They were given permission by a judge to use reasonable means to enter the house if not granted IMMEDIATE entry. That means breaking the door down if another less intrusive method would not suffice or such a method would endanger officers or allow for the destruction of evidence.
If they were granted a no-knock entry, which I doubt, since they have been going out of favor, they could have gone right in but those have led to these kind of situations and just not that common anymore. They are if the suspect has a history of resisting law enforcement and is highly EXPECTED to engage officers on sight. That does not mean the SWAT team stands there waiting for the occupant to destroy evidence or formulate a plan to ambush or escape. Search warrants call for a reasonable amount of time granted to the homeowner to open the door when summoned and ordered to do so. Reasonable can be a little subjective but about 20 seconds is what I am used to seeing. Our teams flashbang before entry and turn the overhead lights upon the knock and announce. Gangs don’t have that capability so little chance of argument of mistake. Not to mention that people who are home invaded by gangs portraying themselves as police are other criminals who are running stash houses of dope or money. They are not Joe and Jane Average Citizen.
All those officers went in shouting “Police, we have a search warrant, put down any weapons and show your hands, etc.”
A responsible gun owner DOES NOT point a rifle at the police officers, all of which are saying the above. They also don’t hold on to it when told to drop it. You want to believe they murdered this guy, I want to give my fellow officers the benefit of the doubt that they did what they are trained to do, gave the decedent some type of chance to surrender and he did not.
So tell me, what’s a reasonable amount of time to allow someone to point a rifle at you before you shoot? 1 second, two, five? All of which is more than enough to shoot your and your colleagues. Anyone with a bit of firearms knowledge knows how destructive rifles are. You can’t muck around.
Since you want to question their competency, tell everyone how you would have done it better.
You don't they did that, his wife says not.
A responsible gun owner DOES NOT point a rifle at the police officers, all of which are saying the above. They also don’t hold on to it when told to drop it.
And you do not know they ever told him that either before they released a hail of lead (missing 90%).
Not to mention that all of your excusing and defending is based on the false premise that these tactics are reasonable for civilian police agencies in the first place. You do know that cops are civilians, don't you? Maybe not since far too many of them don't bur believe they are somehow "more equal" than the other pigs.
You should take a lesson that most posters disagree and find LEOs who share your attitude to be a threat to their liberty and safety. Is that your idea of “Serve and Protect” to make the citizens you WORK FOR contemptuous and fearful of you?
You REALLY should check your premise.
Anyone capable of critical thought, understands law enforcement playing military in American neighborhoods, over something like suspected drugs, is really, really stupid not to mention unsafe for everyone in the entire neighborhood.
This is not Nazi Germany.
These police paramilitary tactics, treating people suspected of having drugs as if they're a threat to national security, simply needs to stop.
Otherwise law enforcement is going to lose any remaining respect regarding these war like tactics. Law enforcement better learn, the only reason they have *any* power, is because the people have allowed them to. That can change, and get really ugly, as repeatedly demonstrated throughout history.
The scenario: A combat trained veteran Marine is roused from two hours of sleep by his wife who informs him that there are armed men outside of the house in an area where there is a history of home invasion-type crimes. The Marine secures his family in a safe, arms himself, and positions himself to cover the only entry point. When the door it forced open, he does not fire because, according to the training he has received, he has not established Positive Identification. As a result, his assailants gain fire superiority.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Your “fellow officers” messed up. The preliminary investigation should have revealed that the Marine had no criminal past, was, in fact, a combat vet (which would indicate that ANY dynamic entry had a higher probability of an armed response), and had his family in the house. There are a hundred different ways that this could have been handled better, highest among them would be detaining this man away from his domicile.
This isn’t me being blinded by my loyalty to the Corps; if it was proven that the man was involved in some type of criminal activity, throw the book at him: there’s not a Marine, current or veteran, who would say a thing against taking down a criminal. At that point, he loses the title of “Marine”.
But as it stands, he followed the Rules of Engagement to the letter, up to and including holding his fire because of lack of PID. (I’d go so far as to say I would have done the exact same thing in his circumstance, and I SUPPORT my local law enforcement officers.)
The tactics of dynamic entry are effective against street gang members, not against a combat vet.
This was a botched OP, and everyone from the mission planners and investigators on down are culpable.