On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Daniel C. <[email protected]> wrote: > Point being, I question whether SWAT raids for...
I apologize if this was sent twice. 'Net connection here is spotty, and I think my neighbor is stealing all the bandwidth to download kiddie porn. On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Stuart Jansen <[email protected]> wrote: > I know several gun nuts. <snip> > > I don't know if they're NRA members <snip> > > PTSD is not a synonym for violent. <snip> Agreed. My point was more that one could imagine a situation where deadly force (which is what SWAT presence represents) may be reasonable, but because we can imagine it doesn't mean that most (or even any) cases fall into that category. As for drive read/write rates and data recoverability - this doesn't seem relevant to whether or not using a SWAT team is justified. SWAT teams represent the intention of the police to apply deadly force, and should not be used unless they're expecting to face potentially life-threatening opposition. Being worried that someone might throw a punch or run and shred a hard drive is not enough (or at least should not be enough) to justify sending a team of heavily armed and armored men into a person's home. If speed is a requirement, okay, fine - but speed and deadly force are two different things and should be applied separately when appropriate. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
