4 ms·

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

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
    Especially when it sure seems like they had a good or superior alternative. If the situation/area was sufficiently under control that advancing with siege equipment didn't involve excessive risk of harm to officers or of the suspect escaping in the commotion, then staying put and holding the perimeter was at least as safe and would have kept him contained, surely. No mention that they believed he had anyone else in there with him or anything, so why on Earth did they choose to assault the house?
- icebraining 7y ago
  The decision wasn't based on the word of the police.
  - shantly 7y ago
    "Police decide what's reasonable" seems to be so at least implicitly. And I assume part of their argument was precisely that this was reasonable.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      > And I assume part of their argument was precisely that this was reasonable. No, the homeowner said the destruction of his home was a Taking per the Fifth Amendment, like in a case of eminent domain. The court disagreed, and said the destruction was based on the powers the state has for enforcing the law. Reasonableness of the action didn't enter into it.
      - shantly 7y ago
        I assume a simple "they didn't have a good reason to wreck my house and should pay for it" was a legal non-starter, then, hence the plainly longer-shot (all else being equal) eminent domain argument?

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
  Especially when it sure seems like they had a good or superior alternative. If the situation/area was sufficiently under control that advancing with siege equipment didn't involve excessive risk of harm to officers or of the suspect escaping in the commotion, then staying put and holding the perimeter was at least as safe and would have kept him contained, surely. No mention that they believed he had anyone else in there with him or anything, so why on Earth did they choose to assault the house?
icebraining 7y ago
The decision wasn't based on the word of the police.
- shantly 7y ago
  "Police decide what's reasonable" seems to be so at least implicitly. And I assume part of their argument was precisely that this was reasonable.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    > And I assume part of their argument was precisely that this was reasonable. No, the homeowner said the destruction of his home was a Taking per the Fifth Amendment, like in a case of eminent domain. The court disagreed, and said the destruction was based on the powers the state has for enforcing the law. Reasonableness of the action didn't enter into it.
    - shantly 7y ago
      I assume a simple "they didn't have a good reason to wreck my house and should pay for it" was a legal non-starter, then, hence the plainly longer-shot (all else being equal) eminent domain argument?