It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If the police destroy your house in pursuit of a suspect; Should they pay?

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 07:13 PM
link   

A federal appeals court in Colorado ruled Tuesday that a local police department does not have to compensate a homeowner whose house was destroyed by 19 hours of gunfire between officers and an armed shoplifting suspect who had chosen to barricade himself inside to evade arrest.


Colorado homeowner owed nothing after police SWAT shootout destroys his house, federal court rules



But now it was just a neighborhood crime scene, the suburban home where an armed Walmart shoplifting suspect randomly barricaded himself after fleeing the store on a June afternoon in 2015. For 19 hours, the suspect holed up in a bathroom as a SWAT team fired gas munition and 40-millimeter rounds through the windows, drove an armored vehicle through the doors, tossed flash-bang grenades inside and used explosives to blow out the walls.


Police blew up an innocent man’s house in search of an armed shoplifter. Too bad, court rules.


A walmart shoplifter, who barricaded themselves in a house, warranted a 19 hour gun battle that destroyed this man's home. Is a shoplifter, especially a walmart shoplifter, worth such an effort to apprehend? What did he steal? A steak, some trash bags, or a $20 iphone cable? Doesn't matter! He stole and come hell or high water we'll blow up a $500,000 dollar home to get him!

I wonder how the judge who ruled the city doesn't owe would feel if I barricaded myself in the judges house for 19 hours causing it's complete destruction.


edit on 10/31/2019 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 07:26 PM
link   
DAMN! That is ridiculous! I had a friend and one of his neighbors got raided by ATF. Someone called and told them he was out shooting a full-auto M16. No one was home at the time they hit the house. He came home to a search warrant taged on the door and written on it "Nothing found". They even pulled his paneling of the wall, cut the undersides of couches and box springs. Same thing, they don't pay for the damage they do. And it sounds like they won't be planning to anytime soon! BS!



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 07:28 PM
link   
OMG !!! Talk about overkill... for shoplifting ? What is wrong with America that you allow swat teams to go after shoplifters and bulldoze into houses after shooting off multiple rounds.

Not only should they pay for the damage .. they should be charged with using excessive force and almost murdering someone over shoplifting. Disgusting! You wouldn’t see that happening in Canada without a lot of heads rolling.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: spirit_horse
DAMN! That is ridiculous! I had a friend and one of his neighbors got raided by ATF. Someone called and told them he was out shooting a full-auto M16. No one was home at the time they hit the house. He came home to a search warrant taged on the door and written on it "Nothing found". They even pulled his paneling of the wall, cut the undersides of couches and box springs. Same thing, they don't pay for the damage they do. And it sounds like they won't be planning to anytime soon! BS!


I'd think getting the insurance company involved would help, or the lending institution of the home.

If I had a trashed house(while I was gone, which to me is vandalism, something covered by insurance). I'd file the claim, if they don't want to pay it and then pursue compensation from the city/state, then I'd take a glance at my home value and the amount owed to my lender.

If there isn't much(or any equity), I'd call the bank up, tell them what happened and tell them I'll be out in a few weeks and this baby is all theirs(that might prompt them to contact the insurance company on "your behalf").



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

This is all about opening up a can of legal liability.
Say a cop clocks a speeder and flips on his lights.
The speeder punches it and runs a red light and t bones a car killing the passengers.
Are the cops liable?

The story is really about the courts protecting the cops from liability for doing their jobs.

Obviously this was excessive use of force though...
Hopefully the home owner will take it to the Supreme Court.
I wonder to if he had the home insured for its actual value.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: EternalSolace

This is all about opening up a can of legal liability.
Say a cop clocks a speeder and flips on his lights.
The speeder punches it and runs a red light and t bones a car killing the passengers.
Are the cops liable?

The story is really about the courts protecting the cops from liability for doing their jobs.

Obviously this was excessive use of force though...
Hopefully the home owner will take it to the Supreme Court.
I wonder to if he had the home insured for its actual value.


From what I gathered, insurance did get involved, but could have easily said no. That said, I think the homeowner was only compensated for around 320k out of the over 500k the house was worth.

The owner stated that he planned to appeal to the supreme court.

I'm not knocking police for doing their job. In this case, it was complete overkill.

There we're no hostages. The suspect was not a murderer, kidnapper, or serial killer. The suspect was a simple armed shoplifter. Yes, he popped off some shots at the cops in pursuit. But a 19 hour gun battle over a solitary barricaded suspect, just no.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Reading the OP's link it looks like this guy was underinsured. Either by his choice or due to the insurance company having evaluated his insurance needs poorly.

If it's the former, this is the downside of saving a few bucks in premium.

They paid him 340K total, for a home he says would take 580K to build not to mention all the personal property damaged.

I worked in insurance a while, you have no idea how many guys would come in and want a policy written with 250K of dwelling coverage on a 600K house, just to save about 500 bucks a year.

If that's the case, while it sucks, if it was his decision to underinsure it then he's # out of luck.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace




The suspect was a simple armed shoplifter. Yes, he popped off some shots at the cops in pursuit. But a 19 hour gun battle over a solitary barricaded suspect, just no.


hmmm.. 🤔.. I think I may have been to quick to judge the LEO’s in this case, though I do think they could have used a better strategy for flushing this man out. I didn’t realize he had a gun and was engaging the officers in a fire fight at first. Dumb idea to shoot at LEO’s.. very dumb.. they have a right to protect themselves. Wish they would have had the intelligence to deal with the situation a different way at some point.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I am guessing this will go up higher as this infringes on his "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness," especially since an earlier version of that constitutional axiom read 'life, liberty, and estate."

Actions have consequences. I can understand a blown out tire or a window, or something that is reparable, but this is a man's estate and all his belongings that were taken away by government agents. He needs to be fully compensated. Or his constitutional inalienable rights will be violated.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 07:55 PM
link   
yes, of course they should.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sheye
a reply to: EternalSolace




The suspect was a simple armed shoplifter. Yes, he popped off some shots at the cops in pursuit. But a 19 hour gun battle over a solitary barricaded suspect, just no.


hmmm.. 🤔.. I think I may have been to quick to judge the LEO’s in this case, though I do think they could have used a better strategy for flushing this man out. I didn’t realize he had a gun and was engaging the officers in a fire fight at first. Dumb idea to shoot at LEO’s.. very dumb.. they have a right to protect themselves. Wish they would have had the intelligence to deal with the situation a different way at some point.



Oh absolutely. If actively engaging cops, it means the public is at risk too. They need to do whatever they need to, to stop the threat to the public.

If said person hunkers down, alone, in a confined area... no longer is the public at risk. Time has been gained.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Bottom line...all cities have liability...and all work for you...and can be held responsible.

Like me...

EMT/1st Responder
Advanced Life Support
Emergency Manag./ Police, Fire /City

*We or I destroy something like that? City or municipality can be sued...



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: EternalSolace

Bottom line...all cities have liability...and all work for you...and can be held responsible.

Like me...

EMT/1st Responder
Advanced Life Support
Emergency Manag./ Police, Fire /City

*We or I destroy something like that? City or municipality can be sued...






If an EMT/Paramedic needs to destroy something to save a life... free pass. I was an EMT for 8 years.

This current topic was not the case.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:02 PM
link   
they should double your taxes



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
they should double your taxes
Yeah, what's your address? I'm gonna rob a nerf gun, and hide up in your place. Except it's probably not yours, you rent. In which case I'll steal your car and run it into a barricade. When I wreck, ill sue you for not having properly inflated tired and have some great twinkies while serving my time.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

I would prefer it if you hid in my house



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Muh thin blue line.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

A federal appeals court in Colorado ruled Tuesday that a local police department does not have to compensate a homeowner whose house was destroyed by 19 hours of gunfire between officers and an armed shoplifting suspect who had chosen to barricade himself inside to evade arrest.


Colorado homeowner owed nothing after police SWAT shootout destroys his house, federal court rules



But now it was just a neighborhood crime scene, the suburban home where an armed Walmart shoplifting suspect randomly barricaded himself after fleeing the store on a June afternoon in 2015. For 19 hours, the suspect holed up in a bathroom as a SWAT team fired gas munition and 40-millimeter rounds through the windows, drove an armored vehicle through the doors, tossed flash-bang grenades inside and used explosives to blow out the walls.


Police blew up an innocent man’s house in search of an armed shoplifter. Too bad, court rules.


A walmart shoplifter, who barricaded themselves in a house, warranted a 19 hour gun battle that destroyed this man's home. Is a shoplifter, especially a walmart shoplifter, worth such an effort to apprehend? What did he steal? A steak, some trash bags, or a $20 iphone cable? Doesn't matter! He stole and come hell or high water we'll blow up a $500,000 dollar home to get him!

I wonder how the judge who ruled the city doesn't owe would feel if I barricaded myself in the judges house for 19 hours causing it's complete destruction.


Just taking your post as a given, it's quite clear that American law is deficit of any empathy whatsoever, it's probably not unknown either to some other countries, that's what you need to deal with.
I think it's a big problem that police who can shoot at somebody an offender, or possible offender, and kill somebody else, have the ability to blame the offender, and prosecute them for murder...who they were shooting at in the first place.
There may be caveats to that, I don't know, but the principle is almighty wrong.
What might surprise you even more, is that some insurance companies, pay police to spy on policyholders, that's a definite and to my mind corruptive, and not exclusive to the US.
an example here,
www.theguardian.com...



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Muh thin blue line.


That makes no sense with regard to the topic.

Thin blue line is cops covering for other cops, that has literally zero to do with this situation.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace


The police never pay! It's always the tax payers who have to foot the bill.

Suggestion, go after the politicians in your local hood! It's them you want not those doing their dirty deeds.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join