Reply #8: Why did they assume he'd be dangerous because he robbed someone with a baseball bat?

[Mythsaje]

Going up against an unarmed civilian isn't quite the same as going up against the police and it would take a pretty stupid guy to fire on cops for a PS3.

Or didn't the cops know anything about the kid and that his father was an attorney before they went to serve the warrant? There should be some kind of rational response based upon some level of understanding of the person they're going to arrest and the circumstances of each case.

They get to the point they're shooting first and asking questions later, if at all, when the SANE thing to have done was knock on the door, wait for a response, and deal with him as if he were any other human being who's accused of a crime.

Unless they have REAL reason to believe they'd be endangered, not some vague impression that he MIGHT be dangerous, I can't see why anyone would think breaking his door down and coming in with an assault team would be in any way justified.

It's easy. Knock. "It's the police. We'd like to ask you some questions."

Open door. "What's this about?"

"We have a warrant for your arrest regarding blah-blah-blah."

Not even every felony case, and I dare say not even the majority of them, deal with someone who wants to have a gun battle with the cops. These things RARELY end well and I'm sure most people know it.

Now if they're going after some 2nd strike, lifetime offender, ex-con with a reputation for being a flat-out bastard, I can see it.

I think this stems from the cops considering THEIR lives to be more important than a civilian's, under ANY circumstance. They'd rather go in to every situation that might pose the slightest risk with all available force, whether or not the circumstances warrant, than take the chance they might have misread the situation. This may save POLICE lives, but certainly isn't doing much for the civilians.