4 ms·

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 suf

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?
gnode 7y ago
A suspect would likely be liable for damage caused by the police in the course of them resisting arrest. However, they are likely judgement-proof, not having the wealth or income to compensate the homeowner. They will likely "pay" in the form of a custodial sentence, but of course that's little remedy for the homeowner. I expect the police would be liable if a court found them to have caused damage which was completely unnecessary, although they have a lot of latitude in interpreting this. It's fairly easy to argue that doing whatever is safest for them (doesn't put them in the line of fire) is justified, and they shouldn't take any unnecessary risk to protect property. Given that (rightly or wrongly) typically the police will not be liable for these situations, and the liable criminal will be unable to compensate, the burden should probably fall to insurers.

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?

gnode 7y ago

A suspect would likely be liable for damage caused by the police in the course of them resisting arrest. However, they are likely judgement-proof, not having the wealth or income to compensate the homeowner. They will likely "pay" in the form of a custodial sentence, but of course that's little remedy for the homeowner. I expect the police would be liable if a court found them to have caused damage which was completely unnecessary, although they have a lot of latitude in interpreting this. It's fairly easy to argue that doing whatever is safest for them (doesn't put them in the line of fire) is justified, and they shouldn't take any unnecessary risk to protect property. Given that (rightly or wrongly) typically the police will not be liable for these situations, and the liable criminal will be unable to compensate, the burden should probably fall to insurers.