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

131–140 of 163 posts

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

#131

Post by huffmsa »

belenos46 wrote: post #88
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Paying for a $3k or so license, have the ATF, FBI and whatever other alphabet soup agencies turn your history inside out, and then buying one of hundred few, $10k+ fully automatic weapons.

People who buy them don't go on shooting sprees.

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

#132

Post by kerkeslager »

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.

> 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.

Yes, it could have. The cops could have shot the 9 year old boy.

I'm not sure how you can see a man with a gun shooting at people and think the solution is more men with guns shooting at people.

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

#133

Post by huffmsa »

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.

Correct, but the National Firearms Act of 1934 which actually bans the sale of machine guns and other automatic rifles is still alive and well.

"Assault weapons" is a meaningless phrase.

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

#134

Post by merpnderp »

oefrha wrote: post #116
merpnderp wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not sure it’s my writing or your reading comprehension lacking. Elsewhere with sane firearms control (most countries?), petty thieves don’t tend to carry guns. Americans like to beat around the bush when the single worst catalyst for tension is lying right there in plain sight.

Mexico just called, they said they made carrying a single bullet worth years in jail. Rumor has it they have a serious armed petty (and not so petty) crime problem.

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

#135

Post by ironchest »

zaroth wrote: post #84
ironchest wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pickin…

no, you're right. I was a bit too fast on judging. If they had reason to think he was armed, then I'm less uncomfortable. Thanks.

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

#136

Post by mattacular »

zaroth wrote: post #84
ironchest wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pickin…

That account (in the linked tweets) makes absolutely no sense. It actually brings up more questions than it answers. Since it's very vague we will just have to assume never once was the alleged gun found on the person they finally arrested or anyone else. It's of course unclear if he was actually the person "described" (as male, no further details given) in the report. And of course you'll also have to take the NYPD at their word in a prepared statement to the press as to the veracity of this report they allegedly received about "man with a gun." I wonder how'd they find this unrelated man without gun they ultimately arrested based on such a thorough description ... ?

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

#137

Post by merpnderp »

ameister14 wrote: post #125
merpnderp wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except that when you call the cops, you are escalating the situation to include a potentially violent actor. You might want justice, but most people just want help. Multiple times I can name the cops have been called to help and have instead shot innocent people.

Why should I assume someone is a rational actor? Why should I take the risk? I pay taxes for professionals who have taken training on how to handle these situations to take that risk. You might live in some nice friendly suburb, but when I saw my neighbor and asked her very politely if there was something she could do about her dog barking all night, her husband came out and threatened violence if I ever talked to his wife again. The cops are here to deal with people like that.

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

#138

Post by p_l »

jimueller wrote: post #60

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.

It was condemned by the city. It was not salvageable.

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

#139

Post by oefrha »

merpnderp wrote: post #134
oefrha wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure it’s my writing or your reading comprehension lacking. Elsewhere with sane firearms control (most countries?), petty thieves don’t tend to carry guns. Americans like to beat around the bush when the single worst catalyst for tension is lying right there in plain sight.

Mexico just called, they said they made carrying a single bullet worth years in jail. Rumor has it they have a serious armed petty (and not so petty) crime problem.

To refute my point on U.S. gun control, you point me to a country whose gun violence is almost exclusively fueled by guns trafficked from the U.S. Really strong argument.

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

#140

Post by eloff »

thomascgalvin wrote: post #130
eloff wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't seem out of control. This man was firing at police. That warrants a SWAT response. You've got a very high risk of officers getting killed. What is fucked up is that there's no law that requires the government to compensate the homeowner.

> This man was firing at police. That warrants a SWAT response. Absolutely. And there is no reason they couldn't have cut utilities to the property, set up a perimeter, and waited him out. One of the biggest problems with SWAT teams today is that they seem to feel that they have failed if they don't go in all-a-Rambo. Protocol should be just the opposite: the most successful missions are the ones where a cop never ha…

Yeah, that would have been better, at least given what we know of the situation.
Post reply on HN