Appeals Court Says It's OK For Cops To Destroy Someone Else's House To Apprehend A Criminal Suspect
from the maybe-just-use-fire-to-flush-them-out-I-guess dept
Three years ago, police in Colorado destroyed Leo Lech's home to arrest a person suspected only of shoplifting from a nearby Walmart when the house destruction began. Shoplifting suspect Robert Seacat abandoned his vehicle and hid in Lech's house. When police entered to arrest him, Seacat shot at them five times.
The Greenwood PD escalated its response. It brought in a Bearcat to ram a hole into the side of Lech's house. Officers used explosives to punch multiple holes in the sides of the house, hoping to locate the hidden suspect. The PD repeatedly fired teargas grenades into what was left of the house. Nineteen hours later, officers arrested Seacat, discovering two handguns and methamphetamines in the backpack he was carrying.
When Leo Lech was finally allowed to return to his home, he discovered he no longer had one.
The city gave Lech $5,000 for "temporary living arrangements," but offered no other assistance. Shortly after that, the city condemned Lech's house and told him he'd need to build a new holding pond in addition to a new house. Lech sued, alleging (among other things) that the PD's destruction of his house to catch a criminal suspect violated the Takings Clause. The district court disagreed, dismissing all these claims with prejudice.
Lech appealed but the Tenth Circuit Appeals Court has upheld [PDF] the lower court's decision. The court says no one's responsible for the mess the Greenwood PD created when it decided a citizen's house wasn't going to stand between officers and the man they were trying to arrest.
Lech argued the destruction of his house was an illegal taking by the government -- a violation of the Fifth Amendment. The government argued it was not a "taking." The destruction of Lech's house occurred during the course of police activity, therefore nothing was "taken" -- at least not in the "eminent domain" sense. In other words, the government never took Lech's house away from him. He was free to have it when the police were done with it, even if officers had rendered it uninhabitable.
The appeals court aligns with the district court, saying there's a bright line between "taking" and "destroying," even if it's the government doing the destroying. Lech argued the (temporary) seizure of his house was for "public use," in the sense that the pursuit of a criminal is a service law enforcement provides to the public. The appeals court isn't willing to stretch the definition of "public use" quite that far, even if it means the government can destroy someone's home without having to worry about compensating them for the destruction.
[T]he Lechs urge us to disregard the distinction between the police power and the power of eminent domain in resolving this appeal. In support, they point out that “the Takings Clause ‘was designed to bar [g]overnment from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.’” Aplt. Br. 13 (quoting Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960)). And they argue that upholding the district court’s summary-judgment ruling would do just that: it would force the Lechs to bear alone the cost of actions the defendants undertook in an effort to “apprehend[] a criminal suspect”—actions that were clearly “for the benefit of the public” as a whole.
We do not disagree that the defendants’ actions benefited the public. But as the Court explained in Mugler, when the state acts to preserve the “safety of the public,” the state “is not, and, consistent[] with the existence and safety of organized society, cannot be, burdened with the condition that the state must compensate [affected property owners] for pecuniary losses they may sustain” in the process. Thus, “[a]s unfair as it may seem,” the Takings Clause simply “does not entitle all aggrieved owners to recompense.”
Accordingly, we reject the Lechs’ first broad challenge to the district court’s ruling and hold that when the state acts pursuant to its police power, rather than the power of eminent domain, its actions do not constitute a taking for purposes of the Takings Clause. And we further hold that this distinction remains dispositive in cases that, like this one, involve the direct physical appropriation or invasion of private property.
The appeals court says destroying a house is just an unfortunate byproduct of law enforcement. While it does acknowledge this narrow reading of the Takings Clause won't encourage officers to be more careful with other people's property when apprehending suspects, it says this won't prevent officers from being held individually responsible for "willfully or wantonly" destroying property. But if this the bar the Tenth Circuit is setting, it will be almost impossible for plaintiffs to meet it without evidence officers were more destructive than they needed to be to effect an arrest.
The law provides few protections for homeowners whose property comes between criminals and the officers pursuing them. While this is the end of the line for Lech's Fifth Amendment claims, he may still win enough from his surviving claims (negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, property deprivation under state law) to recover from his government-inflicted loss. Then again, it's going to be hard to prove officers did anything to Lech directly. If property destruction is just an unfortunate side effect of capturing criminal suspects, the lower court will likely side with the destroyers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 10th circuit, 5th amendment, greenwood pd, leo lech, police, property destruction, robert seacat, takings clause
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
One of those are much less likely to destroy your life
Let's see...
Criminal without a badge: Stole something from a Walmart, took a shot at police when they tried to arrest him, had two guns and some drugs on them.
Criminals with badges: Utterly destroyed a house that wasn't theirs, to the point that it was condemned and therefore uninhabitable, threw an absolute pittance at the homeowner that might be enough to pay for a hotel for a year, and then refused to own up to their own actions, leaving the former homeowner on the hook for the removal and rebuilding of their house to the point that they had to sue to even have a chance to get recompense.
Oh yeah, with 'drug warriors' like that on the streets I'm sure people will feel much more safe and secure.
While it does acknowledge this narrow reading of the Takings Clause won't encourage officers to be more careful with other people's property when apprehending suspects, it says this won't prevent officers from being held individually responsible for "willfully or wantonly" destroying property.
If that's the lie they have to tell themselves to make what they just did seem less deplorable I suppose...
If police can destroy someone's house and get a pass in the course of their 'job' then they've essentially made it impossible to hold them responsible for doing so, as anything less than an admission on camera that they knew they could achieve the outcome without a given level of destruction and chose not to because they were lazy/wanted to play with their 'toys' is likely to be dismissed as 'just part of the job'.
If a lawncare specialist lit someone's garage on fire during their job they could and would be sued, and held accountable for it.
If someone who installed siding on houses ended up smashing multiple windows during their 'job' they could and would be sued, and held accountable for it.
Give someone a badge though and magically destroying someone's house is 'just part of the job', and the person who now is out a house is left with the entire bill, with nary a hint of responsibility to be found on the part of the police for their involvement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Got millions, but want Billions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Got millions, but want Billions?
afaik, all you need is gentrification
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gentrification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One of those are much less likely to destroy your life
I wonder if it would of been CHEAPER... For all the mechanical's used. To just Clear out the house and place 3-5 police around it as siege and just wait a few hours.
REALLY.. go outside and start a Bar-b-que..and Cook him out.
After taking al the food and expensive goods out..
(the person had gotten into the attic when they found him)
I see nothing about the costs of manpower and machines used/borrowed/rented...
Even after all the bombs used, tear gas and soforth..If he hadnt come out, they HAD to have an idea where he was...someone had to figure this out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One of those are much less likely to destroy your life
Destroying a structure is not nearly as serious as attempted capital murder. one would think that would be a no-brainer.
Having said that, the government should pay to clean up its mess no matter what legal acrobatics and linguistic legerdemain comes out of the 10th Circuit to justify not doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One of those are much less likely to destroy your life
Destroying a structure is not nearly as serious as attempted capital murder. one would think that would be a no-brainer.
A fair point, I may have let my frustration and anger get the better of me there though I do still find their actions abhorrent and extremely out of proportion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One of those are much less likely to destroy your li
Think that's bad? They don't even have to go to the trouble of destroying your home to take it and pocket the profits.
https://reason.com/2019/11/06/a-michigan-man-underpaid-his-property-taxes-by-8-41-the-count y-seized-his-property-sold-it-and-kept-the-profits/
An 83-year-old retired engineer in Michigan underpaid his property taxes by $8.41. In response, Oakland County seized his property, auctioned it off to settle the debt, and pocketed nearly $24,500 in excess revenue from the sale.
Under Michigan law, it was all legal. And hardly uncommon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One of those are much less likely to destroy your life
Well - since it is Capitol Murder ... as opposed to simple murder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One of those are much less likely to destroy your li
No, it's not capitol murder. No one tried to kill the seat of government in Colorado.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One of those are much less likely to destroy your life
i will bet the capital Murder charge is the Cop, Jumping out infront of the car as he was trying to get away...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One of those are much less likely to destroy your life
Living under these conditions in the USA where cops no longer have to use restraint in any function of their duties now means Americans are less safe with cops than they are with criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This has been a pretty standard thing from the beginning of our country. I am surprised the court didn't rule that the guy who shot at the police was wholly responsible for the damage. That has been a standard from a lot of other cases I've heard of.
We didn't pay the British civilians, Confederate civilians, and barely compensated Native Americans for their battle losses either.
The crime in the case of the Brits and the Confederates being treason/sedition/insurrection of course and the Native Americans probably deserved a little better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please note, I am not saying the civilians in the British or confederate controlled territories were guilty of anything, but their crap was destroyed in a comparable action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wikipedia: Southern Claims Commission
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And there were absolutely no major problems with the civil war reconstruction era that is still famous at all,(/s) except all of it. I am aware programs have existed and am also aware the vast majority got nothing from history books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It matters whether the programs compensated property owners, not what the programs 'got from the history books'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
National Archives: Guide to House Records: Chapter 6: War Claims 1873-1946
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have read about those things. There is still a protest group trying to get British civilians descendants compensation from the revolutionary war. It is obviously satirical but their point is the vast majority got nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So may be in a few decades when the war on drugs / war on terrorism are finished they can convene another War Clams committee and anyone still alive can claim. Nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Damages in battle are different that damages in law enforcement. Unfortunately, too many LEO's believe they are fighting battles instead of enforcing laws, and the militarization of the police only fuels this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Okay, you can try to argue that with the Presidents responsible for the police action in Korea (or Vietnam). Troops used to be regularly be responsible for law enforcement but that legal regime has fallen out of favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is quite the stretch, what sort of spandex might you be wearing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is largely true, outside of extreme circumstances or dictatorships. However this doesn’t address what Norahc actually said (emphasis added):
That is, LEOs are under a mistaken belief. Also, the “militarization of police” refers to the large amount of military-grade equipment given to LEOs, among other things. Not the literal incorporation or integration of LEOs with the military.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
US taxes are going to England to this day to pay for transgressions against them clear back to the Revolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Okay, that is technically true. However, it is not reparations for the revolution. It is an entirely different set of circumstances and politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have read that approximately 60% of US taxes goes to the vatican and 40% goes to the royalty of England. I can't remember where I read it and sorry, I didn't go searching for it now. Maybe someone else can fact check that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
the sarcasm is fine but we technically fund defense and human rights related treaties that fit his description
biological weapons ban, pro democracy initiatives ect...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"This has been a pretty standard thing from the beginning of our country."
Oh .. well then, I guess nothing to see here. Shuffle along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm fairly sure it wasn't the British side being guilty of treason, sedition or insurrection...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They hung just as well. (We did that too each other)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taken to its logical conclusion...
If I have freedom of speech, that means I should have the right to jack hammer a message into the garage at the police station? I didn't take anything. I just destroyed something. But speech is a public good, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taken to its logical conclusion...
Vandalism is a misdemeanor isn't it?
Damaging property can be a felony I think. It probably depends upon the extent of damage, so ... jack hammer - that is extensive yeah?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taken to its logical conclusion...
What are you drinking? Dude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a legal loophole.
I hate to say it but I think the police have a legal loophole in this case. The law should change to hold the police department responsible for any damage they inflict. But as written, the police are not responsible for the damage caused in the course of police action and I agree it is not an action of taking like the eminent domain example.
I hate the guy is getting screwed over because of this loophole but I don't see any other legal recourse to recoup the loss of property other than through any insurnace he had on the house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The phrase you're looking for is 'double standards'
Refuse to grant immunity under the idea that what they did was just part of the job and 'destruction of property' should more than cover it.
A pizza driver doesn't get to shrug and dismiss slamming into a car and taking out one of the windows while out on delivery by claiming that it happened while on the clock and therefore they aren't responsible, and police shouldn't be able to just destroy someone's house and leave the (former) homeowner with the bill simply because they did so while on duty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The phrase you're looking for is 'double standards'
You cannot really compare delivering a pizza with the apprehension of an armed criminal.
In this particular case, the police were forced to make a decision between destroying a house and possibly having someone hurt or killed by a knowingly armed suspect. Did they apply a bit more destruction than was necessary? Possibly (and by the pictures, probably).
This really is a difficult issue. If we force police departments to have insurance for this kind of damage or pay for it out of their budgets, we would then be complaining that they allow people to be killed to reduce damage. I can see that going very wrong. I would think the owners homeowners insurance should not be able to deny a claim and the homeowner should be able to take the now apprehended suspect to civil court for any direct costs, but I could also imagine cases in which the suspect is not caught and the homeowner has no recourse.
While this one incident is really bad, I wonder how often this kind of thing happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The phrase you're looking for is 'double standards'
Yeah, but there are certain circumstances where you can serve the public good and destroy public property in the process. I'm not aware of any case where a non-cop did so and was not made to pay for it at the minimum. Most did some prison time too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The phrase you're looking for is 'double standards'
"If we force police departments to have insurance for this kind of damage or pay for it out of their budgets ..."
I was thinking the more important issue is the unwarranted destruction, as in - there was no need for that - they could have used other methods that typically result in less destruction.
It really is a difficult issue? Heh - yeah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The phrase you're looking for is 'double standards'
Hey, give the cops a break...
They had just received their new MRAP and grenade launchers from the military surplus lottery and they needed to test them out to make sure they would be capable of destroying things when it actually matters (you know, when they aren't just after someone with a couple hundred dollars of stolen goods...who might also be armed)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The phrase you're looking for is 'double standards'
In this particular case, the police were forced to make a decision between destroying a house and possibly having someone hurt or killed by a knowingly armed suspect.
They really weren't. As I noted in my comment below they could have simply waited him out, or if they really didn't have patience called in a SWAT team which could have stormed the house with minimal property damage. They chose to cause that level of destruction, they weren't 'forced' to do squat.
Did they apply a bit more destruction than was necessary? Possibly (and by the pictures, probably).
They damaged the house so badly that it was condemned and considered unlivable. The only way they could have topped that level of destruction was if they had burned the building to the ground or taken a wrecking ball to it, so yeah, it was way more than necessary.
This really is a difficult issue. If we force police departments to have insurance for this kind of damage or pay for it out of their budgets, we would then be complaining that they allow people to be killed to reduce damage.
Or, you know, it would encourage them to make very sure that if they're going to damage/destroy something that doing so is actually necessary, rather than just something to do for fun. However, even assuming something like your hypothetical was the result that strikes me as a great way to weed out people who should not be given a badge and uniform. 'You either let him go and keep your budget safe, or you apprehend him, and your insurance/budget has to pay for the damage you cause. You prioritized your insurance rates/budget over apprehending a dangerous criminal? Great, you're fired, get out.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Top Destruction [was Re: Re: Re: ... 'double standards']
“The day Philadelphia bombed its own people”
“Sixty-one homes were destroyed.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Top Destruction [was Re: Re: Re: ... 'double standards']
If they did something like that today it would be taken as an open declaration of war. It may even be enough to incite a second civil war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Top Destruction [was Re: Re: Re: ... 'double standards']
Yeah, well, back in those days at least, after Philadelphia officials decided to let the fire burn, they took some responsibility for their decision.
From a 2010 NPR story, “MOVE Fire Burdens Neighborhood, After 25 Years”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Top Destruction [was Re: Re: Re: ... 'double standar
Only $150,000? Is that enough to pay for moving people and getting a new house?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Top Destruction [was Re: Re: Re: ... 'double sta
Following a link from the bottom of the Vox story to block resident Gerald Renfro's 2019 interview with WHYY—
So, after 15 years of living in the houses Philadelphia shoddily rebuilt, by the turn of the century, the city's buyout offer was enough for almost two-thirds of the families. Those families had had enough.
But not all of them. It wasn't enough for Gerald and Connie Renfro.
And now almost thirty-five years after the shooting, bombing, and fire…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a legal loophole.
"any insurnace he had on the house"
hahahha - like they are gonna pay.
The perp was a pre existing condition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As written [was Re: a legal loophole.]
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
(Section 15 is on p.66 of the PDF from Colorado Secretary of State's Office. Regretfully, the html version of the state's constitution at the Colorado legislature's website has been handed off to Lexis-Nexis and requires you to click to agree to a restrictive license before you can read it.)
As written, the text says, “Private property shall not be taken or damaged, for public or private use, without just compensation.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As written [was Re: a legal loophole.]
I had never read the Colorado Constitution. Maybe the Colorado Supreme Court will give them some money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As written [was Re: a legal loophole.]
This is why LAW SUCKS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As written [was Re: a legal loophole.]
And tHEY Employ people ARMED TO THE HILT to defend it. Its totally laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: As written [was Re: a legal loophole.]
They have made a mockery of law and mocked Americans to the limit. Its a GODDAMNED SHAME.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a legal loophole.
The problem with that argument (and the 10th Circuit's opinion) is that the 5th Amendment doesn't say anything about eminent domain. The Takings Clause isn't limited to just eminent domain. So arguing that a police action isn't eminent domain doesn't get you anywhere. The answer to that is: So what? It's still a taking and a taking without compensation is what the 5th Amendment prohibits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a legal loophole.
Yeah, that’s what’s been confusing me about this. What the hell does this have to do with eminent domain? That’s hardly the only method of “taking” that falls within the Fifth Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a legal loophole.
If there was any honor at all in law enforcement, those cops would be offering some help to this man either in donating some time or materials to get his house repaired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Nineteen hours later, officers arrested Seacat, discovering two handguns and methamphetamines in the backpack he was carrying."
I would bet money that the same thing would have resulted without the destruction of property.
Just say'in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Almost certainly. If he was camped out in the house simply waiting him out likely would have done the trick with little to no property damage(especially if they got a non-psychotic person to convince him to give up as opposed to being under siege), but that would have taken patience on their part and (much more importantly) wouldn't have let them have fun playing 'destroy someone else's stuff' with all the 'big boy' toys they've got.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh! Robert Seacat!
Our bad.
We thought his name was David Koresh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sucks when other people are better than even you at ignoring logic while pretending not to, like when you say that platforms don't amplify defamation or create a separate harm from that inflicted by the original publisher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's actually a first amendment test. Would holding the platform liable be a law that reduces freedom of speech?
Alternatively worded, would holding the platform liable chill so much protected speech that enforcing a judgment against them would be unconstitutional?
It's related to the "you can't seize an entire book store for one unlawful book" case precedent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Would holding the platform liable be a law that reduces freedom of speech?"
It would. No matter how weaselly he words it, holding people responsible for the crimes of others is always going to involve removing rights from them, and those include the rights to free speech and free association, as well as the fact that doing that does not remove the original speech. It doesn't matter how much louder the megaphone makes the offensive acts, you hold the person holding the megaphone responsible for its misuse, not the manufacturer of the device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then why do people try to sue gun manufacturers for shootings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because they don't understand how liability works, just as people file failed lawsuits against social media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Then why do people try to sue gun manufacturers for shootings?"
Because sometimes people are emotional after seeing family members being mowed down, and because most countries with fewer guns don't have the same issues with shootings.
That neither means they're targeting the right people, nor that it's the correct way to do things. Just as targeting platforms for the actions of other people is not either of these things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
because most countries with fewer guns don't have the same issues with shootings
Another strongly held belief that is completely false.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/mass-shootings-by-country/
People shooting other innocent people is a sick and terrible thing and causes a lot of people to react in extremely emotional ways. This often leads to a lot of people assuming that what sounds plausible must be true and refuse to actually look for evidence that might suggest it isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop muddying up a a good "gun nut" bashing with your pesky facts. Us people from outside of the U.S. reserve the right to pass judgement on your overly protected constitutional rights. We know what's best for you, just ask us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Another strongly held belief that is completely false."
A site I've never heard of with no listed credentials and very narrow criteria to make its point (notice that it only lists "deaths" rather than shootings), only seems to link to a single source in any of the links that are not to itself, and how it largely seems to exist to spam pop-up autoplay ads at you rather than give you real data.
How convenient that such a site supports your preconceived notions. Any source that apparently concludes that Norway is more dangerous because of a single shooting in 2011 rather than the near-weekly events in the US in 2019 is such an obvious pile of crap you should be ashamed to link to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Could you be any more disingenuous? 10 minutes on google proved he's right. Don't attack someones sources unless you plan on actually proving them wrong.
How about the NY Post?
https://nypost.com/2018/08/30/america-doesnt-actually-lead-the-world-in-mass-shootings/
or..
h ttps://westernfreepress.com/in-5-years-canada-had-more-mass-shootings-per-capita-than-the-us/
..MSNB C?
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/comparing-us-mass-shootings-the-rest-the-world
The U.S. has more overall numbers of dead, but that is because we have more people. If you compare PER CAPITA, then your bullshit falls apart... but I'm guessing you already know all this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"10 minutes on google proved he's right."
If your research consists of random Googling and reading articles that agree with your preconceptions, you're not really researching.
"Don't attack someones sources unless you plan on actually proving them wrong"
I didn't attack the source because of who they are. I questioned the source because they used a very lazy set of tactics to lie with statistics. The fact that they're poorly sourced and depend on spamming ads for revenue, as well as having zero proven credibility is only a side observation.
"The U.S. has more overall numbers of dead,"
Note that I'm referring to more than dead people. A mass shooting that ends up with nobody dead is still a mass shooting. Only counting the dead means you take into account statistically insignificant outliers (a single mass shooting in a small country with a large number of victims obviously returning higher per capita than a lot of shootings in the US that don't have more than one casualty)
"If you compare PER CAPITA"
... you end up with some absolute bullshit unless you're taking into account all data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You said;
" because most countries with fewer guns don't have the same issues with shootings "
and Cdaragorn replied;
"Another strongly held belief that is completely false."
I didn't believe him. So I looked it up. It turns out he's right, you are wrong. You can muddy the water all you want, your statement was false, and he called you on it. Instead of being intellectually honest and admit your wrong, and maybe even tried to throw out an explanation stating why you thought the way you did, you attacked him and his sources. You basically doubled down on dumb ass.
Be a man and admit when your wrong. Don't be a douche bag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"So I looked it up. It turns out he's right, you are wrong"
Yes, proven so conclusively that you provide zero citations and resort to name calling.
"Instead of being intellectually honest and admit your wrong"
I'm not wrong.
"you attacked him and his sources"
No I didn't. I pointed out that the single source he used was very poor, provided nearly zero citations for figures and was obviously misleading, and anyone depending on that kind of source is not getting factual information.
Do you have any actual citations of studies in this area, or are you dumb enough to think that an intelligent person would be swayed by an anonymous coward going "I'm right because I said so?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Damn dude. You got owned. Proven wrong. Called out... and your still trying to argue your point.You need to learn when to just walk away, but since you can't seem to do that, let me break it down for you.
You said'
" because most countries with fewer guns don't have the same issues with shootings "
I trust we can agree that wikipedia is a reliable source? If it's not, let me know and I'll post a half dozen others.
Per Wiki; The U.S. has the most guns per capita of ANY other country on the globe. That is a fact. The U.S. owns half of all the civilian owned guns in the WORLD.
So with that in mind; If the U.S. has the most guns by a LONG shot, yet the U.S. is 8th per capita in shootings.
Now; No one is saying the U.S. doesn't have the MOST deaths total, that is easily explained by our 329m population. However, we are only 8th ish in gun deaths per capita. That means that other countries with less guns, since everyone else has less guns, do indeed have a problem with shootings... at least 8 have a bigger problem than the U.S..
"" because most countries with fewer guns don't have the same issues with shootings ""
Your statement is false. Flat out, equivalently, undeniably, absolutely, FALSE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country
https://www.census.gov/popclock/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Proven wrong"
No, someone linked to the first thing he found in Google that couldn't be bothered to provide its own data, and was clearly fudging the numbers in the areas it did provide. That's not proof of anything other than someone's ability to copy and paste from Google without considering their sources.
"So with that in mind; If the U.S. has the most guns by a LONG shot, yet the U.S. is 8th per capita in shootings."
...and what are the countries above it? First world countries with stable government? For the most part, no. You're kind of proving my point here.
"That means that other countries with less guns, since everyone else has less guns, do indeed have a problem with shootings"
Thanks again for repeating my point above - the fact that one mass shooting in Norway massively skews the numbers, for example, does not mean that Norway has more of a mass shooting problem. It just means that they're so rare than any shooting of any kind makes more of an impact than the weekly shootings you have over there. That's why anybody who is honest and knows how statistics work would account for these outliers.
You've not proven me wrong, in fact you've proven me correct that you peopler are more interested in parroting whatever comes up first in Google than you are in considering the source and context of what you're saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your an asshole who can't admit when he's wrong. You should quit while your behind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why it's impossible to have a conversation on this subject without you people resorting to childish name-calling and strawmen is a mystery. The only thing you've proven, yet again, is that some of the people most obsessed with guns are probably aren't mature enough to handle them.
I wasn't even trying to have a conversation this time, just answering the question about why someone might want to lash out at the people profiting from this stuff, even if they're the wrong target. You couldn't even argue that maybe it's the wrong perception on their part (which could be argued) - but, nope straight into name-calling and easily refuted crap about all how all the people killed by guns really aren't that many if you're picky about which ones count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
" because most countries with fewer guns don't have the same issues with shootings "
The above statement is wrong. Admit it. Don't make it about me, don't make it about the guns, this is about your false statement. Be honest with yourself and everyone else and admit when your wrong. I know it's hard to do, but you can do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The above statement is wrong."
No, it's not. Maybe if you'd try having a discussion you'd understand why, but no you found some random link that don't really address what I meant by that statement and have decided for yourself without even attempting one.
No, cherry picked stats about one part of the problem do not refute anything I said. Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no discussion. That is a false statement... How about Politifact?
https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2019/aug/02/beto-orourke/are-there-more-gun- deaths-united-states-any-other-/
"To be sure, there are quite a few countries where gun violence is a substantially larger problem than in the United States — particularly in Central America and the Caribbean," it reads."
Now.. It does say that "the United States experiences more firearm injury deaths than other countries of similar socioeconomic standing" .. but I'm not arguing that. I believe it to be true. Our culture of freedoms does indeed have a price. .. see below. But that doesn't change the fact that your statement is false.
"Studies show that the United States experiences more firearm injury deaths than other countries of similar socioeconomic standing, but that’s not what O’Rourke said at the debate. Brazil experienced more firearm injury deaths in 2016 than the United States and more than a dozen countries had more firearm deaths per capita than the United States that same year.
"Are there more gun deaths in the United States than any other country?"
We rate this claim Mostly False.
I rate your statement, bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"There is no discussion."
Clearly, why discuss with me to realise you've made several false assumptions about my statement when you can attack me with zero evidence of your own?
"Our culture of freedoms does indeed have a price."
Yet, other countries with similar freedoms are not paying the same price. Is that not a problem?
"Now.. It does say that "the United States experiences more firearm injury deaths than other countries of similar socioeconomic standing" "
So, what I said is true then. Strange how you claim it's not when you're essentially repeating back to me what I said,.
""Are there more gun deaths in the United States than any other country?""
That's a fun statement. Now try the one I actually wrote, because it's very different in both tone and context, and addresses far more than that statement. See if you can work out why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's a known troll who has never once posted in good faith on thos subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All he has is projection and propaganda no different from the antivaxxer on last week's thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not a antivaxxer. Not a gun nut either. I'm in favor of good sensible gun control and I don't believe the current laws are strong enough. I simply want the discussion to be honest, driven by the facts, and not full of political leanings and false narratives. The truth is much more powerful than the lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wasn't describing you. You're fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The truth is much more powerful than the lie."
Yet, you've repeatedly lied about what I said. Interesting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
(Though it does count as projection)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey, I've been shot at in Oslo! Given, it was an air rifle and I was in a biker jacket so ok, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sucks to wonder off topic on a tangent ... but does not seem to be even close to relative is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, its a liability issue, right? Cops blow up someone's house and aren't found liable by two courts siding for their unobstructed apprehension taking precedence over citizen's right to property and then courts have the bloody audacity to tell homeowner to fix it or bulldoze it at his expense. THIS IS NOT AMERICA, LAND OF THE FREE.
Still, there better be some FREE FUCKING SPEECH going about this on ALL PLATFORMS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How's that Section 230 lawsuit coming along, Jhon boi?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ask the people litigating it
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/first-amendment-case-against-restrictive-copyright-law-can- proceed-says-judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That’s very interesting, but that’s not a CDA §230 lawsuit. That’s a DMCA §1201 lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or in other words, complete fuckall...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah, America, the country where private property rights are sacrosanct. But not as sacrosanct as the rights of law enforcement.
Leo Lech has lost his home, but he should look at it from the bright side: he's still alive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even brighter side: they didn't send him a bill for damage done to the equipment while it was destroying his property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or the cost of the bullets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And the final cherry on that shit sundae: They won't even let him rebuild it if he doesn't install a bunch of other expensive crap he neither wants nor needs (i.e. the retaining pond).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've seen this before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopscotch_(film)
Truth is stranger than fiction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://i.imgur.com/ev8JdHF.png
Mission Accomplished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wtf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hollywood problem solved
Now that super-heroes don’t need to wear masks our bankable stars’ charming faces can be on display like God and the studios intended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood problem solved
Wrong article, mate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hollywood problem solved
Right article. Just having some fun. No need to be anonymous if one isn’t responsible for collateral mayhem generated by chasing around the Joker et al. Cheers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hollywood problem solved
But that only works if you're part of the police, not a vigilante.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hollywood problem solved
In Batman’s case, the relationship with Gordon might move him to police consultant. I don’t know if that’s tested law though. Other, Avengers types may have a less cozy relationship with badged authorities but are shielded by rights of qualified immunity from results of collateral mayhem as long as said mayhem is conducted toward public safety activity beyond the scope of routine law enforcement (NYC v Ghostbusters, 1984).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hollywood problem solved
17. Collateral Damage Man is not an appropriate name for a super hero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood problem solved
If cops think they are superheros then shouldn't they be wearing spandex?
Officer Glazed Donuts will require a custom spandex uniform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hollywood problem solved
Robin Hood Men in Tights!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hollywood problem solved
Except they are robbing the poor to give to the rich!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
U.S. District Court Docket
Lech v Jackson (1:16-cv-01956) District Court, D. Colorado
Read that first docket entry as removal by defendants to federal court of a complaint originally filed by plaintiffs in Colorado state court.
Note from the D.Colo Jan 8, 2018 decision (doc. 115) on p.31—
But plaintiff's Aug 1, 2016 amended complaint, on p.7, captioned count V as, “TAKING WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION IN VIOLATION OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION”, and the U.S. District Court—
This federal court decision has now been affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
The upshot of all this, is that plaintiff filed a complaint in Arapahoe County, Colorado state court asserting a claim under the Colorado Constitution. Defendants removed the complaint to federal court, where both the district and circuit decided that the Colorado state constitutional claim would be tossed.
… and then they sent what was left back to Arapahoe County for further proceedings in state court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: U.S. District Court Docket
Way to remove that 'pesky nuisance' claim that was actually valid at the state level from the charges the state could evaluate.
Judicial Gerrymandering at it's finest...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: U.S. District Court Docket
I'm unclear how the federal court even has jurisdiction to hear, let alone toss, a claim under the Colorado state constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: U.S. District Court Docket
Treating the question superficially, I could point to the Wikipedia article on Supplemental jurisdiction:
Or for another treatment, the CRS's U.S. Constitution Annotated section on Pendent Jurisdiction:
(Footnotes omitted.)
Yet, while these are familar concepts, and though for many cases a superficial treatment would suffice, in this particular case I myself might have jurisdictional questions. It's not quite clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: U.S. District Court Docket
Yes, but if the claim was asserted solely under the Colorado Constitution, there is no federal question at all, which is why I'm unclear what jurisdiction the federal court had to hear the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. District Court Docket
Hope someone helps take this Homeowner's appeal all the way to the Supreme court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. District Court Docket
To be perfectly frank and blunt, overwhelming odds at this point indicate that on this issue, plaintiff is quite simply fucked. Fucked.
'Could be wrong, never know til we see…
At this point, though, primary interest remains in post-mortem inquest on how shit went tits-up for plaintiff.
From May 10, 2018 district court order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: U.S. District Court Docket
While the federal court may have had supplemental jurisdiction at the start, after dismissing the federal claims, it’s almost unheard of for a federal court to continue to hold any state claims within its jurisdiction, especially if it’s going to decline to do so for most of the claims. I guess they technically can, but it’s really bizarre and highly questionable, especially where there are substantial differences between the standards of the federal law vs. the state law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. District Court Docket
Footnote 9 on p.13 of the U.S. District Court's decision states:
See also the last para on p.15 of the decison.
Now if the district just absolutely had to decide the Colorado constitutional question in order to figure out the federal issues, it could have certified the state question to the Colorado Supreme Court under Colo. R. App. P. 21.1.
Instead, though, the federal district court looked to the California Supreme Court's interpretion of the California Constitution, and decided that California had a better reading than (pp.18-19) the Texas Supreme Court's interpretation of the Texas Constitution and the Minnesota Supreme Court's interpretation of the Minnesota Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colorado Law [was Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. District Court Docket]
Not cited by the U.S. District Court's decision in the present case, is the Colorado Court of Appeals 1979 decision SRB v Board of County Commissioners
The Colorado Supreme Court, in the 1992 case Denver v Desert Truck Sales observed in note 5 that—
However, in SRB, the court of appeals relied on two earlier Colorado Supreme Court decisions:
McMahon v Telluride (Colo. 1926)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
From a UK point of view, this looks totally despicable to me. Not sure how a similar situation would pan out here but to rule that the police are not responsible or liable for the damage seems, to me, to be nothing short of a major travesty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
So you're a native speaker of the English language?
In your opinion, is there is a meaningful difference between this phrase—
—compared against—
Is there a meaningful difference between those two provisions, in your opinion, as a native speaker of the English language?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh?
"Is there a meaningful difference between those two provisions, in your opinion, as a native speaker of the English language?"
There is, actually.
More to the point however, neither of the provisions you state have much to do with what is written in the OP regarding a group of police officers turning private property into a condemned building due to injudicial use of heavy weaponry with the owner of said property latter on being provided the insulting equivalent of being forced to rebuild said property mainly on his own dime.
I really don't care whether you're from the US or the UK, if you don't see a massive problem with the police blowing up someone's house - for ANY reason - and then choosing to saddle a 3rd party with the bill then the problem is at your end.
If you break something you either replace it or pay the cost of replacing it in full. This is not rocket science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh?
Did you read any of the Tenth Circuit decision embedded in the article up top?
That decision begins—
(Emphasis added; footnote omitted.)
That's from the article up top. The overall context of this discussion. We may hope that Dave P. is writing his comment, and expressing his opinion, in the context of the article up top.
Dave P. wrote that he's from the UK, seems to write fairly well, and therefore it's reasonable to presume that he's a native speaker of the English language, and literate.
The “Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution” and a sentence from “Article II, Section 15 of the Colorado Constitution” are the two provisions that I asked Dave P. to compare — as a native speaker of the English language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh?
The Colorado Supreme Court perhaps might possibly agree with you. In the 2001 case of AVSG v Board of County Commissioners of La Plata, that high court wrote:
Then, a paragraph later:
So, the question that I asked was, with added emphasis, ‘Is there a meaningful difference between those two provisions …?” Meaningful, in the context of this case, that we're discussing here. — In the opinion of a native speaker of the English language. Focusing primarily on just the plain text of the two provisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?
You literally just cited a meaningful distinction and presented it as evidence that there is no meaningful distinction. Am I being punked here?
Specifically, the “damage” language in the clause means that the protections in this area imbued by the Colorado Constitution are broader than that in the U.S. Constitution. I suppose that would be a meaningless distinction if you believe that “taking” under the U.S. Constitution includes “damaging”, but the position of the federal court in this case was that it does not. (Hence the focus on eminent domain, which has nothing to do with damages.) So by a plain reading of the text, in the context in this case, there is a meaningful distinction relevant to the reasoning used in the ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?
Ask a federal judge that question. In that tone.
Perhaps you read —and I called your own attention to this footnote over in the other thread— the District Court decision footnote 9 on p.13:
Animas Valley Sand & Gravel, Inc. may be abbreviated as AVSG.
You perhaps also read the Tenth Circuit decision and noticed footnote 6 on p.6:
In any case, in this thread here, I asked first the OP, Paul P. and second Scary Devil Monastery specifically —but also anyone else generally, including you yourself, I s'pose— simply whether —
So it looks like we have your answer now. In whatever tone you yourself care to use.
The reason that I asked the OP, Paul P., specifically, though, is that I wanted the opinion of an native English speaker who was just going to focus on the plain text — whether the District Court judge's reading of the two provisions made sense to him. At this late stage of the discussion, unfortunately, it doesn't look like we're going to get an answer from Paul P.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?
I think I understand what you’re saying now. Sorry for misunderstanding your question.
FTR, I am also a native English speaker, and as you have no doubt already inferred (accurately) from what I wrote, IMO as a native English speaker, there is a meaningful distinction between the two clauses based solely on their plain text, and one that would be applicable in this case.
The reason for the punked remark was this quote from the case:
combined with me misreading this statement of yours:
This seemed like such a massive contradiction that I was simply stunned. However, now that I’ve reread your post thoroughly, I am willing to concede that I made a mistake and was out of line with that remark. My apologies for the error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Black Powder [was Re: Re: Re: Huh?]
Just suppose the police are blowing up houses with BLACK GUNPOWDER, in a desperate fight against a conflagration consuming the entire capital city… …as happened back in 1666 during the Great Fire of London.
Who should pay for all the houses blown up or simply pulled down?
ANY reason? ANY reason at all whatsoever? What's the perspective from the UK after a few centuries? Did the crown take the houses, or some houses, or did the great fire take all the houses? Who pays for what was taken?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Black Powder [was Re: Re: Re: Huh?]
That may or may not be known, but houses that were going to be destroyed in a fire already being destroyed by the government isn't anywhere the same as wrecking a place for the lulz, then billing the homeowner to replace his own home effectively.
Besides, hasn't the law evolved a a bit since 1666? Didn't some little colonies somewhere secede in order to avoid English/British law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
Short of a travesty but good readon for a bloody revolution in my country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The cops were justified, but innocent bystander should be paid.
The cops were justified to capture a shooter, but a civilized jurisdiction would compensate innocent victims of a justified police action. If they decide they can't afford it, then they should curb police activity to something they are willing to cover, even if that means some dangerous criminals get away. The State or Federal governments could offer financial backing for local police actions, especially for departments otherwise constrained by local poverty.
One of the high points of Winston Churchill's WW2 leadership was a money-losing insurance program for homes bombed in the Blitz. Under common law, victims of war damage were out of luck, but Churchill and his people recognized that society as a whole was better able to sustain losses suffered in the common cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The cops were justified, but innocent bystander should be pa
"The cops were justified to capture a shooter"
I doubt anyone is disputing that. What some are pointing out is the level of damage incurred is excessive and unnecessary.
This sort of scenario has played out many times in the past and I do not recall houses being blown up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The cops were justified, but innocent bystander should be pa
WHO fired the first shots? Cops that started shooting a suspected shoplifter is grounds for some very high scrutinizing. But I can see the cops firing back if the culprit fired first. No mention if suspect had right to carry firearms? To the extent these "law enforcement" matched weapon for weapon X 1000, they should be real proud of themselves. And now how much of tax payer money has these cops spent trying to avoid liability for their keystone cops show?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
QUESTION
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The other side..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IMO, The perpetrator should be the one footing the bill. He shot at the police, and they destroyed a house to take him down. None of this would have happened if he hadn't have done what he did. Why not sue him? Or is this a case of deepest pockets should get the blame?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tell me you'd feel the same if the same thing happened to you, leaving you with no house, probably no equity in the land, a huge cleanup bill you can't afford and $5000 to stay in a hotel for as long as that lasts. Go ahead. And I'll call you a liar.
In no world is destroying someone's house -- a totally innocent someone -- to apprehend even an armed shirt thief a reasonable course of action. The police should be taken to task for their overbearing and completely disproportionate actions, particularly against the property of someone who had nothing to do with any of this.
The police should pay up and then go after the perp to get their money back. The bystander shouldn't be screwed out of everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He shot at the police, and they destroyed a house to take him down.
You write that like it's SOP for police to knock down a building if they get shot at.
Makes me think they're just chicken-shit cowards who are such lousy shots they can't (wait for it...) shoot back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I read that in the voice of Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Why not sue him? Or is this a case of deepest pockets should get the blame?"
For obvious reason. One of which is that according to that argument the next time a police officer in pursuit smashes a store and runs over a child they can simply point to the dead suspect they were chasing and say "Take it up with that guy!".
You can't seriously be suggesting that police officers should lose any and all incentive to NOT immediately bringing out the most destructive action since even if they burn half the city down they get covered by the (probably quite dead) suspect they were chasing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nuke it from the next county,
it's the only way to be sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Read in Michael Biehn's voice...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dear AC..
Have you ever seen a police officer in full gear..
Face Shield, Everything covered up, Knees arms, feet all protected from Almost anything.
How about shields?? that even a Close range 12 gauge SLUG wont go thru..
Let him shoot until he runs out of Ammo...
THEN the Convict is at fault for damage.
and I DONT think that person was using any gun that was Large caliber, with a 6-10 in barrel..
How easy would it have been to send someone in, to inspect and locate the person, and remove the household weapons??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After the home was Condemned...
The insurance paid $500,000
NOT all of the costs..
The house is Large and in a very Well-to-do Neighborhood..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]