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: 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).