You’re being pretty cavalier with the lives of the cops. Why shouldn’t they use armored vehicles to handle some asshole shooting at them and starting a firefight in a residential neighborhood?

But there wasn't a firefight except for the police bringing the guns on a guy who was hiding in a house. The police already have bulletproof armor, shields, etc. There was no need to destroy a third party's house.

If your employer had an option available which could significantly reduce your risk of dying on the job, what would you prefer that they prioritise above taking that option?

A) The lives of bystanders

B) The property of bystanders

C) The cost of equipment

D) The aesthetics of equipment

Personally, say:

- Definitely A.

- B & C at some point if the cost/risk is above a certain amount...but what is that number?

- Never D.

It is preposterous to suggest that every other option would have created more risk for the police.

The issue here is not one of giving the police protection, it is one of misuse (to put it mildly) of the equipment intended for that purpose.

I agree with the use of force since the robber was armed, but in the end refusing any compensation is an awful choice that also sends the wrong message: next time make an attempt to trade with the robber but don't call the police.

Are they going to be held responsible for destroying the property?