6 ms·

Cops Destroyed This House to Arrest a Shoplifter

33 points by Anon84 7y ago

theandrewbailey 7y ago
I wonder if things would be different if that house was a historic landmark, or government property.
jacurtis 7y ago
> Lech did get a $345,000 payout from his homeowner's insurance, but that was not enough to cover the full value of the home, which was appraised for $580,000... Lech ended up having to take out a $390,000 loan to cover the costs of rebuilding. Looking at the picture of the home, it sure as hell doesn't look like a $600,000 home, let alone a $740k home to rebuild ($345,000 insurance payout + $390,000 additional loan + $5,000 payout from city). He should have been able to rebuild the home with the $345k insurance payout. Keeping in mind that he still owns the land, which is the bulk of his overall home value. Keep in mind that his "appraisal" took into account home VALUES, based on comparable homes that sold recently in the area. Home value is not at all related to home cost. Since most homes now sit on land that is worth more than the house itself. That house can easily have been rebuilt for $345k. As for the police overreach, it does seem like the police took excessive means to apprehend a petty criminal. A 2 day standoff for a shoplifter seems like a huge waste of city resources and taxpayer dollars. Although, while I agree that the police took excessive measures in this case, this man is not the first person to have property damage as a result of police apprehending a criminal. This happens every day, all across the country. He isn't going to overturn any precedent that has already been set over the past 243 years that our country has operated. When police damage property during the pursuit of a suspect, the fault falls on the suspect themselves. The criminal caused the police to chase him, the criminal went into the home and held the police off at gunpoint. Therefore the criminal is at fault. This means filing an inusrance claim with your insurance provider and let them duke it out. They will attempt to sue the criminal, or get the criminal's insurance to cover it. And that is why you have homeowners insurance. For freak stuff like this. You get a payout and the insurance company figures out how make right with the situation. Now if you don't have adequate coverage for your home (which seems to be the case here) then that is the fault of you as the homeowner.
- 8456523 7y ago
  >A 2 day standoff for a shoplifter seems like a huge waste of city resources and taxpayer dollars. Correction: a 2-day standoff for a suspect who when chased by police, barricaded himself in someone else's home with a gun. If that is how he acts when under observation by the police, what does he get up to when he thinks he is not being observed?
  - buboard 7y ago
    > The suspect had stolen a shirt and a couple of belts from a Walmart in neighboring Aurora, Colo.
    - injb 7y ago
      And shot at the police.
      - buboard 7y ago
        Ah that excuses everything
- randyrand 7y ago
  That seems besides the point. Not everyone has homeowners insurance. If anything the insurance company should be going after the government too. The point is, there should be restrictions on how much damage police can do in pursuit of a criminal, and any damage beyond reasonable should be considered the fault and liability of the police force. In Illinois the government goes so far as to actually pay for hospital bills caused by criminals. Keeping the city safe is considered the responsibility of the government paid for by your taxes, so the gov takes some liability for criminal damage.
- trentlott 7y ago
  But look at the car chase procedures that a lot of police have adopted - non engagement. Some realized that putting everyone on the road in danger is not worth popping some ticket skipping asshole Obviously with car reg and helicopters this could be mitigated, but the police could have just waited the guy out. The crime did not warrant physical violence or disruption to third parties that eclipsed the crime itself by several orders of magnitude The police should be punished. Nobody would agree to have their house destroyed to catch a guy who stole their own two shirts and a belt, and it makes no sense that they should bear that burdern on behalf of a business that have an accounting column for such events.

33 points by Anon84 7y ago

I wonder if things would be different if that house was a historic landmark, or government property.

> Lech did get a $345,000 payout from his homeowner's insurance, but that was not enough to cover the full value of the home, which was appraised for $580,000... Lech ended up having to take out a $390,000 loan to cover the costs of rebuilding. Looking at the picture of the home, it sure as hell doesn't look like a $600,000 home, let alone a $740k home to rebuild ($345,000 insurance payout + $390,000 additional loan + $5,000 payout from city). He should have been able to rebuild the home with the $345k insurance payout. Keeping in mind that he still owns the land, which is the bulk of his overall home value. Keep in mind that his "appraisal" took into account home VALUES, based on comparable homes that sold recently in the area. Home value is not at all related to home cost. Since most homes now sit on land that is worth more than the house itself. That house can easily have been rebuilt for $345k. As for the police overreach, it does seem like the police took excessive means to apprehend a petty criminal. A 2 day standoff for a shoplifter seems like a huge waste of city resources and taxpayer dollars. Although, while I agree that the police took excessive measures in this case, this man is not the first person to have property damage as a result of police apprehending a criminal. This happens every day, all across the country. He isn't going to overturn any precedent that has already been set over the past 243 years that our country has operated. When police damage property during the pursuit of a suspect, the fault falls on the suspect themselves. The criminal caused the police to chase him, the criminal went into the home and held the police off at gunpoint. Therefore the criminal is at fault. This means filing an inusrance claim with your insurance provider and let them duke it out. They will attempt to sue the criminal, or get the criminal's insurance to cover it. And that is why you have homeowners insurance. For freak stuff like this. You get a payout and the insurance company figures out how make right with the situation. Now if you don't have adequate coverage for your home (which seems to be the case here) then that is the fault of you as the homeowner.

8456523 7y ago
>A 2 day standoff for a shoplifter seems like a huge waste of city resources and taxpayer dollars. Correction: a 2-day standoff for a suspect who when chased by police, barricaded himself in someone else's home with a gun. If that is how he acts when under observation by the police, what does he get up to when he thinks he is not being observed?
- buboard 7y ago
  > The suspect had stolen a shirt and a couple of belts from a Walmart in neighboring Aurora, Colo.
  - injb 7y ago
    And shot at the police.
    - buboard 7y ago
      Ah that excuses everything
randyrand 7y ago
That seems besides the point. Not everyone has homeowners insurance. If anything the insurance company should be going after the government too. The point is, there should be restrictions on how much damage police can do in pursuit of a criminal, and any damage beyond reasonable should be considered the fault and liability of the police force. In Illinois the government goes so far as to actually pay for hospital bills caused by criminals. Keeping the city safe is considered the responsibility of the government paid for by your taxes, so the gov takes some liability for criminal damage.
trentlott 7y ago
But look at the car chase procedures that a lot of police have adopted - non engagement. Some realized that putting everyone on the road in danger is not worth popping some ticket skipping asshole Obviously with car reg and helicopters this could be mitigated, but the police could have just waited the guy out. The crime did not warrant physical violence or disruption to third parties that eclipsed the crime itself by several orders of magnitude The police should be punished. Nobody would agree to have their house destroyed to catch a guy who stole their own two shirts and a belt, and it makes no sense that they should bear that burdern on behalf of a business that have an accounting column for such events.