Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/08/27/cops-destroyed-mans-house-wi.html
…
5 Likes
Maybe if munincipalities and police forces did not have immunity from being sued, perhaps they would not be so wilffully and wantonly able to destroy private property. I’m assuming this may mean a cop can shoot and kill an obviously innocent person and not have to deal with the consequencses.
15 Likes
Have we got a time-warp here, @orenwolf?
3 Likes
Did this guy not have homeowners insurance? Or was there a clause against police actions in his insurance policy?
Or is this guy caught in a Kafkaesque situation where the city says his insurance should cover it and the insurance company denies the claim because the city should pay for it?
9 Likes
Perhaps “his” lawsuit is really insurance-related…
2 Likes
Apparantly, “Government action,” is usually excluded, along with war, radiation damage, etc…
17 Likes
I am guessing it may be a bit short in damage replacement. And if not, it is out of the deductable. And either way - it should be the POLICE’S insurance who pays for this.
But there is probably some law limiting cop liability.
This is bullshit. 1) They went waaaaaay overboard on a shop lift. Maybe this would be ok if the guy killed someone, but come on.
- Ok, they went full Rambo, now man up and pay for the repairs. Jesus Christ, what happened to personal responsibility?
10 Likes
Well the headline does rather elide over the fact that the suspect shot at the police. So he has been charged with attempted murder.
4 Likes
Arson, murder, and jaywalking.
4 Likes
The Government Action exclusion seems to be there to avoid payout in the case where you were using your home as a meth lab and the cops raided it. I would say there’s a nonzero chance of getting this covered if you brought a lawsuit. This is a a fallback if the city digs in their heels and denies payment.
The one thing that is clear is that this guy should not be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars of repairs because the cops thought they were playing Call of Duty.
13 Likes
Strangely enough, this exact thing happened last year…
to the very same house:
6 Likes
Team Murica to the rescue.
1 Like
Well that does make it a little less ridiculous. But it seems to me waiting it out, the former norm, would have been cheaper and not put anyone’s lives in direct risk.
3 Likes
any chance of someone getting the police officers names on the net?
1 Like
Yes, but I have no reason to believe that with the exclusion in there, the insurer is likely to be less rapacious than heath insurers are about denying payment. Theoretically, you could sue the criminal, since the police reaction was to his criminal act of shooting at them. But somebody shoplifing from Wallmart is probably judgementproof.*
*not having enough money to be worth suing.
3 Likes
I don’t think so, @beschizza noted an update to his court case from last year in his post.
13 Likes
I feel like “waiting it out” was the right solution. The suspect was contained and definitely not going anywhere, and he didn’t have any hostages. There was no need for a full-on tactical solution. Just let him hang out in there until he gets bored and frustrated and gives up.
6 Likes
It seems to me that no state or municipality has the authority to put aside the 5th amendment restrictions upon our government.
3 Likes
I agree, you really would think so. But, “sovereign immunity” gives governments incredibly broad protections against being sued for their actions, with some, usually legislated, exceptions. I’m sure Wikipedia has a good breakdown.
3 Likes
At least they didn’t use asset forfeiture to claim his house since it had an alleged criminal inside!
3 Likes
