I’m all about ACAB.
But here’s my understanding of it:
U.S. Marshalls (not local PD) were sent to apprehend a man that had weapons when he shouldn’t have. They had not yet reached his house, because he was in his front yard when they approached.
The man opened fire on them from the front yard, and they shot and killed him. They were fired on by someone in the house.
They called for backup, and retreated while the house occupants barricaded themselves. 3 hours later, unable to resolve the situation, they used armored vehicles and ended the standoff without killing additional people.
I guess I don’t think these officers did anything bad in this situation, even though they represent a horrible system.
Did they need to engage in a fight after the man in the yard fired shots? What would have happened if they had brought in a negotiator or something? I don’t know if those are viable options in this situation, but it does sound like they continued aggressively. I can’t tell when the cops were killed.
They probably did need to continue engaging.
I’m unsure who shot which cops, but I’m given to understand the shooter in the building had shot one of the cops. An update to the article since I read it indicates three officers were shot while attempting to extricate/get medical help for the first cohort of wounded/killed.
So like, there’s a crime there, and a violent one. But it’s also a public hazard if someone is firing their guns in the suburbs.
It’s also not reported (as far as I know from the one article I read, linked above) what transpired in the three hours during the standoff. They may have brought in a negotiator.
We don’t know what we don’t know. I’m sure more details will emerge.
