4 ms·

Ok but even if you agree that the police did what they had to do in order to apprehend a suspect, shouldn't the department or local government be repairing dama

Ok but even if you agree that the police did what they had to do in order to apprehend a suspect, shouldn't the department or local government be repairing damage they did to someone's house?

SamReidHughes 7y ago
No, the shoplifting suspect should be.
- thatguy0900 7y ago
  That really leaves the random victim out to dry. You cant get that kind of money out of most shoplifters no matter how hard you sue them. Would you hold this same position if it was your house the police bombed?
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    The world doesn’t owe you compensation for every bad thing that happens to you.
    - thatguy0900 7y ago
      What a heartless outlook. It's one thing for something bad to happen, it's another for the government to randomly blow up your house and peace out. I honestly have a very hard time believing you would have this attitude about your own things if you ever get thrown under a bus.
      - SamReidHughes 7y ago
        Why would heart have anything to do with it? The basis of my statement is morality, not empathy.
        HarryHirsch 7y ago
        In his novel Heliopolis, Ernst Jünger devotes a chapter to the relationship between justice and grace. It's not completely unexpected that the title of that chapter is called "In the War Academy". PDFs are easily found online.
        int_19h 7y ago
        Empathy is a big part of morality.
    - nothrabannosir 7y ago
      This is an ironic response to a situation which is literally about bringing justice. If that’s your point of view, why pursue the shoplifter in the first place? Could’ve just used that line against Walmart and saved everyone a lot of hassle.
      - SamReidHughes 7y ago
        Pursuing shoplifters isn't about getting compensation -- that's secondary. It's about justice. Letting people steal stuff is unjust.
        nothrabannosir 7y ago
        Letting the government destroy your home and not pay you is unjust. The lack of compensation is primarily what makes it unjust.
        SamReidHughes 7y ago
        I agree that it's unjust. The problem is, the suspect who didn't surrender is the one who owes is at fault and who owes the compensation. The police, or let's say, the government, or maybe just the populace in general, do have a duty to catch criminals and not just let them rampage about the neighborhood. Doing something about the guy after cornering him in a house is not an elective procedure. Now maybe there's an argument to be made that the officers risking their lives to arrest the guy should have risked their lives differently, in consideration of the homeowner's finances. I haven't ever tracked down a suspect, gotten shot at, or planned a home invasion against a prepared defender, so I'm not equipped to have that argument. You might consider an analogous situation. What if a toddler crawls into somebody's unlocked car during a heat wave, gets locked inside, and the police break into the car to rescue the toddler? Who's responsible for paying for the damage to the car? It's neither the police nor the car owner. The toddler's parents are responsible. It's the same as the situation where a gunman holes up in a house. The only basis for requiring the police to pay for breaking the window is some sort of fuck-the-police mentality, which people are applying to the situation where they tracked down an armed suspect.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      if it's the government's fault, I would say it does (or should) owe you compensation.
    - code_duck 7y ago
      Nobody is asking 'the world'. Generally individuals or organizations who perpetrate a bad thing on you generally have liability.
    - mythrwy 7y ago
      The world may not, but the people responsible certainly do.
  - o-__-o 7y ago
    Yes, I have home owners insurance to cover this. The reason the homeowners brought a lawsuit is so insurance can recoup their money. The insurance co cannot sue as themselves, they must subrogate the homeowner and the only way to do that is by waiting for a civil suit (and the ins co fulfilling their duty to indemnify) I’m shocked at the number of people talking authoritatively about this case and yet forget the basics of home ownership..
    - thatguy0900 7y ago
      Did you read the article? The insurance only paid half of the damage. And the neighbors house was also heavily damaged and their insurance didnt pay anything.
      - gamblor956 7y ago
        They should both take that up with their insurers since this is exactly the type of thing insurance is for. Insurance companies pay very quickly when policy holder get lawyers.
    - code_duck 7y ago
      As noted in the article, homeowner insurance covers specific things and damaged by police is not typically one of them.
      - o-__-o 7y ago
        Then boohoo to that guy he went cheap on his insurance. My policy says no such thing. It’s all about the text in your policy, you have 30 days to dispute policy verbiage when you sign up. You should really take advantage of that!
- himinlomax 7y ago
  So, you're saying the victim should not be compensated?

Ok but even if you agree that the police did what they had to do in order to apprehend a suspect, shouldn't the department or local government be repairing damage they did to someone's house?

SamReidHughes 7y ago

No, the shoplifting suspect should be.

thatguy0900 7y ago
That really leaves the random victim out to dry. You cant get that kind of money out of most shoplifters no matter how hard you sue them. Would you hold this same position if it was your house the police bombed?
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  The world doesn’t owe you compensation for every bad thing that happens to you.
  - thatguy0900 7y ago
    What a heartless outlook. It's one thing for something bad to happen, it's another for the government to randomly blow up your house and peace out. I honestly have a very hard time believing you would have this attitude about your own things if you ever get thrown under a bus.
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      Why would heart have anything to do with it? The basis of my statement is morality, not empathy.
      - HarryHirsch 7y ago
        In his novel Heliopolis, Ernst Jünger devotes a chapter to the relationship between justice and grace. It's not completely unexpected that the title of that chapter is called "In the War Academy". PDFs are easily found online.
      - int_19h 7y ago
        Empathy is a big part of morality.
  - nothrabannosir 7y ago
    This is an ironic response to a situation which is literally about bringing justice. If that’s your point of view, why pursue the shoplifter in the first place? Could’ve just used that line against Walmart and saved everyone a lot of hassle.
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      Pursuing shoplifters isn't about getting compensation -- that's secondary. It's about justice. Letting people steal stuff is unjust.
      - nothrabannosir 7y ago
        Letting the government destroy your home and not pay you is unjust. The lack of compensation is primarily what makes it unjust.
        SamReidHughes 7y ago
        I agree that it's unjust. The problem is, the suspect who didn't surrender is the one who owes is at fault and who owes the compensation. The police, or let's say, the government, or maybe just the populace in general, do have a duty to catch criminals and not just let them rampage about the neighborhood. Doing something about the guy after cornering him in a house is not an elective procedure. Now maybe there's an argument to be made that the officers risking their lives to arrest the guy should have risked their lives differently, in consideration of the homeowner's finances. I haven't ever tracked down a suspect, gotten shot at, or planned a home invasion against a prepared defender, so I'm not equipped to have that argument. You might consider an analogous situation. What if a toddler crawls into somebody's unlocked car during a heat wave, gets locked inside, and the police break into the car to rescue the toddler? Who's responsible for paying for the damage to the car? It's neither the police nor the car owner. The toddler's parents are responsible. It's the same as the situation where a gunman holes up in a house. The only basis for requiring the police to pay for breaking the window is some sort of fuck-the-police mentality, which people are applying to the situation where they tracked down an armed suspect.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    if it's the government's fault, I would say it does (or should) owe you compensation.
  - code_duck 7y ago
    Nobody is asking 'the world'. Generally individuals or organizations who perpetrate a bad thing on you generally have liability.
  - mythrwy 7y ago
    The world may not, but the people responsible certainly do.
- o-__-o 7y ago
  Yes, I have home owners insurance to cover this. The reason the homeowners brought a lawsuit is so insurance can recoup their money. The insurance co cannot sue as themselves, they must subrogate the homeowner and the only way to do that is by waiting for a civil suit (and the ins co fulfilling their duty to indemnify) I’m shocked at the number of people talking authoritatively about this case and yet forget the basics of home ownership..
  - thatguy0900 7y ago
    Did you read the article? The insurance only paid half of the damage. And the neighbors house was also heavily damaged and their insurance didnt pay anything.
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      They should both take that up with their insurers since this is exactly the type of thing insurance is for. Insurance companies pay very quickly when policy holder get lawyers.
  - code_duck 7y ago
    As noted in the article, homeowner insurance covers specific things and damaged by police is not typically one of them.
    - o-__-o 7y ago
      Then boohoo to that guy he went cheap on his insurance. My policy says no such thing. It’s all about the text in your policy, you have 30 days to dispute policy verbiage when you sign up. You should really take advantage of that!
himinlomax 7y ago
So, you're saying the victim should not be compensated?