5 ms·

"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.

by 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.
rtkwe 7y ago
No it will be largely confined to property damage. Shooting random bystanders for example would be still be an unreasonable use of force against that person.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  Not in the US. The police just have to claim they felt threatened. And property damage is just as bad if you've now made a person homeless and bankrupted them through no fault of their own. The judge was wrong here. The government cannot just take property and provide no recompense. This is effectively the same as eminent domain.
  - mikepurvis 7y ago
    Yup— "I feared for my life" is a pretty much ironclad get out of jail free card: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22feared+for+my+life%22+police https://www.google.com/search?q=%22feared+for+my+life%22+pol...
    - dependenttypes 7y ago
      Sadly civilians can't claim the same defence if they shoot an officer, even if they had an actual reason to fear for their lives.
      - ianmobbs 7y ago
        The solution to how egregious this defense is isn't to allow citizens to use it as well, it's to no longer allow cops to use.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    It's definitely bad but not that broad. See this Myrtle Beach raid where they're stripped of qualified immunity even though he was holding a gun at the time because the police were out of uniform, did not announce themselves, and didn't issue commands. Also that's something the US is starting to turn the corner on in some places. https://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/article235260482.html https://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/article23526048...
CryptoBanker 7y ago
Except police by law are not required to do any such thing https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po...
hogFeast 7y ago
"goes home"...he didn't think about that. Presumably the guy whose home that he blew up, isn't part of the "community" because he has no home to go to.
matheusmoreira 7y ago
They aren't even "burdened" with the duty to actually protect people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  I think it is always good to remember that police are law enforcement. That is their reason for existence. Protection is not necessarily part of the description. If you want to be saved, you call a firefighter. Police are there to punish.
  - beart 7y ago
    Your last sentence is incorrect. Police should not be dealing out punishment. Police are not allowed to assign guilt or innocence. That falls under the courts.
    - jadell 7y ago
      That's the theory anyway. There's ample evidence that that's not how it works in practice.

by megous 7y ago

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.

rtkwe 7y ago

No it will be largely confined to property damage. Shooting random bystanders for example would be still be an unreasonable use of force against that person.

cannonedhamster 7y ago
Not in the US. The police just have to claim they felt threatened. And property damage is just as bad if you've now made a person homeless and bankrupted them through no fault of their own. The judge was wrong here. The government cannot just take property and provide no recompense. This is effectively the same as eminent domain.
- mikepurvis 7y ago
  Yup— "I feared for my life" is a pretty much ironclad get out of jail free card: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22feared+for+my+life%22+police https://www.google.com/search?q=%22feared+for+my+life%22+pol...
  - dependenttypes 7y ago
    Sadly civilians can't claim the same defence if they shoot an officer, even if they had an actual reason to fear for their lives.
    - ianmobbs 7y ago
      The solution to how egregious this defense is isn't to allow citizens to use it as well, it's to no longer allow cops to use.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  It's definitely bad but not that broad. See this Myrtle Beach raid where they're stripped of qualified immunity even though he was holding a gun at the time because the police were out of uniform, did not announce themselves, and didn't issue commands. Also that's something the US is starting to turn the corner on in some places. https://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/article235260482.html https://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/article23526048...

CryptoBanker 7y ago

Except police by law are not required to do any such thing https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po...

hogFeast 7y ago

"goes home"...he didn't think about that. Presumably the guy whose home that he blew up, isn't part of the "community" because he has no home to go to.

matheusmoreira 7y ago

They aren't even "burdened" with the duty to actually protect people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

rootusrootus 7y ago
I think it is always good to remember that police are law enforcement. That is their reason for existence. Protection is not necessarily part of the description. If you want to be saved, you call a firefighter. Police are there to punish.
- beart 7y ago
  Your last sentence is incorrect. Police should not be dealing out punishment. Police are not allowed to assign guilt or innocence. That falls under the courts.
  - jadell 7y ago
    That's the theory anyway. There's ample evidence that that's not how it works in practice.