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

151–160 of 163 posts

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

#151

Post by justforyou »

b5n wrote: post #148
mkr-hn wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 atte…

The you was italicized to indicate interest in what you would personally do.

I'm not asking for advice.

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

#152

Post by merpnderp »

ameister14 wrote: post #143
merpnderp wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

I like how you carefully place me at fault and make assumptions, instead of the whackadoodle. I was friends with him, I helped him cut a tree off his house and put up a fence. And no, it isn't asking a favor to stop their dog barking all night long, that's ridiculous. It's asking them to uphold their responsibilities as people living next to other people. I offhandedly asked his wife in passing if there was something they could do about their dog and he lost his frick'n mind.

And what do I want the cops to do about it? Issue a noise violation. Shockingly, laws are made to handle these sorts of things. We don't all have to take a baseball bat, or bake them cookies and suck up to our neighbors into taking care of their dogs.

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

#153

Post by b5n »

justforyou wrote: post #151
b5n wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 atte…

The you was italicized to indicate interest in what you would personally do. I'm not asking for advice.

Well, I think I painted a pretty clear picture of what I would do.

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

#155

Post by einpoklum »

funemployed wrote: post #118

When firefighters damage someone's property to create a fire break (like say after an earthquake) should they also compensate that person after the fact?

Well, the state (or the municipality, or a combination thereof) should compensate in both cases.

Which in other words means that "everybody" compensates such a person.

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

#157

Post by justforyou »

b5n wrote: post #153
justforyou wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The you was italicized to indicate interest in what you would personally do. I'm not asking for advice.

Well, I think I painted a pretty clear picture of what I would do.

Good luck with that.

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

#158

Post by ameister14 »

merpnderp wrote: post #152
ameister14 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

I like how you carefully place me at fault and make assumptions, instead of the whackadoodle. I was friends with him, I helped him cut a tree off his house and put up a fence. And no, it isn't asking a favor to stop their dog barking all night long, that's ridiculous. It's asking them to uphold their responsibilities as people living next to other people. I offhandedly asked his wife in passing if there was something…

I've had bad neighbors before. Did the cops issue a noise violation? Usually they don't, in my experience; you just end up with a pissed off neighbor and the cops tired of coming out there. Then you still have loud, annoying neighbors and they're even less friendly than they were before.

I'm not really saying baking cookies and sucking up to your neighbors - that's pretty negative way to characterize my 'treat people with respect and try to be friends before you ask for a favor.'

Seems like you are saying you did just that, and it didn't work out. That sucks. You went through the exact process I'm advocating. It doesn't mean that rather than talk to your neighbors you should just call the cops the next time a dog is barking, though.

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

#159

Post by playeren »

dzamie wrote: post #129
dls2016 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why don't they investigate wage theft? Googling around suggests that the cost to the US economy is about the same as shoplifting (and I'm guessing individual cases could be much higher value than shoplifting). When was the last time a battering ram was used in pursuit of a wage thief? Or when was one even arrested? To answer my own questions, police do not care so much about the "value" of the target. Their beha…

Wage thieves don't flee. There's no adrenaline-pumping chase scene, nothing to tunnel-vision. It's also much harder to see on patrol.

I doubt it's the lack of adrenaline being the main driver for skirting away from "white collar" crime. More likely, the analytical and time consuming work required, and perpetrators who are much more likely to evade capture and/or sentencing, through usage of lawyers, accountants et al.

Also, the victims of wage theft are less likely to be "well connected" sponsors of political careers, while the victims of larceny are naturally more often business owners whom are more likely to have a "voice".

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

#160

Post by jawns »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #141
jawns wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> If it is not from eminent domain, such as in this case

My point is that this _is_ eminent domain, because eminent domain should be defined by the action (government taking control of private property) not the purported intention.

Post reply on HN