How well would we respond if someone was killed because the police waited saying "We didn't want to damage the house, we figured he was just taking a nap or something."
How well would we respond if someone was killed because the police waited saying "We didn't want to damage the house, we figured he was just taking a nap or something."
https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/
We are looking at this article with hindsight that his only crime was taking the belt, but you can't know that _at the time_, and given that these officers see shootings, robberies, and murders on a regular basis, its impossible to make the assumption that "well he's probably just harmless, lets wait this out".
I pose this simple question -- if someone broke into your house, armed, and fired shots. Would you wait it out, or assume the worst? If you assumed the worst, and that meant sacrificing your property to possibly save your life and the life of your family, but then it turned out the guy was just looking for a few items to sell, and wasn't really that bad, would you say you made the wrong call?
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
Police in the US are responsible for about 1000 firearm deaths each year, and getting increasingly aggressive towards innocent Americans
Police militarization increases this aggression at no benefit to the public
If the police blew up my house and offered a snarky apology after escalating the situation far beyond what was necessary, I'd be angry. Your question isn't simple, it's leading.
"Let me ask you a question that is totally different from what happened and will give me an answer I'm satisfied with"
If there were (which I don't think is the case from the article), were they in more danger from the suspect or the police?