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

originally posted by: vonclod
This is why in general I have little respect for the authorities.

In this day and age they represent the wealthy, no money = No representation.

originally posted by: MisterSpock

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.

The article indicates he also repoured an undamaged foundation to expand the footprint and build a larger, nicer house. Insurance is only going to cover your policy value. It isn't going to build you a new, nicer house. The police department indicates it offered to pay the deductible and help with temporary costs associated with moving/relocation. That would "make the homeowner whole" and satisfy the law. This guy rejected that offer.

So we're only getting part of this story from the homeowner. If the police crash into my car, two things can happen. The city is insured, and I am insured. They might battle out between each other later, but my insurance is going to cut me a check on my car's market value. They are not going to buy me a Masseratti, and there is no way a court is going to reward me with Masseratti money if I buy one. Especially if the city offered to pay my deductible.

Police do this to the wrong person, we could end up with another Killdozer.

originally posted by: Echo007
Police do this to the wrong person, we could end up with another Killdozer.

originally posted by: Echo007
Police do this to the wrong person, we could end up with another Killdozer.

The only reason we do not see more of this type of behavior is because the capacity to react like that is being diminished.

The media have effectively turned citizens aagainst each other even if its agains their own best interests.

a reply to: vonclod

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

then you live in a neighborhood that people don't know the value of how a home is constructed or how the age effects the value of the home. a plywood, vinyl, aluminum siding house does not have the value that a brick, concrete or block home does nor the the durability. plus insurance companies will not cover them the same as the latter. to get the same coverage on a wood siding home as a say brick home, premiums would cost 2 or maybe 3 times more.

now in your neighborhood the property might be worth 800,000. in that case most developers would buy them tear them down and build new and ask 2 mil. or better.

a reply to: MisterSpock

What’s off is that the Washington Picked up this story a couple of days ago and turned it into something it isn’t.

This dude isn’t “just a shoplifter.” He tried to kill cops on two separate occasions on the day in question. Yes, the initial call was for theft. It changed the moment this dude tried to flee and tried to run over a cop in the process. It wasn’t a 19 hour long gun battle. They tried negotiating for hours. Even when they were shooting, you don’t just continuously shoot tear gas into a structure. You shoot some, wait a bit, then shoot more. So the idea that this was some nearly day-long gunfight over a couple of belts is preposterous at best.

Would it be nice if the cops paid for this guy’s house? Well yes, of course it would. Except it wasn’t their fault a guy who got sentenced to 100 years in prison for what he did on the day in question chose that house to hide in. It’s his fault and no one else’s.

This story is a masterclass in how the media can manipulate stories and people. It generated multiple threads using the same source material and has people all agog all over again because WaPo wrote an incredibly shaded article. Absolutely baffling to me how readily people accept stories they like from WaPo but not other stories.

a reply to: Shamrock6

There is some legal precedent in the respective police force picking up all or part of the tab in similar situations, I think what bothers me the most is that they offered to give the homeowner zero. They could have done the right thing and at least offered to help in some manner, unless I'm missing that they did.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

actually they did offer help to him, his son and others in the neighborhood. bold mine

The city said it will pay insurance deductibles for anyone from the surrounding homes in the 4200 block of Alton Street who suffered property damage during the 18-hour standoff that started Wednesday. Greenwood Village had also offered to pay the homeowner, Leo Lech's, deductible and pay the tenant, Lech's son, until he can find new housing. The city offered the son $5,000 for temporary housing.
Homeowners offered help after standoff

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don’t disagree. My problem is with the blatant spin in the articles used for sources which are used to present the story desired rather than the story of what happened. I mean holy #, the foxnews article says this guy broke into an unoccupied home when that’s absolutely untrue.

Would it have been nice and morally right for the police to have helped offset the costs? Sure, absolutely. But to say that they’re legally liable for it is a whole different issue. I think pursuing this case under the Takings Clause was a mistake for this guy. Suing the police in civil court and trying to prove they had acted without due care would have been the better angle imho. Supposedly he tried to sue them civilly and lost but I can’t confirm that.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

That's not enough.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I don't disagree with you on any point, it's unfortunate for the homeowner and I think the city could have stepped up and done more.

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

If the state promotes its own existence and controls the populace for a priviliged few, then this decision is obvious.

You decide.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If a tornado tore through this house, would the city be responsible because the guy chose to underinsured his house for its full value? The city's offer for relocation assistance sounds fair to me.

This is an unforeseen accident. This must be extremely frustrating for the home owner but it is what it is. Insurance premiums should always be readjusted when one renovates or updates their home since the value increases. If they did not do this, they were personally gambling and lost the bet.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

didn't say it was and didn't say it wasn't said they did offer. plus as RadioRobert said he was he built a bigger better home than he had. from the article.

In a statement to The Post, a spokeswoman for Greenwood Village said the city never refused to help the Lechs, saying the family was “very well insured” and refused the $5,000 assistance for out-of-pocket expenses before insurance kicked in. The spokeswoman, Melissa Gallegos, applauded the 10th Circuit’s ruling.

In a statement to The Post, a spokeswoman for Greenwood Village said the city never refused to help the Lechs, saying the family was “very well insured” and refused the $5,000 assistance for out-of-pocket expenses before insurance kicked in. The spokeswoman, Melissa Gallegos, applauded the 10th Circuit’s ruling.

His expenses to rebuild the house and replace all its contents cost him nearly $400,000, he said. While insurance did cover structural damage initially, his son did not have renter’s insurance and so insurance did not cover replacement of the home’s contents, and he says he is still in debt today from loans he took out. “This has ruined our lives,” he said. Gallegos stressed that any large expenses Lech incurred are because he chose to do more than necessary, and chose to “repour the foundation that wasn’t damaged, and [build] a bigger better house where the old one stood.” Lech insisted starting from scratch was necessary.

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

first off, upon inspection i'm fairly sure parts of the homes contents furniture appliances were salvageable. second he didn't have to build bigger and better he could have built what he had with more modern up to date materials than what that house was and had a nicer home.

plus in the article it is said that insurance paid 340thousand dollars, and that he spent 400 thousand. so for the house 60thousand short.

nah he thought he had him a cash cow

a reply to: hounddoghowlie


It sounds like the renting son did not have insurance for his possessions that he is overvaluing! One should just be thankful that they were not home when this meth'd up dude came barreling in with a gun.

a reply to: CynConcepts

the nine year old son was there alone and he said the guy pointed the gun at him. he didn't say if the guy let him go or if he just run.

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.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
plus in the article it is said that insurance paid 340thousand dollars, and that he spent 400 thousand. so for the house 60thousand short.

Well, if the insurance paid out $340,000 I don't see what the issue is, they could always go after the city if they want.

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.