It’s obviously trivial to produce whatever kind of report is necessary to justify a SWAT response.
They sent police in SWAT gear, but they still politely knocked. They were let in, saw what was actually going on, talked to them about how neat the guns were, and that was that.
There’s a middle ground that’s probably acceptable to most.
it is somehow acceptable for police to show up a a residence in full battle gear, when the resident has no criminal record and there is no known probable cause to use such deadly force. Swat should be rarely, if ever used. Instead they're used in more than 90% of these cases.
—-
All of that is obviously bullshit if you spend 45 seconds thinking about reality.
Obviously there is an infinite number of different calls to police that can justify an aggressive, armed, SWAT response to someone previously unknown to law enforcement.
We have a legal system for a reason. Giving a cop any lethal weapon is passive acceptance that he may circumvent the legal system and put himself in the position of judge jury and executioner. This is wrong and erodes trust in police and the judicial system vastly more than any other issue. No cops should have guns, not "SWAT" team, not beat cops, none.
Cops responding to e.g. reports of a group of jihadists ambushing restaurants in a crowded European nightlife district: MAYBE tasers and pepper spray!
Here in reality, awful stuff happens on a daily basis. Get a grip.
It seems like you already said you dont believe in just circumventing due process and the judicial system so I am just at a total loss in trying to understand why the police would need guns. Maybe killing dogs?
I feel like perhaps I am not communicating my point well here. By giving police guns we are implying that we as a society are OK with them using those weapons. By using those weapons they are likely to kill people. By killing people they are acting as judge jury and executioner. This would seem to imply that we as a society are totally fine with police circumventing the judiciary system.
The argument of course is that cops need guns to protect themselves. Unfortunately guns do not stop bullets. A gun is going to do nothing to stop a cop being shot. Unless they use that gun on the shooter. Thereby again acting as judge jury and executioner. Do you see the problem here?
> Obviously there is an infinite number of different calls to police that can justify an aggressive, armed, SWAT response to someone previously unknown to law enforcement.
People are really watching too many action movies. There are essentially no scenarios that justify responding to a residential area using essentially military gear. The obvious thing to do is first confirm and assess the situation, no assault rifles needed.
The biggest irony is that in the situations where police could have actually used heavy gear to save lifes (Uvalde, note it didn't need to be the initial response either), they rather waited outside not risk any injuries to themselves. Just goes to show they just want to play tough guy in situations with little risk.
The real intention of the police could be to respond to each call and swat just to assure that as many charges as possible are accumulated and billed to the culprit later.
Everything is reported and recorded so the police actions, that are torturing the victim, also dig the hole deeper and deeper for the criminal. The harm done is obvious and allow asking for damage compensations. At that level of reckless no judge could dismiss it as just child's play.
Keep swatting also reward the criminals that are watching. This is not necessarily a bad thing. To keep them engaged and interested on the game is a must for the police, that therefore increase their chances to complete patterns and chase them slowly one by one.