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

[Noir Angel]

If Isaac Newton had lived in modern America I think his third law would read something like this:

 

"For each and every action there's a law enforcement over reaction".

 

Gotta love a society where the police can blow your house to bits at the slightest of provocation.

[MikeChipshop Member]

Thank you for ignoring me.

 

I'll never be able to understand how a stereotypical comment cannot be agreed with, and me saying that stereotypical comment was nonsense can also not be agreed with.  Between the people justifying blowing up houses and this...

 

The crazy is real in this thread.

 

Ooo little passive aggressive digs eh? Nice one.

 

I've explained it many, many, many times. Why are you not getting this?

[adrynalyne]

If Isaac Newton had lived in modern America I think his third law would read something like this:

 

"For each and every action there's a law enforcement over reaction".

 

Gotta love a society where the police can blow your house to bits at the slightest of provocation.

*Government.

Society has nothing to do with it.   To be fair there was provocation, it was just not met with the correct response.

Ooo little passive aggressive digs eh? Nice one.

 

I've explained it many, many, many times. Why are you not getting this?

Because you contradicted yourself.

 

Now you lied by saying you ignored me.

[MikeChipshop Member]

*Government.

Society has nothing to do with it.   To be fair there was provocation, it was just not met with the correct response.

Because you contradicted yourself.

 

Now you lied by saying you ignored me.

 

Errrm... where did i say i was going to ignore you? Are you making things up again? You should get this looked in to.

 

First i stereotyped Americans (i didn;t) then i said i was going to ignore you (i didn't), riiiiight. 

[Defcon]

So wait... Police have freedom to destroy innocent civilians belongings with no come back? Damn.

Not only that, they are free to kill people, and do.

 

The powers we have given to law enforcement in this country are scary, and then we continue to pretend they have a dangerous job, and people continue to defend them, all the while they are funded with our money and are supposed to serve the public (what a joke).

[adrynalyne]

Errrm... where did i say i was going to ignore you? Are you making things up again? You should get this looked in to.

 

First i stereotyped Americans (i didn;t) then i said i was going to ignore you (i didn't), riiiiight. 

Oops, I misread. Sorry.

 

It happens.

[MikeChipshop Member]

Oops, I misread. Sorry.

 

It happens.

 

Misread twice

[Noir Angel]

*Government.

Society has nothing to do with it.   To be fair there was provocation, it was just not met with the correct response.

 

Which, I think you'll find, is why I said "slightest provocation rather than "no provocation".

[adrynalyne]

Which, I think you'll find, is why I said "slightest provocation rather than "no provocation".

I don't consider firing a gun at someone a slight provocation, do you?

[Noir Angel]

Did it hit them? did he pose a threat to them when they actually levelled his house?

 

In America people firing guns at each other is a commonplace occurrence. It doesn't merit levelling a person's house. Though it seems there's a general acceptance to rationalise it when the bully happens to wield a badge alongside their gun.

[adrynalyne]

Did it hit them? did he pose a threat to them when they actually levelled his house?

 

In America people firing guns at each other is a commonplace occurrence. It doesn't merit levelling a person's house. Though it seems there's a general acceptance to rationalise it when the bully happens to wield a badge alongside their gun.

Here we go again with stereotypes.

 

Want to hear how often I hear gun shots, much less see people shooting at each other?  Not once in 38 years.

 

That said, I wasn't aware someone had to be hit by a bullet before provocation is more than "slight".

 

Missed bullets land somewhere.  Ask the cops who have shot at criminals and hit bystanders.

[MikeChipshop Member]

Did it hit them? did he pose a threat to them when they actually levelled his house?

 

In America people firing guns at each other is a commonplace occurrence. It doesn't merit levelling a person's house. Though it seems there's a general acceptance to rationalise it when the bully happens to wield a badge alongside their gun.

 

Quick note for you. The house that was levelled wasn't the shooters, it was an innocent mans house that the shooter broke in to.

[Noir Angel]

I wasn't aware that the only way of apprehending a criminal was to level their house.

Quick note for you. The house that was levelled wasn't the shooters, it was an innocent mans house that the shooter broke in to.

 

Which kinda makes it an even more idiotic over reaction.

[MikeChipshop Member]

I screwed up - please delete

[+Raze Subscriber²]

If Isaac Newton had lived in modern America I think his third law would read something like this:

 

"For each and every action there's a law enforcement over reaction".

 

Gotta love a society where the police can blow your house to bits at the slightest of provocation.

 

 

Did it hit them? did he pose a threat to them when they actually levelled his house?

 

In America people firing guns at each other is a commonplace occurrence. It doesn't merit levelling a person's house. Though it seems there's a general acceptance to rationalise it when the bully happens to wield a badge alongside their gun.

 

Your remarks are not unlike the overreaction of the police.

[trag3dy]

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.

 

Why isn't the criminal who caused it all to happen responsible for it? That's the part that confuses me in your argument.

 

 

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 ?

 

I hear that criminals always follow and respect laws.

[adrynalyne]

Why isn't the criminal who caused it all to happen responsible for it? That's the part that confuses me in your argument.

I think the bigger issue with that is if the criminal is shoplifting, who knows if he can afford to be responsible. If he can't hold a job, he can't have his wages garnished, etc.

 

Can't get blood from a turnip as they say.

[Defcon]

 

Why isn't the criminal who caused it all to happen responsible for it? That's the part that confuses me in your argument.

 

 

 

I hear that criminals always follow and respect laws.

 

Because he didn't blow up the house? Because he didn't cause it ?!!

 

You see to think that anything the police do in response is justified and can be blamed on whatever imaginary cause they want to. And in fact the police are the ones who routinely don't follow laws.

[trag3dy]

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.

 

False. This thread is about a criminal who shoplifted, broke into innocent peoples home, shot at police and caused the police to react the way they did.

 

Lets get the chain of events set correctly okay?

 

If the person in question had not done any number of things or done them differently the police would not have reacted the way they did. The police didn't just decide on a whim to blow this one guys house up because "why not?!?!".

 

 

Because he didn't blow up the house? Because he didn't cause it ?!!

 

You see to think that anything the police do in response is justified and can be blamed on whatever imaginary cause they want to. And in fact the police are the ones who routinely don't follow laws.

 

Please tell me where I said anything about the police? All I'm pointing out is that if this guy had not chosen to 1) shoplift 2) break into random house with people in it and 3) shoot at police the SWAT team probably wouldn't have shown up and reacted the way they did.

 

I prefer to put blame where it's due instead of onto people who were just doing their jobs. And those people I might add, might not have had any say in the entire situation. They have to follow orders from the higher ups just like in the military or pretty much any other job.

 

So you got me wrong. I seem to think that if the people who commit crimes hadn't chosen to commit those crimes police would not be able to react the way they do. It's really pretty straight forward.

[MikeChipshop Member]

 

False. This thread is about a criminal who shoplifted, broke into innocent peoples home, shot at police and caused the police to react the way they did.

 

Lets get the chain of events set correctly okay?

 

If the person in question had not done any number of things differently the police would not have reacted the way they did. The police didn't just decide on a whim to blow this one guys house up because "why not?!?!".

 

 

 

 

I summarized the thread, didn't intend to mislead any one. Whatever way it's described, the police over reacted and should be compensating the home owner.

[MikeChipshop Member]

 

I prefer to put blame where it's due instead of onto people who were just doing their jobs.

 

 

Which is the SWAT team. If they had "just been doing there jobs" this wouldn't even be news worthy. It's not every day they blow up a house, because they don;t normally choose to. They have a world of techniques they could have used, like patience for one.

[trag3dy]

I summarized the thread, didn't intend to mislead any one. Whatever way it's described, the police over reacted and should be compensating the home owner.

 

Didn't say you were intending to mislead any one. Just that you're intentionally over simplifying the situation to fit a certain narrative.

 

I'm genuinely confused why you'd think the police would have blown up the house (and it's their fault) if the guy had not chosen to break into it and shot at the police. That makes it that guys fault entirely. Had he surrendered himself to the police any time in the 19 hour stand off they wouldn't have blown the house up either.

 

So many actions he could have taken to prevent the end game yet didn't. Once again that makes it his fault and not the police. 

 

You don't blame a bear for biting you when you walk into it's den and poke it with a stick, do you?

[+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹]

 

 

I'm genuinely confused why you'd think the police would have blown up the house (and it's their fault) if the guy had not chosen to break into it and shot at the police. That makes it that guys fault entirely. Had he surrendered himself to the police any time in the 19 hour stand off they wouldn't have blown the house up either.

 

he did not say that.    and obviously the criminal is to blame. 

 

the point is that handling of the situation (if an isolated area - a with all utilities cut, and with lots of swat members present, and no hostages) is NOT "just doing their job".

i was not there, but do you really think that that criminal could not be apprehended in a way that did not require such massive destruction?

it is in the news for a reason, SWAT do NOT resort to it normal, not should they.

 

as for who gave to orders, and why... i don't know.  usually they can apprehend armed criminals, without property destruction of such scale.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I shouldn't need to clarify my comment from earlier but I will anyway given the amount of discussion over it. Here it is for reference:

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.

Nowhere did I suggest or imply that all Americans think this sort of behaviour is acceptable, nor would I. However, there is a trend

[xendrome]

<<Thread Closed>> This is why we can't have nice things.