Posted on 10/31/2019 12:31:05 PM PDT by OddLane
True.
Whether the insurance co did, or did not,try to recover its own loss, isn’t clear from the news reports.
But normally, the company would try. The process is called “subrogation.”
Insurance companies are like casinos— in business to make money, not give it away. They really represent themselves & their bottom line, NOT their policyholders.
For Christians, supporting all government employees is our default starting point, based (among other texts) on Paul's command in Romans 13:1 and following:
1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
We are meant to integrate all of Scripture, and there are numerous other passages which qualify that instruction. For example, Acts 4 lauds Peter and John for their refusal to obey the Sanhedrin's order to stop preaching the Gospel, because doing so expressly contradicted Jesus' order in His Great Commission to preach ceaselessly:
18 Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! 20 As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”
Thank you for your agreement.
Paul’s command to respect government authority is predicated on a default assumption that those authorities are restrained by adherence to **the Law,** as derived from natural law, which is *established* by God.
The agents of the government do not themselves come from God and God does not *establish* tyrannical governments nor does He command us to condone, aid or abet them in their tyranny.
They might have to shoot out the tires on that thing.
You can be sure if the shoplifter had chosen a cop’s or politician’s house, the outcome would have been different.
Never said anything was special about them, said, the reporting on this story is sensationalized and most people reacting to it are reading nothing more than bogus leading headlines.
They didn’t destroy this home because he shoplifted, the home got destroyed (rightly or wrongly) because the perp was shooting at people.
Its impossible to argue that public safety was not being served by apprehending this criminal.
They didn’t do what they did because this guy shoplifted a few items from walmart, they did it because he was shooting at people.
Still doesn't sound like the public-at-large was in danger... and ignoring all of that, yes: I think the innocent homeowner is entitled to compensation for his loss.
“They didn’t destroy this home because he shoplifted, the home got destroyed (rightly or wrongly) because the perp was shooting at people.”
So why do they get a pass on destroying the house when other more professional SWAT teams get their bad guys under same conditions without destroying buildings?
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.