The Police Blew Up The House! (The Case Of)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.lin... ⚖️
Nice home ya got there. It’d be a shame if the police destroyed it.
Get CuriosityStream AND Nebula for 30 days free curiositystrea... Special EXTENDED version only on Nebula!
Based on the real case of Lech v. City of Greenwood Village (10th Cir. 2019). #TrueCrime #LegalEagle
Written by Devin Stone, Donnalyn Vojta & Tricia Aurand
Illustrations by Nik Gothic and Alex Duran
Edited by Amy McClung
Summary from Wikipedia:
The arrest of Robert Jonathan Seacat was the culmination of a destructive 19.48-hour standoff with American police in June 2015. After being chased by police for stealing clothing from a Walmart, Seacat barricaded himself in the Greenwood Village, Colorado house at 4219 South Alton Street. By the time Seacat was finally extracted from the premises, the house had been destroyed by law-enforcement in their efforts. The homeowner-Leo Lech-filed a lawsuit against the municipality for compensation, but was ruled against by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; he was considering appealing to the Supreme Court of the United States.
(Thanks to CuriosityStream for sponsoring this video and helping to make this channel possible)
New episodes weekly! Subscribe here:
www.youtube.co...
★More series on LegalEagle★
Real Lawyer Reacts: goo.gl/hw9vcE
Laws Broken: goo.gl/PJw3vK
Law 101: goo.gl/rrzFw3
Real Law Review: goo.gl/NHUoqc
I get asked a lot about whether being a practicing attorney is like being a lawyer on TV. I love watching legal movies and courtroom dramas. It's one of the reasons I decided to become a lawyer. But sometimes they make me want to pull my hair out because they are ridiculous. So I decided to make my own series exploring real cases and true crime. I believe that if you give people the relevant information they can make informed decisions about our world. The “law” is not necessarily the statutes that are passed by congress but are the rules that everyone agrees to live by. This series explores the cases and stories that shaped our law.
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.c...
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
========================================================
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ ➜ / legaleagledj
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta ➜ / stellathelegalbeagle
★ For promotional inquiries please reach out here: legaleagle@standard.tv
👮♂️What case should I do next?
🚀Get CuriosityStream & Nebula to watch the best documentaries and the EXTENDED VIDEO: curiositystream.com/legal
The truth behind the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. Reality vs the corporate spin
Philly police bombing a house.
How about Lon Horiuchi?
@LegalEagle objection! You've touched on Better Call Saul but failed to address the best legal situation in the entire series: the court-room collapse of Chuck in S3E05: Chicanery. Was any of it legal? Would it make Jimmy culpable in Chuck's death by initiating his decline in mental health?
Can you address the contractual situation with Earl Thomas of the Baltimore Ravens possibly being released from his contract after being the victim of domestic violence and robbery?
Would you possibly break down the Ahmaud Aubrey situation, with respects to the thresh-hold for "stand your ground" laws, and the potential legal-exposure of the people who filmed the shooting while driving?
Love the channel, as soon as Im working again Im gonna become a paying member!
Devin it would be so great if you would review A Civil Action 1998. Yeah it's Travolta but still a great story and commentary on a lawyers process
Got to love the government. "I destroyed your house and definitely should've compensated you for it but lookie I made you safe".
Thank you officer, I feel very safe living on the streets!
🔥
If by safe you mean, destroyed your one place of saftey, put you further in debt, possibly traumatized you and your family, forced you out onto the streets with no home to return to...yea...safe. This is so much excessive force. Why wasn't that ever stated? Is there no statement that says police can not use excessive force on a building or property?
@@jacobcoady8852 qualified immunity. cops can do whatever the hell they want.
Did you listen to the video? Their argument was that it wasn't the federal government, i.e. the military, taking the home but the police which have different role and responsibilities.
But yeah, the government still went with "welp, it was a police action, tough luck" as way of defense.
What a stupid legal system. “Yes we completely destroyed your house beyond repair, but we don’t need to pay you because we didn’t legally take your house first”
I suspect the issue here was the insurance would only cover half the cost of the rebuild.
Yup.Trash.WE NEED A REFORM!
Don’t forget that the criminal they were attempting to catch was a result of the war on drugs created by said legal system
Qualified immunity needs to be vastly reigned in, if not thrown away. The police constantly over reach because of it.
@@realsonofmars Of course. A country in which the law is above itself is a country leading itself towards totalitarian autocracy
Imagine destroying someone's home and then complaining they want better compensation than $5k.
This is literally what you Insurance company is for. This exact sort of sudden loss is what we do. Had a fire? Tree strike? Junkie break in? We exist for this shit.
@@Caiphex But even then, it's incredibly expensive. The insurance company is very hard to actually get compensation from, and your rates will go up by a ton for this sort of action.
@@Caiphex I thought that too with the riots do you know how long that can take to get any funds? And how much that insurance companies dont want to give you? Stfu
@@Caiphex Which is why their insurance paid them in full.
Oh, wait.
@@Caiphex you surely mean the police forces insurance policy?
And private insurance in the US covers your house being destroyed by the police?
This honestly put a damper on my whole day. The police rendered their house to an uninhabitable state and got away with only paying out $5k due to a legal loophole. That sucks so much.
It's not a legal loophole.
If a drunk driver driving a rental car ran over your loved one, and you had to damage the rental car to save your loved one, do you think that the rental car company should be able to sue you for the damage to their car?
No, of course not; the person responsible for that is the drunk driver.
If a criminal puts people's lives in danger, and we have to damage property to protect the public from them, the criminal should be the one who is responsible for it.
They are suing the police because the police have deep pockets.
For real. I hate this whole thing.
@@TitaniumDragon Your argument has a flaw:
The ones doing the damage where representing the government while doing so.
They used disproportionate, excessive force, or else the house wouldn't have been rendered uninhabitable by police action.
The government destroyed the house. The government can pay for it.
Because the police _can_ afford to pay for the damage _they directly caused through their excessive, negligent action_ , they should.
@Titanium Dragon what a interesting comparison 😆
@@TitaniumDragon you're not wrong
"Y'see, your honor, my client couldn't have taken the victim's life, because he didn't keep it afterwards."
This! I'm dying bc it is so accurate
I love this 😂
The argument of Retention as being a necessary portion of Taking is fallacious under this grounds and others similar to it. That argument is patently ridiculous. If I were to take an apple from your fruit bowl, take a bite for the purpose of satiating my hunger, and then put it back into the fruit bowl, it would be said that I had taken and damaged your property. Though a small case it is clear that despite not retaining the object I had in fact taken it.
Killing isn't equivalent to stealing since the killer couldn't take ownership of the life. In this case the argument seems grounded in ownership.
Lmaooooo
Government: Best I can do is $5,000 for the absolute destruction of your house, oh and if you try to enter your ruined house for belongings we will arrest you
Yah that's the iceing on the cow patty cake isnt it
Spend that 5k on explosives and level that police chiefs house with everyone inside.
@@jasjfl well If you do that you at least don't have to worry about being homeless anymore...
ahh yes, "land of the free"
Police: “You home is safe to enter now, you can go get your stuff.”
Also police: “You can’t enter your house and get your stuff, it’s not safe.”
"We blew up the home, yes, but the 4th amendment says, 'we can't take your stuff without permission' not 'we can't destroy your stuff and way of living without your permission'
Edit: fixed amendment number, mb
And the US Supreme Court did not accept this case.
In the 1760s, the Sons of Liberty of Boston were protesting against the Stamp Act. The got a mob together, went to a royal official's house (was it the tax collector? I don't quite remember), and completely dismantled the house until no two bricks stood one on top of the other. The mob then went home.
No criminal charges were ever filed. These are the people that inspired the American Revolution a decade later.
This court case in a nutshell.
actually, that's the 4th amendment, not the 5th
Good point! Search and seizure is the 4th Amendment. Rights of the accused, such as the right to remain silent, are the 5th.
Government: Setting a shotgun booby trap in a house to stop a thief is excessive, reckless and brutal.
Also government: *blows up house to stop thief*
It's almost like it's not about what's right but who has the right to do wrong.
@@KoreaMojoAmen sister
Regarding booby traps, they aren't illegal because they are excessive. They are illegal because they are indiscriminate. In the case @LegalEagle talked about, the guy who set them up was the one who got shot and the police almost caught some bullets from other traps when they entered the home.
@@CableGuyRyv I thought the shotgun hit a theif who had the audacity to sue and won.
@Violexie-wb7op you are correct. I don't know what CableGuyRV is talking about
I have to side with the family here. When the Police took charge of the home they altered its purpose. It went from being a home to being the means through which the police were able to use to apprehend the criminal. THEY tore out the walls to create opening that wants to use as gun ports. THEY blew out the windows for the purpose of smoking out the criminal. They changed the function of the structure to fit their intended needs at that time and in doing so I feel they Altered the home's purpose.
Yeah the defences argument seemed to backfire but they still went with him. Perhaps there was something in the case we didn't see
I’m surprised the family’s attorney didnt’ fire back with that. “A pile of rubble is not a house, therefore the purpose was altered.”
They may have left the citizens their *land*, but how could they argue they *didn't* take the house itself?
Considering how they couldn't live in it after, how is the purpose not altered? Before it was a residential home, after the police were done with it it was a condemned pile of rubble. I don't think you can live in a condemned pile of rubble, in fact according to this video they could have been arrested for attempting to live in it because of the condemned title.
it really seems like a SWAT team could have cleared the house significantly easier then blowing up the entire house.
but the SWAT team gave up after coming under fire, surely they could have used a concussion grenade or smoke to cover their approach.
"Well, the Appellate Court decided in favor of the police."
Geee, what an unexpected outcome!
Top 10 anime betrayal.
That has never happened anywhere! Or anytime! I’ve never heard of such a thing!
There is no decent human being who could ever imagine that the cops should be able to get away with this insanity.
Well, i guess they won't have to. They'll be gone a four months
I can imagine cause it just happened
@@imoaardvark2248 Well, apparently the US Supreme Court does not consist of decent human beings, or at least not enough of them to accept this case.
Unfortunately it isn't up to decent human beings. It is up to those that write the law and uphold the law as written. Given the fact that the Supreme Court wouldn't even hear the case should tell everyone that:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Doesn't really mean shit.
Watching this makes me belief that "You break it, you fix it" should be a literal law.
It is. The problem is, you don't understand how criminal responsibility works.
The criminal is the one who was responsible for the damage, as their actions were what made it necessary to cause the damage in order to prevent people from being injured or killed.
Think about an analogous situation:
Imagine that some drunk driver slammed their rental car into a building, and the police had to destroy the rental car to save someone who was trapped underneath it. Do you think that the rental car company should be able to sue the police because the police destroyed the car due to the fault of a third party (the drunk driver)?
No. That's unreasonable. Obviously the person who would be culpable for the damage would be the drunk driver.
@@TitaniumDragon so seacat should be responsible for the damage to the house?
@@TitaniumDragon Your argument makes 0 sense. Police blew the house to smitherines when it clearly was *not* necessary, therefore it's the police's responsibilty. At worst they had to destroy the windows and toss in some knockout gas.
@@SuperPupperDoggo their homeowner's insurance should be responsible and they did award them $350,000.
@@saybrowt real easy to be an armchair general. You weren't there to make these decisions. Also the family was compensated $350.000 by their insurance for the value of their home. That's enough to rebuild a very nice house.
I actually grew up(and still currently live) in this neighborhood and I was in my house when this was all going down. Greenwood Village is a very well off city, in fact, it’s so well off that every summer they have a carnival called Greenwood Village day and it really pisses me off that we have the money to waste on entertainment but we refuse to fix the damage that WE caused
Sounds like the city council and police officers involved should experience the same fate as the Lech's.
@@Clay3613 Actually the prosecution did have one thing right, Qualified immunity for the police office unless something upraised in the video the police office violated procedure. hence the multiplicity is on the hook not the officers
It sounds like the people of Greenwood still have some good people on their side. And if any one of them heard about the case and the injustice the family continues to go through, they'd support the family while Lawyers set things straight. Clearly, injustice has been done, regardless of whether the case falls under Takings Law or not. There's a lot of compassion for their case and the family should seriously consider starting a kickstarter.
My only hope is that they see the video's popularity and start asking for help.
Think the community should have made the family whole.
@@nerdypotato7356 This was five years ago dawg. (Kinda confusing that the animated lawyer cites something from 2017 tbh if you're not paying complete attention to it being an appeal mock trial. Although I guess IDK when the legal processes all wrapped up.) But yeah the event was five years ago ish and I'm sure they had homeowner's insurance.
"Ah but you see, we didn't take your house. We just blew it up. So...it's legal."
"I didn't invade the neighboring country, I just carpet nuked it."
@@juniperrodley9843 "We ordered all of our citizens abroad to evacuate the neighboring country, so we actually did the opposite of Invade- we Evaded a catastrophe. Then we graciously sent our military in afterwards as part of an extensive humanitarian mission. You wouldn't call the Red Cross invaders, would you? We're exactly like the Red Cross."
@@juniperrodley9843 If it has oil its legal.
Destruction of property, forgot about that?
@@d.v.z7389
But, the government did it, so it’s okay.
"Not been altered from a residence into a missile command silo"
Yeah, you altered it from a place you can live to a place you can't live in. You altered it from a house to a pile of rubble.
a silo implies you could even store something there
I knew before you even got to the end that the family wouldn't get compensation. My friend has his house raided around 3 am one morning in college. He and his roomates were dragged out of bed, their house ransacked, the front door destroyed, all because their neighbor was selling drugs and the cops got the wrong house.
No apology, no compensation, just "there's no drugs here, must be the wrong house."
In cases like that, suing for negligence is more of a thing. Though it depends on the situation.
@@TitaniumDragon Legal fees for that can get expensive, and with the low chance of success a few college students aren't going to be able to take the risk.
Insurance compensated the family in the video. They should have done the same for you.
@@carlost856 What the insurance payout rate for a home invasion?
“The police power comes with its own rules, apart from the taken clause” There’s something about that sentence that’s deeply concerning
in most circumstances, when someone says taking a job or something comes with its own rules, they usually mean _stricter_ rules, but I guess not with police.
The fact that argument was used to explain why the constitution doesn’t apply to them is deeply worrying as well
It’s kind of the whole problem, ain’t it?
@o0O-JD-O0o Lets not forget, innocent till proven guilty, but we're giving you a newbie lawyer who has to argue ten other cases this week
It should be concerning.
Teacher: "Johnny, why didn't you hand in your homework?"
Johnny: "The police blew it up. They also blew up the home in which the homework was done."
Teacher: ????
Teacher: "Did the police alter the purpose of your homework?"
Johnny: "Well, no, but that doesn't really matter. They blew it up..."
Teacher: "I'm sorry, you are still liable for not turning it in."
@@tylerbarker2957 Johnny: "Objection! I am not liable for turning it in as I no longer have a home in which to do any home work. Therefore I should be exempt from any homework until such time as the police, city or state return the home that was taken."
@@tylerbarker2957 ....Excuse me, teacher, I'm Lil' Johnny's lawyer Mr. Legal Eagle esq....Since Lil' Johnny is no longer a student of this school district thanks to the local police utterly destroying their home to get some crackhead & forcing Lil' Johnny's family to move & enroll Lil' Johnny to another school district. I submit that Lil' Johnny is not under any obligation to this school district, it's teachers or it's assignments......
floyd burney Teacher: “That’s okay. We understand that he has the freedom to not hand in anything. However, exercising such freedom has consequences. If he fails to fill out in triplicate the school district form XB-127 as required by State Code 15432, have it properly translated into Chinese, Arabic, and German as required by District Policy 32471.8(b), have it personal, witnessed by a notary who is located In South Africa as required by District Policy 17398.7, hand it in between 2:15 pm and 3:00 pm on the third Thursday of the month as required by District Policy 38429.2, he will still be considered a student for purposes of doing assignments though if he does not live within the district, he will not have access to said assignments since he will therefore be in breach of the district contract with him. However, as noted in District Policy 16329.4, failure to fill out XB-127 will result in a situation whereby the student still has liability even though we have no requirement to provide instruction. Therefore, until such form is properly submitted, we will still issue an F for the course as well as all subsequent courses, which will follow Johnny forever because it is part of his dreaded ‘permanent record.’”
Actually, they burned the homework page for a firelight, but the "use" has been preserved since the ashes were returned to the student, though they are unreadable by the teacher, who along with Johnny is also forbidden to handle the ashes since they could break into powder, the powder be inhaled, and induce black lung cancer.
Levelling an innocent family's house with gas grenades, explosives, a robot and a SWAT team to arrest a man accused of stealing some electronics from Walmart that probably cost a few hundred dollars is the most American thing I can think of.
They spent MORE time, effort, resources and possibly life on that one scene in that period than it was ever worth his stealing.
Send a few men in armored up after finding what room he was in. Cause a large distraction while they move in. Bam. Catch by Suprise and arrest him.
House still there.
(I know it isn't that easy..)
that person was armed which posed a huge problem.... tho i feel it could have been handled better with less destruction of the house
As soon as he fired at a police officer, the theft was pretty much irrelevant. The stand off itself makes sense, it was important that he wouldn’t have a chance to get away and to avoid risking the lives of law enforcement as much as possible. The destruction of the property seems excessive to me, but I don’t have any knowledge about situations like that. However, the behaviour afterwards was disgraceful. Calling to inform that they may take their belongings and that “some destruction” had occurred and only offering 5000$ after the family comes to the station in need is silly and shows contempt for the innocent family whose home had been destroyed.
And shot at a police officer. Twice, don't forget that
And my family doesn't understand why I shit all over this place.
The thing is, if one of the cops or judges was in this situation, they would also demand compensation. The apathy of most of our justice department is honestly appalling.
You can say that again. And it's just God awful. The working class common folk get screwed so hard. But if you're anything above that. Via rich, or have some kind of poltical or government power. You somehow get 'compensation'
I know Judges aren't suppose put emotion in their cases but still!
if your a Politian or part of the government then you get away with just about anything, but if your everyday citizen then you don't get nothing
It's also one of those cases where until the judges rule on the right side (compensating home owners for police destruction of their property) the public will refuse to accept it and will keep on filing lawsuits against police and slander their reputation.
And the community would rally together and the cop would get his house rebuilt because people in the US worship police.
police: "it can't be taking because we didn't alter the purpose"
also police: "you can't live in this home now because we altered it"
logic [o_O].
There's a difference between altering something and altering it's purpose. If I pull out a can of paint and slap it on my baseball bat I've altered it, but it's purpose is unchanged. To hit baseballs. If instead I grab a can of nails and hammer in a dozen or two of them into the baseball bat I've not only altered it, I've altered its purpose. The bat is no longer compliant with the rules of baseball so cannot be used, and it's no longer capable of hitting balls because of all of the nails. Ive altered its purpose into a weapon
In this case the police clearly altered the house by tearing it apart, and thus they altered its purpose from being a place of habitation to a structure no longer habitable and deemed unsafe for occupancy. $5000 is frankly an insult
A house which you can not legally enter or shelter in is less able to serve its original purpose than a bat with a nail in it
@@jh-ne4sy indeed it is
The problem with that argument is that it would allow the police to damage property so long as it could not be condemned or require them to only pay enough so that it no longer could be condemned. No, the court ruled correctly, The problem lies with the plaintiff’s attorney who is trying to use the takings clause rather than tort law.
They play on words. IN that case "altered" measn a change of use. for example, if they had it change to a commercial shop, or a medical facilities. "Altered" does not concern the strucutral integrity nor the decorative state of the house.
This is literally the "I wasn't driving, I was traveling" argument except it's the government so it works.
sovereign government. XD
I want to see a parody of that.
Donut Operator got a content idea for ya...LMAO
It's like that other version: "i didn't shoot, the gun did!"
Any Sane Human: "NOOOOO! YOU CAN'T JUST BLOW UP A HOUSE AND NOT COMPENSATE THE OWNERS!!! THAT'S NOT JUSTICE!!!!!"
Laws, Judges and the police, apparently: "Haha, house go boom."
"We the police stopped a man from potentially destroying the lives of people by destroying their lives first!"
Remember, the police in most states can seize cash and goods from your vehicle on only the belief that they may be part of an ongoing criminal activity, and even if they do not charge you with any illegal act they can indefinitely hold onto those items.
AND they don't need to state what criminal activity they believe may have been ongoing, AND they can direct funds from seized assets or the sale thereof in whatever way they choose. Margarita machines in the breakroom are apparently a popular choice for seized funds, for example.
Incidentally, the total annual losses from police seizure has topped the total annual losses from robbery.
William Vincent Any Minority: “THE LAW WOULDN’T PLAY ME LIKE THIS IF WE WERE WHITE!”
Me:
To be fair to the judges, they can't rewrite laws just because it's unfair. Blame legislators for this one.
The thing that confuses me most is that by any sane definition the purpose of the house had been altered. It had been legally declared uninhabitable and torn down due to the actions of the police and therefore cannot reasonably be claimed to maintain the same purpose
"justice, may it please the Court: the purpose of the property was altered, unless my clients are willing to reside in a pile of rubble"
imagine the judge coming home, sitting down, and say to his wife, "this family's house was blown up, and they wanted compensation, but we decided the police didn't need to do that."
how do they sleep at night
@CLP no kidding
Probably not well. The case wasn't about deciding if the police should have pay compensation (it seems obvious that they should), but whether or not it was a case of eminent domain. And in terms of eminent domain, it's a stretch. The judges probably think they should be compensated just like everyone else. What we need is a law to prevent this from happening again.
With a fat check from the police chief
Mainly because they are literal fascists tbh.
They can sleep at night because their job is to look at the applicable law itself and render a decision on that accordingly. The law isn't about emotional appeal but was the law says is and isn't.
If justice decisions were always based on emotional appeals, there would never truly be justice because you would have to throw the rules out at the beginning of every case.
Taking something permanently out of someone's possession is functionally no different than destroying it and saying that the home still served the same purpose after it had been destroyed is nothing more than a ridiculous display of semantics. They deserved to be compensated. Having said that, I have no faith that they were.
John Maloney semantics? welcome to the legal system
I find it very interesting that in all these videos the courts ruled in favor of the bad guys
It seems to me that the argument is incomplete as presented: namely that the police took a home from the family and a little less than a day later the police returned a husk. I wonder if there is any case law that deals with damages to commandeered vehicles or other property that is not necessarily a home. Or especially if there is any case law relating to a place of business.
@@Makarosc Bad guys? I didn't see any bad guys (or girls for that matter) in any of this. Unless you meant Seacat somehow??
@@Sidewinder84x Licking boots isn't going to save you when the cops come to destroy your life in the name of "we gotta get this guy now because I want to be home in time for football".
Police Lawyer: "It wasn't taken because it was in fact returned"
- Family is refused entry to home, and the home is eventually demolished
I would hardly call this "returned"
Police Lawyer: "That 2017 case actually meant if the purpose had been altered"
My brain right at that moment: "ARE YOU FREAKING TELLING ME YOU'D USE THAT BUILDING AS A PRIVATE RESIDENCE IN ITS CURRENT STATE!?"
We have altered the house, pray we do not alter it further
Unfortunately, the way the government views it is that the condemnation and demolishment are separate from the police action. While the police may have caused the situation, the police did not condemn the home, that was likely something like code enforcement. Therefore from the perspective of the police it was returned. It's a weasly little argument, but a legally sound one based on case law. This is something that needs to go higher up the judicial food chain in order to have the precedent of previous case law altered. I hope the family does keep pressing forward with the case, but even if they get to the Supreme Court, I am not sure it will change things. The Supreme Court has been extremely conservative in it's view of cases of eminent domain. I get the argument that police need to be free to do what is necessary for the public good, but at the same time they need to be cognizant of the effects their actions have and the government, be it city, county, state, or federal, need to fairly compensate people whose property is damaged in police actions.
@@N1ghtLancer You are my favourite person this week
@@ccapwell Wait, why is the action of police and government separated? Aren't they effectively the same institution, like the Federal State and the military?
@@masalaman7820 Which branch of the federal government are you saying is the same institution as the military? The executive, the legislative, or the judicial?
How?! How is this not considered a “taking” of their home?! They were literally barred from entering their home after the police destroyed it to arrest a suspect. I’m furious about this. This is so unfair.
And a THEFT suspect, no less! Yes, I realize he had a record, but still ....
"I submit that the law permits application of logic and common sense"
That's where she went wrong lmao
yeah, there is no logic or common sense in law, it really is an ass...
'common sense' isn't common, especially in law.
Logic and common sense would suggest that criminals are responsible for the damage they do and the damage that is done in protecting others from them.
The house: *doesn't exist*
The court: this house is still a fine residence, and is safe to live in.
Freedom and Security eh lol
"the property was not altered, it's still a private residence"
...
"it's condemned and uninhabitable, definitely not fit for residence"
They shouldn't have argued eminent domain. I blame the lawyer
@@andrewb.4031 They would just argue even unlivable it is still a residence, and still listed as such. That argument goes nowhere legally i think.
@@andrewb.4031 , Except that the only reason the idea that the home had been 'altered' mattered was because of the eminent domain taking angle.
@@andrewb.4031 I agree. The Lechs' lawyer sucked!
Let me get this straight. The police department could afford hours of wages for multiple officers, explosives, a goddamn robot, an armed task force and snipers. They then explicitly stated the house was too destroyed to be fit for resistance. Then refused to pay the family for their destroyed house.
Imagine how that poor family feel when they have to pay tax.
"But it still has the purpose of a residence, so it has not been altered in purpose."
9Johnny8 if it’s declared uninhabitable then it can no longer serve as a place of residence.
@@hazzasazza444 That was the point I tried to make. I used the quotation marks to show that was the reasoning the defendant's lawyer used. Maybe should've used /s for sarcasm.
@@hazzasazza444 In the end, the property is currently a residence, ergo was not "altered in purpose". And I suspect that the "house was damaged so bad it had to be demolished" was a short way of saying "the damage to the house was severe enough that it was more cost-effective to demolish it and start fresh than to attempt to repair the existing structure", meaning that the police had returned a "house" to the family, despite its condition. Seems to me that the family was screwed over far more by their insurance company, if the house was considered a complete write-off, their policy should have covered far more than half the costs.
@Luís Filipe Andrade That's the issue, the court found that there is not right to compensation for damage that occurs from police using their policing powers as opposed to the state using eminent domain.
If police need immunity from the law to uphold the law, then something has gone horribly wrong
Which is why they don’t need it. But they need it keep up with racism.
Not really, the issue is that Americans are among the most litigious people out there. If cops could be sued too easily, they'd never do their job and eg enter a dangerous situation. It's how liability laws work.
@@projectpitchfork860 Racism?? the story says nothing about race and no such thing exist. Many variations of one human species.
At what cost ?
Immunity is only for individuals, not the department or city and it’s only qualified.
If they aren't going to be responsible for their actions, can't let them have access to our stuff. Furthermore, by ruling that the police don't have to take responsibility for *blowing up a private citizens' house* they are in fact condoning this sort of wanton destruction, which is definitely against the best interest of the public.
It actually sets a dangerous precedent that it is legal for the police/government to destroy people's property and act erratically to accomplish their "mission", and face minimal consequences.
Person blows up a police station: "OMG terrorist! Kill him!". Police blow up private residence "Durr we make house go boom we make criminal go to jail we did good"
What they should have done is start the rebuilt with the money they got from the home insurance, instead, they used a good amount of it to try and sue for the market value of the home. All because a scummy lawyer took advantage and convinced them they had a chance.
@@Alex632 what has the insurance to do with any of this?
police destroyed property -> police should compensate for it
really easy to understand.
no insurance involved.
@@mahe4 succefully claimed home insurance -> should of been used to rebuild house.
Really easy to understand.
Without hearing the verdict yet, I would say that destroying a home to the point that it’s condemned and cannot be used as a residence is 100% altering it’s purpose. It can no longer be used for the purpose for which it was built.
I think everyone should learn that a justice system doesn't mean it's just. Court systems suck off old cases instead of what's actually just and logical.
But the fact that the family rebuilt proves otherwise. The lot was still zoned as residential and the police’s didn’t cause any toxic damage. So it could still be lived on.
Jacob Clark true, but the actual structure itself was altered beyond usability for *any* purpose, since it was unsafe to even leave it standing.
@@TheLordsCanary I argue that the purpose of the house wasn't changed but the viability of using the property for its intented purpose was. The house was always a house and was never changed to be anything else and thus its purpose was not changed.
Honestly what exactly would the court determine is altering the purpose???
I've heard about it and I'm still baffled this even ended up in front of a court to begin with. To me it's common sense that the family should be compensated but I guess laws are not that simple
Common sense isn't so common. And after hearing this, makes me even more despising the legal system 'protecting' police.
Uniform or not, someone (a human being) or something (man's machines/intent/actions) caused this and thus, a human being needs to compensate for the damages and or attacks done. Period.
It seems like an issue lawmakers should deal with.
@@tovekauppi1616 yes
Completely agree. The family is not even asking for anyone to be held liable of jailed. They just want police funds to pay for the reconstruction of their house.
Perhaps they should be
How exactly does a disheveled criminal “not fit in” at a Walmart
Maybe it was similar to how anxious or paranoid people believe that everyone is looking at them acts in such a way that eventually makes people pay attention to the person acting unordinarily?
my thoughts exactly at the Malwart. Another American story.
@@Korvmannen And also that, on top of it all, he was armed and (arguably clearly) doped up?
COLORADO
@@fds7476 aka every 3rd customer here in Oklahoma ☠️
This is the case of taking the law as is and ignoring the spirit of the law. To protect the innocent . This should never have come to a litigation. They should have been reimbursed fully and then some.
This is probably the best example of "the cure being worse than the disease". It's the very definition of "using a missile to swat a fly". Just as a matter of legitimacy, the government should have never let this get to court and rather settled with full payment to the family. It's bad enough that the event happened and became local public knowledge.
My question is "Who would ever trust or cooperate with the police, after that?"
Exactly that, abusing their police powers.
@@1mag1nat1vename They have probably spent more on legal fees than what the house would have cost the city in compensation.
I live near GV. Here's a story I told in another comment:
Mr. Nathan very much reminds me of GV's government as a whole in a really weird way. GV has a summer event called "Greenwood Village Days" at a big park in the city, and you need a ticket to get in. My address technically is not in GV but most of the neighborhoods around me are, so they USED to give us tickets as a neighborhood courtesy. Probably about 10 years ago, they just stopped since TECHNICALLY they don't have to do anything for us. The argument Mr. Nathan makes exactly follows this - according to the letter of the law, GV doesn't have to help out, so...it won't, really.
The question now is did they protect the innocent. If the protection of the innocent leaves the innocent without the basic necessities of life did they actually protect the innocent?
"We're not arguing that we traumatized the entire family down to their dogs, blew the shit out of their house and made sure they knew it was uninhabitable by forcing them away from their own blown up house, that we blew up, nor are we arguing that we absolutely took every measure to escalate every aspect of the situation, but we just reeeeaaalllly don't feel like taking responsibilityyyyyy sooooooo..."
"really they should be paying us for all the explosives we had to use."
“I mean, yeah we destroyed the house but man did we scare the HELL outta that shoplifter”
@@lunarservant6781 Don't forget the traumaticed policemen who were exposed to all these explosions like a war zone. The family should pay for the therapists bills.
@@TremereTT because the family did?
What?
What did they do to deserve any cost to their lives? Live in the US? Seems like punishment enough.
@@DemonjustinofPhoenix woosh
I honestly hope they try for the supreme court on this case. This seems like a very good case where some grey areas need to be cleared up in the case something like this happens again. Maxim made a very strong case for the fact the police altered the purpose of the property while they were temporarily holding it. Sure, it is not quite the same as eminent domain, but the family could not use their property the same way again after the destruction of their house.
Waste of time. I don't see this SCOTUS doing anything to undermine absolute state authority.
It has been appealed to SCOTUS as of March of this year (2020) but something came up so not much news on it since then.
@@dunzerkug what came up?
Zefram Mann State authority is not absolute. If the police are grossly negligent or reckless in their behavior, their actions are not covered by the qualified immunity enjoyed under the police power.
@@TheEmmakathryn My Sharona!
Update: The family lost. According to Wikipedia, the Supreme Court denied cert on June 29, 2020. Sad.
U.S still proving it is a failure to the world...
Sickening..
Give the local police a taste of their own medicine.
Want a new door? Boom. Giant hole in the wall with a board over it.. Still a doorway, still it's original purpose. Hasn't been altered.
Yeah, it seems like the US is rather against people than for them.
Hungary (and I think most of Europe) has basically absolute opposites as a law. I'm not 100% sure, but as I heard you are entitled to compensation even if you parked in front of a fire hydrant and the firemen damage your vehicle with a hose.
There's even some wording that if you are the one who willingfully offered your any kind of property for a police action, and even if you had some negligence involved in the damages caused, you are still entitled to compensation.
I cannot always praise Hungary as the epitome of the "state for the people" kind of governing (because there is a lot of corruption and the prime minister's 'friends' get basically every public purchasing, etc.) but at least the laws are more oriented towards people, and not towards corporations or forces. I hope this will stay the same, while the other problems will be solved in the future.
*FLIPS THE TABLE*
Not sad... just disappointing
Boooommm I pulled the disappointment card take that
“We can’t take control of your home without permission, but we can destroy it without.” How do Americans not live in fear of that?
Most Americans don't realise they live in a totalitarian police state until they become its victims themselves
@@exantiuse497 I’m an atheist, but amen to that!
But hey, at least they have the constitutional right to not have to house British soldiers in their home
@@DukeDukeGo can't house soldiers in your home if you have no home
As an american... I do
This seems like one of those situations where new laws/rulings should be made. I appreciate the situation of law/police being separate from civilian works but if any other organisation was to take control of my property to complete their works and created damage in the process they would be expected to compensate without any need to apply for insurance reimbursement. If the local water company had to enter my property to repair a damaged water main that ran under my house and they caused damage to my foundations their insurance would be expected to cover my losses and so should the police need to enter my home and caused damage during that process they should be expected to reimburse through their own insurance policies.
I think the same way we should have laws and ruling for this exact situation. I would hope they take it up further so we can all one day be protected from same situation. Though I also understand even going further with it might not even yield any results, as if they don't get appealed and have to take it up with Supreme Court, they can just choose not to do anything about the case. I just hope best for the family either way.
I entirely agree, but how does one overturn legal precedent? I'm asking from the perspective of a non-American whose knowledge of the American legal system is that the doctrine of precedent is the basis for ensuring that similar cases aren't treated differently because of the mood of the judge on the day and other than with new legislation for those cases where legal interpretation set an initial precedent (I hear that getting legislation passed in the US is slower compared to other English-language jurisdictions), I just don't know how else it could be overturned 😓
@@lukeedwards7677 In general, you don't "overturn" legal precedence. You do it by changing the law and clarifying the intent of the law. The legal profession is mostly about interpreting the law and its intent and mostly shouldn't try to change and create new law (at least in America). Its about a check and balance to each system. Sometimes an interpretation can change over time and get clarified in another matter
Definitely worth to go all the way to the supreme court and hope they have a brain and tell the police they can't just destroy a home for funsies when they could have done other stuff (like wait it out longer).
They don't have thermal imaging to check where he was hiding? How about sleeping gas or the like? Even poisonous gas at that point, since when does the US police cares about not killing guys that shoot at them? They can shoot a guy that looks like he has a gun, but someone that actually shot at them, his life is worth taking that many risks?
Antoine Chauvet they need to protect their officers. I’m absolutely okay with them blowing the house down and leaving a crater. However they must replace and/or repair the damage. So in effect at least 10% more then damages to take in effect errors in calculations plus another 10% for pain and suffering as well as rental property during the construction less current mortgage and an additional 10% again for pain and suffering. Any more then this should require a court case, and of course this is definitely possible. (If the owners profit from this event then by all means the government can try to recover their losses by court transaction themselves).
This is such a travesty of justice. But by all means the police acted well and carefully to preserve loss of life.
I find it interesting that this has been argued primarily as a matter of property law, at least as portrayed here, and not argued that there wasn't also a case of excessive force on the part of the police. The building was completely surrounded and there was no conceivable means of escape for Robert Seacat. What the police did in compromising the structural integrity of the building, put the entering officers, Seacat, and the community at greater risk of death than had the police done nothing except wait it out. The penetrations to the buildings shell compromise the lateral force resisting system of the house, leading to a greater likelihood of collapse especially in the event of a sharp wind gust. Moreover, the effectively unlicensed demolition raised the possibility of starting a building fire or gas explosion which could further compromise the public safety. A temporary evacuation of the immediate neighborhood and establishment of a perimeter around the premise in question with officers behind behind ballistic shielding would have been enough to ultimately neutralize the threat and eventually affect arrest, the guy wouldn't be able to hide in a house forever.
That is the fault of the lawyer. Once you pick an argument or your charges/allegations you have to stick to it. I agree, they could have argued using excessive force also.
Exactly my thoughts too, I found the focus very weird, but I know next to nothing about legal matters so I can't comment. In my view the police's action was unnecessary and excessive, but I do agree that they should have that legal immunity. I'd say in this case Seacat would be responsible, but of course you can't expect him to pay up. Really sticky situation.
The hostages in the Iranian embassy situation in the UK was based on waiting out the hostage takers, not blowing up the embassy. Things could stretch for days if they had to for this guy, they could turn off the water taps and the guy would be out in less than a week and would be forced to sleep at some point and would probably be out of his drug supply keeping him awake sooner or later.
That said, as for why it was sued on this basis is because the homeowners wouldn't have standing for the police using force, they weren't the ones subject to the force, Seacat was.
@@robertjarman3703 they're property was subject to the force though no?
It's interesting that the lawyer also didn't argue excessive force but there may be a legal reason why they didn't but regardless the city/state/police should have paid so that they could replace their entire home and lost possessions, to argue otherwise is not Justice.
I grew up in Greenwood Village, and I remember this!
I didn't see any of the incident personally, but I remember the heavy police presence. I never heard of the result, which is... frankly disgusting.
Police: The residences purpose has not been altered as it's still a residence
Also Police: Please don't enter your new premium open view residence
That's one way of getting rid of your mortgage I guess.
How do I keep seeing you everywhere on this website!
Arsin Thegreat pretty sure it’s a bot
Not funny
Nope. Do you really think that any bank would void your mortgage because police literally destroyed it? Theyd probably even decide to increase it because the judges decided police is not at fault, and so theyll twist it to say that you did it.
Arsin Thegreat huh so it’s not this me
"We saved society!, but also put a whole family on the street, barely covered any of their costs, and put a massive burden on their shoulders due to forces far out of their control with no chance of recourse. Oopsie. Sorry"
A family shouldn't be forced to give up their home and undergo such intense burdens. Furthermore, a government body shouldn't be able to stand on the defense "it was for the good of the public" when clearly the public was harmed (emotionally, financially, etc) by the destruction of property.
While I understand Police do need civil protections in the line of duty when life or death is being considered, the family should have been rightfully compensated for the flippant destruction of their home. No family should be forced to have their lives ruined and burdened because of something they clearly had no control over, the police force, village, and all government bodies upholding this situation should go sodomize themselves with a retractable baton.
I'd prefer that thse people responsible just have their houses blown up and their families made homeless, they might enjoy the baton treatment a bit too much...
The real problem is the phrase "the public". Officers see "the public" as a vague, nebulous ideal. Any people they come in contact with are either, perps, victims, or sheep. They're not the public. The family they just made homeless isn't the public. The people that drug dealer didn't theoretically go kill is. Also that drug dealer isn't the public.
Imagine how this story would've gone down if the cops hadn't been called in the moment.
Guy would've stolen some electronics.
Walmart would have him on video doing it. They could've gotten his plates.
They find out what was stolen via cameras and inventory report and call an officer later to file the report.
The police take the info, ID the suspect and add that to his list of warrants. They arrest him the next time they pull over his crappy truck for a missing taillight or whatever.
Walmart receives a check from their insurance company covering a portion of the .000000001% of their profit they lost that day.
Nobody is made homeless.
No SWAT team.
No tanks.
No scared kids or dogs.
Just... An easy, peaceful day.
@@kev25811 Although I think that it is ok for the police to have blown up their home I think repaying for the parts they damaged would be appropriate. To me that is the cost of catching the criminal. In reality why should they be responsible for paying to catch a criminal. The criminal himself didn't do the damage and no one was in imminent danger (if they didn't approach the house and kept a safe distance) so blowing up the house was purely done because they wanted to catch the dangerous criminal. In that case it is only logical to pay for it as just part of the cost that it does cost sometimes. As a tax payer I would be more than happy to make that payment and then we can later scrutinize on wether it was excessive or not, if it happens too often or not etc.
@@kev25811 bold of you to think the investigation would turn up anything for such a small-time criminal...
@@lcmiracle it says right in the video that the guy has priors.
This isn't that complicated.
Just watch the video and consider that none of it would've happened if the police hadn't been called to the active scene.
Worst case scenario the guy didn't have priors and nobody could ID him and the store would've had to fill out some insurance forms.
Again... Nobody is made homeless. No tanks have to get involved. Just a minor headache for a guy who has to fill out some insurance forms and a reduction of nothing percent of an insurance company's profits.
Wow. Okay. The purpose of the home WAS altered as it went from a private residential area, to an area deemed uninhabitable and too dangerous even when the police force explicitly stated that their home was in fact “safe to return to to claim any personal property”. This family should absolutely take this to the Supreme Court
they did, and they lost-
@@notarobot1494 No, the refused to review it. The Supreme Court did not rule on this case.
Cops: *Literally blow up an entire family's house to catch one guy*
Family: Can we have at least enough money to get a new one?
Cops: Nah, you can have $5000. Also, this money is because we're being nice and we also deny any wrongdoing. Also if you try to go back to the house, you will be arrested.
They'll probably have to pay income tax on that 5k too...
It's worse than that. They were told they could go back to the house, but when they tried to they were threatened with arrest on the premises. Imagine if the police smashed into your parked car full on during a high speed chase and then they said "well hey, shit happens, here's a couple bucks for a gallon of gas and you're free to pick up your car and head to a shop" and then when you get there they arrest you for trying to tamper with evidence lmao
"Is it worth it for them to try again?"
- Is it worth it to the family? No.. the supreme court would probably uphold the decision and the family would just be incurring more legal fees and stress..
- But is it worth it to society? Yes.. the police should not have this kind of immunity to damage they cause, in this case, or ideally in any case...
If this is the case, what is the point of having a 3rd Amendment (military cannot enter your property without permission) and 4th Amendment (search and seizure require warrant) when your police is as destructive as Army in 19 century?
@@chongjunxiang3002 i think that's an excellent question that gets to the very concerning militarization of law enforcement we've been seeing over the last ~15 years. fighting wars and keeping peace are two very different kinds of tasks, and our law enforcement is shifting from the latter to the former.
@@adfaklsdjf You know whats weird about that is that military personal have much stricter rules of engagement where your actions are held accountable. The police however have a culture of obstruction it's a breeding ground for unlawful behavior. Yeah he killed that guy or shoved an old man to ground causing head trauma better them than me is the mentality as long i come home. Kill, maim, and destroy is there motto and if you don't like it they yell obscenities at you as they beat you half to death.
I agree. It is an absolute benefit to society. The idea that the government can take whatever it wants provided that it does not retain it does not appear to be constitutionally valid. If it was, the government could take a billion dollars from random citizens and just burn it as a measure to control inflation. If the US government took your entire life savings, burned it, and then argue that it didn't actually take it because it didn't retain it would you feel any differently?
@@Elliandr that's what the government did to me and my property
Guy : *has one handgun*
Police : My god, bring in the tanks
This is wrong, I agree but a gun is a gun, it can kill. Officers will not sacrifice 2 of the to catch 1 criminal.
I just thought they could’ve just brought a hidden camera on the phone and took that part of the wall
"bu-but he was a danger to public safety, sure a family no longer has a home and wasn't properly compensated but at least we get the warm fuzzies when we think we did a good job!"
@@zlatinmihai958 and how would they be sacrificing two to take one criminal? Even the most basic officer has bullet proof vests. Those swat guys? They have full military style armor. That guy would get one shot off with a *chance* to kill one officer before being brought down(which is what happened in the end anyway). I mean this is entirely why we have swat.
@@lychanking And depending on what body armour they had, his handgun may not have had the power to even get through it.
I think the homeowners went the wrong direction by trying to argue imminent domain. The PD basically admitted that they should compensate the family by offering the $5k. Don’t accept the $5k, ask for more, get denied, then court could have had a different outcome
they needed a place for their children to sleep that night man they had no choice but to take that five grand
@@prismpyre7653 too bad
Removing my own feelings from the issue is difficult, but even when I remain as objective as I can, the act of "Taking" is to remove something from the possession of others. By destroying their home to the point of making it uninhabitable, they have removed the home from the family as it no longer serves the purpose for which it was designed.
I would have ruled in favor of the family.
at least give them a home a house with 4 walls and that is it on the place they removed the old house. a worse house is still a house and so the family has a house.
Okay, so you are a judge who ruled in favor of the family. Police departments will remember this, and they will be less likely to work with you as a judge. So, in order to keep the peace, this family has to be sacrificed.
@@KyurekiHana Then those police officers need to be fired and replaced.
@@KyurekiHana Since when do the police get to pick what judges they work with? They are supposed to be an individual entity that looks at the cases the police and civilians bring up to them and to look if any legislation is broken
@@vincenthanff7026 they don't, but they often are the first to determine what laws they uphold or overlook. In addition, the judge themselves will have interactions with police outside of the courtroom, and you usually want to be on their good sides. It's a give and take thing, because both sides have been known to flex their power from time to time.
Just saying, all of this could have been prevented with a shotgun boobytrap
Which is illegal. Several US home owners have been charged for keeping lethal traps on their property.
@@ZakTheFallen It was a reference to his other case video involving the shotgun boobytrap.
@@popcornsprinkles8071 I got that reference.
Nah, too damaging, pull out the 50 cal sniper trap that shoots out the door, not damaging the house
@@ZakTheFallen that's stupid
Police be like "Hippity-hoppity, your house is now--- destroyed. Whoops."
"Whoopsie."
"How did you destroy my house?"
"Oh it was easy, barely an inconvenience"
Sir, you want to destroy the house?
Ya ya ya.
@@LegalEagle just curious why didn't they make a police report under criminal damage to make the case easier and use the judgement as evidence
Seriously, I'm going to need you to get WAAAAY off my back about destroying that house.
16:23 - Apparently, the city and the police department conveniently ignored the fact that the Takings Clause itself draws no such distinction and names no exceptions to the requirement that property owners be compensated when their property is taken.
If you destroy someone’s house, I don’t care what the purpose is, pay compensation
If you destroy or take someone's property there should be compensation.
What if the purpose is that they told you to?
Even if the purpose is to catch someone who almost stole something from Walmart?
@Aarav Valaparla Pretty sure he was being sarcastic
@@emilyseer7898 then that destruction is not without consent...
idk tho
"Look, it's not altered. The livingroom is still a livingroom, and the bedroom is still a bedroom, and the house is still a house."
Uh... The house is no longer liveable or safe. I'd say that is altered.
"Look, we didn't tear it down and build a strip club in it's place, so clearly there's no issue..."
The purpose of a house never changes. The issue is the cops turned it from a house into a ruin.
Before the verdict reveal: Even under the argument of "Altered" referring to the purpose of the property, I would still side with the family. As a result of the actions taken by the police the home had to be condemned, thus the property can no longer serve its original purpose as a residential home, therefore the purpose of the property has been altered.
After the reveal: Those judges are idiots and the family should definitely keep pushing for the decision to be reversed.
Unfortunately that takes money(for the lawyer fees) and they're run out before it gets that far-That what the defendants (the police) are counting on
100% agree.
@@nancyomalley9959 Pro Bono hopefully
Each of the Judges should have all of their personal property forcibly taken, then smashed to pieces, and given back. Also they are legally forbidden from even trying to use that property as it is now unsafe.
Yep, if "condemned public safety hazard" does not mean altered I don't know what is.
“They tackled him to the ground and arrested him safely” and that wasn’t possible without blowing up the entire house??
I mean I’m not a lawyer but perhaps this would’ve turned out better if they had sued for use of excessive force because completely destroying a house seems a bit excessive
@@gooblob4188 Unlikely it would qualify as excessive force. In war there is something called the defenders advantage, and generals usually equate to a defending force being equal to 3 people for every person they had. If swat stormed in with out line of sight for snipers, and the criminal fired upon the swat team storming the second floor it is likely several officers could die before returning fire. The clearing of line of sights for snipers would be required for a safe arrest given the positional advantage the criminal would have.
You're from Europe, aren't you? This is actually very common.
He was literally trying to shoot them the entire time, from a highly defensible position. It's very difficult to deal with people in that situation.
@@TitaniumDragon I dont believe that the actions against the house are unnecessary but the state should reimburse or even offer enough to improve the property by reimbursement.
Me: "This should be a landslide case. All of the defendant's points were borderline preposterous!"
E.g. these gems: We didn't take their home, we just destroyed it; we did not alter its purpose when we made a private residence uninhabitable.
Devin: "Well, the appellate court decided in favor of the police."
Me: *Disbelief noises*
You get used to it... which is the worst thing about this kinda stuff....
Are you not American? Not meant disrespectfully...it would just make a lot more sense for you to be in disbelief.
@@jamesoblivion I am American! But pretty young. Still finding out how dumb the world can be sometimes.
@@Rickyp0123 not the world, just this place. And even worse, it's state by state.
I would argue that it being condemned altered it's purpose.
Cops: "We're dedicated public servants and we put our lives on the line to protect the public."
Also cops: "One stoner with a pistol wouldn't come outside, so we blew up a house with an armoured personnel carrier and some bombs."
Jo McKillop on the other hand, would you be willing to die to arrest“one armed stoner”, if that means that the house would not be destroyed? The argument is somewhat similar to the reaction to the pandemic, close the businesses to protect the life’s of the people and pay the economic toll, or let the virus run rampant sacrificing life and not taking drastic economic toll?
@@gazzyT644 Interesting point, but can you imagine the police from my country (The UK) using such practices? I know that supposedly our force is unarmed, but they do have armed divisons. That said, I cant see that they would use anything other than time and patience in this situation. There is no imediate threat, all they have to do is wait him out, he has to come out eventually. American police are seen by the world as too gung-ho.
@@chootastic exactly - i seriously starting to think that americans ARE exceptional .. exceptionally mush-brained.
To many guns and not enough vitamins.
@@chootastic I don't think waiting it out is such a good idea. It would be immoral to force a situation of starvation and dehydration on someone, even if it was a criminal, and the lack of sleep might force him to become violent and try to harm an officer, in which case they would have retaliated and harmed him. I think the commander did the right thing. He valued the life of a human being (both the criminal's and his officer's) over phisical property. I think that the law should be revised, since common sense dictates that if to save said lives you do not take into account any damage to property, you should also take responsability. To sum it up: 1. the commander did the right thing to value a human life over anything else, 2. The court did the right thing and resolved the case following the law, 3. the law makes no sense whatsoever and should be revised asap. That being said, i'm from spain, so I don't know what the law is like here, or in the UK like you said, and have no idea how they would have responded. :P
@@gazzyT644 and those are the only options? Popping your clogs during an arrest or blowing up a house? Erm...
"If Seacat is willing to open fire on the police, what else is he capable of?"
Well, opening fire on anyone is pretty much the worst-case scenario already, isn't it?
He could take the pups as Hostage!
Perhaps he wanted to blow up the entire house. Luckily, they prevented that.
@@stefanoolivotto2391 the home was blown up anyway, and it seems he ran there to hide from the police
@@septicaemia5699 Am I going to woooosh you or...?
@@stefanoolivotto2391 *yes*
I am livid over this case! When the police were done, it could not be a home, therefore it was changed.
"The purpose has not been altered." So, it's still a house where you can live, right?
That was my thought. Sure, the real estate hadn't been rezoned, but the police themselves declared it inhabitable.
Yeah, got hung up on that as well.
"As in, a residential house was not altered to serve as a blood drive facility..."
so, reducing a house to just rubble doesn't alter it's purpose as a residence to just being trash?
That was the same thing I thought and should have been argued. The house was altered from habitable to uninhabitable, as the police themselves stated at the time when the residents attempted to return to their home.
Additionally, the ruling that was given sets precedent that police can take any means necessary to catch a suspect, up to and including the complete demolition of a building without any compensation to the building's owner as long as the owner gets the remains of the structure after the event.
My guess is that "it's still a property of value"
The home may have been demolished, but the land could still be sold to those who want to build a new home.
Not that I'm agreeing with the decision, but if the city didn't seize the property, then they didn't "take" it. My confusion is still about what's been altered. Obviously an empty lot has its value go down and thus that has been altered, yet it's not like the city gained any value either (unless we're talking about property tax)
Purpose and efficacy are not the same thing. Both a rusty sword and a high-performance assault rifle have the same purpose, even though one is less effective than the other. If a master criminal and a drunk idiot both try to rob a bank, they are both acting with the same purpose, even though one is vastly less likely to succeed. Likewise, a ruined house and a standing house both have the same purpose, even though one is less effective than the other. Both before and after the police action, the structure is still _meant_ to function as a residence. That is its purpose. The fact that it isn't very _good_ at it anymore doesn't change the goal.
Laws generally choose their words very carefully, so it is likely that the law in question was written with the _intention_ that damage not be a factor.
That said, I sincerely hope that interpretation, and ideally the written laws as well, are changed to be more generous through more appeals to cases like this one and new legislation. Not just because I believe that the government should take responsibility for the collateral damage its acts cause to its citizens, but also because the police are kinda suffering from severe lack of public trust, which makes it extremely difficult for them to investigate crimes and make arrests among an uncooperative and sometimes even _hostile_ public, when the police and the public _could_ and _should_ be on the same side.
"The house looked like it was bombed."
Well it literally was.
This is sad
It literally wasn't
@@brandondriver99 Not bombed, just dEmOLiShEd wItH ExPlOsIvEs.
@@blue_tetris well only some of the house was damaged with explosives.
@Christopher Corriveau no I mean the majority was smashed up, not blown up
23:00 OBJECTION!
"Not altered"
IF a house is in a habitable state at the start of the police operations in the area, but at the end of their operations the house is now deemed uninhabitable. Then the building's usage as a domicile structure has been altered, given that it can no longer be termed a house according to the Oxford English Dictionary definition ("a building for people to live in, usually for one family").
As their house was deemed uninhabitable it could no longer be termed a house, therefore it's purpose had been drastically altered when the police willfully and knowingly destroyed it. Ergo, the police whilst acting in an official capacity as representatives of a State's government (and thus as subsidiary representatives of the United States of America's Federal Government) ceased the family's home for the greater good (apprehending a known criminal), in their process of ex3ecuting their operations they destroyed the family home to such a degree that it was no longer habitable. Thus by OED definition it is no longer a home and as such it's purpose is irreversibly altered. Thus the 5th Amendment's Eminent Domain clause should be applied here!
I agree with your reasoning, but this probably failed because legal definitions and dictionary definitions are in many times different. The dictionary definition is "change or cause to change in character or composition, typically in a comparatively small but significant way." which obviously the event has down. However, the legal definition of "altered" is probably a lot more concise to prevent someone from winning a case like this.
@@bsq2phat In law unless a word or phrase is specifically defined in the law the dictionary definition is used.
The defense was that they hadn't altered the property's purpose, but they had condemned the house.
I mean, by the city's own position, enforced by the police who damaged the building, the house was no longer capable of being lived in. Is the purpose of a property not to be lived in? How is that not "altering" the building's purpose?
I don't know what was actually said, but by the defense's own definition the house was altered. No reasonable person considers a habitable house and an uninhabitable pile of rubble the same thing. Why? Because it is altered. So the defense claiming that the definition they cited meant that the house was not altered was an incorrect opinion by the exact definition they cited. Their should have been a counter argument that the definition of altered is still met by their definition despite their inability to understand the definition.
Sustained! (By my opinion)
"Just because its legal, doesnt make it right" swings hard with this one.
Eeny, meeny, miny, moe
To catch a thief a house we blow
And when the owners sue we go:
"Now you can't use it?? We didn't know!!"
I didn't need to get that angry this early in the morning.
"I didn't _kidnap_ your cat, I just killed her and left her body on your doorstep! I don't know what you're complaining about, she's right there!"
And you can't pick her up or I'll arrest you
That sounds like a line from Family Guy. Is that a line from Family Guy?
"I didn't take your wallet! I just picked it up from your bag, emptied it and threw it away somewhere. If you don't retain it it's not taking!"
Legit sounds like something PETA would say to wiggle their way out of any criminal persecution. Oh wait, they did do something like that.
#fuckPETA #justice4Maya
Cops kill a dog every hour of every day in the US
Imagine if after all of that, they fond out Seacat was no where to be found.
Can we just appreciate that this quality content is free
Absolutely
These true crime videos are insanely good. I can't imagine the amount of hours put into these videos. They're significantly more interesting and well put together than most real crime shows.
I think that's why he's constantly promoting the Nebula thing.
No. There are other, better lawyer youtubers on the platform. Much better in fact. Just cus he has 1 good series doesn't make his channel quality. That would be like trying to argue that I make quality content when 99% of my junk is cringe and 1% is actually worth watching
Not free. Unless you didnt pay your phone or internet bill.
“Doesn’t seem to quite fit in” at Walmart?
Oh, boy.
he mustve looked ROUGH
This all started because some piece of shit had to judge someone and watch him over a couple.hundred dollars of shit that Walmart can afford to lose millions of times over for 10 years straight every day
I have seen such a variety of people in Walmart, I wonder how someone can NOT fit in at Walmart XD
(Nobody tell him)
@Aint Jack What he stole was absolutely not worth what the police did to get him, though. How much did that end up costing?
I wonder if arguing the statement: "The purpose of the house was not altered." with the fact that the house was condemned and deemed not livable? Does a condemned house still have the status of private residence if it is unsafe to enter? I'm genuinely curious.
You should ask the city if it would still be legal to live there according to the code.
Land use probably still residential. But I'd still have argued that the use was altered to unlivable for a time. Or even argued that altered use within that law should be read as certain entry into that law, not a bar of requirement. That the taking and its effects don't change depending on the purpose so the purpose within the wording of the law needn't be the sole stipulation for deciding entry.
But then of course they were trying to use that entry to justify compensation other than from the police, who have immunity. So that wouldn't have worked. They really went for the wrong claim and should have persued the police's conduct though we know how that tends to go even when the claim is right and justified...
I’m supposing that since the land is still zoned as residential, and after removal of the condemned structure the land is still livable, the property was returned.
I’d hope you could argue that the house was a possession on the property, and was not returned, therefore the cost of the house should be repaid minus the value of the land.
Having said that I’m fairly certain that police can take personal belongings as evidence, without repayment.
Long story short, this predicament sucks. I’m also fairly certain that if the police completely destroyed a shopping center or factory, they would be forced to pay
I think I'd want to argue (and this is with very little legal knowledge,) that the complete destruction of a livable and structurally sound residence is not "reasonable damage" for a single man with very limited ammo, in a house that is completely surrounded. Or that when the police made their initial appearance at the store they let the ball drop by not ensuring that the building's entrances were secured to prevent Seacat's original escape.
That being said, the insurance company that these poor people had should have given them the full value of the house/contents (not half,) considering it was condemned and had to be rebuilt. It doesn't matter if the people decided to make a smaller house or whatever (or rather were forced to due to the lack of insurance payment,) they lost $600K worth of home/memories and just overall value, that means they should be compensated for it. x.X It's pretty crap that they can just say "oh, we don't think it was worth that much anyways.. Here ya go! Have a cookie!"
How can you say they purpose of the house hasn't been altered when it has literally been ruled UNINHABITABLE? What exactly do they think the purpose of a residential home is?
tax deductions?
Its an income source, obviously (property tax).
If somebody destroys something you own, they ought to replace/repair it.
Court: We don't want people to be able to sue the police, so we'll overlook the injustice done.
Why couldn't this case be a simple "you damaged my stuff, so you're liable"?
Why did this have to be a Constitutional issue?
Cause it's better if we take old people's words from a few hundred years ago then admit you messed up.
@@davidinass But these old people from a few hundred years ago based their system of government on the thought of a old guy from a few hundred years ago called John Locke.
And guess what one of his basic principles of government was?
Protection of the property rights of its citizens.
A double-edged sword: It protected slavery, but also says "If agents of the government destroy private property, the government is liable for damages and has to compensate".
Because the US is a failed state?
Because they're the police, so they're above the law
@@mujtabaalam5907 If it was that simple, then the entire case would be automatically dismissed anyway.
That doesn't explain it: why not just sue them for property damage? It seems like a much more clear, direct, simple easy to handle the case. Making it into a constitutional issue seems like an overcomplicated approach that is more likely to fail.
This verdict pissed me off. Laws should be applied with morality and justice. On a side note, get rid of qualified immunity.
Just because something is the law doesn't mean it's morally correct. There is a difference between the two
The point is the law should be closer to morally fair. If the government or some rich corporation takes your one item or destroys it they should pay fair value to replace it. That just makes sense, and laws should reflect that.
I agree but there's no common morality. The problem is that morals are nebulous. There's differences in cultures and what's moral and just for one group of people can be different to another... Whereas the word of the law is more concrete?
I wonder if they have a crowdfunding thing set up.
@@goldenpun5592 I disagree, to an extent. There are general ideas of right and wrong, morals. We all know that generally it's wrong to cheat, steal, kill, lie, etc. It's the specifics we question. When are they ok? Can I tell grandma I like her fruit cake? What is considered self defense? Am I cheating if my husband and I are separated and have filed for divorce but it's not final? There will always be outliers, and the range is large, but many people would say this situation is not fair or not just. So morals are in some way not universal, but close to that.
Absolutely s
110% the police should have to pay for the house and every other connected expense, plus extra for the hardship the family had to endure.
I would have forced Seacat to pay for that shit.
@@maximaldinotrap probably judgement proof sadly
@@maximaldinotrap So you would have left them with nothing by putting the blame for the policies actions on a judgement proof individual with no assets to pay for the damage the police caused?
maximaldinotrap he’s a known drug dealer in prison he doesn’t have anything to pay as compensat
@@seraphina985 Nah, I would have made the police compensate them but then I would have forced Seacat into eternal debt by forcing him to compensate them because in a way his actions caused the destruction of their home.
OBJECTION: So does this mean the state police have the unlimited power to do anything they want in order to arrest a suspect? That any action is justified?
What happened to a measure response approach? What if the guy was cornered in a factory, office building, or church with no one else inside instead? It would be ok to blow the whole building up just to arrest him and offer little to no compensation whatsoever to the owners? What happens if the suspect turns out to be innocent or found not guilty at trial?
It seems a very slippery slope to be on.
"What happened to a measure response approach?" who an American police department? A measured approach? HAH! What a world that'd be
The law is probably far more complex than the police can do whatever they want. As far as I intrepreted the response was measured. The commander didn't just roll up and blow up the house but endured a day long stand-off and only destroyed the house when it was clear the officers couldn't remove the suspect without putting themselves in serious risk. Just because the law grants immunity in this scenario doesn't mean it will in a different one.
ThaneofFife even if it’s a measured approach, they still should be paying damages or the criminal should be paying damages. Not the family who is innocent in this entire ordeal.
They have to justify those armoured vehicles by taking them out every day... and then the authorities that should regulate them just let run wild because they hold too much electoral power. Strong police unions and an industrial-military complex pushing surplus military hardware into police departments make such a toxic dynamic.
Ask the Philly police who dropped a BOMB on a black activist group. In the '80s.
I have a bunch of pets and the idea of this happening is so terrifying. I can't even put it into words
In my opinion, the house being condemned is key in this case. The fact that the house was condemned by the government should be considered as an admission and acknowledgement by the government that their temporary use of the house did, in fact, change its purpose.
I'm also of the opinion that the condemnation itself should really be considered a taking in this case. To my mind, there is a difference between this and the case of a property being condemned due to negligence on the part of the owner. This was not a home condemned because the owner neglected their responsibilities not to allow their property to fall into such a state of disrepair it became a hazard to public safety for example. This was a property condemned because the government themselves willfully took a non-hazardous structure and made it hazardous then used that as grounds to condemn it. Sorry, but the latter situation is not one in which the burden of condemnation should be on the home-owner they were not liable for any act or omission that would justify the condemnation the government was.
It would still be considered a private residence, even if condemned. Or at least it can be argued such.
@@aoikemono6414 How can it be considered a *residence* if it's condemned as unfit to live in? Condemned means it's not fit to be a residence - therefore, it isn't a residence.
Legally, they ruled correctly. It was a stretch trying to use the takings clause for this case. But that doesn't mean the law is just. There was no need to destroy anything. They could have waited the criminal out or smoked/gassed him out. Police need to be considerate of collateral damage. The only way that they ever will be is if they are accountable for the actions. We have a major problem in this country when it comes to holding police accountable for their actions.
This is the best reply I've seen. If there is "justice" for this family it will come in the reformation of their local police department, but it sounds like they did pretty well considering they paid over two times the cost of the average home owners insurance policy's deductible. Why pay for insurance if the government is responsible for your property losses in the interest of pursing what WE THE PEOPLE have paid them to do. Are firefighters responsible if your house burns down? I'm sure there is a way to make a system like that work, but it would phase out insurance companies and head in the direction of giving the government more tax money to account for these incidents.
And even then mathematically it's cheaper to have national and international insurance covering things like this as opposed to local governments.
iyo how about 4th Amendment?
@@wiseoldmonke If the Firefighters are the ones who start the fire and then they insist it was 'necessary', yes they are responsible for my house burning down
Connor Altier interesting perspective. But home owners policies don’t usually cover arson so that is a bit a metaphoric fallacy.
How i think it SHOULD turn out: The family should be compensated
HOw I think it Did turn out: They weren't.
Typical. F* the police.
The dude had a Gloc and while noone died... They ruined these peoples lives forever- and didn't even care. The fact they condemned it before they came home is a total slap in the face.
Every single one of these episodes keeps making me trust less and less the whole legal system...
This is a wise path to go down.
Write this down:
Unless you have personally asked a police officer to help you with something, NEVER EVER EVER speak to them. Give your name, and address. The only other words should be "I demand my lawyer be present" and "am I being detained?"
Unless you have a couple million in the bank, they are not working for you.
He is right never talk to police
@ALSO-RAN ! he's right, you dont have to be a sovereign citizen to have reason to not talk to police if they confront you, you just dont do it. they are there to convict you, not help you. here's a great talk that explains the problems with talking to police ruclips.net/video/d-7o9xYp7eE/видео.html
@@kev25811 "I don't answer questions" was the coolest most effect response to the police I've ever heard.
Good. Don't trust the legal system. Learn its flaws, its inadequacy, & its absolute stupidity & hatred.
What if they weren't insured? Jeeze this ruling is horrible.
What I gather from another comment is that the house was insured (But they still had to take out a mortgage to cover all the cost). However, because it was rented from the father and the son did not have insurance the property of the son was not insured.
Well certain insurers wont offer coverage on "acts of war", and might have these types of situations under that. And thusly wont pay out.
I recall hearing a similar case where the police destroyed a home, government offered like only 10k, and insurance wouldn't cover it.
The home owners did try and sue to government and I believe they might have won, but I would need to look up and find that case again to be certain...
Edit: try as I might I cant seem to find that specific case
At the end he says they did get some compensation, but not full compensation, and no help in paying off legal fees.
So, I'd bet it's safe to say they got screwed over real bad in this case. Even with insurance.
@@ronrolfsen3977 I mean what happens if they unwisely had no insurance? Police go 'Rip your house. Have $5000' and run away
@@Moleoflands Well like Freak_Gene said, "acts of war" are not covered by insurance and this could be argued as such. Plus insurance tends to be less for your benefit and more only when they really feel like being nice to you. It's not that simple.
Ok, so let me get this straight. We start with "Stop the theft of a couple hundred bucks worth of electronics." And we end up with "Demolish a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of house." Which happens because "The guy said he was gonna come out, but we felt like he was taking too long so started bombarding him with gas grenades which I guess pissed him off." But it's ok because "When it was taken, we didn't keep it or change it into something that wasn't a house. We just made it so the house was a condemned rubble heap, and then gave it back to you." Yeah, right.
Look, I know this is complicated. And no one wants the police to be tied up wondering about red tape when lives are on the line. I get it. But come on. The police choked hard on the handling of this and keeping the police from being able to totally botch the use of their more extreme powers resulting in huge damages and get away with it is sorta important for the law to be able to handle. This guy was completely surrounded, he was saying he was gonna come out. And you decided to grenade him because... I guess you had places to be? Well whoops, turns out that gas grenades don't really endear you to your negotiating partner. Kind of a tactical error there. Bit of a major $%#-up. But even then you still could have been fine if you just waited him out. He has nowhere to go, and he's gonna get hungry. It would suck and take a while for sure, but you know what else sucks and takes a while? Rebuilding your house when the police obliterate it. Yeah.
Anyway, good video!
Nailed it.
To quote Jeremy Gilbert, another commenter here, "'If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.' - Sun Tzu. I fully believe this family deserved compensation but a siege is always the last resort. Depending on how well stocked the family was on food, and as a home owning family of three I'm guessing rather well, The dude could have waited out for days or even weeks. During all that time the police have to maintain a constant perimeter around the home eating up heavy resources better spent elsewhere. The force may have been excessive and the victims undoubtedly deserve some compensation(I'm sure they'd win a civil suit against the defendant assuming he had any assets to take) but strategically they made the right move."
If size of house is correct it is worth way more than a few hundred thousand dollars. Colorado housing is crazy expensibe.
To be fair, the cost of maintaining a 24/7 siege for the literal week+ it would take for him to go hungry (because there's probably food somewhere in that house), plus needing to call in additional reinforcements to do actual police work to make up for the people stuck there might have actually had a comparable price tag. Though very obviously they should be required to provide compensation for the property damage, and probably should have just found a better solution in the first place.
I kind of feel like this needs a compromise. Police should be allowed to do whatever is neccessary but I also feel like there should be compensation. Compensation shouldn't mean penalizing the police for what they did, it should just mean that the victims don't end up sitting on the damage they did nothing to incur.
That aside, a full-on siege would definitely have worked and would definitely have been cheaper. Seacat was just one guy who didn't know the house well (and they could have cut off electricity and gas, preventing him from cooking stuff and greatly limiting the lifetime of any supplies in there). That aside, it doesn't take that many people to keep up a siege to a single house and it wouldn't have taken longer than 3-4 days topps because Seacat would have needed to sleep eventually whereas the policemen could have taken turns.
Homeboy was damned to come out and lose eventually anyways, he had nowhere to run after all, an the cops most definitely wouldn't have let him get away. All he had some control over was to determine when this situation was gonna end and in which state he would be (alive and well, injured or dead). He would have figured it out eventually and given up.
So, please don't compare this situation to the siege of a walled city or castle (there's a reason Sun Tzu says walled city here) . The Lech residence was not built for defense (hell, it wasn't even that strong for a residential building. The stuff they had probably wouldn't have been able to tear down a solid brick building even if they tried), it was understaffed (with only one criminal and a bunch of drugs) and the police had open supply lines that allowed them to get reinforcements and new supplies whenever they wanted. The reason why Sun Tzu knows that besieging a walled City is difficult is because the defenders usually have stockpiled supplies, because the walls and fortifications are specifically designed to stop attackers and because it usually becomes difficult for an army to sustain itself if it stays in one hostile area for too long (plus, there's always the risk of enemy reinforcements). The police had to worry about literally none of this. They were impatient and rushed it, causing much more damage than actually neccessary, eager to finish in hours what could also have been over in likely less than 3 days.
The plaintiff had a really good argument distinguishing the fact that the definition of “taken” should be described by the purpose it is used for and not by whom it was taken.
What's really boggling my mind is that in order to come to that decision, the appellate court would have to have considered the property "not altered".
It's original purpose was residence, after the police action, the city declared it unfit for residence and used the police to enforce that decision. The city's own orders declare the property altered.
Durmij Nope well I guess the city would counter that the property was still zoned as residential, there was no long term damage to the land and the family was insured. They would compare the home’s destruction to an event like a tornado or earthquake.
I interpreted the use of unaltered as referring to the purpose of the house which was never changed. The house may not be able to be used as a house anymore but the purpose of the house is still the same. An analogy. If you break your leg, has the purpose of your leg changed? I argue no since the leg's purpose is to support your weight that has not and will not change. All that has changed in this analogy is that the leg is unable to support your weight.
"It hasnt been altered." Pretty sure going from habitable to uninhabitable is altered.
Next time, the police should cover their bases and open a blood drive in the driveway right after they destroy an entire property, just to be sure.
OBJECTION: “a disheveled man who plainly doesn’t belong there” WHERE ELSE ARE DISHEVELED PEOPLE GOING TO SHOP BUT WALMART.
That was clearly a Malwart
I once saw a disheveled man getting arrested in a Walmart. Everyone was just walking by like nothing was happening.
I think you are underestimating his disheveledness.
@@ld6782 Yeah, I think we're talking more than too tight yoga pants and unkempt hair.
I always wondered, is it possible to be just sheveled? Or...heveled?
I just stumbled upon Legal Eagle and now I am realizing there are only 4 of these videos...bummer....these are SO GOOD!
Destroy a wall in order to catch a criminal safely.
Alteration: Wall removed
The function of the new form: Allow safe takedown of said criminal.
The function of the house altered beyond its initial purpose without the owners approvals.
Conclusion: Absolutely falls under the takings clause.
Exactly, can't believe the court is so dumb, should really go to the supreme Court
@@dumb1890 Alternatively they could agree that it's not under Takings clause and now we're under a different timeline.
Police operatives destroyed civilian property for no practical reason whatsoever.
Charge the entire police force with vandalism and potential terrorist acts.
@@Caldera01 i find it ironic that we're now charging the very entity that takes down terrorists with terrorist charges
@@urfaverthiaya6508 police forces aren't generally meant for counterterrorism
Why does this remind me of the opening scene of Team America: World Police where they destroy all of Paris' monuments to catch a single t'rrist and then expect the people to be thankful?
Because the creators of South Park know what good satire is.
Man, these are the kinds of stories we read about the Romans and Babylonians and think they were brutally insane. 2000 years from now someone will read about this case and be like "Thank GOD I live in the 41st century!"
Nah, the Babylonians had way more common sense in their justice system.
So optimistic, expecting a 41st century with our current realities...
@@alexconti7932 I was about to state the same thing. At our current rate of planetary dysfunction, we'll be lucky to make it to the 22nd century, let alone survive 2,000 more years.
Unless it's worse in the 41st century and people are saying, "Man, I wish things were that simple today!"
After what we've done to the environment, nobody in the next centuries will be saying anything so positive.