[throwsprtsdy]

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.

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.

[Spooky23]

You 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?

[throwsprtsdy]

I 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.

[lostlogin]

I don’t think you can argue that the police response with armoured cars, explosive charges and house demolition was ‘proportionate’. This sort of policing isn’t routine in most places.

[cglace]

So if this became prevalent, society should just accept losing your house is the cost of having police?

[SamReidHughes]

The 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]

Saying 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]

If 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]

I too support the death penalty for the crime of (checks notes) four wheeling on a public road.

[chooseaname]

> 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]

> 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]

considering property tax is proportional to the value of the property, it shouldn't be too hard for them to make this work...

[bonestamp2]

Yup, 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.

[bsanr2]

>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]

SWAT 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]

I 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).

[arrrg]

In 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.

[RandomBacon]

Wait out the suspect.

[owenmarshall]

Literally 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]

However in many other countries, in case after case, the police do de-escalate.

What is different?

[Someone]

It’s a combination of factors. 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.”

[pmiller2]

Other 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”).

[hinkley]

Right?

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.

[lern_too_spel]

The suspect was also damaging the house himself.

[throwsprtsdy]

Waiting 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]

>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]

Not to mention that they have armored vehicles and so forth.