Sneezy
6.5 Creedmoor
Sorry, I am with the homeowner here. You destroyed his house. They didn't just storm it, they blew the fucking place up.
FUAC.
FUAC.
So... Police CAN blow up your home and not pay for it
- Thread starter Sneezy
- Start date
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
While I think they should pay for it because clearly the damage is over board. Either wait it out of storm the place. I get some damage but this is excessive.
Is his insurance company even willing to cover this? Sounds like it but who knows.
I do agree with the courts that the 5th amendment does not cover this because his property wasn’t destroyed. These laws where cities aren’t responsible for damage need to be withdrawn. Do you guys know if a city plow driver rams into your vehicle it’s get claimed on your insurance? Freaking BS but I agree with the decision again at the 5th amendment.
Is his insurance company even willing to cover this? Sounds like it but who knows.
I do agree with the courts that the 5th amendment does not cover this because his property wasn’t destroyed. These laws where cities aren’t responsible for damage need to be withdrawn. Do you guys know if a city plow driver rams into your vehicle it’s get claimed on your insurance? Freaking BS but I agree with the decision again at the 5th amendment.
IDK apparently house was insured and rebuilt and city offered to reimburse him for out of pocket living expenses and his deductible. What is he suing for, cost to rebuild house? Didn't insurance cover that? Does he feel like he should be paid twice? He should be suing the guy who barricaded himself in the house and had a shootout with police...
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Why does the 5th amendment not cover it ?
The government did something with this guys property that any private citizen would be going to jail for. *any* time the government does something that reduces the value of the property it has "taken" something from its owner.
If the neighbor's kid spray paints graffiti on your siding they have to pay to fix it, but government gets a pass on this because why exactly ?
What does insurance even have to do with it ? If insurance pays, then the insurance company should *also* have a claim against the government.
Yep, in that case the guy would get paid twice. I am fine with that.
The 2A isn't the only one dying from the death of 1000 cuts.
I get that if he was made whole by insurance co, insurance co should be able to stand in his shoes and make a claim against gov't if there is one to be made, but OK with being paid by both insurance company and government for same damage? Not following your thinking on this...
spat
.700 Nitro Express
The insurance is a private deal between him and his insurer. It shouldn't let the government off the hook at all. If he could finagle 2 insurance policies from 2 companies he should be paid twice too.
Now, I am sure every insurance company in the world would add a clause to their policy that they don't have to pay again if government covers it, but again, that's on the insurance company.
In any case, government did it, so they should pay no matter what. It should be the insurance company arguing that they shouldn't be the ones to pay the 2nd time.
The courts are saying the government shouldn't have to pay because they were "just doing their job".
So this guy should have to pay instead ? Where's the logic in that ?
By that logic the DOT wouldn't have to pay if they decided to build an expressway through your livingroom because they are "just doing their job" too.
To those who argue that the expressway is permanent, what if they knocked down his house to use it as a staging area while they built an offramp on his neighbor's property. If they give it back after a year does that mean no compensation ?
Why do we tolerate things like this from government that would be obviously horribly illegal if a private company did them ?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
The government themselves or the government’s insurance should pay for your damages not your insurance.
That’s like saying that your insurance should pay instead of the other driver’s insurance and your rates should go up even though the accident that was clearly the other driver’s fault.
That’s like saying that your insurance should pay instead of the other driver’s insurance and your rates should go up even though the accident that was clearly the other driver’s fault.
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
I get your point and agree with that side of it. I guess it’s what the definition of take is.
This is a strange case. Seems pretty cut and dry to me unless there is something we don’t know. When we break a door, even to save the actual owner of the house, the city usually pays without a lawsuit needed. I get that a door is chump change, but the point is they accept responsibility.
I wonder what the outcome would've been had this been “extra” damage caused by firemen fighting a fire in the home.
I wonder what the outcome would've been had this been “extra” damage caused by firemen fighting a fire in the home.
Jmac00
.475 A&M Magnum
I would simply wait til the mayor went to work, then move into there home and squat there. Tell the mayor to go get a court order to have you removed, that should take about 6 months or more
ECU Pirates
.308 Win
You know the firemen analogy is apples to oranges!
ECU Pirates
.308 Win
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.
“This has ruined our lives
So it’s not fully covered.
“This has ruined our lives
So it’s not fully covered.
pjzwtl
.308 Win
Not really, something bad that didn’t belong in the guys home needed to be pacified.
I didn’t make an analogy.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
It was a stupid analogy since the insurance would include payment for the fire damage and whatever the fireman broke all in one.
pjzwtl
.308 Win
I didn’t see an analogy I read a question. And to be factual an insurance company based on the adjusters findings might decline payment for damages they deemed unnecessary from even a fire. All insurance policies aren’t created equally and neither are all FDs
Tintalieau
.40 S&W
Most homeowner insurance policies have an exclusion for "Civil Unrest" which is what this would be classified as (was an adjuster for many years), it won't look at as well...thres fire damage, and water damage. They look at the proximate cause which is the police forcibly entering the home for law enforcement, which falls under....."civil unrest". I agree they should be held responsible, but the clause in most municipalities incorporation plus other laws that circumvent responsibility for servants of a municipality when in commission of their duties, give them almost blanket immunity. If that wasnt bad enough insurance companies have clauses in policies also for "civil unrest" which protects the big insurers in case the town does something like destroy a house....or en entire neighborhood.
Vicarious
.40 S&W
Judge dismisses lawsuit against Tompkins County Sheriff's Office in case of destroyed home
During a standoff, law enforcement used an armored vehicle to remove the walls of a house which was rented by the suspect.
www.ithacajournal.com
pjzwtl
.308 Win
I think most of us agree it is BS that gov is immune. Justified or not the homeowner or renters should not be victimized twice
Wow, the laws that define us are often times crazy.
I do not know enough of these types of laws to render an educated statement.
It does indeed suck that this homeowner was not made whole by the city. Granted, his insurance covered the damage; a claim I feel they should not have paid.
Years and years ago, I had a friend that had parked his car on the street in front of his house. It was a snowy day and the plow trucks were out. A driver of one of those trucks hit and destroyed my friends car. He went to the town to file a claim and the town people informed him that they were not liable for the damages. They cited some laws, he retained a lawyer to sue and lost the lawsuit. I cannot remember the laws that they cited. His insurance picked up the claim and he got a new car.
I do not know enough of these types of laws to render an educated statement.
It does indeed suck that this homeowner was not made whole by the city. Granted, his insurance covered the damage; a claim I feel they should not have paid.
Years and years ago, I had a friend that had parked his car on the street in front of his house. It was a snowy day and the plow trucks were out. A driver of one of those trucks hit and destroyed my friends car. He went to the town to file a claim and the town people informed him that they were not liable for the damages. They cited some laws, he retained a lawyer to sue and lost the lawsuit. I cannot remember the laws that they cited. His insurance picked up the claim and he got a new car.
Blimey
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Weird situation. I believe technically the criminal should be on the hook for this, similar to if the police hit your car while in a chase. Morally it's the fault of the person escaping, unless the police act negligently. Maybe they did here (probably).
But the criminal here has no money obviously.
But the criminal here has no money obviously.
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Me and the boys were in on that one, it was sweet!
Robin
Robin
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Someone must pay.
The criminal can't (can they ever ?)
The city is arguing it should be the homeowner.
Government has spent a lot of effort tailoring the law precisely so that it says the homeowner is the one to pay in these circumstances.
That is fundamentally wrong and unjust.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
If the firemen showed up for a grease fire on the stove that could be put out with a basic fire extinguisher, but they drove the engine into the guys living room a the house needed to be torn down instead, absolutely thet should pay.
Police frequently get tunnel vision. Once they lock on a target they decide they need to get him no matter what.
So what if 99% of shoplifters go uncaught, we picked this guy, so if we need to bulldoze a house to get him we will.
That's malpractice IMHO. If they couldn't get this guy without destroying the building they should have just walked away.
Blimey
.450/400 Nitro Ex
It is of course fundamentally wrong that this person minding their own business following the rules of society is now on the hook for shit loads of damage. Probably the simplest course of action is to force insurance to carry this sort of thing instead of them allowing an out for so-called acts of god or whatever I'm sure they used to get out of this.
Or society agrees it will pay more to police so police can carry insurance to cover damages caused in the arrest of criminals, then prosecution can decide whether it's worth seeking damages or not from the criminal.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Government absolutely needs to be forced to consider the cost of what they do, and not be able to force others to bear that burden outside of the constraints of the tax code.
Imagine if any other business had the ability to just say "not our problem" when they caused someone an expense like this.
I do not blame the police, well kind of....
I was not there so I do not know, maybe the Police used excessive and undo force to get into the house to catch the bad guy, again, I do not know.
What I do know though, are these laws, created by the Elected Elite, are fucked up.
The Judges that uphold these laws are also screwed up beyond belief.
I was not there so I do not know, maybe the Police used excessive and undo force to get into the house to catch the bad guy, again, I do not know.
What I do know though, are these laws, created by the Elected Elite, are fucked up.
The Judges that uphold these laws are also screwed up beyond belief.
This case definitely isn’t the cop’s fault, at least not the rank and file who carried out the operation. This wasn’t just a shoplifter. It quickly escalated to a chase and shooting. He needed to be captured. The problem lies in the municipality’s decision to fight him in court rather than make right on the damages, in total.