10 ms·

Texas woman wins round in lawsuit challenging swat teams destruction of her home

206 points by tomohawk 5y ago

oh_sigh 5y ago
This man, not so lucky: https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/774788611/police-owe-nothing-to-man-whose-home-they-blew-up-appeals-court-says https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/774788611/police-owe-nothing-... The case is a little different because in the case from OP, the resident at the home knowingly let the fugitive into her home(who she knew was a fugitive). She then left and called the police. Whereas with the case I linked in Colorado, the fugitive illegally entered the home. On the flip side, the Colorado suspect was actively shooting at the police from the home, while the Texas suspect apparently didn't do that, and merely committed suicide in a bedroom.
- cronix 5y ago
  > and merely committed suicide That really doesn't read very well.
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    My intent was that he was not actively threatening police officers or the public, and in fact may have been dead before the police decided to blow the house up.
  - deadbolt 5y ago
    It reads just fine in context.
- yellow_lead 5y ago
  From your article: > Authorities say the suspect stole two belts and a shirt from a Walmart > In an attempt to force the suspect out, law enforcement blew up walls with explosives, fired tear gas and drove a military-style armored vehicle through the property's doors. Amazing...
  - nvahalik 5y ago
    How about quoting the relevant part? > he broke into Lech's house for protection and was firing at officers with a handgun
Natsu 5y ago
This is absurd, if they cause the damages, they should be on the hook to pay for them too.
- JoshTko 5y ago
  Ideally personally liable.
  - gota 5y ago
    The negative incentive could make finding people to work as law enforcement difficult, though I think an in-built insurance system that all workees contribute to mandatorily works better. If less in damages is awarded than was collected, they could partially return as a proportional bonus to the workers It's not a straightforward issue but I think most would agree the current incentives are skewed towards doing whatever and not being responsible for any damage or cost
    - 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
      Insurance that uses the year's bonus as collateral.
    - Natsu 5y ago
      I don't know that I want them worried about the cost of doors while on the beat, but I do want the city to pay for that after. Also, I'm way more worried about use of force against pets, they seem awfully trigger happy vs. dogs sometimes.
      - ncallaway 5y ago
        I think if they destroy a door, and it's justified, the city should be obligated to pay. If it's found to be unjustified, the officer's malpractice insurance should pay. Also, I think officer's should be required to carry malpractice insurance (similar to doctor's), and qualified immunity should be thrown out. This would give insurers a strong incentive to drive-out the cops that are prone to committing assault, battery, and unnecessary property damage. I guarantee you an insurer with a profit motive isn't going to just ignore 13 use of force complaints against an officer. Such a scheme would also make it harder for bad officers to move a city or state and continue abusing the public elsewhere. Their insurance premiums would remain too high.
ryandrake 5y ago
From the more detailed article linked [1]: "Police later told Deanna that their plan was “shock and awe.” Using the department’s BearCat armored tactical vehicle, the SWAT team toppled Vicki’s fence and drove through her front door. They also used explosives to blow through her garage door and fired more than thirty explosive tear gas canisters through the windows. When they finally stormed the house, they found that Little had committed suicide in her bedroom. The only living thing remaining inside was Deanna’s dog which was left deaf and blind from the explosions." Why on Earth did the police feel it was necessary to do all this just to catch one guy? No checking whether the guy might have offed himself? Or did they ever consider just waiting for him to come out and then arresting him? Nope! Just reach right away for the cool bang-bang toys! These tools and tactics are what soldiers use when they want to destroy an enemy fortress, not what civilian police ought to be using...well...for any reason. 1: https://ij.org/case/texas-swat-destruction/ https://ij.org/case/texas-swat-destruction/
- jimt1234 5y ago
  The militarization of police. Don't expect this trend to reverse anytime soon. :(
  - UnpossibleJim 5y ago
    I read something about one of the reasons the police have become more militarized and it wasn't the reason I expected (I'll see if I can find the article and link it). It had to do with city budgets and the way they were pushed out and continued. The gist of it was, the police had to allocate spending their budget within a short time frame or the budget they had would be put into the cities "general fund" (I believe this was Seattle, as that's where I live... mileage may vary). The next year's budget would be reduced to reflect the lack of spending. In order to reduce the risk of not having enough resources, police departments would make sure to spend all of their remaining money on 'necessary' equipment for their units. They could get A LOT of military equipment for a good price because of our 20 odd year wars over season, and our love of specialized units in the police departments, it was a match made in heaven.This type of short sighted, feast or famine spending coupled with readily available surplus military equipment has lead to an ever increasing militarization of the police that has a less effective, effect on community policing and crime, statistically. But all of this is because of how our government handles its accounting practices and sells its surplus military gear. I think I heard it on Freakonomics, but I'm not sure.
jimt1234 5y ago
Reminds me of the 80s, when the LAPD used a battering-ram to bust suspected drug houses, leaving them demolished[1]. The only good that came of that was this rap song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IODrx7DmqDM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IODrx7DmqDM [1] https://www.latimes.com/visuals/photography/la-me-fw-archives-lapd-battering-ram-20170427-story.html https://www.latimes.com/visuals/photography/la-me-fw-archive...
robomartin 5y ago
Not that I would ever want to experience this...I have a 8000 lb (3600 kg) CNC machine in the middle of my garage, flanked by a 2200 lb (1000 kg) manual milling machine. I wonder what would happen if SWAT tried to drive a BearCat through the garage without knowing what's on the other side of the door? Nothing good. I think.
- jhart99 5y ago
  They would probably bill you for destruction of their property...
  - eftychis 5y ago
    I am afraid yes... The tragedy is there will be a judge that will hear them.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  Apparently the BearCat armored vehicle is 8000 kg. So it's definitely going to hurt in both directions.
  - eftychis 5y ago
    Yeah let's drive a light tank into a house without knowing anything. That is smart. I wild fire them for stupidity but guess who is more stupid for not voting them out...??? It is all our fault at the end of the day.
SkipperCat 5y ago
At some point, America is going to have to admit to itself that the police has become the military. Police call non-law enforcement people "civilians", they're armed for tactical urban warfare and they have a kill or be killed mindset. Of course, this analogy falls apart when they engage in civil forfeiture (they take your money without cause). In that case they don't act like active military, they act like pirates. I would love to see a 3rd or 4th Amendment case against some of this stuff.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  There are plenty of people who see the police as the standing army the founding fathers warned us about. You just don't find many of those people on HN.
  - macintux 5y ago
    > You just don't find many of those people on HN. I see plenty of them here in this discussion.
  - abernard1 5y ago
    > There are plenty of people who see the police as the standing army the founding fathers warned us about. Firstly, this requires some real historical revisionism as police were actually around when the founding fathers were. American law is foundationally based on British Common Law, which also employed police vigorously. But I agree with you about HN. Most of the commentators here probably supported the giant expansion of federal, militarized police: the Capitol Police. That $3B expansion funded on conspiracies of white supremacists everywhere has led to two new charters of a federal police in states not in the Capitol.
    - hnbear 5y ago
      Sure, but then in the UK the Peelian principles were developed: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Peelian_principles https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Peelian_principles They're the very opposite of this issue here, and explicitly call out non-violence as goal, and to ensure policing is supportive and at the will of the population, not to subjugate the population. Later codified as: - To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment. - To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect. - To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws. - To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives. - To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life. - To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective. - To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. - To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty. - To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
booleandilemma 5y ago
It probably doesn't help that we only let stupid people be cops. https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...
- 2xpress 5y ago
  A lot of smart people don't want to join the police to either condone their behavior or get in confrontations with them, and / or eventually possibly become one of them.
adolph 5y ago
I’m glad they didn’t kill her like the dirty cops in Houston do. https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/criminal-justice/2021/06/23/401399/2-more-indictments-in-connection-to-2019-harding-street-raid/ https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/criminal-ju...
Stratoscope 5y ago
Here's a Newport Beach (California) police recruiting video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_rKA6ROAVk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_rKA6ROAVk They were actively recruiting for the type of person who would enjoy being on a SWAT team like this. https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/newport-beach-calif-police-recruiting-video-goes-overboard https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/newport-beach...
literallyaduck 5y ago
The rhetoric of the day around protests has been, property is irrelevant and lives matter. Aside from the dog, the police didn't kill anyone, this time. The rhetoric also says insurance will cover it. That was a lie. In this case and in many of the victims of last year's unrest people are finding insurance doesn't cover it. Ethically the city would cover the actions of the officers and the voters and taxpayers would consider that in the next election cycle. If the incumbents win, the people have spoken that the actions are valid. Currently qualified immunity has given a wide path for police to rush in and worry later. Sadly a dog got hurt, in other cases it has been a flashbang in a crib mutilating a minor. Elections show the will of the people.
arthurofbabylon 5y ago
The existence of a police force is indicative of social failure. If a police force exists, we’re already making mistakes. Our goal as a community should be to have zero police.
- CivBase 5y ago
  How do you enforce laws with zero police? Not arguing that the state of law enforcement in the US is acceptable... but it's a huge leap from there to zero police.
  - kelseyfrog 5y ago
    Parent is arguing that we should understand what incentivizes people to break laws and fix that. ie: do rootcause analysis, employ systems-level thinking and take preventative measures.
mdavis6890 5y ago
A lot of folks are focusing on whether or not the officer's use of force and destruction was justified or not in this or other cases, but really this is orthogonal to the question of who should pay for it. The right answer is that the police department (not the officers) should pay for all damage caused, regardless of whether it was justified by the circumstances. Implicitly then, the taxpayers are sharing the load for the full cost of police protection. We should expect that the police will occasionally cause damage, and this is just part of the cost of funding a police force. This would also add a nice check/balance, since the taxpayers will be more aware of how much damage police are causing and have an incentive to say something about it if it becomes excessive.
mandoza 5y ago
Exactly what do you need be a hacker
mandoza 5y ago
What exactly do you need to be a hacker

206 points by tomohawk 5y ago

This man, not so lucky: https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/774788611/police-owe-nothing-to-man-whose-home-they-blew-up-appeals-court-says https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/774788611/police-owe-nothing-... The case is a little different because in the case from OP, the resident at the home knowingly let the fugitive into her home(who she knew was a fugitive). She then left and called the police. Whereas with the case I linked in Colorado, the fugitive illegally entered the home. On the flip side, the Colorado suspect was actively shooting at the police from the home, while the Texas suspect apparently didn't do that, and merely committed suicide in a bedroom.

cronix 5y ago
> and merely committed suicide That really doesn't read very well.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  My intent was that he was not actively threatening police officers or the public, and in fact may have been dead before the police decided to blow the house up.
- deadbolt 5y ago
  It reads just fine in context.
yellow_lead 5y ago
From your article: > Authorities say the suspect stole two belts and a shirt from a Walmart > In an attempt to force the suspect out, law enforcement blew up walls with explosives, fired tear gas and drove a military-style armored vehicle through the property's doors. Amazing...
- nvahalik 5y ago
  How about quoting the relevant part? > he broke into Lech's house for protection and was firing at officers with a handgun

Natsu 5y ago

This is absurd, if they cause the damages, they should be on the hook to pay for them too.

JoshTko 5y ago
Ideally personally liable.
- gota 5y ago
  The negative incentive could make finding people to work as law enforcement difficult, though I think an in-built insurance system that all workees contribute to mandatorily works better. If less in damages is awarded than was collected, they could partially return as a proportional bonus to the workers It's not a straightforward issue but I think most would agree the current incentives are skewed towards doing whatever and not being responsible for any damage or cost
  - 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
    Insurance that uses the year's bonus as collateral.
  - Natsu 5y ago
    I don't know that I want them worried about the cost of doors while on the beat, but I do want the city to pay for that after. Also, I'm way more worried about use of force against pets, they seem awfully trigger happy vs. dogs sometimes.
    - ncallaway 5y ago
      I think if they destroy a door, and it's justified, the city should be obligated to pay. If it's found to be unjustified, the officer's malpractice insurance should pay. Also, I think officer's should be required to carry malpractice insurance (similar to doctor's), and qualified immunity should be thrown out. This would give insurers a strong incentive to drive-out the cops that are prone to committing assault, battery, and unnecessary property damage. I guarantee you an insurer with a profit motive isn't going to just ignore 13 use of force complaints against an officer. Such a scheme would also make it harder for bad officers to move a city or state and continue abusing the public elsewhere. Their insurance premiums would remain too high.

ryandrake 5y ago

From the more detailed article linked [1]: "Police later told Deanna that their plan was “shock and awe.” Using the department’s BearCat armored tactical vehicle, the SWAT team toppled Vicki’s fence and drove through her front door. They also used explosives to blow through her garage door and fired more than thirty explosive tear gas canisters through the windows. When they finally stormed the house, they found that Little had committed suicide in her bedroom. The only living thing remaining inside was Deanna’s dog which was left deaf and blind from the explosions." Why on Earth did the police feel it was necessary to do all this just to catch one guy? No checking whether the guy might have offed himself? Or did they ever consider just waiting for him to come out and then arresting him? Nope! Just reach right away for the cool bang-bang toys! These tools and tactics are what soldiers use when they want to destroy an enemy fortress, not what civilian police ought to be using...well...for any reason. 1: https://ij.org/case/texas-swat-destruction/ https://ij.org/case/texas-swat-destruction/

jimt1234 5y ago
The militarization of police. Don't expect this trend to reverse anytime soon. :(
- UnpossibleJim 5y ago
  I read something about one of the reasons the police have become more militarized and it wasn't the reason I expected (I'll see if I can find the article and link it). It had to do with city budgets and the way they were pushed out and continued. The gist of it was, the police had to allocate spending their budget within a short time frame or the budget they had would be put into the cities "general fund" (I believe this was Seattle, as that's where I live... mileage may vary). The next year's budget would be reduced to reflect the lack of spending. In order to reduce the risk of not having enough resources, police departments would make sure to spend all of their remaining money on 'necessary' equipment for their units. They could get A LOT of military equipment for a good price because of our 20 odd year wars over season, and our love of specialized units in the police departments, it was a match made in heaven.This type of short sighted, feast or famine spending coupled with readily available surplus military equipment has lead to an ever increasing militarization of the police that has a less effective, effect on community policing and crime, statistically. But all of this is because of how our government handles its accounting practices and sells its surplus military gear. I think I heard it on Freakonomics, but I'm not sure.

jimt1234 5y ago

Reminds me of the 80s, when the LAPD used a battering-ram to bust suspected drug houses, leaving them demolished[1]. The only good that came of that was this rap song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IODrx7DmqDM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IODrx7DmqDM [1] https://www.latimes.com/visuals/photography/la-me-fw-archives-lapd-battering-ram-20170427-story.html https://www.latimes.com/visuals/photography/la-me-fw-archive...

robomartin 5y ago

Not that I would ever want to experience this...I have a 8000 lb (3600 kg) CNC machine in the middle of my garage, flanked by a 2200 lb (1000 kg) manual milling machine. I wonder what would happen if SWAT tried to drive a BearCat through the garage without knowing what's on the other side of the door? Nothing good. I think.

jhart99 5y ago
They would probably bill you for destruction of their property...
- eftychis 5y ago
  I am afraid yes... The tragedy is there will be a judge that will hear them.
maxerickson 5y ago
Apparently the BearCat armored vehicle is 8000 kg. So it's definitely going to hurt in both directions.
- eftychis 5y ago
  Yeah let's drive a light tank into a house without knowing anything. That is smart. I wild fire them for stupidity but guess who is more stupid for not voting them out...??? It is all our fault at the end of the day.

SkipperCat 5y ago

At some point, America is going to have to admit to itself that the police has become the military. Police call non-law enforcement people "civilians", they're armed for tactical urban warfare and they have a kill or be killed mindset. Of course, this analogy falls apart when they engage in civil forfeiture (they take your money without cause). In that case they don't act like active military, they act like pirates. I would love to see a 3rd or 4th Amendment case against some of this stuff.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
There are plenty of people who see the police as the standing army the founding fathers warned us about. You just don't find many of those people on HN.
- macintux 5y ago
  > You just don't find many of those people on HN. I see plenty of them here in this discussion.
- abernard1 5y ago
  > There are plenty of people who see the police as the standing army the founding fathers warned us about. Firstly, this requires some real historical revisionism as police were actually around when the founding fathers were. American law is foundationally based on British Common Law, which also employed police vigorously. But I agree with you about HN. Most of the commentators here probably supported the giant expansion of federal, militarized police: the Capitol Police. That $3B expansion funded on conspiracies of white supremacists everywhere has led to two new charters of a federal police in states not in the Capitol.
  - hnbear 5y ago
    Sure, but then in the UK the Peelian principles were developed: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Peelian_principles https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Peelian_principles They're the very opposite of this issue here, and explicitly call out non-violence as goal, and to ensure policing is supportive and at the will of the population, not to subjugate the population. Later codified as: - To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment. - To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect. - To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws. - To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives. - To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life. - To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective. - To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. - To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty. - To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

booleandilemma 5y ago

It probably doesn't help that we only let stupid people be cops. https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...

2xpress 5y ago
A lot of smart people don't want to join the police to either condone their behavior or get in confrontations with them, and / or eventually possibly become one of them.

adolph 5y ago

I’m glad they didn’t kill her like the dirty cops in Houston do. https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/criminal-justice/2021/06/23/401399/2-more-indictments-in-connection-to-2019-harding-street-raid/ https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/criminal-ju...

Stratoscope 5y ago

Here's a Newport Beach (California) police recruiting video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_rKA6ROAVk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_rKA6ROAVk They were actively recruiting for the type of person who would enjoy being on a SWAT team like this. https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/newport-beach-calif-police-recruiting-video-goes-overboard https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/newport-beach...

literallyaduck 5y ago

The rhetoric of the day around protests has been, property is irrelevant and lives matter. Aside from the dog, the police didn't kill anyone, this time. The rhetoric also says insurance will cover it. That was a lie. In this case and in many of the victims of last year's unrest people are finding insurance doesn't cover it. Ethically the city would cover the actions of the officers and the voters and taxpayers would consider that in the next election cycle. If the incumbents win, the people have spoken that the actions are valid. Currently qualified immunity has given a wide path for police to rush in and worry later. Sadly a dog got hurt, in other cases it has been a flashbang in a crib mutilating a minor. Elections show the will of the people.

arthurofbabylon 5y ago

The existence of a police force is indicative of social failure. If a police force exists, we’re already making mistakes. Our goal as a community should be to have zero police.

CivBase 5y ago
How do you enforce laws with zero police? Not arguing that the state of law enforcement in the US is acceptable... but it's a huge leap from there to zero police.
- kelseyfrog 5y ago
  Parent is arguing that we should understand what incentivizes people to break laws and fix that. ie: do rootcause analysis, employ systems-level thinking and take preventative measures.

mdavis6890 5y ago

A lot of folks are focusing on whether or not the officer's use of force and destruction was justified or not in this or other cases, but really this is orthogonal to the question of who should pay for it. The right answer is that the police department (not the officers) should pay for all damage caused, regardless of whether it was justified by the circumstances. Implicitly then, the taxpayers are sharing the load for the full cost of police protection. We should expect that the police will occasionally cause damage, and this is just part of the cost of funding a police force. This would also add a nice check/balance, since the taxpayers will be more aware of how much damage police are causing and have an incentive to say something about it if it becomes excessive.

mandoza 5y ago

Exactly what do you need be a hacker

mandoza 5y ago

What exactly do you need to be a hacker