4 ms·

> over a single armed man Who's firing at the police officers and is in the same building as an innocent bystander, 9 year old boy. Seriously, this situation c

> over a single armed man Who's firing at the police officers and is in the same building as an innocent bystander, 9 year old boy. Seriously, this situation could've easily gone much uglier than property damage really fast.

tolien 7y ago
> The boy, who was home alone when the gunman entered, was able to get out of the house safely. Not to mention the safety issues of firing tear gas into the building, blowing out the windows and driving an APC into it if he wasn’t already out…
gldalmaso 7y ago
Is it common for the police to resort to explosives and military vehicles to handle a single armed person? Or maybe they have just too much leftover military toys and are eager to play with them?
- afarrell 7y ago
  If your employer had an option available which could significantly reduce your risk of dying on the job, what would you prefer that they prioritise above taking that option? A) The lives of bystanders B) The property of bystanders C) The cost of equipment D) The aesthetics of equipment Personally, say: - Definitely A. - B & C at some point if the cost/risk is above a certain amount...but what is that number? - Never D.
  - squarefoot 7y ago
    I agree with the use of force since the robber was armed, but in the end refusing any compensation is an awful choice that also sends the wrong message: next time make an attempt to trade with the robber but don't call the police.
  - mannykannot 7y ago
    It is preposterous to suggest that every other option would have created more risk for the police. The issue here is not one of giving the police protection, it is one of misuse (to put it mildly) of the equipment intended for that purpose.
  - BubRoss 7y ago
    Are they going to be held responsible for destroying the property?
- merpnderp 7y ago
  You’re being pretty cavalier with the lives of the cops. Why shouldn’t they use armored vehicles to handle some asshole shooting at them and starting a firefight in a residential neighborhood?
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    But there wasn't a firefight except for the police bringing the guns on a guy who was hiding in a house. The police already have bulletproof armor, shields, etc. There was no need to destroy a third party's house.
kerkeslager 7y ago
> Who's firing at the police officers and is in the same building as an innocent bystander, 9 year old boy. Seriously, this situation could've easily gone much uglier than property damage really fast. Yes, it could have. The cops could have shot the 9 year old boy. I'm not sure how you can see a man with a gun shooting at people and think the solution is more men with guns shooting at people.

tolien 7y ago

> The boy, who was home alone when the gunman entered, was able to get out of the house safely. Not to mention the safety issues of firing tear gas into the building, blowing out the windows and driving an APC into it if he wasn’t already out…

gldalmaso 7y ago

Is it common for the police to resort to explosives and military vehicles to handle a single armed person? Or maybe they have just too much leftover military toys and are eager to play with them?

afarrell 7y ago
If your employer had an option available which could significantly reduce your risk of dying on the job, what would you prefer that they prioritise above taking that option? A) The lives of bystanders B) The property of bystanders C) The cost of equipment D) The aesthetics of equipment Personally, say: - Definitely A. - B & C at some point if the cost/risk is above a certain amount...but what is that number? - Never D.
- squarefoot 7y ago
  I agree with the use of force since the robber was armed, but in the end refusing any compensation is an awful choice that also sends the wrong message: next time make an attempt to trade with the robber but don't call the police.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  It is preposterous to suggest that every other option would have created more risk for the police. The issue here is not one of giving the police protection, it is one of misuse (to put it mildly) of the equipment intended for that purpose.
- BubRoss 7y ago
  Are they going to be held responsible for destroying the property?
merpnderp 7y ago
You’re being pretty cavalier with the lives of the cops. Why shouldn’t they use armored vehicles to handle some asshole shooting at them and starting a firefight in a residential neighborhood?
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  But there wasn't a firefight except for the police bringing the guns on a guy who was hiding in a house. The police already have bulletproof armor, shields, etc. There was no need to destroy a third party's house.

kerkeslager 7y ago

> Who's firing at the police officers and is in the same building as an innocent bystander, 9 year old boy. Seriously, this situation could've easily gone much uglier than property damage really fast. Yes, it could have. The cops could have shot the 9 year old boy. I'm not sure how you can see a man with a gun shooting at people and think the solution is more men with guns shooting at people.