Are you saying that I'm Monday morning quarterbacking? I was trying to ask questions and share possible approaches, without saying anything definitively prescriptive.
A Monday Morning Quarterback doesn't leave a lot of question or uncertainty. That's the kind of the point. They take potshots post facto and frame what "should've" been done as obvious or what happened as ridiculous/blatantly stupid. I don't see how my comment can reasonably be read that way.
I'd ask that you either explain your rude remark in rational terms, or apologize if you don't think you have a great rationale.
I don't know. Is a child under their mother's care considered a hostage in standoff circumstances? I have no idea. And note that my question was on whether it being a hostage situation should affect the policy or not... so I'm open to the possibility that it was, obviously.
Also, you didn't at all address the question about whether it makes sense to stop streamings in the event of a police encounter or not. If not, when shouldn't it be allowed? I think, at least in many states, you do have the right to record police encounters, especially if it's on your own private property or in a public place. But maybe I'm mistaken?
Perhaps you can read more carefully, think more carefully, behave more civilly, and try again.
> Monday morning quarterback: A person who analyzes the mistakes they made they day after they've made them. Derived from complaining over quarterbacks on monday morning after the sunday game. [0]
People who watch a football game Sunday night and then talk shit at work on Monday about all the things they would have done differently if they were coach/quarterback/etc.
>The definition of a Monday morning quarterback is someone who is always criticizing and saying how he would have done something better or differently after the event has passed.
If she had shot herself, or her child, or one of her neighbors, while she was in an unstable mental state, people would be outraged that the police had not done anything to prevent it.
It's also intolerable in a society with the rule of law that someone could opt out of being subject to the law by waving a gun around and refusing to comply with a lawful order from the police. If that worked, everyone would do it. It would be impossible to enforce the law.
If she didn't have a child with her, maybe they could have waited her out. They had already been there for quite a while before they decided to act. But to suggest that they just walk away and come back later is absurd.
Sure, but isn't it just as intolerable in a society with the rule of law that people are executed without a trial? There have been lengthy standoffs between the police and people trying not to pay their taxes (Google "police standoff taxes" for lots of examples; here's one: https://www.policeone.com/standoff/articles/1805292-It-was-l...). These standoffs don't typically end in death for the person under arrest.
I find it interesting that serving such warrants is done in the home vs. catching them outside. It seems like backing someone into a familiar corner (their home) would be like backing a wild animal into it's den.
A Monday Morning Quarterback doesn't leave a lot of question or uncertainty. That's the kind of the point. They take potshots post facto and frame what "should've" been done as obvious or what happened as ridiculous/blatantly stupid. I don't see how my comment can reasonably be read that way.
I'd ask that you either explain your rude remark in rational terms, or apologize if you don't think you have a great rationale.