Case involving home damage from SWAT

TK1299

Meh
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
6,430
Location
Houston, TX
I know exactly what you mean by the effectiveness of a no knock warrant, and while it has been useful in cases there have also been too many misuses and mistakes made with these tactics that it has left innocent civilians killed or seriously injured.

I can’t speak for anywhere else, but around here no knocks have a very high threshold to meet. I agree that people’s reaction can get them hurt, and if there are innocents then the police should be held accountable. I’m not arguing police aren’t liable for anything, because there are some dumbass cops out there, but typically in specialized units they are non-existent.
 

TK1299

Meh
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
6,430
Location
Houston, TX
Why should the owner or the owners insurance company incur any loss? The cities insurance should cover these situations.

My argument is mainly the police in this situation acted appropriately and shouldn’t be held liable. That isn’t me saying the city should not compensate. I’m just trying to argue the police were right as far as their response.
 

BigPoppa

Hope you enjoy the show
Established Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2016
Messages
2,253
Location
Your mom
Sounds like the homeowner failed to maintain adequate insurance on the house or prematurely decided to have the house demolished before applying the money to repairs (I'm very suspicious of the homeowner's decisions).

If he did have enough insurance, he should have spent his legal fund on pursuing remedy from his insurance company.

While I don't agree with the SWAT methods used here, as I know other options that would have been effective with minimum threat to both person and property, I agree with the court's decision on this.
 

97desertCobra

Procharged!
Established Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
5,386
Location
Back in the USA!
Sure thing: @97desertCobra

the camouflage is for concealment(would you want to be on an inner perimeter with an armed suspect inside a house peeking through windows?). It’s also intimidating for suspects and definitely prompts their surrender.
The suppressors are for distinguishing between team guys and bad guys gunfire. People have some misconception that suppressors make the gun quiet, which they do not. They are still loud, although you can shoot them without ear protection.
As far as no knock warrants, that’s a safety issue. No knock warrants are typically reserved for violent and armed suspects when the mere notification of an impending warrant execution can incite a very dangerous reaction. Lives have been saved by no knocks. It’s not like these are speeding ticket warrants that are being no knocked. These people are the worst of the worst and can and sometimes do shoot at police. The use of no knock warrants is judicious and predicated upon certain circumstances. The element of surprise and violence of action saves lives of police and suspects alike.

I have issues with camouflage being used because it’s intimidating. It’s not only intimidating to the perp but also to the general public. Something as simple as being in all grey or OD green would go a long way in public perception.

No knock raids also result in innocent Americans getting killed in the process. And the officers are never held responsible, even after severely injuring a baby in their crib nobody is held responsible.

I can see how it could be more safe for officers, but at the expense of innocent Americans and for that I find it unacceptable.

We fundamentally disagree on this issue but I appreciate you giving your input.
 

Riddla

It's for your own protection
Established Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2006
Messages
17,346
Location
Tx
Have to put it to use
 

Attachments

  • D2AFDF53-D1A8-43E7-AB6F-A1CB779458AA.gif
    D2AFDF53-D1A8-43E7-AB6F-A1CB779458AA.gif
    2 MB · Views: 95

TK1299

Meh
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
6,430
Location
Houston, TX
I have issues with camouflage being used because it’s intimidating. It’s not only intimidating to the perp but also to the general public. Something as simple as being in all grey or OD green would go a long way in public perception.

No knock raids also result in innocent Americans getting killed in the process. And the officers are never held responsible, even after severely injuring a baby in their crib nobody is held responsible.

I can see how it could be more safe for officers, but at the expense of innocent Americans and for that I find it unacceptable.

We fundamentally disagree on this issue but I appreciate you giving your in.
Bro this kind of needs to be put into perspective a little more. There are rare instances where no knocks were botched for whatever reason. Those rare instances should be addressed and learning from mistakes does occur. But to say no knocks shouldn’t happen at all is a bit reactionary and closed minded.
there are really bad people out there and you need intelligent, bad ass guys in camo to go and get them. Our society hangs on the edge of unruly anarchy and violence must be met with overwhelming violence to be defeated. It is one of the many necessary evils in our world.
 

jeffh81

Here’s KingBlack
Established Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
8,870
Location
Home
The cops should have just walked away and he would had eventually gave up and came out of the house
 

Kevins89notch

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
6,651
Location
Central Florida
...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.

Home before:
Home after:
In regards to the insurance company, I'm just going to copy/paste what someone said on Reddit because they perfectly summed it up.....

It covered the cost of repairing the house. Insurance isn't going to build you a nicer, bigger, house when yours is repairable for far less. This is how things work. If my 2012 Camry is in a collision my insurance is going to give me money to repair it or replace with a similar 2012 car, they're not going to just buy me a brand new BMW.

He drove up his costs immensely by choosing to demolish the house, rip out the foundation, and lay in a far larger one to put in a much nicer house

This guy would have been made whole by his insurance, but it looks like he gambled on an additional payout from police and tried to use the incident to enrich himself.

I think there's plenty of argument to be made that police should have shared liability for that $345,000 with insurance to pay for repairing the building to its original state before they went Hot Fuzz on it, but it seems off to me for him to argue he was owed hundreds of thousands more to go above and beyond repairs and build a whole different building
 

Mpoitrast87

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
1,961
Location
mass
What do you not understand about not everyone has home owners insurance? Would they be forced to eat the cost of the damages caused by the police?
Do you not have car insurance because your car is paid off?
 

Blk04L

. . .
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
11,315
Location
South Florida
Do you not have car insurance because your car is paid off?

There are some that do drop home owners insurance when they pay off the house.

I wouldn't do it, but I guess some rather save a grand or so a year and risk it.

What's interesting was some even do that in Florida, even with Hurricane season lasting almost half a year and Florida Man as their neighbor.
 

08mojo

...
Established Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
2,681
Location
Atlanta, GA
Thanks you..
I just wish I could see the new house, probably the reason his expenditures went so high

I'm starting to change my tune to this story too... Homeowner was paid $345k from his insurance company, but I'm still not clear if that was or was not enough money to rebuild his home. I can say, without a doubt, that the homeowner decided to do some upgrades. Now, were those upgrades $200k...I'm not sure, but definitely an upgrade

Old vs new
old house.jpg
new house.jpg
new house1.jpg
.

Old home vs new home.
 

IronSnake

Beers for the boys
Established Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
4,337
Location
South Carolina
The police should have considered the level of violence from the perp, and responded accordingly.

In this case, it was an excess use of force to apprehend someone who committed a lesser crime. Destroying the house was completely unnecessary and damn straight the Police/Town should've paid for the whatever Insurance didn't cover.
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top