3 ms·

This is an extremely poor example that further illustrates the murderous recklessness of swat teams. The fact that there was a shooter at Uvalde was obvious upo

by kibwen 4y ago

This is an extremely poor example that further illustrates the murderous recklessness of swat teams. The fact that there was a shooter at Uvalde was obvious upon arriving at the scene. Meanwhile, a traditional swat involves a completely innocuous house with no apparent hostiles, because there aren't any hostiles, and yet deaths still occur because of the recklessness of the swat teams. Imagine if you had a school with no shooter and a false report; would the swat teams burst through the windows and start mowing down students at random? Unthinkable, yes?

idiotsecant 4y ago
Are you proposing a mechanism by which this decision can reliably be made? If not I'm not sure you're asking for something reasonable. The first person who dies because the police were too slow or too weak to respond will cause as much outrage as what you express here.
- cthor 4y ago
  Every officer on the scene at Uvalde knew there was a shooter in the classroom. Gunshots had been heard by people on the scene. Eyewitnesses on the scene had seen a shooter entering with weapons. Children in the classroom were calling in from their phones. If the only information police had was a phone call from an anonymous VOIP number, then they'd be comparable.
  - vel0city 4y ago
    The police were following a shooter as he entered the school. The police knew there was a shooter in the school the second the shooter walked through the door.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  Well yes, if there are gunshots or similar sounds indicating urgent entry is needed then do so, otherwise maybe knock on the door. People die all the time because police don't intervene, there was even a Supreme Court ruling that found that police have no duty to intervene to save your life. The least they can do is not rashly toss an incendiary device through your window or into your child's crib[1]. [1]https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi_vtS_jIf8AhVDE1kFHYDEDbwQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aclu.org%2Fgallery%2Fswat-team-blew-hole-2-year-old-baby https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

by kibwen 4y ago

idiotsecant 4y ago

Are you proposing a mechanism by which this decision can reliably be made? If not I'm not sure you're asking for something reasonable. The first person who dies because the police were too slow or too weak to respond will cause as much outrage as what you express here.

cthor 4y ago
Every officer on the scene at Uvalde knew there was a shooter in the classroom. Gunshots had been heard by people on the scene. Eyewitnesses on the scene had seen a shooter entering with weapons. Children in the classroom were calling in from their phones. If the only information police had was a phone call from an anonymous VOIP number, then they'd be comparable.
- vel0city 4y ago
  The police were following a shooter as he entered the school. The police knew there was a shooter in the school the second the shooter walked through the door.
ch4s3 4y ago
Well yes, if there are gunshots or similar sounds indicating urgent entry is needed then do so, otherwise maybe knock on the door. People die all the time because police don't intervene, there was even a Supreme Court ruling that found that police have no duty to intervene to save your life. The least they can do is not rashly toss an incendiary device through your window or into your child's crib[1]. [1]https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi_vtS_jIf8AhVDE1kFHYDEDbwQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aclu.org%2Fgallery%2Fswat-team-blew-hole-2-year-old-baby https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...