in search of a shoplifter?
Too bad, court rules!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...mments-wrapper





in search of a shoplifter?
Too bad, court rules!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...mments-wrapper
MANY MEN WANTED TO LAY ME DOWN, BUT FEW WANTED TO LIFT ME UP
-Eartha Kitt
My god





I know, right?
MANY MEN WANTED TO LAY ME DOWN, BUT FEW WANTED TO LIFT ME UP
-Eartha Kitt



OMG! Seems like the police overreacted slightly...
Wow.
Typical.
Very bad fuckup. Lawsuit I assume



why should MY insurance policy premiums take the hit for BS police excuses? and I agree with the family, $5k is an insult
He filed a lawsuit and lost. The court ruled that it was a police emergency. It wasnt just a shoplifter, it was a armed shoplifter who was shooting at police.
Insurance paid to rebuild the house...the city offered to pay the dedcutible and temporary living expenses for the son while the house was rebuilt. The only one out money was the son and family because he didnt have renters insurance. So his belongings inside the house werent covered.
I bet if the son just would have countered their $5000 offer with say $10,000 to also cover the inside belongings, they would have agreed rather than spend probably 3 times that in legal fees to fight the case. Then no one would have been out money.





I'm no fan of police overreach by any stretch. Indeed I'm a libertarian and believe that police powers should be sharply limited.
But the "shoplifter" in this instance was armed, hid in this house and then shot at police. I'm not sure what else they were expected to do in that situation. Let him go? Risk their own lives before damaging property with explosives?
Not every bad thing that randomly happens to us gets a fair outcome. In this case, it was just shit luck that the perp chose this house to make his stand in. The police can't be handcuffed by property concerns when they're trying to take down an armed suspect, especially one who is shooting at them. If that were the case, then violent perps would quickly become savvy and start using property to shield themselves from police pursuit, which could put a lot of innocent lives at risk.





Probably the mistake was suing under the Fifth Amendment taking clause. Apparently the plaintiff was trying to establish a cause of action as an inverse condemnation case. His problem was the police did not TAKE the property, they damaged it. The fifth amendment does not require compensation for damages.
By contrast Art. I, Sec. 17 of the Texas Constitution provides “No person's property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person; and, when taken, except for the use of the State, such compensation shall be first made, or secured by a deposit of money; and no irrevocable or uncontrollable grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be made; but all privileges and franchises granted by the Legislature, or created under its authority shall be subject to the control thereof.”
I don’t know what the Colorado constitution provides, but the plaintiff might have been well served to have looked it up.
Another thought might have been to bring it as an excessive force case.










Well, in my area a few years ago, a guy robbed a bank, broke in a family home, shot their dog.
The family was unharmed, but there were shots exchanged by the FBI.
There was damage to the home, which was paid for by the gov't.
As far as the other case, wondering was it entirely necessary to blow up the entire place, room by room?
MANY MEN WANTED TO LAY ME DOWN, BUT FEW WANTED TO LIFT ME UP
-Eartha Kitt





It seems excessive. Surround him and wait for him to come out, or for a marksman to get a clear shot.










Possibly, but I have heard teargas canisters can cause fires.





It's easy for us to sit here reading article snippets and play Monday morning quarterback, but of course we weren't there. We don't know what the tactical situation was on the ground. They could have been concerned about him eventually slipping away or giving him more chances to shoot someone. They also didn't know what kind of supplies were in the house and how long he could hold out.
Besides, how long was an army of police supposed to camp outside one house just to avoid damage to the house? Two days? A week? Two weeks? At some point the standoff has to end. If you allow a criminal to get away with shit like that, then you'll be conditioning every future perp to pull the same stunt, except next time some unsuspecting resident may get shot instead of released.





Bookmarks