Case involving home damage from SWAT

Blk04L

. . .
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
11,315
Location
South Florida
A federal appeals court in Colorado ruled Tuesday that a local police department does not have to compensate a homeowner whose house was destroyed by 19 hours of gunfire between officers and an armed shoplifting suspect who had chosen to barricade himself inside to evade arrest.

Judges on the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision, ruling that the city of Greenwood Village, near Denver, did not owe homeowner Leo Lech any additional compensation, even though the suspect was a stranger to the homeowner, the Denver Post reported.

Lech’s home, valued at $580,000, was marked for demolition in 2015 after a SWAT team used armored vehicles to breach the structure, deployed tear gas and explosives and shot 40 mm rounds in an effort to drive the suspect out after he refused to surrender and shot at officers, the Post reported.
...home insurance company paid him $345,000 for the damage but that amount did not come close to covering additional costs related to personal property damage, demolishing and rebuilding the home and taking out a new mortgage on the new house.

Colorado homeowner owed nothing after police SWAT shootout destroys his house, federal court rules


Very odd and unfortunate case.

The suspect was armed, but was a shoplifter. Not some mass murderer/tried to kill an elected official.

I understand SWAT/LEO simply can't give up if a criminal runs into a house, his or others, but they certainly did some damage to that owners hose.
I assume some questions have to be asked to the policy he had with his homeowners insurance and value of his home on his policy.

Still, that would blow to see you house condemned cause some POS ran in and the LEO tore it down to get him. After that, be told, "sucks for you".


Question to SVTP, do you agree with the ruling? Is this purely an insurance issue or does the local/state bare some responsibility financially in these rare cases?
Seems like their neighbor got the shaft too from insurance and local, too.

EDIT: More info has been posted since the OP

Maybe some actual facts would help rather than what the media is telling people to think?

https://greenwoodvillage.com/Docume...ease---City-Response-to-Leo-Lech-Ruling-Final
 
Last edited:

blk02edge

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Messages
8,895
Location
BC
Seems pretty wrong to destroy someones house over a shop lifter. Even if armed. If it was a hostage situation then yea for sure. Its not the insurance companies fault either that the squad leader decided to play tank and mow a house down to catch a low level offender.

Id be furious if I was the home owner
 

BOOGIE MAN

Logic and Reason
Established Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
7,683
Location
Under the bed
Wtf on so many levels. Wonder what the total bonus for the CEO of that insurance company is yearly

In a perfect world, the insurance company should've paid homeowner full value of home+belongings and then the insurance company goes after the locality for compensation. Homeowner got bent over


Sent from my SM-N975U using the svtperformance.com mobile app
 
Last edited:

svtfocus2cobra

Opprimere, Velocitas, Violentia Operandi
Established Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
26,241
Location
Washington
Should be on the insurance company imo. If the liability is going to fall on the police department and the city then they will inevitably place restrictions on how the PD and SWAT can conduct operations in situations like these and certain tactics that can lead to destruction would be ruled out resulting in possibly more dangerous situations for police officers and bystanders. Not every tactic is going to be the best choice but in those situations you use the resources you have available to stop the threat by all means, so you can't have those limited because the city is afraid of having to pay for the damages done.

Or at least it should be reviewed afterwards in case the destruction goes overboard and it is proven by other experts in the field that SWAT went overboard in their assault and used overly destructive tactics that weren't necessary or normal for the situation.
 

blk02edge

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Messages
8,895
Location
BC
Should be on the insurance company imo. If the liability is going to fall on the police department and the city then they will inevitably place restrictions on how the PD and SWAT can conduct operations in situations like these and certain tactics that can lead to destruction would be ruled out resulting in possibly more dangerous situations for police officers and bystanders. Not every tactic is going to be the best choice but in those situations you use the resources you have available to stop the threat by all means, so you can't have those limited because the city is afraid of having to pay for the damages done.

Or at least it should be reviewed afterwards in case the destruction goes overboard and it is proven by other experts in the field that SWAT went overboard in their assault and used overly destructive tactics that weren't necessary or normal for the situation.
My home insurance is for a certain agreed value, up to him to make sure his insurance is adequate. And damn straight there should be restrictions on when SWAT is used...
 

97desertCobra

Procharged!
Established Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
5,386
Location
Back in the USA!
That kind of destruction is ok when you are in a place like Afghanistan. I get that he was a violent offender and shot at police but this is the US and they should have more restraint. I know we are playing arm chair quarterback blessed with hindsight but that shit is nuts and shouldn’t happen. The city should pay up IMO. Want to avoid paying out? Better spend more money to train your SWAT officers to not do cowboy bullshit like this.
 

black4vcobra

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Party Liquor Posse
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
4,460
Location
Cottage Grove, WI
I find it pretty ridiculous that a court found that the police/city were not accountable for the damages they did to the home of a person who was not involved in the criminal activity. For the ease of the homeowner and make the payout go quickly, he should be paid out by his insurance and insurance goes after the city. If his insurance was inadequate, then he should get reimbursed by the city for his losses.

There have been several high profile shootings in Madison in recent years and the city's insurance forked out millions to the families of the deceased even though the police were found to have no criminal liability. If the families of people who were shot while acting crazy can get millions, this poor homeowner should at least get awarded for damages and costs.
 

My94GT

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
8,685
Location
woodbine, MD
You’d have thought swat was trained to be a bit more tactical then that.


Either way sounds like the insurance company is screwing him over the most
 

08mojo

...
Established Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
2,681
Location
Atlanta, GA
Funny, this poor guy truly is an innocent victim and his insurance and government tells him to F off/sucks to be you. Meanwhile, the suspect (if alive) is being housed, clothed and fed. I'd much rather see my tax dollars go to help the homeowner, whose home was destroyed by a bunch of idiots.
 

john11gt

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
851
Location
Minooka, Illinois
...home insurance company paid him $345,000 for the damage but that amount did not come close to covering additional costs related to personal property damage, demolishing and rebuilding the home and taking out a new mortgage on the new “


I would like to see pictures of the house before it got demolished, it probably would have been cheaper to fix it than to completely demolish it and rebuild.
 

03Sssnake

TK-421
Established Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2002
Messages
40,169
Location
not at my post...
When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty....Give this man and his family their recompense.

D8QyCQ2XYAAXAEj.jpg
 

svtfocus2cobra

Opprimere, Velocitas, Violentia Operandi
Established Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
26,241
Location
Washington
You’d have thought swat was trained to be a bit more tactical then that.


Either way sounds like the insurance company is screwing him over the most

You'd be surprised at how little training a lot of small city SWAT units receive. SWAT in bigger cities and some smaller cities are the exception with putting SWAT through extensive training, but there are many more who receive very little training in comparison and their SWAT officers are not as elite as you would expect from them which is why you get a lot of stories like these that sound like a huge blunder. They were likely never taught how to be tactically proficient.
 

03Sssnake

TK-421
Established Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2002
Messages
40,169
Location
not at my post...
You'd be surprised at how little training a lot of small city SWAT units receive. SWAT in bigger cities and some smaller cities are the exception with putting SWAT through extensive training, but there are many more who receive very little training in comparison and their SWAT officers are not as elite as you would expect from them which is why you get a lot of stories like these that sound like a huge blunder. They were likely never taught how to be tactically proficient.

I bet they sure look the part though, all tacti-cooool...totally off topic...I went to a pre-season Texans game in august. Most of the officers directing traffic, etc around the stadium were in shorts or fairly light clothing, except for one m'fer in full battle rattle from head to toe...LMFAO, dude had to be roasting in that shit.
 

L8APEX

*Turbo Not to Scale
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
2,738
Location
The Air Capitol
Colorado is getting weirder and weirder. Just in the past decade it's been sobering... beer goggles coming off, and everything is uglier. Even though the only immediate family I have left lives there, I stay in Kansas and drive there ALOT.
Home values in/around Denver are skyrocketing. It wouldn't surprise me that many people have an insurance policy that covered their homes value 5-10 years ago (and that's what they still pay for in coverage) but now the house is worth many times more. If you are not constantly changing insurance companies or have a crappy agent and a lax mortgage company that probably doesn't stay on top as it note keeps getting sold it'd be really easy to be under-insured there too.
I.E. Sister and husband bought a house in Lakewood made in the early 60's for $236k in 2009, about all original (aluminum wiring, sigh). Didn't do much updating aside floors, sold it in '16 for high $300's and built a new house in Castle Rock.
Today the Lakewood house (still not updated) is worth $446k+

Ultimately it reminds me of the old saying of "If your main tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
but now it's apparently,
"If you have armored vehicles and actual military hardware, everything looks like a military operation."
I don't mind swat having APC's, flack jackets, etc so long as they use them in a defensive law enforcement capacity.
So instead of using an MRAP to literally drive through the front door, why not drive up using it as cover to toss a few flash-bangs/teargas in the windows? Shoplifters don't often have body armor, belt fed fully automatic weapons, and RPGs.

Just like if someone was stealing a package off my front door, I cannot use a claymore (if they were legal) attached to my ring doorbell to stop them... I've got to hope the picture is enough.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread



Top