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

a reply to: EternalSolace

I imagine the law would say the responsible party is the criminal. Good luck collecting from them. There would be possible ways to get money, but we can't sell other people's organs so ...

a reply to: EternalSolace

If the police destroy your house for any reason they should pay.

If not, finding their houses and returning the favor would not seem to an overreaction imho.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: EternalSolace

If the police destroy your house for any reason they should pay.

If not, finding their houses and returning the favor would not seem to an overreaction imho.

They sure should, eventually.

In my state, from what I know of insurance. The process would be for the home owner to go through his insurance company, of which he has a contract with(insurance policy), according to the contract they would pay out for the loss and then THEY would use their resources and their loss(paying out their customer) to recoup cost from the party at fault(in this case the police/city).

It seems the insurance company did pay out, apparently not enough(though likely according to the policy/contract agreement, if they did not, that would be in violation of their insurance license with the state). So their seems to be more to this.

I'd like to see the homeowners actual contract/policy with the insurance company. Like I said above, it's possible he's one of those people that want to be woefully underinsured in order to "game" the insurance company with regard to insurance rates.

If that's the case, he asked for exactly what he got(and what the insurance company agreed to) a drastically lower limit than what it would actually take to replace his property. In that case, the police are NOT responsible for the difference. They are still likely to have to recoup whatever the insurance company gave him(although it's less than he needs). The insurance company, not the homeowner, will go after the city to recoup what it payed out.

He can sue for the excess, but it could go either way outside of his insurance company, obviously it will usually go not in favor of the underinsured individual against the city.

a reply to: MisterSpock

Well if he's playing the system, then he's rolling the dice i suppose.

If not i hope they pay for his gaff.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MisterSpock

Well if he's playing the system, then he's rolling the dice i suppose.

If not i hope they pay for his gaff.

Since the insurance paid him out, to the tune of 340K for a teardown and home replacement(should be the max replacement value on his policy) and that it isn't enough, it seems he may have not had appropriate coverage.

So something seems off, he certainly wasn't left to "foot the bill" on his own. Seems the difference is the problem. Insurance company can't do partial replacement(in my state) without violating a contract, so there is info missing and likely some undue attention being solely paid to the polices actions in this case. Not surprising in this click bait/outrage news atmosphere we live in.

a reply to: MisterSpock

Yes, something smells funny.

And if he's had 340K, got to wonder where the problem lies.

Unless he's looking for more than just the monies for damages i suppose.

a reply to: andy06shake

yeah i'm sorry that home doesn't look like it's worth a half a mil. would do good to go for 175 thousand, that's compared to homes that are built to much better standards now days.

the land might be worth 500k, but the house nah.

front of home




plus if you notice the power meter is gone, wonder how long after the incident were the pictures taken.





funny now that i look at the front of the house, does that SUV behind the tape next to the car in the drive way look like some sort of emergency vehicle. wonder why it's parked right there in the drive way as if it's part of the crime scene.

I once had an be officer ask to search my car. I didn't give consent. He then asked my passenger for permission who also said no. Then he detained my passenger and tore apart the interior of my car including ripping out the speakers and door panels.

There was nothing in my car. I was pulled over for not using a turn signal (video evidence later showed I had in fact used my signal). I was given no compensation. The car was effectively totalled from the interior damages.

So no I'm not surprised by this ruling. But it's complete BS.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Well you know there is something out of kilter when the land is worth more than the house i suppose.

Pricey all the same, as apparently Gods not making any more of the stuff.

If I destroy your house in pursuit of one of my goals, should I pay?

That's when you go to their house and do it to them

a reply to: visitedbythem

That's when you go to their house and do it to them

only if done in a covert fashion in the cover of darkness without being caught. if you didn't do it that way you'd wind up next the shoplifter that started all this in prison

it seems that the guy was suing for cost of rebuilding and all contents replaced. he said 400 thousand. as spock said not enough coverage. got to watch them tricky insurance plans and companies.

Lech said rebuilding the house and replacing its furnishings cost nearly $400,000 alone—an endeavor that required Lech to take out loans. He is still in debt to this day, he says.

it turns out that the guy tried to run over a cop when he left walmart, so it wasn't just shoplifting it was attempted murder of a police officer, not once but twice when he shot at the cop at the house. no wonder they went to extremes.

Meanwhile, the Walmart shoplifting suspect the police spent 19 hours bombing out of an innocent person’s home reportedly stole a shirt and a couple of belts, according to a police affidavit (he did also attempt to run over a police officer blocking him as he attempted to flee).

both above from here,
Colorado Cops Blew Up a House Trying to Find a Walmart Shoplifter, Court Rules the City Owes the Innocent Homeowner Not a Damn Thing

and this

Police say Seacat, driving away from a Walmart he allegedly shoplifted from, was high on meth when he tried to strike and kill an Aurora police officer who was responding to the shoplifting call on foot. Police say when Seacat began to hole himself inside the randomly-chosen Greenwood Village house, he fired a shot at officers he saw outside.
Homeowners offered help after standoff

found another picture of the house. look at it, it's plywood siding, (not that there is anything wrong with plywood siding) it's a piss poor job and look at the trim and fly rafter cracked and paint peeling. seems to me somebody is trying to build a something more than they had. hell plywood paneling/siding is (most expensive) in my area at lowes 35 bucks a sheet. if i figured it right, 50,000 dollars worth would come out to 1429 sheets rounded up not knowing the square footage i would say more than enough to cover the house. now that doesn't cover studs, sheet rock paint and what have you. but i think he's padding the bill.



image came from here,Greenwood Village home destroyed during a standoff with a suspect on Thursday.

I don't know if you know this OP. But according to the Federal government, nobody "owns" a home, land or any property. Property (all property) belongs to the government. You are "merely the user" or a "tenant", if you wiil.
That's a fact!

So according to the "law" or the government version of it. The homeowner should not be payed.

After all? They did destroy the house protecting society from crime.

Now the city or county government can move in and declare it uninhabitable and condemn it. Fine the "owner" for not "maintaining" it. And sell it at auction to recover "administrative fees".

But all hope is not lost!

Through everybody "paying their fare share".
The owner having learned to write from "tax payer" dollars, from a "public education system". Has a society/socialist provided skill. To use to make a sign declaring, "homeless, need help".

It all works out in the end. The owner remains free, bad guy goes to jail and the heroes remain heroes. And the government as of 1916ish, remains not having a clue.
It is the American dream! Or new, "new deal. Stay tuned! It'll get better from here.

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.

You're not an owner you are owned, every little bit of you. Freedom is an illusion and the sooner you accept that the easier your life will be, the second ammendment won't save you from the bounds of ownership, it's an illusion ,an affective one at that.

If the guy was under insured, it is his problem, not the police's. That is why you have homeowner's insurance.

Police, Fire, EMTs, etc can't be worrying about being on the hook for replacing your sh*t when doing their jobs otherwise they'd never get anything done.

Yeah, it sucks this dirtbag holed himself up in the house and the cops had to destroy the home, but that is the point of insurance... to protect you in cases like this. If there were a fire, he'd still be screwed and he wouldn't have anyone to sue or blame but himself. So whether it was the police or storm damage, it is his own fault he didn't have enough coverage.

a reply to: Edumakated

You would find an excuse for that boot pressed heavily on your head wouldn't you. You're Orwells pet.....

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: andy06shake

yeah i'm sorry that home doesn't look like it's worth a half a mil. would do good to go for 175 thousand, that's compared to homes that are built to much better standards now days.

the land might be worth 500k, but the house nah.

front of home

plus if you notice the power meter is gone, wonder how long after the incident were the pictures taken.




funny now that i look at the front of the house, does that SUV behind the tape next to the car in the drive way look like some sort of emergency vehicle. wonder why it's parked right there in the drive way as if it's part of the crime scene.

In my neighbourhood, that is a $800,000+ house.

This is why in general I have little respect for the authorities.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Wasn't there a case a few years back where a swat team raided the wrong house. They fired a smoke grenade through a window and it landed In a baby's crib. The child was badly injured but the color refused to pay the medical costs even though it was 100% their fault. Cops can get away with a lot of its due to basic incompetance.