Posted on 10/31/2019 12:31:05 PM PDT by OddLane
An armed shoplifting suspect in Colorado barricaded himself in a stranger's suburban Denver home in June 2015. 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.
After an hours-long siege, the home was left with shredded walls and blown-out windows. In some parts of the interior, the wood framing was exposed amid a mountain of debris.
A federal appeals court in Denver ruled this week that the homeowner, who had no connection to the suspect, isn't entitled to be compensated, because the police were acting to preserve the safety of the public.
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
“And after $400k in damages”
Where did you get that figure?
The ‘bikers’ as you love them:
Bandidos (wiki)
Australia[edit]
In 1984, the Sydney chapter was involved in a shoot-out with the rival Comanchero Motorcycle Club, with six gang members and a 14-year old bystander being killed.[42]
There have been a number of other shootings involving Bandidos Motorcycle Club members: In 2002 a member was shot and wounded by Sean Waygood and Michael Christiansen of the Anthony Perish criminal gang network in Haymarket, New South Wales;[43] In 2008, Bandido member Ross Brand was shot dead, and an acquaintance injured by rival Rebels Motorcycle Club affiliate John Russell Bedson;[44] and in 2012, Bandido member Jacques Teamo, along with an innocent female by-stander received multiple gunshot wounds from a rival gang member at the Robina Town Centre on the Gold Coast.[45][46]
Numerous police raids have targeted Bandidos members, and implicated them in illegal drugs supply and other crimes.[47][48][49]
Canada[edit]
“Also, apparently some memory loss setting in, see post 168.”
You said I posted something which I did not.
Thx, Dark.
And TG, the issue here is beyond tit-for-
tat or dollar value of the house.
It’s a constitutional issue and it’s about dangerous precedents.
Your defense of the police action in this specific instance is a defense of an armed state’s power to use their weapons of war however the state pleases, without any fear of judicial restraint or popular resistance.
My position in regard to the specific case is, the thug was inside a house, alone, surrounded by cops.
At some point, the dude would have assessed his options & chosen suicide (which may have left a mess of brains, but the house would have remained standing), suicide by cop, or surrender & be arrested.
The cops assessed *their* options: wait for him to get tired & surrender, wait for the opportunity for a sniper to take him out, or
decide they couldn’t wait & preferred to show off their big scary war toys instead.
And why did they choose the latter option?
To protect the public?
The public wasn’t in the house and wasn’t in danger.
Or because they could?
You’re in fact supporting a rotten judicial decision which sets an ati-constitutional precedent.
Far from protecting the public, it actually *sends a message* to the public: the cops get to have the **assault weapons** and do with them as they please, without restraint or penalty— and you don’t.
The state gets to commit crimes without penalty, and you dont.
I believe the cops acted as they did because they fully *intended* to send that message to the public: look what we’ve got, and look what we can do, and we can do this to you, too, and you can’t do anything about it.
So the fact that a bad guy was in the house is irrelevant to the property owner’s reasonable expectation that his property —
as spelled out in the BOR—must remain safe from armed invasion & demolition in peacetime, as well as his reasonable expectation that he himself, in future, will be safe in his own home from unrestrained assault by agents of the state.
This judicial decision erodes those reasonable expectations.
If you’d actually read some info, you’d know that answer.
So now we know you’re just kneejerk taking the side of flexing police power on the people.
Further, you haven’t addressed the images of wanton destruction of the house reminiscent of Philadelphia, and isn’t it a miracle that other far more professional seat teams could have their violent badguys without destroying a house or driving through the front door.
That if is.
It’s almost as if the repeated posts back then declaring everything a “slam dunk” and smearing all bikers as gang members didn’t happen and “IBTG/IB4TG” didn’t become a thing because of it...
Welcome.
Sadly, we do have posters here who are fans of police flexing their “authoritah” on the people.
They’d have been sturmabtielung in a different time.
Police also caused about $70,000 worth of damage to the house next door and insurance refused to compensate that homeowner, but the city only offered $2,000, Maxam said.
Your opponent likes to go on about insurance covering the main protagonist's house - but ABSOLUTELY refuses to discuss the guy next door, who got shafted by his insurance people, and apparently didn't have the wherewithal to drag the smirking "public servants" into court.
Because he was firing from his barricaded position.
Read the whole story.
Funny thing, other seat teams were able to get bad guys from behind barricades without destroying a house.
Why is that?
What’s so speshul about these guys that they must destroy the house and why does it make that okay?
‘If you’d actually read some info, you’d know that answer.”
Translated: you made it up
“So now we know you’re just kneejerk taking the side of flexing police power on the people.”
You just made that up!
No, unlike you I actually read the articles.
The house was condemned.
That isn’t “superficial damage”.
You made that up.
“Your defense of the police action in this specific instance is a defense of an armed state’s power to use their weapons of war however the state pleases, without any fear of judicial restraint or popular resistance.”
You lie worse than Schiff!
“The house was condemned.”
Because a couple of inspectors got light-headed?
Why?
“Your opponent likes to go on about insurance covering the main protagonist’s house - but ABSOLUTELY refuses to discuss the guy next door, who got shafted by his insurance people”
Which neighbor? What damages?
You can’t support anything except a rumor started byba known liar.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3790196/posts?page=2#2
Yeah, sure looks superficial.
More pictures here:
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/10/30/swat-team-destroyed-greenwood-village-familys-home-police-dont-have-to-pay-for-damages/
That ain’t superficial.
And, from one of the articles you supposedly read, “Out of pocket costs to repair the damage was $400,000”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/police-blew-up-an-innocent-mans-house-in-search-of-an-armed-shoplifter-too-bad-court-rules/ar-AAJzs8t#page=2
Maybe you should just stick to biker threads and talking about Reyna.
I didnt see any damage I could not have repaired.
Ask Greenwood Village.
“The suspect was captured alive, but the home was utterly destroyed, eventually condemned to be demolished by the City of Greenwood Village.”
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.