Replies

Would you, being a father or husband, cower behind protection and require the police to save your family?
That, I think, would be a better way of phrasing it. And along with it, would you seek prevent a father or husband whose family is being held from taking it upon himself to enter into combat for their sakes?

“However, some people here, and you seem to be among their ranks, want to forbid ALL no knock warrants, when the law clearly allows for them.”

And I am not ashamed to be so numbered.
I simply do not believe that it is either reasonable or moral to allow the police to break into ones house. Period.

As someone further up-thread mentioned, if the goal was truly the mere apprehension then things such as cutting the electricity and water or simply waiting outside would be sufficient; but this is not the only goal, the other goal is to make a show of force and, on the psychological level, reduce the non-police to realization that their lives and property are subject to the whims of the government through its agents “the police.”

Would you, being a father or husband, cower behind protection and require the police to save your family? That, I think, would be a better way of phrasing it. And along with it, would you seek prevent a father or husband whose family is being held from taking it upon himself to enter into combat for their sakes?

You aren't Rambo. You alone do not have the training, firepower, or ability to take on a barricaded individual or group of people holding your family hostage in a house. It's pretty obvious that you aren't grounded in reality here. You know that you are caught hiding behind absurdity, and now you are trying to shift the question.

BTW: Why did you ignore the other scenario? Should the police have to knock and announce their presence when doing so will cause the terrorist to set off the nuclear device?

I simply do not believe that it is either reasonable or moral to allow the police to break into ones house. Period.

So you would allow terrorists to hold hostages, create explosive devices and do other such things?

So were the framers of the Constitution also wrong, considering that a warrant explicitly gives the one holding the warrant the authority to break and enter into a home if entry is refused?