i've never read an article where police leveled a BANK because an armed robber was inside, but it's ok to level a private citizen's house because a shoplifter has barracaded themselves in it 🤦
My friend has rental property. The police came to collect evidence after the tenants were arrested. He was there with the keys to let them in. Nope, they had to kick in the door. Then they trashed the place “looking for evidence”. He called the prosecutor to complain; not only about the needless damage, but that they left tons of evidence untouched. The prosecutor agreed that the local cops are clueless thugs. He worked with the prosecutor to secure the evidence the cops missed so that it could be used. He also was not compensated for the needless damage. The town cops are clueless thugs. The state cops are the Borg. The only ones with half a brain and a soul are the sheriff deputies.
EXACTLY the same thing happened in Delaware near Middletown. The police chased a guy into his parents' house. The guy refused to surrender. Then the cops literally destroyed the house, the guy was killed, and the house was condemned. The parent's insurance refused to pay, the cops and the county said "not our problem," and the people are now homeless. NONE of which was their fault.
What do you think would have happened if the shoplifter picked the mayor’s house to hole up in? Does anyone doubt the city would have paid up promptly and in full?
There is no defense for doing this, and those officers should replace their home. This is another case where the people would be much safer without law enforcement.
I read where the homeowner's insurance company finally paid $345,000 to the homeowner, to rebuild the house. Not that it makes up for the injustice the Leck's received via the court system, but, it's SOMETHING.
Had this been a law enforcement officer's house, mayor or city council it would have been handled in an entirely different manner including compensations.
Someone needs to steal something from Walmart and barricade themselves inside the judges house until the cops blow it up and see if the judge changes his mind!
What is wrong with law enforcement these days? My friend was pulled over one day because his car resembled a green Honda DEA and law enforcement were looking for. The literally tore his car completely apart to the point it was not drivable. They figured out they had the wrong car and just packed it in and left him there alongside I75. In his case, his auto insurance ended up totaling his car and paying him off. He never recovered a thing from the state or the police. This crap happens all the time and should never happen unless the police and the state are going to compensate the owners for damages. If I were to accidentally shoot a hole through a neighbor's house while shooting at a varmint, I would be totally responsible for damages and probably spend time in jail for hitting a house with a bullet. But, apparently, if Police did the same thing that is OK? Seriously? Fine example to set and what a way to garner respect from the community. Right.
This angers me beyond anything I could imagine! Basically, the court has ruled that police can do whatever they want and the people have to pay for it. They are saying the police can play GTA6 on the entire country and nothing can be done to stop them. I guess it is time to secure my property behind an impenetrable dome!
Just a thought: "There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." (Battlestar Galactica, 2005).
I wonder if the police department would have shown restraint if that same shoplifter had broken into either the Mayor's or Police Chief's home, and locked himself in their bathroom?
I bet you that that houses owner would've paid for that shirt and belts in a second to not have their house blown up. Hell, I'd pay for the shirt and belts to stop that guy from losing his house in this mess and I don't even know anyone involved.
I think the city should be responsible - the problem is, ultimately the taxpayers then get the bill for this. So it should be a 2 step fix: The city pays for it, and the cops involved -- who made decision to destroy the home - are FIRED without benefits or pay.
I've had to park a car over the winter when it was damaged and waiting for specialized parts to be sent for repairs. During that time some hooligans broke into a few parked cars and used them to stash stolen goods(or so I was told by police.) The police in Keego Harbor effectively destroyed that car, tore everything apart that could have been hoping to find something, and I had to take the loss of the car. I was totaled, but as I only had PLPD, I didn't have any way to get any remuneration. Keego police said something along the line of well, it was involved in crime, so it's not our problem. It took me close to half a year before I was able to save enough to afford another car to drive. Having to walk/bike to work severely limited the places I could work in that time, so that didn't help.
The gestapo showed up fully armed next door to my daughters house because a random caller said someone had an assault rifle in the yard! Turned out to be two young boys with a crossman bb gun, The cops were pissed they didn't get to use all the firepower they had!
It's easy to second guess the police actions but in reality that is not the issue here. The issue is that the city or agency who destroys property of an innocent person has to be held accountable financially. Regardless of the reason for their actions, justified or not, the injured party was completely innocent and should be compensated. If this is not corrected, as you say Steve, we are ALL in danger of losing everything we own simply because the Police or some authority had the right to take an action that results in a loss to an innocent 'bystander.'
"Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter." -George Carlin
So theoretically the police could come in, blow up your house, and then use eminent domain for the current value of the property. The value of course is extremely low due to the fact that the house was just destroyed. Then the city would calculate how much money you're entitled to, which is the value of the house and land - the value of the cleanup costs. Because the cleanup costs then exceed the value of the house, the city owes you some negative number. You're then presented with a bill for whatever that negative number is. Thank you for paying the city to have your house and land stolen and blown up.
I can't agree with you more. The militarization of our police is a very serious problem. What happened to good ole negotiation until you talk the suspect out. The guy was a shoplifter not a terrorist.
Ridiculous. The city is fully liable and would be insured for their police doing stuff like this. The city should owe them everything plus more. What a joke.
Police need to carry insidental insurance for whatever damage they do in the performance of their duties. The way they are operating now is like driving without insurance.
His insurance company did give him $345,000 but his neighbor who's house had $70K in damage got nothing from her insurance company. I hope the Supreme Court rules in his favor and says police have to "tone it down"!
William, I'm surprised that the insurance company paid! There's usually an exclusion clause for governmental acts, riots, war, earthquakes, floods (even if a government owned dam breached), etc.
In most cases like this you don't get anything by suing. The government is the trustee for the sovereign, “We the People,” and is supposed to hand out money from the “People’s” treasury only in accordance with law. Apparently the concerned state had no law providing for “inadvertent” damages by police exercising “good faith” to be paid. You “petition” for redress of your grievance.
First off, I'm not a radical. I've served and defended my country, and I don't believe in taking innocent lives. but I can understand how people like Timothy McVeigh can get radicalized and fed up with the things that the government in the police do to American citizens.
I bet the judges that ruled against those people would have sung a different tune if it was their house. Or family or friend's house. It would be so ironic if the same thing happen to one of those judges. (Not that I wish it would happen)
Many judges are elected.....perhaps going after them by filing lawsuits against them individually, may not do any good but they would have to,defend it which goes into public record
Since the police, their equipment, and their facilities, as well as their operating expenses are paid by the taxpayers in the city (via taxes) so that all the residents in the city get the benefit of the services provided by the police, isn't it reasonable (as a claim in court) that any damage done by the police in enforcing their responsibilities is an operating expense, which should be paid by the police as a cost of "doing business" paid by all the taxpayers in the city. The one taxpayer with the damage should not be required to pay all the cost. It should be shared by all the taxpayers (as part of the city's expenses).
I remember back in the day, a guy built a "death dozer" and commensed to destroying the town. Sounds like a good time for someone to build another one.
"whatever it takes to get home" is said by law enforcement a lot now a days. It is the rally cry of cowards. In any other situation it would be unacceptable. If you went up to a fire fighter and said "my child is in that burning house" if they responded with "sorry whatever it takes to go home" you would call them a coward. If a sergeant told his troops to charge a hill and they all said "remember? Whatever it takes to get home!" they would be cowards. But when a cop decides to go robocop and destroy peoples lives it is somehow considered acceptable? This is why people hate cops.
There's a certain amount of that in the military as well. "Take that hill" "But there's enemies there" "OK, air/artillery strike the hill out of existence, along with anything on it." Not all the time, of course, no more than police use excessive force all the time, but sufficiently frequently to be a rallying cry for the relatives of the people who once lived on or near the hill.
They should have filed a claim against the city insurance. They argument should have been filed more along the line for careless and reckless endangerment or willful destruction of private property.
If I deprive somebody of the use of their property by destroying it, how is that effectively any different from "taking" it as far as they are concerned? Vandalism is still a crime, isn't it? While the suspect was armed and fleeing, he wasn't taking hostages or he wouldn't have let the kid go. While the damage might be justified ( given that he fired a shot at the police), refusing to pay for the damage is unconscionable.
If I were the owner, I would put all my efforts into getting every last elected official in the city recalled and removed from office. Or defeated in the next election if a recall is not allowed. And once you had them gone, work to replace them with people that would replace every appointed official. Completely clean house and replace all those self-serving bureaucrats with people that will actually serve their constituents. Just an FYI. Greenwood Village is a relatively affluent suburb of Denver. They can easily afford to compensate the homeowner.
An excellent argument would be: If the guy had sought refuge in a house belonging to the Chief of the Department would the same tactics have been used? If so, would the City pay to have the house rebuilt? Or, would the City have told him "Too bad!"
I don’t see how the result is not a taking, they so severely damaged a home that they came in afterwards and condemned the property and now they will be demolishing the property. How is that not a “taking” of at least the house itself and is not a house property? I assume they also intend to come after the homeowner for the demolition costs as well? After all, why not add further insult to injury.
Let’s face it, as a big supporter of the police I too think this is BS. Not only should the supervisor on scene be fired, but the homeowner compensated. This case should be appealed.
Seems like it would have been more cost-effective for the village to just buy the house at its former fair market value. The litigation and reputational cost was probably far more expensive. Their stance can result in lower property values (and property tax collected) because people may not want to buy homes in that village, knowing that the house might get blown up by the cops. I used to work for Sarasota County and am fairly certain the County Attorney would recommend that the Board of County Commissioners quickly approve full reimbursement. They realize the economic harm from the negative publicity would be more costly than just paying up.
The city and police department will likely see no negative effects from this. People in Colorado is so desperate for housing that, even with this happening it's not going to affect buyers enough to matter.
They messed up a house, a HOUSE, to the point where it looked like a military target zone and the response was for SHOPLIFTING? More and more these cops have become militarized to the point of no return. Qualified immunity should be gone. I mean if these cops want to play military man like little kids then have them serve in the military first. A high school diploma shouldnt be the minimum for police to able to have access to these kinds of weapons and tactics. THEY (police departments) don't need more training, they just don't need those types of weapons. In this case the high speed pursuit is questionable itself. What if someone or worse someone's child was killed in that pursuit of a F*CKING SHOPLIFTER! If the police are that scared of a SHOPLIFTER then maybe they need some time in college to find a different job.
I was swatted Xmas's 2015 Everett mass. I still whant compinsation and restatustion. How ever long it takes. They are not going to get away with this .no right it is about right or rong..
They damaged it to the point that it was condemned, that is to me a form of taking. I remember several cases of fire departments being sued over the excessive water on a fire, doing damage to the home that the fire did not reach.
That is profoundly disturbing. The potential for abuse is staggering. We don't like that neighborhood, you keep destroying houses and turn the neighborhood into a blight. I'll bet they won't do that in a ritzy neighborhood on an armed domestic abuse.
During the incident, did the responding agencies deny the tenant or homeowner access to the property? Denying access to one's property knowingly constitutes theft, or taking property.
Steve, could the homeowner file an excessive force suit against the police at the behest of the shoplifters, then sue the shoplifter for damages? Alternatively, could the homeowner sue the "people" of the city for damages in the service of their protection for the amount of the house and psychological damages to the nine-year-old that was in the house. Best of all, would be if the people of the city just donate the cost of rebuilding the house ... maybe from the proceeds of selling the paramilitary hardware that caused the damage in the first place.
Shoplifting.... and an armed home invasion. Now, with that said, these people got screwed. They need taken care of. What was the rush? Let him sit huddled in the bathroom. Time was on their side regarding the standoff. The homeowners were victimized twice.
So if a police officer is pursuing a suspect, who's fleeing in a car, and if the police officer crashes into my car, neither the officer nor the city/town is liable for the damage that the officer caused? ... because the damage was inflicted in the line of duty?
Its interesting how when the government owes you money, they make it as difficult as possible, if not impossible, to get any of it. Or they just straight up say "no". But when YOU owe the government money, they WILL get it, even if it means helping themselves to your bank account.
I guess my question is why will municipalities not hire folks for the police departments that actually know how to do the job? Think about over the past several years, the number of shots that are fired in exchanges and no one is hit.
This wrong in so many ways. Just another reason to stay out of Colorado. You can bet if that was The police chief or the mayor they would of been compensated.
thats the problem, police are not held accountable, the courts, unions, administration, city council protect the cops from lawsuits. If it came out of the cops pocket they might think twice about their actions.
i've never read an article where police leveled a BANK because an armed robber was inside, but it's ok to level a private citizen's house because a shoplifter has barracaded themselves in it 🤦
My friend has rental property. The police came to collect evidence after the tenants were arrested. He was there with the keys to let them in. Nope, they had to kick in the door. Then they trashed the place “looking for evidence”. He called the prosecutor to complain; not only about the needless damage, but that they left tons of evidence untouched. The prosecutor agreed that the local cops are clueless thugs. He worked with the prosecutor to secure the evidence the cops missed so that it could be used. He also was not compensated for the needless damage. The town cops are clueless thugs. The state cops are the Borg. The only ones with half a brain and a soul are the sheriff deputies.
Once a police department loses the confidence , trust and support of the community they serve they become nothing more than an armed occupation
They also did $70,000 damage to the neighbors house also, which wasn't covered by their insurance. So 2 houses damaged by these idiots
EXACTLY the same thing happened in Delaware near Middletown. The police chased a guy into his parents' house. The guy refused to surrender. Then the cops literally destroyed the house, the guy was killed, and the house was condemned. The parent's insurance refused to pay, the cops and the county said "not our problem," and the people are now homeless. NONE of which was their fault.
this is how you make new criminals. take everything from a person, they have nothing to lose.
Welcome to government. Government isn't for the people anymore, it's for government.
Let me guess how much compensation the chief of police would get if that was his house. Any takers
What do you think would have happened if the shoplifter picked the mayor’s house to hole up in? Does anyone doubt the city would have paid up promptly and in full?
There is no defense for doing this, and those officers should replace their home. This is another case where the people would be much safer without law enforcement.
I read where the homeowner's insurance company finally paid $345,000 to the homeowner, to rebuild the house. Not that it makes up for the injustice the Leck's received via the court system, but, it's SOMETHING.
Had this been a law enforcement officer's house, mayor or city council it would have been handled in an entirely different manner including compensations.
Someone needs to steal something from Walmart and barricade themselves inside the judges house until the cops blow it up and see if the judge changes his mind!
Let's also not forget that Walmart has shifted the burden of their security to the public in order to save money.
What is wrong with law enforcement these days?
My friend was pulled over one day because his car resembled
a green Honda DEA and law enforcement were looking for.
The literally tore his car completely apart to the point it was not
drivable. They figured out they had the wrong car and just packed it in
and left him there alongside I75. In his case, his auto insurance
ended up totaling his car and paying him off. He never recovered a
thing from the state or the police. This crap happens all the time
and should never happen unless the police and the state are
going to compensate the owners for damages. If I were
to accidentally shoot a hole through a neighbor's house while
shooting at a varmint, I would be totally responsible for damages and
probably spend time in jail for hitting a house with
a bullet. But, apparently, if Police did the same thing
that is OK? Seriously? Fine example to set and what a way to
garner respect from the community. Right.
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." -The police, as they detonate another breaching charge
This angers me beyond anything I could imagine! Basically, the court has ruled that police can do whatever they want and the people have to pay for it.
They are saying the police can play GTA6 on the entire country and nothing can be done to stop them.
I guess it is time to secure my property behind an impenetrable dome!
Just a thought: "There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." (Battlestar Galactica, 2005).
There are better ways to deal with a shoplifter than to destroy a residential dwelling. Period.
I wonder if the police department would have shown restraint if that same shoplifter had broken into either the Mayor's or Police Chief's home, and locked himself in their bathroom?
You know they absolutely would have.
I bet you that that houses owner would've paid for that shirt and belts in a second to not have their house blown up. Hell, I'd pay for the shirt and belts to stop that guy from losing his house in this mess and I don't even know anyone involved.
And you wonder why people are getting fed up, mistrust law enforcement, lawyers, judges and politicians! The city is responsible.
“This house is an ex-house. This house is no more.”
Monty Python Dead Parrot skit reference? If so, well played, sir.
Definitely. Too many usages from that hallowed sketch to be an accident. :-D
Flashbangs, 40mm rounds, and armored vehicles to enforce shoplifting violations. Gotta love that militarized police.
Geez, cops that don't take some risks shouldn't be cops. With all that artillery the only folks taking risks are the folks in the town.
Attention shoplifters - please hole up in the houses of police officers and judges from now on.
I think the city should be responsible - the problem is, ultimately the taxpayers then get the bill for this. So it should be a 2 step fix: The city pays for it, and the cops involved -- who made decision to destroy the home - are FIRED without benefits or pay.
Do the police really think this blowing up of a house is considered reasonable force now?
I've had to park a car over the winter when it was damaged and waiting for specialized parts to be sent for repairs. During that time some hooligans broke into a few parked cars and used them to stash stolen goods(or so I was told by police.) The police in Keego Harbor effectively destroyed that car, tore everything apart that could have been hoping to find something, and I had to take the loss of the car. I was totaled, but as I only had PLPD, I didn't have any way to get any remuneration. Keego police said something along the line of well, it was involved in crime, so it's not our problem. It took me close to half a year before I was able to save enough to afford another car to drive. Having to walk/bike to work severely limited the places I could work in that time, so that didn't help.
The gestapo showed up fully armed next door to my daughters house because a random caller said someone had an assault rifle in the yard! Turned out to be two young boys with a crossman bb gun, The cops were pissed they didn't get to use all the firepower they had!
Sounds like criminal damage to property to me.
In this case the Police were not protecting anybody, I've seen them do less trying to catch a mass shooter.
$200,000 house vs $20 shirt?
It's easy to second guess the police actions but in reality that is not the issue here. The issue is that the city or agency who destroys property of an innocent person has to be held accountable financially. Regardless of the reason for their actions, justified or not, the injured party was completely innocent and should be compensated.
If this is not corrected, as you say Steve, we are ALL in danger of losing everything we own simply because the Police or some authority had the right to take an action that results in a loss to an innocent 'bystander.'
I would go shoplifting and retreat to city hall..
All over shoplifting...law enforcement and government is out of control.
Overkill or not, the city should have insurance to compensate the people for things like this.
"Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter." -George Carlin
a tip: watch movies on Flixzone. Me and my gf have been using them for watching a lot of movies during the lockdown.
@Kaison Gideon Yup, I've been using flixzone for since november myself :)
$150,000 worth of destruction, three people homeless, to retrieve a $10.00 shirt.
Sooo..government employees (judges) decided that the government did not owe any money. Put this in front of a jury.
This makes me fighting angry. The qualified immunity nonsense needs to end.
So theoretically the police could come in, blow up your house, and then use eminent domain for the current value of the property. The value of course is extremely low due to the fact that the house was just destroyed. Then the city would calculate how much money you're entitled to, which is the value of the house and land - the value of the cleanup costs. Because the cleanup costs then exceed the value of the house, the city owes you some negative number. You're then presented with a bill for whatever that negative number is. Thank you for paying the city to have your house and land stolen and blown up.
It's a slippery slope and needs to be addressed.
Don't give them idea 's
What could he possibly have stolen from Walmart that was worth blowing up someone's house?
Now there is a precident to avoid emminant domain. Just destroy a house and kick the residents out.
I can't agree with you more. The militarization of our police is a very serious problem. What happened to good ole negotiation until you talk the suspect out. The guy was a shoplifter not a terrorist.
Yes, they SHOULD be held accountable. Anyone else would have HAD to compensate the family!!!!
Ridiculous. The city is fully liable and would be insured for their police doing stuff like this. The city should owe them everything plus more. What a joke.
The police, defending a $30 theft from Walmart with $400,000 from an innocent family.
Police need to carry insidental insurance for whatever damage they do in the performance of their duties. The way they are operating now is like driving without insurance.
His insurance company did give him $345,000 but his neighbor who's house had $70K in damage got nothing from her insurance company.
I hope the Supreme Court rules in his favor and says police have to "tone it down"!
William, I'm surprised that the insurance company paid! There's usually an exclusion clause for governmental acts, riots, war, earthquakes, floods (even if a government owned dam breached), etc.
In most cases like this you don't get anything by suing. The government is the trustee for the sovereign, “We the People,” and is supposed to hand out money from the “People’s” treasury only in accordance with law. Apparently the concerned state had no law providing for “inadvertent” damages by police exercising “good faith” to be paid. You “petition” for redress of your grievance.
First off, I'm not a radical. I've served and defended my country, and I don't believe in taking innocent lives. but I can understand how people like Timothy McVeigh can get radicalized and fed up with the things that the government in the police do to American citizens.
King Don Shit is getting old real fast.
I wonder how much did the man steal from Walmart? I bet it wasn't even worth the cost of the Ammunition they used to destroy the house.
I was going to say the same thing. A couple of belts and shirts from Wal Mart probably cost less than a single breaching charge.
They did all that damage over a shoplifter?
thats what I thought, man out of control government rides again, just as a joke but where is zorro? superman? where are the heros?
@@rosesmith6208 He is in the White House.
It escalated when he shot at them.... which gave them justification to go in with an armored car.
@@jockmonque8435 giving MORE military equipment to local police. Also, fun fact, more restictive gun legislation than during Obama. Strange hero sir!
that was the least of his crimes. you could refer to him as an armed home invader if you wanted to be honest.
Doesn't the use of deadly weapons like that qualify as excessive force for a friggin' shoplifter?
Lesson to lawbreakers: hide out and barricade yourself in houses owned by government officials.
I bet the judges that ruled against those people would have sung a different tune if it was their house. Or family or friend's house.
It would be so ironic if the same thing happen to one of those judges. (Not that I wish it would happen)
Many judges are elected.....perhaps going after them by filing lawsuits against them individually, may not do any good but they would have to,defend it which goes into public record
Unbelievable , over a shoplifter who had a couple pieces of clothing. Police out of control.
Just proves that none of the bill of rights have any teeth w/o the second to defend from tyranny.
Since the police, their equipment, and their facilities, as well as their operating expenses are paid by the taxpayers in the city (via taxes) so that all the residents in the city get the benefit of the services provided by the police, isn't it reasonable (as a claim in court) that any damage done by the police in enforcing their responsibilities is an operating expense, which should be paid by the police as a cost of "doing business" paid by all the taxpayers in the city. The one taxpayer with the damage should not be required to pay all the cost. It should be shared by all the taxpayers (as part of the city's expenses).
I remember back in the day, a guy built a "death dozer" and commensed to destroying the town. Sounds like a good time for someone to build another one.
"whatever it takes to get home" is said by law enforcement a lot now a days. It is the rally cry of cowards. In any other situation it would be unacceptable. If you went up to a fire fighter and said "my child is in that burning house" if they responded with "sorry whatever it takes to go home" you would call them a coward. If a sergeant told his troops to charge a hill and they all said "remember? Whatever it takes to get home!" they would be cowards. But when a cop decides to go robocop and destroy peoples lives it is somehow considered acceptable? This is why people hate cops.
There's a certain amount of that in the military as well. "Take that hill" "But there's enemies there" "OK, air/artillery strike the hill out of existence, along with anything on it." Not all the time, of course, no more than police use excessive force all the time, but sufficiently frequently to be a rallying cry for the relatives of the people who once lived on or near the hill.
This kind of thing is why anti-police extremists exist.
They should have filed a claim against the city insurance. They argument should have been filed more along the line for careless and reckless endangerment or willful destruction of private property.
Good thing for the rest of the neighborhood they didn't call in a air strike
Shirt and belts from walmart $25.00
Money spent chasing perpetrator $500.00
Destruction of innocent family's home $Priceless
If I deprive somebody of the use of their property by destroying it, how is that effectively any different from "taking" it as far as they are concerned? Vandalism is still a crime, isn't it?
While the suspect was armed and fleeing, he wasn't taking hostages or he wouldn't have let the kid go. While the damage might be justified ( given that he fired a shot at the police), refusing to pay for the damage is unconscionable.
it would seem that these people were deprived of the use of their property, therefore it was taken
Citizen: Aren't you worried about destroying that property?
Police: Don't worry, I'll be fine.
Do whatever you can to remove that judge and judges like him/her. Whatever you can.
If I were the owner, I would put all my efforts into getting every last elected official in the city recalled and removed from office. Or defeated in the next election if a recall is not allowed. And once you had them gone, work to replace them with people that would replace every appointed official. Completely clean house and replace all those self-serving bureaucrats with people that will actually serve their constituents. Just an FYI. Greenwood Village is a relatively affluent suburb of Denver. They can easily afford to compensate the homeowner.
You can see the problem in the videos with the police in their para-military gear. Why would they need camouflage? They're playing toy soldier.
An excellent argument would be: If the guy had sought refuge in a house belonging to the Chief of the Department would the same tactics have been used? If so, would the City pay to have the house rebuilt? Or, would the City have told him "Too bad!"
This is what happens when you give law enforcement military hardware.
If this happened to me I would a little trip around town.
Whenever I found an unoccupied police car, I would set them on fire.
No more cop cars.
I don’t see how the result is not a taking, they so severely damaged a home that they came in afterwards and condemned the property and now they will be demolishing the property. How is that not a “taking” of at least the house itself and is not a house property? I assume they also intend to come after the homeowner for the demolition costs as well? After all, why not add further insult to injury.
What the actual fuck? I feel like we're living in a dystopian novel. Absolutely ridiculous.
Police need to pay. Period. Full stop.
Let’s face it, as a big supporter of the police I too think this is BS. Not only should the supervisor on scene be fired, but the homeowner compensated. This case should be appealed.
Seems like it would have been more cost-effective for the village to just buy the house at its former fair market value. The litigation and reputational cost was probably far more expensive. Their stance can result in lower property values (and property tax collected) because people may not want to buy homes in that village, knowing that the house might get blown up by the cops. I used to work for Sarasota County and am fairly certain the County Attorney would recommend that the Board of County Commissioners quickly approve full reimbursement. They realize the economic harm from the negative publicity would be more costly than just paying up.
The city and police department will likely see no negative effects from this. People in Colorado is so desperate for housing that, even with this happening it's not going to affect buyers enough to matter.
They messed up a house, a HOUSE, to the point where it looked like a military target zone and the response was for SHOPLIFTING? More and more these cops have become militarized to the point of no return. Qualified immunity should be gone. I mean if these cops want to play military man like little kids then have them serve in the military first. A high school diploma shouldnt be the minimum for police to able to have access to these kinds of weapons and tactics. THEY (police departments) don't need more training, they just don't need those types of weapons. In this case the high speed pursuit is questionable itself. What if someone or worse someone's child was killed in that pursuit of a F*CKING SHOPLIFTER! If the police are that scared of a SHOPLIFTER then maybe they need some time in college to find a different job.
So they're not legally responsible but they're still morally responsible.
And they wonder why they're disliked.
I was swatted Xmas's 2015 Everett mass. I still whant compinsation and restatustion. How ever long it takes. They are not going to get away with this .no right it is about right or rong..
How much can anyone shoplift that it warrants destroying someone else’s house?!
They damaged it to the point that it was condemned, that is to me a form of taking. I remember several cases of fire departments being sued over the excessive water on a fire, doing damage to the home that the fire did not reach.
We have enough laws on the books. This is so simple it should be an obvious community debt. It was presumably damaged to protect the public.
If this was the mayors home you can guarantee that no one would have fired a shot and, if they did they would definitely have to pay for it.
Militarization of police? At least the military understands proportionality.
That is profoundly disturbing. The potential for abuse is staggering. We don't like that neighborhood, you keep destroying houses and turn the neighborhood into a blight. I'll bet they won't do that in a ritzy neighborhood on an armed domestic abuse.
During the incident, did the responding agencies deny the tenant or homeowner access to the property? Denying access to one's property knowingly constitutes theft, or taking property.
Steve, could the homeowner file an excessive force suit against the police at the behest of the shoplifters, then sue the shoplifter for damages?
Alternatively, could the homeowner sue the "people" of the city for damages in the service of their protection for the amount of the house and psychological damages to the nine-year-old that was in the house.
Best of all, would be if the people of the city just donate the cost of rebuilding the house ... maybe from the proceeds of selling the paramilitary hardware that caused the damage in the first place.
Shoplifting.... and an armed home invasion.
Now, with that said, these people got screwed. They need taken care of.
What was the rush? Let him sit huddled in the bathroom. Time was on their side regarding the standoff.
The homeowners were victimized twice.
And yet many police departments have policies to call off high speed chases because of worry about property damage and possible injuries.
So if a police officer is pursuing a suspect, who's fleeing in a car, and if the police officer crashes into my car, neither the officer nor the city/town is liable for the damage that the officer caused? ... because the damage was inflicted in the line of duty?
Its interesting how when the government owes you money, they make it as difficult as possible, if not impossible, to get any of it. Or they just straight up say "no". But when YOU owe the government money, they WILL get it, even if it means helping themselves to your bank account.
And reasons like this are why more and more people do not trust the police or the goverment.
I guess my question is why will municipalities not hire folks for the police departments that actually know how to do the job? Think about over the past several years, the number of shots that are fired in exchanges and no one is hit.
This wrong in so many ways. Just another reason to stay out of Colorado.
You can bet if that was The police chief or the mayor they would of been compensated.
why are cops militarized?
At the 2:00 mark is an extremely subtle Monty Python reference (The Parrot Sketch). This is why I love Steve's humor.
The police, police us, but who will police the police?
When the police are personally responsible for such over reach only then will more reasonable law enforcement actions be used.
thats the problem, police are not held accountable, the courts, unions, administration, city council protect the cops from lawsuits. If it came out of the cops pocket they might think twice about their actions.