I disagree. I don't believe that it was necessary to destroy a home in order to apprehend a shoplifting suspect, armed or otherwise. Break the door down if you need to, but punching holes in the walls is excessive.imkopaka wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:00 pmI'm sorry, while the actions of police were over the top, police have NEVER been required to compensate people for damage incurred while doing their job unless the damage was done through gross negligence. This is exactly the kind of thing insurance is supposed to cover, and the city offered them enough money to cover their deductible, so realistically compensation has been made. The family was not ruled against because the judge favored the city, they were ruled against because they tried to claim their constitutional rights were violated under the Fifth Amendment, which the judge ruled does not apply to the circumstances. I understand the family feeling cheated and like the ruling is unfair, but ruling in their favor would have set a precedent that would eventually neuter police through municipalities being unable to compensate for every nickel and dime claim against their cops.
Yes, the police should do whatever is necessary to uphold the law and keep everyone safe. But they should also be prepared to justify and explain those decisions. To that end, if they do believe that it is absolutely necessary to demolish a building for the greater public good (of apprehending a shoplifter and getting Walmart back their merchandise), then by all means, do it. But they should treat the cost of replacing that building as part of the cost of enforcing the law. Just like they would treat the cost of bullets fired, or equipment used. And they should be ready and willing to explain to the taxpayers exactly why that cost was necessary.