That’s the nice thing about it.
But the same can’t be said for being rash or reckless, which is how some police departments are prone to execute their warrants. They may use SWAT teams as a default option for every search or arrest, and they may go in like gangbusters if they do.
When they do, everyone makes more mistakes, and everyone pays a price. They may hit the wrong address and terrorize an innocent family. Or they may hit the right address but kill someone for no good reason.
Here’s an alternative then.
It comes from this essay by a veteran police officer who served sixteen years on a SWAT team. You could say he’s served a lot of warrants.
His very first search was all smash and grab, and it gave him a rush.
But over time, he says, his team gravitated toward a different default: surround the place and call people out. They realized it worked better. Everyone made better decisions.
What are the downsides? Fewer adrenaline rushes. Fewer cool stories for friends and family. More evidence or contraband flushed down a toilet.
The upsides? Lower risks of harm for everyone. More compliance from people on the receiving end. More people on all sides going home to their families at the end of the day.
Police raids still have their place, the author says. Sometimes, it just isn’t safe for cops to stand around and wait. Or they may be hitting multiple locations at the same time. Or they may lose valuable evidence if they don’t go in fast.
Other times, though, they go in hard and fast to save money on overtime pay or to avoid rush hour later that day, and those aren’t good reasons.
So here’s to slower, safer, smarter law enforcement. May boredom reign.