3 ms·

Armed suspects walking around in Walmarts have committed mass murders recently, guessing that might be informing the response to situations like this. You can'

Armed suspects walking around in Walmarts have committed mass murders recently, guessing that might be informing the response to situations like this. You can't have safety and leniency for armed robbers. The suspect was at fault 100%, they committed robbery, had a deadly weapon, and fled the police. Had they not done any of those things, this would not have happened.

magashna 7y ago
Kinda overlooking that this guy had his home destroyed and condemned by the city after all this. Are you really saying "tough shit"?
- program_whiz 7y ago
  No, but I'm asking what the alternative is given that he committed armed robbery, then fired on police. Do they just wait, given that they don't know who or what is inside just to avoid property damage? How would you feel if someone's family was killed while the police were "waiting to avoid hurting the house". Also bear in mind that while the suspect is shooting at the cops, he could have walked out anytime. At the store, during the drive, after the first bullet, the first tear gas canister, etc. He also waited this whole time, and then wants to have the damage paid for.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    I didn't want to go here given the anti-police sentiment prevalent in society right now, but your comments are begging for me to point out a few things. One, if the senior officer on site was not aware of what other individuals were in that location, why was he authorizing grenades? Two, Actually, you know what, I'm gonna stop. We don't need any more emotional reactions adding to the noise, no matter how many facts the reactions may be pointing out. Let me just say, there were a lot of things wrong with this takedown as it is being described. My own hope is that there is a lot more to this story than what is being told. If not, it points to poor policy, poor training, and poor judgement. I'll just point out that only one of those is the fault of the officers on site, and leave it at that.
  - _underfl0w_ 7y ago
    Home owner in this scenario != shoplifter. It was different people. Shoplifter guy posted up in a random house, which was subsequently bombed. Now the feds won't pay up to the rando who actually owned the place. Did you _read_ TFA?
  - wool_gather 7y ago
    > [the police] don't know who or what is inside > How would you feel if someone's family was killed while the police were "waiting... This is self-contradictory. If they don't know who or what is inside, then how could they dare to shoot (grenades!) into the house?
  - cannonedhamster 7y ago
    Let's see off the top of my head. Sending in an armed drone. Performing a breach of the house with multiple teams and eliminating the threat. Using optics to figure out where he was and then sniping him. All of these were options that didn't require destroying the house. If they planned on destroying the house anyways why not just bring in a tank, attack helicopter, or do it old school and set the house on fire? All of these are viable options for a single suspect in a house if we follow your logic.

magashna 7y ago

Kinda overlooking that this guy had his home destroyed and condemned by the city after all this. Are you really saying "tough shit"?

program_whiz 7y ago
No, but I'm asking what the alternative is given that he committed armed robbery, then fired on police. Do they just wait, given that they don't know who or what is inside just to avoid property damage? How would you feel if someone's family was killed while the police were "waiting to avoid hurting the house". Also bear in mind that while the suspect is shooting at the cops, he could have walked out anytime. At the store, during the drive, after the first bullet, the first tear gas canister, etc. He also waited this whole time, and then wants to have the damage paid for.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  I didn't want to go here given the anti-police sentiment prevalent in society right now, but your comments are begging for me to point out a few things. One, if the senior officer on site was not aware of what other individuals were in that location, why was he authorizing grenades? Two, Actually, you know what, I'm gonna stop. We don't need any more emotional reactions adding to the noise, no matter how many facts the reactions may be pointing out. Let me just say, there were a lot of things wrong with this takedown as it is being described. My own hope is that there is a lot more to this story than what is being told. If not, it points to poor policy, poor training, and poor judgement. I'll just point out that only one of those is the fault of the officers on site, and leave it at that.
- _underfl0w_ 7y ago
  Home owner in this scenario != shoplifter. It was different people. Shoplifter guy posted up in a random house, which was subsequently bombed. Now the feds won't pay up to the rando who actually owned the place. Did you _read_ TFA?
- wool_gather 7y ago
  > [the police] don't know who or what is inside > How would you feel if someone's family was killed while the police were "waiting... This is self-contradictory. If they don't know who or what is inside, then how could they dare to shoot (grenades!) into the house?
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  Let's see off the top of my head. Sending in an armed drone. Performing a breach of the house with multiple teams and eliminating the threat. Using optics to figure out where he was and then sniping him. All of these were options that didn't require destroying the house. If they planned on destroying the house anyways why not just bring in a tank, attack helicopter, or do it old school and set the house on fire? All of these are viable options for a single suspect in a house if we follow your logic.