They could have ordered the woman to unlock and open every door in the house, take the child and any animal that might spook the police, leave the house and then send in a tactical team to clear it.

No wall crashing, no door breaking. If they find a locked door they have every right to suspect someone is behind that door and breach. If the woman forgot to unlock one, well, that's her problem.
Crashing trough the wall is playing with toys, not policing.

A warrant was obtained which makes this more than just the law enforcement agencies acting on their own. It's still irrelevant and you didn't answer my question.

Please read my third paragraph:
As for the warrant, call me a cynic, but judges cooperate with the police more than we want to think. Talk about the separation of powers, but when he's reading a warrant request he is reading only one side of a story, and the fact of life is that he will see the cops many times in his career and the victims of the cops only extremely rarely. Who do you think he is going to favor?

Besides, when the judge signed the bleeding thing, he was probably thinking "Oh well, it can't hurt THAT much just to authorize a search." He was probably not thinking about tanks on houses.

Then we will never agree on anything involving armed response since you don't respect due process. I'll wait for more information than the article provided before making further comment.

They didnt need any form of warrant at all. What was done in Iraq was they kicked your door in(if you didn't let them in) and checked your whole house if you had more than one long arm on you property you where in trouble. If you had say one extra they might cuss you out and trow in a lake. If they required a place to stay for the night they stayed as the unwelcome guests.


Your comparison is not valid.

Chance are the person may have already chosen to wield the RPG already or they are just a regular Iraqi who has never experienced due process anyway.

You will notice even in your version, they did not collapse one of your walls with a tank.

There does appear to be an increase in the approval of what is commonly known as a "no-knock" warrant. Perhaps that is one of the problems. I feel that there really has to be very solid evidence -- evidence not a police officer's feelings or fears in order to justify a no-knock.

I agree there is much we still don't know about this specific case, but this is not an isolated case.

What was the actual risk if this person were actually in the house? What was he going to do? Surround the house, evacuate the surrounding houses and attempt to establish communication. Did they police even try to establish communication.. probably not as they would have found out that there was no one in the attic.

In today's environment I feel that there are citizens (civilian and police) that seem eager to use lethal force. I wonder if secretly they are looking forward to it. Lethal force should be the last resort, not the first option. That goes for armed citizens and the police.


The public is not served by the cowboy "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude that, in my opinion, is becoming more common and evidently acceptable.

To me it is better to have a live defendant than a dead suspect.

This is why, I would be more than willing to accept higher taxes in order to research non-lethal weapons for the police.

The police need to neutralize a threat. One way is to punch one or more 10mm holes in the chest/head. But is that really the only way? We are in the 21st century. There has to be a way that can be researched and technology that can be developed that will allow the police to neutralize threats but still keep the suspect alive for trial.

I don't know what that science/technology is, but I bet we have some smart people who would be able to research this. And as a tax-paying law-abiding citizen that really does not want to be killed by the police because of a "mistake", I am willing to pay for this research.

There has to be a better way to enforce the laws than killing citizens.