Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 163 posts

Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says

#31

Post by golergka »

epistasis wrote: post #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 a…

> over a single armed man

Who's firing at the police officers and is in the same building as an innocent bystander, 9 year old boy. Seriously, this situation could've easily gone much uglier than property damage really fast.

Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says

#32

Post by SapporoChris »

huffmsa wrote: post #27
SapporoChris wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize the suspect was firing at police officers? I am in no way defending the destruction of a home. However, I do realize this is not a situation where a couple of officers can be posted outside the home and wait the situation out. An armed suspect firing out of a home is a clear and present danger to the community. edited to add quote Who drives armored cars? People who expect gun-fire. Usually people with so…

Unless he had one of those drum magazine glocks, he'd have been out of ammo after 15-45 rounds (depending on if he had backup magazines). They could have just parked the APC out front and waited a bit. No need to crash it through the front door.

I agree, no need to destroy the house. But significant activity would be required to secure the neighborhood. There have been instances where innocent bystanders get shot.

I've never been shot at, but I suspect there is probably a very aggressive response that humans have to be shot at. A response serves well in most situations, not so much in this one.

I'd love to see more training for the police officers to help in situations, but I don't see tax payers wanting to pay for it.

My outrage really isn't at the police officers actions, but I understand being outraged about it. My outrage is at the courts. Although I do understand it appears this gentleman may have selected the wrong court.

Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says

#33

Post by tolien »

golergka wrote: post #31
epistasis wrote: post #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 a…

> over a single armed man Who's firing at the police officers and is in the same building as an innocent bystander, 9 year old boy. Seriously, this situation could've easily gone much uglier than property damage really fast.

> The boy, who was home alone when the gunman entered, was able to get out of the house safely.

Not to mention the safety issues of firing tear gas into the building, blowing out the windows and driving an APC into it if he wasn’t already out…

Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says

#34

Post by rebuilder »

nosianu wrote: post #9
rebuilder wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you go to the court to get a ruling on a specific claim and the court rules on that claim, I don't think you can call that a technicality.

Now, why the lawyer recommended this line of action is an interesting question. My uneducated guess would be that there was precedent in favour of the police, and framing it as a constitutional issue was seen to be the best possibility.

As a whole, this entire thing sounds insane, of course. But the court did what they were supposed to do, it's the rest of this whole story that is messed up.

Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says

#35

Post by oefrha »

epistasis wrote: post #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 a…

> the suspect stole two belts and a shirt from a Walmart.

A petty thief who stole $50 worth of merchandise was armed with a gun. That's your problem and that's what led to the overreactions.

Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says

#36

Post by diffeomorphism »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #18
diffeomorphism wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explicitly the opposite of what was said.

It says that this would not be permissible under eminent domain, but as the act happened as part of a strategic decision it is acceptable police behavior. "It's ok if the police does it" is a fair summary.

> but as the act happened as part of a strategic decision it is acceptable police behavior.

No, they made no comment on whether that is acceptable. The court case was about "alleging violations of the Takings Clause". The court said that this clause does not apply in this case:

- (1) when a state acts pursuant to its police power, rather than the power of eminent domain, its actions do not constitute a taking.

- (3) any damage to the Lechs’ home therefore fell outside the ambit of the Takings Clause.

This does not say anything about it being "ok if the police does it" or even comments on whether it is okay at all. It just says that they sued over the wrong law.

Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says

#37

Post by tolien »

SapporoChris wrote: post #32
huffmsa wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless he had one of those drum magazine glocks, he'd have been out of ammo after 15-45 rounds (depending on if he had backup magazines). They could have just parked the APC out front and waited a bit. No need to crash it through the front door.

I agree, no need to destroy the house. But significant activity would be required to secure the neighborhood. There have been instances where innocent bystanders get shot. I've never been shot at, but I suspect there is probably a very aggressive response that humans have to be shot at. A response serves well in most situations, not so much in this one. I'd love to see more training for the police officers to help in…

> I'd love to see more training for the police officers to help in situations, but I don't see tax payers wanting to pay for it

I don’t think it’s more training they need, but different training (so rather than more money, it’s a matter of spending the money they already have differently).

A whole industry has sprung up of ex-military personnel and LEOs providing training which isn’t far off the sort of thing you’d get for a tour of Afghanistan; unsurprisingly when you train and equip people as if they’re going to a war zone they then act and use that equipment as if they’re in a war zone.

Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says

#38

Post by krageon »

epistasis wrote: post #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 a…

> starting to believe

When it is founded on hard evidence I think belief is not the right term to use.

Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says

#39

Post by ptah »

dbdjfjrjvebd wrote: post #24
Sharlin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Establishing precedent is important, especially in common law jurisdictions.

Not causing the general public to fear and mistrust the police is even more important.

too late

Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says

#40

Post by hanlonGetFucked »

huffmsa wrote: post #14
akerro wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There more extreme cases: >Who Pays When The DEA Destroys Your Vehicle And Kills Your Employee During A Botched Sting? Hint: Not The DEA https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150428/16401530826/who-p...

> The judge points out that Villasana also testified that he was "not aware" of any policy instructing him to notify the vehicle's owner of its potential use in a drug sting operation Ah, ignorance of the law. Fine for them, not for you. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

With the DEA's penchant for "parallel construction" on the table, other ideas enjoy improved probability.

If the DEA is often drawing upon unconstitutional sources of information to build constitutional evidence as it constructs cases against organized crime, what does it do with unconstitutional information in all other situations?

Answer: whatever it wants.

Hanlon's razor must be deemed dull and rusty here, since the posture and stance of the DEA reeks of malice, and parallel construction techniques certainly preclude ignorance, if not incompetence.

Maybe the DEA had a clue about why a small time trucker might make for such a useful idiot.

Maybe they had a clue about how to lean on someone in just the right way, to march them into suicidal danger.

Maybe they knew they were going to walk away from this disaster in the making, before they even approached the guys, and they their hands would stay clean.

Maybe they arrived at a decision that they couldn't bring a case against this guy, but they could definitely take his company out of the game, and they decided that they knew enough turn a blind eye to absolutely lethal moral hazards, and hobble a company they disdained.

It probably smells like an extrajudicial action because it is.

Post reply on HN