
Police blow up innocent man's home. No recompense, court rules - wallace_f
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/30/police-blew-up-an-innocent-mans-house-search-an-armed-shoplifter-too-bad-court-rules/
======
aketchum
This story is insane and infuriating. The police had no need to destroy the
house. They could have "sieged" the house and waited for him to come out when
he ran out of food. This could be expedited by cutting the water to the house
so the suspect had nothing to drink. This would probably be cheaper for the
police in the end anyways as the extra few days of salary are offset by not
having to use and pay for "tear gas, robots and police negotiations".

The homeowner deserves to be made whole and I think that should be the police
departments responsibility, in order to encourage alternative approaches when
possible.

~~~
dragontamer
> They could have "sieged" the house and waited for him to come out when he
> ran out of food.

Both 2nd amendment activists and anti-gun people make the same mistake here:
the physical presence of a gun changes everything. Guns favor the offense, not
the defense.

The solution is always the same: if the opponent has a weapon, you bring
bigger weapons to subjugate them. APCs will allow you to move forward without
risk of getting shot at, while heavy weapons like grenades and rocket-
launchers destroy the cover and concealment of the defender.

The first step is recognizing the root of the problem. The handgun. Remove the
gun, and the heavy-weapons wouldn't have been necessary. But as long as the
general citizenry has access to firearms, it is necessary to give bigger and
better weapons to law enforcement.

\----------

Consider this: how would YOU form a perimeter around the house safely and
effectively? An APC is the natural weapon: thick plate to provide immunity to
small-weapons like handguns. If the local police only has one APC however,
that's not enough to form an effective perimeter: you can only cover one side
of the house.

So you put men around the house, and hope that they don't get shot. And those
men remain at risk throughout the duration of the siege. Thick body-armor
doesn't protect the head, and it still gets hurt to get shot at.

~~~
jack_h
I'm actually kind of appalled that you think a handgun justifies not only
arming police departments with military surplus, but also the use of them.

Unlike in a military conflict where the combatants are actively trying to
create casualties in enemy forces and all the horrors that entails, the police
have a lot more things to consider. That's why in a high speed chase police
tend to back off and track the suspect from the air rather than endanger the
public more. However, by your logic if they knew the suspect had a handgun
they would be justified in using a surplus drone or gunship to just destroy
the vehicle with little regard to anything else.

Force escalation is not defensible for civilians, why on earth is it
acceptable for the police?

~~~
dragontamer
> I'm actually kind of appalled that you think a handgun justifies not only
> arming police departments with military surplus, but also the use of them.

My argument is a bit more subtle than that. The military surplus culture is
IMO due to local-police departments trying to out-compete their local rivals.

If you're a Police Officer candidate, with a criminal law bachelors, aiming to
join a Police department... which one do you pick?

* Dangerous area with military-grade weapons for officers?

* Dangerous area without military grade weapons for officers?

That's where the fundamental issue comes in. Police departments want to
attract the best candidates, and the military surplus items provide an aura of
protection, as well as assurances of a "Police-culture".

------
michaelmrose
In case someone didn't read the article _cough_

\- Leo Lech owns the home

\- His son was renting it and living there when the incident happened.

\- Robert Seacat was the guilty party. He is entirely unconnected to either
party above. After a high speed chase he hopped a fence and ran into a random
house owned by Lech.

Whats at stake is whether the government can willfully destroy your shit in
the course of police work and not pay for it.

------
megous
"but when police have to protect the public, they can’t be “burdened with the
condition” that they compensate whoever is damaged by their actions along the
way."

So can they also kill bystanders freely without compensating the family, or
where does this logic end?

"“My mission is to get that individual out unharmed and make sure my team and
everyone else around including the community goes home unharmed,” Greenwood
Village Police Commander Dustin Varney said in 2015"

Also kind of insensitive, since the family didn't really get to go home, after
this.

~~~
klipt
America doesn't care about the little guy.

The solution is probably to buy huge amounts of insurance, and let your
insurance argue it out with the police.

~~~
bilbo0s
I'm not certain whether or not either of you are aware, but most home
insurance policies specifically preclude any claims precipitated by certain
circumstances. Industry wide, a few of the standard circumstances that you
would have to specifically add coverage for would be things like, acts of war,
or, for instance, police actions.

The homeowner would have to review his/her policy in detail to determine if
they are covered in this instance. But in light of the fact that they sued the
city, I'm thinking they probably aren't protected, or opted not to add on that
additional coverage, assuming it was available?

~~~
hitpointdrew
Also flooding is not covered in the vast majority of home owners polices.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Insurance is only economical for unpredictable, rare circumstances. Flooding
is basically guaranteed in certain areas, so it would be crazy to offer
insurance for it, as it would simply turn into a payment plan for a future
expected expense. Much like health "insurance" exists in the US.

------
golover721
Police level of response needs to be appropriate based on the given situation.
Seems like this police department just had a bunch of toys they really wanted
to play with.

~~~
shantly
The way judges expect normal people to, within reason, use good judgement and
will hold them accountable if they didn't, but will take police at their word
that whatever dumb shit they did was totally necessary and appropriate and
they can't possibly be blamed for it, is really frustrating.

~~~
shawnb576
Exactly. Why doesn't the police dept carry insurance for _exactly this_? Yes
it will be expensive, but it's a leveraged bet that allows them to do what
they need to but have some consequences for doing things they don't.

There has to be some reasonable standard that can be applied to their
behavior. If they used their tank to bulldoze a block of houses looking for
some guy hiding in one of them ("how were we supposed to know which one he was
in?"), would we expect that to be just OK? Sounds like this ruling says "yes".
There are no checks on this behavior.

~~~
shantly
Especially when it sure seems like they had a good or superior alternative. If
the situation/area was sufficiently under control that advancing with siege
equipment didn't involve excessive risk of harm to officers or of the suspect
escaping in the commotion, then staying put and holding the perimeter was at
least as safe and would have kept him contained, surely. No mention that they
believed he had anyone else in there with him or anything, so why on Earth did
they choose to assault the house?

------
chmod775
Of course the state should reimburse the family, whether they have to by law
or not (though if they don't your laws are fucking stupid).

How is this even a question? They can then later charge the perpetrator if
they want to.

Your state is your community, and the police is its executive branch. When you
destroy some individuals _home_ while carrying out whatever duties you have,
the entire community has a responsibility to reimburse that person.

When your representatives fail in such ways, you either change their minds,
find better representatives, or you are complicit.

I'm not holding my breath though. I don't think anything will change.

------
Aaronstotle
There is an ever growing boundary between ordinary citizens and government
officials. Unless there is a drastic shift, this does not bode well for the
U.S. as a country.

~~~
whamlastxmas
In Denver there are "Civilian Crash Investigation" cars which drives me crazy.
Police and government officials are also civilians. The distinction on the car
is such an "us vs them" mentality and very out of touch.

~~~
jadell
Police use military terminology when talking among themselves. Many current
police officers come from the military before becoming police. Officers refer
to non-LEO as "civilians". If the police are supposed to be a civilian agency,
someone forgot to tell them. The "us v. them" mentality comes from both sides.
Though my personal opinion is: the police (and the government they serve)
started it and actively encourage it.

------
bdowling
This ruling is only on the Takings Clause question: whether the police actions
violated the constitutional prohibition against the government taking private
property for public use without adequate compensation. Here, the 10th Circuit
affirmed the trial court ruling that the Takings Clause did not apply. That
decision seems reasonable because this case is not like other Takings clause
cases, for a variety of reasons.

The defendants may still be liable under negligence or some other theory. But
this ruling doesn’t address those possibilities.

~~~
c3534l
People react to what they wish the law was, rather than what it is.

------
thatswrong0
Cops in America are thugs. Not sure what we can do to fix it at this point

------
bilbo0s
America has become a crazy place. It's like a movie.

A man you say is armed, shoplifts a shirt and a belt, then locks himself in a
bathroom. So we use APC's, grenades, and 40 mm rounds to get at him in a house
instead of waiting him out?

Just seems, odd.

~~~
klipt
Shirt: $10

Belt: $20

Grenades: $1000

Destroying your home: priceless.

~~~
shantly
Total loss to Walmart was probably like $10, wholesale, shipping, and
stocking. That they pursued him more than about 100 meters is kinda nuts. The
"high speed chase" that seems to have preceded this was dumb as hell, too.

~~~
icebraining
Armed robbery is serious regardless of the amount stolen. Not that it
justifies what the cops did, though.

~~~
shantly
I didn't get the impression they found out he was armed until later. But the
article's not especially clear on that point, among others.

~~~
icebraining
It seems you're right, but he _had_ tried to run over a cop, according to
their affidavit:
[https://www.greenwoodvillage.com/DocumentCenter/View/13916/A...](https://www.greenwoodvillage.com/DocumentCenter/View/13916/Affidavit-
Seacat)

------
wysifnwyg
Makes me wonder if this would be different if the criminal had holed up in an
officer's house.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Of course it would. Just like it's different when police see another police
speeding, or their relatives breaking traffic laws with their fake badge stuck
on the windshield.

------
cbanek
Pretty sure cops can follow the same rules to tear apart your car looking for
drugs, and even if they don't find any, will happily return your stack of car
parts and say "have a good day."

------
alfromspace
_The court acknowledged that this may seem “unfair,” but when police have to
protect the public, they can’t be “burdened with the condition” that they
compensate whoever is damaged by their actions along the way._

Incredible. A stranger can barricade themselves inside your property, the
police can blow your property to bits trying to get to the stranger, and the
owner of the property is on the hook.

The court's ruling that the Takings Clause doesn't apply because it's not an
exercise of eminent domain is utter nonsense. There's no such requirement in
the 5th Amendment that the government needs to label their use of private
property "eminent domain" to be responsible for compensation for it. All it
says is "public use". If this ruling is allowed to stand, this isn't America
anymore.

~~~
Ididntdothis
I am not in a position to judge the tactics they used but it’s hard to
understand how the government could refuse to compensate the homeowner who had
nothing to do with this and had no choice.

~~~
icebraining
Their position seems to be that they don't need to compensate because he's
already getting paid by the insurance company.

------
gwbas1c
No mention of homeowner's insurance!

Was the house uninsured? Or did the homeowner's insurance deny the claim?

~~~
yardie
Homeowners insurance does not cover police destruction. Because there was
nothing accidental about it.

For the people in the back.

AMERICAN HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE DOES NOT COVER YOU IN CASE OF POLICE ACTIVITY!

~~~
DoreenMichele
Having been in insurance, I seriously doubt anything in insurance can be
pithily and accurately summed up with a one liner.

In my experience, what gets covered depends on the policy you bought, the
state you live in, luck of the draw for who reviewed the claim and, I don't
know, whether or not it was a full moon when you dropped it in the mail.

I wouldn't draw any conclusion whatsoever about what is and is not typically
covered based on the outcome of a single claim. Plus, other comments here
contradict your statement.

------
nkrisc
> The court acknowledged that this may seem “unfair,” but when police have to
> protect the public, they can’t be “burdened with the condition” that they
> compensate whoever is damaged by their actions along the way.

I actually agree, the police should not be concerned about this, they should
be concerned with policing. Which is why the _state_ should pay compensation
and then take it up with the police department if police actions are costing
the state too much.

------
graycat
IMHO, some facts of life in the US:

(1) You can get "all the justice you can pay for".

(2) Be wealthy: Then if something happens to your house, buy another one and
move on.

(3) If you want to be _secure in your home_ , then live in essentially a
fortress, immune to criminals, tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, forest fires,
police, etc.

(4) If you want something like police protection, then hire your own security
force.

(5) Avoid the police and the legal system. In particular, there are hints that
in the low levels of the legal system a lot of the judges are not very
objective.

(6) Realize that there is a long list of rare but really bad things that can
happen to you and/or your family. Some of these things are scary but on
average not a very big danger.

(7) When government messes up, lead efforts to vote out the leaders, e.g.,
vote out the mayor and have the new mayor appoint a new chief of police.

(8) Make it clear to the police that you are wealthy, powerful, have great
lawyers, are well connected to and respected by the _power elite_ , and can
protect yourself. Can do all of this without saying a word to the police: Do
it by neighborhood, i.e., with houses at $5+ million each, lifestyle,
reputation, etc.

Yes, (1) - (8) are cynical, extreme, partly in jest, should not be necessary,
but, still, are roughly correct.

Do realize that typically a newspaper wants to scare people to have smelly
bait for the ad hook.

But maybe sometimes people should be scared and, then, vote in a new mayor.

------
major505
Jesus... Looks like a bomb went off and imploded all windows and doors in the
house.

~~~
hannasanarion
Article says the police threw grenades into every room trying to flush the
shoplifter out.

~~~
major505
I know, but they where suposed to throw flashbangs and gas. Not real granades!

Really, seens like a tatical unit with a balistic shield would be able to do
the job without that much fuzz.

------
mnm1
It's too bad that we, as a society, haven't yet found any solution to this
band of insane, armed madmen roaming around destroying whatever and whoever
they want, stealing whatever they want, and generally doing whatever they want
with no accountability whatsoever. And then there's also the guy holed up
inside the house that's a minor issue. One day, we may join other civilized
countries that can actually control their police rather than letting them run
rampant, terrorizing the population.

------
unforeseen9991
[https://outline.com/MdNmTD](https://outline.com/MdNmTD)

------
MFogleman
A lot of people are missing some key points here, and getting angry at the
wrong aspects. Let me start by saying that I do believe the family should be
compensated by some means. They shouldn't become the de facto victim of the
crime.

The police did not "Blow up a home" over "some belts". They spent 19 hours of
negotiation, de-escalation, and sound tactics, to apprehend an armed gunman
who shot at police on at least one occasion, maybe two, during the stand off.

People are admonishing the use of "Grenades and APCs". The grenades were tear
gas. They used tear gas to attempt to get the suspect to leave a home. The
APCS are literally just armored cars. You can go and buy one right now. They
serve 2 purposes. They move people, and they help stop bullets. I have friends
who are alive because of their APCs.

Human beings die in stand offs like this. Some are saying "Why not just wait
him out". Its a great idea in theory, but you know what they say about the
differences in practice and theory.

Being on the perimeter of a barricaded suspect is dangerous. He has the most
cover, and concealment. He can be anywhere in the house, and he can have
anything. The police in this situation know he has at least 1 gun. He may have
others they don't know about, he may have others in the home that the home
owners didn't tell the police about. He may be in there constructing nail
bombs. These scenarios are unlikely, but possible, and one should err on the
side of caution and preserving human life, when lives are on the line.

Most entry teams run around 10-20 guys. Plus a perimeter team to keep the
threat contained and not lose ground. Add in supervisors / command staff,
logistical support, medical personnel, negotiators, etc, and you have a lot of
resources tied up on this call.

For 19 hours.

"Just wait longer, cut off water, there is no rush".

This is correct. There isn't a rush, until there is. Until there is another
barricaded suspect, or a hostage situation, or an active shooter, or just
regular patrols that need to be covered. My parents are perpetually stocked up
for hurricanes. I could probably live in their house without electricity or
water for close to a month before I needed to start worrying about logistics.

Staying on perimeter for an extended period of time is a weird sensation. You
are essentially just standing behind a car or a porch for an extended period
of time. You have to keep in mind that at literally any second, you may be in
a life or death gun fight. You aren't in immediate danger, but that may change
without any notice at any moment.

After 19 hours, the police took in an armed gunman who invaded a home, and
shot at them, without injuring him or anyone else. That is amazing, and should
be commended. The fact that people are outraged at this is sincerely confusing
to me. The top comment says that if they just waited outside the house for a
few days, it would've saved a lot money that was spent on "tear gas, robots,
and negotiations"

The negotiations are generally done by officers, so there is no increased
cost. This is the year 2019. Most people in my office own a robot that flies.
Any department in a city with more than 1 stop light should have a multi use
bot for surveillance/bomb investigation/scouting. Tear gas grenades run less
than $50 each.

So what is the outrage over the tactical response of the police? They used
equipment they had to stack odds in their favor against a guy that shot at
them, and arrested him without injury.

I completely understand being outraged over the lack of compensation to the
homeowners. Between insurance companies, victim compensation funds, and the
government itself, they should absolutely be compensated for the damage to
their home. It appears that such victims tend to be reimbursed, which is
bittersweet. It's good that it happens, but it makes it that more infuriating
that it didn't.

In summary: Yeah, be mad that the people got screwed over by the government,
but it wasn't because of the SWAT team. They did their job right.

~~~
cannonedhamster
They used 40mm _and_ tear gas grenades, shaped charges, and APCs. The police
did their job, but the city should be paying for this. The city is the one at
fault for not providing appropriate recompense.

~~~
MFogleman
I agree the city should pay.

The 40mm grenades ARE the tear gas, or baton rounds (for breaching
windows/doors). If they were dropping HE/Frag in those windows, the story
would be WAY different.

The shaped charges are used for breaching. Assault favors the defender. A
gunman in a room knows the cops are coming in through the door or the window.
He just has to wait to see, and shoot. The entry team likely does not know
what room the bad guy is in, and if they dont, they dont know where in the
room, and if they do, they still have to go through the tiny door way, get
eyes on him, assess the threat, determine if they need to shoot, and handle
whatever threat exists.

Even if you know exactly where he is, flash bangs aren't magic, and that entry
is still a gamble of life. The best thing you can do to increase your odds is
to make a new door.

Or maybe some redneck decided he already pulled out his detcord and didnt want
to put it back up. IDK.

------
thomaswang
USA, USA, USA... no but seriously wtf?

~~~
icebraining
The court found that the destruction of property was the result of the state
using its police powers, and not eminent domain. Seems reasonable to me.

------
olliej
So the police destroyed a persons house over a shoplifter stealing a shirt and
a belt? Wtf?

~~~
alistairSH
Shop-lifted shirts started the whole fiasco. However, the suspect was stopped
for questioning, then attempted to run over the questioning officer while
fleeing, then broke into and barricaded himself within an occupied home.

That said, damaging the home to the point that it was condemned still seems
like a bit much. Probably would have been easier to turn off the water and
power, then blast Nickelback until the suspect gave himself up.

~~~
olliej
My bad I failed miserably - and scanned the article and apparently missed this
entirely.

------
Bantros
This can't be real

------
johnnyo
Does homeowners insurance cover the loss?

What exactly is he suing for? Wouldn't the insurance company be the one who
would want to sue here, in an attempt to get back some of their outlay?

~~~
nickthegreek
Insurance company could raise his rates and he would still be responsible for
the deductible.

~~~
johnnyo
Right, but the government offered to cover his deductible.

Any money he got from the government over and above the deductible he'd likely
have to pay back to his insurance company, wouldn't he? You can't double dip
like that.

~~~
shantly
They offered $5000 toward the deductible and temporary housing. No mention of
actual costs involved (like, how large was the _total_ deductible, for
instance). Given how long it takes to build a house, plus extra time + expense
for demo & removal in this case, I'd expect $5000 to be a small part of _just_
the temporary housing costs.

------
crb002
This should be the insurance company's problem. Also, they should have filed
in the criminal case with the State judge for the damages who probably would
have granted them.

------
sparrish
Why are they going after the police? It's the home intruder that should pay
for the damages.

~~~
magashna
He stole a shirt and a belt. Where's this $400k coming from?

~~~
compiler-guy
... and tried to shoot a police officer.

~~~
magashna
I'm saying in relation to where this money is coming from. If you had $400k, I
can safely assume you're not stealing from Walmart

------
sathackr
Why isn't the armed shoplifting suspect paying for this? It's his actions that
were the catalyst for the damage by police.

I don't think any of us are in a sufficient position of knowledge to determine
if the police action was justified.

But it seems to me the suspect that picked the house to hole up in should be
the primary responsible party.

~~~
gorgonical
I think they probably could sue him for damages in civil court, but the
problem is that (as I understand it) it is not possible to compel someone to
pay. You can garnish wages, seize property, etc., but if you're stealing ~$10
of belts do you think you have $400k laying around?

The second part of this is that it indemnifies the police of their actions,
shifting the cost of their recklessness. You pay in taxes to give them APCs,
and then you pay again when they blow things up with those APCs you bought
them.

------
program_whiz
This will be an unpopular view, but if someone is armed and locks themself in
a house (the contents and perons inside which are unknown), its a bit tough
for the police.

Police protocols are largely based on preventing the numerous deaths and
damage that they see on a regular basis, and the court ruling is based on the
legal experts reviewing the case and seeing that they did what was expected.

If your family was in that house, murdered, and you were held at gunpoint for
hours, you would probably be wishing the police had acted more swiftly, not
just put up their hands and said "well I guess we just let an armed suspect
who ran and hid inside a residence after committing a crime go..."

~~~
magashna
No one was held at gunpoint. The article even says the guy took a nap. They
could just wait.

~~~
program_whiz
Also he shot at the police, that's pretty much going to mean they have to
assume you could kill them or someone else. You really think you can not only
steal, then lead a car chase, then lock yourself in a house, then shoot at the
cops, and expect them to just wait hoping you don't kill someone or yourself
or them to avoid property damage? And then, if they kick in your door (or
after 19 hours destroy your house), you want them to pay for it, when you
could have avoided or ended the situation at any time?

~~~
megous
Hard to say who caused what after certain point. Certainly police has been
criticized before for risky chases, for example. Is risking lives of
pedestrians worth a chase for a few dollars of stolen merchendise? Then things
escalated, sure.

Chases are dangerous, and there are attempts to avoid them. For example,
there's a system that some police are testing, that shoots magnetic GPS
trackers to the chased car, and then police then track the car from a safer
distance without putting pressure at the chased driver, and try to catch him
when he stops.

