Honestly, I can’t understand why this is a discussion.
2 Likes
Be armed. Shoot the home invader yourself. Cops are usually gonna be far away anyway.
Except in pursuits the criminal does get away, here they are still cornered in a house with no leaving. The blue just can’t decide to kick in the doors, windows and walls and then go “not our problem….”
If they decide the criminals offense still warrants going in, make the police by coverage that covers the damages. That way units that might be a little door kick happy get charged more in premiums
3 Likes
Neither can I… But I would like to see the public up in arms so the issue gets resolved. If the govt tears up someone’s property they should be required to return it to a like state or purchase it.
3 Likes
Oh hell yes. BUT through the courts. Your convicted of a major crime (or we know you did it because well you died on scene), liens placed on homes/cars other assest seized to pay for damages.
1 Like
Liberal states you’ll end up jail for life.
1 Like
Well, then shoot to kill.
(Progressives usually suck ass when it comes to self defense. They stand up for the bad guys way too often.)
Or maybe you should go re-read the bill of rights. You know, the part where it requires government renumerate people when they take their property for a public purpose?
As long as the criminals are repaying the government, instead of the victims getting like 98 cents a month from their prison labor to compensate for it, I’m all for it.
Now they owe her a new house, plus moving expenses, plus pain and suffering. Good job, morons.
1 Like
no they did not, he siezed the house by hiding in it. they did their job
government did not cause the damage. the proximate cause of the damage was the criminal hiding in it
So what is the answer here?
“Tough luck citizen, next time don’t have the bad luck to have a bad guy take refuge in your home?”
The house was being sold, the owner wasn’t even there to defend it herself.
Why is it that we don’t bat an eye when government and/or insurance pays for recovery from a natural disaster, yet we are balking at payment for recovery from a literal man made disaster?
1 Like
This particular criminal is dead. And it doesn’t sound like the kind of guy who would have an estate large enough to cover the damage and costs.
1 Like
I remember that approach in Vietnam … “We had to destroy the village to save it.” 
1 Like
I am sure you would just say thanks guys I will pay 70k and fix it.
1 Like
For clarification, I’m not saying it would be wrong for the government to pay for the damages, just that the idea that this is a property seizure by the government is asinine. The government should pay for it, and recover whatever they can from the criminal. Unless of course you are complicit and allow the criminal to use your property, then tough ■■■■
1 Like
Depends I guess, which would you prefer, a permanent violent criminal houseguest or some property damage to occur in a forcible eviction? Private insurance should include such coverage, pretty sure it’s a very tiny number of claims.
No, 30 tear gas shells lobbed into the house by the government caused the damage.
That is just plain laziness on the part of law enforcement IMHO.
3 Likes
