Posted on 10/30/2019 12:11:07 PM PDT by Hojczyk
When they were finished, it looked as though the Greenwood Village, Colo., police had blasted rockets through the house.
Projectiles were still lodged in the walls. Glass and wooden paneling crumbled on the ground below the gaping holes, and inside, the family’s belongings and furniture appeared thrashed in a heap of insulation and drywall. Leo Lech, who rented the home to his son, thought it looked like al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden’s compound after the raid that killed him.
But now it was just a neighborhood crime scene, the suburban home where an armed Walmart shoplifting suspect randomly barricaded himself after fleeing the store on a June afternoon in 2015. For 19 hours, the suspect holed up in a bathroom as a SWAT team fired gas munition and 40-millimeter rounds through the windows, drove an armored vehicle through the doors, tossed flash-bang grenades inside and used explosives to blow out the walls.
The suspect was captured alive, but the home was utterly destroyed, eventually condemned to be demolished by the City of Greenwood Village.
The suspect, Robert Jonathan Seacat, had stolen a shirt and a couple of belts from a Walmart in neighboring Aurora, Colo., and then fled in a Lexus, according to a police affidavit.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Never said or implied he was. Some guy is out of pocket for his house the cops blew up. Was he also involved with the meth head?
“The police were acting in their lawful role to arrest a criminal suspect and thus they are not liable for damage caused to other property, even if the property owner had nothing to do with the crime at hand, judges with the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled.”
He was shafted.
Not surprised that you can’t see that.
So it was the son who caused the cops to blow up his dad’s house?
“The police were acting in their lawful role to arrest a criminal suspect and thus they are not liable for damage caused to other property, even if the property owner had nothing to do with the crime at hand, judges with the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled.”
That’s not fully compensated.
“That’s not fully compensated.”
Your post makes no sense. But that does not change the facts.
“The city of Greenwood Village offered to pay $5,000 for temporary living costs for the family, but otherwise said it didn’t have to pay for the damage.”
Yeah, 5,000 is full compensation.
Right?
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/10/30/swat-team-destroyed-greenwood-village-familys-home-police-dont-have-to-pay-for-damages/
Your post saying he wasn’t shafted makes no sense.
“Yeah, 5,000 is full compensation.”
That was to the renter.
The owner was fully compensated.
“While governments must pay for property seized under eminent domain, governments don’t have to pay for property destroyed by police in pursuit of enforcing the law, the court ruled.”
Yeah, right.
He got shafted
Only if you are there when the incident occurs.
“He got shafted”
He was fully compensated for his loss. How was he shafted?
“This is why you defend your own home! “
I really wouldn’t expect a nine year old to defend the house against an armed meth-head.
Compensated how and by whom.
“Compensated how and by whom.”
I have already posted that info to you.
No he lost me at armed and stealing.
At 9 I had my first machine gun.
Oh yeah, the vaunted “Insurance”.
Which leaves the people who did the damages off the hook.
And we all know that when you destroy property, you don’t have to compensate people for it, right?
But note that they ARE burdened with the condition when they use excessive force and must compensate for that.
The lesson isn’t to duplicate this scenario, its to learn from it.
“Oh yeah, the vaunted “Insurance”.”
Thank you for finally acknowledging that Leo was compensated for his loss.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.