Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Case involving home damage from SWAT
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Blk04L" data-source="post: 16315536" data-attributes="member: 48574"><p><em>A federal appeals court in <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/us-regions/west/colorado" target="_blank">Colorado</a> ruled Tuesday that a local <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/crime/police-and-law-enforcement" target="_blank">police department</a> does not have to compensate a homeowner whose house was destroyed by 19 hours of gunfire between officers and an <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/crime" target="_blank">armed shoplifting suspect </a>who had chosen to barricade himself inside to evade arrest.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p> <em>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, <a href="https://www.denverpost.com/2019/10/30/swat-team-destroyed-greenwood-village-familys-home-police-dont-have-to-pay-for-damages/" target="_blank">the Post</a> reported.</em></p><p> <em>...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.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em><a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-federal-court-rules-police-dept-owes-homeowner-nothing-after-swat-destroys-his-house" target="_blank">Colorado homeowner owed nothing after police SWAT shootout destroys his house, federal court rules</a></em></p><p></p><p>Very odd and unfortunate case.</p><p></p><p>The suspect was armed, but was a shoplifter. Not some mass murderer/tried to kill an elected official.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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".</p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p>Seems like their neighbor got the shaft too from insurance and local, too.</p><p></p><p><strong>EDIT: More info has been posted since the OP</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Blk04L, post: 16315536, member: 48574"] [i]A federal appeals court in [URL='https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/us-regions/west/colorado']Colorado[/URL] ruled Tuesday that a local [URL='https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/crime/police-and-law-enforcement']police department[/URL] does not have to compensate a homeowner whose house was destroyed by 19 hours of gunfire between officers and an [URL='https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/crime']armed shoplifting suspect [/URL]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, [URL='https://www.denverpost.com/2019/10/30/swat-team-destroyed-greenwood-village-familys-home-police-dont-have-to-pay-for-damages/']the Post[/URL] 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. [URL='https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-federal-court-rules-police-dept-owes-homeowner-nothing-after-swat-destroys-his-house']Colorado homeowner owed nothing after police SWAT shootout destroys his house, federal court rules[/URL][/i] 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. [b]EDIT: More info has been posted since the OP[/b] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Case involving home damage from SWAT
Top