Sovereign Immunity? No Problem, Lets try Eminent Domain

Politics
41

Some people are just so scared of turning police into Krispy Kreme cops that they would rather let them burn down an entire city than reign them in just a smidge.

I OTOH, believe that lobbing 30 tear gas shells into a single-family home is entirely excessive, probably negligent, and needs to be held into account.

I believe there are other ways to handle such a situation. Like just waiting outside, cutting off all power and water, and starving them out. Or if you’re in a hurry to get to your Sunday supper, you could just borrow some Kevlar (and maybe a person or two) from the local Texas Rangers and stage a raid on the property.

What do you think? Can you think of a better way to handle this without using 30 tear gas shells?

3 Likes
42

And for life of me, I can’t understand how you don’t see it as a seizure. While the whole thing was happening, did the owner have unfettered access to her property? No… The police had it barricaded off, only they had access to it. Who lobbed 30 tear gas canisters into her property? Was it the accused or the police? Now that the stand of is over, is the house habitable as it was before the stand off? Again, no. Who’s actions caused the house to be unhabital? Again the police.

3 Likes
43

Hobson’s Choice

1 Like
44

Sure. It seems that just waiting the guy out would have succeeded.

45

And when he destroyed the interior of the house while they waited would have caused her to sue as well.

46

That’s all well and dandy … until it happens to you.

Personally, I don’t see it as any different than if a cop commandeers your car to chase a criminal and damages it. It is a taking of private property for the public good. Compensation for loss (or damage) of that property is fundamentally no different (as the Court ruled) than Eminent Domain.

1 Like
47

If the suspect destroyed the inside of her house, she would have no grounds on which to file a suit against the police. I guess she could have sued the suspect.

48

:rofl:

That’s your dichotomy?

If the police hadn’t destroyed her house, the suspect would have just lived there permenantly?

49

Maybe, but that is a different problem. The problem here is the unaccountable destruction of private property by agents of the state

3 Likes
50

It’s unlikely that the guy would have left the house to tear down the back fence.

51

Would this have been more effective?

52

Urban renewal.

That should be covered under Eminent Domain too. :wink:

53

Then the insurance would have paid.

54

Well, except for the deductible. And they might have (probably) their annual premium raised.

55

no, the criminal holding up in the house was the proximate cause of everything connected to it

56

Two things:

  1. The “Proximate cause” test is by definition, not exclusionary. In other words, any (and every) event can have many proximite causes. The fact that X could be a proximite cause for an event does not preclude Y from being a proximite cause as well.

  2. “Proximate cause” isn’t relevant to the “takings” argument. It’s not an element of the claim.

1 Like
57

Well, that’s a different question.

But yes - under most insurance plans, that would fall under their guidelines.

58

So the police had absolutely no other option than to throw 30 tear gas grenades into a single-family residence?

Tell me, do you approve of the Philadelphia police bombing the MOVE house as well back in 1982?

2 Likes
59

they did their job

60

Their job is to destroy people’s houses? Because that’s what they did.

1 Like