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

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

The article I posted in the thread from two days ago said the PD called the kids mom and then the kid was able to get out. Kid told cops the criminal told him “he didn’t want to hurt anybody he just wanted to get away.”

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: CynConcepts
If a tornado tore through this house, would the city be responsible because the guy chose to underinsured his house for its full value?

No, because your insurance covers that.

His insurance is covering this issue as well. His problem is that he under insured his home and his son did not have renters insurance for his personal possessions. So it is a good comparison with the exception that the city has offered to assist with temporary relocation due to this tragedy and would not do so in the event of a tornado.

a reply to: CynConcepts

I saw that the insurance picked up most of the tab and addressed that above.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Gryphon66

If property is the fundamental right, and government exists to protect property, then this decision is absurd.

Preservation of life supersedes preservation of property.

I agree it’s an absurd decision though. They should have required the criminal to get a prison job and fork over his $0.26 a day for the rest of his life in restitution.

The home owner or insurance can still file a civil lawsuit against the perp. It is not the city's responsibility to play middle man in lawsuits. Would it be worth it? Depends on whether perp has any assets and their value. I imagine one robbing a Walmart depicts that it would cost more than what would be recoverable in the long run.

a reply to: MisterSpock

MisterSpock nailed it on the head with regard to the process and the apparent inadequate coverage.

I have always insured my property for more than replacement cost. Not drastically, but I would prefer to have a buffer to work with than a shortfall amidst the life-upending event that a total loss of one's home and property would be.

I'm sure it can be eaten up quickly - running into unexpected challenges is almost a given with a build.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

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.

Missed the point: We...you and I have RESPONDED to events where large-scale destruction (of course not from us) has occurred.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Gryphon66

If property is the fundamental right, and government exists to protect property, then this decision is absurd.

Preservation of life supersedes preservation of property.

I agree it’s an absurd decision though. They should have required the criminal to get a prison job and fork over his $0.26 a day for the rest of his life in restitution.

This is opinion/belief of course. Here's my opinion/belief.

Our fundamental property is our body (life). So, yeah, I don't disagree with your first statement.

There's no reason for "the Police Deparment" or more accurately "The City" involved to be considered a special entity. The damage was done by the criminal and the police therefore both should have been culpable.

Within certain parameters as well, in our society anyway, one should always carry appropriate values of insurance.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Edumakated

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

I guess your two remaining brain cells are fighting each other if you got that out of my post...

The guy was under insured. It wouldn't have mattered if his house was destroyed by police, a fire, flood, or a asteroid.

Simple question to help you think logically. If a fire had destroyed his home, would he have gotten enough to replace it or would he still be in the same situation?

The answer is he would be in the same situation... therefore, this isn't an issue about police but the fact the guy had inadequate insurance on his home. Nothing more.

He is only SUING because the police are a tangible entity he can blame. The court was right to throw this out. If it were say a fire or a tree fell on his house, he couldn' t sue but would still be in the same situation as the issue is insurance coverage, nothing more.

a reply to: MisterSpock

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").

MisterSpock:



To the OP:

As far as the OP goes, IMO, any time person 1 destroys the property of person 2 they rightfully should pay to replace it. Otherwise, person 2 is being deprived of their rights as the owner of some arbitrary property without first being afforded due process or reasonable compensation

It should be clear to all what our "courts" have become. They are little more than arms of the state, corrupted and co-opted over time. Sadly a large block of apathetic citizens permitted it to occur and who actively continue to give consent every day they stand

I know it's page 4 so I do not expect any feedback, but gotta butt in anyway...

- The homeowner was under insured.
- Sometimes the police have to break a few eggs to keep people safe.
- The criminal committed a crime and the public should expect their law enforcement to go get him.

Still, I cannot get past the amount of damage to the house. This was one guy versus a police department! What happened? I can see busting in a door or making a hole to close the dude off. I cannot see blowing out the walls of every room in the house rendering it structurally unsound.

If I was a resident in that town, I would still support the PD but I would also seriously question their use of resources here. What was the cost to the city in equipment and material? What happens next time when there are two or three or more perpetrators? Airstrikes?

If this sort of thing happens almost-never there, I can accept an over reaction. Better safe than sorry and it will go way smoother next time if there is a next time. Covering the difference in the homeowners damages would go a long way to appease those supporting the PD but questioning the execution of the apprehension.

a reply to: Edumakated

You think I have more than 1 brain cell, thanks for the compliment.

Insurance is nescarry in today's world no doubt, however you're not being honest as we both know the insurance company would fight tooth and nail to avoid paying and no doubt would find reason not to pay under these circumstances.

Perhaps when you find that boot pressing down on your skull licking them won't be as desirable as you may have thought.

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.

Interesting call that one. Re the driver if he died. It Australia it's taken that a situation like you described could be termed, "Death in Custody" in a Coronial court. Custody simply being defined as to the mental state of the person at the time which includes evading police. i.e. 'I'm nicked (custody thoughts) and I'm outta here'. Any other person in the car being driven by the felon is also considered as in custody.

Bit off track here with the poster and your story but a person or persons cornered by the police whether in a house or vehicle is termed as 'in custody' here. If they die it is termed as a 'Death in Custody'. e.g. Simply stopping person/s in the street to conduct inquiries is custody for all. If any of them dies within release from detaining/custody within a period of 24 hours it can still be termed a death in custody and will be investigated.

Sorry, raved on a bit there. My thoughts,

Bally

It is the same with border agencies when they slice apart luggage, find nothing there, and they do not compensate for destroying it, and sometimes the luggage is very expensive, too.

They act like tin-Gods, who can do anything they want, and nobody can touch these a-holes

The police may destroy a house doing their jobs, this should mean compensation is ALSO part of their jobs, and is not a valid excuse, to get away with it.

This is utterly absurd, and unacceptable.

a reply to: EternalSolace
This sounds to me like a legitimate reason to build a killdozer and tear some # up.

Burn and razed a town to the ground over petty theft over a .99 cent candy bar. Then they will justify it. Aren't you glad we protected you! No actually I feel violated. How does a police justify a crime for a crime.

a reply to: sean

and several other charges including attempted murder of a police officer. did you not read the story? or are you one of those that think that criminals should just be allowed to get away with everything.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie
I dont think anyone wants criminals to get away with stuff, they just think it's not acceptable to destroy the place, and wash their hands of it. It gives the impression they can be "overzealous" without regard.

a reply to: ABNARTY

Still, I cannot get past the amount of damage to the house. This was one guy versus a police department! What happened? I can see busting in a door or making a hole to close the dude off. I cannot see blowing out the walls of every room in the house rendering it structurally unsound.

What happened ? Good question.🤔 Seems like some ( maybe the ones giving orders) are far too eager to resort to aggressive tactics instead of stopping at some point early on in this 19 hour gunshot and bulldozing rampage. It doesn’t take someone with any knowledge of human behaviour to see that this criminal obviously felt like a cornered rat. Maybe he had things in his past he didn’t want the police to know about , or even been wrongfully abused by cops at some point in his life. To be fair, we don’t know his back story ( though it is wrong to steal and worse to shoot at cops ).

What I would have loved to have seen in this story is a bullhorn being used with a calm negotiator working for LEO’s who can calm this criminal down and convince him the best course if action is to give himself up. It takes a lot of empathy and humility, and patience to be able to negotiate well.. especially after that person has shot at you. If the LEO’s really want there to be nobody getting hurt, including the criminal, I say their tactics need to be a little more fine tuned.

Bullhorns over bulldozers 😆( though I’m sure they had one.. it’s in the attitude of how you use the bullhorn followed by the bulldozer.)

a reply to: vonclod

didn't you read the story, the city offered to help him and the other neighbors that had damage. they also were going to help his son. the guy refused. the guys insurance paid out 340,000 dollars,the guy built the house bigger and better than it was, and bought all new contents. he said it cost 400,000.

first off, it's safe to say that not all the contents were damaged, second he built the house Bigger meaning he spent more money than it would have took if he built it the same.

the guy was looking for that cash cow that he thought the city would be.

here a helpful tip, look at the links i posted before.