Thx, Dark.
And TG, the issue here is beyond tit-for-
tat or dollar value of the house.
It’s a constitutional issue and it’s about dangerous precedents.
Your defense of the police action in this specific instance is a defense of an armed state’s power to use their weapons of war however the state pleases, without any fear of judicial restraint or popular resistance.
My position in regard to the specific case is, the thug was inside a house, alone, surrounded by cops.
At some point, the dude would have assessed his options & chosen suicide (which may have left a mess of brains, but the house would have remained standing), suicide by cop, or surrender & be arrested.
The cops assessed *their* options: wait for him to get tired & surrender, wait for the opportunity for a sniper to take him out, or
decide they couldn’t wait & preferred to show off their big scary war toys instead.
And why did they choose the latter option?
To protect the public?
The public wasn’t in the house and wasn’t in danger.
Or because they could?
You’re in fact supporting a rotten judicial decision which sets an ati-constitutional precedent.
Far from protecting the public, it actually *sends a message* to the public: the cops get to have the **assault weapons** and do with them as they please, without restraint or penalty— and you don’t.
The state gets to commit crimes without penalty, and you dont.
I believe the cops acted as they did because they fully *intended* to send that message to the public: look what we’ve got, and look what we can do, and we can do this to you, too, and you can’t do anything about it.
So the fact that a bad guy was in the house is irrelevant to the property owner’s reasonable expectation that his property —
as spelled out in the BOR—must remain safe from armed invasion & demolition in peacetime, as well as his reasonable expectation that he himself, in future, will be safe in his own home from unrestrained assault by agents of the state.
This judicial decision erodes those reasonable expectations.
Welcome.
Sadly, we do have posters here who are fans of police flexing their “authoritah” on the people.
They’d have been sturmabtielung in a different time.
Police also caused about $70,000 worth of damage to the house next door and insurance refused to compensate that homeowner, but the city only offered $2,000, Maxam said.
Your opponent likes to go on about insurance covering the main protagonist's house - but ABSOLUTELY refuses to discuss the guy next door, who got shafted by his insurance people, and apparently didn't have the wherewithal to drag the smirking "public servants" into court.
“Your defense of the police action in this specific instance is a defense of an armed state’s power to use their weapons of war however the state pleases, without any fear of judicial restraint or popular resistance.”
You lie worse than Schiff!