I can't believe they did it !

[paulfun9]

If you feel that your expertise and understand of the complete situation is sufficient to conclude that you are right and the police were wrong, then so be it.

I'm less confident. I'm more willing to defer judgement to the people that put their lives on the line, and the other people that sat through the complete set of details in the court case.

IMO, the party to blame would be the criminal that holed up in the house. I strongly suspect that he has no money, so they sue someone with money.

You want to trust a police department who let a bunch of poorly trained police, who just wanted to blow something up so they could play with thier toys go ahead. Me I know better and don稚 think they should be allowed to play with thier toys any longer.
The courts were looking for a way not to pay for the damages and are most likes going to jump threw hoops to avoid having the district pay. Put this to a jury of 12 rather than a judge who is most likely ignoring facts and I bet the outcome of who pays would be way different!

 

[kenmac]

You want to trust a police department who let a bunch of poorly trained police, who just wanted to blow something up so they could play with thier toys go ahead. Me I know better and don稚 think they should be allowed to play with thier toys any longer.
The courts were looking for a way not to pay for the damages and are most likes going to jump threw hoops to avoid having the district pay. Put this to a jury of 12 rather than a judge who is most likely ignoring facts and I bet the outcome of who pays would be way different!

Would love to see this Judge's home done the same way. He may have a different thought process. But we all know, they would never do this knowing the home belonged to a judge

 

[drssg]

You want to trust a police department who let a bunch of poorly trained police, who just wanted to blow something up so they could play with thier toys go ahead. Me I know better and don稚 think they should be allowed to play with thier toys any longer.
The courts were looking for a way not to pay for the damages and are most likes going to jump threw hoops to avoid having the district pay. Put this to a jury of 12 rather than a judge who is most likely ignoring facts and I bet the outcome of who pays would be way different!

I can't comment or argue about the proper police techniques for the situation, but the court case seemed like a fairly straightforward interpretation of law to me. From the article previously posted:

"The Lechs had sued under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which guarantees citizens compensation if their property is seized by the government for public use. But the court said that Greenwood Village was acting within its "police power" when it damaged the house, which the court said doesn’t qualify as a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment."

The house is insured and the owner will be compensated. He's just arguing over who gives him the money. It has already gone through a federal appeals court, and his only remaining option is to take it to the Supreme Court.

 

[two_bit_score]

I can't comment or argue about the proper police techniques for the situation, but the court case seemed like a fairly straightforward interpretation of law to me. From the article previously posted:

"The Lechs had sued under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which guarantees citizens compensation if their property is seized by the government for public use. But the court said that Greenwood Village was acting within its "police power" when it damaged the house, which the court said doesn’t qualify as a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment."

The house is insured and the owner will be compensated. He's just arguing over who gives him the money. It has already gone through a federal appeals court, and his only remaining option is to take it to the Supreme Court.

More than likely it's the homeowners insurance company who is doing the suing to recoup the money they paid out to the homeowner.




.

 

[drssg]

More than likely it's the homeowners insurance company who is doing the suing to recoup the money they paid out to the homeowner.

That could be. I don't know whether the insurance company would be the plaintiff in that scenario. The article made it look like the home owner was the plaintiff.

 

[Jstpssng]

I will say that it seems like a rather extreme way of dealing with a shoplifter.

More than likely it's the homeowners insurance company who is doing the suing to recoup the money they paid out to the homeowner.




.

The article states

Today, the Leches Greenwood Village home has been rebuilt. Lech says he is dipping into his 401(k) to afford the legal battle but intends to continue as long as he is able.

This one from 4 years ago is a tough call, and the officers had seconds to think and act; Read both articles before forming an opinion.
'They killed an innocent girl': Family, friends question why police shot 18-year-old | WGME

Drummond Woodsum | Law Firms in Portland Maine & New Hampshire

 

[paulfun9]

I can't comment or argue about the proper police techniques for the situation, but the court case seemed like a fairly straightforward interpretation of law to me. From the article previously posted:

"The Lechs had sued under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which guarantees citizens compensation if their property is seized by the government for public use. But the court said that Greenwood Village was acting within its "police power" when it damaged the house, which the court said doesn’t qualify as a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment."

The house is insured and the owner will be compensated. He's just arguing over who gives him the money. It has already gone through a federal appeals court, and his only remaining option is to take it to the Supreme Court.

Seems to me that there should be a different way to attack the problem. So the police overreact, use excessive force weather it be physical or with the use of explosive device and they get away with it?
Yes we can all interperate the law but is using that law to protect a very aggressive action that many reasonable people feel was too much and unwarranted on the police departments part ? If this particular situation was to be argued out by 12 people who are not in a position of authority and the facts of using excessive explosives was entered into that argument rather than ignored what would the outcome be.
I don’t know the law that good but I do know it’s not always right and maybe just maybe things like this would be avoided if that police department would have to be responsible for thier actions and not be able to use public funds to pay up when they are.

 

[goeduck]

There was a case in Auburn Maine years ago when a 都uspect was holding a hostage at knifepoint, and was shot and killed by a police officer. Yet many people felt that it was ç*¥njustified. More recently a suspect ran out onto thin ice to elude pursuit, went through the ice and disappeared. Again, that was the LEOç—´ fault. To me, if you take a chance you should be ready to pay the consequences.

There is that part of our population that is always going to take the position that whatever is LEOs fault. In cases such as above they do not deserve media coverage. These days media prioritizes the extremists, that is not the way it should be. To some extent they need to, but not all the time and not rather than the mainstream position.