Here's the link to the article on the incident. It has more information than the video or that ridiculously biased accompanying article contains. In fact I'm surprised this guy's blog even links to it because it contradicts everything he's trying to suggest.
Cards, that video you linked to doesn't really provide any insight on the matter; with it coming from a site called copblock.com of all fucking places, it's completely biased and total bullshit. It's pretty fucking funny though. "Well you should wait for the dog to jump on a guy before you shoot." Yeah lets fire when its on an officer, brilliant. Then he goes on a rant that people have control of their bodies blah blah blah.
UGH.
It doesn't matter what they found on site. You can make your big deal about only finding small amounts of pot but for them to have a warrant and to have a swat team arrive on site, they expected a more. Just because they didn't find it doesn't immediately make this incident atrocious or ridiculous. Are you genuinely trying to tell me that if they found a lab and firearms that it would completely justified? Anyways, from the article I linked to:
Police discovered a grinder, a pipe and a small amount of marijuana, Haden said. Because the SWAT team acts on the most updated information available, the team wanted to enter the house before marijuana believed to be at the location could be distributed, she said.
“If you let too much time go by, then the drugs are not there,” she said.
Drug distributors traditionally have a history with firearms, which is why the SWAT team is used when executing such warrants, Haden said. If the SWAT team believed they could have executed the warrant successfully during the daytime when the wife and child were not present, they would have, she said.
Also I can't believe people are making such a big deal about this because the dog died. Otherwise it would not be getting this kind of attention. About the dog anyhow, the officer(s) described it as "acting in an uncontrollably aggressive manner." It really doesn't matter what they're wearing, given the environment they were stepping into and the situation at hand, the last thing on the officer's mind is "what civil manner should I handle the dog in," or even "the dog can't hurt me." Relating to the bit I quoted above, the swat expected a lot more than what they encountered and the dogs were also distraction. Regardless of how much harm they can actual do to a person, it's that distraction that is the primary issue. As cantab mentioned, time is important in these type of events. Spur of the moment, given the immediate task at hand and the little response time available, what in the hell do you expect? Perfection?
As for the events happening in front of a kid, again, what in the hell do you expect? What alternative is there? They have absolutely no time or preparation to ensure the kid isn't present. Damn these cops to hell, they can't control every factor in a scenario that they're forced into. Horrible bastards obviously don't know how to do their job (sorry for the heavy sarcasm but I'm genuinely aggravated that they take heat for stuff like that).
Some more info says there was a gate (like a baby gate) between the dogs and the officers. So evidently Missouri employs blind SWAT members.
Source? I see the gate in the video but its not up. Not that the officers couldn't have removed it but it seems largely pointless from what I can see. Even then I can come up with reasons why a baby gate probably wouldn't change the situation but 'whatever.' And while I'm addressing you, I like the approach you described in your post, but I'm pretty sure there's some law hindering that depending on the area in the US (I can't be bothered to look it up). And speaking of that method, what if dogs are present??
