3 ms·
Exactly. Why doesn't the police dept carry insurance for _exactly this_? Yes it will be expensive, but it's a leveraged bet that allows them to do what they ne
by shawnb576 7y ago
Exactly. Why doesn't the police dept carry insurance for _exactly this_? Yes it will be expensive, but it's a leveraged bet that allows them to do what they need to but have some consequences for doing things they don't.
There has to be some reasonable standard that can be applied to their behavior. If they used their tank to bulldoze a block of houses looking for some guy hiding in one of them ("how were we supposed to know which one he was in?"), would we expect that to be just OK? Sounds like this ruling says "yes". There are no checks on this behavior.
- shantly 7y agoEspecially when it sure seems like they had a good or superior alternative. If the situation/area was sufficiently under control that advancing with siege equipment didn't involve excessive risk of harm to officers or of the suspect escaping in the commotion, then staying put and holding the perimeter was at least as safe and would have kept him contained, surely. No mention that they believed he had anyone else in there with him or anything, so why on Earth did they choose to assault the house?