Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA
Maybe I misread the example that was cited.
Girl (teenager IIRC) makes a direct threat(s) against police via social media.
Search warrant (presumably to assertain the legitimacy of those threats, girl lived with her grandmother IIRC)
Warrant is served cocked, locked and ready to rock.
I see zero problem with that at all. It's a no-knock situation afaic.
(The address screw-up is an entirely separate matter from the tactical plan for serving the warrant afaic)
|
Actually it was a male, a gang member at that. I actually agree you probably should server that one in the manner they did...but maybe they could have put more thought into it and researched who they were raiding. They do expect an awful lot from the public at times, I think matching who was making the threats on social media with who was living at the property probably could have been done in this situation. Unless I guess it was a direct immediate threat. We don't really get those details.
I think that when they decide to use this much force they should put in as much research into making sure they are right about what they are doing as they do on the tactical side. In this instance, the person making the threats had a legal address in the same town that was not this address that they raided. Maybe he was posting anonymous, but I can't imagine why the article would not include that if that were in fact the case. And if the possibility that elderly people could have unsecured wifi escapes an entire cities police department in 2014, I would suspect that maybe some additional training could be required.