Perhaps they viewed her uncooperative nature as the residents preparing for conflict. It's possible they wouldn't have drawn their weapons if the residents complied immediately.
You have 20 seconds to comply: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzlt7IbTp6M
The people with actual power in this situation have the greater responsibility.
This cannot be stated enough. It seems in our general conversations that whenever there is a tribal component to the discussion that this responsibility shifts when it aligns or disaligns with your tribe. I've always been a firm believer that you can complain about those in other tribes, but it is your responsibility to hold those in your tribe to a higher bar. After all, you don't have a voice in the tribe you don't belong to and your tribe isn't perfect and can always seek to improve.
And there should never be a question about a person in a position of power being held to a higher responsibility than an average person. No one should be getting a pass on this, inside or outside of your tribe.
Your options are pretty much comply and hope you don't get shot, fight, hide somewhere and hope you don't get shot when they storm in, or set up a camera streaming to someone you trust just in case you don't survive. It looks like she used those 20 minutes to go with the latter option.
Thats terrible judgment. If you think you might be shot for no reason at all, then it certainly doesn't improve your chances to start giving people reasons to shoot you.
I wonder if things like this are what honor duels were about in the past? A way to semi-legally call out someone personally with potentially severe consequences.
Pointing a gun at a kid in a situation like this seems like it should be punishable by itself.
My impression of developing countries was that police are vicious, brutal, and corrupt by default. As opposed to the US where bad cops are the exception. And they have very little oversight. Which countries are you talking about where that's not the case?
Your civilian scenario isn't exactly congruent because you are missing the legal authority point. If you are a civilian with the authority to search a building (your house when you hear a noise at night for example), then you you would be justified in clearing the building in the same way the police did. The response of deadly force depends on if there are alternatives to that use of force (and greatly varies by state). In this case, the alternative to the occupant using deadly force is to comply with the warrant, and if necessary, sue in court for any damages.
How to avoid this:
1) When they show up at your house with a search warrant, let them execute it.
That's it.
I understand the sentiment. I really do. But that is the wrong response when someone is pointing a gun at you. That’s how’s your child loses their father or mother.
Don’t forget that police are trained to shoot to kill. There is no training for “shoot to injure” ... the logic being that if you are injured, you can reach into your clothes and pull out a gun, potentially killing the officer who shot you.
Most training is to shoot “center of mass”. That often kills, yes, but if the goal was to kill (or even kill quickly), tactics like the “Mozambique drill” - two shots center of mass and one shot to the head - would be standard. It’s not. It’s specifically used as training for exceptional circumstances.
You may not understand this type of situation, but I've experienced the feeling of going from a safe, comfortable environment to being in pain and seeing friends hurt, all in a split second; even with Marine Corps training, I was ready to snap. My hands were shaking, there was a roaring in my ears, and I was ready to kill the first threat I saw. That situation, in my home, with my family? It isn't a choice. We are biological creatures, and there are some reactions that are just biological. It's easy to play armchair general and discount all of the human factors.
I understand and I assume you have weapons stashed around your residence in case of these kind of encounters.
But this family almost certainly did not. If you watch the video, the gun is pointing upstairs, presumably at the husband and children. I doubt the husband has a firearm handy or a means to defend himself for this situation.
So his emotional response to attack without proper weaponry is foolish, unless on the odd chance he’s a trained ninja like you :)
Read through your comment: "I doubt the husband has a firearm handy or a means to defend himself for this situation. So his emotional response to attack without proper weaponry is foolish"
This point of view is speculative, it doesn't come from experience (or even a basic psychological understanding). People do NOT function that way. Maybe they do when playing Call of Duty or watching a Die Hard movie, but not in real life. I can't really impart what it feels like in that sort of situation, but I hope you never have to experience it. You end up needing therapy.
I'd have thought the logic is, "If you want to injure, use a baton. Guns are tools for killing."
Teaching "shoot to injure" would be reckless considering the chances a "wounding" shot ends up killing somebody.