I expect those are staff accounting dollars for a staff Legal team and not real cash transferred beyond what is regularly paid. My city has 14 top notch lawyers on staff earning up to $150,000 to $750,000 per year and a suburban city adjacent to my city has 44 young lawyers on staff (More lawyers than cops).
While I am disappointed in the decision, in terms pure accounting/dollars and cents, the city made the fiscally sound investment of preventing tens, if not hundreds, of future payouts for this type of scenario which could eclipse the $500k very quickly. It is, however, truly unfortunate that money is a higher priority for the city than justice for its citizens.
The fact that all the police involved in the incident weren't at her house volunteering for clean up and repairs show that they have zero integrity as human beings.
The part that bugs me is once again the public has no control. The public sat through all the evidence and said she should be awarded damages. Then the government overturned that decision for the government.
or why my local police station has foosball table a popcorn machine and slushi machine and yet they keep ticketing stop sign rolls even when people dun do it ODD RIGHT????
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals just eliminated part of the 5th Amendment from the Bill of Rights. That's giving aid and comfort to the domestic and foreign enemies of the United States. Impeach. Try. Convict. Indict. Try. Convict. Sentence.
Its all about setting a Precedent for future cases. If She won this it would open a wide door for many people to be compensated for their destruction. Im confident the Judge was either "Compensated" or Pressured for this WRONG decision. We can Pray there come a Judge with some BALLS!!!
And here is the irony. Since home owners insurance wont cover it, if the women doesnt bankroll the repairs herself, I guarantee the city wont have have any shame in issuing her fine after fine.
Which will probably end up costing the city more than $50k in headaches, having a property not paying taxes (why pay taxes on a property thats ruined that you cant afford to fix?) Falling property values, etc. heck if it only costs them $20k paying for the property the amount of goodwill and public trust is more than worth the difference
The police had seized the property. The property was damaged while in police possession (custody). The police are liable for that damage. How is that so difficult for the 5th Circuit to understand?
Its not difficult, they are creating a special exception based on a fairly convoluted explanation of there being no precedent. If precedent were required for all remedies, then there'd be no remedy for unique circumstances. They basically are saying the state doesn't want to be held to its responsibilities because it would make them liable for they are liable for.
“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” The Third Amendment >>> Plaintiff should win !!!
If the 15-year old girl was released and the man was left in the house by himself, why was the circumstance so exigent such that they had to do ANYTHING but wait him out, much less assault the house to the point of destruction?
@@arlynsmith9196Incorrect, two cops could lock down the house. Especially if only one way into the attic. Two cops could literally wait in the home in the dark and wait.
It is obscene that the government would spend more money defending themselves than it would have cost to compensate the homeowners. The reason is they cannot afford for the people to have a way to hold them accountable for their actions,this includes civil asset forfeiture,immunity and other laws that protect them for their corruption!
@@sleeptyperincorrect. That “slippery slope” argument is specious and without merit. Police and municipalities get away with almost anything they do. They deserve liability and to have the floodgates opened- that would act as a deterrent to government criminality like this in the future and avoid financially ruining taxpayers and citizens like this woman. Every single case is heard on its own merits and exceptions are always made. The state deserves to pay for its crimes and qualified immunity should be removed. Police love to tell us that “officer safety” is their top priority, but they’re always exfacto justifying wrong doing in their favor. Morality and ethics are clear. You may be an apologist for corruption but the entire rest of the country is waking up and we’re sick of the two tiered system you and others uphold. Change is in the air!
I have no faith in any part of our government! It's all double standards dependent upon who you are or know. Certain people can do things others can't. It's either a law or It's not. They best hope I never get in trouble for something they are allowed to do. That's all I have to say.
Anybody believing that we are better off with government and that we will be at the mercy of "Robber Barons" and "Mercenaries" should we somehow become Ungoverned ought to have their head examined. As we ARE at the mercy of Robber Barons and Pirates....under the order and operation, sanctioned, and granted authorization THROUGH centralized GOVERNMENT. Best part yet... you, myself and every other sucker are on the hook to PAY the bill NOT ONLY for the operating costs of the Piracy, but also in the case where ANY damages ARE awarded! We've been HAD folks. And it only continues to get worse
So what's the point in cooperating? They can take your shit when you're on the highway. They can take your shit in your house. You take them to court, and they throw it out. The only path I see that benefits citizens is to fight back and protect what's yours.
Armored vehicles? Explosives? Toxic gas grenades?… there is a standing army that is being quartered in our counties, towns, cities and states. When the government becomes lawless, is compliance moral?
Sounds like unnecessary and excessive force to me. And they severely injured the owner's dog. Could it possibly be they just wanted to practice using some of their police equipment? This whole thing seems over the top.
It’s pure nonsense. I guarantee you if a judge’s house was destroyed by police the city would pay for it. This is absolutely ridiculous and wrong on all levels. This is not what the people want and the people vote for the government.
As we're all outraged 98.5% of the local community has no idea about the case or already forgot. They'll vote in the same people as before and then be absolutely shocked when it happens again. Vote blue until in happens to you. Back the blue until it happens to you.
The destruction being "necessary" shouldn't be the reason they give to the homeowner for denying the claim, it should be the reason they give to tax payers for cutting the check. The homeowner deserves to be compensated regardless of how necessary the actions were.
Isn't something being "necessary" for the public good always a condition that needs to be met for the government to take property of a private citizen. They can't just take your property willy-nilly, they have to show that it is necessary. That doesn't mean that the government doesn't have to pay you for your property if they take it (or at least it's not suppose to).
@@billedens4749civil forfeiture is an exception. Immunity is an exception. Two very big and abused issues. "It was deemed necessary" is all the explanation you get.
Exactly, Given arguments used for imminent domain, but then say it wasn't imminent domain. Also if the police hold no liability for refusing to act how can the police then state that their actions were necessary?
If the police need to demolish a house for public safety, for my safety, that's exactly what my taxes pay for. If they're not willing to pay for it, they shouldn't break it.
The issue is, there was no imminent threat to persons, because the man let the person he held hostage go, long before the police took their final action. In fact, the man took his own life before the police ever did anything. So everything they did was for nothing.
I doubt it it would if it went that high. It sounds like the courts are more concerned with not setting a precedence with the taking clause than anything else which I could see the Supreme Court being even more concerned about than the appeals court. But the city has already denied her compensation through the normal channels for something blatantly obvious, what other avenues of lawsuit does she have?
@@DKNguyen3.1415 The only thing justifying this ruling is the almost certainly erroneous) claim that it was an emergency and they had to do it. I don't know what past history or precedent the 5th circuit was referring to about compensation not being required when doing things because they have to be done, but SCOTUS has ruled that zoning regulations or other restrictions on property use may constitute a taking even when the government believes the zoning or restrictions are necessary.
@@virginiamoss7045 My understanding is that he let her go before they stormed the house though. So there was no imminent danger or emergency except to himself, and the police should they engage in a shoot out.
If you still think there is any difference between the two parties please quit discussing politics. Your ignorance is showing. You shouldn't be proud of that.@@arnoldosanchez4303
Let me get this straight. A jury of citizens rules against agents of the state. Agents of the state then appeal to other agents of the state and get the ruling overturned, ending in a favorable outcome for the state. How is this legal? How much more taxpayer money has the state spent in order to avoid paying for the damages they already caused?
How is it legal? It is statutory law. A state can require compensation under state law. This woman’s claim is that she can sue under the Fifth Amendment. The wording of the Fifth Amendment says that taking personal property “for public use” must “just compensation”. Did the government take her property for “public use”? I don’t think so. They damaged her property. They didn’t seize it for the public. The city didn’t take her property to build a new road or clear the land for a new government building. In US v. Causby, in WWII the government was building heavy bombers to use in the war. Taking off at full power, the heavy bombers were creating a lot of noise and it disrupted Causby’s chicken egg farm which was under the flight path taken by the airplanes. Even though the government controlled the airspace above Cauby’s property, he claimed that the government had seized his livelihood because it killed some of his chickens and it caused others to quit laying eggs. The question before the Supreme Court was, did the government seize Causby’s property for “public use”? The ruling was yes, the airplanes were owned by the government as well as the airport and it was for the government’s/public use to Causby had to be compensated. It wasn’t damage but the damage caused for and by “public use”. What did the city seize in this case for use by the public?
@@tvc1848 they didn't physically damage anything of his, but it was still considered a seizure because they owned the planes and the planes were public use? Well I would contend that the PD, I.e. government, owned the bullets, tear gas canisters, and flashbangs they threw into the house. The blinded and deafened a dog, so you have damage to animal life like in your example. And the "public use" aspect? They stopped a violent criminal that would otherwise likely have continued to harm the general public. They did a thing that benefited the public good, and they damaged personal property in the process. They should be liable for that. Plain and simple.
@@SierraTangoGuns What was the public use? If the fire department puts out a house fire on your property, did they seize that property for public use? In Causby they absolutely did it for public use. It was a government airport and government airplanes. They were flying planes low over property to benefit a private citizen.
@@SierraTangoGuns And yes, they did damage his personal property for public use. That was the claim. It killed chickens and caused others to quit laying on an egg farm.
“Taking” and “destroying”property is the same thing !! If you’ve destroyed my property, you’ve essentially taken it . If that were me in this situation their town hall would’ve been a bonfire soon after their denial for compensation.
There are nearly two centuries of case law backing up precisely what you just said. Deprivation = taking. The government deprived the citizen of property.
We need major judicial reform in this country. The judges seem to have no idea what the 4th and 5h amendments was designed to do. Do you seriously think the framers of the constitution would have condoned the government trashing your property for free...for ANY reason? If an emergency is an exception, who gets to decide what an emergency is (and thus, who gets to suspend the constitution by decree)? Do you think they would be persuaded that oh it's CIVIL, not criminal asset forfeiture so it's ok, would have been a persuasive argument? We have allowed these tyrannical pedants on the bench to use semantics to obliterate our rights.
The Judges know what the 4th and Fifth Amendments mean. The Judges dislike them because both are a check on government abuse. The legal system has slowly whittled away at our rights, eventually, we will be as unprotected as anyone in North Korea.
@@nukepuke932when people keep voting for the same crooked politicians over and over this happens. We have all the power at the ballot box. There is way more of us than them. And yes gerrymandering is a thing that those same crooked politicians put in place. Vote blue for now.
you see the law has exceptions that only the courts know and they explain the exception that congress didn't include. The rule of law dosen't restrain the government from doing whatever the government wants because they have an exception 100 miles near the border, an exception if there's not "clearly established" cases, an exception when the action is against property, an exception here and there and soon enough it really isn't applicable at all.
Guess who’s not calling the police next time a situation like this arises? Not this woman and not me. I’d rather deal with the fugitive myself than let a bunch of government thugs blow my house up and refuse to compensate me. This story makes me sick. And it further proves there is no situation that police can’t make worse.
@@spinfish1434 Neither her daughter nor the fugitive destroyed the house. The fact that US cops are incompetent, violent thugs who get off on death and destruction isn't their fault either. You'd be hard pressed to find such a case in any developed democratic country.
So if the police have to break into a 20 million dollar high rise business building to catch the criminal, and this act also ends up causing a fire to break out that burns the building down, and thus puts plenty of companies either out of business or at least temporarily out of business, does mean the outcome of this is just tough luck for everybody ?
No. It only applies to us mouth breathing peasants. If this situation would of happened to a senator or a judges house, quiet compensation would be happening.
Due to the ridiculous budget policies of municipal governments, they need to use their toys to justify their sky- high funding for said toys and keep asking for even more funding next year
That's what I said they have all these militarized tools funded by us. They love using their toys and don't care about the destruction. Imagine if someone did that to their homes ?
@@stevenweishaupt8591 amazing when they do things it doesn’t cross their minds what if it were my family? Their connections can’t save loved ones forever everywhere
FYI read your insurance. One thing not covered is if a cop damages your stuff. So if you get in an accident with a cop that totals your car you will still have to pay it off.
I still don’t understand how they’re even legal to begin with, 99% are absolutely unnecessary, especially for a traffic infraction. You already have their info, get a warrant & pick them up later, they only run because they’re chased. I get it if it’s like an active threat like a mass shooter or an armed robber but outside of that, it only puts the public at risk
Perfect example of a court ignoring their obligation to justice in favor of relying on a lack of precedent and over reliance on letter of law instead of intent. The government was right to damage her home, but that should not excuse them from making her whole. It should be possible for actions to be just, yet also require compensation. They had the right to "take" her home, but she should be compensated for it.
" The government was right to damage her home, but that should not excuse them from making her whole." I don't think you understand the basis of our common-law legal system. You have to be at fault to be assessed damages. This was a very novel interpretation of the 5th amendment takings clause.
I'm confused. If you can't claim the house was taken by the Police because it was "objectively necessary" does that mean when they make you move to put a freeway though your house, they don't have to pay you because it was "objectively necessary"?
@@kdub3892 That is what I would have considered logical as well. Its crazy that the lady thought it would be better to sue the government than to sue her own insurance to make them pay out. The insurance company must have had an air tight coverage contract with very specific exclusions for a lawyer not to want to take them on instead of taking on well-established law (regardless of how unjust the law is).
Circumstance wouldn’t necessitate it. A sudden hostage situation is not the same as a planned and massive public works project. There have been cases of this instance actually and its always ended in compensation, i remember one from Kansas, farmer just finished his house only to then be told he has to move because his land was being taken for a highway. He sued and in that case the highway was moved as it would have been more expensive to compensate the property owner.
Yes, but, supposedly, in the sudden hostage situation they are claiming they don't have to compensate them because it was "objectively necessary". Surely if they take your land from you for the sake of the community for a freeway it's "objectively necessary" but they still compensate you. They are not the same, but I see a similarity.@@sterlingodeaghaidh5086
At what point does it become justifiable to seek recourse from outside the legal system? Does the government truly expect innocent people to passively tolerate this type of treatment???
What "treatment"? Saving her from a murderous madman in her house? If the city had known it would have to pay for property damage if it went in and neutralized him, maybe they would have told the cops to walk away and let her and her daughter deal with the madman in their attic. Incredible how entitled Lehto's supporters are.
As a matter of fact, they probably do. Especially around the Deep South. And, unfortunately, there is scant reason for them to believe otherwise. After all, this is certainly not the same Texas that it used to be. Now most people around only care about dodging their estate taxes and watching football. Like they do pretty much everywhere else in the country. Nevertheless, it certainly is a mean table they're setting with that kind of greed driven bull crap. Particularly with the rise in mental cases throughout the state. Not to mention Abbott's archaic approach to gun control. I should know. I've lived here for most of my life. Trust me when I say that the rank conservatism since the mid to late 80's, coupled with the religious takeover of much of the state legislation stemming from pretty much as long ago as I can even remember (particularly from the Southern Baptists as well as the Roman Catholics) has completely broken the minds of a considerable percentage of the populace.
This clearly needs to be overturned, as the appeals court was wrong on the law. There is NO exception, in case law that would add an entire section and clause to the "takings clause" excusing the taking/destruction of her property.
Obviously this was constitutionally the correct decision unfortunately. This is a 10th Amendment state rights issue, not a 5th Amendment eminent domain/talking issue. It would not bother me if the Supreme Court overturned it but it was a correct ruling.
They desperately want to overturn this ruling because if it passes, it opens them and governments across the country up to liability for the billions of dollars in damages they have caused to private citizens properties. So they can’t let this pass or they are screwed.
Things haven’t changed since you retired. There was rampant corruption and unchecked violence against the citizens while you were a cop. Either you were a corrupt cop or you looked the other way while your fellow gang members abused the public.
So Mister Retired Police Officer, should the police have just ignored the 15 year old and the felony suspect hold up in a house that doesn’t belong to him?
The part that gets me is that they ended up destroying the house AFTER The girl left the house. Where was the eminent danger? Just because he was holed up in the house, the police could have waited him out. There was no danger to any human life. Thus, they took the property. This will be changed in the Supreme Court. They had the ability to wait him out. Shut the water off, shut the electricity off, make things difficult for him, no food. They did not need to destroy the house.
Yes, that is the only part I find objectionable. If the subject was not actively shooting, do not start the fighting. Not only for the house, but for the safety of the public, the cops themselves and even the suspect himself. But: a) we do not know the specific circumstances, so it is difficult to make a definite judgement. b) it seems that this point was not raised at the lawsuit, so it is not part of the ruling. And AFAIK you cannot discuss new arguments at appeals, only argue about the defenses already presented at the lower courts. If the law says that police does not need to pay damages and you do not like it, vote to have the law changed. It would probably lead to the police being more restrained. But of course, that could be bad in some situations. I mean, what if that same guy had set the house on fire and burnt it to the ground? Wouldn't that same woman be claiming against the cops because they had not been proactive enough in taking the guy out?
This is what happens when the Police can legally violate your civil rights, steal your money at the roadside, and destroy your property largely without personal repercussions due to qualified immunity and the laws stacked against the law abiding citizens.
Whether the police could have used less force was likely not in the debate. Whether they caused a lot of damage or very little damage, what did they seize any of the property “for public use”? The city didn’t damage the property for any public use or benefit.
The government SHOULD NOT be allowed to appeal a jury verdict. Edit: For those who can't read what I'm saying is appeals should be an exclusive right of the PEOPLE be they plaintiff or defendant and that the GOVERNMENT(who has near unlimited resources access and deference) should not be able to appeal the rulings of The PEOPLE the government is NEVER on the side of the individual the government is on their OWN side and should not be able to continually ASSAULT the individual with legal action when fellow individual citizens have already ruled in their favor
I would say if an appeals court finds the jury was misinstructed or otherwise ruled based on false information it should be allowed. There are probably some other edge cases where it may make sense as well I'm sure. Otherwise I agree the opportunities for a judge to overturn a jury verdict should be extremely limited. For many people serving on a jury is the most influence they will ever have on the way our nation is run. To overturn a jury decision in this way is a fundamental attack on democracy. That said, the one time I was on a civil jury, I was told I had to use the judge's interpretation of the law (or something to that effect). This seems to be in line with what happened here, though I don't live in Texas. The appeals judge had a different interpretation of the law. That said I believe it is a mistake to allow this. The jury should have final say. Jury nullification only works because it's easy to hide that the jury has decided to do it, and ignore the judge's interpretation of the law.
@@TheMAZZTeryou are to be judged by a jury of your peers it doesn't matter how they judge it doesn't matter if they don't "follow the law" If the JURY finds itself in favor of the citizen's case that's it period
It's ridiculous that there is no national protection for Americans who lose their homes. We have increasing homelessness among the elderly and disabled, and it's the fault of our own sadistic policies. We need a social safety net to cover situations like this.
The government, whichever entity, local, State or Federal must have no right to appeal any ruling. As an entity, it has no Rights whatsoever. Rights belong solely to We the People. God ordained these Rights that no government may ever assume and the moment they do it is right to extinguish it.
@@Facetiously.Esoteric If I had the money, I would. I'm hoping institute for justice will pick this up. Side note, this is the kind of stuff you get insurance for. The insurance company should have payed. Just my opinion though.
@@beepbop6697 The government is the one who should have insurance for this kind of thing. Just like with everything else where somebody causes damage without malice.
Based on the courts own ruling, the police would have needed to be acting to actively save a hostage or other harm being done. The man was barricaded alone inside after releasing the hostage he was not firing at police, so there was no emergency to destroy the house they could have simply laid siege and waited.
It’s terrible to learn that my best option to preserve my personal property is to take what ever actions are needed to keep government authorities from stepping foot on that property since they most likely are not going to do the right thing if they damage it.
That is not the lesson I would draw from this example, and they would have lawful authority anyways were they to need to enter your property under similar circumstances.
@@44burn1 I don’t think the Government can be easily stopped but an individual piece of that Government can at a smartly picked time and place. Aren’t you at least a little angry that the government won’t do the right thing here?
Of course every government should be responsible for damage their police cause. It is a cost of police protection. It is the same as if a plumber causes damage while doing his job. His employer needs to pay for the repair. Why isn't this obvious?
Because most people don’t understand the real function of the gov’t is to take money out of the hands of citizens & put it into the pockets of corporations. We pretend that things like “to protect & serve” actually mean something, we pretend that individual rights exist. In reality, only the gov’t & corporations have any meaningful rights. Any business can call & have you trespassed without reason & the police will side with the corporation without evidence, over the private citizen 100% of the time. They’ll even violate your rights when they force you to id yourself for the corporation’s paperwork, despite that business having no rights to your personal info.
Like Ronald Reagan said, the most terrifying words you can hear. I’m from the government, and I’m here to help. City, state, federal, it’s all the same.
Another out of control corrupt court. It was necessary to damage the property but it’s also necessary for the city to compensate the owner for their damages.
The issue with the judges argument, is that other judges have allowed "cops THINKS there is a fugitive in there" also counts as an emergency. Even if it turns out there was no one in the house. So it's a narrow exception, that courts have said is applicable whenever and wherever the government wants. Which completely undercuts the constitution's actually intention.
In my mind, "necessity" is questionable. The hostage had been released. There was no longer an "emergency". The police could have tried to negotiate with him, or waited him out. It was their choice to take the action they did that damaged the house. They should have a duty to mitigate the damage they cause.
I agree with your take on necessity 1000%. Just realize that it most definitely was still an emergency. A guy with guns stating he's ready to go out with a bang; a clear and present danger. I completely agree their tactics were more than lacking, but don't think they'll go out of their way to use their training--or lack thereof--in more efficient ways. Efficiency isn't in their vocabulary because it's not trained to be. Their dictionaries lack a lot of important words to us normal folk.
Plaintiff's lawyers admitted that the actions of the police were necessary -- and I suspect they have more knowledge of what was going on than a random Monday-morning-quarterbacking YT commenter.
@@adrianmizen5070 that only means the plaintiff got a stupid ass lawyer the fact you are trying to justify this criminal behavior is something you should go back and reflect on your life over. if you think its okay to destroy peoples things and have no repercussions than you are the issue
Any law enforcement that’s destroys property should be automatically liable for paying all damages and courts cannot show law enforcement favor. This is complete BS. I’m sick of hearing about this qualified immunity or that they don’t have to pay for damages.
@@JOKing-ku8jg Grand juries are not for lawsuits. The Supreme Court is the only remaining appeal. Good luck. Even though they have rendered eminent domain cases in the past, maybe they will choose this one to make another point.
If it's a public emergency then it should fall upon the public to bear the costs. It is wrong to dump the costs on an individual for a matter of public interest.
Yes, this case is much different from the one in Colorado, where no one was home, the crook broke in simply by chance, and the cops shot the house to pieces! Which makes no since, once someone is cornered in a house, they can be waited out. If it takes a month, they’ll eventually have to give up.
They saved the government millions of dollars on police manpower actively searching for the girl, this is a budget option for them and should have just been paid
As is occasionally quoted, "The Law is an ass." The 5th Amendment is only applicable when the law agrees with you. Or when you have enough money to pursue it long enough. First, as a Texan, I am ashamed that the city of McKinney did not immediately settle for a reasonable sum. I hope that a further appeal leads to her being compensated. Secondly, shame on McKinney, a nearby neighbor to me.
So the next homeowner has to decide, do I call the police and lose my home, or do I not call, and let the fugitives run away to avoid damages?!? Think about the situation this ruling creates, even a law abiding citizen may delay a police call because of this.
It’s really questionable that the court would cite a case about seized barrels of flour to justify not compensating someone for severe damage to their home. It’s an old principle of law that laws that grant rights to persons are to be interpreted as broadly as possible, while those which restrict rights are to be interpreted strictly. There is far too much jurisprudence granting sovereign immunity to all levels of government, as well as immunity to individual government officials.
This is disgusting... I'm truly just happy that this didn't happen to me, not out of narcissism, but because I would be destroying gov property until I felt my pound of flesh was paid in full.
Last few stories from Steve about appeals courts have been good, usually with bad decisions from lower judges being overturned. Now this story is of a good decision being overturned by the appeals court. I guess it really is a mix of reasonable judges and cop-sucking idiot judges at all levels of the judiciary.
So basically, a woman has her house violated by an armed man. Then abunch of armed men and women came to her house and violently violat3d her house, apprehending him. After destroying her home and property, walked away saying too bad b***h." They actively ignored her until she had to sue them. A jury of her peers saw the injustice and gave an appropriate verdict. The city thought, "f**k her, we appeal this" and the district Court came up with the verdict, "b****h, you're lucky they didn't burn everything you own" in vacating the decision so she gets squat and has to pay all her legal fees and all the damages to the house because her insurance company won't even help her. Welcome to America 2023
Your government is supposed to protect you, if they hurt you, they should compensate you, even if they were protecting you when they hurt you. The guy was only a threat to himself, this is another case of a lack of police patience and an abundance of a lack of accountability by the government. And poor doggie.
Necessary? Of course. It's still a 'taking.' The public gained a benefit and took private property. The Constitution does not mention the concept 'qualified immunity' or assert that it provides an exception to the 'takings' clause. Bad, bad ruling.
The destruction wasn't necessary though. The hostage was freed, the house the suspect in was surrounded and if the police were doing their job, the neighborhood was evacuated. There was no reason for the police to go into the house after the suspect. They can easily just wait the guy out.
@@tvc1848 the 'takings' clause appears to be pretty broad. If government deprives you of the value of something you own, it's a 'taking.' 'Takings' by government require just compensation... Unless, the 5th Circuit Appeals Court says, government is in some sort of a hurry. What are the limits? Is hurrying so officers can get doughnuts before a doughnut shop closes a good enough reason for hurrying? Beats me. We're no longer on the main Constitutional logic tree. That's as close as I can get to justifying their decision. If it sounds nuts to you: me, too.
@@Urgelt The property was not taken “for public use” (quoting the Fifth Amendment). What benefit is it to the public? There was no public use in this case. There was a public benefit to taking a bad person off the street but the Fifth Amendment doesn’t say to compensate for a public benefit. It says public “use@. So how if the public using this woman’s property?
Forty years ago, a friend of mine was the guy working for our city who dealt with insurance and legal claims. He had told me if you think of claiming anything against the city that involves money, then you should just forget it. I wondered why tax payers were paying him a salary, in that case. It's sad that a local government would turn their back on a tax payer like this, but that's the way they do business.
They (city) is a corporation not a government therefore are judged by a legeslative court not a third article court. The decision of the jury is advisable only! !!!
The plantif screwed up by saying the destruction was necessary. They should have said the cops could have waited the suspect out. It never stays cool in an attic in Texas, and he would need water within hours.
I doin't understand the court saying the actions damaging the house, were done to prevent harm to persons. All the people in harms way were no longer in the house.
![Quando Rondo - Grow Up [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8zFnCg3BO4Q/mqdefault.jpg)
She sued for $50k the city spent $500k fighting the lawsuit. Pure insanity.
I expect those are staff accounting dollars for a staff Legal team and not real cash transferred beyond what is regularly paid. My city has 14 top notch lawyers on staff earning up to $150,000 to $750,000 per year and a suburban city adjacent to my city has 44 young lawyers on staff (More lawyers than cops).
As @MishaDaBear says, your figure is way high. But the point is, they don’t want to set a precedent that would cost big money from now on.
While I am disappointed in the decision, in terms pure accounting/dollars and cents, the city made the fiscally sound investment of preventing tens, if not hundreds, of future payouts for this type of scenario which could eclipse the $500k very quickly. It is, however, truly unfortunate that money is a higher priority for the city than justice for its citizens.
Government at practice
Not setting a costly precedent is worth millions.
The fact that this was appealed in the first place illustrates the complete contempt the government has for us.
Actually the fact that the city had to be taken to court in the first place showed that contempt, everything since is just compounding their contempt.
The fact that all the police involved in the incident weren't at her house volunteering for clean up and repairs show that they have zero integrity as human beings.
Texas Republican judges and police no doubt.
@@aquariusmoon771 Yep there's no corruption in Blue cities/states at all, you're totally right... 🙄
Government is run by politicians and bureaucrats, who are people.
They might have the law on their side; but nobody is bulletproof.
Judges giving immunity is why law enforcement couldn't care less about people, their property or their rights.
It's reciprocal; I don't care about the personal property of policemen or their individual well being.
Yep
If this lady rented a bulldozer and knocked down city hall, I wouldn't convict her of anything as a juror.
The part that bugs me is once again the public has no control. The public sat through all the evidence and said she should be awarded damages. Then the government overturned that decision for the government.
we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing.
lol ya just like recently the gov audit itself and said we lost 50 billion but we dun know where any of the moines went in the first place
or why my local police station has foosball table a popcorn machine and slushi machine and yet they keep ticketing stop sign rolls even when people dun do it ODD RIGHT????
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals just eliminated part of the 5th Amendment from the Bill of Rights. That's giving aid and comfort to the domestic and foreign enemies of the United States. Impeach. Try. Convict. Indict. Try. Convict. Sentence.
City probably paying more in legal fees than they would need to to fix the damage.
Legal fees that go back to the city.
For the city it is about all of the houses police destroy in the future.
Cruelty is the point.
Its all about setting a Precedent for future cases. If She won this it would open a wide door for many people to be compensated for their destruction.
Im confident the Judge was either "Compensated" or Pressured for this WRONG decision. We can Pray there come a Judge with some BALLS!!!
Maybe, if their coucil on staff handled the case, it was a fixed cost.
And here is the irony. Since home owners insurance wont cover it, if the women doesnt bankroll the repairs herself, I guarantee the city wont have have any shame in issuing her fine after fine.
Yup
While the taxes pay for the city attorneys SMH
They will condem, and then seize the property.
It’s called Facism my friends, theirs collusion between two entities that swear they’re separated but they are not.
Which will probably end up costing the city more than $50k in headaches, having a property not paying taxes (why pay taxes on a property thats ruined that you cant afford to fix?) Falling property values, etc. heck if it only costs them $20k paying for the property the amount of goodwill and public trust is more than worth the difference
The police had seized the property.
The property was damaged while in police possession (custody).
The police are liable for that damage.
How is that so difficult for the 5th Circuit to understand?
Pure corruption. The court system has been captured in many places in the US.
Its not difficult, they are creating a special exception based on a fairly convoluted explanation of there being no precedent. If precedent were required for all remedies, then there'd be no remedy for unique circumstances. They basically are saying the state doesn't want to be held to its responsibilities because it would make them liable for they are liable for.
“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” The Third Amendment >>> Plaintiff should win !!!
@@kbarrett63 they didn't argue the 3rd amendment.
To me.
THERE SHOULD NOT NEED TO BE A DAMN PRECEDENT!
If the 15-year old girl was released and the man was left in the house by himself, why was the circumstance so exigent such that they had to do ANYTHING but wait him out, much less assault the house to the point of destruction?
same reason why they pull you out of a car for a traffic violation.
It was down to shame.
As in, "It would be a shame to have all these military-grade toys and not use them."
No one is going to sit and wait for hours. Not enough officers on duty as it is.
@@arlynsmith9196Incorrect, two cops could lock down the house. Especially if only one way into the attic. Two cops could literally wait in the home in the dark and wait.
Just call in a major donut delivery every hour and the volunteers will pour out. @@arlynsmith9196
It is obscene that the government would spend more money defending themselves than it would have cost to compensate the homeowners.
The reason is they cannot afford for the people to have a way to hold them accountable for their actions,this includes civil asset forfeiture,immunity and other laws that protect them for their corruption!
Letting her get compensation would open a "Pandora's box" to all others who are and have been receiving abuse from police and government.
Bingo@@sleeptyper
@@sleeptyperincorrect. That “slippery slope” argument is specious and without merit. Police and municipalities get away with almost anything they do. They deserve liability and to have the floodgates opened- that would act as a deterrent to government criminality like this in the future and avoid financially ruining taxpayers and citizens like this woman.
Every single case is heard on its own merits and exceptions are always made. The state deserves to pay for its crimes and qualified immunity should be removed. Police love to tell us that “officer safety” is their top priority, but they’re always exfacto justifying wrong doing in their favor. Morality and ethics are clear. You may be an apologist for corruption but the entire rest of the country is waking up and we’re sick of the two tiered system you and others uphold. Change is in the air!
That is wrong on so many levels. Basically, none of us can rely on our property being secure from government destruction.
Well, if the homeowner hadn't called the police, then the homeowner would have been charged for harboring a fugitive, and who knows what else...
yep, you never own anything.
I have no faith in any part of our government! It's all double standards dependent upon who you are or know. Certain people can do things others can't. It's either a law or It's not. They best hope I never get in trouble for something they are allowed to do. That's all I have to say.
All I know is, there was no damage being done till someone called the cops. Then cops wonder why they are so keenly hated.
Anybody believing that we are better off with government and that we will be at the mercy of "Robber Barons" and "Mercenaries" should we somehow become Ungoverned ought to have their head examined. As we ARE at the mercy of Robber Barons and Pirates....under the order and operation, sanctioned, and granted authorization THROUGH centralized GOVERNMENT. Best part yet... you, myself and every other sucker are on the hook to PAY the bill NOT ONLY for the operating costs of the Piracy, but also in the case where ANY damages ARE awarded! We've been HAD folks. And it only continues to get worse
So what's the point in cooperating?
They can take your shit when you're on the highway. They can take your shit in your house. You take them to court, and they throw it out.
The only path I see that benefits citizens is to fight back and protect what's yours.
The true reason for the 2nd!
@@antisocialjusticewarrior2073exactly.
Her insurance won't pay
Local government won't pay
This is criminal !
That wasn't just cooperation thats was Karenism. You stay here but I have to go now. 😂😂
So Killdozer 2.0? 😂
So I think the court has made it clear that you should never involve the police.
And invest in a door bell camera
I now have to defend my property from the crooks and the cops. Yeah crooks might steal my TV, but the cops will level my house😂
The police only care about two things, department policy & officer safety. Outside of those two things, the public can go eff themselves.
@@TheOrangeRoad two words for the same thing
If call someone in an emergency to help you don’t expect them to pay for how they helped you.
an example of why government is NEVER to be given "emergency" powers
The Institute for justice needs to take this case.
I believe that they have taken the case.
Armored vehicles? Explosives? Toxic gas grenades?… there is a standing army that is being quartered in our counties, towns, cities and states. When the government becomes lawless, is compliance moral?
Stop you are making too much sense 😣
Sounds like unnecessary and excessive force to me. And they severely injured the owner's dog. Could it possibly be they just wanted to practice using some of their police equipment? This whole thing seems over the top.
@@boarchambault2387 Excessive force is normalized in those circles today. That's why they don't think twice about using their military toys.
@@JoshuaKA02 I will bet my next paycheck there's a big chunk of cops that do the job for the toys 🤷
What a horrible situation. It is incredibly inhumane of the city not to properly compensate her for destroying her home.
It’s pure nonsense. I guarantee you if a judge’s house was destroyed by police the city would pay for it. This is absolutely ridiculous and wrong on all levels. This is not what the people want and the people vote for the government.
As we're all outraged 98.5% of the local community has no idea about the case or already forgot. They'll vote in the same people as before and then be absolutely shocked when it happens again. Vote blue until in happens to you. Back the blue until it happens to you.
yes i agree
Also the insurance company that refused to cover it.
@@jamesodell3064 Wow...another American citizen violated by cops and then the un-justice system.
The destruction being "necessary" shouldn't be the reason they give to the homeowner for denying the claim, it should be the reason they give to tax payers for cutting the check. The homeowner deserves to be compensated regardless of how necessary the actions were.
exactly! If they feel it's necessary to break down a door, then it's also necessary to pay for that door.
Isn't something being "necessary" for the public good always a condition that needs to be met for the government to take property of a private citizen. They can't just take your property willy-nilly, they have to show that it is necessary. That doesn't mean that the government doesn't have to pay you for your property if they take it (or at least it's not suppose to).
@@billedens4749civil forfeiture is an exception. Immunity is an exception. Two very big and abused issues.
"It was deemed necessary" is all the explanation you get.
Exactly, Given arguments used for imminent domain, but then say it wasn't imminent domain. Also if the police hold no liability for refusing to act how can the police then state that their actions were necessary?
If the police need to demolish a house for public safety, for my safety, that's exactly what my taxes pay for. If they're not willing to pay for it, they shouldn't break it.
The issue is, there was no imminent threat to persons, because the man let the person he held hostage go, long before the police took their final action. In fact, the man took his own life before the police ever did anything. So everything they did was for nothing.
Not for nothing. The police got to destroy a house!
The problem is that the lawyer for the plaintiff specifically said that they didn't think the police acted unreasonably given the circumstances.
When the people can't get justice through lawful means, no one should be surprised when they take the law into their own hands for revenge.
I hope this goes to the Supreme Court and gets reversed again.
I doubt it it would if it went that high. It sounds like the courts are more concerned with not setting a precedence with the taking clause than anything else which I could see the Supreme Court being even more concerned about than the appeals court. But the city has already denied her compensation through the normal channels for something blatantly obvious, what other avenues of lawsuit does she have?
@@DKNguyen3.1415 The only thing justifying this ruling is the almost certainly erroneous) claim that it was an emergency and they had to do it. I don't know what past history or precedent the 5th circuit was referring to about compensation not being required when doing things because they have to be done, but SCOTUS has ruled that zoning regulations or other restrictions on property use may constitute a taking even when the government believes the zoning or restrictions are necessary.
@@suedenim9208 yeah it was just the guy inside the house when they stormed it
@@DKNguyen3.1415 Well, he had a runaway girl with him whom he let go out of danger during the seige.
@@virginiamoss7045 My understanding is that he let her go before they stormed the house though. So there was no imminent danger or emergency except to himself, and the police should they engage in a shoot out.
A jury verdict to me is like the voice of the people. To have it overturned is absurd.
There's a reason it's called "The 5th Circus".
It's the Republican way
"The people" are often stupid. Tens of millions of "damages" to a smoker comes to mind.
@@arnoldosanchez4303republican has nothing to do with it , demoncrats, don’t want any accountability either … wakethehellup
If you still think there is any difference between the two parties please quit discussing politics. Your ignorance is showing. You shouldn't be proud of that.@@arnoldosanchez4303
Let me get this straight. A jury of citizens rules against agents of the state. Agents of the state then appeal to other agents of the state and get the ruling overturned, ending in a favorable outcome for the state. How is this legal? How much more taxpayer money has the state spent in order to avoid paying for the damages they already caused?
How is it legal?
It is statutory law. A state can require compensation under state law.
This woman’s claim is that she can sue under the Fifth Amendment.
The wording of the Fifth Amendment says that taking personal property “for public use” must “just compensation”.
Did the government take her property for “public use”?
I don’t think so. They damaged her property. They didn’t seize it for the public.
The city didn’t take her property to build a new road or clear the land for a new government building.
In US v. Causby, in WWII the government was building heavy bombers to use in the war. Taking off at full power, the heavy bombers were creating a lot of noise and it disrupted Causby’s chicken egg farm which was under the flight path taken by the airplanes. Even though the government controlled the airspace above Cauby’s property, he claimed that the government had seized his livelihood because it killed some of his chickens and it caused others to quit laying eggs.
The question before the Supreme Court was, did the government seize Causby’s property for “public use”?
The ruling was yes, the airplanes were owned by the government as well as the airport and it was for the government’s/public use to Causby had to be compensated. It wasn’t damage but the damage caused for and by “public use”.
What did the city seize in this case for use by the public?
@@tvc1848 they didn't physically damage anything of his, but it was still considered a seizure because they owned the planes and the planes were public use? Well I would contend that the PD, I.e. government, owned the bullets, tear gas canisters, and flashbangs they threw into the house. The blinded and deafened a dog, so you have damage to animal life like in your example. And the "public use" aspect? They stopped a violent criminal that would otherwise likely have continued to harm the general public. They did a thing that benefited the public good, and they damaged personal property in the process. They should be liable for that. Plain and simple.
I've never even thought of it like this before and it sounds horrific.
@@SierraTangoGuns
What was the public use? If the fire department puts out a house fire on your property, did they seize that property for public use?
In Causby they absolutely did it for public use. It was a government airport and government airplanes. They were flying planes low over property to benefit a private citizen.
@@SierraTangoGuns
And yes, they did damage his personal property for public use. That was the claim. It killed chickens and caused others to quit laying on an egg farm.
“Taking” and “destroying”property is the same thing !!
If you’ve destroyed my property, you’ve essentially taken it . If that were me in this situation their town hall would’ve been a bonfire soon after their denial for compensation.
There are nearly two centuries of case law backing up precisely what you just said.
Deprivation = taking.
The government deprived the citizen of property.
We need major judicial reform in this country. The judges seem to have no idea what the 4th and 5h amendments was designed to do. Do you seriously think the framers of the constitution would have condoned the government trashing your property for free...for ANY reason? If an emergency is an exception, who gets to decide what an emergency is (and thus, who gets to suspend the constitution by decree)? Do you think they would be persuaded that oh it's CIVIL, not criminal asset forfeiture so it's ok, would have been a persuasive argument? We have allowed these tyrannical pedants on the bench to use semantics to obliterate our rights.
Same as firing people over not taking vaccines in an "emergency"
they know, they just got REAL used to working with impunity.
The Judges know what the 4th and Fifth Amendments mean. The Judges dislike them because both are a check on government abuse. The legal system has slowly whittled away at our rights, eventually, we will be as unprotected as anyone in North Korea.
It is mindboggling what governments are allowed to get away with. This, civil forfeiture, qualified immunity, other capricious actions…you name it.
lol, we're not *allowing* them to do anything.
They're just doing it. We hardly ever factor into their decisionmaking.
@@nukepuke932when people keep voting for the same crooked politicians over and over this happens. We have all the power at the ballot box. There is way more of us than them. And yes gerrymandering is a thing that those same crooked politicians put in place. Vote blue for now.
all these issues are coming from judges creating laws like kings
Turns out "government" is just the strongest gang in the area.
you see the law has exceptions that only the courts know and they explain the exception that congress didn't include. The rule of law dosen't restrain the government from doing whatever the government wants because they have an exception 100 miles near the border, an exception if there's not "clearly established" cases, an exception when the action is against property, an exception here and there and soon enough it really isn't applicable at all.
They need to pay her for her house ! This is ridiculous!
This is Texas. Government can do no wrong.
@@rogerguinn4619I love the governor though
Why? Her daughter let him in, her complaint is with the fugitive and her daughter..
Guess who’s not calling the police next time a situation like this arises? Not this woman and not me. I’d rather deal with the fugitive myself than let a bunch of government thugs blow my house up and refuse to compensate me. This story makes me sick. And it further proves there is no situation that police can’t make worse.
@@spinfish1434 Neither her daughter nor the fugitive destroyed the house. The fact that US cops are incompetent, violent thugs who get off on death and destruction isn't their fault either. You'd be hard pressed to find such a case in any developed democratic country.
So if the police have to break into a 20 million dollar high rise business building to catch the criminal, and this act also ends up causing a fire to break out that burns the building down, and thus puts plenty of companies either out of business or at least temporarily out of business, does mean the outcome of this is just tough luck for everybody ?
Yep
No. It only applies to us mouth breathing peasants. If this situation would of happened to a senator or a judges house, quiet compensation would be happening.
Sounds like it.
It depends on state law. This is a 10th Amendment issue, not a 5th Amendment issue.
A state can require anything in compensation.
If the building is owned by a big corporation, the courts would make the cops pay for it. Corporations matter to them more than people.
Crazy that judges seem to have the worst sense of justice out of anyone in our country.
"The police did everything properly..." - except waiting the guy out. Why do they never consider that?
This wasn’t about safety, they wanted use their toys with no regard for what would happen
Exactly.
None of the damage was necessary, all they had to do was wait the guy out, he’d get thirsty or hungry sooner or later hiding in the attic.
Due to the ridiculous budget policies of municipal governments, they need to use their toys to justify their sky- high funding for said toys and keep asking for even more funding next year
That's what I said they have all these militarized tools funded by us. They love using their toys and don't care about the destruction. Imagine if someone did that to their homes ?
@@stevenweishaupt8591 amazing when they do things it doesn’t cross their minds what if it were my family? Their connections can’t save loved ones forever everywhere
Every high speed pursuit that results in a civilian car crash will no longer be compensated by cities/municipalities/counties because of this ruling.
They already do this in some states like Ohio, it's absolutely absurd. They can be 100% liable and pay absolutely zero
FYI read your insurance. One thing not covered is if a cop damages your stuff. So if you get in an accident with a cop that totals your car you will still have to pay it off.
@@ketapillar That sounds like if a cop destroys your car there is little reason for you not to punch the pig's ticket
I still don’t understand how they’re even legal to begin with, 99% are absolutely unnecessary, especially for a traffic infraction. You already have their info, get a warrant & pick them up later, they only run because they’re chased. I get it if it’s like an active threat like a mass shooter or an armed robber but outside of that, it only puts the public at risk
@@ketapillarWhat is the reasoning behind this?
Perfect example of a court ignoring their obligation to justice in favor of relying on a lack of precedent and over reliance on letter of law instead of intent. The government was right to damage her home, but that should not excuse them from making her whole. It should be possible for actions to be just, yet also require compensation. They had the right to "take" her home, but she should be compensated for it.
" The government was right to damage her home, but that should not excuse them from making her whole." I don't think you understand the basis of our common-law legal system. You have to be at fault to be assessed damages. This was a very novel interpretation of the 5th amendment takings clause.
The city couldn’t just pay her the $50,000 friggin sad
I'm confused. If you can't claim the house was taken by the Police because it was "objectively necessary" does that mean when they make you move to put a freeway though your house, they don't have to pay you because it was "objectively necessary"?
Her insurance should sue the police .
Exactly ...that is the door that was just opened!!!!
@@kdub3892 That is what I would have considered logical as well. Its crazy that the lady thought it would be better to sue the government than to sue her own insurance to make them pay out. The insurance company must have had an air tight coverage contract with very specific exclusions for a lawyer not to want to take them on instead of taking on well-established law (regardless of how unjust the law is).
Circumstance wouldn’t necessitate it. A sudden hostage situation is not the same as a planned and massive public works project. There have been cases of this instance actually and its always ended in compensation, i remember one from Kansas, farmer just finished his house only to then be told he has to move because his land was being taken for a highway. He sued and in that case the highway was moved as it would have been more expensive to compensate the property owner.
Yes, but, supposedly, in the sudden hostage situation they are claiming they don't have to compensate them because it was "objectively necessary". Surely if they take your land from you for the sake of the community for a freeway it's "objectively necessary" but they still compensate you. They are not the same, but I see a similarity.@@sterlingodeaghaidh5086
At what point does it become justifiable to seek recourse from outside the legal system? Does the government truly expect innocent people to passively tolerate this type of treatment???
What "treatment"? Saving her from a murderous madman in her house? If the city had known it would have to pay for property damage if it went in and neutralized him, maybe they would have told the cops to walk away and let her and her daughter deal with the madman in their attic. Incredible how entitled Lehto's supporters are.
As a matter of fact, they probably do. Especially around the Deep South. And, unfortunately, there is scant reason for them to believe otherwise. After all, this is certainly not the same Texas that it used to be. Now most people around only care about dodging their estate taxes and watching football. Like they do pretty much everywhere else in the country.
Nevertheless, it certainly is a mean table they're setting with that kind of greed driven bull crap. Particularly with the rise in mental cases throughout the state. Not to mention Abbott's archaic approach to gun control. I should know. I've lived here for most of my life. Trust me when I say that the rank conservatism since the mid to late 80's, coupled with the religious takeover of much of the state legislation stemming from pretty much as long ago as I can even remember (particularly from the Southern Baptists as well as the Roman Catholics) has completely broken the minds of a considerable percentage of the populace.
I feel like that point has been passed at least a decade ago if the courts will no longer police the police, then citizens need to
Cops carry lunch on their hips @@adrianmizen5070
@@adrianmizen5070if they had shown restraint and waited him out, I'm sure he would have surrendered, or ended it himself with a single shot.
“No dice, lady. And don’t take too long getting this mess cleaned up. Patience is not our strong suit.”
It’s Justice in America. As in Just Us, nothing for you
Imagine if she was more afraid of losing her house.
First rule of government is to protect the government at all costs ...
Such a miscarriage of justice that this got overturned in appeal
This clearly needs to be overturned, as the appeals court was wrong on the law. There is NO exception, in case law that would add an entire section and clause to the "takings clause" excusing the taking/destruction of her property.
Obviously this was constitutionally the correct decision unfortunately.
This is a 10th Amendment state rights issue, not a 5th Amendment eminent domain/talking issue.
It would not bother me if the Supreme Court overturned it but it was a correct ruling.
@@tvc1848 all amendments apply to the states
They desperately want to overturn this ruling because if it passes, it opens them and governments across the country up to liability for the billions of dollars in damages they have caused to private citizens properties. So they can’t let this pass or they are screwed.
Anyone else recalling the first customer the Ghostbusters get in the original movie?
it is not the correct decision you badge bunny@@tvc1848
Police wonder why no one like them anymore. I am a retired police officer by the way and it sickens me what police departments are doing these days.
Things haven’t changed since you retired. There was rampant corruption and unchecked violence against the citizens while you were a cop. Either you were a corrupt cop or you looked the other way while your fellow gang members abused the public.
Was it any different back in the day? Probably not.
@@dozyproductionsspolice departments have become more militarized and aggressive since 9/11.
So Mister Retired Police Officer, should the police have just ignored the 15 year old and the felony suspect hold up in a house that doesn’t belong to him?
Notwithstanding, the police didn’t deny anything, the city/government did.
The part that gets me is that they ended up destroying the house AFTER The girl left the house. Where was the eminent danger? Just because he was holed up in the house, the police could have waited him out. There was no danger to any human life. Thus, they took the property. This will be changed in the Supreme Court. They had the ability to wait him out. Shut the water off, shut the electricity off, make things difficult for him, no food. They did not need to destroy the house.
Or wait for the meth to wear off.
The police had a new toy (bearcat) and wanted to use it. Since the house didn't belong to any of them, they destroyed it.
Yes, that is the only part I find objectionable. If the subject was not actively shooting, do not start the fighting. Not only for the house, but for the safety of the public, the cops themselves and even the suspect himself.
But:
a) we do not know the specific circumstances, so it is difficult to make a definite judgement.
b) it seems that this point was not raised at the lawsuit, so it is not part of the ruling. And AFAIK you cannot discuss new arguments at appeals, only argue about the defenses already presented at the lower courts.
If the law says that police does not need to pay damages and you do not like it, vote to have the law changed. It would probably lead to the police being more restrained. But of course, that could be bad in some situations.
I mean, what if that same guy had set the house on fire and burnt it to the ground? Wouldn't that same woman be claiming against the cops because they had not been proactive enough in taking the guy out?
@@sergiojuanmembiela6223 [If the law says that police does not need to pay damages]...
Then you collect them informally.
This is what happens when the Police can legally violate your civil rights, steal your money at the roadside, and destroy your property largely without personal repercussions due to qualified immunity and the laws stacked against the law abiding citizens.
Smells like a challenge to the Supreme Court.
Government needs to be reeled in.
The police are never held responsible for their actions.
They think they're Homelander.
The police don’t compensate or pay for actions. The government that employees them does. The police didn’t deny anything, the city did.
5th circuit is usually not that ignorant.
There was no hostage in the end only anxious cops who wanted to blow things up and not negotiate
Whether the police could have used less force was likely not in the debate.
Whether they caused a lot of damage or very little damage, what did they seize any of the property “for public use”?
The city didn’t damage the property for any public use or benefit.
The government SHOULD NOT be allowed to appeal a jury verdict.
Edit: For those who can't read
what I'm saying is appeals should be an exclusive right of the PEOPLE be they plaintiff or defendant and that the GOVERNMENT(who has near unlimited resources access and deference) should not be able to appeal the rulings of The PEOPLE
the government is NEVER on the side of the individual the government is on their OWN side and should not be able to continually ASSAULT the individual with legal action when fellow individual citizens have already ruled in their favor
I would say if an appeals court finds the jury was misinstructed or otherwise ruled based on false information it should be allowed.
There are probably some other edge cases where it may make sense as well I'm sure.
Otherwise I agree the opportunities for a judge to overturn a jury verdict should be extremely limited. For many people serving on a jury is the most influence they will ever have on the way our nation is run. To overturn a jury decision in this way is a fundamental attack on democracy.
That said, the one time I was on a civil jury, I was told I had to use the judge's interpretation of the law (or something to that effect). This seems to be in line with what happened here, though I don't live in Texas. The appeals judge had a different interpretation of the law. That said I believe it is a mistake to allow this. The jury should have final say. Jury nullification only works because it's easy to hide that the jury has decided to do it, and ignore the judge's interpretation of the law.
I like this!
@@TheMAZZTeryou are to be judged by a jury of your peers
it doesn't matter how they judge
it doesn't matter if they don't "follow the law"
If the JURY finds itself in favor of the citizen's case that's it period
That makes no sense
That doesn't follow
No surprise why people who are actually paying attention despise the police, courts, govt..this is why people go "postal"
It's ridiculous that there is no national protection for Americans who lose their homes. We have increasing homelessness among the elderly and disabled, and it's the fault of our own sadistic policies. We need a social safety net to cover situations like this.
The city should not have the right to appeal a case like this.
The government, whichever entity, local, State or Federal must have no right to appeal any ruling. As an entity, it has no Rights whatsoever. Rights belong solely to We the People. God ordained these Rights that no government may ever assume and the moment they do it is right to extinguish it.
This just proves once again we have a legal system, not a justice system.
I hope she takes this all the way to supreme court ...!!
Lesson learned: Don't notify police that someone is in your house.
Just never call the cops. It’s more likey to go bad than to help
Texas. You gotta stay strapped and handle it yourself.
Word. Calling the cops never end up better.
The benchmark is this: would the plaintiff prevailed if the defendant was just some person? Yes.
I bet if it happened to the mayors house, I bet he would have been compensated
This is bad news. They need to appeal it up again. It might of been an emergency, but they should still compensate her for destroying her home.
Are you going to pay the thousands of dollars it costs to appeal?
@@Facetiously.Esoteric If I had the money, I would. I'm hoping institute for justice will pick this up.
Side note, this is the kind of stuff you get insurance for. The insurance company should have payed. Just my opinion though.
@@KalijahAndersonprobably something in your policy saying they don't have to pay when government causes the damage.
@@beepbop6697 The government is the one who should have insurance for this kind of thing. Just like with everything else where somebody causes damage without malice.
@@KalijahAnderson ALL insurance specifically doesn't cover it. Just as if a cop hits your car. Your insurance is void.
Did they really have the right to destroy the house when it sounds like the hostage was already out of harms way prior to the damage created?
I agree. they could have left and waited for him to come out of the house .
her right to trial by jury was denied. the Jury ruled, and they took that away.
Its rulings like these that further undermine the publics trust.
Based on the courts own ruling, the police would have needed to be acting to actively save a hostage or other harm being done. The man was barricaded alone inside after releasing the hostage he was not firing at police, so there was no emergency to destroy the house they could have simply laid siege and waited.
It’s terrible to learn that my best option to preserve my personal property is to take what ever actions are needed to keep government authorities from stepping foot on that property since they most likely are not going to do the right thing if they damage it.
That's why I would love an underground home. Keep the property out of reach.
The sad thing is you think you can stop them
That is not the lesson I would draw from this example, and they would have lawful authority anyways were they to need to enter your property under similar circumstances.
@@44burn1 aren’t you the least bit angry that this can happen?
@@44burn1 I don’t think the Government can be easily stopped but an individual piece of that Government can at a smartly picked time and place. Aren’t you at least a little angry that the government won’t do the right thing here?
Police should’ve gave 50,000 to the woman instead of spending 100,000 on the trial
Always spend more on court than pay insurance will do this
jury decisions shouldnt be able to be overturned without a jury decision.
Of course every government should be responsible for damage their police cause. It is a cost of police protection.
It is the same as if a plumber causes damage while doing his job. His employer needs to pay for the repair.
Why isn't this obvious?
Because most people don’t understand the real function of the gov’t is to take money out of the hands of citizens & put it into the pockets of corporations. We pretend that things like “to protect & serve” actually mean something, we pretend that individual rights exist. In reality, only the gov’t & corporations have any meaningful rights. Any business can call & have you trespassed without reason & the police will side with the corporation without evidence, over the private citizen 100% of the time. They’ll even violate your rights when they force you to id yourself for the corporation’s paperwork, despite that business having no rights to your personal info.
I'm recalling the first customer the Ghostbusters get in the original movie, anyone else?
There's no situation a cop can't make worse
Unless it's a cop setting himself on fire.
Like Ronald Reagan said, the most terrifying words you can hear. I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.
City, state, federal, it’s all the same.
Absolutely true!
I can only HOPE SCOTUS corrects this VAST INJUSTICE!
I wonder what the ruling would have been if it was a judges' home that had been destroyed instead.
Another out of control corrupt court.
It was necessary to damage the property but it’s also necessary for the city to compensate the owner for their damages.
The issue with the judges argument, is that other judges have allowed "cops THINKS there is a fugitive in there" also counts as an emergency. Even if it turns out there was no one in the house. So it's a narrow exception, that courts have said is applicable whenever and wherever the government wants. Which completely undercuts the constitution's actually intention.
In my mind, "necessity" is questionable. The hostage had been released. There was no longer an "emergency". The police could have tried to negotiate with him, or waited him out. It was their choice to take the action they did that damaged the house. They should have a duty to mitigate the damage they cause.
I agree with your take on necessity 1000%. Just realize that it most definitely was still an emergency. A guy with guns stating he's ready to go out with a bang; a clear and present danger. I completely agree their tactics were more than lacking, but don't think they'll go out of their way to use their training--or lack thereof--in more efficient ways. Efficiency isn't in their vocabulary because it's not trained to be. Their dictionaries lack a lot of important words to us normal folk.
Exactly, the destruction of the house was no longer "necessary."
That’s a very good point, and hoped her lawyers would argue that .
Plaintiff's lawyers admitted that the actions of the police were necessary -- and I suspect they have more knowledge of what was going on than a random Monday-morning-quarterbacking YT commenter.
@@adrianmizen5070 that only means the plaintiff got a stupid ass lawyer the fact you are trying to justify this criminal behavior is something you should go back and reflect on your life over. if you think its okay to destroy peoples things and have no repercussions than you are the issue
This is a crime.
Tyrants being tyrants. Total BS.
She needs the Institute for Justice to appeal it to SCOTUS.
The worst of it is that the dog was blinded and deafened.
I will always protect my home from anybody. Even the police.
Any law enforcement that’s destroys property should be automatically liable for paying all damages and courts cannot show law enforcement favor. This is complete BS. I’m sick of hearing about this qualified immunity or that they don’t have to pay for damages.
We need a 4th branch of government. Citizen militias who hold appointed judges accountable
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Shows you should never concede rights. Stating police acted perfectly was a MISTAKE!
Keep going all the way to the Supreme court!
And a true Grand jury! !!!
@@JOKing-ku8jg
Grand juries are not for lawsuits.
The Supreme Court is the only remaining appeal.
Good luck. Even though they have rendered eminent domain cases in the past, maybe they will choose this one to make another point.
If it's a public emergency then it should fall upon the public to bear the costs. It is wrong to dump the costs on an individual for a matter of public interest.
This is so terrible. Those city officials need to be exiled from society.
I hope she is able to take this to the Supreme Court.
If the house had $50,000 in estimated damage I wonder how much the state has spent in legal fees.
Any time you think there might be some justice in this world, the court is there to dispel you of that notion.
I can't help thinking they lost a LOT of 'bargaining power' by the daughter actively letting them in the house in the first place.
Yes, this case is much different from the one in Colorado, where no one was home, the crook broke in simply by chance, and the cops shot the house to pieces! Which makes no since, once someone is cornered in a house, they can be waited out. If it takes a month, they’ll eventually have to give up.
They saved the government millions of dollars on police manpower actively searching for the girl, this is a budget option for them and should have just been paid
not so, she could have been frightened for her life and took an expedient actuon
That could have worked with the Branch Davidians fiasco@@alphagt62
I would bet they paid more to their lawyers than the claim itself.@@SplitScreamOFFICIAL
As is occasionally quoted, "The Law is an ass." The 5th Amendment is only applicable when the law agrees with you. Or when you have enough money to pursue it long enough.
First, as a Texan, I am ashamed that the city of McKinney did not immediately settle for a reasonable sum. I hope that a further appeal leads to her being compensated. Secondly, shame on McKinney, a nearby neighbor to me.
Another example of why you should never call the cops. When are people going to learn this?
So the next homeowner has to decide, do I call the police and lose my home, or do I not call, and let the fugitives run away to avoid damages?!? Think about the situation this ruling creates, even a law abiding citizen may delay a police call because of this.
It’s really questionable that the court would cite a case about seized barrels of flour to justify not compensating someone for severe damage to their home. It’s an old principle of law that laws that grant rights to persons are to be interpreted as broadly as possible, while those which restrict rights are to be interpreted strictly. There is far too much jurisprudence granting sovereign immunity to all levels of government, as well as immunity to individual government officials.
This is disgusting...
I'm truly just happy that this didn't happen to me, not out of narcissism, but because I would be destroying gov property until I felt my pound of flesh was paid in full.
Last few stories from Steve about appeals courts have been good, usually with bad decisions from lower judges being overturned. Now this story is of a good decision being overturned by the appeals court. I guess it really is a mix of reasonable judges and cop-sucking idiot judges at all levels of the judiciary.
So basically, a woman has her house violated by an armed man. Then abunch of armed men and women came to her house and violently violat3d her house, apprehending him. After destroying her home and property, walked away saying too bad b***h." They actively ignored her until she had to sue them. A jury of her peers saw the injustice and gave an appropriate verdict. The city thought, "f**k her, we appeal this" and the district Court came up with the verdict, "b****h, you're lucky they didn't burn everything you own" in vacating the decision so she gets squat and has to pay all her legal fees and all the damages to the house because her insurance company won't even help her.
Welcome to America 2023
Of course.... The State isn't going to be held liable for anything.
Your government is supposed to protect you, if they hurt you, they should compensate you, even if they were protecting you when they hurt you. The guy was only a threat to himself, this is another case of a lack of police patience and an abundance of a lack of accountability by the government. And poor doggie.
Necessary? Of course.
It's still a 'taking.' The public gained a benefit and took private property.
The Constitution does not mention the concept 'qualified immunity' or assert that it provides an exception to the 'takings' clause.
Bad, bad ruling.
The destruction wasn't necessary though.
The hostage was freed, the house the suspect in was surrounded and if the police were doing their job, the neighborhood was evacuated. There was no reason for the police to go into the house after the suspect. They can easily just wait the guy out.
@Urgelt
What was the property taken for public use?
Maybe I missed it but did they take the property to build a new road or fire station?
@@IkLms11 there was a child in the house with the perp, wasn't there?
I don't think any party to the case argued that the damage was unnecessary.
@@tvc1848 the 'takings' clause appears to be pretty broad.
If government deprives you of the value of something you own, it's a 'taking.'
'Takings' by government require just compensation...
Unless, the 5th Circuit Appeals Court says, government is in some sort of a hurry.
What are the limits? Is hurrying so officers can get doughnuts before a doughnut shop closes a good enough reason for hurrying? Beats me. We're no longer on the main Constitutional logic tree.
That's as close as I can get to justifying their decision. If it sounds nuts to you: me, too.
@@Urgelt
The property was not taken “for public use” (quoting the Fifth Amendment). What benefit is it to the public?
There was no public use in this case. There was a public benefit to taking a bad person off the street but the Fifth Amendment doesn’t say to compensate for a public benefit. It says public “use@.
So how if the public using this woman’s property?
Forty years ago, a friend of mine was the guy working for our city who dealt with insurance and legal claims. He had told me if you think of claiming anything against the city that involves money, then you should just forget it. I wondered why tax payers were paying him a salary, in that case.
It's sad that a local government would turn their back on a tax payer like this, but that's the way they do business.
They (city) is a corporation not a government therefore are judged by a legeslative court not a third article court. The decision of the jury is advisable only! !!!
The plantif screwed up by saying the destruction was necessary. They should have said the cops could have waited the suspect out. It never stays cool in an attic in Texas, and he would need water within hours.
This can't be over yet.
I doin't understand the court saying the actions damaging the house, were done to prevent harm to persons. All the people in harms way were no longer in the house.