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

81–90 of 163 posts

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

#81

Post by homonculus1 »

refurb wrote: post #74
Symmetry wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. There is no federal “assault weapons” laws, they expired in 2004. In most states you can purchase one, some states (CA, NY,CT) have banned them.

"Assault weapons" is a purposely misleading term designed to generate the confusion with "assault rifles" that you're currently experiencing. Assault rifles are indeed illegal to purchase without extensive paperwork and fees, and then only if the weapon itself was registered and grandfathered in before 1986. These weapons are heavily regulated and cost tens of thousands of dollars, despite being effectively never used in crime even at the time they were banned.

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

#82

Post by merpnderp »

nvahalik wrote: post #73
Dumblydorr wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 arbi…

> Why do they deserve massive power? They don't. We've given it to them willingly. It has been granted to them by every person who has chosen to "outsource" dealing with their problems to the police. Loud neighbor? Call the cops. Something doesn't look right at the house down the street? Call the cops. Someone breaking into your home? Call the cops. As a society, many, many of us have forgotten how (or even why) we o…

Maybe because we want justice and not just whomever is more willing to escalate violence to win. Without the cops, any criminal interaction just becomes who’s willing to shoot first.

You speak of loud neighbors? In my town a guy was just murdered a few weeks ago over a long running feud about a loud dog. The two homeowners had tried to settle it many times by fighting until one brought a gun.

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

#83

Post by tooop »

nvahalik wrote: post #79
BubRoss wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a loud neighbor you personally fight them? The problem here is not that police are carrying out violence that should be enacted by citizens. I think you have misunderstood the need for accountability, not self reliance when it comes to using force.

No, my point here is that a lot of people don't interact with their neighbors at all. I've had loud neighbors in the past and when I've had a problem gone directly to them and asked them to rectify said issue. They have generally complied. The point is that if we were all better in "public relations" and de-escalation, we wouldn't need the cops at all. But if the default answer is just simply "call the cops" then peo…

If everybody was a first class citizen - sure, we don't need cops, but that is not the reality. It is easier to call the cops instead of doing "PR" with a chance for it to get physical and there are probably quite a lot of examples of just that.

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

#84

Post by zaroth »

ironchest wrote: post #65
panic wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is the video they're referring to: https://twitter.com/PopChassid/status/1187838293104304130

wat, is that for not paying the fair? that's utterly insane.

No, they were responding to reports of a man with a gun, the man fled the cops into the subway, they followed him there when he managed to jump on a train and evade the cops.

This video was them picking him up at the next station. They just stated the charge for arresting him was not paying the fare.

You have a man that officers tried to question who fled into a subway train and who is reportedly armed. You’re picking him up at the next station from a loaded train on a crowded platform.

Please with 20-20 hindsight spitball how you think this should have gone down?

https://twitter.com/DMoritzRabson/status/1188216667127476224...

https://twitter.com/DMoritzRabson/status/1188553063738548227...

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

#85

Post by merpnderp »

oefrha wrote: post #35
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.

The new rules people seem to be advocating for is you can commit low level crimes and the police won’t follow you, as long as you carry a gun. Which is crazy. The cops did nothing wrong blowing up that house as long as they were willing to pay for it. If they can’t pay for it they should have stationed some cops to wait him out. But armed fugitives need to handled lest they murder someone.

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

#86

Post by jawns »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #36
boomboomsubban wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

> when a state acts pursuant to its police power, rather than the power of eminent domain, its actions do not constitute a taking

Isn't that moving the goalposts, though?

What this ruling effectively says is that as long as the state doesn't invoke eminent domain to take a citizen's property, then it's not eminent domain, even if the end result is that a citizen's property is taken?

I would much prefer a reading of eminent domain that says if a government invokes its authority to seize or destroys a citizen's property, regardless of its justification for doing so, then that's Taking.

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

#87

Post by merpnderp »

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?

You’re being pretty cavalier with the lives of the cops. Why shouldn’t they use armored vehicles to handle some asshole shooting at them and starting a firefight in a residential neighborhood?

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

#88

Post by belenos46 »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #54
ljm wrote: post #43

Earlier 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.

No. That is incorrect. Even fully automatic long-guns (think AK47, AR-15 with a full-auto mod) can be owned legally after paying for the license with the ATF.

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

#89

Post by merpnderp »

lvturner wrote: post #6

I'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?)

So your rules would allow people to steal as long as they use a gun and then shoot at the police? “Okay Fred, he’s got a gun and oh yep, he just fired at us, time to let him go. He really earned those belts this time.”

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

#90

Post by afandian »

nvahalik wrote: post #73
Dumblydorr wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 arbi…

> Why do they deserve massive power? They don't. We've given it to them willingly. It has been granted to them by every person who has chosen to "outsource" dealing with their problems to the police. Loud neighbor? Call the cops. Something doesn't look right at the house down the street? Call the cops. Someone breaking into your home? Call the cops. As a society, many, many of us have forgotten how (or even why) we o…

The dominant group has not only outsourced the 'dealing' but also outsourced the externalities to minority groups.

I'm coming from the UK perspective, so our police are less trigger-happy and mostly unarmed but certainly have a very dark side. Historically was more likely that the black / Irish / gay / minority-du-jour person ended up lying at the bottom of the stairs in the police station than a straight white person. (Edit: originally phrased in present tense)

Maybe the dominant group would be less happy to outsource it if they or their parents had also been on the receiving end.

Post reply on HN