3 ms·

> The attempt to blame this on excessive policing in a broad stroke seems to be the wrong angle that doesn’t address the nuance of these situations. I don’t re

> The attempt to blame this on excessive policing in a broad stroke seems to be the wrong angle that doesn’t address the nuance of these situations. I don’t really understand how any of these outcomes can be the result of anything except excessive policing. What kind of crimes warrants police turning up with enough fire power to destroy an entire building? In the case of a search warrant, what was wrong with just knocking on the door and looking around inside? For a criminal barricaded in a building, what wrong with surrounding the building and waiting them out? They’re gonna need food, water, sleep eventually. If there isn’t a clear immediate risk to life, what’s the justification for turning someone home or business into a war zone?

hahahacorn 1y ago
The examples given are a subset of all circumstances where property damage occurred as a result of legal police power. Not all of which the government should be responsible for paying out.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > Not all of which the government should be responsible for paying out. On the contrary, if the government was always on the hook for the damage they cause, even if the victim had committed a crime, then police would cause less property damage.
brendang_sd 1y ago
> For a criminal barricaded in a building, what wrong with surrounding the building and waiting them out? They’re gonna need food, water, sleep eventually. Often the claim is that would give time to alter or destroy evidence.
- itsdrewmiller 1y ago
  As if destroying someone’s house couldn’t also destroy evidence!