4 ms·

What if you and your family were being held hostage, how do the police know "they can just wait"? They don't even know if the guy is really allowed to be in th

What if you and your family were being held hostage, how do the police know "they can just wait"? They don't even know if the guy is really allowed to be in the house. Also how long do the police wait, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month? How many millions is it worth to avoid damaging an armed criminals residence, especially when he can willingly walk out at any time and avoid all that damage. How well would we respond if someone was killed because the police waited saying "We didn't want to damage the house, we figured he was just taking a nap or something."

toast0 7y ago
Was anybody else in the building when the police were destroying it? If there were (which I don't think is the case from the article), were they in more danger from the suspect or the police?
magashna 7y ago
I don't care about your fantasy. The reality is insane overreaction to a guy who stole $20 worth of clothes. Walmart writes this into their bottom line. You know what should've happened? Nothing.
- program_whiz 7y ago
  Not trying to start a flame war here, but its not a fantasy. There are 36,000 gun deaths, and over 100,000 gun related injuries in the US every year (thats roughly 3000 per week). There was an armed man who lead a high-speed chase and shot at police. The odds are very high he will injure or kill another person, its not a fantasy to think the police are thinking worst case. https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/ https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/ We are looking at this article with hindsight that his only crime was taking the belt, but you can't know that _at the time_, and given that these officers see shootings, robberies, and murders on a regular basis, its impossible to make the assumption that "well he's probably just harmless, lets wait this out". I pose this simple question -- if someone broke into your house, armed, and fired shots. Would you wait it out, or assume the worst? If you assumed the worst, and that meant sacrificing your property to possibly save your life and the life of your family, but then it turned out the guy was just looking for a few items to sell, and wasn't really that bad, would you say you made the wrong call?
  - magashna 7y ago
    Police shouldn't engage in high speed chases if you're concerned for innocent's safety Police in the US are responsible for about 1000 firearm deaths each year, and getting increasingly aggressive towards innocent Americans Police militarization increases this aggression at no benefit to the public If the police blew up my house and offered a snarky apology after escalating the situation far beyond what was necessary, I'd be angry. Your question isn't simple, it's leading. "Let me ask you a question that is totally different from what happened and will give me an answer I'm satisfied with"
  - jack_h 7y ago
    That 36,000 number isn't really the entire story. The majority of those are suicides. In the year that this incident took place (2015) there were 9,616 murders with a firearm of some kind. Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2011-2015.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
cannonedhamster 7y ago
If you and your family were being held hostage the actions by the police would have put them in far more danger if they didn't know where you were since they were blind firing launchers throughout the house. The police can shut off the power and water, could have flooded the house with tear gas, could have breached with multiple teams. You realize this was more damage than gets caused in a war zone breaching right? The house was so overly damaged it was condemned. That's so in excess of what's required to get a single suspect that they know is in a confined area. They could have sent in a drone with a grenade and caused less damage. This was willful negligence on the part of the police department who didn't use proper judgement in the apprehension of a serious criminal. They literally used military rounds over and over for 19 hours, military vehicles, explosives, grenades. The same city then condemned the house and offered $5000. Destroying the property is going to cost more than that. The city decided to take the house, the city should pay for the house.

toast0 7y ago

Was anybody else in the building when the police were destroying it? If there were (which I don't think is the case from the article), were they in more danger from the suspect or the police?

magashna 7y ago

I don't care about your fantasy. The reality is insane overreaction to a guy who stole $20 worth of clothes. Walmart writes this into their bottom line. You know what should've happened? Nothing.

program_whiz 7y ago
Not trying to start a flame war here, but its not a fantasy. There are 36,000 gun deaths, and over 100,000 gun related injuries in the US every year (thats roughly 3000 per week). There was an armed man who lead a high-speed chase and shot at police. The odds are very high he will injure or kill another person, its not a fantasy to think the police are thinking worst case. https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/ https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/ We are looking at this article with hindsight that his only crime was taking the belt, but you can't know that _at the time_, and given that these officers see shootings, robberies, and murders on a regular basis, its impossible to make the assumption that "well he's probably just harmless, lets wait this out". I pose this simple question -- if someone broke into your house, armed, and fired shots. Would you wait it out, or assume the worst? If you assumed the worst, and that meant sacrificing your property to possibly save your life and the life of your family, but then it turned out the guy was just looking for a few items to sell, and wasn't really that bad, would you say you made the wrong call?
- magashna 7y ago
  Police shouldn't engage in high speed chases if you're concerned for innocent's safety Police in the US are responsible for about 1000 firearm deaths each year, and getting increasingly aggressive towards innocent Americans Police militarization increases this aggression at no benefit to the public If the police blew up my house and offered a snarky apology after escalating the situation far beyond what was necessary, I'd be angry. Your question isn't simple, it's leading. "Let me ask you a question that is totally different from what happened and will give me an answer I'm satisfied with"
- jack_h 7y ago
  That 36,000 number isn't really the entire story. The majority of those are suicides. In the year that this incident took place (2015) there were 9,616 murders with a firearm of some kind. Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2011-2015.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

cannonedhamster 7y ago

If you and your family were being held hostage the actions by the police would have put them in far more danger if they didn't know where you were since they were blind firing launchers throughout the house. The police can shut off the power and water, could have flooded the house with tear gas, could have breached with multiple teams. You realize this was more damage than gets caused in a war zone breaching right? The house was so overly damaged it was condemned. That's so in excess of what's required to get a single suspect that they know is in a confined area. They could have sent in a drone with a grenade and caused less damage. This was willful negligence on the part of the police department who didn't use proper judgement in the apprehension of a serious criminal. They literally used military rounds over and over for 19 hours, military vehicles, explosives, grenades. The same city then condemned the house and offered $5000. Destroying the property is going to cost more than that. The city decided to take the house, the city should pay for the house.