I considered not using that word (usually), but decided I don't know enough to remove all weaseling. I didn't intend it to be taken as representative of my understanding. However, from your exposition, it seems fitting.
I'm firmly against all examples of zero tolerance. From your example, I think 500 disturbances of peace and destructions of property is far worse than one realization of a work hazard. I would draw the line at perhaps 10. There used to be a principle that it is better to let 10 guilty men walk than convict a single innocent - do you not subscribe to this either?
I'll clarify what I meant with the juxtaposition of encryption and forceful resistance:
encryption is a justification for occupied searches, since you need to confiscate the electronics while they are unlocked. I don't know if that's actually done, though, since it's my understanding that the electronics are routinely removed from the premises and disconnected in the process. This scenario does not warrant the use of any force.
Armed defense is a justification for surprise arrests, since you need to arrest the suspect when they're not in defensive positions. A good time to do this is during ingress or egress. This situation does not warrant the use of devastating force.
The only reason to assault a dwelling with shock tactics would be to capture armed resistance in the act of handling evidence. Perhaps that's an actual worry for the FBI, who seem to assume all of their suspects are paramilitary, but I don't think it's a reasonable worry in the majority of cases, even the ones handled by the FBI.
I hope you now understand better where we disagree.
I'm firmly against all examples of zero tolerance. From your example, I think 500 disturbances of peace and destructions of property is far worse than one realization of a work hazard. I would draw the line at perhaps 10. There used to be a principle that it is better to let 10 guilty men walk than convict a single innocent - do you not subscribe to this either?
I'll clarify what I meant with the juxtaposition of encryption and forceful resistance: encryption is a justification for occupied searches, since you need to confiscate the electronics while they are unlocked. I don't know if that's actually done, though, since it's my understanding that the electronics are routinely removed from the premises and disconnected in the process. This scenario does not warrant the use of any force.
Armed defense is a justification for surprise arrests, since you need to arrest the suspect when they're not in defensive positions. A good time to do this is during ingress or egress. This situation does not warrant the use of devastating force.
The only reason to assault a dwelling with shock tactics would be to capture armed resistance in the act of handling evidence. Perhaps that's an actual worry for the FBI, who seem to assume all of their suspects are paramilitary, but I don't think it's a reasonable worry in the majority of cases, even the ones handled by the FBI.
I hope you now understand better where we disagree.