat just suggested. Trying to make it convenient for the criminal.

That’s not what I’m suggesting. How you read that into it I don’t know, but let me clarify. If in this case they can wait 8 days thinking that there’s such a high amount of pot, why not do the arrest when a non-violent person would be walking away from their house and away from other civilians and instead of inside where anything can happen. Those bullets they fired into the dogs could have ended up in the child watching the family dogs die. The Police instead decided to run in the house when everyone’s asleep, all while claming to need the act of surprise. They still would get that if they had simply decided to arrest him away from his house.

How police are able to say with a straight face “we need to be able to go in guns a’blazing shooting things instead of using other measures, all for the children because theres a war on drugs” is beyond me. They need to do their research, pick the safest means of arrest for everyone and act on that. Otherwise its unnecessary force.

Now if the guy had a record of acting violently, then yes raids like this are justified, its what SWATS original intended purpose was. To go after highly violent situations that needed a highly tactical approach. Instead they’re being used for low level non-violent drug busts. It’s a waste of resources.

Maybe if the guy wasn't a druggie he wouldn't risk his kid seeing upsetting stuff when the cops arrest him for it.

As for the father running the risk of his child watching daddy being arrested for doing drugs. Well somehow I doubt that the 7 year old processed that. Maybe he did, but he could have just as easily come to the conclusion that police officers are willing to come into your house yelling and shoot your pet for no reason as well.

[Hobbs]

How police are able to say with a straight face “we need to be able to go in guns a’blazing shooting things instead of using other measures, all for the children because theres a war on drugs” is beyond me. They need to do their research, pick the safest means of arrest for everyone and act on that. Otherwise its unnecessary force.

Now who's reading into things? I've never heard of a peace officer saying that.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has stated that "…in diffusing situations, apprehending alleged criminals, and protecting themselves and others, officers are legally entitled to use appropriate means, including force." In dozens of studies of police use of force there is no single, accepted definition among the researchers, analysts, or the police. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) in its study, Police Use of Force in America 2001, defined use of force as "The amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject." The IACP also identified five components of force: physical, chemical, electronic, impact, and firearm. To some people, though, the mere presence of a police officer can be intimidating and seen as use of force.

[KitterCat]

Now who's reading into things? I've never heard of a peace officer saying that.

And I you proudly never will see a officer say that word for word, but their actions condone it. To never give a person that has no violent history the ability to come to the door and willingly let the officers in is an over use of force. In this case the guy wasn’t given time to even become an unwilling subject. He was simply raided. Yes they did nock, yes they did announce, but to say he was given enough time to react is just foolhardy. Watching the video their pretty much doing both at the same time so that they can keep that element of surprise. They don’t need that amount of effort to make most people comply.

Somehow I don’t think you and I are going to agree on this Hobbs. I’m fine with agreeing to disagree on this.

[Hobbs]

to say he was given enough time to react is just foolhardy. Watching the video their pretty much doing both at the same time so that they can keep that element of surprise. They don’t need that amount of effort to make most people comply.

Letting criminals react to a raid is how police officers get killed! You'd rather risk an officer's life over a cushy-feely "be nice to all" policy?

[crazylegs]

To never give a person that has no violent history the ability to come to the door and willingly let the officers in is an over use of force. In this case the guy wasn’t given time to even become an unwilling subject. He was simply raided.

How do you know he was a non violent person? Sources please. Please use all information available to police - national databases, local databases, custody records, prior arrests (if any exist). How do you know (or otherwise) that the police hadn't received intelligence to say that he was violent and that was the only information they had to hand?

It is very easy to question a Risk Assesment after the event when you have new information. Because the officers had intelligence to state that he was a drug dealer rather than a user for personal effect the Risk Assesment is much different. A dealer has much more to lose - his stash, money and property; this is in addition the risk to his 'business'. A dealer is much more likely to defend the drugs as the charge is much greater and carries a much more severe punishment.

Letting criminals react to a raid is how police officers get killed! You'd rather risk an officer's life over a cushy-feely "be nice to all" policy?

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Some warrants can be executed simply by knocking on the door. Others cannot be, this is for a number of reasons - evidence can be destroyed (drugs can be flushed for example) or a person could arm themselves. If evidence or life is at risk the door is going in.

I know that in UK law the police do not have to announce their presence before forcing entry - how different is this in the US?

[jackfaire]

I know that in UK law the police do not have to announce their presence before forcing entry - how different is this in the US?

Last I check the rules they have to announce who they are as they enter the building.

This can mean "Freeze this is (LEO or Federal) agents" as the door is being kicked in.

[Greenday]

I know that in UK law the police do not have to announce their presence before forcing entry - how different is this in the US?

Cops in the US can get different warrants. What you are referring to would be considered a "no-knock warrant". The shouting stuff is to inform those inside it's the police and not some burglar.

[Fryk]

This might be a total aside, but I've always wondered... when police force open a dorr or whatever, and it turns out they went to the wrong house, who pays for the door?

[AdminAssistant]

This might be a total aside, but I've always wondered... when police force open a dorr or whatever, and it turns out they went to the wrong house, who pays for the door?

I'm not sure who pays. However, I saw an episode of Kansas City SWAT* and the SWAT team repaired the door until it was at least lockable and safe.

*I recognize the likely inaccuracy of a TV show

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Noodling around a bit in a few places it seems that most jurisdictions require on-the-spot repair to make it secure and the precinct sets thing up for a repairman to come by and fully replace/repair any damage.

[crazylegs]

This might be a total aside, but I've always wondered... when police force open a dorr or whatever, and it turns out they went to the wrong house, who pays for the door?

Generally it's the fuzz who'll get it repaired. It's their error so they pay.

In the UK if the door is knocked down, and the object of the search is found then it's the resident who pays.

[jackfaire]

Amusing thought. Criminal gets wind that his house is going to be raided his neighbors are on vacation so he moves his stuff and himself over there to not be found during the raid SWAT reads the orders wrong and raids the house he is in isntead of his house.