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?
"Armed" does not necessarily mean gun-carrying. I saw footage of an individual smashing AP camera gear with a baseball bat, for example. They didn't break those windows with their bare hands.
None of them had firearms you mean. The claim that they weren't armed is a transparent lie. There is a lot of video showing them carrying and using weapons of various sorts.
How does any of that contradict my earlier comment?
If the police plans to raid a building which they suspect hosts armed suspects, like in the case of Kim Schmitz, surely they’ll send in units carrying fire arms.
What I understood is that a number of protesters came armed to the teeth, but nevertheless did not shoot a single bullet even when they were storming the house.
I think this is a fantastic case against the "if you have nothing to hide" argument.
The apologist would say "but they weren't convicted of anything, so the system worked!"
Personally, I would say they were lucky that no one was killed. None of the "probable cause" for this raid justifies pointing a loaded gun(s) at an unarmed person.
They wouldn't shoot someone because that person is an intruder. They would shoot that person because they think that person has a weapon and is about to harm them. The article says there was suspicion that the men's backpacks contained pressure cooker bombs, and they were doing it on September 11.
Consider Daniel Shaver, he was crawling on the floor with no weapon, but the police suspected he had a gun and was about to shoot them, so they shot him. The courts found the police not guilty.
I would never shoot an unarmed person; that would be murder. Gun possession is also not a reason for anyone to be shot. However, by all reports these agents are menacing people with their weapons, bundling people into unmarked vans, etc. Those behaviors threaten lives, and responsible gun owners will intervene to stop them.
"If it was common knowledge that there was a non-trivial number of armed people at the location in question this probably wouldn't be happening" would be more appropriate.
People committing violence choose soft targets over hard ones when they can.
absolutely - if I had been armed I would have tried to defend myself - unless there are major parts of the story missing I can't see any justification for their actions
You must assume Y. You can't just start shooting on the balance of probabilities. It might be forgivable if there was some imminent danger to... somebody. But I'm not seeing that.
I can't fathom how someone can invite an armed squad to some location, under the pretense that a violent crime is in progress, and not have the slighest inkling about the ways things can go wrong in that situation.
reply