Page 1 of 2

CO: Police blow up innocent man’s home to capture shop lifting suspect

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:48 am
by philip964
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... urt-rules/

2015. Court rules that City has no responsiblity for destruction of a man’s home and all his possessions in apprehending an armed shop lifter on the run, who just happened to pick this house to hole up in.

It was not a taking.

Re: CO: Police blow up innocent man’s home to capture shop lifting suspect

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:41 am
by Rob72
I've worked first response, and I generally support LE. However, you cannot operate in this manner and be surprised when you send SRT into a neighborhood one day, and none of them come out.

Re: CO: Police blow up innocent man’s home to capture shop lifting suspect

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:56 am
by C-dub
It wasn't a taking. However, there must be some other way of being compensated for their destruction.

Re: CO: Police blow up innocent man’s home to capture shop lifting suspect

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:57 am
by Soccerdad1995
So by this logic, if someone steals from me, and runs into the police chief's home, I can blow it up trying to get my belongings back? Somehow I'm thinking that might not go over so well.

I also found this part of the ruling particularly disturbing:
The court acknowledged that this may seem “unfair,” but when police have to protect the public, they can’t be “burdened with the condition” that they compensate whoever is damaged by their actions along the way.
I think we all go by the belief that we are responsible for every bullet that leaves our gun, which means that we are liable if someone is killed or injured by a missed shot, etc. But this seems to imply the opposite, as least as it relates to our employees acting on our behalf (i.e. LEO's).

Re: CO: Police blow up innocent man’s home to capture shop lifting suspect

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:00 pm
by imkopaka
I'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.

Re: CO: Police blow up innocent man’s home to capture shop lifting suspect

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:03 pm
by cirus
Sounds like a little payback is in order.

Re: CO: Police blow up innocent man’s home to capture shop lifting suspect

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:03 pm
by narcissist
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:57 am
So by this logic, if someone steals from me, and runs into the police chief's home, I can blow it up trying to get my belongings back? Somehow I'm thinking that might not go over so well.

I also found this part of the ruling particularly disturbing:
The court acknowledged that this may seem “unfair,” but when police have to protect the public, they can’t be “burdened with the condition” that they compensate whoever is damaged by their actions along the way.
I think we all go by the belief that we are responsible for every bullet that leaves our gun, which means that we are liable if someone is killed or injured by a missed shot, etc. But this seems to imply the opposite, as least as it relates to our employees acting on our behalf (i.e. LEO's).
Goid point by the way!! Its kinda like those Red Flag laws if someone was to call in a Judge as a Threat you think they are going to follow through with it. Nope!!

Re: CO: Police blow up innocent man’s home to capture shop lifting suspect

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:13 pm
by Soccerdad1995
imkopaka wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:00 pm
I'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.
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.

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.

Re: CO: Police blow up innocent man’s home to capture shop lifting suspect

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:25 pm
by crazy2medic
The term Excessive Use of Force comes to mind, followed by the thought Payback!

Re: CO: Police blow up innocent man’s home to capture shop lifting suspect

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:56 pm
by Jago668
It is things like this that put people from supporting law enforcement more into a famous NWA song.

Re: CO: Police blow up innocent man’s home to capture shop lifting suspect

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:36 pm
by Jay2121
This is just stupid. They did it because they knew they could with impunity. For a shoplifter, really. 19 hours, lol. Idoits. There is no reason for this. Others could have been hurt or killed. Who else was in the house they had no idea. Oh I forgot there was a shot fired. Or was there? I hate seeing this. This is one step forward two steps backward for the police. What if this was your house? Yes insurance covered most of it, that way we all pay for it, that makes it better. Geeze.

Re: CO: Police blow up innocent man’s home to capture shop lifting suspect

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:50 pm
by flechero
Seems like the police should have an insurance policy to cover this kind of stuff..... covering the homeowner's deductible is a good start but the rates go up dramatically on homeowner's policy for claims... heck, just a roof claim for hail damage can often get you dropped and if they keep you it's at a massive premium hike.

Re: CO: Police blow up innocent man’s home to capture shop lifting suspect

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:00 pm
by Grayling813
It seems to me that people on the left and the right should be able to agree that each other is not the problem, the problem is government at all levels and the police forces they are employing against the citizens.

Re: CO: Police blow up innocent man’s home to capture shop lifting suspect

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:37 pm
by Rob72
imkopaka wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:00 pm
I'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.
True, LE, in most locations, is not required to redress, remediate, or reimburse for damage caused by their actions. False, insurance is not supposed to cover such action. I would suggest that citation of the 5th, stating that this family was materially held liable for prosecution of the fleeing felon, and that loss property/loss of use of property was a direct result of negligence/malfeasance based on the level of aggression used in serving the warrant, might have gone further.

IANAL, but the incentive to use your GI Joes is high, as (unless things have changed) you lose your Fed dollars if they don't play every so often.

Re: CO: Police blow up innocent man’s home to capture shop lifting suspect

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:51 pm
by cirus
Another example of the king treating the people like peasants.