Sure it does.Yep, still does not justify destroying someones home.
Innocent life > Property everyday of the week.
Sure it does.Yep, still does not justify destroying someones home.
I know exactly what you mean by the effectiveness of a no knock warrant, and while it has been useful in cases there have also been too many misuses and mistakes made with these tactics that it has left innocent civilians killed or seriously injured.
Why should the owner or the owners insurance company incur any loss? The cities insurance should cover these situations.
Thanks you..Maybe some actual facts would help rather than what the media is telling people to think?
https://greenwoodvillage.com/Docume...ease---City-Response-to-Leo-Lech-Ruling-Final
What if someones home is paid for and they don't have insurance?
Why should the owner or the owners insurance company incur any loss? The cities insurance should cover these situations.
I'm not sure @tistan knows what insurance is for.That’s just stupid unless they have that cash to blow.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sure thing: @97desertCobra
the camouflage is for concealment(would you want to be on an inner perimeter with an armed suspect inside a house peeking through windows?). It’s also intimidating for suspects and definitely prompts their surrender.
The suppressors are for distinguishing between team guys and bad guys gunfire. People have some misconception that suppressors make the gun quiet, which they do not. They are still loud, although you can shoot them without ear protection.
As far as no knock warrants, that’s a safety issue. No knock warrants are typically reserved for violent and armed suspects when the mere notification of an impending warrant execution can incite a very dangerous reaction. Lives have been saved by no knocks. It’s not like these are speeding ticket warrants that are being no knocked. These people are the worst of the worst and can and sometimes do shoot at police. The use of no knock warrants is judicious and predicated upon certain circumstances. The element of surprise and violence of action saves lives of police and suspects alike.
Bro this kind of needs to be put into perspective a little more. There are rare instances where no knocks were botched for whatever reason. Those rare instances should be addressed and learning from mistakes does occur. But to say no knocks shouldn’t happen at all is a bit reactionary and closed minded.I have issues with camouflage being used because it’s intimidating. It’s not only intimidating to the perp but also to the general public. Something as simple as being in all grey or OD green would go a long way in public perception.
No knock raids also result in innocent Americans getting killed in the process. And the officers are never held responsible, even after severely injuring a baby in their crib nobody is held responsible.
I can see how it could be more safe for officers, but at the expense of innocent Americans and for that I find it unacceptable.
We fundamentally disagree on this issue but I appreciate you giving your in.
Have to put it to use
“...home insurance company paid him $345,000 for the damage but that amount did not come close to covering additional costs related to personal property damage, demolishing and rebuilding the home and taking out a new mortgage on the new “
I would like to see pictures of the house before it got demolished, it probably would have been cheaper to fix it than to completely demolish it and rebuild.
Do you not have car insurance because your car is paid off?What do you not understand about not everyone has home owners insurance? Would they be forced to eat the cost of the damages caused by the police?
Do you not have car insurance because your car is paid off?
Thanks you..
I just wish I could see the new house, probably the reason his expenditures went so high