their job is to get the bad guy. they did. its not their fault he decided to hide in that house, its his
But it most certainly wasnât the house ownerâs decision or fault either. The owner didnât have a say in what the either the bad guy or the cops did. So why should they be stuck with the cost? They are the least responsible for what occurred of anyone involved.
What if the cops decided to shoot up the house to âget the bad guyâ and killed the home owner and his wife and kids ⌠would they be culpable? What if they used explosives and wiped out the whole block? Where is the line?
No it isnât. Their job is to collect revenue and protect the property of the ruling class.
âGetting the bad guysâ is not the ONLY consideration police are required to consider, in their actions.
and if you read my post youâd know that I believe the government should pay for the damages and recover whatever cost they can from the perps. Be it from a fund or directly. My issue here is the asinine position that this amounts to a taking under eminent domain. It certainly does not and this idiotic decision will ultimately be reversed if its appealed.
Notice that it is being asserted that cops may be deterred if the government has to take responsibility for what they do (implying that they are jerks) rather than they may feel better about such raids because the people in the middle arenât being royally screwed?
What is the difference? The owner has lost the use of their property because the police took possession of it (albeit temporarily) without consent for the public good. At very least they own rent and cover the damages while they were in possession of it.
1 Like
no the police did not take possession of it, the criminal did and the police attempted to dispossess him of it. there is no âtakingâ here.
The court thought otherwise.
And if it were my house, so would I.
it will never make it through appeal
They may yet drop the appeal because of the chance this will carry through.
The definition of a âtakingâ is not limited to when the government takes possession of the property.
You are correct. In the example I gave before, a cop âborrowingâ your car to chase a criminal is considered a taking for which compensation is due, particularly if the vehicle is damaged. I donât see the situation with a house to be significantly different from that.
when a cop takes yuur car, they take possession of it. these officers did not take the house, the criminal did. A better analogy would be if you were carjacked and the police did a pit maneuver to stop the thief and your car was damaged. do the police owe you for damages or should your insurance cover it?
Of course they took possession. The owner had zero control over what the cops did to the house. Thatâs clear possession.
Auto insurance covers that as a rule.
This poor ladyâs home insurance basically told her to go â â â â herself.
Someone has to pay.
no, the criminal took possession. the police dispossessed him
who has to pay when the insurance doesnât? Iâm not aware of a tavpayor underwriter clause
NO! The criminal took possession and then the cops took possession from him. Neither had the permission of the owner. And the damage caused by the criminal was minor; the damage the cops did to apprehend him, was major.
2 Likes
of course. Police destroyed her house. she was innocent.
let this go to SCOTUS. its a taking without a doubt.
Allan
1 Like
