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

[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.

[C-dub]

It wasn't a taking. However, there must be some other way of being compensated for their destruction.

[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).

[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.

[cirus]

Sounds like a little payback is in order.

[narcissist]

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!!

[Soccerdad1995]

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.

[crazy2medic]

The term Excessive Use of Force comes to mind, followed by the thought Payback!

[Jago668]

It is things like this that put people from supporting law enforcement more into a famous NWA song.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[cirus]

Another example of the king treating the people like peasants.