I wish I knew why they couldn't just send 2 officers to knock on the door and ask, if the home owner refused then bring in a task force. US Police get more money when they send in a force than just one or two officers.
That was a semi-raid, because they didn't break down his door and force him to the ground while ransacking his house.
He literally said 'there's something behind this door, we don't know whether it's a guy with a rocket launcher or an innocent baby, so let's throw a grenade in there and 'gain the initiative' whichever case it may be'.
I never quite understood raids in the first place. Between scoping out a house, arresting any individuals outside as they walk on the curb while entering an empty home with a warrant, and raiding a house delta-force style with guns, an unknown number of people in the house with no knowledge of what you'll find. I'm sure house raids have their place, but to me that place feels rather limited. Raiding someone's house because of something like pot, or selling nachos, with grenades and all?
Is it? How do you define super rare? I live in a low crime US suburb and still personally know 3 homes that have been invaded: friend's next door neighbor, a house 200ft away, and the literal across the street neighbor.
No, but I wouldn't raid a house either. I'm no police tactician, but it can't possibly be true that raiding a house is less dangerous than waiting for the suspect to leave his house and arresting him then. For anyone, including the cops. SWAT teams raiding homes should be reserved for active dangers, like hostage situations or shootouts. There's no need for this sort of urgency for apprehending a drug dealer especially given the collateral damage it's so likely to cause.
It does happen by mistake. My apartment was raided by police and I know four others who have been raided too. In two of those cases, the people who were raided had nothing to do with any kind of illegal activity. The other three were drug related, of course.
> They have to think twice about that home invasion as well.
As a simple supporting point, home invasions while the tenants are currently at home is much higher in Canada where firearms are significantly less common. In America, burglars make sure noone is home before breaking into it. This has been correlated to gun ownership and castle doctrines.
>Please - PLEASE - find me ONE example of a home burglary occuring under these circumstances.
Likely not possible. By definition, these would be successful burglaries that happened when owner was not home and perpetrator was likely never caught.
Remember, the close rate on burglaries in the US is in the low teens - 13% as of 2022[1], and by definition, these were the dumb perpetrators that got caught - the 13% least competent||lucky of all home burglars.
Buying a pressure cooker and a backpack causing you to be suspected of terrorism is nuts?
Oh, you sweet, sweet, naïve summer child. This isn't fiction, it's a story from real life that's happened many times. A cursory search engine query shows numerous examples of this, e.g. this one[2] that happened over a decade ago!
I can't force you to be rationally worried about entirely plausible risks, just keep in mind that your irrational lack of concern for such possibilities only puts yourself at risk.
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd guess you're politically likely to be progressive/left wing. Do you know that's empirically correlated[3] with having less mass in your amygdala, the part of the brain responsible for evaluating threats and risks?
I'd guess no one can fault you for assuming it's a home invasion in case the LE fail to identify themselves.
The downside is that you'll probably end up dead, since the police (in the US especially) have a record of killing even people who don't shoot at them.
I've actually had my home raided before... not fun. Fortunately I no longer live in America.
reply