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 th

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.