SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the good-thing-no-one-was-jaywalking dept.
According to reporting in AlterNet, the Denver Channel, Westword, and others:
A standoff between SWAT team members and an armed shoplifting suspect who barricaded himself in a Greenwood Village home ended, but now the home owner thinks police destroyed his house. Greenwood Village Police said the 19-hour standoff ended with no injured officers or citizens, but the home looks like a bomb went off.
There is a large hole in the front of the house, broken windows and glass are littered everywhere and shrapnel is stuck in the walls. Leo Lech said, "It looks like Osama Bin Laden's compound." Lech is no terrorist but an unlucky homeowner whose property was caught in the cross fire when the suspect broke into the home. A 9-year-old child who was in the home at the time was able to escape.
Greenwood Village Police say that the suspect had four active warrants out for narcotics and had a large amount of narcotics with him. The suspect tried to steal a car at the home and fired at police from the garage, Greenwood Village Police say. Negotiations with the suspect failed after police met two of the suspect's three demands, but the suspect severed communications with police. Police used explosives and a ramming device to gain entry into the home after negotiations failed.
"This is a complete atrocity," said Lech. "This is a paramilitary force used in a civilian environment ... for one gunman? To use this kind of power?" Lech said the Greenwood Village Police Department claimed it was not responsible and the city would not return his calls.
Additional sources:
Original Submission
(Score: 5, Insightful) by looorg on Wednesday June 10 2015, @07:51PM
Besides the whole militarization of the police force issue the thing I did find interesting from the articles is that the homeowner has to pay, the insurance, for having the privilege of a SWAT team more or less destroying his house. Really? So a shoplifter runs into your house and it ends in a 19h standoff that ends with it looking like something in a warzone and the police department are not the once that have to pay for the damages they caused? How does that make sense. You break it, you bough it ... or well you should at least pay for it.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @08:07PM
Hey - that's the price of 'murican FREEDOM!!!!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Wednesday June 10 2015, @08:12PM
I guess it could be that, that or the PD forgot to get insurance or doesn't want to use theirs since the premium might go up and that might put an end to blowing shit up.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Thursday June 11 2015, @10:12AM
Isn't there any legal liability? Wouldn't the homeowner's insurance just sue them to recover the cost of the claim?
That's normally how it works here. If say a builder damages your car while working on your neighbour's home and refuses to pay your only option is to sue them, or more commonly make a claim on your car insurance and then the insurance company sues them to recover their costs.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by That_Dude on Wednesday June 10 2015, @09:04PM
At the very least it would be sensible that the criminal would have to pay restitution for the damage - at some point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @09:20PM
There are two problems with that:
1) The perp isn't the one that blew up the house.
2) He doesn't have any money to pay for it, since everything he owns will be seized by the police as part of the drug charges.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:21PM
1) The perp isn't the one that blew up the house.
His violent resist of arrest (by firing at the police) more than satisfies me that he should ultimately pay.
2) He doesn't have any money to pay for it, since everything he owns will be seized by the police as part of the drug charges.
And one the things police should be doing with it is to provide reparations here. Police can keep what's left after fixing the house. (Is how it -should- be; alas not how it -is-).
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:51PM
His violent resist of arrest (by firing at the police) more than satisfies me that he should ultimately pay.
Not if the police used excessive force. Then it's their fault, since they chose to do so.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday June 11 2015, @12:13AM
He doesn't have any money to pay for it
Perhaps he still has a few transplantable organs that are not yet destroyed by the drugs. Sell those to much better people, and you get the money.
But this is an interesting case anyway. Who is responsible for the standoff? The criminal. He caused all of it, from the very first moment. Is the police responsible for excessive force? Maybe, or maybe not - impossible to tell without an investigation. Remember, the criminal was armed and shooting. It was imperative to stop him before he kills someone. A house can be repaired; a head that is blown off - not so much. Should the insurance pay? Only if the insurance contract says so. Homeowners are not even required to have insurance. If an eartquake hits, a wildfire, or a drunk driver - your house may be damaged, and guess who is responsible for repairs? The homeowner. Should "the society" share the cost in this case? Only if "the society" (such as the judge or some other part of the justice system) failed in their job - like by releasing a violent criminal fully knowing that he will go back to crime immediately. If so, the homeowner can sue the state. Should the police share seized assets with criminal's victims? Yes, they should, on priority basis. The state can only keep the leftovers - if there are any. The police is paid by taxes, they are not supposed to benefit from arresting people and grabbing their wallets.
(Score: 2) by That_Dude on Friday June 12 2015, @01:16AM
So, it seems that the only remedy for the homeowner is a civil suit. If it had happened to my home, I would be asking if the situation warranted the actions of the police in that instance. I would argue that other, less destructive methods were available - such as tear gas, pepper smoke or perhaps even flash bangs. Maybe they wanted to nab the crook before he overdosed - who knows?
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday June 12 2015, @02:05AM
less destructive methods were available - such as tear gas, pepper smoke or perhaps even flash bangs
Tear gas and flash-bangs are deadly, especially together. The tear gas is extremely flammable, it burnt down the building in Waco. Tear gas was also used to incinerate the cabin where the rogue LA cop, Christopher Dorner, was hiding. You cannot even use a Fogger in a house if a pilot light is on in the water heater. Flash-bang had maimed (or killed?) a child. Pepper smoke was used by indians, reportedly, against the westerners, but not since then. The judge would also point out that the criminal was high on drugs and entirely out of this world. Such people are often immune to Taser and pepper spray; the only thing that they are NOT immune to is extra holes in their body - or ten strong policemen. But in this case no policeman could approach the criminal. What do you do then? Let the guy shoot at anything that moves until he runs out of ammo? I don't want to create an impression that I am defending the police, but their actions also have reasons.
If I were that homeowner, I'd get a lawyer, and that lawyer would sue everyone who was in any way involved - and let the judge sort it out. The decisions of the police commander, and their options, would then be revealed and discussed and weighted. The insurance company would most likely wiggle out of payment, pointing at some obscure chapter in the contract. I am not even close to being a lawyer, and it may well be that the quoted part of a standard State Farm's contract is not applicable, but here it is anyway:
War, including any undeclared war, civil war, insurrection, rebellion, revolution, warlike act by a military force or military personnel, destruction or seizure or use for a military purpose, and including any consequence of any of these. Discharge of a nuclear weapon shall be deemed a warlike act even if accidental.
One could definitely argue that this house was in a warlike act, as many houses in war zones look better than this one. Can be SWAT interpreted as military personnel? That's for lawyers to discuss. But I'm sure that the insurance company has better lawyers than a typical homeowner - especially one who is currently living in the street and needs to come up with $50-100K to rebuild the house.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @09:20AM
we're talking about a lone individual
how about just waiting him out till he's to tired to stay awake, let along fight back?
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday June 12 2015, @03:27PM
we're talking about a lone individual - how about just waiting him out till he's to tired to stay awake, let along fight back?
This is for the lawyers to debate and for the judge to decide. I wasn't there, can't comment. However we can think about the basic facts of the case. The house was not an isolated building in a middle of nowhere - so there were other people around, other properties. The guy was on drugs, armed, and shooting left and right. He could shoot through a gas line and blow up the whole neighborhood. The police would have to force all the residents of a few blocks around to leave their houses, possibly under gunfire. The criminal had plenty of drugs on him to supply a small army. Drugs could keep him awake for a long time. You cannot tell when he is asleep or just pretending. How do you find out? Send a cop in, and if he is killed then the criminal still has ammo and is awake?
The criminal could also run out of ammo, drugs, and energy - and then he could open all gas valves in the house and light a match. Would the homeowner then more upset with the outcome? Wouldn't he be asking why the police hadn't shot the criminal inside the house when they could?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @09:42AM
CS gas (which is what's normally used in tear gas) is not flammable.
At room temperature it's a solid, to aerosolize it it's often 'cooked' over a burner (normally in CBRN training since using a grenade is expensive)
however *sometimes* an organic solvent is used to dissolve it which can be flammable. (there are other ways to deliver it).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:05PM
Mandate that every cop carry liability insurance.
The department could pay the portion of the premium equal to the total that is charged for their officers with a clean record.
Any portion of the premium that is over that is paid by the dirty cop.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:19PM
Bad idea - if every cop thinks "hey, no problem - I'm insured!" the damage will be unending. Accountability and responsibility are required, not insurance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:11PM
Currently, taxpayers have to pick up the tab for abusive cops.
That's not fair.
Malpractice insurance will curb the bad behavior, just as it does in medical practices.
Cops who find themselves charged for their own excess coverage will adjust their behavior or (more likely, I'm sure) quit and find work more suited to their skillset|temperament.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2015, @02:14AM
You're confusing "accountability and responsibility" with "taxpayer foots the bill." It isn't the taxpayer that needs to take responsibility, it's the cops.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Thursday June 11 2015, @03:15AM
Why shouldn't the taxpayer be on the bill for abusive cops? It's taxpayers that are tolerating the police behavior anyway. It wasn't just the cops who destroyed that guy's house, it's the taxpayers that raised and employed and armed and excused those cops who made reckless choices.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:12PM
how do you know he wasn't shoplifting to pay for the LAST home that got wrecked, due to him?
no, its not really funny. this is sickening behavior on the part of the so-called good guys.
they no longer are good guys, to a lot of the populatioon. they continue to lose the moral high-ground each passing year, it seems. public opinion of cops is not showing any increase and events like this don't help their case, either.
if you think its worth destroying an innocent person's home over, you should be preparerd to make him whole again, no matter what it takes. this was not the only choice you cops had. you chose this violent method and its a pussy move to not pay for what YOU have done.
take some of your civil asset forfeiture profits and make this man whole again!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by penguinoid on Thursday June 11 2015, @04:20AM
At the very least it would be sensible that the criminal would have to pay restitution for the damage - at some point.
Why him? He hardly caused any damage, nor did he choose to engage the police (he was fleeing), nor did he choose how much force the police used.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:42PM
I did find interesting from the articles is that the homeowner has to pay, the insurance, for having the privilege of a SWAT team more or less destroying his house.
Don't jump to conclusions.
All Police departments initially take this tack. They then try to prove some connection to the home owner so they can blame them.
(This Case [kirotv.com] is still outstanding because the police are still claiming a nexus due to the fact it was the home-owner's son that they were after. But since nobody was home, they started shooting before they were shot at, so badges may still roll).
In the end, most of the time, truly innocent people end up getting paid, but often their insurance company has to go to court.
Examples: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/117757688.html [komonews.com]
http://www.11alive.com/story/news/local/west-side/2014/08/20/atlanta-police-raid-wrong-home/14362333/ [11alive.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Thursday June 11 2015, @03:21AM
Oh, they will pay for it.
Police department's are *always* run by fucking psychopaths who think the entire department's shit don't stink. When a bill comes their way, they simply say it's not their job to pay that. Doesn't matter if 10 million witnesses were there, and the cops are absolutely undeniably guilty for the damage, they will never be guilty or liable for *anything*, *ever*. Well, that dog don't hunt, and the city *will* end up paying on this. Especially in this day and age of viral videos, and the fact this guy *did* nothing *wrong*.
Plus, this is SWAT. They'll kill babies in cribs, and then justify it later, if you're lucky. Most of the time they just walk away with a smug "mission accomplished" attitude, while not realizing they are just terrorists.
I think it's incredibly wrong of them to term this "paramilitary force". The term itself implies a level of professionalism and accountability that you would find in the military, and it's a widely known fact, that LEO & SWAT are neither professional, well trained like the military, have accountability like the military, etc. Look at that jackass pulling the Reno 911 comedy hour at the pool party. SWAT is that guy, but with much better weapons and a default state of making everything and everybody FUBAR ASAP.
SWAT is not paramilitary. They're just semi-trained thugs with some military training, that have been trained to see civilians as the enemy, and that house as the war zone. Golly gee willickers, I'm sure surpised the guy's house turned out to be a war zone just like they trained....
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Thursday June 11 2015, @05:14AM
By police, you mean city will pay. And they most likely will. But in the meantime, the homeowner will most likely have to go via insurance and insurance will then sue city to get money.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday June 11 2015, @02:44PM
It's the shoplifter who has to pay. He might have the police pay for SOME of the damage IF he proves it was not needed, or that the police made more damage intentionally. He might have stolen a needle but he provoked all the consequences.
One thing is clear, the home owner should receive compensation for the time lost because of the wreckage, not pay a dime.
Account abandoned.