Originally Posted by
Jer
So here's the kicker, agencies involved have come out saying they're not responsible and pointing the finger elsewhere. Meanwhile homeowner is displaced and we just had tornadoes, hail and flooding a day or two later so his stuff is trashed. This was a complete fail by the agency and it's time that higher ups start thinking shit through better. Destroying homes, skating blame & no-knocks for people growing a little bit of pot needs to be curtailed quick, fast & in a hurry.
Jer - Agree on the no-knocks. They are way over-used and have morphed into SOP for many jurisdictions with sometimes tragic results. If you look at most of the ones that end up at wrong address with the homeowner at that address being injured/killed it is pretty apparent that there is a lot of we're too high speed to do a basic plan, combined with a lack of, as I said in an earlier post, tactical acumen. Just stupid stuff. Also agree that the city should pony up to fix and then seek compensation from the suspect.
It's bad enough the situation went down the way it did but to leave a man & his family out in the cold during tornado/flood/hail season while accepting no responsibility is just wrong. Period. At minimum the least they could have done was to get his place fixed yesterday, replace all of his belongings and ask him what the most convenient place for he & his family to stay is in the meantime. The tax payers need to foot the bill (no way in HELL his insurance premiums should be affected by this kind of BS) and then whoever is responsible for making such decisions and green-lighting such buffoonery needs to be disciplined. I'm not for calling for another person's job as a livelihood is an important thing but in this case the tax payers were cost over a quarter of a million dollars & a family was displaced for very little reward all things considered. If that discipline includes dismissal then so be it.
Once again, I agree on the damages - fixed/replaced by agency/governmental entity, homeowners put up while repairs/rebuild - in this case they weren't a part of the criminal activities.
It's about time those who make these decisions in law enforcement are held accountable for said decisions because the blank check writing needs to stop. The constant violation of rights and safety of those you're sworn to protect needs to stop. You have a dangerous job, we get it.
I don't get whose and what rights were violated, was it the armed suspect's right to run into a random home, containing a 9-year old child? Should the police have left after the dispatcher and the child's mother were able to talk the youngster out of the house? "oh, okay, we're leaving now, whenever you want to let the homeowner back in, that's cool."
The way I see it the major flaws to the police plan (as listed in the story - understand we don't have details from both sides) was the fact that they apparently didn't evacuate the surrounding houses - it could have been there was no way to safely do so. Likewise - the post incident brush offs which were reported and the agency saying they aren't responsible are fails.
I'm just wondering, did you miss the part of the story that said ' Robert Jonathan Seacat, a suspected 33-year-old shoplifter who allegedly barged into a random home Wednesday afternoon, and opened fire on police when they tried to arrest him a short time later. In tactical plan-fu that is a barricaded shooter, and you don't assault barricaded shooters unless there are innocent lives at risk - police tactical ops are similar to military in at least one aspect - it is generally easier to defend then attack, the defender has the advantage unless it is an ambush.
You also get a great pay check and a substantial amount of power that you won't get doing anything else.
Last time I was in the Denver Metro Area for an extended period of time just happened to be for tactical training about a decade ago, at the time an Arby's near the residence hotel I was staying at was advertising for help in their window. The starting wage was more than most cops in my state start at, so you tell me about the riches.
In terms of power, it is true that the police are given a lot of situational power, but there is an entire criminal and civil justice system to review their decisions. Of course, this happens after the fact, but that is the case in most interactions whether it be medical care, appliance repair, or getting a tattoo.
Nobody forced you to choose the profession and you knew that it came with some degree of danger when you signed up.
This is true. There is some degree of danger. Officers should be expected to take reasonable steps to mitigate danger. That doesn't include creating a new risk of substantial injury to themselves in order to prevent damage to property.
To continually screw the general populace over again and again w/o recourse in the name of safety is just wrong and is what is fueling this anti-LE fire that is spreading rampant across the nation. This is the same trade-off anti-gun people keep ramping up in the name of safety. When you actually get down to the numbers of how many of these situations end in the loss of LE life the % become fractional. How much of our liberties would you like in the name of your safety?
BTW, the house has since been condemned.
When you give someone the power to do just about anything they want and then remove any recourse of damages related to said actions don't be surprised when they quickly get out of control with their actions.
Senior Member
Senior Member
- WillBrink /// "Comey is a smarmy, self righteous mix of J. Edgar Hoover and a gay Lurch from the "Adams Family"." -Averageman
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks