4 ms·
Because they're not liable for any of the outcomes, either individually or in aggregate. I don't believe the govt is generally liable for these damages as long
by everforward 3y ago
Because they're not liable for any of the outcomes, either individually or in aggregate. I don't believe the govt is generally liable for these damages as long as there was a genuine purpose to it.
I'm starting to think that the modern, loose usage of SWAT is cruel and unusual punishment without a proper conviction. The punishment for actually stealing the air pods is likely less than the trauma of being SWATed and the fines are likely less than it cost to replace windows/doors/whatever.
- mcv 3y agoWhen they're going so out of their way to cause damage to innocents, they clearly should be held liable. In a lot of places this sort of extreme behaviour would definitely have at least some consequences. Though likely still not enough; I think the person who made this call should be fired or at least demoted, and the police department should definitely pay for these damages.
- everforward 3y agoI think doing things like this shows that the police are unable to use discretion in their execution of warrants, so my solution would be to take it away. Have the warrants specify where, when, and how the search should be executed. Whether they're allowed to break the door down, whether they're allowed to be fully SWATted up, etc. Make it clear that any actions taken outside of the warrant's directions are done as a citizen, not an officer. Then penalize officers for poor execution of warrants, and judges for poor issuance of warrants.
- pg_1234 3y agoAllow civil claims against the police pension funds.