
Cops Destroyed This House to Arrest a Shoplifter - Anon84
https://reason.com/2019/10/31/cops-destroyed-this-house-to-arrest-a-shoplifter-a-federal-court-says-police-dont-have-to-pay-for-the-damage/
======
theandrewbailey
I wonder if things would be different if that house was a historic landmark,
or government property.

------
jacurtis
> Lech did get a $345,000 payout from his homeowner's insurance, but that was
> not enough to cover the full value of the home, which was appraised for
> $580,000... Lech ended up having to take out a $390,000 loan to cover the
> costs of rebuilding.

Looking at the picture of the home, it sure as hell doesn't look like a
$600,000 home, let alone a $740k home to rebuild ($345,000 insurance payout +
$390,000 additional loan + $5,000 payout from city).

He should have been able to rebuild the home with the $345k insurance payout.
Keeping in mind that he still owns the land, which is the bulk of his overall
home value.

Keep in mind that his "appraisal" took into account home VALUES, based on
comparable homes that sold recently in the area. Home value is not at all
related to home cost. Since most homes now sit on land that is worth more than
the house itself.

That house can easily have been rebuilt for $345k.

As for the police overreach, it does seem like the police took excessive means
to apprehend a petty criminal. A 2 day standoff for a shoplifter seems like a
huge waste of city resources and taxpayer dollars.

Although, while I agree that the police took excessive measures in this case,
this man is not the first person to have property damage as a result of police
apprehending a criminal. This happens every day, all across the country. He
isn't going to overturn any precedent that has already been set over the past
243 years that our country has operated.

When police damage property during the pursuit of a suspect, the fault falls
on the suspect themselves. The criminal caused the police to chase him, the
criminal went into the home and held the police off at gunpoint. Therefore the
criminal is at fault. This means filing an inusrance claim with your insurance
provider and let them duke it out. They will attempt to sue the criminal, or
get the criminal's insurance to cover it.

And that is why you have homeowners insurance. For freak stuff like this. You
get a payout and the insurance company figures out how make right with the
situation. Now if you don't have adequate coverage for your home (which seems
to be the case here) then that is the fault of you as the homeowner.

~~~
trentlott
But look at the car chase procedures that a lot of police have adopted - non
engagement.

Some realized that putting everyone on the road in danger is not worth popping
some ticket skipping asshole

Obviously with car reg and helicopters this could be mitigated, but the police
could have just waited the guy out.

The crime did not warrant physical violence or disruption to third parties
that eclipsed the crime itself by several orders of magnitude

The police should be punished.

Nobody would agree to have their house destroyed to catch a guy who stole
their own _two shirts and a belt_ , and it makes no sense that they should
bear that burdern on behalf of a business that have an accounting column for
such events.

~~~
lonelappde
He didn't steal two shirts and a belt; stole two shirts and and a belt and he
brandished a firearm and committed a home invasion into a property with a
small child present.

> Nobody would agree to have their house destroyed

Somebody who wanted to replace their dilapidated shack with a a new house
would. The owner couldn't have gotten several hundred thousand dollars of
insurances support for his rebuild if he did the knockdown himself.

~~~
buboard
would the police bomb a house to near collapse with an innocent kid inside ?
No, the kid was out of the house.

I guess that must count as one of the riskiest, stupidest insurance scams ever

