Case involving home damage from SWAT

Mojo88 said:

haha, I'm usually pretty calm, but after that post, and your subsequent post endorsing murderous no-knock raids, I need a couple of Xanax.............. I mean, what next, do you want the local cops to be driving up with Abrams tanks?? Or maybe we should just do drone strikes instead of no-knocks..... jeez..

Click to expand...

Not to toot his horn, but you so realize he is a popo. A cool popo, but one nonetheless and has experience with all that

If the cops felt that essentially totaling the house was the only way to serve justice to this perp then fine. But then the department and city owe the INNOCENT homeowner money. Enough to cover the cost of structural and cosmetic repair or construction of a new house.

I hate to say is to my Colorado friends, but its looking more and more like Coloradoforina...

The Police Dept should be 100% footing the bill for the damage. No need for that kind of force at all. It was a shop lifter, not a ****ing top 10 most wanted criminal.

His insurance should cover it. Talk to farmers they’ve seen it covered it they know a thing or two because they’ve seen a thing or two.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BlksvtCobra01 said:

His insurance should cover it. Talk to farmers they’ve seen it covered it they know a thing or two because they’ve seen a thing or two.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

What if someones home is paid for and they don't have insurance?

Mpoitrast87 said:

The Police Dept should be 100% footing the bill for the damage. No need for that kind of force at all. It was a shop lifter, not a ****ing top 10 most wanted criminal.

Click to expand...

Was the shop lifter armed?

tistan said:

What if someones home is paid for and they don't have insurance?

Click to expand...

Excuse me?

If the house was owned by a high ranking city official, rebuilding the home would be as simple as making Jill the intern write a purchase request, and Susie down the hall to say "approved." Taxpayers get the bill, who cares about an insurance claim!

Twisted2v said:

If the house was owned by a high ranking city official, rebuilding the home would be as simple as making Jill the intern write a purchase request, and Susie down the hall to say "approved." Taxpayers get the bill, who cares about an insurance claim!

Click to expand...

Machdup1 said:

Was the shop lifter armed?

Click to expand...

Yep, still does not justify destroying someones home.

Mpoitrast87 said:

Yep, still does not justify destroying someones home.

Click to expand...

uhhhh he was shooting at cops.....

still gonna be the perps side?
which side are you on exactly?


Further should the home owner go in and ask he kindly to move to the garden shed?

Im going to go research this shit a bit...

Does it suck the house was destroyed...yup...was it anyones fault the owener had it underinsured.....NOPE

Smooth said:

Excuse me?

Click to expand...

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?

Need 04 Wine said:

uhhhh he was shooting at cops.....

still gonna be the perps side?
which side are you on exactly?


Further should the home owner go in and ask he kindly to move to the garden shed?

Im going to go research this shit a bit...

Does it suck the house was destroyed...yup...was it anyones fault the owener had it underinsured.....NOPE

Click to expand...

I love law enforcement more than anyone on this forum. There have been many police stand offs throughout history that have ended without heavy damage to someones property. Using an armored vehicle to plow through someone’s front door is ludacris and is piss poor training.

Mpoitrast87 said:

I love law enforcement more than anyone on this forum. There have been many police stand offs throughout history that have ended without heavy damage to someones property. Using an armored vehicle to plow through someone’s front door is ludacris and is piss poor training.

Click to expand...

Ima guess and say that it was not a decision that was taken lightly or barely talked about.....

However someone with much much much more insider knowledge could prolly tell you just how many phone calls would be needed before you brought out the AV.

Im guessing steve the new driver didn't get to make the call on that one.

19 hours holy crap I wonder how many people were displaced from their homes within the radius?

Swat for shoplifting! Remember this pic of Dems in power? Janet Reno Eric Holder Slick Billy picking up little Gonzales.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

tistan said:

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?

Click to expand...

Because someone's home is paid for they don't need insurance? Seriously?

And to answer your second question, yes.

Mpoitrast87 said:

I love law enforcement more than anyone on this forum.

Click to expand...

I doubt it.

tistan said:

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?

Click to expand...

You have insurance in case shit happens. If shit happens to someone’s uninsured home then that’s unfortunate, but that’s not the topic of conversation. The homeowner did have insurance.

Mpoitrast87 said:

I love law enforcement more than anyone on this forum. There have been many police stand offs throughout history that have ended without heavy damage to someones property. Using an armored vehicle to plow through someone’s front door is ludacris and is piss poor training.

Click to expand...

Piss poor training? Next time someone is shooting at people I’m going to ask you personally go and resolve the situation, since you apparently are the expert in getting shooters out of houses without breaking anything.

TK1299 said:

You have insurance in case shit happens. If shit happens to someone’s uninsured home then that’s unfortunate, but that’s not the topic of conversation. The homeowner did have insurance.


Piss poor training? Next time someone is shooting at people I’m going to ask you personally go and resolve the situation, since you apparently are the expert in getting shooters out of houses without breaking anything.

Click to expand...

Why should the owner or the owners insurance company incur any loss? The cities insurance should cover these situations.

TK1299 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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. When a mistake is made like a wrong address, it puts that law abiding citizen in an imminent death situation if they grab a firearm to defend their home. I wish I could get rid of the commentator on this video but this case lays it out pretty clearly how they can be abused and luckily in this case the judges smacked the city down pretty swiftly.


I think about this situation all the time because I know if I heard someone break into my home in the middle of the night without announcing who they are I am grabbing my gun and I'm going to fight back and will likely die if it ends up being the PD. On top of that, there are two of my exact apartment numbers in my complex because there is an old section and a new section and people mistake mine for the other and so on. So in this raid if I take one of theirs do you think they are all going to stop and say "hey, maybe we need to stop because have the wrong address"? No, they are going to come at me with even more ferocity because they think they have their man and all the while I think I just killed an intruder, but they wont stop until I am dead or all of them are dead. It isn't fair to citizens to have to deal with the mistakes of their local PD or whatever agency is conducting these raids. It's a bad idea unless you are actually conducting military operations. As an assault force you have more than enough resources to take out a threat and in a much safer manner considering trying to take someone barricaded in their own home is the single most dangerous action you can take as an assaulting force. Last I remember, it was an 83% casualty rate while conducting CQB operations so doing raids should really be one of the last options on any department's list.

I'm all for LE and special operations LE being well equipped to conduct their jobs but as a civilian now who knows the other side of the job there are a lot of concerns that I dont know can be justified in regards to public safety.