Police raid wrong house, shoot dog (again)

[Kamakazie Sith]

Proof that adopting this method actually saved the lives of officers.

By acting quickly you prevent a suspect from barricading himself, accessing weapons, and you disrupt his OODA loop. (Observe Orient Decide Act)

Otherwise, it's common sense, but that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. For that matter, do you think that the FBI and ATF should have done the same at Waco and Ruby Ridge? My point is that (assuming you are talking solely about drug raids) the evidence is essential to the raid, so saying that it's second to the lives of officers is like saying that the raid itself is second to the lives of officers during it. That may well be the case, but that needs substantiation.

I'm talking about drug raids, raids for weapons, etc. Any raid where the occupants are deemed dangerous will be carried out in this manner. Surprise, speed, and violence of action.

[Knife]

Proof that adopting this method actually saved the lives of officers. Otherwise, it's common sense, but that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. For that matter, do you think that the FBI and ATF should have done the same at Waco and Ruby Ridge?

You are confusing tactical surprise with strategic surprise.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Proof that adopting this method actually saved the lives of officers. Otherwise, it's common sense, but that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. For that matter, do you think that the FBI and ATF should have done the same at Waco and Ruby Ridge?

You are confusing tactical surprise with strategic surprise.

Could you please explain the difference?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Stop dodging the question. What evidence would there be in that scenario, besides the dead dog with sharp teeth? Obviously, if it is behind a tall fence and chained to a tree that would be evidence that the officer acted inappropriately. If it is out in the middle of the street and the officer articulates his reasoning for firing then why do you think he should be charged because the evidence doesn't exist one way or another? Justify this to me, and stop dodging it.

Because if there's no evidence one way or the other then we are not able to ascertain that the dog was a fucking threat.

Jesus Christ, what part of this don't you understand? Shooting people's pets without very clear justification is going to do the exact opposite of making your job easier in future investigations. Whether you like it or fucking not, pets have moved on from being simply a domesticated animal bred for working and are perceived as being members of the family. The police operate by working with the people, if the people refuse to cooperate with the police then the police can not succeed in their job.

[Aaron]

Because if there's no evidence one way or the other then we are not able to ascertain that the dog was a fucking threat.

Jesus Christ, what part of this don't you understand? Shooting people's pets without very clear justification is going to do the exact opposite of making your job easier in future investigations. Whether you like it or fucking not, pets have moved on from being simply a domesticated animal bred for working and are perceived as being members of the family. The police operate by working with the people, if the people refuse to cooperate with the police then the police can not succeed in their job.

Certain parts of the job (just like the military Schatts) require you to make a judgment call. Now if another officer thinks the officer in question acted reasonably, then I don't see an issue.* Theres always going to be things we can't say for sure about.

*Take an officer, or officers from another department and have them review the incident. If they concur, no problem. If they don't, punish. This is similar to what happens in Canada after a shooting.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Because if there's no evidence one way or the other then we are not able to ascertain that the dog was a fucking threat.

Are you fucking dense? I didn't ask you for what role evidence plays in your mind (EDIT - for clarification). I asked you to explain what evidence do you think exists in a shooting of a dog. Usually, you have the observations of the animals behavior from the officer and then the existence of the animal lying dead in a location. Are you suggesting that a ballistic be taken from the dog to ensure that the dog was actually at least facing the officer? If so, I'm all for that if you can find the funding because those kinds of tests are expensive and you'll find that those family pets suddenly aren't as much a part of the family when you're asking for higher taxes to pay for tests on animals.

That's why I gave you a scenario. In my scenario there isn't evidence beyond the observations of the dogs behavior that the officer articulates in a report.

Jesus Christ, what part of this don't you understand? Shooting people's pets without very clear justification is going to do the exact opposite of making your job easier in future investigations. Whether you like it or fucking not, pets have moved on from being simply a domesticated animal bred for working and are perceived as being members of the family. The police operate by working with the people, if the people refuse to cooperate with the police then the police can not succeed in their job.

And exactly what part of my posts indicate to you that I think officers should just be able to shoot a dog without justification?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Are you fucking dense? I didn't ask you for what role evidence plays in your mind (EDIT - for clarification). I asked you to explain what evidence do you think exists in a shooting of a dog. Usually, you have the observations of the animals behavior from the officer and then the existence of the animal lying dead in a location. Are you suggesting that a ballistic be taken from the dog to ensure that the dog was actually at least facing the officer? If so, I'm all for that if you can find the funding because those kinds of tests are expensive and you'll find that those family pets suddenly aren't as much a part of the family when you're asking for higher taxes to pay for tests on animals.

Man, those cameras I hear are large and expensive, no way you could ever find one small and cheap enough to put on a helmet or a rail.

And exactly what part of my posts indicate to you that I think officers should just be able to shoot a dog without justification?

Everything. For one you're opposed to attempting less lethal methods, you're opposed to anything more than the officer's say so, and you're just a confrontational douchebag.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Certain parts of the job (just like the military Schatts) require you to make a judgment call. Now if another officer thinks the officer in question acted reasonably, then I don't see an issue.* Theres always going to be things we can't say for sure about.

*Take an officer, or officers from another department and have them review the incident. If they concur, no problem. If they don't, punish. This is similar to what happens in Canada after a shooting.

I get that, the problem here is, people don't trust the police to be honest anymore. Unless the police take measures to show they are trustworthy, then the perception remains. Something like a camera on a helmet or on a rail mount would remove all pretenses of doubt.

[Stark]

I can imagine how much cops would piss and moan if they had gun cameras.

[Bakustra]

Proof that adopting this method actually saved the lives of officers.

By acting quickly you prevent a suspect from barricading himself, accessing weapons, and you disrupt his OODA loop. (Observe Orient Decide Act)

No, do you have a) empirical evidence that this is a superior method of raiding and b) that raiding is a superior method for dealing with drug- and weapon-related arrests. Both of those I accept as making sense, but an intuitive sensibility doesn't necessarily mean a good relation to reality.

Otherwise, it's common sense, but that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. For that matter, do you think that the FBI and ATF should have done the same at Waco and Ruby Ridge? My point is that (assuming you are talking solely about drug raids) the evidence is essential to the raid, so saying that it's second to the lives of officers is like saying that the raid itself is second to the lives of officers during it. That may well be the case, but that needs substantiation.

I'm talking about drug raids, raids for weapons, etc. Any raid where the occupants are deemed dangerous will be carried out in this manner. Surprise, speed, and violence of action.

So you don't disagree that raiding does place an equal priority on securing evidence, at least in the case of drug raiding? Because if officer safety was a higher priority than making the raid, surely the raid would never occur. So the two are essentially at equal priority, because evidence is not the only function of a raid, but it is essential to drug raids.

Proof that adopting this method actually saved the lives of officers. Otherwise, it's common sense, but that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. For that matter, do you think that the FBI and ATF should have done the same at Waco and Ruby Ridge?

You are confusing tactical surprise with strategic surprise.

What is the difference in the situations? The FBI and ATF could have had both by driving up one day and breaking the door down just like with SWAT raids. Raiding is even used when suspects are believed to be armed. So I'm asking whether KS believes that raiding is always the best method, by using Waco and Ruby Ridge as examples, seeing as Ruby Ridge was ended with negotiation and Waco with the mass suicide of the besieged.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Man, those cameras I hear are large and expensive, no way you could ever find one cheap enough to put on a tactical mount.

Absolutely, if those officers are suppose to be equipped with cameras and if the evidence isn't there they should be punished. However, you failed to answer my question a third time. Obviously, you simple do not know. Thank you.

Cameras as a solution. I'm all for that. Get the funding and equip all US police with body mounted cameras.

Everything. For one you're opposed to attempting less lethal methods, you're opposed to anything more than the officer's say so, and you're just an argumentative douchebag to finish it off.

What does that have to do with your implication that I support unjustified shooting of family pets?

[Kamakazie Sith]

I can imagine how much cops would piss and moan if they had gun cameras.

Actually, it's currently happening in a number of US cities with positive reception. I can't help that you feel this way because of your preconceived notions regarding the people employed by US police departments.

Link

[Ritterin Sophia]

Absolutely, if those officers are suppose to be equipped with cameras and if the evidence isn't there they should be punished. However, you failed to answer my question a third time. Obviously, you simple do not know. Thank you.

Because suggesting they use video cameras doesn't imply the use of video evidence.

What does that have to do with your implication that I support unjustified shooting of family pets?

That was never the subject, it was killing pets with the only justification being the officer's say so. You attempted to change the subject in your last post, I simply ignored your attempt and continued on with the topic. That being the perception that police are lying about justification for killing dogs.

[Kamakazie Sith]

No, do you have a) empirical evidence that this is a superior method of raiding and b) that raiding is a superior method for dealing with drug- and weapon-related arrests. Both of those I accept as making sense, but an intuitive sensibility doesn't necessarily mean a good relation to reality.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/223855.pdf

Page 12 under Conclusions

SWAT teams came into existence almost 40 years ago in order to handle special threat situations with minimal human injury or loss of life, and SWAT operational doctrine has evolved since then in a constant attempt to improve their capacity to fulfill this mandate. The hard data from the SOS showing that SWAT teams only rarely resort to lethal force indicates that SWAT teams appear to be doing what they are designed to do.

There are also graphs near the end of the report which details warrant service, and times SWAT has had to resort to deadly force. These results are likely due to the tactics used. If you're looking for a study in which different tactics besides raiding are used during drug/weapon related incidents I don't believe those exist bceause this method is pretty well established.

So you don't disagree that raiding does place an equal priority on securing evidence, at least in the case of drug raiding? Because if officer safety was a higher priority than making the raid, surely the raid would never occur. So the two are essentially at equal priority, because evidence is not the only function of a raid, but it is essential to drug raids.

I do disagree. It's based off a risk management philosophy. If death to an officer is likely to result in a drug raid then that raid won't happen and other methods will be explored like the use of other tools that reduce that risk such as riot shields, explosive breaching devices, etc.

If death to an officer is likely to result in say an active shooter/hostage situation then the raid will still happen to protect the innocent.

If death is likely to result to the subject but not officers or innocents then the raid won't happen. That's why standoffs with suicidal subjects can go on for hours.

Raids are determined by the risk to the following;
Innocents
Officer
Subject/Suspect
Property (Drugs, other evidence)

What is the difference in the situations? The FBI and ATF could have had both by driving up one day and breaking the door down just like with SWAT raids. Raiding is even used when suspects are believed to be armed. So I'm asking whether KS believes that raiding is always the best method, by using Waco and Ruby Ridge as examples, seeing as Ruby Ridge was ended with negotiation and Waco with the mass suicide of the besieged.

No, because it doesn't flow with the risk management. In both Waco and Ruby Ridge the risk to officers was significantly elevated because a stealthy approach was not possible, and both camps were heavily armed. In Waco, the Davidians knew of the impending raid even before they got onto the property thanks to someone with loose lips.

Ruby Ridge was a complete and utter fuck up, but to answer your question it seemed like detection was also likely.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Absolutely, if those officers are suppose to be equipped with cameras and if the evidence isn't there they should be punished. However, you failed to answer my question a third time. Obviously, you simple do not know. Thank you.

Because suggesting they use video cameras doesn't imply the use of video evidence.

Sure, it does. But you were talking about the future without making that clear when you responded to my post in which I was talking about the present in where helmet/rifle mounted cameras are not a standard part of the equipment list. In short, we do agree. There was just miscommunication.

[Knife]

Proof that adopting this method actually saved the lives of officers. Otherwise, it's common sense, but that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. For that matter, do you think that the FBI and ATF should have done the same at Waco and Ruby Ridge?

You are confusing tactical surprise with strategic surprise.

Could you please explain the difference?

Strategic surprise is harder to achieve because it means you are taking people completely by surprise by not only your presence, but your intent to be after them in the first place. Tactical surprise just means you have the initiative, your choice on when you attack. Comparing a drug raid where the cops have both strategic and tactical surprise to a situation where you have lost strategic surprise by sitting outside the compound for days (weeks?) is apples and oranges.

Part of the advantage of strategic surprise is the 'enemy' is unaware that you are even after them, along side tactical surprise where they don't know when you're attacking. In both, speed is of the essence because once they know you're on the move, they can counter. The Davidian's knew the FBI was there, just not when they were coming in. This still holds a minor advantage for the cops, they could have come in at the crack of dawn, in low light, when the cult was completely unprepared (or stood the largest chance of being unprepared) but they didn't. In a drug raid, these advantages are used to their highest degree, the cops don't have to use environmental advantages like time of day, the 'bad guys' don't know their even after them and the cops can 'attack' at any time they want and still hold that advantage.