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 ...
Thanks for signing up for "thread idiot." There's always one.
State police involved?
What I don’t understand about the case is normally you sue under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (civil rights violations), and then claim the civil rights violation is a taking (violation of due process is generally also alleged). Also technically the violation is of the 14th amendment, not the Fifth Amendment (which only applies to the federal government; here you had state/local action). So I am somewhat baffled by this whole opinion.
I didn’t read the entire piece - it is NPR after all, but I think there is a possibility that homeowners insurance would not cover this.
There are exemptions for war and civil insurrections. I don’t know how this “incident” would be treated.
Personally, since the homeowner was innocent of any participation it seems the police, i.e. the local government, should be liable for destroying his house.
***OK I called my State Farm agent & he was very helpful.
There are basically two type of policy coverage for property damage.
1 - Coverage covers anything NOT excluded - State Farm has this with a fairly short list of exclusions
2 - Some companies sell “named inclusion” policies. Basically the opposite. ONLY that which is specifically listed as covered IS covered. A short list also.
Who brought the case to court, the owner? Or was it his insurance agency, which reserves the right to sue to coner their exposure?
Explosives were used across the city.
They blew up the family home of ancestors of one of my law partners, which is partly why I know about this. They were denied compensation and I believe ended up moving to Berkeley or Oakland, forget which. Part of their “riches to rags” story.
Preach it brother. Someone should write down a long list of grievances on the giant government (local, state and federal) that now harass the citizenry. I don’t know what to call it but we could write it down, and declare our freedom from it and use our muskets to defend our God given rights.
If there was a firefight or if they were going to use explosives, they already had to clear the area, right? If you “clear the area,” there is no longer a concern to the lives of others.
Look at post #72 to see confirmation of my approach BY AN ACTUAL COMPETENT POLICE FORCE.
“Upshot: it’s not the police’s fault the home was damaged, it’s the criminal’s. If you want a police force, you have to assign their damage to the criminal. (Now, had police hit the wrong house, or did it for fun, certainly their responsibility.)”
The ruling was correct. It was not the police department’s fault. So the owner can sue the crook - lotsa luck with that one though.
If I were one of the responding LEOs, and the guy was sniping at me or my buddies, I would want him taken care of ASAP, even if I had to blow up the shack. Combat ROE.
Bet his insurance company isn’t happy. The police dept might not be happy once the insurance company’s big lawyers get involved.
As I said earlier, if this was the case, then the most effective means of protecting the public would be to evacuate them from the area, and not blow up this guys house. I can also see where Walmart might bear some responsibility in this case. If they watched this guy steal a few articles of clothing and then let him leave the property unchallenged, then they are negligent.
I find most stories about legal matters are pretty scanty in relevant details. Generally the insurance contract allows the recoupment action, the surrogation action, to be brought in the name of the policyholder, although the insurance company can sue in its own name as well. BUT lots of insurance contracts have exclusions for acts of war, police actions, civil unrest, etc.
No idea if that’s in play here
Next time they’ll carpet bomb the neighborhood.
Homeowners policies cover civil action by authorities. It’s covered. The police could at least pay the deductible.
So, since you're cool with the entire country being labeled a combat zone, does that mean you're also cool with folks taking potshots at the occupying army?
They sued the wrong people. Sue the city counsel, the mayor, the county, and the state.
But this is our conservative complaint with liberal Legal tactics, isn’’t it? You hold the constitution up to the light, twist it just the right way, and you find a right to abortion. They drive the round peg of the 14th Amendment into the square hole of every policy objective they have. This is PLAINLY a proper police power case. It’s well explained in the opinion. God bless the lawyers for trying the semantic acrobatics of turning it into a takings case, but it isn’t a takings case. It was correctly decided. Listen,
If the Colorado legislature feels sorry for the guy, there is nothing preventing them from passing a bill to compensate him for the harsh result of the law in this case. That’s the way it should work as opposed to twisting the law to fit circumstances it wasn’t intended to address.
They have to sue the criminal. 100 officers for a shoplifter.
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.