Which rules violated? Rather, how many?

Shooters regularly pass opinions on negligent discharges they hear about in the media. Which of Cooper's Four Rules of firearm safety were violated in such-and-such event? This is no Monday-morning quarterbacking, it's a reminder to gun owners of their responsibilities and the risks they face.

Now that Uncle Radley has drawn widespread attention to the militarization of police, and the excessive use of dynamic entries, by the now-famous video, perhaps it's time for these entries to receive similar scrutiny against a set of rules that allow us to judge (yes, judge: to sit in judgment of, to criticize, to pass opinion on) the actions of police officers.

The acts of police must face scrutiny just as the acts of mayors, presidents, senators, or representatives. They act on our behalf. To those who complain that mere civilians cannot presume to judge the actions of SWAT officers because have not walked in their boots, I call bullshit. If we cannot evaluate the actions of those who claim to serve us, we cannot determine whether they are serving us at all, and we cannot determine whether they are breaking laws themselves. The role of servant and served would be reversed.

To judge their actions, we need a standard. It was Say Uncle or James Rummel (I can't remember) who pointed me to Sir Robert Peel's (or Mayne's) principles of policing.

So, gentle readers: which principles of police conduct were violated in the Columbia raid? For the moment let's convene on Peel's version of the principles.

Note: whether the dad was a dope-dealing scumbag is not relevant. Don't address it. The rules aren't about him.

A challenge to Radley Balko and John Lott

If dynamic entries are like cockroaches, there are hundreds more that Radley Balko is not aware of, for each one he has reported on. Even he suspects the same.

But that ratio of unknown to known is troubling. Just how many are there? Do they rise to the point that the average Joe is more likely to suffer a dynamic entry than, say, be struck by lightning or die in a plane crash?

What really are the odds that you will have your doors burst open by the cops?

This has a real-world practical aspect to it. Are you more likely to have your home invaded by real home-invading criminals, or by police executing a warrant, legit or not?

What increases the odds? Gun owner, CCW holder, income bracket, dog owner? Assuming that one is already leading a lawful life, what reasonable and lawful means can one take to decrease the odds?

Unfortunately, this is the sort of information our servants in government would rather we not know nor find out. So it will take some teasing and some statistical skill, neither of which I possess. But between Rad and Lott, a one-order-of-magnitude first pass should be possible.

Meanwhile there should be a Federal civil-rights nexus, and a police funding nexus, that Constitutionally empower the Feds to require all States to collect the statistics so we no longer must guess.