House blown apart by SWAT team attempting to catch shoplifter who shot at police.

[siah1214]

The dude shot at the police and you guys are defending him?  What is wrong with you people? 

 

What does it take to justify using force against somebody?

 

If he didn't want his house destroyed maybe he shouldn't have SHOT AT THE POLICE.  It's not a difficult concept. 

 

 

ONE criminal for a minor offence?

In what universe is ATTEMPTING TO KILL SOMEONE a minor offense? 

Oh wait, I forgot cops aren't people, we can try to kill them all we want and it's A-OK.

[MikeChipshop Member]

First it was a stand off and second it was SWAT, not your regular police.

Ok so I fail to see where what I said was wrong?

[jnelsoninjax]

The dude shot at the police and you guys are defending him?  What is wrong with you people? 

 

What does it take to justify using force against somebody?

 

If he didn't want his house destroyed maybe he shouldn't have SHOT AT THE POLICE.  It's not a difficult concept. 

 

 

In what universe is ATTEMPTING TO KILL SOMEONE a minor offense? 

Oh wait, I forgot cops aren't people, we can try to kill them all we want and it's A-OK.

Umm, the guy in question is not the suspect, he is the owner of the house, in a sense he is an innocent victim seeing how  the suspect decided to force his way into the house and seek refuge while shooting it out with the police.

[FloatingFatMan]

The dude shot at the police and you guys are defending him?  What is wrong with you people? 

 

What does it take to justify using force against somebody?

 

If he didn't want his house destroyed maybe he shouldn't have SHOT AT THE POLICE.  It's not a difficult concept. 

 

 

In what universe is ATTEMPTING TO KILL SOMEONE a minor offense? 

Oh wait, I forgot cops aren't people, we can try to kill them all we want and it's A-OK.

 

I don't see anyone trying to defend the criminal, just criticizing the cops for their usual heavy handed response.

 

As for the offence, I was referring to the shoplifting, as you full well know. The shooting didn't happen until after a horde of cops descended on him, but as usual, people such as yourself will accept ANY kind of OTT response from the cops, just as long as they get their man.  There were better ways of handling this.

 

BTW: The article makes no mention whatsoever that the suspect attempted to kill anyone. Just that he fired on police.  You have no idea at all whether he was firing in the air or actually at the cops, so you can't possibly conclude that he ATTEMPTED TO KILL SOMEONE.

Making sure all of you noticed this before you comment, since the story is written as bait. BTW fixed the title.

 

Yes, we can all read just fine, thank you.

[theyarecomingforyou]

The dude shot at the police and you guys are defending him?  What is wrong with you people? 

 

What does it take to justify using force against somebody?

I haven't seen anyone defending him. People are criticising the grossly disproportionate and reckless actions of the US military police. That's entirely different.

 

If he didn't want his house destroyed maybe he shouldn't have SHOT AT THE POLICE.  It's not a difficult concept.

It wasn't his house! Read the article:

 

The damage was inflicted by police and SWAT officers who were working to capture Robert Jonathan Seacat, a suspected 33-year-old shoplifter who allegedly barged into a random home Wednesday afternoon, and opened fire on police when they tried to arrest him a short time later.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

 

You accentuated the criminal's other crime, of firing at cops, effectively excusing their response to open fire in return (which is reasonable), but that action was far above and beyond an appropriate response. They should have backed off a little and waited the guy out.

 

How did I accentuate anything?  The person I quoted left out a very important fact.  The suspect didn't only just shoplift but he ALSO shot at cops.  Which is a greater offense?  (rhetorical question)

 

I haven't commented about the actions of the SWAT.  From the Law Offices of my Armchair it would appear excessive ... but then again I wasn't there.

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

Guys its okay, they were filming the latest Jason Bourne movie there. The over the top action was Michael Bays directorial debut in the Bourne franchise. You can all rest easy now.

     

[Intersect]

yeah there is definitely something "special" about them as you say in America when people do dumb things.

totally heavy handed tactics if you can call them tactics at all.

[siah1214]

As for the offence, I was referring to the shoplifting, as you full well know. The shooting didn't happen until after a horde of cops descended on him, but as usual, people such as yourself will accept ANY kind of OTT response from the cops, just as long as they get their man.  There were better ways of handling this.

Let me help you out here:

Offense A. Shoplifting

Offense B. Fleeing the officers that tried to apprehend him

Offense C. Breaking and entering into a random home that had a small child in it

Offense D. Shooting a gun at the police

 

It was only after Offenses C and D that the police decided to bring out swat to extricate this idiot from the home.

There was no "OTT" reaction until the criminal escalated the situation. But as usual, people like you will say that cops should only respond with daisies and lollipops and anything beyond a side-hug is abuse of police power. 

 

 

BTW: The article makes no mention whatsoever that the suspect attempted to kill anyone. Just that he fired on police.  You have no idea at all whether he was firing in the air or actually at the cops, so you can't possibly conclude that he ATTEMPTED TO KILL SOMEONE.

Here's a better article that isn't just anti-cop bait:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28250350/greenwood-village-swat-standoff-aurora-suspect-going-16?

 

Says he fired at the police out of the garage.  Man you'll defend anyone. What does it take to justify using force against a criminal? If shooting at the police doesn't justify it, what does?

 

 

I haven't seen anyone defending him. People are criticising the grossly disproportionate and reckless actions of the US military police. That's entirely different.

Again, what universe do you live in where opening fire on the police doesn't justify a forceful reaction?

 

Whatever you folks are smoking, I want some. 

 

 

It wasn't his house! Read the article:

 

 

Umm, the guy in question is not the suspect, he is the owner of the house, in a sense he is an innocent victim seeing how  the suspect decided to force his way into the house and seek refuge while shooting it out with the police.

Then the police aren't liable, the criminal is. 

 

Here's another, still baity, but less so article:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/colo-home-blown-open-19-hour-standoff-condemned-article-1.2249060

[FloatingFatMan]

Says he fired at the police out of the garage.  Man you'll defend anyone. What does it take to justify using force against a criminal? If shooting at the police doesn't justify it, what does? They didn't even kill the guy. 

 

 

I'm not defending the guy at all, learn to read.  I'm merely saying the response was far too heavy handed, and the cops absolutely 100% are responsible for the destruction of that completely INNOCENT person's home and property.

 

They did it, they should pay.

[siah1214]

~

 

I'm not defending the guy at all, learn to read.  I'm merely saying the response was far too heavy handed, and the cops absolutely 100% are responsible for the destruction of that completely INNOCENT person's home and property.

 

They did it, they should pay.

 

Well since you're a trained in police tactics and clearly an expert, what SHOULD they have done? How do you think they should have extricated the man who was shooting at them from a random home? 

[siah1214]

I wonder if people in this thread think that the police should abide by playground tag rules. 

"Whoops, he entered a random home! I guess that means he's safe! Call off the manhunt, he's safe now!"

[FloatingFatMan]

~

 

 

Well since you're a trained in police tactics and clearly an expert, what SHOULD they have done? How do you think they should have extricated the man who was shooting at them from a random home? 

 

You do what other, less psychotic, police forces do.  You cut off power, gas and water, and you wait him out.

[siah1214]

~

 

You do what other, less psychotic, police forces do.  You cut off power, gas and water, and you wait him out.

Seems like a waste of time. 

[FloatingFatMan]

~

 

Seems like a waste of time. 

 

Which is better, waste a little time, or destroy someone's home and possessions?

[Jim K Global Moderator]

You do what other, less psychotic, police forces do.  You cut off power, gas and water, and you wait him out.

 

Which they did.  Per the Denver Post article posted by siah1214....

 

 "Alaswad said he had no electricity, running water or Internet after it was shut off by tactical units trying to get the man out of his neighbor's home."

 

next....

[FloatingFatMan]

Which they did.  Per the Denver Post article posted by siah1214....

 

 "Alaswad said he had no electricity, running water or Internet after it was shut off by tactical units trying to get the man out of his neighbor's home."

 

next....

 

They forgot the waiting part.

[LightDragon]

You Americans never bore me.

 

In Germany your typical shoplifter would never even have a handgun and surly no para military police force would destroy whole buildings to take out one man.

 

Instead of destroying houses, maybe you should change your laws, so that guns would not be as readily available as water in your country ?

[Jim K Global Moderator]

They forgot the waiting part.

 

Per the Denver Post article that siah1214 posted:

 

"Greenwood Village standoff ends after more than 18 hours"

 

...next

[siah1214]

~

 

They forgot the waiting part.

19 hours is pretty long for a standoff, actually. 

[FloatingFatMan]

They need to work on their patience.

[Anibal P]

That whole "swat team" should be fired, no excuse for their actions

 

 

People forget that the whole point of SWAT is to have a team of trained professionals that can raid a house to apprehend criminals in the safest way possible doing the least amount of collateral damage, AND they have the body armor and gear to protect themselves from most small arm and some rifle munitions

 

They could have properly raided the house, caused little to no damage, the criminal was likely out of ammo and not leveled a house in the process, I hope the owner gets a good lawyer and sues the pants off the police force 

[siah1214]

~

 

They need to work on their patience.

We'll make sure it's brought upat the next American Cop conference where they swap submachine guns and practice blowing up innocent homes with C4.

Btw lol @ Anibal, nice armchair SWAT work, why don't you get a job with the police so you can tell them all how it's supposed to be done?

[Jim K Global Moderator]

That whole "swat team" should be fired, no excuse for their actions

 

 

People forget that the whole point of SWAT is to have a team of trained professionals that can raid a house to apprehend criminals in the safest way possible doing the least amount of collateral damage, AND they have the body armor and gear to protect themselves from most small arm and some rifle munitions

 

They could have properly raided the house, caused little to no damage, the criminal was likely out of ammo and not leveled a house in the process, I hope the owner gets a good lawyer and sues the pants off the police force 

 

Bolded the incorrect part.  There is nothing in SWAT that says to do the least amount of collateral damage to buildings.

 

From the National Tactical Officers Association:

 

The primary purpose of SWAT is to provide a systematic approach to saving lives in accordance with the priorities of life and the specific standards set forth herein, in concert with the totality of circumstances presented.  While life safety is a priority of SWAT, the specific circumstances will dictate the level of force necessary to adequately protect the public and the officers involved. Resolution of some incidents may require the specific application of various levels of force, up to and including, deadly force.

 

Nothing in there says anything about doing least amount of damage to structures.  The criminal will be held liable for the damages done to the house since he was the one at fault.  Obviously, chances are he'll never have the resources to pay for the damages but that will not prevent the insurance company from hounding him until he dies.  

[webeagle12]

You accentuated the criminal's other crime, of firing at cops, effectively excusing their response to open fire in return (which is reasonable), but that action was far above and beyond an appropriate response. They should have backed off a little and waited the guy out.

 I really hope next time this guy will barge in your house and you will make him chocolate chip cookies.