Police Owe Nothing to Man Whose Home They Blew Up, Appeals Court Says • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by diffeomorphism » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 4:00 PM UTC

jawns wrote: post #86

diffeomorphism wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 e…

I am not sure that is preferable.

If "a government invokes its authority to seize or destroys a citizen's property" what does it derive this authority from?

If it is from eminent domain it is allowed to do A but must follow rules B.

If it is not from eminent domain, such as in this case, the first question is not whether it has to follow rules B, but whether it is allowed to do A at all.

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

#142

Post by justforyou » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 4:26 PM UTC

Konnstann wrote: post #104

nvahalik wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Wait what do you do when someone breaks into your house? Grab a bat and go fight them? That's an easy way to get stabbed or shot.

>> Wait what do you do when someone breaks into your house? Grab a bat and go fight them? That's an easy way to get stabbed or shot.

Right back at you. Do you seriously run away?

Is that your response to any situatuon that includes potential danger?

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

#143

Post by ameister14 » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 4:26 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #137

ameister14 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hi…

I do not live in the suburbs. I live in Flatbush. It is my experience that the cops are there to represent the State and it is the right of the state to use violence. We hope they only do it when it's absolutely necessary, but we all know that's not what happens.

Sure, call the cops if you need to interact with a violent person. A better solution with neighbors is usually to build a relationship with them when you aren't needing their dog to stop barking, so that when you ask for a favor (which is what that is) they are more likely to grant it. Sometimes, they don't. What do you want the cops to do about it? Shoot the dog? Fine them? You still have your neighbor.

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

#144

Post by zaroth » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 5:09 PM UTC

mattacular wrote: post #136

zaroth wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you want to make a summary judgement based on incomplete evidence, the only reasonable course of action is to assume the best of the person you are ruling against.

That’s how it works in a court of law, but I find it’s a good way to catch yourself when drawing conclusions based on speculation.

The video clearly shows a train with closed doors and large contingent of police corralling a specific train car and cornering a specific suspect. That seems to correlate well with an identified person who fled and got away at the prior station; they knew who they were going after, and had time to assemble a force to confront the person. Obviously the size of the force and the rapidity of response supports the notion that they thought the person was a danger and wanted to very quickly subdue them in a crowded area.

All in all it seems like a professional operation designed to be prepared for a worst case scenario and to try to control a situation with potentially deadly consequences if it got out of hand.

When someone is fleeing from the police and was reported to be armed, I would absolutely expect that they are going to take extreme precautions especially in a crowded space.

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

#145

Post by b5n » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 6:07 PM UTC

justforyou wrote: post #142

Konnstann wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait what do you do when someone breaks into your house? Grab a bat and go fight them? That's an easy way to get stabbed or shot.

>> Wait what do you do when someone breaks into your house? Grab a bat and go fight them? That's an easy way to get stabbed or shot. Right back at you. Do you seriously run away? Is that your response to any situatuon that includes potential danger?

In a self defense scenario running away (if you have a clear and safe exit) is the best possible option. If someone is breaking into your house from the front, and you can safely exit the back - GTFO to safety and call law enforcement.

That being said, if your back is against the wall you have every right to defend yourself.

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

#146

Post by gmiller123456 » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 6:50 PM UTC

maest wrote: post #69

koliber wrote: post #46

If 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.

I'd disagree. I don't know the policies of this specific store, but most merchants have policies against their own security trying to apprehend someone or calling the police while they're still on the premises to avoid the possible damage and bad experiences for their customers. Before I'd say they're more of a victim than Mr Lech, I'd at least want to know what they did to stop him.

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

#147

Post by mkr-hn » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 7:06 PM UTC

b5n wrote: post #145

justforyou wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Wait what do you do when someone breaks into your house? Grab a bat and go fight them? That's an easy way to get stabbed or shot. Right back at you. Do you seriously run away? Is that your response to any situatuon that includes potential danger?

In a self defense scenario running away (if you have a clear and safe exit) is the best possible option. If someone is breaking into your house from the front, and you can safely exit the back - GTFO to safety and call law enforcement. That being said, if your back is against the wall you have every right to defend yourself.

Depending in the jurisdiction, you might even have a legal obligation to try and get away as a top priority if you can avoid a potentially deadly confrontation.

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

#148

Post by b5n » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 7:30 PM UTC

mkr-hn wrote: post #147

b5n wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a self defense scenario running away (if you have a clear and safe exit) is the best possible option. If someone is breaking into your house from the front, and you can safely exit the back - GTFO to safety and call law enforcement. That being said, if your back is against the wall you have every right to defend yourself.

Depending in the jurisdiction, you might even have a legal obligation to try and get away as a top priority if you can avoid a potentially deadly confrontation.

While I agree, my main point was based on safety. If your primary objective is survival, the idea of grabbing a weapon _and_ moving towards danger is ludicrous (thanks media portrayal).

If you are in a life or death situation it might make sense to arm yourself and encroach, but if someone is breaking in your front door and you have access to an exit you are not yet in a life or death situation. Arm yourself and attempt to flee.

If you don't have homeowners/renters insurance, live alone, value your property over your life, and enjoy high risk life or death situations - then by all means charge on in. Just make sure you don't shoot your friend who you gave a key 8 months ago stumbling in from a night at the bar.

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

#149

Post by boomboomsubban » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 7:45 PM UTC

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

It's not taking if done under police action, or "it's OK if the police do it."

>It just says that they sued over the wrong law.

Is there some clause in the police action laws that makes them liable for damages? You would think they would have just sued them under that clause after the first trial rather than try to make the appeals court consider it "taking."

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

#150

Post by merpnderp » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 8:13 PM UTC

oefrha wrote: post #139

merpnderp wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Citation needed, because I'm calling BS. The Mexican government used to send serial numbers of weapons suspected of originating in the US to the ATF, but stopped after nearly all of those weapons were determined to have been sales to the Mexican military.

Cartels are billion dollar enterprises with shipping connections all around the world, to believe they're getting their LAW's and M249's from Billy Bob's Country Emporium is beyond ridiculous.