Hacker News Reader

Comment by gyardley | Hacker News Reader

While you never know who's armed and who's not, in these cases they're probably just as worried about the destruction of evidence - a polite knock on the door and an 'excuse me, sir, we're the FBI' might give him time to erase or destroy something.

View on HN

  | While you never know who's armed and who's not

This may be true, but if the person has no history of violence, isn't wanted for a violent offence, has no registered firearms, and is not known to have any radical anti-government / Michigan Militia-type views, then there is probably no reason for such an armed assault.

  | in these cases they're probably just as worried
  | about the destruction of evidence

So a group of men armed with assault rifles is necessary to prevent destruction of evidence, because a couple of agents armed with handguns would have encouraged resistance?

"Registered firearms" in a nation with the 2nd Amendment? Even in states that require it I wouldn't trust that info with my life. :)

And either way I don't see why you'd not be OK with rifles but would be OK with handguns. Once you're OK with the arresting officers being armed the rest is just a matter of degree.

  | the rest is just a matter of degree.

Exactly. Sending a couple of armed officers vs. a SWAT team with snipers and helicopters. Let's not forget that the US taxpayers are footing the bill if every arrest involves a highly-trained 10-person team donning assault rifles, etc.

Man, I don't know. If I was a lot stupider and could get the drop on them, I might like my chances against two agents with handguns.

A SWAT team, on the other hand - I don't care how dumb, drunk, or high I am, if ten officers with heavy weaponry come with a helicopter escort, I know I'm going to lose.

Same with a tank, and the National Guard. Should they get involved too? :P

A tank would have a much higher risk of needless collateral damage compared to rifles, and the NG couldn't play anyways due to Posse Comitatus Act restrictions (except possibly if they were activated under the state governor's authority, I forget the specifics).

Either way the comment didn't say that "more force is always better" like you seem to go along with, only that a couple of agents with handguns are in a different category than a bunch of agents with rifles available. But once you have a bunch of agents with rifles, adding a tank or soldiers doesn't significantly change the risk equation for the Feds so even their ORM analysis would say not to do it.

Only five states require firearms registration (as opposed to the near-universal, one-time federal background check at purchase).

In this circumstance, police used to just detain the guy after he left for work, or after the whole family went out to eat. Very few houses are occupied 24 hours a day.

The problem with that policy was that police didn't get to shoot enough dogs.

Is there no middle ground?

If they don't use the gear, they can't justify it.

While I'm no cop and such actions are concerning to me - let me play devil's advocate. If you have to train a group of men to apprehend a wide variety of suspects/fugitives/badguys in a manner that is fast, effective, and as safe as possible, it makes sense that you keep the procedures, tactics, and equipment used consistent.

After all, pointing an M16 at someone wont hurt them any more than pointing a .38 special at them, but it's a hell of a lot less tempting to run/fight back against an overwhelming force.

That they seem heavy handed in this case is just a result of it being on the edge of the range they need to cover.

All of that makes sense under the premise that the SWAT team should be used to apprehend an individual which is not know to be part of any criminal group nor has committed a violent act.

I suspect they wanted to get in very quickly, but I think it might have made more sense to send two guys to wait for him to come out of his house rather than send 12 to kick in his door. I have limits as to how far I can argue their point. It does seem somewhat excessive. But you never know the details.

While >in America< you never.... This reads better. In other countries you could never rule it out either, but the chance is magnitudes smaller.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com