Two SWAT Teams Shut Down A Neighborhood In Colorado

reply to post by opethPA

of course all the 1984 crowd see is "SWAT team to handle a shoplifter who should be commended for stealing from a rich company"

I happen to be one of those "1984" people and I dont think you get it. It has nothing to do with who he stole from or what he stole, (even though I could care less that he stole from walmart) the point is, at least my point is that they actually called out for not one but two swat teams to shut down an entire neighborhood for a common thief.
Who cares about his history, he wasnt wanted for anything except this crime, so there was no excuse for this extreme deployment of these paramilitary type forces.
Thats like going after a spider with a wrecking ball.

Originally posted by benrl

Originally posted by sulaw
Because a corp. such as Walmart can't write off it's loses at the end of the year...

Release the Kraken~!!! Errr... Swat! This individual must be aprehended! Search and destroy!

For Jimminie Crickets sakes

The level of asshatness of this is insane, no where would this stand in corporate at the majority of Retail Companies, Its dragging their name into the Muck for this crap.

As evil as wal-mart is I doubt this is on them, its a police over reaction, If this happened at a Big Box retail store I worked at,
U
First thing I would be doing would be contacting our media relations dept. Demanding they release a statement against such action by the cops.

retail works off branding, no company wants their Brand Associated with actions like this.



ETA: The next action would be firing employees who violated policy by trying to physically stop the theft, thats HUGE liability on the store.

edit on 29-8-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)

Well you can't really blame them for being gun shy, they have had some crazy shootings over the years there. I lived there for some years and people are very anti govt and independent. But like I said you can't really blame them lol. That is a little out there though lol.

The Bot

reply to post by opethPA

Reading the article gives the impression that the SWAT team was dispatched after they reviewed the video , recognized the criminal and knew he had a previous criminal history. Without knowing what that history is it's impossible to say if the response was warranted.

Facts are that 1 person caused this issue.
Another fact would be that just because he stole from a rich company it is no less illegal. That frame of mind to me is no different then what the govt does to the common person on a daily basis. Hey lets ignore the law when it meets our needs..

Alright, first it's not as if this was the Boston Bombing. It's like dispatching the hounds of hell for someone stealing a shoping cart full of bread.

I as you, would like to know the criminal history of the theif as well but even then what warrents dispatching SWAT? This individual had to have a pretty shody record to get SWAT dispatched after him.

Nobody is debating if stealing is illegal, the mentality of "When it meets our needs" is tride and true on both accounts. I could care less if he stole a shopping cart full of donuts from a 7/11 or quick-e-mart it doesn't have to be a rich company. Which subsequently brings this back to your first response of who is this man and what's the deal with him.... Does he have bear flavored nipples or something?

of course all the 1984 crowd see is "SWAT team to handle a shoplifter who should be commended for stealing from a rich company"

I was born in 82 and I am not commending this man for Stealing anything as it goes against my morale grain.

Originally posted by Sharingan
reply to post by opethPA

 

Who cares about his history, he wasnt wanted for anything except this crime, so there was no excuse for this

I missed in the original article where it said what his history was or if he was wanted for anything else. Can you point that out to me?

Which of the following statements are not reasonable:

1. One person is responsible for this and that is the criminal
2. On the surface it seems like an overkill response but without knowing his criminal history then it's impossible to say that.
3. Stealing from a rich company is still a crime.

Originally posted by opethPA

 

Before saying it was warranted or unwarranted we need to know what that history was.

of course all the 1984 crowd see is "SWAT team to handle a shoplifter who should be commended for stealing from a rich company"

Yep history is important. If regular cops can't handle this they need to look for a different line of work.

I'll give you some history. A while back my front door blew open and my 2 tiny dogs got out. They were running around the front yard and a nosy neighbor spied them and called the cops. Who do you think showed up? Wait for it... yep SWAT. Machine guns and all. We have zero use for paramilitary cops.


Edit - Oh yeah, no criminal history here.

reply to post by Sharingan


The rest of the world keeps appealing to the oppressed cit8izens of the U.S.
"When are you Americans going to do something ? " I believe is a recent post on ATS.
Well who wants to do anything with armies of salivating, trigger happy, licensed to
kill squads of murderous hitmen, eyeballing every traffic light, itching to get that first
notch on their belt. the cops are the only thing holding us back. They are thee pivot point.

But as long as their rosey asses get cleaned and pampered everynight before bed.
Well, why should they give a crap what is really happening to the country their
fathers and forefathers made a huge sacrifice to sustain ? Can't be hard for people
like them not to give a crap.

We see what kind of people they are mostly everyday. Suck ups.

Originally posted by Bassago

Originally posted by opethPA

 

Before saying it was warranted or unwarranted we need to know what that history was.

of course all the 1984 crowd see is "SWAT team to handle a shoplifter who should be commended for stealing from a rich company"

Yep history is important. If regular cops can't handle this they need to look for a different line of work.

I'll give you some history. A while back my front door blew open and my 2 tiny dogs got out. They were running around the front yard and a nosy neighbor spied them and called the cops. Who do you think showed up? Wait for it... yep SWAT. Machine guns and all. We have zero use for paramilitary cops.

edit on 29-8-2013 by Bassago because: (no reason given)

That's like saying if a general practitioner can't do a surgery then they should look for a different line of work. I mean a GP and Surgeon are both doctors right? Skill set , problem resolution and training should be the same with both of them.

Cool story, what does it have to do with the variables in this scenario?

I agree and when their are no paramilitary criminals then their shouldn't be tactical teams.

reply to post by opethPA


What it has to do with the story is that SWAT doesn't need real bad guys. They will swarm on a moments notice for any reason. And sometimes (more than it should) innocent people are hurt and killed.

Do you really support these thugs behind masks?

Originally posted by Bassago
reply to post by opethPA

 

What it has to do with the story is that SWAT doesn't need real bad guys. They will swarm on a moments notice for any reason. And sometimes (more than it should) innocent people are hurt and killed.

Do you really support these thugs behind masks?

Where did i say I supported anyone?

I said that the criminal is the only person responsible for this and that on the surface it seems like overkill but without knowing the criminal history it's hard to say that for sure.

If I didn't say it though I do support prosecuting anyone that shoplifts regardless of if it's from you, the WAWA down the street or WalMart.

reply to post by opethPA

If I didn't say it though I do support prosecuting anyone that shoplifts regardless of if it's from you, the WAWA down the street or WalMart.

Ohhhh the WAWA.... They have good deli sandwiches.... I went there a lot travelling the east coast...

If this gentleman :cough: ends up on America's Most Wanted or has already been aired on it... I can understand the use of SWAT. At the same time I understand where Bassago is coming from, it's seems to often lately that Amerian LEO's response is more than overkill.

What will be said if this person just turns out to be a clepto? Still think shutting down a neighborhood with SWAT in response still Ok? Is he just a druggie? Is he wanted for Murder or Rape? I await the verdict as there must undoubtably be a follow up to this story.

Originally posted by opethPA

Originally posted by sulaw
reply to post by benrl

 

I whole heartedly agree ben, no company wants there name draged through dirt in association with a over dramatization of this kind.

If the police "knew" who this person was the question remains "why dispatch SWAT?"... It's only going to hurt the tax payers as who's going to pay for SWAT? The taxpayers~ Of coarse.... Right?

I expect to see this man on America's Most Wanted next~

What does it cost to shut down a Neighborhood? How many on a swat times hours times current pay rate for a crisis situation??? Is this really a large enough crisis for SWAT in the first place?

I'd hate to see what happens when a women or man steels "huggies" because they can't afford them....

Their really is no point in trying to debate situations like this logically with the 1984 crowd on ATS but I am stuck on a conf call so lets go...

Reading the article gives the impression that the SWAT team was dispatched after they reviewed the video , recognized the criminal and knew he had a previous criminal history. Without knowing what that history is it's impossible to say if the response was warranted.

Facts are that 1 person caused this issue.
Another fact would be that just because he stole from a rich company it is no less illegal. That frame of mind to me is no different then what the govt does to the common person on a daily basis. Hey lets ignore the law when it meets our needs..

I think the point many are trying to make but are failing to articulate in an effective manner is that it would seem any crime is an excuse to trot out the military apparatus the cities have been buying like sailors buying twenty cent beers. What has happened here is that any "crime" is a HORROR that must not go unpunished, even if it means bringing out the Hummers, water cannons and shutting down a neighborhood for petty theft.

The 1984ers are troubled, but fail to express, the irrational response that crime has grown to bring. There were people stealing things 30 years ago, but rarely did the military get involved. We have cities buying military weapons for use on the the people the are supposed to "protect" and in some cases, the weaponry is better then the stuff in the current wars we are fighting.

If you have tanks, guns, flash-bombs and all the rest you WANT TO USE IT! You don't get this stuff to threaten people with, you get it to use it. Right now they are using it with glee, what kid doesn't want to shoot the air rifle, what police-military man doesn't want to use the tank with water cannon any chance he can?

What most failed to see was the DHS militarized the police force when it took over all forms of policing after it's creation - the DHS is the only policing agency of record anymore, there are no local police or even national military, only DHS.

The Army will never march into Chicago, but the DHS will, with the armory it bought for the police of Chicago. There are actually still a few people in government who decried the police state of East Germany and the Soviet Block, and now the are writing checks to create the exact same police State: NSA = Stasi. Military Police = Stasi. No right of recourse = Stasi.

They wanted this all along, but laws and decorum prevented it. Now people plead for it, as the presence of the military response to a petty crime makes them MORE fearful, MORE insecure, so the demand more policing of this kind - not less.

The 1984 crowd sees parts of the issue, and tries to express some outrage, but they often come off sounding silly in words. I don't think anyone here is saying, "gee let the criminal go" but they are saying, "the shut down of a neighborhood by the military looking for a hood, is not only overkill, it tells us we no longer live in the world we lived in just a few years ago.

reply to post by crankyoldman


When you are ineffectively not getting your post accross right.... Call out the crankyoldman!

Exactly, thank you for that!

reply to post by sulaw


Haha, exactly what I was thinking.
Crankyoldman just summed up all of my thoughts into one post

Well said Crankyoldman. I'm s & f this whole thread now just because of what you said so I can go to it when threads get frustrating.


I never once said that at the surface this doesn't seem like overkill but until the rest of the equation came out, the criminal history that was mentioned, I couldn't fully say it was overkill. If they were to release his history and he has a few arrests for shoplifting then yah, 100% this was the wrong response. If they were to release his history and he was convicted of an armed robbery of a bank and was wanted for questioning in another armed robbery then I feel it was an adequate response.

I also don't agree with the idea that the only people that warrant a SWAT\tactical response are those showing up on Americas Most Wanted.

Come spend a few nights in the Badlands of Philly or right across the bridge in Camden NJ and bet you would drop that qualification real fast.

Overkill alright.


If only they had called the Mod Squad instead...

There is no need for the militarized police force. They need to use their resources on petty thieves so they can say that they use everything they are given.

Oh my God !!!..........I cant believe the dog wasn't shot 14 times

All of this Police State stuff, NSA snooping in on my phone calls with my daughter, DHS employees feeling up little girls and boys at airports, all of this is a result of 9/11.
Whether it was an inside job or a result of a bunch of Saudis, doesnt matter, that ONE day in time, set this country on a path to 1960's East Germany style rule.

If this person had such a violent criminal record that it required 2 swat teams why was he released in the first place?

If and only if he had shot up the Wal-Mart during the theft, AND they actually had information on where the suspect

was. Then and ONLY then should SWAT have been dispatched. Not to somewhere you think he could have maybe

possibly, perhaps could have gone. The overzealous, trigger happy, machismo culture that is current LEO style is

way overboard in my opinion.

Overkill as I view it. Justified? Someone justifies it, obviously. That could have been Clyde Barrow shoplifting...

In this day and age we have better armed police and better armed citizens, some with carry permits, etc. What's to fear? Soon expect every encounter with "authorities" will be down the barrel of a gun as they will assume us to be armed. Seems fair, right? That's the natural progression, where it's all heading.

You want a well-policed and law-abiding society then there is a price to pay for that, beyond your tax dollars. Is it working? Do you feel safe to be out in public? Do you feel safe and secure in your home? Or do you at least feel we're becoming safer now in public places, more secure and private in our homes and we just need to give it a little more time to be the safest society on Earth? With the resources we're throwing at it we should be. Otherwise, what is the point?

When there is a minor crime committed in prison the whole cell block goes on lock-down, right? Why should a free and open society be any different?