LogFAQs > #966729101

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, Database 10 ( 02.17.2022-12-01-2022 ), DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Albuquerque police killed a child during a botched raid
adjl 07/21/22 9:14:44 AM #38:	Far-Queue posted... How is the title misleading? Police killed a child in a botched raid. What about that is misleading? It sounds to me like they deployed flashbangs - which are known to have the potential to spark a fire if you have any training with them like we had in the military - without having the fire department present on the scene. That's negligent. That means the police killed a child by setting his house on fire with him in it. Doesn't matter that he was barricaded in there with the suspect. If they're watching the house where the fuck are the suspect and child going to go? They could've held off for as long as necessary in order to formulate a plan that didn't involve torching a house with a child inside. Pretty much. Was the 15-year-old innocent? Doesn't sound like it. Is "child" misleading when talking about a 15-year-old? A little. Does any of that mean that there was any reason at all for police to risk and ultimately take his life? No. Nothing about this is excusable. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:966729101] in Albuquerqu... [t:80100732]...</cite> <quote>Far-Queue posted... </cite> <quote>How is the title misleading? Police killed a child in a botched raid. What about that is misleading? It sounds to me like they deployed flashbangs - which are known to have the potential to spark a fire if you have any training with them like we had in the military - without having the fire department present on the scene. That's negligent. That means the police killed a child by setting his house on fire with him in it. Doesn't matter that he was barricaded in there with the suspect. If they're watching the house where the fuck are the suspect and child going to go? They could've held off for as long as necessary in order to formulate a plan that didn't involve torching a house with a child inside.</quote> Pretty much. Was the 15-year-old innocent? Doesn't sound like it. Is "child" misleading when talking about a 15-year-old? A little. Does any of that mean that there was any reason at all for police to risk and ultimately take his life? No. Nothing about this is excusable. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1