Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says
1–10 of 163 posts
Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says
#2"According to the Lechs, the defendants’ conduct amounts to a taking because (1) the officers physically intruded upon and ultimately destroyed their home and (2) such a “physical appropriation of property gives rise to a per se taking.” Aplt. Br. 9. The defendants, on the other hand, argue that no taking occurred because the officers damaged the Lechs’ home pursuant to the police power, not the power of eminent domain. The district court agreed with the defendants: it concluded that “the tactical decisions that ultimately destroyed [the Lechs’] home were made pursuant to the state’s police powers and not the power of eminent domain.” App. vol. 2, 399. Thus, the district court ruled, the defendants’conduct did not constitute a taking for purposes of the Taking Clause."
Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says
#3"According to the Lechs, the defendants’ conduct amounts to a taking because (1) the officers physically intruded upon and ultimately destroyed their home and (2) such a “physical appropriation of property gives rise to a per se taking.” Aplt. Br. 9. The defendants, on the other hand, argue that no taking occurred because the officers damaged the Lechs’ home pursuant to the police power, not the power of eminent doma…
It's ok if the police does it.
Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says
#4"According to the Lechs, the defendants’ conduct amounts to a taking because (1) the officers physically intruded upon and ultimately destroyed their home and (2) such a “physical appropriation of property gives rise to a per se taking.” Aplt. Br. 9. The defendants, on the other hand, argue that no taking occurred because the officers damaged the Lechs’ home pursuant to the police power, not the power of eminent doma…
Yes, it seems important to note this court ruled on whether police actions violated the takings clause, not on, e.g., whether the police were justified in their use of force, or even if the homeowner should be compensated on some other grounds.
Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says
#5There was a similar, though less spectacular, case in the UK, in which the police spent more on lawyers successfully defending the case than it would have cost to compensate the person whose door they had smashed down in the middle of the night because they had incompetently got the wrong address.
Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says
#6I'm just amazed at how the theft of two belts and a shirt from Walmart escalated to the point where a house blew up. It's like something out of a comedy calamity movie.
How common is escalation like this during the course of law enforcement? (I'm hoping this is an extreme case?)
Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says
#7> Authorities say the suspect stole two belts and a shirt from a Walmart. After he left the store, police say, he broke into Lech's house for protection and was firing at officers with a handgun. Eventually, SWAT officers entered the home and apprehended him.
...
> The court noted that if police officers "willfully or wantonly" destroy property, they can be sued in a civil tort case. Lech tried to pursue that legal argument in Colorado state court, but he was not successful.
Here is the real problem. Eminent domain is clearly not the right strategy.
But when a police department is so out of control that they damage a home enough to get it condemned, over a single armed man, and they are not considered to have acted to wantonly destroy property, our society is seriously screwed up.
Every day, these sort of toxic over reactions and abuse of power are making people think less and less of police power. Even those that the police do not abuse are starting to believe the "ACAB" line.
Police need to start admitting to being able to make mistakes, because when they refuse to admit to any error when they have made obvious errors, they look morally weak and we stop thinking they deserve any of the massive amount of power we see them abuse.
Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says
#8There was a similar, though less spectacular, case in the UK, in which the police spent more on lawyers successfully defending the case than it would have cost to compensate the person whose door they had smashed down in the middle of the night because they had incompetently got the wrong address.
Establishing precedent is important, especially in common law jurisdictions.
Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says
#9"According to the Lechs, the defendants’ conduct amounts to a taking because (1) the officers physically intruded upon and ultimately destroyed their home and (2) such a “physical appropriation of property gives rise to a per se taking.” Aplt. Br. 9. The defendants, on the other hand, argue that no taking occurred because the officers damaged the Lechs’ home pursuant to the police power, not the power of eminent doma…
Yes, it seems important to note this court ruled on whether police actions violated the takings clause, not on, e.g., whether the police were justified in their use of force, or even if the homeowner should be compensated on some other grounds.
What's the point of the law if you can get lost dealing in technicalities at the cost of complete and utter disregard for outcomes?
Sure, everybody is technically correct. Loosely reminds of of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_t... -- people getting caught in admiring the cleverness of their arguments and forgetting what the whole original purpose was. Or when some gamers spending more time in the virtual fantasy world then in the real one, solving "challenges" there rather than here.
Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says
#10"According to the Lechs, the defendants’ conduct amounts to a taking because (1) the officers physically intruded upon and ultimately destroyed their home and (2) such a “physical appropriation of property gives rise to a per se taking.” Aplt. Br. 9. The defendants, on the other hand, argue that no taking occurred because the officers damaged the Lechs’ home pursuant to the police power, not the power of eminent doma…
It's ok if the police does it.
Explicitly the opposite of what was said.