3 ms·
Reading the details, it _sounds_ like the court ruled on fairly narrow grounds - that is, that the claim for compensation under "eminent domain" isn't applicabl
by paulrpotts 7y ago
Reading the details, it _sounds_ like the court ruled on fairly narrow grounds - that is, that the claim for compensation under "eminent domain" isn't applicable to this situation. This doesn't _necessarily_ mean that there isn't some other legal avenue open to claim compensation for this insanity. At least, I hope it doesn't.
- Cheyana 7y agoExcessive force maybe? Hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage to remove an armed individual who shoplifted from Walmart sounds a bit much. This is the kind of thing you see in movies where the hero gets chewed out in the captain's office because he destroyed a city block just to get a low level baddie. That being said, I sure hope that Walmart got their shirt and two belts back. Reminds me of the time the Mesa AZ PD sent up a helicopter to locate a suspect in the area who fled a restaurant after breaking in and stealing...a pint of ice cream. They stated at the end of the news article that the ice cream was recovered.
- onetimemanytime 7y agousually they submit all possible grounds for claims and the court rules on each one, no? I doubt they went as far as the appeals court and forget to include a possible way to claim compensation.