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

[+Raze Subscriber²]

I've already said earlier in this thread that "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."

 

I'm just correcting incorrect posts.

 

 

People were in danger as the criminal was shooting from the house.  Bullets, placed correctly (either through skill or blind luck) can kill a person.

 

The police would have established a safe perimeter around the residence to decrease the potential for harm. The same could be said of the arsenal the police/SWAT were employing, think of the damage and/or potential for death they pose if there's a misfire or a badly aimed shot.

 

It was excessive given the situation and, I doubt, (of course, I'm not positive) the perp had an unlimited supply of bullets/armaments.  Negotiation and more time would have been the appropriate action.  Yes it would have been costly to taxpayers, but a lawsuit by the homeowner will be too, provided he can sue that is, laws vary.

[MikeChipshop Member]

I've already said earlier in this thread that "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."

Bejesus, you don't need to be there to know this was a far to heavy handed approach. You can pull the whole 'armchair' and 'I wasn't there' thing all you want but it's just a stupid comparison with no bearing in reality.

I'm pretty sure the sun came up his morning but I can't be sure it rose in the East because I WASN'T THERE! Lol.

 

 

Though I will comment about bringing a lawsuit against the police.  Why?  Who pays the police ... the citizens ... so you are basically suing them.  If anything an investigation and an after action report (which I'm sure occurs anyway) should be done to see what could have been done better.

 

Suing them wouldn't solve a thing.  Sue the criminal.

Pretty sure this come out of the massive liability insurance premiums paid in.

 

 

People were in danger as the criminal was shooting from the house.  Bullets, placed correctly (either through skill or blind luck) can kill a person.

The guy was in a house, in an area that could easily have been evacuated, surrounded by a SWAT team, with all the amenities turned off. Conditions couldn't have been better for a peaceful conclusion.

Police need to shut the f up and compensate the home owner.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

The police would have established a safe perimeter around the residence to decrease the potential for harm. The same could be said of the arsenal the police/SWAT were employing, think of the damage and/or potential for death they pose if there's a misfire or a badly aimed shot.

 

It was excessive given the situation and, I doubt, (of course, I'm not positive) the perp had an unlimited supply of bullets/armaments.  Negotiation and more time would have been the appropriate action.  Yes it would have been costly to taxpayers, but a lawsuit by the homeowner will be too, provided he can sue that is, laws vary.

 

 

Bejesus, you don't need to be there to know this was a far to heavy handed approach. You can pull the whole 'armchair' and 'I wasn't there' thing all you want but it's just a stupid comparison with no bearing in reality.

I'm pretty sure the sun came up his morning but I can't be sure it rose in the East because I WASN'T THERE! Lol.

 

 

Pretty sure this come out of the massive liability insurance premiums paid in.

 

The guy was in a house, in an area that could easily have been evacuated, surrounded by a SWAT team, with all the amenities turned off. Conditions couldn't have been better for a peaceful conclusion.

Police need to shut the f up and compensate the home owner.

 

 

Great to see we have experts in police tactics.

[Xilo]

 

 

 

Though I will comment about bringing a lawsuit against the police.  Why?  Who pays the police ... the citizens ... so you are basically suing them.  If anything an investigation and an after action report (which I'm sure occurs anyway) should be done to see what could have been done better.  You know...lessons learned.

 

Suing them wouldn't solve a thing.  Sue the criminal.

The police also used the tax payer's money to destroy someone's house. How is that fair or a good use of tax payer's money? If I lived there, I would be outraged they used my tax dollars for this. It's a complete waste. At least if they get sued and the home owner wins, police will maybe think twice before doing something with such excessive force in the future. Investigations don't accomplish anything when the department is already corrupt.

 

Suing the criminal will accomplish nothing. Likely, he has no money to pay out. Yes, he committed a crime, but it wasn't his fault for the police's excessive actions. It's entirely the police's fault and responsibility.

[Praetor]

i'm pretty concerned the quantity of people that lack the ability to read, that know advanced warfare tactics and weaponry and still think that police officers should had waterguns instead of real guns, all in the same place.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

 

 

 

 

Great to see we have experts in police tactics.

 

 

Right, right...a low smart remark.  Great to see such a lack of true wit.

[MikeChipshop Member]

Great to see we have experts in police tactics.

Don't need to be an expert in tactical police training, just need a small dash of common sense.

[spaceelf]

To me the house looks more like there was a gas explosion than anything the police did directly.  That's interesting.

[FloatingFatMan]

Great to see we have experts in police tactics.

 

Dismissing someone's opinion doesn't render it invalid.. It just shows everyone you're a poor debater.

i'm pretty concerned the quantity of people that lack the ability to read, that know advanced warfare tactics and weaponry and still think that police officers should had waterguns instead of real guns, all in the same place.

 

And I'm pretty concerned at the number of people who think police tactics that result in this sort of thing, are acceptable.

[Rippleman]

Bad things happen sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't. The guy in the story should be mad at and suing the person responsible for the cause and effect of the initial action that set everything in motion.

[Praetor]

Dismissing someone's opinion doesn't render it invalid.. It just shows everyone you're a poor debater.

 

And I'm pretty concerned at the number of people who think police tactics that result in this sort of thing, are acceptable.

 

well in my country insurances would just kick in for this sort of thing. In fact they are mandatory for houses, industrial buildings, offices, etc. so if anyone wants to buy a house they also must have a minimal insurance (if they want a loan for the house then the insurance would cover this sort of thing).

 

anyways, i think this story as been written to aim at the police (their actions) instead of the real culprit: the allegedly criminal. Yes, allegedly because he must face a trial to prove that he did a crime.

[adrynalyne]

 

 

 

 

A shoplifter with a handgun vs SWAT with body armor doesn't require much force to apprehend.

Body armor can be pierced, don't be naive.

 

Armchair SWAT in full force today.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Great to see we have experts in police tactics.

I'm no health expert but if someone's bleeding from their eyes and their skin is falling off I think it's safe to assume that something's wrong with them. The same applies here - it doesn't take a genius to see that this was grossly excessive. It looks like something out of a Rambo movie. Part of the problem with policing in America is that people look at this and think it was acceptable. People think that police driving around in tanks and blowing up buildings is normal.

 

People should look at this and be outraged, demanding immediate action from the police. There should be protests. Those responsible should be dismissed from the force and corrective action taken to ensure it never happens again. Instead it's chalked up as a success. If this had happened to your house would you honestly be defending the police actions? 

[adrynalyne]

Part of the problem with policing in America is that people look at this and think it was acceptable. People think that police driving around in tanks and blowing up buildings is normal.

 

 

That is a load of nonsense and you know it.

[DoctorD]

What's next... drone strikes? Sadly I'm not even joking.

 

LoL even funnier, I imagine this...

 

A drone flies down and a robotic arm comes out and Knock Knock on the bad guys door.

 

Bad Guy says, "who's there"

 

Drone replies, "candy gram"

[MikeChipshop Member]

That is a load of nonsense and you know it.

 

I'm sorry, have you not been reading this thread then?

[adrynalyne]

I'm sorry, have you not been reading this thread then?

So you are also jumping on the bandwagon of stereotyping the American people over what Neowinians say?

 

I never realized a handful of Internet posters could represent an entire country.

[Praetor]

I'm no health expert but if someone's bleeding from their eyes and their skin is falling off I think it's safe to assume that something's wrong with them. The same applies here - it doesn't take a genius to see that this was grossly excessive. It looks like something out of a Rambo movie. Part of the problem with policing in America is that people look at this and think it was acceptable. People think that police driving around in tanks and blowing up buildings is normal.

 

People should look at this and be outraged, demanding immediate action from the police. There should be protests. Those responsible should be dismissed from the force and corrective action taken to ensure it never happens again. Instead it's chalked up as a success. If this had happened to your house would you honestly be defending the police actions? 

 

My country's police is so capped because of laws, that when a crime happens you know what? for most of the small things they do nothing. because of protests and all that jazz in the past.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Dismissing someone's opinion doesn't render it invalid.. It just shows everyone you're a poor debater.

 

What is there to debate?  One side:  Excessive use of force.  The other side:  Nope

 

I do not stand on either...because I do not claim to know the exact situation nor what was going through the criminals mind or SWATs.  Others here seem to know .... I'd rather stay out of subjects for which I do not have first hand knowledge or situational awareness.  

 

My prior posts have been simply correcting inaccuracies in other statements (such as omitting the fact the criminal had a weapon).  Now, if some of the facts I stated are incorrect...let me know.  Don't try to bait me.

[MikeChipshop Member]

So you are also jumping on the bandwagon of stereotyping the American people over what Neowinians say?

 

I never realized a handful of Internet posters could represent an entire country.

 

 

Do us a favour and read the thread like i suggested. Then come back and apologise to me because if anything, I've gone out of my way to point out it's not an American only thing. So get of your high horse and learn some manners.

 

This thread is about a poor guys house that was totaled by over zealous police. This could have happened any where in the world (and does) i can only imagine you've some weird chip on your shoulder if you jump on the butt hurt American band wagon. There's plenty of Americans in this thread that don't feel the need to play that card.

[adrynalyne]

Do us a favour and read the thread like i suggested. Then come back and apologise to me because if anything, I've gone out of my way to point out it's not an American only thing. So get of your high horse and learn some manners.

I'll apologize for nothing, because I asked if thats what you were doing. I did not specifically say you did it. However, its precisely what theyarecomingforyou did and you defended him.

 

Go read what I quoted, and tell me how he did not stereotype an entire country full of people.

 

Nothing anyone has said in this thread justifies that and you know it.

 

If anyone needs manners, its closer to what you see in the mirror.

[MikeChipshop Member]

I'll apologize for nothing, because I asked if thats what you were doing. I did not specifically say you did it. However, its precisely what theyarecomingforyou did and you defended him.

 

Go read what I quoted, and tell me how he did not stereotype an entire country full of people.

 

Nothing anyone has said in this thread justifies that and you know it.

 

You misread. I pointed out that if you read this thread then you'd see plenty of people are trying to justify the police over zealous use of force. What's this got to do with defending theyarecomingforyou?

 

Stop being butt hurt for no reason. Unless of course you were one of this trigger happy cops?

[adrynalyne]

You misread. I pointed out that if you read this thread then you'd see plenty of people are trying to justify the police over zealous use of force. What's this got to do with defending theyarecomingforyou?

 

Stop being butt hurt for no reason. Unless of course you were one of this trigger happy cops?

You jumped the gun without realizing what I was replying to.

 

 

I'm sorry, have you not been reading this thread then?

 

What did you point out exactly?  Oh, I know, you pointed out that you didn't read what I was replying to. If you did, you would have realized that the comments others have made in this thread are irrelevant.

 

Now you are trying to deflect to say i am defending the cops.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

What is there to debate?  One side:  Excessive use of force.  The other side:  Nope

 

I do not stand on either...because I do not claim to know the exact situation nor what was going through the criminals mind or SWATs.  Others here seem to know .... I'd rather stay out of subjects for which I do not have first hand knowledge or situational awareness.  

 

My prior posts have been simply correcting inaccuracies in other statements (such as omitting the fact the criminal had a weapon).  Now, if some of the facts I stated are incorrect...let me know.  Don't try to bait me.

 

"Great to see we have experts in police tactics."  And you do the same then, because no one was claiming to be an expert, just sharing their opinion in this debate about whether or not excessive force was used.

[DocM]

Irrelevant. That still shouldn't give them carte blanche to destroy the property and homes of completely innocent people who's only "crime" was to exist. The police should be 100% responsible for the damage they cause.

Sovereign Immunity. It conveys civil and criminal immunity to the govt. in most cases unless a court rules otherwise, which is unusual, or state law provides for it (usually quite limited.) In the US the Supreme Court decision Hans v Louisiana, but other countries have a form of it too including most of Europe.