
50 SWAT officers bombard, destroy bystander’s house with bombs - gonational
http://reason.com/archives/2017/11/19/the-cops-were-chasing-a-shopli
======
dmckeon
After 19 hours trying to extract and arrest a fleeing suspect who had
attempted to hide in the house, "the house was condemned by the local
municipality immediately after the raid" and the city "refused to pay fair
market value".

Part of the city's defense in the subsequent suit is that: "the city wants the
courts to reject the Takings Clause claim, arguing that the language only
applies to "those whose property has been taken for public use". "

So, law enforcement takes and uses the home's structure in an attempt to
arrest someone, destroying it in the process, then the city claims that they
didn't "take" the property in the first place. Wow.

At least the home owner was not the victim of a SWAT raid initiated from a
false report.

~~~
mcphage
> At least the home owner was not the victim of a SWAT raid initiated from a
> false report.

Yes, it would be a shame if some of these city leaders' houses were destroyed
without compensation by the local police following false claims about
intruders inside.

~~~
dmckeon
It would be a great shame if the home owner's suit for an equitable resolution
were derailed by this sort of escalation - an escalation that would tend to
benefit the city by helping their defense make its case.

------
jcvhaarst
So to be clear : In the US the government (or its representatives) can damage
your property, and then isn't paying for those damages without hassle for the
owner ?

Besides that : Why does the police need to use this amount of force to
apprehend someone with a gun ? Couldn't they just isolate the guy, and cordon
off the area so he can't harm others and then just wait ? Unless there are
hostages involved, or immediate danger to the public, it seems a more
appropriate way is to de-escalate rather then escalate.

~~~
gonational
The US military commonly calls in airstrikes that drop bombs that cost more
than houses from aircraft that cost more than entire city blocks, just to kill
a single person with a rifle on the side of a hill.

~~~
craftyguy
They routinely do this. On occasion it's a civilian on the receiving end of
this ridiculously expensive exercise.

------
mrunkel
Just as a point of reference, here in Germany, the police would have just left
the suspect be. They already knew his name, and therefore his address, so they
would have just filed a report and the prosecutors would have sent him a
letter.

As an dual citizen that grew up in America, this is shocking to me, but it
seems to work here in Germany. Of course, Germany has national address
registration and doesn’t the same level of gun ownership..

Just wanted to point out a different approach.

~~~
PeachPlum
A guy with a semi-automatic pistol who had fired on officers, "it's ok, we
have his name and address"

Glad I don't live in Germany.

~~~
hutzlibu
.. it is also not true. They would siege the house. And wait for him to give
up.

~~~
PeachPlum
Also not true, here's an example from July 2016

Stuttgart siege: Two dead after '100 armed police storm hostage situation' at
law firm

Five hour stand-off ends after special forces called in

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/stuttgart-
hos...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/stuttgart-hostage-
siege-armed-police-gunman-today-latest-news-germany-a7131186.html)

~~~
hutzlibu
Yeah but this was a hostage situation.

We were talking about a situation, where a lone, armed fugitive has barricaded
himself in some place.

And in this situation, there is no need at all for storming.

Turning off the water and wait outside, should be enough.

------
MentatOnMelange
This article just became my new reply to the question "if I have nothing to
hide, why should I care about government overreach?".

------
timdev2
I'm not entirely clear on why this isn't a story about an insurance company
suing the city. The author mentions that the city offered $5k to cover Lech's
deductible, which implies the property was insured. Do homeowner's policies
typically not cover this kind of scenario?

~~~
gonational
It’s not up to the homeowner to use his insurance to repair his house when the
city did the damage.

~~~
timdev2
I'm not sure why not. Seems like exactly the sort of unlikely event that I'd
want my insurance to cover. Isn't the whole point of insurance that they make
me whole, and use their ample legal department to pursue the responsible
parties to recover those costs (if such parties exist, in this case the city)?

~~~
gonational
Your insurance is there only to protect you, not to protect others that cause
damages to you.

------
phonon
The case is Lech et al v. Jackson et al, 1:16-cv-01956

------
yAnonymous
SPECIAL Weapons and Tactics...

