podbaydoor wrote:Did mosc make that claim?
Implicitly, yes. If the SWAT is designed for situations where maximum aggression is justified, then shouldn't we be worried about it being used where it isn't justified?
The relevance of the taser is that it was initially introduced as a pistol substitute. If you were willing to shoot someone (and possibly kill them), then you could instead tase them, and they probably wouldn't die, and probably would be incapacitated. In situations where you were willing to shoot someone with a bullet, switching to tasers is a net win. Likewise, if you are facing situations where you are willing to use maximum aggression against the residents against a building, having a SWAT team is superior to just throwing beat cops at it.
The problem is that the taser is taken nowhere near as seriously as a pistol, and thus is dramatically overused. The situations where tasers are a positive influence are drowned out by the situations where the taser is a negative influence. Likewise with SWAT teams.
I mean, let's be explicit. What does maximum aggression mean, in the context of police units? SWAT teams are death squads. Sometimes, it is justifiable to have a death squad on hand: when someone is barricaded in a building or hostages have been taken are two ready examples. But in Maryland, the first state to require SWAT teams to actually track and release what they do, 94%
of SWAT team deployments are to serve search or arrest warrants. When you send death squads to do no-knock search warrants because of the suspicion of a non-violent crime
, something has gone horribly
wrong. (Maryland requires this level of transparency because one of the victims of SWAT incompetence was a mayor, who was able to use his public position to successfully push for transparency.)
This isn't "sometimes SWAT screws up." This is "in the only state with a shred of transparency, SWAT teams are being misused 94% of the time.
Aikanaro wrote:Side question: Has there ever been a case of a no-knock warrant being issued, and the (innocent!) owner of the home in question successfully slaughtering all trespassers? And if so, how did it play out in court?
The tragedy of Ruby Ridge
is one case where a victim was able to defend himself in combat and in court.