4 ms·

I see a lot of people outraged and making emotional appeals. The wake of a tragedy isn't usually the best time to pass legislation, or even form a coherent opin

I see a lot of people outraged and making emotional appeals. The wake of a tragedy isn't usually the best time to pass legislation, or even form a coherent opinion. There's an estimated 8000-50,000 no-knock raids per year (sources have numbers all over the place, Vox seems convinced it's 20,000) and since 1980, only 40 innocent bystanders have been killed. Overall, the risk of either an officer or civilian dying is ~1/1000. I'm not finding any good sources on how many people are arrested, or what the warrant is typically for, which is important to weigh the benefits. Incidents where they get the house wrong or an innocent person is hurt are newsworthy because they're rare and they can rile people up along political lines and push an agenda. If there's a warrant for a dangerous person's arrest and you expect them to fight back, I'd rather that be in a no-knock raid in the middle of the night at their home with 50 police using military hardware, than one or two cops at a traffic stop that turns into a high speed chase/shootout in a busy public area.

quaunaut 6y ago
While 20,000 is a hell of a number per year, it's worth noting that we're not 100% sure it's only 40 innocent bystanders- for example, in this case it wouldn't have been deemed as such if the boyfriend hadn't survived. What I'd be interested in, is how many no-knock warrants result in any shooting or casualties whatsoever. If that's still a really low number, this may not be as warranted.
ryandrake 6y ago
> “The wake of a tragedy isn't usually the best time to pass legislation, or even form a coherent opinion.” When they happen frequently enough, you’re always in the wake of a tragedy, and this becomes an excuse to perpetually do nothing. It’s like after every US school shooting it’s always “too soon to talk about legislation.”
pmorici 6y ago
The justification in this case and in general isn't about the person being dangerous it's justified under the auspices that they might destroy evidence. It isn't obvious to me that the risk of confusing people about what is going on and causing a situation where they think they need to fight back against home invaders outweighs the 20 seconds of warning a "dangerous" person might get because the cops don't knock.
epistasis 6y ago
Can you back up your assertion for not acting with legislation in response to a tragedy? In pretty much any other aspect of life, from business to personal, people will react then. Especially since this isn't a one-time tragedy, but one that plays out continually. We need to act now before we let this happen again. I'm going to need to see a citation on your numbers, but 40 since 1980 is once a year! By your criteria of not responding after a tragedy, you are actually arguing that we should never act at all.
- Damorian 6y ago
  My brief googling lead me to Wikipedia, which sources most of its statistics from the new York times, but I also read some stuff from the ACLU and other left-leaning news orgs. There's very little good data out there is my biggest takeaway. Which brings me to my point, the reactions are emotional, not logical. If we're creating policy based on feelings that aren't backed by data or actually run counter to data, that's bad policy. Many areas do regular no-knock raid and many areas have banned them entirely. I expect organizations with strong opinions on this subject can investigate the effects and do better than the New York Times throwing 80 links to local news websites into a csv file on GitHub and then linking to it like it's an actual source.
  - epistasis 6y ago
    My main question is why we should not react speedily. The desire to not act speedily seems be a desire that is an emotional one, not a logical one. There is a clear logical need to act quickly to prevent future abuses of power.
    - Damorian 6y ago
      Oh, sorry, I assumed everybody agreed that a carefully planned and measured approach based on facts was better than acting as quickly as possible with only vague ideas of reality. Especially given the context of a few cops and a judge going off incomplete and incorrect data, barging into a house haphazardly and shooting someone to death.
exabrial 6y ago
Respectfully disagree. I don't think there's anything that could be done with a be knock that could be done without.
jpz 6y ago
Who knows how many other victims are out there? This case highlights it because the killed woman was a medical technician in the middle of the pandemic. Normally her death might not have made the national press.
beart 6y ago
Your logic is not sound at all. You are saying no knock warrants are needed because the only alternative puts everyone in danger. We see in this very case, the opposite being true.

quaunaut 6y ago

While 20,000 is a hell of a number per year, it's worth noting that we're not 100% sure it's only 40 innocent bystanders- for example, in this case it wouldn't have been deemed as such if the boyfriend hadn't survived. What I'd be interested in, is how many no-knock warrants result in any shooting or casualties whatsoever. If that's still a really low number, this may not be as warranted.

ryandrake 6y ago

> “The wake of a tragedy isn't usually the best time to pass legislation, or even form a coherent opinion.” When they happen frequently enough, you’re always in the wake of a tragedy, and this becomes an excuse to perpetually do nothing. It’s like after every US school shooting it’s always “too soon to talk about legislation.”

pmorici 6y ago

The justification in this case and in general isn't about the person being dangerous it's justified under the auspices that they might destroy evidence. It isn't obvious to me that the risk of confusing people about what is going on and causing a situation where they think they need to fight back against home invaders outweighs the 20 seconds of warning a "dangerous" person might get because the cops don't knock.

epistasis 6y ago

Can you back up your assertion for not acting with legislation in response to a tragedy? In pretty much any other aspect of life, from business to personal, people will react then. Especially since this isn't a one-time tragedy, but one that plays out continually. We need to act now before we let this happen again. I'm going to need to see a citation on your numbers, but 40 since 1980 is once a year! By your criteria of not responding after a tragedy, you are actually arguing that we should never act at all.

Damorian 6y ago
My brief googling lead me to Wikipedia, which sources most of its statistics from the new York times, but I also read some stuff from the ACLU and other left-leaning news orgs. There's very little good data out there is my biggest takeaway. Which brings me to my point, the reactions are emotional, not logical. If we're creating policy based on feelings that aren't backed by data or actually run counter to data, that's bad policy. Many areas do regular no-knock raid and many areas have banned them entirely. I expect organizations with strong opinions on this subject can investigate the effects and do better than the New York Times throwing 80 links to local news websites into a csv file on GitHub and then linking to it like it's an actual source.
- epistasis 6y ago
  My main question is why we should not react speedily. The desire to not act speedily seems be a desire that is an emotional one, not a logical one. There is a clear logical need to act quickly to prevent future abuses of power.
  - Damorian 6y ago
    Oh, sorry, I assumed everybody agreed that a carefully planned and measured approach based on facts was better than acting as quickly as possible with only vague ideas of reality. Especially given the context of a few cops and a judge going off incomplete and incorrect data, barging into a house haphazardly and shooting someone to death.

exabrial 6y ago

Respectfully disagree. I don't think there's anything that could be done with a be knock that could be done without.

jpz 6y ago

Who knows how many other victims are out there? This case highlights it because the killed woman was a medical technician in the middle of the pandemic. Normally her death might not have made the national press.

beart 6y ago

Your logic is not sound at all. You are saying no knock warrants are needed because the only alternative puts everyone in danger. We see in this very case, the opposite being true.