Quote (proccy @ 1 Dec 2019 02:18)

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

Quote (FGdumpster @ Nov 29 2019 05:32pm)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsMkHS3oIhE

This human being and citizen of the USA had his house destroyed by the police while they were arresting a shoplifter that had taken refuge in his vacant house. They used various weapons, including explosives, to dismantle his house. This is clearly a case of excessive policing.

Yet the judge presiding has ruled that this man is due nothing. The government has ruled that it is not liable for damage that it caused.
How can we not fathom a better system than bestowing a cartel with the power to arbitrarily decide whether it’s own decisions are consequential?

No one should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due cause. These important rights, the one’s we should consider essential, are being forfeited in favor of faux justice and blind obedience to a post-modern orthodoxy with constantly fluctuating axioms. As a result, blind spots like these may soon become the norm.

Quote (Testiclese @ Nov 30 2019 08:57pm)

Hold up just a tick, that one got cut.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 30 2019 08:55pm)

How is this supposed to work?

The police destroyed your 500k home. If you were insured, you get 344k from the insurance, if you were not, you can sue the police and get reimbursed for all the damage?

In that case, insurance companies could just change their policies to not include damage caused by the police/the authorities - and both the insurances and their customers would be better off.

Quote (Skinned @ Dec 1 2019 08:24am)

Lets pass a law abolishing government.



Yeah it did lol.



How about you concretely pay for what you damage? If the insurance company has to pay out they should be able to go after the people who did the damage for recompensation aka the police who destroyed the property. That would make insurance companies effective in dealing with bad economic behaviors instead of being huge economic enablers. Great American Insurance will have a better chance getting recompensated for damages to their interests than me or you do any other individual would.

Quote (Testiclese @ Dec 1 2019 04:24pm)

Yeah but if we make the police pay more, then we'll have to increase taxes to float an increased police budget, so that's a non-starter.

Unless...we make the police a for profit organization! The free market solves its own problems.

Quote (Skinned @ 1 Dec 2019 17:24)

How about you concretely pay for what you damage? If the insurance company has to pay out they should be able to go after the people who did the damage for recompensation aka the police who destroyed the property. That would make insurance companies effective in dealing with bad economic behaviors instead of being huge economic enablers. Great American Insurance will have a better chance getting recompensated for damages to their interests than me or you do any other individual would.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ 1 Dec 2019 00:05)

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.

Quote (ReturnFormer @ Dec 1 2019 11:29am)

what does any of this have to do with God? last i checked, i wasnt praying to the government...

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Dec 1 2019 06:26pm)

I already explained the problem with this "in the end, the authorities pay for the damage"-approach: