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 ...
“Who will of course reassess the value of the house and now account for the “police depreciation” factor for the payout settlement.”
LOL! If you only knew the facts!
“They do get to claim the damages as a loss on their tax return though.”
He had no loss.
What about just waiting the guy out?
Even if he fired a few shots at them, how much ammo did he have versus them?
Couldn't they have just sieged him, and wait for him to fall asleep?
Did they really NEED to blow out the house, or was that just an expedient thing to do so the cops could go home while the homeowner went homeless?
-PJ
Will the insurance pay in an instance like this? I'd be willing to bet they'd figure out a way to avoid it.
One day the police state will find out that there are limits to what we can take before we start treating them like they treat us.
Sure it does. If a perp breaks into your home and steals something, insurance pays. But, I think the issue here is whether or not the cops took the least destructive course of action to apprehend the perp. It appears they didn't. If they had the house surrounded and evacuated the affected area, then there was no immediate "public danger." Didn't this happen in Colorado? It figures.
They bulldoze a house to catch a shoplifter? I must be missing something.
“This falls into the sometimes ugly shit happens bucket.”
ACTUALLY he made out big time.
The insurance and city paid him for his 1974 relic and hevreplaced it with a new, bigger luxury home!
And clear up that eyesore quick.
Or big fines coming.
PS It is attractive nuisance, you are liable for any injuries there.
I think I saw yesterday in a diff article that he was armed and shooting out from the house. Cops not going to patiently wait it out in that case.
The day is young yet. What I'm amazed at is that we've found supporters of this right here on FR. Wow.
I have no problem with the police pursuing the criminal but to be able to destroy the home and the owner not be compensated for the total destruction of that home is fundamentally wrong.
The article says his lawyers will appeal to the Supreme Court.
But to do this chasing frickin' shoplifter is beyond the pale. Yes, he was armed, but he was holed up in this house. The police could had waited for him to surrender and/or come out of the house.
This won't be that last we hear of this injustice.
If I remember right you are in that business right? I may have learned this from what you have shared. lol
Nah, the jurisdiction should compensate.
Seems they would have an insurance policy for this.
Number one, it would take care of situations like this.
Number two, it might cause the officers to try a little harder not to destroy a home.
Not trying to trash the officers here. I’m not familiar with the case. I sure don’t think it’s right for an innocent home-owner to have to spend his savings or take out major loans for this sort of thing.
Where did you get that from? I can only speak to California: “‘Public Entity” includes the state, (State universities), a county, city, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation of the State.” Government Code Sec. 811.2
THIS SETS ONE BAD PRECEDENT, POLICE NOW WILL JUST TAKE A ARMORED VEHICLE AND DRIVE THROUGH ANYONE’S PROPERTY WALLS NO MATTER WHO OWNS THE HOUSE OR OTHER STRUCTURE WITHOUT DISCUSSION WITH ANYONE. IF INNOCENTS ARE KILLED, THE POLICE COULD CARE LESS.
Many policies will not cover a ‘police action’....which I’m sure they would say that this was.
Oh sure. The criminal made the police destroy the house.
Right.
There's a difference between damage and rendering uninhabitable.
What the police did there was inexcusable and they owe him for the cost of the repairs.
That judge is wrong.
Another factor is, if the police are not held accountable,, there's no reason for them to show restraint next time, or the next.
Serving the public is not destroying the public's housing to get a shoplifter.
lol.
“Stupid cops!”
Please do not be redundant. I hate it! ;-)
YOU CAN BET THAT IF IT WAS ONE OF THE COURT JUSTICES PROPERTIES THAT GOT DESTROYED, THE RULING WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT..
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.