5 ms·

> 100 officers, 19 hours and a Bearcat APC Man, when you have staff and resources, I guess you need to justify the bills. Instead of, you know, putting a coupl

> 100 officers, 19 hours and a Bearcat APC Man, when you have staff and resources, I guess you need to justify the bills. Instead of, you know, putting a couple units outside the house and waiting a week. Those must have been some expensive belts and shirts. Though there's no way the use of force here is comparable with the value of items being reclaimed.

fluffything 7y ago
Somebody stole 50$ worth of stuff. Instead of letting insurance pay and calling it a day, lest waste a couple of hundred thousand dollars and fully destroy somebody's home for another couple of hundred thousand dollars in damages. What should happen here is that whoever thought this was the right course of action should be fired, and liable.
- SapporoChris 7y ago
  You realize the suspect was firing at police officers? I am in no way defending the destruction of a home. However, I do realize this is not a situation where a couple of officers can be posted outside the home and wait the situation out. An armed suspect firing out of a home is a clear and present danger to the community. edited to add quote Who drives armored cars? People who expect gun-fire. Usually people with some fire-power of their own. -Burn Notice
  - huffmsa 7y ago
    Unless he had one of those drum magazine glocks, he'd have been out of ammo after 15-45 rounds (depending on if he had backup magazines). They could have just parked the APC out front and waited a bit. No need to crash it through the front door.
    - SapporoChris 7y ago
      I agree, no need to destroy the house. But significant activity would be required to secure the neighborhood. There have been instances where innocent bystanders get shot. I've never been shot at, but I suspect there is probably a very aggressive response that humans have to be shot at. A response serves well in most situations, not so much in this one. I'd love to see more training for the police officers to help in situations, but I don't see tax payers wanting to pay for it. My outrage really isn't at the police officers actions, but I understand being outraged about it. My outrage is at the courts. Although I do understand it appears this gentleman may have selected the wrong court.
      - tolien 7y ago
        > I'd love to see more training for the police officers to help in situations, but I don't see tax payers wanting to pay for it I don’t think it’s more training they need, but different training (so rather than more money, it’s a matter of spending the money they already have differently). A whole industry has sprung up of ex-military personnel and LEOs providing training which isn’t far off the sort of thing you’d get for a tour of Afghanistan; unsurprisingly when you train and equip people as if they’re going to a war zone they then act and use that equipment as if they’re in a war zone.
        acdha 7y ago
        It’s worth noting that the vets I know are somewhat offended by that comparison because they had considerable training about use of force to prevent things like this — their commanders cared about the residents’ opinion of them far more than many police departments seem to.
        tolien 7y ago
        That’s a fair point! A better comparison might be with something like Blackwater, i.e unaccountable thugs with guns, or with a combat environment where there are no civilians to get in the way.
        belenos46 7y ago
        Agreed. All my vet friends get pretty worked up about this topic, particularly the lack of oversight. Even if you're in an active war zone, if you raise your weapon (even if the person you're aiming at is holding a weapon), it goes in your after-action report and is reviewed by your superiors to see if your actions conformed to the rules of engagement in that scenario.
  - ljm 7y ago
    "He was firing a gun at cops!" seems like such a lame defence to me. This is the US we're talking about, where someone can unload an assault rifle inside a school or a church and render the entire nation powerless, lest the issue be politicised. You don't see the cops rolling a tank through the school cafeteria to try and smoke the gunman out. Just imagining that is utterly absurd! But this though... oh no. A single guy with a pistol, in an area they could have evacuated, who would have inevitably tired himself out after standing off for the best part of a day, daring to face off against the almighty police force? Nah, you gotta go full Michael Bay on that shit. Bring out the armoured cars, explosives, tear gas... There's literally no rational justification for this. The actual soldiers out in the middle east know better restraint than to go nuclear at the first chance. And they're dealing with people packing a lot more heat than this guy with his belts and a pistol.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
      Actually, I think assault rifles cannot be legally owned by civilians in the US. I'm not from, or living there so corrections are welcome but I remember that the Texas gunman had a special setup that allowed his weapons to fire in automatic mode, or something close to.
      - Symmetry 7y ago
        They can be retained by people who had bought them before 1994 them but buying one is incredibly difficult in terms of money and paperwork.
        refurb 7y ago
        No. There is no federal “assault weapons” laws, they expired in 2004. In most states you can purchase one, some states (CA, NY,CT) have banned them.
        homonculus1 7y ago
        "Assault weapons" is a purposely misleading term designed to generate the confusion with "assault rifles" that you're currently experiencing. Assault rifles are indeed illegal to purchase without extensive paperwork and fees, and then only if the weapon itself was registered and grandfathered in before 1986. These weapons are heavily regulated and cost tens of thousands of dollars, despite being effectively never used in crime even at the time they were banned.
- pas 7y ago
  ?? Just throw in a few canisters of tear gas and wait for the dude come out. Then open the windows and that's it. How they managed to blow up the house is ... insane. And it took 19 hours? Why? He was using a handgun. Haven't they heard of suppressive fire? What the hell.
  - not2personal 7y ago
    Alright modern warfare, next time we will call you so you can run in screaming "no time for backup"

fluffything 7y ago

Somebody stole 50$ worth of stuff. Instead of letting insurance pay and calling it a day, lest waste a couple of hundred thousand dollars and fully destroy somebody's home for another couple of hundred thousand dollars in damages. What should happen here is that whoever thought this was the right course of action should be fired, and liable.

SapporoChris 7y ago
You realize the suspect was firing at police officers? I am in no way defending the destruction of a home. However, I do realize this is not a situation where a couple of officers can be posted outside the home and wait the situation out. An armed suspect firing out of a home is a clear and present danger to the community. edited to add quote Who drives armored cars? People who expect gun-fire. Usually people with some fire-power of their own. -Burn Notice
- huffmsa 7y ago
  Unless he had one of those drum magazine glocks, he'd have been out of ammo after 15-45 rounds (depending on if he had backup magazines). They could have just parked the APC out front and waited a bit. No need to crash it through the front door.
  - SapporoChris 7y ago
    I agree, no need to destroy the house. But significant activity would be required to secure the neighborhood. There have been instances where innocent bystanders get shot. I've never been shot at, but I suspect there is probably a very aggressive response that humans have to be shot at. A response serves well in most situations, not so much in this one. I'd love to see more training for the police officers to help in situations, but I don't see tax payers wanting to pay for it. My outrage really isn't at the police officers actions, but I understand being outraged about it. My outrage is at the courts. Although I do understand it appears this gentleman may have selected the wrong court.
    - tolien 7y ago
      > I'd love to see more training for the police officers to help in situations, but I don't see tax payers wanting to pay for it I don’t think it’s more training they need, but different training (so rather than more money, it’s a matter of spending the money they already have differently). A whole industry has sprung up of ex-military personnel and LEOs providing training which isn’t far off the sort of thing you’d get for a tour of Afghanistan; unsurprisingly when you train and equip people as if they’re going to a war zone they then act and use that equipment as if they’re in a war zone.
      - acdha 7y ago
        It’s worth noting that the vets I know are somewhat offended by that comparison because they had considerable training about use of force to prevent things like this — their commanders cared about the residents’ opinion of them far more than many police departments seem to.
        tolien 7y ago
        That’s a fair point! A better comparison might be with something like Blackwater, i.e unaccountable thugs with guns, or with a combat environment where there are no civilians to get in the way.
        belenos46 7y ago
        Agreed. All my vet friends get pretty worked up about this topic, particularly the lack of oversight. Even if you're in an active war zone, if you raise your weapon (even if the person you're aiming at is holding a weapon), it goes in your after-action report and is reviewed by your superiors to see if your actions conformed to the rules of engagement in that scenario.
- ljm 7y ago
  "He was firing a gun at cops!" seems like such a lame defence to me. This is the US we're talking about, where someone can unload an assault rifle inside a school or a church and render the entire nation powerless, lest the issue be politicised. You don't see the cops rolling a tank through the school cafeteria to try and smoke the gunman out. Just imagining that is utterly absurd! But this though... oh no. A single guy with a pistol, in an area they could have evacuated, who would have inevitably tired himself out after standing off for the best part of a day, daring to face off against the almighty police force? Nah, you gotta go full Michael Bay on that shit. Bring out the armoured cars, explosives, tear gas... There's literally no rational justification for this. The actual soldiers out in the middle east know better restraint than to go nuclear at the first chance. And they're dealing with people packing a lot more heat than this guy with his belts and a pistol.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
    Actually, I think assault rifles cannot be legally owned by civilians in the US. I'm not from, or living there so corrections are welcome but I remember that the Texas gunman had a special setup that allowed his weapons to fire in automatic mode, or something close to.
    - Symmetry 7y ago
      They can be retained by people who had bought them before 1994 them but buying one is incredibly difficult in terms of money and paperwork.
      - refurb 7y ago
        No. There is no federal “assault weapons” laws, they expired in 2004. In most states you can purchase one, some states (CA, NY,CT) have banned them.
        homonculus1 7y ago
        "Assault weapons" is a purposely misleading term designed to generate the confusion with "assault rifles" that you're currently experiencing. Assault rifles are indeed illegal to purchase without extensive paperwork and fees, and then only if the weapon itself was registered and grandfathered in before 1986. These weapons are heavily regulated and cost tens of thousands of dollars, despite being effectively never used in crime even at the time they were banned.
pas 7y ago
?? Just throw in a few canisters of tear gas and wait for the dude come out. Then open the windows and that's it. How they managed to blow up the house is ... insane. And it took 19 hours? Why? He was using a handgun. Haven't they heard of suppressive fire? What the hell.
- not2personal 7y ago
  Alright modern warfare, next time we will call you so you can run in screaming "no time for backup"