from the good-thing-no-one-was-jaywalking dept.
According to reporting in AlterNet, the Denver Channel, Westword, and others:
A standoff between SWAT team members and an armed shoplifting suspect who barricaded himself in a Greenwood Village home ended, but now the home owner thinks police destroyed his house. Greenwood Village Police said the 19-hour standoff ended with no injured officers or citizens, but the home looks like a bomb went off.
There is a large hole in the front of the house, broken windows and glass are littered everywhere and shrapnel is stuck in the walls. Leo Lech said, "It looks like Osama Bin Laden's compound." Lech is no terrorist but an unlucky homeowner whose property was caught in the cross fire when the suspect broke into the home. A 9-year-old child who was in the home at the time was able to escape.
Greenwood Village Police say that the suspect had four active warrants out for narcotics and had a large amount of narcotics with him. The suspect tried to steal a car at the home and fired at police from the garage, Greenwood Village Police say. Negotiations with the suspect failed after police met two of the suspect's three demands, but the suspect severed communications with police. Police used explosives and a ramming device to gain entry into the home after negotiations failed.
"This is a complete atrocity," said Lech. "This is a paramilitary force used in a civilian environment ... for one gunman? To use this kind of power?" Lech said the Greenwood Village Police Department claimed it was not responsible and the city would not return his calls.
Additional sources:
Original Submission
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AnonTechie on Wednesday June 10 2015, @07:45PM
I am surprised they didn't call in the Air Force and the Navy as well.
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @07:57PM
The homeowner is lucky. If the invader had been carrying a USB with lewd drawings of children, they'd probably call a goddamn firebomb strike.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @08:33PM
The perp was probably white then.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:16PM
Should have nuked it from orbit. It's the only way to be really sure.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @02:34AM
They couldn't even if they wanted to - military personnel actually have morals, they wouldn't be rushing to murder civilians on US soil like police always do.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Thursday June 11 2015, @10:08AM
It's an odd kind of morality that says it's wrong to murder civilians on US soil, but fine to murder them by remote drone overseas. The operator could even be sitting in the US somewhere, but it's fine because the victims aren't US citizens.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @03:09PM
Aren't the drones mostly operated by the CIA, who are decidedly non-military?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by looorg on Wednesday June 10 2015, @07:51PM
Besides the whole militarization of the police force issue the thing I did find interesting from the articles is that the homeowner has to pay, the insurance, for having the privilege of a SWAT team more or less destroying his house. Really? So a shoplifter runs into your house and it ends in a 19h standoff that ends with it looking like something in a warzone and the police department are not the once that have to pay for the damages they caused? How does that make sense. You break it, you bough it ... or well you should at least pay for it.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @08:07PM
Hey - that's the price of 'murican FREEDOM!!!!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Wednesday June 10 2015, @08:12PM
I guess it could be that, that or the PD forgot to get insurance or doesn't want to use theirs since the premium might go up and that might put an end to blowing shit up.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Thursday June 11 2015, @10:12AM
Isn't there any legal liability? Wouldn't the homeowner's insurance just sue them to recover the cost of the claim?
That's normally how it works here. If say a builder damages your car while working on your neighbour's home and refuses to pay your only option is to sue them, or more commonly make a claim on your car insurance and then the insurance company sues them to recover their costs.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by That_Dude on Wednesday June 10 2015, @09:04PM
At the very least it would be sensible that the criminal would have to pay restitution for the damage - at some point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @09:20PM
There are two problems with that:
1) The perp isn't the one that blew up the house.
2) He doesn't have any money to pay for it, since everything he owns will be seized by the police as part of the drug charges.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:21PM
1) The perp isn't the one that blew up the house.
His violent resist of arrest (by firing at the police) more than satisfies me that he should ultimately pay.
2) He doesn't have any money to pay for it, since everything he owns will be seized by the police as part of the drug charges.
And one the things police should be doing with it is to provide reparations here. Police can keep what's left after fixing the house. (Is how it -should- be; alas not how it -is-).
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:51PM
His violent resist of arrest (by firing at the police) more than satisfies me that he should ultimately pay.
Not if the police used excessive force. Then it's their fault, since they chose to do so.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday June 11 2015, @12:13AM
He doesn't have any money to pay for it
Perhaps he still has a few transplantable organs that are not yet destroyed by the drugs. Sell those to much better people, and you get the money.
But this is an interesting case anyway. Who is responsible for the standoff? The criminal. He caused all of it, from the very first moment. Is the police responsible for excessive force? Maybe, or maybe not - impossible to tell without an investigation. Remember, the criminal was armed and shooting. It was imperative to stop him before he kills someone. A house can be repaired; a head that is blown off - not so much. Should the insurance pay? Only if the insurance contract says so. Homeowners are not even required to have insurance. If an eartquake hits, a wildfire, or a drunk driver - your house may be damaged, and guess who is responsible for repairs? The homeowner. Should "the society" share the cost in this case? Only if "the society" (such as the judge or some other part of the justice system) failed in their job - like by releasing a violent criminal fully knowing that he will go back to crime immediately. If so, the homeowner can sue the state. Should the police share seized assets with criminal's victims? Yes, they should, on priority basis. The state can only keep the leftovers - if there are any. The police is paid by taxes, they are not supposed to benefit from arresting people and grabbing their wallets.
(Score: 2) by That_Dude on Friday June 12 2015, @01:16AM
So, it seems that the only remedy for the homeowner is a civil suit. If it had happened to my home, I would be asking if the situation warranted the actions of the police in that instance. I would argue that other, less destructive methods were available - such as tear gas, pepper smoke or perhaps even flash bangs. Maybe they wanted to nab the crook before he overdosed - who knows?
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday June 12 2015, @02:05AM
less destructive methods were available - such as tear gas, pepper smoke or perhaps even flash bangs
Tear gas and flash-bangs are deadly, especially together. The tear gas is extremely flammable, it burnt down the building in Waco. Tear gas was also used to incinerate the cabin where the rogue LA cop, Christopher Dorner, was hiding. You cannot even use a Fogger in a house if a pilot light is on in the water heater. Flash-bang had maimed (or killed?) a child. Pepper smoke was used by indians, reportedly, against the westerners, but not since then. The judge would also point out that the criminal was high on drugs and entirely out of this world. Such people are often immune to Taser and pepper spray; the only thing that they are NOT immune to is extra holes in their body - or ten strong policemen. But in this case no policeman could approach the criminal. What do you do then? Let the guy shoot at anything that moves until he runs out of ammo? I don't want to create an impression that I am defending the police, but their actions also have reasons.
If I were that homeowner, I'd get a lawyer, and that lawyer would sue everyone who was in any way involved - and let the judge sort it out. The decisions of the police commander, and their options, would then be revealed and discussed and weighted. The insurance company would most likely wiggle out of payment, pointing at some obscure chapter in the contract. I am not even close to being a lawyer, and it may well be that the quoted part of a standard State Farm's contract is not applicable, but here it is anyway:
War, including any undeclared war, civil war, insurrection, rebellion, revolution, warlike act by a military force or military personnel, destruction or seizure or use for a military purpose, and including any consequence of any of these. Discharge of a nuclear weapon shall be deemed a warlike act even if accidental.
One could definitely argue that this house was in a warlike act, as many houses in war zones look better than this one. Can be SWAT interpreted as military personnel? That's for lawyers to discuss. But I'm sure that the insurance company has better lawyers than a typical homeowner - especially one who is currently living in the street and needs to come up with $50-100K to rebuild the house.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @09:20AM
we're talking about a lone individual
how about just waiting him out till he's to tired to stay awake, let along fight back?
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday June 12 2015, @03:27PM
we're talking about a lone individual - how about just waiting him out till he's to tired to stay awake, let along fight back?
This is for the lawyers to debate and for the judge to decide. I wasn't there, can't comment. However we can think about the basic facts of the case. The house was not an isolated building in a middle of nowhere - so there were other people around, other properties. The guy was on drugs, armed, and shooting left and right. He could shoot through a gas line and blow up the whole neighborhood. The police would have to force all the residents of a few blocks around to leave their houses, possibly under gunfire. The criminal had plenty of drugs on him to supply a small army. Drugs could keep him awake for a long time. You cannot tell when he is asleep or just pretending. How do you find out? Send a cop in, and if he is killed then the criminal still has ammo and is awake?
The criminal could also run out of ammo, drugs, and energy - and then he could open all gas valves in the house and light a match. Would the homeowner then more upset with the outcome? Wouldn't he be asking why the police hadn't shot the criminal inside the house when they could?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @09:42AM
CS gas (which is what's normally used in tear gas) is not flammable.
At room temperature it's a solid, to aerosolize it it's often 'cooked' over a burner (normally in CBRN training since using a grenade is expensive)
however *sometimes* an organic solvent is used to dissolve it which can be flammable. (there are other ways to deliver it).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:05PM
Mandate that every cop carry liability insurance.
The department could pay the portion of the premium equal to the total that is charged for their officers with a clean record.
Any portion of the premium that is over that is paid by the dirty cop.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:19PM
Bad idea - if every cop thinks "hey, no problem - I'm insured!" the damage will be unending. Accountability and responsibility are required, not insurance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:11PM
Currently, taxpayers have to pick up the tab for abusive cops.
That's not fair.
Malpractice insurance will curb the bad behavior, just as it does in medical practices.
Cops who find themselves charged for their own excess coverage will adjust their behavior or (more likely, I'm sure) quit and find work more suited to their skillset|temperament.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @02:14AM
You're confusing "accountability and responsibility" with "taxpayer foots the bill." It isn't the taxpayer that needs to take responsibility, it's the cops.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Thursday June 11 2015, @03:15AM
Why shouldn't the taxpayer be on the bill for abusive cops? It's taxpayers that are tolerating the police behavior anyway. It wasn't just the cops who destroyed that guy's house, it's the taxpayers that raised and employed and armed and excused those cops who made reckless choices.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:12PM
how do you know he wasn't shoplifting to pay for the LAST home that got wrecked, due to him?
no, its not really funny. this is sickening behavior on the part of the so-called good guys.
they no longer are good guys, to a lot of the populatioon. they continue to lose the moral high-ground each passing year, it seems. public opinion of cops is not showing any increase and events like this don't help their case, either.
if you think its worth destroying an innocent person's home over, you should be preparerd to make him whole again, no matter what it takes. this was not the only choice you cops had. you chose this violent method and its a pussy move to not pay for what YOU have done.
take some of your civil asset forfeiture profits and make this man whole again!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by penguinoid on Thursday June 11 2015, @04:20AM
At the very least it would be sensible that the criminal would have to pay restitution for the damage - at some point.
Why him? He hardly caused any damage, nor did he choose to engage the police (he was fleeing), nor did he choose how much force the police used.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:42PM
I did find interesting from the articles is that the homeowner has to pay, the insurance, for having the privilege of a SWAT team more or less destroying his house.
Don't jump to conclusions.
All Police departments initially take this tack. They then try to prove some connection to the home owner so they can blame them.
(This Case [kirotv.com] is still outstanding because the police are still claiming a nexus due to the fact it was the home-owner's son that they were after. But since nobody was home, they started shooting before they were shot at, so badges may still roll).
In the end, most of the time, truly innocent people end up getting paid, but often their insurance company has to go to court.
Examples: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/117757688.html [komonews.com]
http://www.11alive.com/story/news/local/west-side/2014/08/20/atlanta-police-raid-wrong-home/14362333/ [11alive.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Thursday June 11 2015, @03:21AM
Oh, they will pay for it.
Police department's are *always* run by fucking psychopaths who think the entire department's shit don't stink. When a bill comes their way, they simply say it's not their job to pay that. Doesn't matter if 10 million witnesses were there, and the cops are absolutely undeniably guilty for the damage, they will never be guilty or liable for *anything*, *ever*. Well, that dog don't hunt, and the city *will* end up paying on this. Especially in this day and age of viral videos, and the fact this guy *did* nothing *wrong*.
Plus, this is SWAT. They'll kill babies in cribs, and then justify it later, if you're lucky. Most of the time they just walk away with a smug "mission accomplished" attitude, while not realizing they are just terrorists.
I think it's incredibly wrong of them to term this "paramilitary force". The term itself implies a level of professionalism and accountability that you would find in the military, and it's a widely known fact, that LEO & SWAT are neither professional, well trained like the military, have accountability like the military, etc. Look at that jackass pulling the Reno 911 comedy hour at the pool party. SWAT is that guy, but with much better weapons and a default state of making everything and everybody FUBAR ASAP.
SWAT is not paramilitary. They're just semi-trained thugs with some military training, that have been trained to see civilians as the enemy, and that house as the war zone. Golly gee willickers, I'm sure surpised the guy's house turned out to be a war zone just like they trained....
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Thursday June 11 2015, @05:14AM
By police, you mean city will pay. And they most likely will. But in the meantime, the homeowner will most likely have to go via insurance and insurance will then sue city to get money.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday June 11 2015, @02:44PM
It's the shoplifter who has to pay. He might have the police pay for SOME of the damage IF he proves it was not needed, or that the police made more damage intentionally. He might have stolen a needle but he provoked all the consequences.
One thing is clear, the home owner should receive compensation for the time lost because of the wreckage, not pay a dime.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @07:58PM
FWIW Greenwood Village is a pretty conservative municipality, so I'm not surprised that they have/support a highly militarized police force.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @08:10PM
I hope the property owner is a conservative...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday June 10 2015, @08:52PM
I really love how liberal scum are so vocally against police militarization and oppression.
And yet they will gladly vote to regulate what sizes of soda others must drink, what others can eat, what others can smoke, what others are allowed to say, what kind of bags others must use for groceries, what others must do with the water those others already paid for, micromanaging the fornication of college students, and how parents must raise their own children, to name a few.
What I would like to see is for all the steroid-addled militarized police swine be released into the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, and Boston; where the pigs would be given license to curb-stomp and summarily execute the liberal scum.
It'll give a whole new meaning to the phrase -- heh -- "trigger warning."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday June 10 2015, @08:55PM
Libertarian scum are opposed to police militarization and fatass taxes et al.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by captnjohnny1618 on Wednesday June 10 2015, @09:12PM
In fact, I'm not sure ANY one group is in favor of police militarization... other than the police of course.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday June 10 2015, @09:52PM
The police unions, like all public employee unions, agitate for more money, newer gear, and whatever else may benefit them. The most egregious example is in California, where the prison guards union spent a significant amount of money to lobby against liberalized cannabis laws. More prisoners means more work for them.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:05PM
Yes, because private employees never want new equipment, we're all happy with 20 year old shit that barely works some of the time.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:24PM
That's all fine and dandy when your business model doesn't depend on incarcerating people. But soon it will be your turn, and then you'll have plenty of time to lick the shiny new boots of the prison guards once they lock you up for smoking marijuana or torrenting Justin Bieber's new album. Those happy prison guards will be sure to thank you for those shiny new boots and riot shields as they throw you unprotected into a cell with a large Black man who was imprisoned for serial anal rape.
The guards will go home to their wives and kids happy that punks like you keep breaking the law, and then they will shine those nice new boots your incarceration paid for. They will be eating dinner with their families while you are biting the pillow and being opened up by a monstrous Black cock the thickness of a 24 oz. can of Miller.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:35PM
You believe Hollywood prison is an accurate portrayal of real prison. That's cute.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday June 11 2015, @02:00AM
My brother has been to prison multiple times. Rape happens but not nearly as much as depicted in media. However, you will get the shit beat out of you if you fart before walking yourself to the bathroom and actually sitting down on the pot with your pants dropped. Think about that next time you illegally steal that Katy Perry album.
Or were you talking about white-collar prison?
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Thursday June 11 2015, @02:27AM
IMHO, that's what it boils down to. There are a few systems like hard-line communism where you can blame the system as the primary cause. We see Democratic Socialist states that are run humanely. We even see fairly hard right states that are not too bad. Of course both of these systems can turn quite sour. Good ol' republics can too. Any system. Laissez-faire capitalism? Worker exploitation. School system? Pass illiterates on to the next grade. Prison system? Let 'em run amok. Computer system? My God, it's full of malware. Why? Human scum.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @03:16PM
As opposed to legally stealing it?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:53PM
In fact, I'm not sure ANY one group is in favor of police militarization
Authoritarians? I see people who support the police no matter what they do.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:50PM
That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with there, but I'm a midwestern liberal who doesn't like police states but couldn't give a damn about any of the rest of that stuff. Maybe I'd be a moderate if I went to a state anyone actually cared about?
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 11 2015, @03:14AM
Hmm, I don't think that would turn out the way you think it would. Liberals have guns, too, and even if they didn't at first it would not take long for them to acquire them in the United States. All you have to do is seize a squad car and you're pretty sure to be up at least a shotgun. A precinct, which is just a building in the neighborhood, holds even more guns. It should also be noted that you do not need to use a gun to kill someone with a gun. Booby traps, IEDs, speeding cars, good old-fashioned crossbows, lots of ways. Then you can walk over to the dead and dying cops and acquire their guns. The only thing a population needs is some combination of anger, courage, and/or desperation to find the proper motivation. And big cities do tend to attract highly skilled, creative, and motivated people because they get paid more there. So I bet you dollars to donuts they'd find some really unique and innovative ways to resist such moves.
Next it's important to remember that American cops and soldiers come from the places you want them to oppress, so you'll be asking them to oppress their friends, family, and neighbors. They are not Hessians or some other body of foreign mercenaries who could not care less how many blocks of Cleveland they flatten with napalm. So some of them will refuse those orders and fight back (See Syria).
Last, I read liberal and conservative sites all the time because I have come to believe that they really have most things in common and that they point fingers at each other and call each other names because billions of dollars are spent in all kinds of ways to condition them to do that. And I see as much anger and concern on conservative sites about police militarization and oppression as I do on liberal ones. In what I take as an encouraging sign, more on both sides of that artificial divide are coming to understand that Republicans are as bad as Democrats and vice versa, and more of them are pointing fingers in the same, right direction. They're not yet putting their arms around each other's shoulders and singing "We Shall Overcome," but baby steps, baby steps.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday June 11 2015, @03:21AM
I really love how liberal scum are so vocally against police militarization and oppression.
Result: Less death.
And yet they will gladly vote to regulate what sizes of soda others must drink, what others can eat, what others can smoke...
Result: Less death.
("Result: Less death.") == ("Result: Less death.") // True
Sorry, I'm having trouble following your train of thought on this one.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday June 11 2015, @03:34AM
Less Death = more births.
so more births = less costs through lower wages for everybody! Big business wins. The lower-class grows while the middle class loses.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday June 11 2015, @01:39PM
Not really. If you stop someone from dying at 40, and instead they die at 80, what are the odds they're going to have kids in those extra years? Pretty slim. The kinds of deaths caused by drinking too much soda specifically are unlikely to be the kinds of deaths that prevent people from reproducing.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:08PM
but even so the city council authorized the purchase of an armored personnel carrier for the SCPD.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 11 2015, @02:57AM
Yeah, why is that? Why does a police department need an armored personnel carrier, or a tank, or machine guns? Do they anticipate armed insurrection? It seems to me the further they militarize, the more likely that scenario becomes.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday June 10 2015, @08:01PM
A 9-year-old child who was in the home at the time was able to escape.
The homeowner should shut up and be glad the cops didn't shoot his kid in the back. I'm kind of surprised they didn't. That's what I expect from cops now. They are more dangerous than the criminals.
This is a paramilitary force used in a civilian environment
We've gone beyond paramilitary and into infantry operating as a civilian occupation force. We don't have cops anymore, I think the initial plan was "Dirty Harry" and "Magnum Force" but we got "Blackhawk Down" instead.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 10 2015, @08:17PM
You're getting carried away, probably because you don't understand the words you are using. The police are still a paramilitary force, even in the most militarized cities. They are not an infantry force. There isn't a police department in this country that could go up against an equal sized infantry force. It's one thing to terrorize an unarmed civilian population, it's quite another thing to face off against a well armed, well trained combat unit. The cops would fall apart for the very same reasons that punkass street thugs fall apart when facing the police force. Lack of training, lack of discipline, lack of firepower - they would be entirely out of their element.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday June 10 2015, @08:45PM
Seems to boil down to any infantry unit that a US Army infantry unit could defeat isn't an infantry unit.
Or rephrased you may even be correct, but you need a better argument than the above.
Was, say, the pre-invasion Iraqi army an infantry force by your definition? I'd say not. They may not have been an excellent one, but...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @09:22PM
Also throw in that police are currently better armed than the US Army were during that invasion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @02:45AM
Superior training and discipline trumps superior equipment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @03:21PM
So let's fight well-trained soldiers with sticks and stones against untrained soldiers with tanks and machine guns. Surely the well-trained soldiers will win, right?
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:38PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 11 2015, @01:10AM
The Iraq army was indeed an army, composed of infantry, artillery, engineers, and much more. I watched that army in action against Iran's army in the early 80's. Until you have seen an army in action, you really don't know what an army is.
You might take note of the fact that a police force can and does lose control of it's city. When that happens, the governor usually sends in the National Guard to take control back. The NG is in fact an infantry force. Few people are stupid enough to challenge the Guard. Almost all rational people understand that the presence of NG is a game changer.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday June 11 2015, @02:48AM
correction, there are infantry units in the National Guard, but the National Guard is far more than just infantry. the guard has spots for every MOS, even 19-series (SOF).
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 11 2015, @05:45PM
I stand corrected - I knew better, I simply wrote what I meant in a very sloppy manner. But, you do amplify my point - there is no comparison between a paramilitary and a military force.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 11 2015, @02:51AM
Really? When I was in high school we regularly played paint ball with one of our friend's older brother's National Guard unit. They had compressed air rifles and all the toys. We used slingshots because none of us could afford the real guns. We beat them every time with the exception of once--they were constant suckers for the old trick of a fishing line jiggling a bush to get them emptying their clips in the wrong direction. Maybe not all National Guard units are created equal, but surely a trained infantry force should do better than that against untrained high school kids with slingshots?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @10:24AM
Problem is when your cops do that too.
Definitely not the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. Too many cops are cowards - they are unwilling to put their life on the line or even a bit at risk to "serve and protect". That's why they use excessive force. It's a lot safer for you if you can just blow people and stuff away from a distance.
I'm a coward too, but I don't pretend to be a policeman.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 11 2015, @05:50PM
AC's response is on target. Infantry is generally trained to respond to threats with a high volume of fire. I don't really agree with that doctrine, but then, I'm not infantry. I'm just an ex-squid who only carried a rifle on several dozen occasions. When the shit really hit the fan, we got the hell out of the way and let the Marines take care of business.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 11 2015, @06:28PM
I was responding to the characterization of the National Guard as a "game changer." I've never heard the National Guard spoken of in such lofty terms. My whole life I've heard them disparaged as "weekend warriors," and my own narrow interaction with them leaned much more toward that than "game changers."
My response to the notion of any brand of US military being invincible is further complicated by my recollections of a different conflict in SE Asia a long time ago, long before this latest round of nonsense, in which an equally invincible US military was beaten by a bunch of guys who couldn't read and who didn't have shoes.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 11 2015, @08:02PM
LOL - I think you're attributing to much to my use of the term. ANY military force is a game changer in terms of domestic law enforcement. The terms "military" and "para-military" are quite revealing when you examine them.
The NG and the reserves are "weekend warriors", and they are deserving of some harassment and even ridicule from the full-time professional military. But, they remain a huge cut above a police force.
Invincible? Nooooo - not hardly. Professional or not, our military is put to political uses for which it is not suited. Korea was the first time that happened, Vietnam was worse, and more recent conflicts have been no better.
The purpose of a military is to break an enemy. The military is not a nation building tool. Our military's proper role in Afghanistan should have involved a short campaign of 6 to 18 months, and it should have been labeled a "punitive campaign". It should never have been referred to as a war. We should have kicked ass, taken prisoners, destroyed infrastructure, taken more prisoners, destroyed all means of waging war, and then GET THE HELL OUT. Nation building is not a proper role for a military force. Dumbass politicians can make believe that it is a proper role, but that doesn't make it so in real life.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday June 11 2015, @02:17AM
The Iraqi Army (during Saddam's era) was the largest infantry force in the world, as I remember.
It fell swiftly to the US because of US air and naval power, not because it was a crappy infantry force. The US also had better-equipped mechanized forces, operating in tandem with complete air superiority (Iraqi's military had crappy old Soviet tanks). The Iraqi infantry had no chance against all that.
(Score: 1) by draconx on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:04PM
The 9-year-old called 911 and was instructed to leave immediately. So I imagine that he was, fortunately, gone before the police arrived. It does not sound like the shoplifter tried to stop the boy.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:01PM
I'd say they better resemble Roscoe P. Coltrane with a box of grenades and a tank to play with.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @08:47PM
poor man.
should have planted some silverware on the cops when they were leaving, ha!
(Score: 5, Informative) by Silentknyght on Wednesday June 10 2015, @08:49PM
The Greenwood Village city manager said they are in talks with the homeowner to pay for damages to the house. They are also working with the family who was renting the home to find temporary and permanent housing. Additionally, the city says it is paying the deductible on insurance for neighbors whose homes and vehicles were also damaged during the standoff.
So, while on paper, the force used does seem excessive, at least the reparations being made are reasonable. I've got to fault the renter for not having renters insurance. Shit happens.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday June 10 2015, @09:35PM
I think the police are generally too aggressive in most situations, but this is a guy who fired at them. In my books, once that happens you can use all force available. If you think surrounding the place and waiting him out is an option, but this is a guy who has no qualms about shooting at police . I guess you could evacuate the surrounding blocks as a precaution against him hitting civilians, but the safest course in some of these cases is the aggressive one.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:04PM
In my books, once that happens you can use all force available.
Thankfully, cooler heads prevail in most cases.
All the force available includes quite a lot of force. Way too much force. Easily able to kill bystanders.
They had the guy contained. Just needed to wait him out.
The situation here is that society seems to think that a criminal needs to be caught at all costs.
So "All Costs" should include making an innocent party whole. And that cost should be born by society, probably the municipality.
This is a from of "taking" [wikipedia.org]. It should be treated as such, and the city, county, state, should foot the bill.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Nerdfest on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:30PM
I agree that the state should pay for damages, (recouping them from the offender if possible through the courts).
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday June 11 2015, @12:01AM
Some aggression would be in order, but blowing 6 foot holes in the outside wall of every room on the 2nd floor? Another couple explosions and it honestly looks like the house would have just collapsed on him. And explosions big enough to damage the neighbor's property?!?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Aichon on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:07PM
Also worth mentioning was something one of the officers said in a video: the suspect was high as a kite and still had another 320g of meth on him when they captured him. More or less, he had gotten it into his head that nothing was getting him out of that house, and he was wired up such that they really weren't going to get him out in any way other than kicking and dragging.
I'm not suggesting it justifies what they did, but it does help to explain it.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:11PM
What did you expect the officers to say?
"Oh, no, we could have tempted him out with a bucket of Kernel Sanders, but this seemed like more fun!".
There will always be a horror story from police, which always ends with words to the effect of "get him off the streets".
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Bogsnoticus on Thursday June 11 2015, @12:03AM
"Oh, no, we could have tempted him out with a bucket of Kernel Sanders, but this seemed like more fun!".
Kernel Sanders. Is that the tool you use when you need to polish up some rough code?
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by Katastic on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:34PM
The problem is, the value of a house is not merely the net cost to replace those goods.
You blow up a blanket my wife made for our first child, and all you give me is the $5 it costs to buy one from Wal-Mart. You have not compensated me for my true losses.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:41PM
I expect the insurance company will sue the city but it should not have to. The right thing would be for the city to cover the entire cost so the insurance company does not have to deal with it.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday June 10 2015, @09:04PM
I don't recall what the suspect was wanted for, but the police chased him into my friend's house. The suspect climbed into the attic. After the police shattered the windows with tear gas grenades, they sent a K-9 up into the attic to corner the guy.
While they were able to repair most of the damage, some damage remains. The police were unwilling to compensate them for the repair nor for the emotional trauma they experienced. In principal they could have won compensation by pressing a lawsuit but that is a huge pain in the ass, expensive and time consuming.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @09:46PM
You were the suspect hiding in your friend's house, yes?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:30PM
Wouldn't he remember what he was wanted for?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:34PM
MDC is a self-proclaimed mental case. He's got holes in his memory, and doesn't remember who he was at the time.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:43PM
You are referring to Dissociative Identity Disorder. I have Bipolar-Type Schizoaffective Disorder.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:53PM
Do you enjoy feeding the trolls specifically, or do you just love to see the words drip from your fingertips as you type?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:20PM
That sounds more like LSD than schizoaffective disorder if you're seeing words drip from your fingertips.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @01:46AM
Lsd (and other serotonergic hallucinogens) and schizoaffective disorder are quite similar, but the fx on lsd are much much more better and the duration much shorter.
Anticholinergics and full blown psychosis are quite similar and the follow the same pattern.
Dissociatives (mk801,Diphenidine, PCP, Ketamine) are quite similar to...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:40PM
... but for those who come along later and read what the trolls had to say. If I don't respond to correct false statements, those later readers might not understand that they are false or even defamatory.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @12:02AM
And your concern is solely for your own reputation.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday June 11 2015, @01:38AM
That's why I posted Make a Bonfire of Your Reputations [warplife.com] on my site fifteen years ago.
Being concerned for accuracy is not the same as being concerned for my reputation. For example I am completely cool with other people knowing that I spend lots of time in mental hospitals and jails.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @01:52AM
Did you ever tried dissociatives drugs, not shit like lsd or coke or meth or cannabis but something like DXM, Diphenidine or Ketamine. I am pretty sure you would like that, the void is so peaceful and when it's not you don't remember. I excluded PCP from my list as a week long hypomania episode is not that funny....
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:20PM
In principal they could have won compensation by pressing a lawsuit but that is a huge pain in the ass, expensive and time consuming.
So you add that on to the claim. And the lawyer fees. And your time.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @09:17PM
The police simply forgot which continent they were on. America destroys lives and property on a daily basis, but as long as it happens Overseas, then it's OK, right?
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:11PM
... to fight in the war. "Why can't daddy stay home to fight?"
"Because wars are illegal in the United States."
Out Of The Mouths Of Babes.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:31PM
Daddy should be a remote drone pilot. Then he can stay at home and fight in the war at the same time.
(Score: 5, Informative) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:05PM
The assault, rape, and fiery death of the Petit family in Connecticut in 2007 [wikipedia.org] no doubt weights heavily on the police there, who in their caution delayed, allowing the time for the rapes, murder, and fire.
So how do you know what a surrounded felon will do unless you kick in the doors and prevent them from doing worse? Or should there be some protocol depending on if hostages are taken or otherwise stuck inside?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:10PM
When it's overseas, it's "spreading freedom"; when it's at home, it's "protecting freedoms"
Either way, we lose
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:17PM
If it were heavily armored swat teams kicking a door down, that would be fine.
You need to go look at the pictures in TFS links. This wasn't that.
This was serious cowardice on the part of police.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:19PM
Aaaah, I see where you're going with this! Defending the excessive use of force.
They didn't need to nearly destroy the place. Go in through the front door with a battering ram, clear each room without using explosives. Not that hard. The military do it daily. Excessive force should be reserved for special cases, not some mook holding up in a house.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @01:12AM
An appropriate amount of force, and no more, would be fine in any situation. No exceptions for any "special cases." If it's excessive force, then it was an unnecessary amount; that's why it's called excessive force.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by urza9814 on Thursday June 11 2015, @02:15PM
As others have pointed out, there's a difference between justified use of force and damn near flattening the house...
But beyond that, this was not a hostage situation, and they knew that the entire time. They had multiple ways to confirm that. First, they got a call from a kid inside the house when the suspect first broke in. That kid escaped, and the kid would have known nobody else was in the house. Secondly, they didn't start bombing the place until after they spent some time negotiating with the suspect. If the guy had hostages or something, that would have certainly come up during the negotiations.
They took their time, they carefully assessed the situation, they determined it was a single armed suspect...and THEN they decided to respond with every weapon in their arsenal. They seem to have had the situation well enough controlled to wait the guy out, which certainly would have been the safest option. Back up a bit, quarantine the area, and the worst he can do is destroy the house -- which is no worse than what the cops did anyway! Or use the quicker option -- send the SWAT team in to do what they're trained to do. They've got bullet-proof armor, they've got stun grenades, they've got tear gas, they've got tazers and shotguns and rifles and maybe some laser weapons and all manner of technology and training specifically for dealing with this sort of situation *without* causing this level of harm to innocent third parties.
But they wanted to sit back and play Call of Duty with an innocent guy's house instead.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:48PM
Release the tiger?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Thursday June 11 2015, @03:23AM
I wonder what the resident would have said if the police had given him the choice "we can leave you in there with the home invader, or we can damage your walls and get him". Someone would be complaining either way.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday June 11 2015, @07:53AM
I'm sure there would have been options to get in without causing that much damage. Like, breaking just the door instead of the complete wall.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday June 11 2015, @02:17PM
Leave who in there? There was nobody else in there! And they knew that the whole time! They had the kid who escaped to tell them, and they also certainly should have determined that during the negotiations. Both of which would have provided that information long before they started shelling the place.
(Score: 1) by dusty monkey on Thursday June 11 2015, @04:25AM
it seems to me that the near future (of america) will unfold thusly:
1. the people will demand body cams on police to the point that they become nearly universal
2. in spite of this the police will continue to mostly not be held accountable for obviously egregious acts of corruption, violence, and murder
3. due to the body cam footage appearing on youtube more and more people will fear and distrust the police
4. this fear and distrust will lead to increasing amounts of violence against police
5. the increasing amounts of violence against the police will lead to increasing amounts of unprovoked violence commit by police
- when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil - stop supporting evil -
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @07:17AM
I used to read these stories and feel shocked and surprised. Now they're just so routine that I barely have the patience to read through to the end. It's just who we are now; the new America. Honestly, the most surprising bit for me was the commenter who said the city was covering the deductibles and damages and also finding lodging for those displaced (the renters). To be fair, I couldn't be bothered to verify that claim, they mentioned Fox News so who knows... Sure, if it ever happens in my neighborhood or to me specifically then I'm sure I'll cry foul but until then, fuck it.
I've been watching things degrade for a long time and I kept thinking that people would wise up and start rolling back some of the more extreme laws/policies. After all, the lawmakers and officials who craft the laws have to live here too, right? They can't possibly be okay with a SWAT team performing this type of "mission" or doing no-knock morning raids and throwing flash-bangs in baby cribs because that same force might someday be used against someone they care about. Nope... They love the militarization of the police. They don't give a shit about it ever affecting them because, well, it simply won't.
Hell, I'm already boring myself...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @06:39PM
They don't give a shit about it ever affecting them because, well, it simply won't.
And that's why I'm actually not that against SWATting. If a few more of the big shots get SWATed things might change.
In other countries if a prankster calls the police on someone the odds of people getting killed/hurt are pretty low. And thus the malicious pranksters aren't as keen on using that method there - not so much effect.
So the problem of SWATing is 90% the fault of the US cops and 10% the pranksters.