Social Question

Dutchess_lll's avatar

On the face of it, do you think the courts were the wrong?

Asked by Dutchess_lll (8753points) October 30th, 2019

Police destroyed a house to apprehend an armed shoplifter.

The courts ruled he didn’t deserve to be compensated.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

18 Answers

ragingloli's avatar

They may have been “technically” correct, but morally, they could not have been more wrong.
Reminds of that supreme court ruling in the prelude to your little civil war, that decided that your constitution did not apply to black people, freed or not.

seawulf575's avatar

I would think that a certain amount of leeway has to be given to the cops to do their job. That being said, they went WAYYYY overboard to capture a shoplifter. They’d have been better off leaving the area and picking him up later.
I worked with a guy that had to sue the city for damages. He was a black guy which actually has bearing on the story. He got off work, took his paycheck (he didn’t have direct deposit) and cashed it so he had a couple thousand dollars on him. He drove a 6 year old BMW. He met up at a convenient mart with an old co-worker of his…another black guy. They were just talking and visiting. Suddenly the cops are pulling them both out of the car, pressing guns to their heads, handcuffing them and generally treating them like crap. They completely disassembled his car…pulled the seats out, popped the spare tire open, pulled the door panels off, pulled the trunk lining out…and then realized they had the wrong guy. They were looking for a drug dealer and his cohort who had the description of a big black guy and a little black guy. So this was definitely racist and over the top. And he sued. But basically, he found out he couldn’t get “pain and suffering” and the amount of damages could only be limited to the repairs to the car which didn’t come close to what the law suit would cost.
It sucks, but unfortunately it happens.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

That does suck.

Demosthenes's avatar

The militarization of the police in this country is absurd. Why were the same tactics used to hunt Osama bin Laden needed to capture this shoplifter? (Slight exaggeration. Emphasis on slight).

I think this was the wrong decision.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Way overboard and should be held accountable but they will get away with it.
Happens up here as well in case brings to mind it was over that train wreck in Quebec , well after investigation they deemed the the conductor was at fault, the guy had no criminal record his lawyer said if he needed to surrender to the police he would call the guy and he would go in and surrender , but no they decided to arrest him with a full ERT team (like a Canadian swat) while the guy was working on his fishing boat in his yard with his 8 year old kid, while there was no property damage but what a waste of tax dollars for a non violent no record guy who would have easily turned himself in.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Stupid macho posturing.

Sagacious's avatar

I didn’t read the article but the property owner would go to his insurance to make a claim. They will go after the city as well as any assets held by the suspect who broke into the house. This is the same process for when cops hit cars during pursuit of suspects. Some cities have funds and others carry insurance. If he can’t get relief in law, I would suggest he go into equity court where the court has unfettered discretion to achieve equity.

jca2's avatar

The homeowner had homeowner’s insurance, I’m sure, as homeowners are required to do.

If you read the whole article, he chose not to repair the old house because he made it into a McMansion (photo at bottom of article).

Pinguidchance's avatar

As the owner of the investment property at issue, Mr. Lech had taken care to make sure that the property in
question was fully insured. In fact, Mr. Lech’s insurance company paid him approximately $345,000 following
this critical incident, which he apparently used to build a much larger and more expensive home.

Despite the fact the police officers on scene risked their lives to apprehend a suspect who was later
convicted of numerous felonies, including nine counts of attempt to commit manslaughter with a deadly
weapon against a peace officer, the Lechs sued certain of the police officers individually. After the Lechs’
federal claims were initially dismissed in 2018, the Lechs continued to pursue claims in State Court, Arapahoe
County, against the Chief of Police, and the SWAT Commander. The Lechs asserted that these two law
enforcement officers acted willfully and wantonly during this critical incident, and they requested a
monetary judgment against these individuals personally. The State Court found these claims to be without
merit and dismissed them.
The Courts, both State and Federal who have analyzed this matter, have consistently ruled in favor of the
police actions taken to resolve this critical incident. The Courts have recognized that while these types of
events present difficult questions, the police should value life over property and may act pursuant to their
police powers accordingly.
Despite not having any obligation to do so, Greenwood Village offered $5,000 to pay the Lechs’ insurance
deductible and provide for temporary housing, but the Lechs refused the offer.
The armed gunman was convicted on 17 felony counts, including 11 counts of attempted manslaughter, and
sentenced to 100 years in prison.
-End -

KNOWITALL's avatar

Yikes, seems like a crime. I’d sue.

@ragingloli You can thank the Democrats for that.

Pinguidchance's avatar

Looks like Leo wanted to sweeten the deal with a double dip.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Yeah, I figured there was more to this.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I was HOS, at a bad hotel once. Two black kids, were smoking weed in their father’s Cadillac. I wasn’t alerted. A person staying at the hotel, called the cops. They came out with a bag of tools, and basically took the car apart. The father looked on, helplessly, and was obviously upset. The cops took the entire car apart. Door panels, bumpers etc. And of course, they didn’t put it back together. All over two kids smoking a blunt. Illegal. Yes. But the cops took it to the extreme. I would have just told them, to leave. It was a shitty situation. I thought they went WAY overboard. I worked alongside the narcotics division there. And indeed played a part, in many arrests, and raids. But this, would not have qualified, to me, what those two kids, and their father went through. They tore the car apart, arrested two 17 year old kids, and left.
Ironically, there were much worse incidents, where they just took the people to jail.
One night, I had to get involved with a woman selling crack, out of a long stay room. She had drugs, a loaded gun, with serial numbers filed off, and the guy whose name the room was under, was a known violent offender, and drug dealer. The cops didn’t search the room, or do anything, but take the girl to jail. I searched the room, and found the gun, and lots of drugs. I called the police back, and THEN, they did a search. But didn’t find anything I already hadn’t…
The narcotics officers were weird. They dressed like homeless people, and drove old, banged up cars. I often mistook them, for drug dealers, until I developed a relationship with them. But they operated in a strange way. I worked with them, but never understood their strategy. They drove a early 80’s Olmobile, and dressed like homeless people. I had several run ins with them, and then they pulled badges, from under their shirts. Like I said, I developed a working relationship with them, but they behaved very strange. I guess, they were looking for the guys pushing weight. But they didn’t care about certain information I gave them. They let the black and whites, deal with a lot. And a lot got missed, or overlooked.
This was when I was in my early 20’s. I worked a hotel, in North Charleston. The area was,at the time, routinely ranked in one of the top 12 most dangerous cities in America. I sent multiple people to jail, every night. Shootings, were common. I had 4 people die, in the 2 years I worked there. And dozens people who had to have ambulance care. Mostly women. Domestic violence, was the cause of most of my incidents. I wasn’t allowed to carry there, but I was allowed a flashlight. So I got a foot long Maglight, that had 5 D cells. It got me out of a lot of trouble. Sometimes, there would be 20, or more people, fighting in the lot. I came close to dying there, multiple times. I had to have police backup, several times a night. And I did a LOT of paperwork, and had to go to multiple trials, for hurting people. I made $7.50/hr there. And THAT was “hazard pay.” I fought dozens of men there. Waiting for the cops to show up. I saw dozens of women beaten to a bloody pool. That’s why I had to fight most guys. 150 rooms, and me, and my Maglight. Looking back, I have no idea, why I’m still alive. Or why I kept the job. I ultimately got fired, because a room flooded. I reported it to the girl who worked the front desk, and told her that it was a big deal. But they let me go anyways.

Turned out to be a good thing. I cleaned the hotel up, kinda. Before I was there, and during my first year, they had terrible prostitution problems, and shootings. The prostitutes, would go door to door, and they were also selling crack, and meth. I stopped all that shit. Probably put 500 people in jail, on the process. At least…

The courts, are vastly overwhelmed. With that number of cases, they’re statistically, going to get some cases wrong.

The justice system, is in need of a complete overhaul. Nothing really surprises me, when it comes to court decisions…

We could really use a vast overhaul, of the laws in the US overall. Something like 17% of our population has, or is serving time. That’s (last time I checked, ) more than any first world country. That’s ridiculous.

JLeslie's avatar

@jca2 Are homeowners required to by law in NYS? I don’t think that’s the law in most states. It usually is required by the mortgage company if you have a mortgage.

jca2's avatar

Homeowners insurance isn’t required by law in New York, but if you have a mortgage, your lender will require you to get at least some form of coverage. Generally, your lender will require that you get a minimum amount of “hazard” insurance, which is another way of saying a homeowners insurance policy.

I’m imagining that the person in the link had some kind of insurance, if he could afford to rehab the wreck into a McMansion.

JLeslie's avatar

I think you’re right, I was just curious about the law.

Sagacious's avatar

@jca2 “Choosing not to repair a house” has nothing to do with having homeowner insurance or not. You just prove your loss and negotiate a settlement if you plan not to rebuild.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

I’ll look again @jca2.

They hired an attorney @Sagacious.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther