User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: An organization destroyed a home & it appears they got away with it

  1. #11
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points3 months registered
    Overall activity: 28.0%

    neil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    293
    Thanks
    112
    Thanked: 181
    Rep Power
    1012954
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Ridge Runner View Post
    The town was sued because their employees were the ones who damaged the man house.
    Exactly & it's not as though they have to apprehend the suspected thief before their donut break; the police have relatively unlimited resources compared to one suspect & could've worn down the suspected thief. There may be legal limits on filing charges, getting a conviction, having a speedy trial, etc., but that's up in the range of weeks, months, or years & the suspect's going to get hungry, tired, etc. long before that.

    Maybe they destroyed that house because they wanted to apprehend the suspected thief before their shift ended rather than passing the raid on to the next shift. Maybe they also assumed that the house belonged to the suspected thief & thought that justified destroying the house to get to the suspect (even in that case it does not).

  2. #12
    Nuckle-draggin nucklehead Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class3 months registered
    Overall activity: 76.0%

    Midgardian/Piru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    3,528
    Thanks
    1,167
    Thanked: 2,284
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by neil View Post
    You had asked if it could be considered collateral damage & I said sure. Unless there's more or something different to the story, what was presented wasn't the real story, or I missed something in the OP, that's just a description of what happened. I wasn't sure if you wanted to make a point or argument, or were just inquiring about whether or not it could be called collateral damage.

    Just because it could be labeled collateral damage doesn't mean that this home owner has to take that as an explanation for why he doesn't have a right to be compensated for his loss by the entity that caused the destruction.
    Another perspective is to consider a high speed police pursuit. A thief steals a car. The police chase him. The pursuit reaches high speeds. The thief loses control of the car and hits a woman pushing a baby. The woman dies.

    In many jurisdictions, this scenario would result in the thief being charged with murder. However, the proximate cause was the police pursuing him. Should the police department be held liable for making the baby an orphan?

  3. #13
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points3 months registered
    Overall activity: 28.0%

    neil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    293
    Thanks
    112
    Thanked: 181
    Rep Power
    1012954
    Quote Originally Posted by Piru View Post
    Another perspective is to consider a high speed police pursuit. A thief steals a car. The police chase him. The pursuit reaches high speeds. The thief loses control of the car and hits a woman pushing a baby. The woman dies.

    In many jurisdictions, this scenario would result in the thief being charged with murder. However, the proximate cause was the police pursuing him. Should the police department be held liable for making the baby an orphan?
    Without a valid argument being presented to me for why the police should be held liable for making the baby an orphan, I don't see a reason for why they ought to be held liable, but it's possible that they could still be liable anyways.

    I don't consider this analogous to police actively engaging in something that destroys a house; they had a choice and made the conscious decision to take that approach to destroy the house.

    They're also not analogous in the sense that in one case it's collateral damage, in the other case it's a criminal act to do something to be charged with murder.

    In order for me to be able to drive on the highway, I am legally required to have auto insurance; shouldn't a police department have just as much a requirement to have insurance for any destruction they produce?

    It's one thing if the police destroy a house knowing that their insurance policy will compensate the home owner, but if they don't have that then they shouldn't be going around destroying things.

  4. #14
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryVeteran
    Overall activity: 15.0%

    Old Ridge Runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,686
    Thanks
    50,837
    Thanked: 8,719
    Rep Power
    21474854
    Quote Originally Posted by neil View Post
    Exactly & it's not as though they have to apprehend the suspected thief before their donut break; the police have relatively unlimited resources compared to one suspect & could've worn down the suspected thief. There may be legal limits on filing charges, getting a conviction, having a speedy trial, etc., but that's up in the range of weeks, months, or years & the suspect's going to get hungry, tired, etc. long before that.

    Maybe they destroyed that house because they wanted to apprehend the suspected thief before their shift ended rather than passing the raid on to the next shift. Maybe they also assumed that the house belonged to the suspected thief & thought that justified destroying the house to get to the suspect (even in that case it does not).
    I don't know the reason for the destruction except to get to the criminal and that does not justify destroying private property to do so. The police were wrong in what the did and the city, IMO, are libel for the damages. Why in all that is just in this world should the owner have to go out and get a, what was it $60,000 loan to repair the damage? The city was wrong and so was the court. If the owner would have requested a jury trial he would have gotten the judgement he favored.
    Humble yourself, for there is an enormous change coming.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •