And when have you ever seen a high risk stop involving just 4 vehicles?gigag04 wrote:But the children...EEllis wrote:Because there are never any kids at 7-11? You might be right that it is a better choice to try and apprehend someone outside a home but you have more variables that could occur outside than in a home. Assuming that it would provide better results without having access to more data is wishful thinking. What is really needed is real research into the issue and fact based decision making.mamabearCali wrote:What I don't get is why, in the name of all that is holy, if firearms and drugs are known to be present and are such a threat to officers lives that they have to engage in combat tactics with potential children in the home, don't they wait for the guy to be leaving 7-11 and take him there then get a warrant for the house and show up and get the evidence no drama needed.
If I can think of that, why can't they?
Like I have said before we all think we are so sofistcated in our police and criminal justice system, but in much more brutal times those who enforced the law were severely punished if they burned innocents along with the guilty.
In all seriousness, I preferred car takedowns as it was easier to get the tactical advantage (tahoe, K9, and two patrol units). IMHO a high risk stop is more tactically sound and usually safer in cases of wrong house/car.
None ever made it to the news, that's for sure, and there was the one up north (Schenectady NY?) where the two K9 units (from different agencies) let their dogs get too close to each other, and the news cut off the video just as they had a confrontation. I'll see if I can find the clip.That said, I agree with you, and in cases like this one where kids were known to be present, much more tactically sound to isolate the BG instead of trying to control the whole house.