It is only just
Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says
61–70 of 163 posts
Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says
#62> 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…
Why do they deserve massive power? That was not constitutionally mandated, it is local, state, and national politics related to drugs and motor traffic that seems to have given cops now more violence and also more ubiquity. What if police didn't have outsized reactions to recreational drug use or minor non violent offenses? What if they weren't getting their revenue from seizing assets and catching motorists for arbitrary speed tickets?
Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says
#63There 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.
I wonder how that squares with the Peelian principles, policing by consent, in the UK.
Do you have a reference?
Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I agree with the use of force since the robber was armed, but in the end refusing any compensation is an awful choice that also sends the wrong message: next time make an attempt to trade with the robber but don't call the police.
Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says
#65Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
That’s a fair point! A better comparison might be with something like Blackwater, i.e unaccountable thugs with guns, or with a combat environment where there are no civilians to get in the way.
Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It is preposterous to suggest that every other option would have created more risk for the police.
The issue here is not one of giving the police protection, it is one of misuse (to put it mildly) of the equipment intended for that purpose.
Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says
#68Earlier 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?
"All Cops Are Bastards" - It's to do with all individual police officers, who could be perfectly moral upstanding citizens, being complicit with an institution that has done terrible things.
It's more of a reaction to the idea of changing an institution from the inside.
Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says
#69If we were to distribute the costs across different parties, how could we do it, and who could be included in this distribution? - The suspect - Mr Lech (owner of damaged property) - Mr Lech's insurance - The police department / other involved agencies / city - The store from which the belt was stolen - Insurance for the store from which the belt was stolen - Individual police officers or superiors who made a call fo…
Nit:
"The store from which the belt was stolen" should probably go under Mr Lech - or at least equivalent.
Re: Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
They can be retained by people who had bought them before 1994 them but buying one is incredibly difficult in terms of money and paperwork.