>I think it's very presumptive to think that because someone is "just" growing marijuana, that they aren't dangerous. I think it's more presumptive to think th

>I think it's very presumptive to think that because someone is "just" growing marijuana, that they aren't dangerous. I think it's more presumptive to think that they are dangerous, absent strong evidence to think so. > I'm not sure what alternatives there are. One alternative is to regard a man's home as his castle. Police have no business breaking in merely because they suspect somebody possesses the wrong plant material. If drugs get flushed, so be it - there is no moral imperative that says the cops have to be able to make their case at all, much less based on what they find doing a search. The alternative is patience. Stake the place out. Come bother the homeowner when they are arriving or leaving or checking the mail. Reserve "no-knock" for hostage situations, kidnappings, and apprehending people who are actually known to be dangerous - it should be a very last resort, not a first resort. The vast majority of no-knock raids serve no purpose except to help the police feel good about themselves. > Point being [...] that there is not a problem of officers wantonly shooting dogs; rather, it's symptomatic of larger issues in law enforcement. Why not both? Let's conclude there is a problem of officers wantonly shooting dogs and there are larger issues in law enforcement.