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

#41

Post by Hoasi » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 10:42 AM UTC

> 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.

So Lech's house was 100% destroyed as a result. Now that is a lot of damage over two stolen belts and a shirt.

> In an attempt to force the suspect out, law enforcement blew up walls with explosives, fired tear gas and drove a military-style armored vehicle through the property's doors.

Even if the shoplifter was armed and firing at officers, their response looks slightly disproportionate. The interesting bit here is that they didn't kill him.

> The suspect in the case, who was wanted in connection with shoplifting, was taken into custody after a 19-hour standoff. More than 100 officers from agencies around the Denver area responded to the incident.

OK, then.

> "As unfair as it may seem, the Takings Clause simply does not entitle all aggrieved owners to recompense," the appeals court wrote.

Yes, it totally reads like a joke.

> "There needs to be a line drawn for what police departments can do and what they need to do to compensate citizens for this kind of damage," Lech said. "I didn't want to sue anyone for millions. I just wanted fair market value for my house."

That seems reasonable. If the police forces are not responsible, can a case be held against the shoplifter to pay those damages? Not that it would be in any way more realistic given that he is insolvent, but the lawyers should try every route.

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

#42

Post by ptah » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 10:44 AM UTC

Either this is from an 80s cop movie about a renegade cop or it is a scene from a police state. EDIT: This is also a symptom of militarization of police. How would they even have the means to damage a house like this otherwise

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

#43

Post by ljm » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 10:55 AM UTC

SapporoChris wrote: post #21

fluffything wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somebody stole 50$ worth of stuff. Instead of letting insurance pay and calling it a day, lest waste a couple of hundred thousand dollars and fully destroy somebody's home for another couple of hundred thousand dollars in damages. What should happen here is that whoever thought this was the right course of action should be fired, and liable.

You realize the suspect was firing at police officers? I am in no way defending the destruction of a home. However, I do realize this is not a situation where a couple of officers can be posted outside the home and wait the situation out. An armed suspect firing out of a home is a clear and present danger to the community. edited to add quote Who drives armored cars? People who expect gun-fire. Usually people with so…

"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 guy with a pistol, in an area they could have evacuated, who would have inevitably tired himself out after standing off for the best part of a day, daring to face off against the almighty police force? Nah, you gotta go full Michael Bay on that shit. Bring out the armoured cars, explosives, tear gas...

There's literally no rational justification for this. The actual soldiers out in the middle east know better restraint than to go nuclear at the first chance. And they're dealing with people packing a lot more heat than this guy with his belts and a pistol.

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

#44

Post by appstateguy » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 10:58 AM UTC

akerro wrote: post #11

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?)

There more extreme cases: >Who Pays When The DEA Destroys Your Vehicle And Kills Your Employee During A Botched Sting? Hint: Not The DEA https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150428/16401530826/who-p...

Reading through the article's comments there's one from "LegalBeagle" that criticizes the man's lawyer for using the wrong argument in the lawsuit, and instead should've filed the lawsuit as a violation of the 5th Amendment.

Luckily he must've gotten a better lawyer, because an appeal was allowed to continue under grounds the DEA violated the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment:

> Because plaintiffs have stated facts sufficient to demonstrate that the government physically deprived them of property for the duration of the controlled drug delivery operation, we hold that plaintiffs have stated a claim for a taking compensable under the Fifth Amendment. We therefore deny defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4467728/patty-v-united...

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

#45

Post by LorenPechtel » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 10:59 AM UTC

Keverw wrote: post #25

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…

I think it's a little strange they'd even chase someone over two belts and a shirt... I wonder if they knew he was armed, since it was shoplifting and not like a bank robbery, but escalated though from there anyways. Just really surprised they'd prioritise such low value items. I know I've heard in some cities like San Francisco, the police are so busy with everything else even cars being broken into or stolen isn't…

The police aren't interested in investigating low-value cases. However, with a suspect in sight they'll go after them even if it's low-value.

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

#46

Post by koliber » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 11:01 AM UTC

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 for an excessive reaction

I am sure this is not an exhaustive list, but expands it to more than Mr. Lech vs. the police.

As a mental exercise, let's sort this list by who should be responsible, using whatever metric. When I do it, Mr. Lech comes out on the bottom, regardless of what I use as the criteria. I'd be interested in hearing if anyone can come up with a way where Mr. Lech would be at the top of such a list.

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

#47

Post by bertronic » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 11:06 AM UTC

According to coverage by The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/30/police-blew...

“His expenses to rebuild the house and replace all its contents cost him nearly $400,000, he said. While insurance did cover structural damage initially, his son did not have renter’s insurance and so insurance did not cover replacement of the home’s contents, and he says he is still in debt today from loans he took out.“

Sounds like his family was under-insured and he took out huge loans to rebuild without any assurances that he would be compensated by the city.

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

#48

Post by superhuzza » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 11:14 AM UTC

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?)

It makes me think of Brazil(1985). Cops searching for a minor criminal blow up someone's home, ruin their life, and then disappear into a maze of bureaucracy and paperwork.

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

#49

Post by gldalmaso » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 11:18 AM UTC

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.

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?

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

#50

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 11:23 AM UTC

>> In fact, the court stated, when police are performing their public safety duties, they cannot be "burdened with the condition" that they pay for property damage.

But that sounds completely out of proportion in this case. Is it really that important for the safety of the public to aprehend a man who stole two belts an a shirt from Walmart, that it justifies blowing up someone's house walls and driving an AV through its doors? Isn't responding with such force a bigger threat to the public than letting a shoplifter go?

I understand that the man had a gun and barricaded himself to the family's house, but still the response sounds disproportionate and more damaging than anything the shoplifter could have done.