11 ms·

Police blow up innocent man's home. No recompense, court rules

144 points by wallace_f 7y ago

olliej 7y ago
So the police destroyed a persons house over a shoplifter stealing a shirt and a belt? Wtf?
- zajd 7y ago
  Welcome to America
- mtgx 7y ago
  They feared for their safety. The only possible response was to immediately annihilate the potential threat, no questions asked. Better use the rocket launcher and be safe than sorry. The "modern" American policing system is such a joke (a scary one).
  - iron0013 7y ago
    I'm glad your comment got vouch-rescued, mtgx, so that I can tell you that you have been shadow-banned, and almost all of your comments, except those that are rescued by vouching, are invisible to almost all HN readers (except those of us who have the "showdead" setting turned on). It looks like the shadowban began about 90 days ago, after you left a very mildly disparaging comment related to John Carmack. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20582828 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20582828 You were banned, but many others who say much more offensive things never get banned.
    - zajd 7y ago
      > You were banned, but many others who say much more offensive things never get banned. He made the mistake of being critical of a white person in power on HN. Combined with critique of a multibillion dollar tech corporation. That stuff doesn't go over well here. Also, mtgx, welcome to the club.
      - dang 7y ago
        That's not the reason. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20587230 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20587230
        zajd 7y ago
        Hmm, I wonder what the ideology he's battling is? Could it possibly be the hypercapitalist ideology promoted by the sorts of people who own the site? You know, the white billionaires who own and control Google, Facebook, Twitter, AirBnB, etc? Funny how some ideologies can be "fought against" safely here and others can't be. Climate change denial, a-ok. Criticizing china? It's for freedom! Labor unions? Fair game. Want to openly defend fascists? Go right ahead. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20961603 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20961603 Criticizing Carmack working for Facebook? now that crosses the line. Look man, I don't expect you to go against your boss's wishes and allow discourse that actively criticizes their actions, but don't come in here to try to sell me a different story.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  The article says he was armed so maybe it’s ok. But the owners should definitely be compensated.
  - sarah180 7y ago
    Wait, you're saying somebody in American has a handgun? That changes everything.
    - windsurfer 7y ago
      He fired at the police through the garage, according the article.
      - ToastyMallows 7y ago
        "...after __believing__ they heard Seacat fire several rounds." Seems like that isn't even 100% certain.
        olliej 7y ago
        I'm reminded of the many videos of police assaulting people while shouting "stop resisting".
      - wyldfire 7y ago
        Gee, so how much uncompensated destruction is permitted if the police are fired upon? What if they leveled the block? What if they drove a tank through the neighborhood, destroying everything they passed on the way. Or every building the shoplifter was suspected of having entered?
        olliej 7y ago
        They have bombed an entire block: https://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/14/us/police-drop-bomb-on-radicals-home-in-philadelphia.html https://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/14/us/police-drop-bomb-on-ra... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE
- alistairSH 7y ago
  Shop-lifted shirts started the whole fiasco. However, the suspect was stopped for questioning, then attempted to run over the questioning officer while fleeing, then broke into and barricaded himself within an occupied home. That said, damaging the home to the point that it was condemned still seems like a bit much. Probably would have been easier to turn off the water and power, then blast Nickelback until the suspect gave himself up.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - olliej 7y ago
    My bad I failed miserably - and scanned the article and apparently missed this entirely.
Bantros 7y ago
This can't be real
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bilbo0s 7y ago
America has become a crazy place. It's like a movie. A man you say is armed, shoplifts a shirt and a belt, then locks himself in a bathroom. So we use APC's, grenades, and 40 mm rounds to get at him in a house instead of waiting him out? Just seems, odd.
- klipt 7y ago
  Shirt: $10 Belt: $20 Grenades: $1000 Destroying your home: priceless.
  - shantly 7y ago
    Total loss to Walmart was probably like $10, wholesale, shipping, and stocking. That they pursued him more than about 100 meters is kinda nuts. The "high speed chase" that seems to have preceded this was dumb as hell, too.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      Armed robbery is serious regardless of the amount stolen. Not that it justifies what the cops did, though.
      - shantly 7y ago
        I didn't get the impression they found out he was armed until later. But the article's not especially clear on that point, among others.
        icebraining 7y ago
        It seems you're right, but he had tried to run over a cop, according to their affidavit: https://www.greenwoodvillage.com/DocumentCenter/View/13916/Affidavit-Seacat https://www.greenwoodvillage.com/DocumentCenter/View/13916/A...
- yardie 7y ago
  > we use APC's, grenades, and 40 mm rounds This is why I have a big problem with giving US police forces ex-military and subsidized military gear. It's already bad enough they give themselves military rank. Now we give them Bearcats and tactical gear. At some point they're going to treat their constituents as an insurgency.
aketchum 7y ago
This story is insane and infuriating. The police had no need to destroy the house. They could have "sieged" the house and waited for him to come out when he ran out of food. This could be expedited by cutting the water to the house so the suspect had nothing to drink. This would probably be cheaper for the police in the end anyways as the extra few days of salary are offset by not having to use and pay for "tear gas, robots and police negotiations". The homeowner deserves to be made whole and I think that should be the police departments responsibility, in order to encourage alternative approaches when possible.
- stanski 7y ago
  But where's the fun in that? Gotta get to use all that weaponry after all.
  - synlatexc 7y ago
    Exactly. Recall an NYT article[1] on the topic. It describes how police chiefs will make a spectacle out of their newly purchased tanks or whatever, even bringing them to schools for kids to check out. Best quote was from a police chief who hadn't been swept up in the mania for military gear and vehicles: “I go to schools,” he said. “But I bring ‘Green Eggs and Ham.’” [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-poli...
- magashna 7y ago
  All for what, maybe $40-60 in 1 shirt and 1 belt? 19 hours of police OT, paying for all their toys, this ongoing legal battle. Insanity
  - fortran77 7y ago
    It was an _armed_ robbery. That's a very serious crime. Not "shoplifting".
    - shantly 7y ago
5874-4b22-a4e0 7y ago
Why did insurance not cover?
williesleg 7y ago
Yeah, wapo and the people of Colorado are all nuts. Good for them!
megous 7y ago
"but when police have to protect the public, they can’t be “burdened with the condition” that they compensate whoever is damaged by their actions along the way." So can they also kill bystanders freely without compensating the family, or where does this logic end? "“My mission is to get that individual out unharmed and make sure my team and everyone else around including the community goes home unharmed,” Greenwood Village Police Commander Dustin Varney said in 2015" Also kind of insensitive, since the family didn't really get to go home, after this.
- klipt 7y ago
  America doesn't care about the little guy. The solution is probably to buy huge amounts of insurance, and let your insurance argue it out with the police.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    I'm not certain whether or not either of you are aware, but most home insurance policies specifically preclude any claims precipitated by certain circumstances. Industry wide, a few of the standard circumstances that you would have to specifically add coverage for would be things like, acts of war, or, for instance, police actions. The homeowner would have to review his/her policy in detail to determine if they are covered in this instance. But in light of the fact that they sued the city, I'm thinking they probably aren't protected, or opted not to add on that additional coverage, assuming it was available?
    - hitpointdrew 7y ago
      Also flooding is not covered in the vast majority of home owners polices.
      - lotsofpulp 7y ago
        Insurance is only economical for unpredictable, rare circumstances. Flooding is basically guaranteed in certain areas, so it would be crazy to offer insurance for it, as it would simply turn into a payment plan for a future expected expense. Much like health "insurance" exists in the US.
johnnyo 7y ago
Does homeowners insurance cover the loss? What exactly is he suing for? Wouldn't the insurance company be the one who would want to sue here, in an attempt to get back some of their outlay?
- wysifnwyg 7y ago
  Making a claim, in some cases, will increase your premium costs. Additionally, there's emotional and mental costs, which home insurance may not cover.
- nickthegreek 7y ago
  Insurance company could raise his rates and he would still be responsible for the deductible.
  - johnnyo 7y ago
    Right, but the government offered to cover his deductible. Any money he got from the government over and above the deductible he'd likely have to pay back to his insurance company, wouldn't he? You can't double dip like that.
    - shantly 7y ago
      They offered $5000 toward the deductible and temporary housing. No mention of actual costs involved (like, how large was the total deductible, for instance). Given how long it takes to build a house, plus extra time + expense for demo & removal in this case, I'd expect $5000 to be a small part of just the temporary housing costs.
  - midolzzzz 7y ago
    This is prime example of what insurance should cover 100% no questions asked with no premium increase. These circumstances are way out of a homeowners' control, maybe this guy should look into suing his own insurance company.
  - zdragnar 7y ago
wysifnwyg 7y ago
Makes me wonder if this would be different if the criminal had holed up in an officer's house.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  Of course it would. Just like it's different when police see another police speeding, or their relatives breaking traffic laws with their fake badge stuck on the windshield.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
golover721 7y ago
Police level of response needs to be appropriate based on the given situation. Seems like this police department just had a bunch of toys they really wanted to play with.
- shantly 7y ago
  The way judges expect normal people to, within reason, use good judgement and will hold them accountable if they didn't, but will take police at their word that whatever dumb shit they did was totally necessary and appropriate and they can't possibly be blamed for it, is really frustrating.
  - lukifer 7y ago
    The "reasonable person" standard [0] is deeply interwoven into our legal infrastructure. Yet as you say, courts/judges seem deeply reluctant to apply this standard to the police (there may be selection bias at play; we don't hear about the instances where unreasonable police actions are held to account). As a relatively new homeowner, I'm wondering if there's some sort of insurance I can buy for this sort of thing. (I wish I were joking.) Greenwood Village, where this took place, is less than an hour's drive from me, and isn't even a "bad part of town"; just a regular middle-class south Denver suburb. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
  - shawnb576 7y ago
    Exactly. Why doesn't the police dept carry insurance for _exactly this_? Yes it will be expensive, but it's a leveraged bet that allows them to do what they need to but have some consequences for doing things they don't. There has to be some reasonable standard that can be applied to their behavior. If they used their tank to bulldoze a block of houses looking for some guy hiding in one of them ("how were we supposed to know which one he was in?"), would we expect that to be just OK? Sounds like this ruling says "yes". There are no checks on this behavior.
    - shantly 7y ago
thatswrong0 7y ago
Cops in America are thugs. Not sure what we can do to fix it at this point
sathackr 7y ago
Why isn't the armed shoplifting suspect paying for this? It's his actions that were the catalyst for the damage by police. I don't think any of us are in a sufficient position of knowledge to determine if the police action was justified. But it seems to me the suspect that picked the house to hole up in should be the primary responsible party.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  It turns out that crackheads aren't likely to have any money so how about the local government make the home owner whole and then they can sue the crackhead for part of his welfare check.
- shantly 7y ago
  There is a high probability the guy stealing a few dollars of clothes from a friggin' Walmart doesn't have much money to take.
- gorgonical 7y ago
  I think they probably could sue him for damages in civil court, but the problem is that (as I understand it) it is not possible to compel someone to pay. You can garnish wages, seize property, etc., but if you're stealing ~$10 of belts do you think you have $400k laying around? The second part of this is that it indemnifies the police of their actions, shifting the cost of their recklessness. You pay in taxes to give them APCs, and then you pay again when they blow things up with those APCs you bought them.
- toast0 7y ago
  The suspect certainly has some responsibility. I would find him liable for loss of use while in the building / during investigation after, as a reasonable person would expect a building to be cleared for that. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the building to be destroyed because you're hiding in it, unless you're a sniper in a war zone. Gunshot damage, sure.
- jMyles 7y ago
  This is bizarre logic. I can't even follow it. The police destroyed the house. It's really that simple. Their reasons for doing that happen to include that they were chasing a suspect. So?
Aaronstotle 7y ago
There is an ever growing boundary between ordinary citizens and government officials. Unless there is a drastic shift, this does not bode well for the U.S. as a country.
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  In Denver there are "Civilian Crash Investigation" cars which drives me crazy. Police and government officials are also civilians. The distinction on the car is such an "us vs them" mentality and very out of touch.
  - jadell 7y ago
    Police use military terminology when talking among themselves. Many current police officers come from the military before becoming police. Officers refer to non-LEO as "civilians". If the police are supposed to be a civilian agency, someone forgot to tell them. The "us v. them" mentality comes from both sides. Though my personal opinion is: the police (and the government they serve) started it and actively encourage it.
- mindslight 7y ago
  The distinction is longstanding, from a simpler time. The problem is that the police are taking more and more advantage of it. Indemnifying police for the damages they cause makes it so they have no reason to even consider them. We'd expect these externalities to grow larger over time, because there's no incentive for them not to. Wait for the suspect to come out, or play commando? It's all the same to them. The current situation is a weird reverse-lottery wherein only a rare unlucky victim is expected to bear the burden of a societal cost. Police departments should be civilly responsible for damage caused by their actions, end of story. This story, casualties from high speed chases, arrests of innocent people. These are all damages created by explicit choices by police, and thus whomever is enabling/funding the police departments should be responsible for them. If cities/insurers/taxpayers don't like having to pay for what they're enabling, then they will institute policies to reign in the police to keep them from doing such things!
- t0mbstone 7y ago
michaelmrose 7y ago
In case someone didn't read the article cough - Leo Lech owns the home - His son was renting it and living there when the incident happened. - Robert Seacat was the guilty party. He is entirely unconnected to either party above. After a high speed chase he hopped a fence and ran into a random house owned by Lech. Whats at stake is whether the government can willfully destroy your shit in the course of police work and not pay for it.
gwbas1c 7y ago
No mention of homeowner's insurance! Was the house uninsured? Or did the homeowner's insurance deny the claim?
- yardie 7y ago
  Homeowners insurance does not cover police destruction. Because there was nothing accidental about it. For the people in the back. AMERICAN HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE DOES NOT COVER YOU IN CASE OF POLICE ACTIVITY!
  - icebraining 7y ago
    According to the article, it did cover.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    Having been in insurance, I seriously doubt anything in insurance can be pithily and accurately summed up with a one liner. In my experience, what gets covered depends on the policy you bought, the state you live in, luck of the draw for who reviewed the claim and, I don't know, whether or not it was a full moon when you dropped it in the mail. I wouldn't draw any conclusion whatsoever about what is and is not typically covered based on the outcome of a single claim. Plus, other comments here contradict your statement.
- Glyptodon 7y ago
  There's a very real chance they denied the claim. Government action is often excluded from insurance claims.
- lb1lf 7y ago
  -Not in the US, but my insurance policy explicitly states that it does not cover damage caused by a government entity doing its work. I am not concerned, though, as in my jurisdiction (Norway) the authorities would be required to compensate me for any loss incurred. Edit: Besides, Norwegian police prefer other tactics; they'd probably ask him to come out for a beer [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/1985/06/22/world/hijacker-of-norwegian-jet-gives-up-for-beer.html https://www.nytimes.com/1985/06/22/world/hijacker-of-norwegi...
program_whiz 7y ago
This will be an unpopular view, but if someone is armed and locks themself in a house (the contents and perons inside which are unknown), its a bit tough for the police. Police protocols are largely based on preventing the numerous deaths and damage that they see on a regular basis, and the court ruling is based on the legal experts reviewing the case and seeing that they did what was expected. If your family was in that house, murdered, and you were held at gunpoint for hours, you would probably be wishing the police had acted more swiftly, not just put up their hands and said "well I guess we just let an armed suspect who ran and hid inside a residence after committing a crime go..."
- magashna 7y ago
  No one was held at gunpoint. The article even says the guy took a nap. They could just wait.
  - program_whiz 7y ago
    What if you and your family were being held hostage, how do the police know "they can just wait"? They don't even know if the guy is really allowed to be in the house. Also how long do the police wait, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month? How many millions is it worth to avoid damaging an armed criminals residence, especially when he can willingly walk out at any time and avoid all that damage. How well would we respond if someone was killed because the police waited saying "We didn't want to damage the house, we figured he was just taking a nap or something."
    - toast0 7y ago
      Was anybody else in the building when the police were destroying it? If there were (which I don't think is the case from the article), were they in more danger from the suspect or the police?
    - magashna 7y ago
      I don't care about your fantasy. The reality is insane overreaction to a guy who stole $20 worth of clothes. Walmart writes this into their bottom line. You know what should've happened? Nothing.
sparrish 7y ago
Why are they going after the police? It's the home intruder that should pay for the damages.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  How is someone going to pay from in jail?
  - sparrish 7y ago
    They garnish his wages in and out of jail for the rest of his life. Yes, it's unlikely they'll ever receive full restitution but he's the one who should pay, not the police. Is your argument that because the perpetrator is unable to pay, someone else (the police) should?
    - cannonedhamster 7y ago
      My argument is that it was the police firing 40mm rounds blindly into the house, using shaped charges, using battering rams for a single suspect with limited ammunition is completely unreasonable. I've seen police safely breach in more dangerous situations. They could have done a number of things before making the house unliveable and should have been expected to be trained in those options. The town should be paying because their actions caused the house to be unlivable and function as essentially eminent domain of the house. The police did far worse damage and put that more people at risk than this person did though their actions. Also he attempted to kill police officers. It's unlikely he'll get it of jail any time before retirement.
- magashna 7y ago
  He stole a shirt and a belt. Where's this $400k coming from?
  - sparrish 7y ago
    Just because he's unable to pay restitution doesn't mean they should get paid from the police. He's the bad actor here, not the police. He's the one that caused the damage by illegally breaking into their home and not surrendering. Restitution should come from the one causing the harm, not the ones trying to protect the public from harm.
mrtweetyhack 7y ago
The HULK will be happy to hear this.
major505 7y ago
Jesus... Looks like a bomb went off and imploded all windows and doors in the house.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  Article says the police threw grenades into every room trying to flush the shoplifter out.
  - major505 7y ago
    I know, but they where suposed to throw flashbangs and gas. Not real granades! Really, seens like a tatical unit with a balistic shield would be able to do the job without that much fuzz.
crb002 7y ago
This should be the insurance company's problem. Also, they should have filed in the criminal case with the State judge for the damages who probably would have granted them.
chmod775 7y ago
Of course the state should reimburse the family, whether they have to by law or not (though if they don't your laws are fucking stupid). How is this even a question? They can then later charge the perpetrator if they want to. Your state is your community, and the police is its executive branch. When you destroy some individuals home while carrying out whatever duties you have, the entire community has a responsibility to reimburse that person. When your representatives fail in such ways, you either change their minds, find better representatives, or you are complicit. I'm not holding my breath though. I don't think anything will change.
yspeak 7y ago
Would like to see more balance in news stories. This is clearly an editorial masquerading as news. This was not a traditional eminent domain claim so not at all a surprise and the article does say that other courts ( I'm betting ba majority) have decided likewise so outcome is not a surprise. Maybe they have other grounds for a claim but eminent domain is not one of them. Official functions will also be protected under theory that law enforcement has to do their job to protect the public without fear of every bystander suiing. The solution is legislative, convince your elected representatives to fund compensation for these types of damage. Public shaming also goes a long way.Just don't have a usually unelected judge make it up and rewrite the eminent domain law.
alfromspace 7y ago
The court acknowledged that this may seem “unfair,” but when police have to protect the public, they can’t be “burdened with the condition” that they compensate whoever is damaged by their actions along the way. Incredible. A stranger can barricade themselves inside your property, the police can blow your property to bits trying to get to the stranger, and the owner of the property is on the hook. The court's ruling that the Takings Clause doesn't apply because it's not an exercise of eminent domain is utter nonsense. There's no such requirement in the 5th Amendment that the government needs to label their use of private property "eminent domain" to be responsible for compensation for it. All it says is "public use". If this ruling is allowed to stand, this isn't America anymore.
- failrate 7y ago
  Exactly, they eminent domained the dhit out of that house in pursuit of the criminal.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  I am not in a position to judge the tactics they used but it’s hard to understand how the government could refuse to compensate the homeowner who had nothing to do with this and had no choice.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Their position seems to be that they don't need to compensate because he's already getting paid by the insurance company.
cbanek 7y ago
Pretty sure cops can follow the same rules to tear apart your car looking for drugs, and even if they don't find any, will happily return your stack of car parts and say "have a good day."
nkrisc 7y ago
> The court acknowledged that this may seem “unfair,” but when police have to protect the public, they can’t be “burdened with the condition” that they compensate whoever is damaged by their actions along the way. I actually agree, the police should not be concerned about this, they should be concerned with policing. Which is why the state should pay compensation and then take it up with the police department if police actions are costing the state too much.
thomaswang 7y ago
USA, USA, USA... no but seriously wtf?
- icebraining 7y ago
  The court found that the destruction of property was the result of the state using its police powers, and not eminent domain. Seems reasonable to me.
MFogleman 7y ago
A lot of people are missing some key points here, and getting angry at the wrong aspects. Let me start by saying that I do believe the family should be compensated by some means. They shouldn't become the de facto victim of the crime. The police did not "Blow up a home" over "some belts". They spent 19 hours of negotiation, de-escalation, and sound tactics, to apprehend an armed gunman who shot at police on at least one occasion, maybe two, during the stand off. People are admonishing the use of "Grenades and APCs". The grenades were tear gas. They used tear gas to attempt to get the suspect to leave a home. The APCS are literally just armored cars. You can go and buy one right now. They serve 2 purposes. They move people, and they help stop bullets. I have friends who are alive because of their APCs. Human beings die in stand offs like this. Some are saying "Why not just wait him out". Its a great idea in theory, but you know what they say about the differences in practice and theory. Being on the perimeter of a barricaded suspect is dangerous. He has the most cover, and concealment. He can be anywhere in the house, and he can have anything. The police in this situation know he has at least 1 gun. He may have others they don't know about, he may have others in the home that the home owners didn't tell the police about. He may be in there constructing nail bombs. These scenarios are unlikely, but possible, and one should err on the side of caution and preserving human life, when lives are on the line. Most entry teams run around 10-20 guys. Plus a perimeter team to keep the threat contained and not lose ground. Add in supervisors / command staff, logistical support, medical personnel, negotiators, etc, and you have a lot of resources tied up on this call. For 19 hours. "Just wait longer, cut off water, there is no rush". This is correct. There isn't a rush, until there is. Until there is another barricaded suspect, or a hostage situation, or an active shooter, or just regular patrols that need to be covered. My parents are perpetually stocked up for hurricanes. I could probably live in their house without electricity or water for close to a month before I needed to start worrying about logistics. Staying on perimeter for an extended period of time is a weird sensation. You are essentially just standing behind a car or a porch for an extended period of time. You have to keep in mind that at literally any second, you may be in a life or death gun fight. You aren't in immediate danger, but that may change without any notice at any moment. After 19 hours, the police took in an armed gunman who invaded a home, and shot at them, without injuring him or anyone else. That is amazing, and should be commended. The fact that people are outraged at this is sincerely confusing to me. The top comment says that if they just waited outside the house for a few days, it would've saved a lot money that was spent on "tear gas, robots, and negotiations" The negotiations are generally done by officers, so there is no increased cost. This is the year 2019. Most people in my office own a robot that flies. Any department in a city with more than 1 stop light should have a multi use bot for surveillance/bomb investigation/scouting. Tear gas grenades run less than $50 each. So what is the outrage over the tactical response of the police? They used equipment they had to stack odds in their favor against a guy that shot at them, and arrested him without injury. I completely understand being outraged over the lack of compensation to the homeowners. Between insurance companies, victim compensation funds, and the government itself, they should absolutely be compensated for the damage to their home. It appears that such victims tend to be reimbursed, which is bittersweet. It's good that it happens, but it makes it that more infuriating that it didn't. In summary: Yeah, be mad that the people got screwed over by the government, but it wasn't because of the SWAT team. They did their job right.
graycat 7y ago
IMHO, some facts of life in the US: (1) You can get "all the justice you can pay for". (2) Be wealthy: Then if something happens to your house, buy another one and move on. (3) If you want to be secure in your home, then live in essentially a fortress, immune to criminals, tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, forest fires, police, etc. (4) If you want something like police protection, then hire your own security force. (5) Avoid the police and the legal system. In particular, there are hints that in the low levels of the legal system a lot of the judges are not very objective. (6) Realize that there is a long list of rare but really bad things that can happen to you and/or your family. Some of these things are scary but on average not a very big danger. (7) When government messes up, lead efforts to vote out the leaders, e.g., vote out the mayor and have the new mayor appoint a new chief of police. (8) Make it clear to the police that you are wealthy, powerful, have great lawyers, are well connected to and respected by the power elite, and can protect yourself. Can do all of this without saying a word to the police: Do it by neighborhood, i.e., with houses at $5+ million each, lifestyle, reputation, etc. Yes, (1) - (8) are cynical, extreme, partly in jest, should not be necessary, but, still, are roughly correct. Do realize that typically a newspaper wants to scare people to have smelly bait for the ad hook. But maybe sometimes people should be scared and, then, vote in a new mayor.
bdowling 7y ago
This ruling is only on the Takings Clause question: whether the police actions violated the constitutional prohibition against the government taking private property for public use without adequate compensation. Here, the 10th Circuit affirmed the trial court ruling that the Takings Clause did not apply. That decision seems reasonable because this case is not like other Takings clause cases, for a variety of reasons. The defendants may still be liable under negligence or some other theory. But this ruling doesn’t address those possibilities.
- c3534l 7y ago
  People react to what they wish the law was, rather than what it is.
mnm1 7y ago
It's too bad that we, as a society, haven't yet found any solution to this band of insane, armed madmen roaming around destroying whatever and whoever they want, stealing whatever they want, and generally doing whatever they want with no accountability whatsoever. And then there's also the guy holed up inside the house that's a minor issue. One day, we may join other civilized countries that can actually control their police rather than letting them run rampant, terrorizing the population.
unforeseen9991 7y ago
https://outline.com/MdNmTD https://outline.com/MdNmTD

144 points by wallace_f 7y ago

olliej 7y ago

So the police destroyed a persons house over a shoplifter stealing a shirt and a belt? Wtf?

zajd 7y ago
Welcome to America
mtgx 7y ago
They feared for their safety. The only possible response was to immediately annihilate the potential threat, no questions asked. Better use the rocket launcher and be safe than sorry. The "modern" American policing system is such a joke (a scary one).
- iron0013 7y ago
  I'm glad your comment got vouch-rescued, mtgx, so that I can tell you that you have been shadow-banned, and almost all of your comments, except those that are rescued by vouching, are invisible to almost all HN readers (except those of us who have the "showdead" setting turned on). It looks like the shadowban began about 90 days ago, after you left a very mildly disparaging comment related to John Carmack. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20582828 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20582828 You were banned, but many others who say much more offensive things never get banned.
  - zajd 7y ago
    > You were banned, but many others who say much more offensive things never get banned. He made the mistake of being critical of a white person in power on HN. Combined with critique of a multibillion dollar tech corporation. That stuff doesn't go over well here. Also, mtgx, welcome to the club.
    - dang 7y ago
      That's not the reason. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20587230 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20587230
      - zajd 7y ago
        Hmm, I wonder what the ideology he's battling is? Could it possibly be the hypercapitalist ideology promoted by the sorts of people who own the site? You know, the white billionaires who own and control Google, Facebook, Twitter, AirBnB, etc? Funny how some ideologies can be "fought against" safely here and others can't be. Climate change denial, a-ok. Criticizing china? It's for freedom! Labor unions? Fair game. Want to openly defend fascists? Go right ahead. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20961603 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20961603 Criticizing Carmack working for Facebook? now that crosses the line. Look man, I don't expect you to go against your boss's wishes and allow discourse that actively criticizes their actions, but don't come in here to try to sell me a different story.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
The article says he was armed so maybe it’s ok. But the owners should definitely be compensated.
- sarah180 7y ago
  Wait, you're saying somebody in American has a handgun? That changes everything.
  - windsurfer 7y ago
    He fired at the police through the garage, according the article.
    - ToastyMallows 7y ago
      "...after __believing__ they heard Seacat fire several rounds." Seems like that isn't even 100% certain.
      - olliej 7y ago
        I'm reminded of the many videos of police assaulting people while shouting "stop resisting".
    - wyldfire 7y ago
      Gee, so how much uncompensated destruction is permitted if the police are fired upon? What if they leveled the block? What if they drove a tank through the neighborhood, destroying everything they passed on the way. Or every building the shoplifter was suspected of having entered?
      - olliej 7y ago
        They have bombed an entire block: https://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/14/us/police-drop-bomb-on-radicals-home-in-philadelphia.html https://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/14/us/police-drop-bomb-on-ra... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE
alistairSH 7y ago
Shop-lifted shirts started the whole fiasco. However, the suspect was stopped for questioning, then attempted to run over the questioning officer while fleeing, then broke into and barricaded himself within an occupied home. That said, damaging the home to the point that it was condemned still seems like a bit much. Probably would have been easier to turn off the water and power, then blast Nickelback until the suspect gave himself up.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- olliej 7y ago
  My bad I failed miserably - and scanned the article and apparently missed this entirely.

Bantros 7y ago

This can't be real

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

bilbo0s 7y ago

America has become a crazy place. It's like a movie. A man you say is armed, shoplifts a shirt and a belt, then locks himself in a bathroom. So we use APC's, grenades, and 40 mm rounds to get at him in a house instead of waiting him out? Just seems, odd.

klipt 7y ago
Shirt: $10 Belt: $20 Grenades: $1000 Destroying your home: priceless.
- shantly 7y ago
  Total loss to Walmart was probably like $10, wholesale, shipping, and stocking. That they pursued him more than about 100 meters is kinda nuts. The "high speed chase" that seems to have preceded this was dumb as hell, too.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Armed robbery is serious regardless of the amount stolen. Not that it justifies what the cops did, though.
    - shantly 7y ago
      I didn't get the impression they found out he was armed until later. But the article's not especially clear on that point, among others.
      - icebraining 7y ago
        It seems you're right, but he had tried to run over a cop, according to their affidavit: https://www.greenwoodvillage.com/DocumentCenter/View/13916/Affidavit-Seacat https://www.greenwoodvillage.com/DocumentCenter/View/13916/A...
yardie 7y ago
> we use APC's, grenades, and 40 mm rounds This is why I have a big problem with giving US police forces ex-military and subsidized military gear. It's already bad enough they give themselves military rank. Now we give them Bearcats and tactical gear. At some point they're going to treat their constituents as an insurgency.

aketchum 7y ago

This story is insane and infuriating. The police had no need to destroy the house. They could have "sieged" the house and waited for him to come out when he ran out of food. This could be expedited by cutting the water to the house so the suspect had nothing to drink. This would probably be cheaper for the police in the end anyways as the extra few days of salary are offset by not having to use and pay for "tear gas, robots and police negotiations". The homeowner deserves to be made whole and I think that should be the police departments responsibility, in order to encourage alternative approaches when possible.

stanski 7y ago
But where's the fun in that? Gotta get to use all that weaponry after all.
- synlatexc 7y ago
  Exactly. Recall an NYT article[1] on the topic. It describes how police chiefs will make a spectacle out of their newly purchased tanks or whatever, even bringing them to schools for kids to check out. Best quote was from a police chief who hadn't been swept up in the mania for military gear and vehicles: “I go to schools,” he said. “But I bring ‘Green Eggs and Ham.’” [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-poli...
magashna 7y ago
All for what, maybe $40-60 in 1 shirt and 1 belt? 19 hours of police OT, paying for all their toys, this ongoing legal battle. Insanity
- fortran77 7y ago
  It was an _armed_ robbery. That's a very serious crime. Not "shoplifting".
  - shantly 7y ago

5874-4b22-a4e0 7y ago

Why did insurance not cover?

williesleg 7y ago

Yeah, wapo and the people of Colorado are all nuts. Good for them!

megous 7y ago

"but when police have to protect the public, they can’t be “burdened with the condition” that they compensate whoever is damaged by their actions along the way." So can they also kill bystanders freely without compensating the family, or where does this logic end? "“My mission is to get that individual out unharmed and make sure my team and everyone else around including the community goes home unharmed,” Greenwood Village Police Commander Dustin Varney said in 2015" Also kind of insensitive, since the family didn't really get to go home, after this.

klipt 7y ago
America doesn't care about the little guy. The solution is probably to buy huge amounts of insurance, and let your insurance argue it out with the police.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  I'm not certain whether or not either of you are aware, but most home insurance policies specifically preclude any claims precipitated by certain circumstances. Industry wide, a few of the standard circumstances that you would have to specifically add coverage for would be things like, acts of war, or, for instance, police actions. The homeowner would have to review his/her policy in detail to determine if they are covered in this instance. But in light of the fact that they sued the city, I'm thinking they probably aren't protected, or opted not to add on that additional coverage, assuming it was available?
  - hitpointdrew 7y ago
    Also flooding is not covered in the vast majority of home owners polices.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      Insurance is only economical for unpredictable, rare circumstances. Flooding is basically guaranteed in certain areas, so it would be crazy to offer insurance for it, as it would simply turn into a payment plan for a future expected expense. Much like health "insurance" exists in the US.

johnnyo 7y ago

Does homeowners insurance cover the loss? What exactly is he suing for? Wouldn't the insurance company be the one who would want to sue here, in an attempt to get back some of their outlay?

wysifnwyg 7y ago
Making a claim, in some cases, will increase your premium costs. Additionally, there's emotional and mental costs, which home insurance may not cover.
nickthegreek 7y ago
Insurance company could raise his rates and he would still be responsible for the deductible.
- johnnyo 7y ago
  Right, but the government offered to cover his deductible. Any money he got from the government over and above the deductible he'd likely have to pay back to his insurance company, wouldn't he? You can't double dip like that.
  - shantly 7y ago
    They offered $5000 toward the deductible and temporary housing. No mention of actual costs involved (like, how large was the total deductible, for instance). Given how long it takes to build a house, plus extra time + expense for demo & removal in this case, I'd expect $5000 to be a small part of just the temporary housing costs.
- midolzzzz 7y ago
  This is prime example of what insurance should cover 100% no questions asked with no premium increase. These circumstances are way out of a homeowners' control, maybe this guy should look into suing his own insurance company.
- zdragnar 7y ago

wysifnwyg 7y ago

Makes me wonder if this would be different if the criminal had holed up in an officer's house.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
Of course it would. Just like it's different when police see another police speeding, or their relatives breaking traffic laws with their fake badge stuck on the windshield.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

golover721 7y ago

Police level of response needs to be appropriate based on the given situation. Seems like this police department just had a bunch of toys they really wanted to play with.

shantly 7y ago
The way judges expect normal people to, within reason, use good judgement and will hold them accountable if they didn't, but will take police at their word that whatever dumb shit they did was totally necessary and appropriate and they can't possibly be blamed for it, is really frustrating.
- lukifer 7y ago
  The "reasonable person" standard [0] is deeply interwoven into our legal infrastructure. Yet as you say, courts/judges seem deeply reluctant to apply this standard to the police (there may be selection bias at play; we don't hear about the instances where unreasonable police actions are held to account). As a relatively new homeowner, I'm wondering if there's some sort of insurance I can buy for this sort of thing. (I wish I were joking.) Greenwood Village, where this took place, is less than an hour's drive from me, and isn't even a "bad part of town"; just a regular middle-class south Denver suburb. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
- shawnb576 7y ago
  Exactly. Why doesn't the police dept carry insurance for _exactly this_? Yes it will be expensive, but it's a leveraged bet that allows them to do what they need to but have some consequences for doing things they don't. There has to be some reasonable standard that can be applied to their behavior. If they used their tank to bulldoze a block of houses looking for some guy hiding in one of them ("how were we supposed to know which one he was in?"), would we expect that to be just OK? Sounds like this ruling says "yes". There are no checks on this behavior.
  - shantly 7y ago

thatswrong0 7y ago

Cops in America are thugs. Not sure what we can do to fix it at this point

sathackr 7y ago

Why isn't the armed shoplifting suspect paying for this? It's his actions that were the catalyst for the damage by police. I don't think any of us are in a sufficient position of knowledge to determine if the police action was justified. But it seems to me the suspect that picked the house to hole up in should be the primary responsible party.

michaelmrose 7y ago
It turns out that crackheads aren't likely to have any money so how about the local government make the home owner whole and then they can sue the crackhead for part of his welfare check.
shantly 7y ago
There is a high probability the guy stealing a few dollars of clothes from a friggin' Walmart doesn't have much money to take.
gorgonical 7y ago
I think they probably could sue him for damages in civil court, but the problem is that (as I understand it) it is not possible to compel someone to pay. You can garnish wages, seize property, etc., but if you're stealing ~$10 of belts do you think you have $400k laying around? The second part of this is that it indemnifies the police of their actions, shifting the cost of their recklessness. You pay in taxes to give them APCs, and then you pay again when they blow things up with those APCs you bought them.
toast0 7y ago
The suspect certainly has some responsibility. I would find him liable for loss of use while in the building / during investigation after, as a reasonable person would expect a building to be cleared for that. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the building to be destroyed because you're hiding in it, unless you're a sniper in a war zone. Gunshot damage, sure.
jMyles 7y ago
This is bizarre logic. I can't even follow it. The police destroyed the house. It's really that simple. Their reasons for doing that happen to include that they were chasing a suspect. So?

Aaronstotle 7y ago

There is an ever growing boundary between ordinary citizens and government officials. Unless there is a drastic shift, this does not bode well for the U.S. as a country.

whamlastxmas 7y ago
In Denver there are "Civilian Crash Investigation" cars which drives me crazy. Police and government officials are also civilians. The distinction on the car is such an "us vs them" mentality and very out of touch.
- jadell 7y ago
  Police use military terminology when talking among themselves. Many current police officers come from the military before becoming police. Officers refer to non-LEO as "civilians". If the police are supposed to be a civilian agency, someone forgot to tell them. The "us v. them" mentality comes from both sides. Though my personal opinion is: the police (and the government they serve) started it and actively encourage it.
mindslight 7y ago
The distinction is longstanding, from a simpler time. The problem is that the police are taking more and more advantage of it. Indemnifying police for the damages they cause makes it so they have no reason to even consider them. We'd expect these externalities to grow larger over time, because there's no incentive for them not to. Wait for the suspect to come out, or play commando? It's all the same to them. The current situation is a weird reverse-lottery wherein only a rare unlucky victim is expected to bear the burden of a societal cost. Police departments should be civilly responsible for damage caused by their actions, end of story. This story, casualties from high speed chases, arrests of innocent people. These are all damages created by explicit choices by police, and thus whomever is enabling/funding the police departments should be responsible for them. If cities/insurers/taxpayers don't like having to pay for what they're enabling, then they will institute policies to reign in the police to keep them from doing such things!
t0mbstone 7y ago

michaelmrose 7y ago

In case someone didn't read the article cough - Leo Lech owns the home - His son was renting it and living there when the incident happened. - Robert Seacat was the guilty party. He is entirely unconnected to either party above. After a high speed chase he hopped a fence and ran into a random house owned by Lech. Whats at stake is whether the government can willfully destroy your shit in the course of police work and not pay for it.

gwbas1c 7y ago

No mention of homeowner's insurance! Was the house uninsured? Or did the homeowner's insurance deny the claim?

yardie 7y ago
Homeowners insurance does not cover police destruction. Because there was nothing accidental about it. For the people in the back. AMERICAN HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE DOES NOT COVER YOU IN CASE OF POLICE ACTIVITY!
- icebraining 7y ago
  According to the article, it did cover.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  Having been in insurance, I seriously doubt anything in insurance can be pithily and accurately summed up with a one liner. In my experience, what gets covered depends on the policy you bought, the state you live in, luck of the draw for who reviewed the claim and, I don't know, whether or not it was a full moon when you dropped it in the mail. I wouldn't draw any conclusion whatsoever about what is and is not typically covered based on the outcome of a single claim. Plus, other comments here contradict your statement.
Glyptodon 7y ago
There's a very real chance they denied the claim. Government action is often excluded from insurance claims.
lb1lf 7y ago
-Not in the US, but my insurance policy explicitly states that it does not cover damage caused by a government entity doing its work. I am not concerned, though, as in my jurisdiction (Norway) the authorities would be required to compensate me for any loss incurred. Edit: Besides, Norwegian police prefer other tactics; they'd probably ask him to come out for a beer [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/1985/06/22/world/hijacker-of-norwegian-jet-gives-up-for-beer.html https://www.nytimes.com/1985/06/22/world/hijacker-of-norwegi...

program_whiz 7y ago

This will be an unpopular view, but if someone is armed and locks themself in a house (the contents and perons inside which are unknown), its a bit tough for the police. Police protocols are largely based on preventing the numerous deaths and damage that they see on a regular basis, and the court ruling is based on the legal experts reviewing the case and seeing that they did what was expected. If your family was in that house, murdered, and you were held at gunpoint for hours, you would probably be wishing the police had acted more swiftly, not just put up their hands and said "well I guess we just let an armed suspect who ran and hid inside a residence after committing a crime go..."

magashna 7y ago
No one was held at gunpoint. The article even says the guy took a nap. They could just wait.
- program_whiz 7y ago
  What if you and your family were being held hostage, how do the police know "they can just wait"? They don't even know if the guy is really allowed to be in the house. Also how long do the police wait, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month? How many millions is it worth to avoid damaging an armed criminals residence, especially when he can willingly walk out at any time and avoid all that damage. How well would we respond if someone was killed because the police waited saying "We didn't want to damage the house, we figured he was just taking a nap or something."
  - toast0 7y ago
    Was anybody else in the building when the police were destroying it? If there were (which I don't think is the case from the article), were they in more danger from the suspect or the police?
  - magashna 7y ago
    I don't care about your fantasy. The reality is insane overreaction to a guy who stole $20 worth of clothes. Walmart writes this into their bottom line. You know what should've happened? Nothing.

sparrish 7y ago

Why are they going after the police? It's the home intruder that should pay for the damages.

cannonedhamster 7y ago
How is someone going to pay from in jail?
- sparrish 7y ago
  They garnish his wages in and out of jail for the rest of his life. Yes, it's unlikely they'll ever receive full restitution but he's the one who should pay, not the police. Is your argument that because the perpetrator is unable to pay, someone else (the police) should?
  - cannonedhamster 7y ago
    My argument is that it was the police firing 40mm rounds blindly into the house, using shaped charges, using battering rams for a single suspect with limited ammunition is completely unreasonable. I've seen police safely breach in more dangerous situations. They could have done a number of things before making the house unliveable and should have been expected to be trained in those options. The town should be paying because their actions caused the house to be unlivable and function as essentially eminent domain of the house. The police did far worse damage and put that more people at risk than this person did though their actions. Also he attempted to kill police officers. It's unlikely he'll get it of jail any time before retirement.
magashna 7y ago
He stole a shirt and a belt. Where's this $400k coming from?
- sparrish 7y ago
  Just because he's unable to pay restitution doesn't mean they should get paid from the police. He's the bad actor here, not the police. He's the one that caused the damage by illegally breaking into their home and not surrendering. Restitution should come from the one causing the harm, not the ones trying to protect the public from harm.

mrtweetyhack 7y ago

The HULK will be happy to hear this.

major505 7y ago

Jesus... Looks like a bomb went off and imploded all windows and doors in the house.

hannasanarion 7y ago
Article says the police threw grenades into every room trying to flush the shoplifter out.
- major505 7y ago
  I know, but they where suposed to throw flashbangs and gas. Not real granades! Really, seens like a tatical unit with a balistic shield would be able to do the job without that much fuzz.

crb002 7y ago

This should be the insurance company's problem. Also, they should have filed in the criminal case with the State judge for the damages who probably would have granted them.

chmod775 7y ago

Of course the state should reimburse the family, whether they have to by law or not (though if they don't your laws are fucking stupid). How is this even a question? They can then later charge the perpetrator if they want to. Your state is your community, and the police is its executive branch. When you destroy some individuals home while carrying out whatever duties you have, the entire community has a responsibility to reimburse that person. When your representatives fail in such ways, you either change their minds, find better representatives, or you are complicit. I'm not holding my breath though. I don't think anything will change.

yspeak 7y ago

Would like to see more balance in news stories. This is clearly an editorial masquerading as news. This was not a traditional eminent domain claim so not at all a surprise and the article does say that other courts ( I'm betting ba majority) have decided likewise so outcome is not a surprise. Maybe they have other grounds for a claim but eminent domain is not one of them. Official functions will also be protected under theory that law enforcement has to do their job to protect the public without fear of every bystander suiing. The solution is legislative, convince your elected representatives to fund compensation for these types of damage. Public shaming also goes a long way.Just don't have a usually unelected judge make it up and rewrite the eminent domain law.

alfromspace 7y ago

The court acknowledged that this may seem “unfair,” but when police have to protect the public, they can’t be “burdened with the condition” that they compensate whoever is damaged by their actions along the way. Incredible. A stranger can barricade themselves inside your property, the police can blow your property to bits trying to get to the stranger, and the owner of the property is on the hook. The court's ruling that the Takings Clause doesn't apply because it's not an exercise of eminent domain is utter nonsense. There's no such requirement in the 5th Amendment that the government needs to label their use of private property "eminent domain" to be responsible for compensation for it. All it says is "public use". If this ruling is allowed to stand, this isn't America anymore.

failrate 7y ago
Exactly, they eminent domained the dhit out of that house in pursuit of the criminal.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
I am not in a position to judge the tactics they used but it’s hard to understand how the government could refuse to compensate the homeowner who had nothing to do with this and had no choice.
- icebraining 7y ago
  Their position seems to be that they don't need to compensate because he's already getting paid by the insurance company.

cbanek 7y ago

Pretty sure cops can follow the same rules to tear apart your car looking for drugs, and even if they don't find any, will happily return your stack of car parts and say "have a good day."

nkrisc 7y ago

> The court acknowledged that this may seem “unfair,” but when police have to protect the public, they can’t be “burdened with the condition” that they compensate whoever is damaged by their actions along the way. I actually agree, the police should not be concerned about this, they should be concerned with policing. Which is why the state should pay compensation and then take it up with the police department if police actions are costing the state too much.

thomaswang 7y ago

USA, USA, USA... no but seriously wtf?

icebraining 7y ago
The court found that the destruction of property was the result of the state using its police powers, and not eminent domain. Seems reasonable to me.

MFogleman 7y ago

A lot of people are missing some key points here, and getting angry at the wrong aspects. Let me start by saying that I do believe the family should be compensated by some means. They shouldn't become the de facto victim of the crime. The police did not "Blow up a home" over "some belts". They spent 19 hours of negotiation, de-escalation, and sound tactics, to apprehend an armed gunman who shot at police on at least one occasion, maybe two, during the stand off. People are admonishing the use of "Grenades and APCs". The grenades were tear gas. They used tear gas to attempt to get the suspect to leave a home. The APCS are literally just armored cars. You can go and buy one right now. They serve 2 purposes. They move people, and they help stop bullets. I have friends who are alive because of their APCs. Human beings die in stand offs like this. Some are saying "Why not just wait him out". Its a great idea in theory, but you know what they say about the differences in practice and theory. Being on the perimeter of a barricaded suspect is dangerous. He has the most cover, and concealment. He can be anywhere in the house, and he can have anything. The police in this situation know he has at least 1 gun. He may have others they don't know about, he may have others in the home that the home owners didn't tell the police about. He may be in there constructing nail bombs. These scenarios are unlikely, but possible, and one should err on the side of caution and preserving human life, when lives are on the line. Most entry teams run around 10-20 guys. Plus a perimeter team to keep the threat contained and not lose ground. Add in supervisors / command staff, logistical support, medical personnel, negotiators, etc, and you have a lot of resources tied up on this call. For 19 hours. "Just wait longer, cut off water, there is no rush". This is correct. There isn't a rush, until there is. Until there is another barricaded suspect, or a hostage situation, or an active shooter, or just regular patrols that need to be covered. My parents are perpetually stocked up for hurricanes. I could probably live in their house without electricity or water for close to a month before I needed to start worrying about logistics. Staying on perimeter for an extended period of time is a weird sensation. You are essentially just standing behind a car or a porch for an extended period of time. You have to keep in mind that at literally any second, you may be in a life or death gun fight. You aren't in immediate danger, but that may change without any notice at any moment. After 19 hours, the police took in an armed gunman who invaded a home, and shot at them, without injuring him or anyone else. That is amazing, and should be commended. The fact that people are outraged at this is sincerely confusing to me. The top comment says that if they just waited outside the house for a few days, it would've saved a lot money that was spent on "tear gas, robots, and negotiations" The negotiations are generally done by officers, so there is no increased cost. This is the year 2019. Most people in my office own a robot that flies. Any department in a city with more than 1 stop light should have a multi use bot for surveillance/bomb investigation/scouting. Tear gas grenades run less than $50 each. So what is the outrage over the tactical response of the police? They used equipment they had to stack odds in their favor against a guy that shot at them, and arrested him without injury. I completely understand being outraged over the lack of compensation to the homeowners. Between insurance companies, victim compensation funds, and the government itself, they should absolutely be compensated for the damage to their home. It appears that such victims tend to be reimbursed, which is bittersweet. It's good that it happens, but it makes it that more infuriating that it didn't. In summary: Yeah, be mad that the people got screwed over by the government, but it wasn't because of the SWAT team. They did their job right.

graycat 7y ago

IMHO, some facts of life in the US: (1) You can get "all the justice you can pay for". (2) Be wealthy: Then if something happens to your house, buy another one and move on. (3) If you want to be secure in your home, then live in essentially a fortress, immune to criminals, tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, forest fires, police, etc. (4) If you want something like police protection, then hire your own security force. (5) Avoid the police and the legal system. In particular, there are hints that in the low levels of the legal system a lot of the judges are not very objective. (6) Realize that there is a long list of rare but really bad things that can happen to you and/or your family. Some of these things are scary but on average not a very big danger. (7) When government messes up, lead efforts to vote out the leaders, e.g., vote out the mayor and have the new mayor appoint a new chief of police. (8) Make it clear to the police that you are wealthy, powerful, have great lawyers, are well connected to and respected by the power elite, and can protect yourself. Can do all of this without saying a word to the police: Do it by neighborhood, i.e., with houses at $5+ million each, lifestyle, reputation, etc. Yes, (1) - (8) are cynical, extreme, partly in jest, should not be necessary, but, still, are roughly correct. Do realize that typically a newspaper wants to scare people to have smelly bait for the ad hook. But maybe sometimes people should be scared and, then, vote in a new mayor.

bdowling 7y ago

This ruling is only on the Takings Clause question: whether the police actions violated the constitutional prohibition against the government taking private property for public use without adequate compensation. Here, the 10th Circuit affirmed the trial court ruling that the Takings Clause did not apply. That decision seems reasonable because this case is not like other Takings clause cases, for a variety of reasons. The defendants may still be liable under negligence or some other theory. But this ruling doesn’t address those possibilities.

c3534l 7y ago
People react to what they wish the law was, rather than what it is.

mnm1 7y ago

It's too bad that we, as a society, haven't yet found any solution to this band of insane, armed madmen roaming around destroying whatever and whoever they want, stealing whatever they want, and generally doing whatever they want with no accountability whatsoever. And then there's also the guy holed up inside the house that's a minor issue. One day, we may join other civilized countries that can actually control their police rather than letting them run rampant, terrorizing the population.

unforeseen9991 7y ago

https://outline.com/MdNmTD https://outline.com/MdNmTD