114
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2024
114 points (96.0% liked)
News
38985 readers
3055 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't know that 'typical place' is the way to do it when it was clearly someone dangerous enough for them to send in armored vehicles. At least wait until they get out of a residential area? Just put a tail on them.
Ah yes, the places without people that people often go to. If they were already this dangerous the situation would have simply been worse by putting them in non-residential areas where other innocent people could have been caught in the crossfire.
In my city, we made national news because the cops served a warrant on a guy while he was driving. Next to a park. Which he proceeded to run through and grabbed several hostages and then killed them. The best area, and worst, is their home. They could be armed and ready to fight like this, but it’s better than facing off with them in shopping areas, businesses, parking lots with others, or anywhere else.
The better question is why is someone who continues to be so dangerous for society that we need a response like this allowed to both be out freely, and have access to firearms.
Maybe there wasn't a better place to serve the warrant on him than a residential neighborhood tightly packed enough for five people to be injured in the crossfire, but I find that hard to believe.
You’re commenting on something with literally zero information. The most we know right now is that the guy the warrant was initially for was shot right out front in the very beginning in an exchange right at the go. Someone was inside the house, heard it, and opened fire on the cops/Marshals. Look at the helicopter views of the house. It’s pretty open. That’s the problem, there was no cover, they had an additional suspect open fire on their position. That’s all we know. You’re speculating something while being 100% ignorant.
Asking that warrants be served “not somewhere residential” (meaning at the suspects home) however is also incredibly stupid. Cops take risks. They know the job, and sometimes shit goes bad, but maybe shopping centers are better for serving warrants in?
There are places in this world other than residential neighborhoods and shopping centers.
And you're speculating as much as I am since you are insisting the warrant couldn't have been served elsewhere.
Do criminals go to completely empty fields often? Do they find themselves in areas with no other people around? The one area where innocent people are likely to not be around between… say 8am-3pm M-F is? A residential area. Look at heat maps of suburban cities and how they basically completely lose population during the day. The one major business park I live by causes the city of 100k to nearly double in population during those working hours.
I’m not saying that each situation couldn’t call for something more tactical regarding apprehension, but considering the hour and day served it at least wasn’t during a time when people were likely to be around. There really aren’t a lot of areas in a major metro like Charlotte where you could safely serve a warrant without innocent people being around.
You’re literally arguing over cops being shot. They did their job. It sucks they died, and I hope their families get support and help, but had this been innocent people this would have been a massive fuck up.
I was arguing that if the cops did it somewhere else, they wouldn't have died. But apparently that's too ridiculous a concept for most people.
It’s not a ridiculous concept, it’s one that’s been tried and failed. Do you want innocent people hurt, or do you want the guys wearing body armor and with guns to be the ones that (potentially) get hurt. The risk is generally a lot less for them to get hurt than civilians. Your point only makes sense if there was only the one person doing this, and even then it doesn’t matter. This was the safest alternative to what would have happened if this had been served elsewhere save for an empty field. Police tactics learn from mistakes (mostly because the FBI puts this all together and makes them learn it). Here’s what happened in 86 when the FBI tried to arrest two known felons in an open field: Link
Don’t act like a victim when you’re simply ignorant and should just listen first before speaking.
I knew there'd be some awful takes in here, and boy are you delivering.
Oh. My take was that they sent in armored vehicles after shooting started.
There was a 3 hour stand off so it is likely they requested armored assistance as things developed.
Based on the description in the article, it sounds like it was used to extract someone to an ambulance, not in assaulting the house.
Hm. Maybe? One of us is right, but I have no idea which of us.
It's probably not the one suggesting the police waited until the wanted criminal was in a quiet spot with nobody around.
The "typical place" is usually wherever they find the person, especially if they're holed up at home.
People hiding from the cops don't tend to get out much.