You make it sound like the police broke into her home and deliberately pointed weapons at her children. That’s completely bullshit.

The police had a warrant signed by a judge. They repeatedly asked her to open the door, she refused. This went on for over 20 minutes. When they eventually did get inside, they’re entering a premise where the suspect had already demonstrated to not be cooperating and it’s standard practice to enter with your weapon drawn.

You could argue with whether the warrant itself is justified. But the police did everything the way they’re supposed to and the only person who put those children at risk was the mother who refused to cooperate with a legally signed warrant.

We need to hold cops to a higher standard of behavior.

Sadly, when you give people a stick and tell them they are allowed to beat other people with it, at least some of them tend to start behaving a bit like wild animals. It’s sad, but seemingly unavoidable.

It shouldn’t be routine to draw weapons in a place where there is no reason to presume weapons exist.

The children seem to be irrelevant; if children weren't in the house I doubt you'd suddenly be fine with what the cops did, so the presence of children doesn't contribute to your point. Furthermore some of the narratives about what happened are greatly exaggerating the situation, claiming that cops pointed guns in the faces of children. I've seen no evidence of this happening, so I think some people are cynically pointing to the children in an attempt to emotionally manipulate others. I don't see any other reason to mention the kids. They simply aren't relevant to the story.

To elaborate on this a little bit, NO state in the US has such a list - not one worth a damn, that is. For instance, NY recently mandated the registration of all "assault weapons" in the state, but compliance there is estimated to be in the single-digit percent range. (1m+ applicable weapons, ~45,000 registrations - the definition is really broad and includes essentially everything semiautomatic with a detachable magazine) These weapons were previously legal to own/buy/sell/transfer, and would continue to be legal to own if registered - and registration still didn't crack 10%.

Extrapolate to people that the police are likely to deal with in an adversarial manner, and you can see that a DB entry showing "no guns at 123 Main Street" is absolutely worthless.

I wouldn't call it an injustice that she wasn't granted some sort of special treatment that's normally reserved for "famous people".

Wow, let's extend that reasoning just a bit further. If someone SWATs me (or pulls strings to get a warrant for my arrest), and I don't open the door immediately, I bear the responsibility for putting my family at risk?

So what? If somebody is knocking on my door, in the middle of the night, claiming to be a police officer, then making phone calls to verify that is 100% reasonable. If I had just been fired for politically motivated reasons, then making phone calls to alert the media when your home is being raided is 100% reasonable.

> They’ll most likely even find it boring and start skipping ahead to more knocking without a response.

Police are allowed to be bored. Police are allowed to sit outside a house and wait. It does them no harm, and does not justify them using additional force when serving the warrant.

Z is for "Zulu" time zone (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9706688/what-does-the-z-...)

So hour 13:00 in Z would be 8:00 am in Florida.

Nobody is denying it's government overreach, blatant disregard to our rights, and breaks the 4th amendment. But wool should've been over everyone's eyes like 10 years ago. The US acts no different than China in how the state allows government abuse of power to fuck you bureaucratically. Unlike places like Germany where the state compensates you for your time and money if they can't prove your criminality, also reserving your job as well unless convicted; The US just says fuck you but only with slightly more rights than China gives their citizens.

In a situation like this there may be a pause until the owner or lawyer arrives, but during that pause the people would not be permitted to be in the to-be-searched location without police supervision; the owner has the right to supervise police while they are searching, but they don't have any privacy right to do stuff there before letting the police in; if the lawyer's presence is required then whoever is in that location would let the police in and wait for the lawyer together with the police officers with neither doing anything until the search commences. If noone is present, then the police may seal the door while they wait for the owner or their representative to arrive; or, alternatively (e.g. if the owner is on the run), there is a process to recruit neutral witnesses from the community, e.g. having your neighbours supervise the search and sign off on what was taken out during the search.