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

51–60 of 163 posts

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

#51

Post by koolba »

smcl wrote: post #17
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…

Precisely. The Police are keen to do little "viral" stunts like shooting hoops with kids or buying shoes for homeless guys (ok, fine things to do) ... but when it really comes down to stuff that actually matters - the countless killings and general misery they cause to minorities - they close ranks and put on a united front, and often have the audacity to play the victim. This is why "ACAB" takes hold. They 100% get…

What’s ACAB?

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

#52

Post by acdha »

tolien wrote: post #37
SapporoChris wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

It’s worth noting that the vets I know are somewhat offended by that comparison because they had considerable training about use of force to prevent things like this — their commanders cared about the residents’ opinion of them far more than many police departments seem to.

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

#53

Post by smcl »

koolba wrote: post #51
smcl wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely. The Police are keen to do little "viral" stunts like shooting hoops with kids or buying shoes for homeless guys (ok, fine things to do) ... but when it really comes down to stuff that actually matters - the countless killings and general misery they cause to minorities - they close ranks and put on a united front, and often have the audacity to play the victim. This is why "ACAB" takes hold. They 100% get…

What’s ACAB?

It stands for "All Cops Are Bastards"

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

#54

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

ljm wrote: post #43
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…

"He was firing a gun at cops!" seems like such a lame defence to me. This is the US we're talking about, where someone can unload an assault rifle inside a school or a church and render the entire nation powerless, lest the issue be politicised. You don't see the cops rolling a tank through the school cafeteria to try and smoke the gunman out. Just imagining that is utterly absurd! But this though... oh no. A single…

Actually, I think assault rifles cannot be legally owned by civilians in the US. I'm not from, or living there so corrections are welcome but I remember that the Texas gunman had a special setup that allowed his weapons to fire in automatic mode, or something close to.

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

#55

Post by dbdjfjrjvebd »

100100010001 wrote: post #30
dbdjfjrjvebd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wouldn’t law enforcement getting away with crimes cause fear? It seems like it would show they are above the law and can act like bullies without repercussions. Admitting a mistake and trying to make it right will gain trust.

Yes that is what I was saying.

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

#56

Post by jmpman »

bertronic wrote: post #47

According to coverage by The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/30/police-blew... “His expenses to rebuild the house and replace all its contents cost him nearly $400,000, he said. While insurance did cover structural damage initially, his son did not have renter’s insurance and so insurance did not cover replacement of the home’s contents, and he says he is still in debt today from loans h…

I agree that he was underinsured, but if he were properly insured, I’d expect the insurance company to sue to the police department. The police department should be self insured by the city, which then causes citizen outrage over increased taxes, which then causes politicians to reign in the out of control police force.... at least that’s how the control system should work.

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

#57

Post by topkai22 »

100100010001 wrote: post #26
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #23

One would assume that if the damaged caused by the police was justifiable, then the responsibility for damage compensation lies with the criminal suspect in the case - and if they're unable to compensate the homeowner then the remainder should come from the municipality or state's general victims' fund. Does Denver or CO have such a fund?

I wouldn’t qualify using military grade equipment in Colorado for stealing two belts and a shirt justifiable.

It wasn't for a belt and two shirts, it was for attempted murder of police officers. Yes, the interaction might have started with simple shoplifting, but the suspect began firing at police officers.

The home was destroyed after a 19 hour stand off with a intoxicated subject who continued to take meth throughout the standoff, during which the suspect continued to fire at police, and after which the suspect was apprehended alive. I'm trying to think of a more justifiable use of force outside of a hostage situation, but I'm having trouble thinking of one.

See https://kdvr.com/2015/06/08/greenwood-village-police-standof... for a bit more background.

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

#58

Post by afarrell »

gldalmaso wrote: post #49
golergka wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Is it common for the police to resort to explosives and military vehicles to handle a single armed person? Or maybe they have just too much leftover military toys and are eager to play with them?

If your employer had an option available which could significantly reduce your risk of dying on the job, what would you prefer that they prioritise above taking that option?

A) The lives of bystanders

B) The property of bystanders

C) The cost of equipment

D) The aesthetics of equipment

Personally, say:

- Definitely A.

- B & C at some point if the cost/risk is above a certain amount...but what is that number?

- Never D.

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

#59

Post by appleflaxen »

koolba wrote: post #51
smcl wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely. The Police are keen to do little "viral" stunts like shooting hoops with kids or buying shoes for homeless guys (ok, fine things to do) ... but when it really comes down to stuff that actually matters - the countless killings and general misery they cause to minorities - they close ranks and put on a united front, and often have the audacity to play the victim. This is why "ACAB" takes hold. They 100% get…

What’s ACAB?

It stands for "All Cops Are Bastards", and is a common graffiti tag.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.C.A.B.

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

#60

Post by jimueller »

Before we get all crazy here, he decided to tear down the house on his own. It wasn't blown up. Heavily damaged yes? Salvagable, probably. Insurance game him money. He spent a bunch of money on a bigger new house.

It's like getting into a car accident and going to buy a nicer, more expensive car before the insurance comes back. Sure you can do it, but that's on you to pay.

Post reply on HN