Quote:
Originally posted by DavidI
For those of you who are completely against entries into a home, how would you have handled it?
|
Maybe I'm guilty of making too many assumptions here, David. With all the talk on this BBS about the unwarranted entry in Strickland's home, and this comment, it appears to me you are the one trying to link the two. The clear inference (to me, anyway) is that we can look forward to more public place shoot-'em-ups like the one you describe if home entries are more restricted.
There was no home entry attempted in this story; you appear to present this scenario as an unpleasant and dangerous alternative. Apparently trying to imply it would have been safer to the public to have apprehended this particular violent criminal at home, where errant rounds would not pose a threat to the public. I agree it probably would have been, if they had been able to catch him wherever he calls home.
Many of us decried the reckless home invasion that cost Peyton Strickland his life.
"For those of you who are completely against entries into a home..." appears directed at those of us that believe the use of these tactics need to be more carefully measured, that there has to be a great deal more oversight. And ultimately, responsibility.
It simply astounds me that these two men were apparently treated the same by the respective arresting officers. One, a violent criminal that had been actually shooting at cops (leaving two near death), and deported several times. The other, a young man that had voluntarily turned himself in (at the behest of his lawyer) every other time he had been in trouble in the past. One clearly armed, posing a threat to all around him, still shooting at cops. The other shot blindly through a closed door (by a cop now lying about "mistaking" a battering ram for gunshots).
Maybe I am hanging too much on that one statement. Maybe that was not your intention at all, to link these two cases. I think it is important we do, however. We have two decidedly different cases, with two decidedly different levels of threat. I think it is very telling (and quite disturbing) to realize that modern law enforcement has apparently decided to treat them the same way, by sending a SWAT team.
Is this what our future, as American citizens, holds for us? Black masked pseudo-military raids when there is
any perceived (or in Strickland's case, purely fabricated) threat? And trying to gloss over the occasional "mistake" by touting the successes? Even if the "mistake" costs a citizen his life? Maybe some folks truly are comfortable with police employing military tactics against citizens and are willing to trade the occasional "mistake" for the
perceived added security in their lives. After all, they only get the bad guys, right? Oh, and the occasional Peyton Strickland. But what the hell; he was a punk anyway. Right?