I will say in this case. I think this man does need something done to assist his house with his payments though. That is a huge mess. I think he will get granted money for that if they bring it to the higher courts.

That is a lot of damage done to that man's house, esp, if he's a random bystander. That's several force entries that have just taken out huge sections of the wall of the house. Maybe that was the suspect? But I can't really think that would be the case unless he's slugging grenades. Lol

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Nov 30 2019 07:58am

What happens when the MIC just gets new shit all the time and offloads all their old weaponry to untrained obese lardasses who love to jump at the chance at playing SWAT.

Nah let’s wait till we see all the evidence , I’m sure there’s a perfectly good reason the house owner doesn’t deserve any compensation.

I think the situation is fairly simple:

The house owner of course deserves compensation, but the state and the courts are of course aware that a formal, legal precedent would open up pandora's box for them.


A landmark ruling granting people a general right to compensation for any property damage caused to them by police or state actions would cost he police/the state billions of dollars over time.
Even if the entitlement to be compensated would be limited to cases like this one where the wronged party is not the party who committed the crimes which provoked police action in the first place, this could still have a negative impact on law enforcement.
With such a legal situation, cities and counties would direct their officers to stop pursuing criminals as soon as those seek refuge in someone else's house, which would in turn cause this to become the tactic of choice of fugitives.

At the end of the day, I think the best solution for the general problem would be to redirect some of the revenue that authorities make off of seizures and crackdowns toward a victim compensation fund that reimburses persons like the house owner in this case, but without creating a binding legal precedent.

In the case at hand, authorities should voluntarily compensate the guy... the area looks like it isnt starved for money, so neither should be their police department or city hall.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 30 2019 05:07pm

He got 240k from insurance. Is there evidence that 240k is not enough to pay for repairs to the home?

His insurance company paid out $345,000 according to him. And he wants even more. Pathetic non story fake news bull shit

His house has to be broken down, there is nothing to repair.



Rofl, pretty much any house together with a household full of items will be worth more than that.

then it is an insurance company issue. has fuck all to do with the police

Guess what, this is a legal and moral question which goes beyond one concrete case. If the house of someone had been demolished by the police who had no insurance, or who has no financial resources left, then this person wouldnt be able to sue - this person would be sleeping under a bridge or on a friend's couch and be busy making ends meet. Taking such a case to court requires a victim with a minimum amount of funds. If he's successful in the end, this will benefit all victims of such cases, particularly the poor ones without insurance or a snug bank account.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 30 2019 06:43pm

actually if the person had no insurance, and then sued, the judge would consider that fact on a case by case basis, as you pre-supposed there