5 ms·
A shoplifting suspect who barricaded himself inside someone else's home during the pursuit and fired gunshots at the police.
by throwsprtsdy 7y ago
A shoplifting suspect who barricaded himself inside someone else's home during the pursuit and fired gunshots at the police.
- cthor 7y agoIf society thinks blowing up a house is worth catching the perp then they at least oughta pay for the damn house.
- throwsprtsdy 7y agoSo if a shooter sets up in a sufficiently expensive property, the police have to sit there passively and risk being shot because they don't have the money to pay for the damage caused by going in? That makes no sense. I'm generally of the opinion that police are too heavy-handed in the US, but in this particular case I don't think there was any other reasonable option. Moreover the ancestor post referring to the suspect as simply a "shoplifter" was inaccurate.
- RandomBacon 7y agoWait out the suspect.
- hinkley 7y agoRight? The flip side of this ad absurdist argument is that if a suspect holed up in MoMA, it’s okay to burn it down because he shot three of the maybe fifteen bullets he has in his possession? No, no it is not.
- owenmarshall 7y agoLiterally this. It isn’t even a question if the home is “sufficiently expensive” - if a criminal is holed up somewhere where no one else is, try to negotiate their surrender. It’s likely that it will end in better outcomes for the criminal, police, and the homeowner. The same logic applies with high speed pursuits. You’ve likely got a helicopter in the air following them - back off a bit until things cool down. But the role of the police isn’t to deescalate and once you acknowledge that, these decisions make more sense.
- Normal_gaussian 7y agoHowever in many other countries, in case after case, the police do de-escalate. What is different?
- pmiller2 7y agoOther countries don’t have such a militarized police force. I mean that both in terms of the arms and equipment they use and the attitude they have toward suspects (treating them as “the enemy”).
- Someone 7y agoIt’s a combination of factors. https://theconversation.com/why-do-american-cops-kill-so-many-compared-to-european-cops-49696 https://theconversation.com/why-do-american-cops-kill-so-man...: ”Desperate and potentially dangerous people in Europe are, therefore, more likely than their American counterparts to encounter well-educated and restrained police officers. However, explanations of elevated police lethality in the US should focus on more than police policy and behavior. The charged encounters that give rise to American deadly force also result from weak gun controls, social and economic deprivation and injustice, inadequate mental health care and an intense desire to avoid harsh imprisonment. Future research should examine not only whether American police behave differently but also whether more generous, supportive and therapeutic policies in Europe ensure that fewer people become desperate enough to summon, provoke or resist their less dangerous police.”
- lern_too_spel 7y agoThe suspect was also damaging the house himself.
- throwsprtsdy 7y agoWaiting out a suspect who has already shot at the police is dangerous. Any mistake that left a person exposed to be shot at could be fatal. Protecting life is a higher priority than protecting property.
- bluntfang 7y ago>the police have to sit there passively That sounds perfectly fine and reasonable to me. > and risk being shot I'm certain they will be able to wait far enough away where getting shot isn't really an option.
- code_duck 7y agoNot to mention that they have armored vehicles and so forth.
- Spooky23 7y agoYou wait it out and de-escalate. The heavy handed response is dangerous for all parties. When I was growing up, the Sheriff initiated a big chase and SWAT response for some dumbass kid who rode an ATV on the road. The end result was an accident that killed the kid and severely injured a deputy (who IIRC wasn’t even involved in the incident response), who was unable to work again. All that tragedy, for what?
- SamReidHughes 7y agoThe police shouldn’t have any obligation to arrest a perp on the perp’s schedule. They have to be able to go in and attack him if need be. The shoplifter could have de-escalated.
- detaro 7y agoSaying that police should consider and bear some responsibility for the consequences of a fast and aggressive response and accordingly sometimes avoid it is very different from police "having an obligation to arrest a perp on the perp's schedule".
- SamReidHughes 7y agoIf it’s totally gross and nonsensical, like blowing up a house to catch a guy armed with a bullwhip, sure. But somebody firing his gun at people after getting chased for shoplifting? That’s a cold-blooded killer with bad aim. You don’t just sit around and hope he listens to the voice of reason. Or maybe you do. We’ve got lots of Monday morning quarterbacks here.
- owenmarshall 7y agoI too support the death penalty for the crime of (checks notes) four wheeling on a public road.
- throwsprtsdy 7y agoI don't think the two situations are comparable at all. In the ATV case, it was the police who escalated, inappropriately, in pursuit of someone who was mainly a danger to himself. In the destroyed home case, it was the suspect who escalated (repeatedly), from shoplifting to entering a home to shooting at people.
- code_duck 7y agoSWAT are trained and equipped to do a siege. Cut off the utilities. Wait it out. What's the guy going to do? If you read the articles, yes, it was triggered from a shoplifting incident.
- mythrwy 7y agoI wonder which comes out to less money, blowing up a 670K house or paying doughnut munching overtime round the clock for 3 1/2 weeks? Well, given that they don't have to pay for the house it's a actually a no brainer! (That should probably be fixed).
- chooseaname 7y ago> So if a shooter sets up in a sufficiently expensive property, the police have to sit there passively and risk being shot because they don't have the money to pay for the damage caused by going in? That makes no sense. No, you let the police do what they need to do AND you have them pay the homeowner for damages. The government should have some sort of insurance for this.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago> The government should have some sort of insurance for this. It’s called the power to collect taxes. And print money if it’s the federal government.
- leetcrew 7y agoconsidering property tax is proportional to the value of the property, it shouldn't be too hard for them to make this work...
- bonestamp2 7y agoYup, we (the people) will pay to repair/replace all the police equipment damaged in the act of protecting citizens. We should also pay for all damage caused to the property of private citizen's during that same act. It seems insane to pay for half of the damage and not the other.
- viburnum 7y agoTricky situations like this make it clear that the sensible thing to do is to ban guns.
- briandear 7y agoWhy not ban shoplifting too? Guns are already banned for use in a crime. If there is a gun ban, are criminals going to simply show up and turn in guns? We’ve banned heroin, but that hasn’t stopped it from being trafficked.
- huntie 7y agoYou're right, it would be a shame if the police had to face any sort of retaliation for blowing up people's houses. If we ban guns they can blow up everyone's house without fear!
- a1369209993 7y agoI agree; if the police didn't have access to guns, they would have a much reduced ability to destroy people's homes. (Although given that they supposedly used a tank in this case, we might want to preemptively ban killdozers as well.)
- arrrg 7y agoIn general, there is probably no private property that the state cannot destroy and then replace with no problem. Money really is no problem at all here. Also, yeah, being proportional in your response (and that includes putting property damage into your calculation about what’s proportional) is always useful.
- bsanr2 7y ago>Sufficiently expensive I think people are just as mortified over the 1985 case where Philadelphia police firebombed a drug den and burnt down an entire block of lower-income housing. The police should pay for collateral damage, because it forces the public to reevaluate what kind of police action is worth the trouble of violence and destruction (versus earlier social interventions). Likewise, if you find it offensive that police would be more careful with a wealthy property owner's possessions than with others, maybe that should prompt a reevalution of what kinds of wealth disparities are acceptable.
- code_duck 7y agoYes, starting with (from another article) >The incident started when an Aurora police officer attempted to lead Seacat into an office at a Walmart, where he was suspected of shoplifting. But Seacat ran to a Lexus in the parking lot, jumped in and fled. So they caused $670,000 of damage to protect Walmart from shoplifting. Not great ROI for the community. All of that is beside the point, anyway. The point is that the government should be paying for that house.
- blisterpeanuts 7y agoAs soon as the suspect fled, it became a case of resisting arrest and disobeying a police officer and probably several other charges (home invasion too?). Arguably the police officer did his job, perhaps even bending over backward to protect the suspect's rights. Though, a more traditional "alright, buddy, put your hands up, you're under arrest!" at gunpoint might have forestalled the ensuing situation. Absolutely agree that the homeowner should get some kind of redress for what was done to his home.
- ljm 7y agoDon't get me wrong, but this kind of point is something I've only ever seen on the internet, and typically from an American point of view. It makes the cops look like infallible overlords or, dare I say it, tyrants, and the criminal as someone completely undeserving of any understanding, benefit of the doubt, or compassion. > resisting arrest and disobeying a police officer Mercy me, how dare he. He definitely deserves the electric chair for that. > probably several other charges (home invasion too?). After being identified as a criminal because of the original shoplifting attempt, it's now okay to concoct a laundry list of potential new crimes just to make sure the cops can really throw the book at this degenerate. They're now entirely justified in ramming a military tank through a house while a hundred other cops watch the show. I presume that an officer doing their job would have been able to let the shoplifter run off and, because they'd identified him and the stolen car, they could issue a warrant and pick him up later.
- throwsprtsdy 7y ago
- scrumbledober 7y agoOk but even if you agree that the police did what they had to do in order to apprehend a suspect, shouldn't the department or local government be repairing damage they did to someone's house?
- SamReidHughes 7y agoNo, the shoplifting suspect should be.
- thatguy0900 7y agoThat really leaves the random victim out to dry. You cant get that kind of money out of most shoplifters no matter how hard you sue them. Would you hold this same position if it was your house the police bombed?
- SamReidHughes 7y agoThe world doesn’t owe you compensation for every bad thing that happens to you.
- thatguy0900 7y agoWhat a heartless outlook. It's one thing for something bad to happen, it's another for the government to randomly blow up your house and peace out. I honestly have a very hard time believing you would have this attitude about your own things if you ever get thrown under a bus.
- SamReidHughes 7y agoWhy would heart have anything to do with it? The basis of my statement is morality, not empathy.
- HarryHirsch 7y ago