When can do away with "no knock" warrants?

[treee]

(02-10-2022, 08:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dude, I asked you for alternatives.  You didn't provide any.  I've explained my position on no knocks, and this shooting, in great detail.  All I got in response was "nuh uh."  Do you have any idea how many no knock warrants are served every single day in this country?  I guarantee you it's in the hundreds, at least.  How many of them go south like this one?  If you want to knock a practice, at least let's be honest about it.  This kind of thing happens less than .01% of the time, if not less.  So please explain how the tactic is inherently flawed.  Something with such a high success rate does not appear to be a flawed policy.  

I do apologize, as I stated in my edit, if the response was stronger than you'd prefer.  Unfortunately, I have to explain things like this on a near daily basis to people who decided before I even started talking that I was wrong.  So you will forgive me if some of that frustration bleeds over into here.

Alright I'll take your post at face value and shelve my "societal cost" argument for now, and ask how no knock warrants are less dangerous than setting a perimeter and compelling the target to surrender? I understand that this increases the risk to bystanders by some amount but clearly so does no knocks (the 0.01 percent by your estimation). So I'd genuinely like to hear your argument vs the two possibilities.

Edit: Also, is tech like thermal cameras used? Seems like it could hypothetically give a level of tactical superiority that would decrease how quickly the decision to shoot would need to be made.

2nd edit: Just looked it up and it looks like thermal cameras aren't really an option for seeing though walls. My thinking was that we're not being innovative enough and that's the first thing that came to mind.