That’s an interesting idea, but are you willing to take 100% fatalities on your end in the bargain? That would be non-negotiable — see Waco.

(I meant to ask this the other day in the open thread, but my internet connection was SNAFU)…

Radley,

Are you aware of any situations where local fire departments have busted down doors and hosed down the wrong house in one of those “isolated incidents” ?

It would be interesting to compare and contrast the reactions of a Fire Dep’t that committed such an error. Would a review board buy “Hey, just because we didn’t see any smoke or fire doesn’t mean that our firefighter’s safety wasn’t threatened. In these situations, it’s our policy to ensure that the potential for a fire is eliminated before investigating the scene for an actual fire.” as an excuse?

There are times when I almost wish a fire department would do this, so that it might illustrate how ridiculous these police raids are.

If you don’t want a SWAT team destroying your home, don’t have grandchildren who purchase stolen goods.

To be on the safe side, you should also have sense enough not to live next door to someone whose grandson might one day purchase a stolen cell phone.

#3 Like that will do anything but add to the lies the cops already tell the judge.

It’s not that SWAT tactics are always wrong. It’s that they’re frighteningly too often the first resort with the police departments that have them.

Any situation that requires a full-scale military assault should have actual soldiers leading the way. However, practically speaking, the incidents that actually call for militarized tactics and armaments are so rare that most jurisdictions would never need anything beyond help from the National Guard.

Immorality reigns supreme in the United State.

So when are they *right*?