The Police Blew Up The House! (The Case Of)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.lin... ⚖️
Nice home ya got there. It’d be a shame if the police destroyed it.
Get CuriosityStream AND Nebula for 30 days free curiositystrea... Special EXTENDED version only on Nebula!
Based on the real case of Lech v. City of Greenwood Village (10th Cir. 2019). #TrueCrime #LegalEagle
Written by Devin Stone, Donnalyn Vojta & Tricia Aurand
Illustrations by Nik Gothic and Alex Duran
Edited by Amy McClung
Summary from Wikipedia:
The arrest of Robert Jonathan Seacat was the culmination of a destructive 19.48-hour standoff with American police in June 2015. After being chased by police for stealing clothing from a Walmart, Seacat barricaded himself in the Greenwood Village, Colorado house at 4219 South Alton Street. By the time Seacat was finally extracted from the premises, the house had been destroyed by law-enforcement in their efforts. The homeowner-Leo Lech-filed a lawsuit against the municipality for compensation, but was ruled against by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; he was considering appealing to the Supreme Court of the United States.
(Thanks to CuriosityStream for sponsoring this video and helping to make this channel possible)
New episodes weekly! Subscribe here:
www.youtube.co...
★More series on LegalEagle★
Real Lawyer Reacts: goo.gl/hw9vcE
Laws Broken: goo.gl/PJw3vK
Law 101: goo.gl/rrzFw3
Real Law Review: goo.gl/NHUoqc
I get asked a lot about whether being a practicing attorney is like being a lawyer on TV. I love watching legal movies and courtroom dramas. It's one of the reasons I decided to become a lawyer. But sometimes they make me want to pull my hair out because they are ridiculous. So I decided to make my own series exploring real cases and true crime. I believe that if you give people the relevant information they can make informed decisions about our world. The “law” is not necessarily the statutes that are passed by congress but are the rules that everyone agrees to live by. This series explores the cases and stories that shaped our law.
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.c...
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
========================================================
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ ➜ / legaleagledj
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta ➜ / stellathelegalbeagle
★ For promotional inquiries please reach out here: legaleagle@standard.tv
👮♂️What case should I do next?
🚀Get CuriosityStream & Nebula to watch the best documentaries and the EXTENDED VIDEO: curiositystream.com/legal
The truth behind the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. Reality vs the corporate spin
Philly police bombing a house.
How about Lon Horiuchi?
@LegalEagle objection! You've touched on Better Call Saul but failed to address the best legal situation in the entire series: the court-room collapse of Chuck in S3E05: Chicanery. Was any of it legal? Would it make Jimmy culpable in Chuck's death by initiating his decline in mental health?
Can you address the contractual situation with Earl Thomas of the Baltimore Ravens possibly being released from his contract after being the victim of domestic violence and robbery?
Would you possibly break down the Ahmaud Aubrey situation, with respects to the thresh-hold for "stand your ground" laws, and the potential legal-exposure of the people who filmed the shooting while driving?
Love the channel, as soon as Im working again Im gonna become a paying member!
Devin it would be so great if you would review A Civil Action 1998. Yeah it's Travolta but still a great story and commentary on a lawyers process
Got to love the government. "I destroyed your house and definitely should've compensated you for it but lookie I made you safe".
Thank you officer, I feel very safe living on the streets!
🔥
If by safe you mean, destroyed your one place of saftey, put you further in debt, possibly traumatized you and your family, forced you out onto the streets with no home to return to...yea...safe. This is so much excessive force. Why wasn't that ever stated? Is there no statement that says police can not use excessive force on a building or property?
@@jacobcoady8852 qualified immunity. cops can do whatever the hell they want.
Did you listen to the video? Their argument was that it wasn't the federal government, i.e. the military, taking the home but the police which have different role and responsibilities.
But yeah, the government still went with "welp, it was a police action, tough luck" as way of defense.
What a stupid legal system. “Yes we completely destroyed your house beyond repair, but we don’t need to pay you because we didn’t legally take your house first”
I suspect the issue here was the insurance would only cover half the cost of the rebuild.
Yup.Trash.WE NEED A REFORM!
Don’t forget that the criminal they were attempting to catch was a result of the war on drugs created by said legal system
Qualified immunity needs to be vastly reigned in, if not thrown away. The police constantly over reach because of it.
@@realsonofmars Of course. A country in which the law is above itself is a country leading itself towards totalitarian autocracy
Government: Best I can do is $5,000 for the absolute destruction of your house, oh and if you try to enter your ruined house for belongings we will arrest you
Yah that's the iceing on the cow patty cake isnt it
Spend that 5k on explosives and level that police chiefs house with everyone inside.
@@jasjfl well If you do that you at least don't have to worry about being homeless anymore...
ahh yes, "land of the free"
Police: “You home is safe to enter now, you can go get your stuff.”
Also police: “You can’t enter your house and get your stuff, it’s not safe.”
I knew before you even got to the end that the family wouldn't get compensation. My friend has his house raided around 3 am one morning in college. He and his roomates were dragged out of bed, their house ransacked, the front door destroyed, all because their neighbor was selling drugs and the cops got the wrong house.
No apology, no compensation, just "there's no drugs here, must be the wrong house."
In cases like that, suing for negligence is more of a thing. Though it depends on the situation.
@@TitaniumDragon Legal fees for that can get expensive, and with the low chance of success a few college students aren't going to be able to take the risk.
Insurance compensated the family in the video. They should have done the same for you.
@@carlost856 What the insurance payout rate for a home invasion?
I have to side with the family here. When the Police took charge of the home they altered its purpose. It went from being a home to being the means through which the police were able to use to apprehend the criminal. THEY tore out the walls to create opening that wants to use as gun ports. THEY blew out the windows for the purpose of smoking out the criminal. They changed the function of the structure to fit their intended needs at that time and in doing so I feel they Altered the home's purpose.
Yeah the defences argument seemed to backfire but they still went with him. Perhaps there was something in the case we didn't see
I’m surprised the family’s attorney didnt’ fire back with that. “A pile of rubble is not a house, therefore the purpose was altered.”
They may have left the citizens their *land*, but how could they argue they *didn't* take the house itself?
Considering how they couldn't live in it after, how is the purpose not altered? Before it was a residential home, after the police were done with it it was a condemned pile of rubble. I don't think you can live in a condemned pile of rubble, in fact according to this video they could have been arrested for attempting to live in it because of the condemned title.
it really seems like a SWAT team could have cleared the house significantly easier then blowing up the entire house.
but the SWAT team gave up after coming under fire, surely they could have used a concussion grenade or smoke to cover their approach.
There is no decent human being who could ever imagine that the cops should be able to get away with this insanity.
Well, i guess they won't have to. They'll be gone a four months
I can imagine cause it just happened
@@imoaardvark2248 Well, apparently the US Supreme Court does not consist of decent human beings, or at least not enough of them to accept this case.
Unfortunately it isn't up to decent human beings. It is up to those that write the law and uphold the law as written. Given the fact that the Supreme Court wouldn't even hear the case should tell everyone that:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Doesn't really mean shit.
"Not been altered from a residence into a missile command silo"
Yeah, you altered it from a place you can live to a place you can't live in. You altered it from a house to a pile of rubble.
a silo implies you could even store something there
This honestly put a damper on my whole day. The police rendered their house to an uninhabitable state and got away with only paying out $5k due to a legal loophole. That sucks so much.
It's not a legal loophole.
If a drunk driver driving a rental car ran over your loved one, and you had to damage the rental car to save your loved one, do you think that the rental car company should be able to sue you for the damage to their car?
No, of course not; the person responsible for that is the drunk driver.
If a criminal puts people's lives in danger, and we have to damage property to protect the public from them, the criminal should be the one who is responsible for it.
They are suing the police because the police have deep pockets.
For real. I hate this whole thing.
@@TitaniumDragon Your argument has a flaw:
The ones doing the damage where representing the government while doing so.
They used disproportionate, excessive force, or else the house wouldn't have been rendered uninhabitable by police action.
The government destroyed the house. The government can pay for it.
Because the police _can_ afford to pay for the damage _they directly caused through their excessive, negligent action_ , they should.
@Titanium Dragon what a interesting comparison 😆
@@TitaniumDragon you're not wrong
This is literally the "I wasn't driving, I was traveling" argument except it's the government so it works.
sovereign government. XD
I want to see a parody of that.
Donut Operator got a content idea for ya...LMAO
It's like that other version: "i didn't shoot, the gun did!"
Levelling an innocent family's house with gas grenades, explosives, a robot and a SWAT team to arrest a man accused of stealing some electronics from Walmart that probably cost a few hundred dollars is the most American thing I can think of.
They spent MORE time, effort, resources and possibly life on that one scene in that period than it was ever worth his stealing.
Send a few men in armored up after finding what room he was in. Cause a large distraction while they move in. Bam. Catch by Suprise and arrest him.
House still there.
(I know it isn't that easy..)
that person was armed which posed a huge problem.... tho i feel it could have been handled better with less destruction of the house
As soon as he fired at a police officer, the theft was pretty much irrelevant. The stand off itself makes sense, it was important that he wouldn’t have a chance to get away and to avoid risking the lives of law enforcement as much as possible. The destruction of the property seems excessive to me, but I don’t have any knowledge about situations like that. However, the behaviour afterwards was disgraceful. Calling to inform that they may take their belongings and that “some destruction” had occurred and only offering 5000$ after the family comes to the station in need is silly and shows contempt for the innocent family whose home had been destroyed.
And shot at a police officer. Twice, don't forget that
And my family doesn't understand why I shit all over this place.
If you destroy someone’s house, I don’t care what the purpose is, pay compensation
If you destroy or take someone's property there should be compensation.
What if the purpose is that they told you to?
Even if the purpose is to catch someone who almost stole something from Walmart?
@Aarav Valaparla Pretty sure he was being sarcastic
@@emilyseer7898 then that destruction is not without consent...
idk tho
I've heard about it and I'm still baffled this even ended up in front of a court to begin with. To me it's common sense that the family should be compensated but I guess laws are not that simple
Common sense isn't so common. And after hearing this, makes me even more despising the legal system 'protecting' police.
Uniform or not, someone (a human being) or something (man's machines/intent/actions) caused this and thus, a human being needs to compensate for the damages and or attacks done. Period.
It seems like an issue lawmakers should deal with.
@@tovekauppi1616 yes
Completely agree. The family is not even asking for anyone to be held liable of jailed. They just want police funds to pay for the reconstruction of their house.
Perhaps they should be
Without hearing the verdict yet, I would say that destroying a home to the point that it’s condemned and cannot be used as a residence is 100% altering it’s purpose. It can no longer be used for the purpose for which it was built.
I think everyone should learn that a justice system doesn't mean it's just. Court systems suck off old cases instead of what's actually just and logical.
But the fact that the family rebuilt proves otherwise. The lot was still zoned as residential and the police’s didn’t cause any toxic damage. So it could still be lived on.
Jacob Clark true, but the actual structure itself was altered beyond usability for *any* purpose, since it was unsafe to even leave it standing.
@@TheLordsCanary I argue that the purpose of the house wasn't changed but the viability of using the property for its intented purpose was. The house was always a house and was never changed to be anything else and thus its purpose was not changed.
Honestly what exactly would the court determine is altering the purpose???
I find it interesting that this has been argued primarily as a matter of property law, at least as portrayed here, and not argued that there wasn't also a case of excessive force on the part of the police. The building was completely surrounded and there was no conceivable means of escape for Robert Seacat. What the police did in compromising the structural integrity of the building, put the entering officers, Seacat, and the community at greater risk of death than had the police done nothing except wait it out. The penetrations to the buildings shell compromise the lateral force resisting system of the house, leading to a greater likelihood of collapse especially in the event of a sharp wind gust. Moreover, the effectively unlicensed demolition raised the possibility of starting a building fire or gas explosion which could further compromise the public safety. A temporary evacuation of the immediate neighborhood and establishment of a perimeter around the premise in question with officers behind behind ballistic shielding would have been enough to ultimately neutralize the threat and eventually affect arrest, the guy wouldn't be able to hide in a house forever.
That is the fault of the lawyer. Once you pick an argument or your charges/allegations you have to stick to it. I agree, they could have argued using excessive force also.
Exactly my thoughts too, I found the focus very weird, but I know next to nothing about legal matters so I can't comment. In my view the police's action was unnecessary and excessive, but I do agree that they should have that legal immunity. I'd say in this case Seacat would be responsible, but of course you can't expect him to pay up. Really sticky situation.
The hostages in the Iranian embassy situation in the UK was based on waiting out the hostage takers, not blowing up the embassy. Things could stretch for days if they had to for this guy, they could turn off the water taps and the guy would be out in less than a week and would be forced to sleep at some point and would probably be out of his drug supply keeping him awake sooner or later.
That said, as for why it was sued on this basis is because the homeowners wouldn't have standing for the police using force, they weren't the ones subject to the force, Seacat was.
@@robertjarman3703 they're property was subject to the force though no?
It's interesting that the lawyer also didn't argue excessive force but there may be a legal reason why they didn't but regardless the city/state/police should have paid so that they could replace their entire home and lost possessions, to argue otherwise is not Justice.
I grew up in Greenwood Village, and I remember this!
I didn't see any of the incident personally, but I remember the heavy police presence. I never heard of the result, which is... frankly disgusting.
This is the case of taking the law as is and ignoring the spirit of the law. To protect the innocent . This should never have come to a litigation. They should have been reimbursed fully and then some.
This is probably the best example of "the cure being worse than the disease". It's the very definition of "using a missile to swat a fly". Just as a matter of legitimacy, the government should have never let this get to court and rather settled with full payment to the family. It's bad enough that the event happened and became local public knowledge.
My question is "Who would ever trust or cooperate with the police, after that?"
Exactly that, abusing their police powers.
@@1mag1nat1vename They have probably spent more on legal fees than what the house would have cost the city in compensation.
I live near GV. Here's a story I told in another comment:
Mr. Nathan very much reminds me of GV's government as a whole in a really weird way. GV has a summer event called "Greenwood Village Days" at a big park in the city, and you need a ticket to get in. My address technically is not in GV but most of the neighborhoods around me are, so they USED to give us tickets as a neighborhood courtesy. Probably about 10 years ago, they just stopped since TECHNICALLY they don't have to do anything for us. The argument Mr. Nathan makes exactly follows this - according to the letter of the law, GV doesn't have to help out, so...it won't, really.
The question now is did they protect the innocent. If the protection of the innocent leaves the innocent without the basic necessities of life did they actually protect the innocent?
Let me get this straight. The police department could afford hours of wages for multiple officers, explosives, a goddamn robot, an armed task force and snipers. They then explicitly stated the house was too destroyed to be fit for resistance. Then refused to pay the family for their destroyed house.
Imagine how that poor family feel when they have to pay tax.
"But it still has the purpose of a residence, so it has not been altered in purpose."
9Johnny8 if it’s declared uninhabitable then it can no longer serve as a place of residence.
@@hazzasazza444 That was the point I tried to make. I used the quotation marks to show that was the reasoning the defendant's lawyer used. Maybe should've used /s for sarcasm.
@@hazzasazza444 In the end, the property is currently a residence, ergo was not "altered in purpose". And I suspect that the "house was damaged so bad it had to be demolished" was a short way of saying "the damage to the house was severe enough that it was more cost-effective to demolish it and start fresh than to attempt to repair the existing structure", meaning that the police had returned a "house" to the family, despite its condition. Seems to me that the family was screwed over far more by their insurance company, if the house was considered a complete write-off, their policy should have covered far more than half the costs.
@Luís Filipe Andrade That's the issue, the court found that there is not right to compensation for damage that occurs from police using their policing powers as opposed to the state using eminent domain.
Before the verdict reveal: Even under the argument of "Altered" referring to the purpose of the property, I would still side with the family. As a result of the actions taken by the police the home had to be condemned, thus the property can no longer serve its original purpose as a residential home, therefore the purpose of the property has been altered.
After the reveal: Those judges are idiots and the family should definitely keep pushing for the decision to be reversed.
Unfortunately that takes money(for the lawyer fees) and they're run out before it gets that far-That what the defendants (the police) are counting on
100% agree.
@@nancyomalley9959 Pro Bono hopefully
Each of the Judges should have all of their personal property forcibly taken, then smashed to pieces, and given back. Also they are legally forbidden from even trying to use that property as it is now unsafe.
Yep, if "condemned public safety hazard" does not mean altered I don't know what is.
I honestly hope they try for the supreme court on this case. This seems like a very good case where some grey areas need to be cleared up in the case something like this happens again. Maxim made a very strong case for the fact the police altered the purpose of the property while they were temporarily holding it. Sure, it is not quite the same as eminent domain, but the family could not use their property the same way again after the destruction of their house.
Waste of time. I don't see this SCOTUS doing anything to undermine absolute state authority.
It has been appealed to SCOTUS as of March of this year (2020) but something came up so not much news on it since then.
@@dunzerkug what came up?
Zefram Mann State authority is not absolute. If the police are grossly negligent or reckless in their behavior, their actions are not covered by the qualified immunity enjoyed under the police power.
@@TheEmmakathryn My Sharona!
Removing my own feelings from the issue is difficult, but even when I remain as objective as I can, the act of "Taking" is to remove something from the possession of others. By destroying their home to the point of making it uninhabitable, they have removed the home from the family as it no longer serves the purpose for which it was designed.
I would have ruled in favor of the family.
at least give them a home a house with 4 walls and that is it on the place they removed the old house. a worse house is still a house and so the family has a house.
Okay, so you are a judge who ruled in favor of the family. Police departments will remember this, and they will be less likely to work with you as a judge. So, in order to keep the peace, this family has to be sacrificed.
@@KyurekiHana Then those police officers need to be fired and replaced.
@@KyurekiHana Since when do the police get to pick what judges they work with? They are supposed to be an individual entity that looks at the cases the police and civilians bring up to them and to look if any legislation is broken
@@vincenthanff7026 they don't, but they often are the first to determine what laws they uphold or overlook. In addition, the judge themselves will have interactions with police outside of the courtroom, and you usually want to be on their good sides. It's a give and take thing, because both sides have been known to flex their power from time to time.
"I submit that the law permits application of logic and common sense"
That's where she went wrong lmao
yeah, there is no logic or common sense in law, it really is an ass...
'common sense' isn't common, especially in law.
Logic and common sense would suggest that criminals are responsible for the damage they do and the damage that is done in protecting others from them.
"The house looked like it was bombed."
Well it literally was.
This is sad
It literally wasn't
@@brandondriver99 Not bombed, just dEmOLiShEd wItH ExPlOsIvEs.
@@blue_tetris well only some of the house was damaged with explosives.
@Christopher Corriveau no I mean the majority was smashed up, not blown up
Police Lawyer: "It wasn't taken because it was in fact returned"
- Family is refused entry to home, and the home is eventually demolished
I would hardly call this "returned"
Police Lawyer: "That 2017 case actually meant if the purpose had been altered"
My brain right at that moment: "ARE YOU FREAKING TELLING ME YOU'D USE THAT BUILDING AS A PRIVATE RESIDENCE IN ITS CURRENT STATE!?"
We have altered the house, pray we do not alter it further
Unfortunately, the way the government views it is that the condemnation and demolishment are separate from the police action. While the police may have caused the situation, the police did not condemn the home, that was likely something like code enforcement. Therefore from the perspective of the police it was returned. It's a weasly little argument, but a legally sound one based on case law. This is something that needs to go higher up the judicial food chain in order to have the precedent of previous case law altered. I hope the family does keep pressing forward with the case, but even if they get to the Supreme Court, I am not sure it will change things. The Supreme Court has been extremely conservative in it's view of cases of eminent domain. I get the argument that police need to be free to do what is necessary for the public good, but at the same time they need to be cognizant of the effects their actions have and the government, be it city, county, state, or federal, need to fairly compensate people whose property is damaged in police actions.
@@N1ghtLancer You are my favourite person this week
@@ccapwell Wait, why is the action of police and government separated? Aren't they effectively the same institution, like the Federal State and the military?
@@masalaman7820 Which branch of the federal government are you saying is the same institution as the military? The executive, the legislative, or the judicial?
16:23 - Apparently, the city and the police department conveniently ignored the fact that the Takings Clause itself draws no such distinction and names no exceptions to the requirement that property owners be compensated when their property is taken.
"We're not arguing that we traumatized the entire family down to their dogs, blew the shit out of their house and made sure they knew it was uninhabitable by forcing them away from their own blown up house, that we blew up, nor are we arguing that we absolutely took every measure to escalate every aspect of the situation, but we just reeeeaaalllly don't feel like taking responsibilityyyyyy sooooooo..."
"really they should be paying us for all the explosives we had to use."
“I mean, yeah we destroyed the house but man did we scare the HELL outta that shoplifter”
@@lunarservant6781 Don't forget the traumaticed policemen who were exposed to all these explosions like a war zone. The family should pay for the therapists bills.
@@TremereTT because the family did?
What?
What did they do to deserve any cost to their lives? Live in the US? Seems like punishment enough.
@@DemonjustinofPhoenix woosh
"Look, it's not altered. The livingroom is still a livingroom, and the bedroom is still a bedroom, and the house is still a house."
Uh... The house is no longer liveable or safe. I'd say that is altered.
"Look, we didn't tear it down and build a strip club in it's place, so clearly there's no issue..."
The purpose of a house never changes. The issue is the cops turned it from a house into a ruin.
"I didn't _kidnap_ your cat, I just killed her and left her body on your doorstep! I don't know what you're complaining about, she's right there!"
And you can't pick her up or I'll arrest you
That sounds like a line from Family Guy. Is that a line from Family Guy?
"I didn't take your wallet! I just picked it up from your bag, emptied it and threw it away somewhere. If you don't retain it it's not taking!"
Legit sounds like something PETA would say to wiggle their way out of any criminal persecution. Oh wait, they did do something like that.
#fuckPETA #justice4Maya
Cops kill a dog every hour of every day in the US
Wow. Okay. The purpose of the home WAS altered as it went from a private residential area, to an area deemed uninhabitable and too dangerous even when the police force explicitly stated that their home was in fact “safe to return to to claim any personal property”. This family should absolutely take this to the Supreme Court
they did, and they lost-
@@notarobot1494 No, the refused to review it. The Supreme Court did not rule on this case.
“We can’t take control of your home without permission, but we can destroy it without.” How do Americans not live in fear of that?
Most Americans don't realise they live in a totalitarian police state until they become its victims themselves
@@exantiuse497 I’m an atheist, but amen to that!
But hey, at least they have the constitutional right to not have to house British soldiers in their home
@@DukeDukeGo can't house soldiers in your home if you have no home
As an american... I do
"If Seacat is willing to open fire on the police, what else is he capable of?"
Well, opening fire on anyone is pretty much the worst-case scenario already, isn't it?
He could take the pups as Hostage!
Perhaps he wanted to blow up the entire house. Luckily, they prevented that.
@@stefanoolivotto2391 the home was blown up anyway, and it seems he ran there to hide from the police
@@septicaemia5699 Am I going to woooosh you or...?
@@stefanoolivotto2391 *yes*
If somebody destroys something you own, they ought to replace/repair it.
Just saying, all of this could have been prevented with a shotgun boobytrap
Which is illegal. Several US home owners have been charged for keeping lethal traps on their property.
@@ZakTheFallen It was a reference to his other case video involving the shotgun boobytrap.
@@popcornsprinkles8071 I got that reference.
Nah, too damaging, pull out the 50 cal sniper trap that shoots out the door, not damaging the house
@@ZakTheFallen that's stupid
In my opinion, the house being condemned is key in this case. The fact that the house was condemned by the government should be considered as an admission and acknowledgement by the government that their temporary use of the house did, in fact, change its purpose.
I'm also of the opinion that the condemnation itself should really be considered a taking in this case. To my mind, there is a difference between this and the case of a property being condemned due to negligence on the part of the owner. This was not a home condemned because the owner neglected their responsibilities not to allow their property to fall into such a state of disrepair it became a hazard to public safety for example. This was a property condemned because the government themselves willfully took a non-hazardous structure and made it hazardous then used that as grounds to condemn it. Sorry, but the latter situation is not one in which the burden of condemnation should be on the home-owner they were not liable for any act or omission that would justify the condemnation the government was.
It would still be considered a private residence, even if condemned. Or at least it can be argued such.
@@aoikemono6414 How can it be considered a *residence* if it's condemned as unfit to live in? Condemned means it's not fit to be a residence - therefore, it isn't a residence.
If the police had blown up one of the judges' houses, the outcome would've been different.
As a Venezuelan of the pre-america-hating era, I like your thinking
If you had this before a jury the police better have a awesome storyteller to convince them it was necessary, they would all be rolling their eyes when they say they were totally in the right.
Girllllll
They won't let it go to jury like it should because any jury would tell them to pay for the house.
@@meneldal yes, why is that not a question? A dangerous person surrounded and without a hostage - he isn't a going anywhere, sure it might take a lot longer, but I hope the police has other methods than blowing the place up
OBJECTION: “a disheveled man who plainly doesn’t belong there” WHERE ELSE ARE DISHEVELED PEOPLE GOING TO SHOP BUT WALMART.
That was clearly a Malwart
I once saw a disheveled man getting arrested in a Walmart. Everyone was just walking by like nothing was happening.
I think you are underestimating his disheveledness.
@@ld6782 Yeah, I think we're talking more than too tight yoga pants and unkempt hair.
I always wondered, is it possible to be just sheveled? Or...heveled?
What if they weren't insured? Jeeze this ruling is horrible.
What I gather from another comment is that the house was insured (But they still had to take out a mortgage to cover all the cost). However, because it was rented from the father and the son did not have insurance the property of the son was not insured.
Well certain insurers wont offer coverage on "acts of war", and might have these types of situations under that. And thusly wont pay out.
I recall hearing a similar case where the police destroyed a home, government offered like only 10k, and insurance wouldn't cover it.
The home owners did try and sue to government and I believe they might have won, but I would need to look up and find that case again to be certain...
Edit: try as I might I cant seem to find that specific case
At the end he says they did get some compensation, but not full compensation, and no help in paying off legal fees.
So, I'd bet it's safe to say they got screwed over real bad in this case. Even with insurance.
@@ronrolfsen3977 I mean what happens if they unwisely had no insurance? Police go 'Rip your house. Have $5000' and run away
@@Moleoflands Well like Freak_Gene said, "acts of war" are not covered by insurance and this could be argued as such. Plus insurance tends to be less for your benefit and more only when they really feel like being nice to you. It's not that simple.
Legally, they ruled correctly. It was a stretch trying to use the takings clause for this case. But that doesn't mean the law is just. There was no need to destroy anything. They could have waited the criminal out or smoked/gassed him out. Police need to be considerate of collateral damage. The only way that they ever will be is if they are accountable for the actions. We have a major problem in this country when it comes to holding police accountable for their actions.
This is the best reply I've seen. If there is "justice" for this family it will come in the reformation of their local police department, but it sounds like they did pretty well considering they paid over two times the cost of the average home owners insurance policy's deductible. Why pay for insurance if the government is responsible for your property losses in the interest of pursing what WE THE PEOPLE have paid them to do. Are firefighters responsible if your house burns down? I'm sure there is a way to make a system like that work, but it would phase out insurance companies and head in the direction of giving the government more tax money to account for these incidents.
And even then mathematically it's cheaper to have national and international insurance covering things like this as opposed to local governments.
iyo how about 4th Amendment?
@@wiseoldmonke If the Firefighters are the ones who start the fire and then they insist it was 'necessary', yes they are responsible for my house burning down
Connor Altier interesting perspective. But home owners policies don’t usually cover arson so that is a bit a metaphoric fallacy.
Why does this remind me of the opening scene of Team America: World Police where they destroy all of Paris' monuments to catch a single t'rrist and then expect the people to be thankful?
Because the creators of South Park know what good satire is.
Imagine if after all of that, they fond out Seacat was no where to be found.
All of that destruction and hardship for a guy with a handgun and some drugs who was trying to steal small electronics... the police probably spent more than 5k busting up the house, and they couldn't even spare that much for the family?! The gall of those people.
Yeah, also they could have just waited a couple of days until the guy needed water and food/was too exhausted or sleep deprived to keep resisting. Instead they choose to just blow it up. Also what are flashbangs and other stuff for? Does the Police in the United States always need to completely blow up a house when there is a single guy with a handgun?
The 5K probably came from the accounting department as pre-calculated compensation package
@@RandomPerson-yq1qk If the officers waited him out (he'd run out of drugs sooner or latter) some liberal judge would let him go because his rights to a speedy arrest and trial would have been violated...oh wait that's just Canada.
@@warrensteel9954 thats not how it works. The cases in canada that have been dismissed because they were not provided a speedy trial you are usually looking at months if not years till a trial. If you can find a case that contradicts that humour me especially if its a felony
@@warrensteel9954 Would you mind elaborating on exactly what a "right to a speedy arrest" is? Because I'm quite certain I've never heard of it before.
Legally, it's a bit iffy. Morally, though, there's no question that the city should have helped them more than they did.
Wow! the American justice system is just broken beyond and recognition.
When did America get a justice system? It's still "The side with the most expensive lawyers dictates the law" right?
Atheists Fight Club
That’s mostly for civil and minor criminal cases
@@christiniakollar8397 its still part of the justice system.
I disagree, this is very much recognizable as the American justice system.
I didn't know much about the justice system and this series just makes me depressed
Why couldn't this case be a simple "you damaged my stuff, so you're liable"?
Why did this have to be a Constitutional issue?
Cause it's better if we take old people's words from a few hundred years ago then admit you messed up.
@@davidinass But these old people from a few hundred years ago based their system of government on the thought of a old guy from a few hundred years ago called John Locke.
And guess what one of his basic principles of government was?
Protection of the property rights of its citizens.
A double-edged sword: It protected slavery, but also says "If agents of the government destroy private property, the government is liable for damages and has to compensate".
Because the US is a failed state?
Because they're the police, so they're above the law
@@mujtabaalam5907 If it was that simple, then the entire case would be automatically dismissed anyway.
That doesn't explain it: why not just sue them for property damage? It seems like a much more clear, direct, simple easy to handle the case. Making it into a constitutional issue seems like an overcomplicated approach that is more likely to fail.
Seriously, I am betting if the judges or the police themselves were in the same circumstances at that family, they'd all switch sides on "the police/city should pay for this damage" faster than the blink of an eye.
FFS Cities have budgets, if the city or an entity controlled by the city (for example the Police) destroys something, it should have to pay to cover all damages from it.
Cities actually pay for insurance. They probably just didn't want their insurance premiums to be raised.
I think the position of the court might be the following: Morally, the family should be compensated, but is that correct under current law? And I can understand the reading, that it is not. But I would at the same time think, congress / state goverments should pass a law, under which people can be compensated if the loss they had due to police is too high / unwarranted.
@@Furavara I would say that the purpose was altered when they tore down walls for sniper holes, and broke windows to smoke him out. Although certainly, when government entities act overzealously, and cause unwarranted damage, they should be on the hook.
@@Furavara That was my interpretation as well.
@@Furavara I was going to say that I wouldn't have a warranted clause because the government would use that to get out of otherwise blatant destruction cases; however, after reading your comment again, I believe you meant to have a conjunctive or statement. The victim would be entitled to compensation when the loss is too high OR unwarranted. Then we would simply need to define what is too high, and I would submit that any damage that exceeds what the parties insurance would cover to repair would automatically make a loss "Too High"
I love "Lowe Depot" and "Malmart."
Missed opportunity: Malwart
Dome Hepot
Or as AvE would say “Homeless Despot”
Wow. I did not even notice that.
@@ziggystardog in the video, it actually does say Malwart.
automatic mattywhack read it wrong.
Although he was a dangerous criminal, I struggle to balance making five people homeless in order to arrest one man.
Where does protecting lives stop? they could have evacuated the whole area and carpet bombed it. Would it be okay then? the fact of the matter is this isn't a civil crime, it is a war crime IMHO.
I'd rather have had 10 officers die in that exchange than for a family to end up homeless.
@@carbon1255 evacuate the city and nuke it, just to be sure.
A man who shot at a cop. Dont forget that part.
@@carbon1255 exactly
So whenever the police deem it necessary, they can just take over anyone's home and do whatever they like without consequences? Doesn't seem right to me at all.
here is a case that is even more egregious that the one featured here. IMO but go ahead and share your opinion. It does require some reading however docs.google.com/document/d/1UIvcKhZFXFKiwzBOzXz0cJ3Hs9A6gFfl3WXJv6O3OgE/edit?usp=sharing
As long as they don't turn it into another kind of building.
You mean 4th Amendment? I suspect the lawyer did a bad job in this case.
@@chongjunxiang3002 he was a conspirator against my rights. Tortured by my gov.
@@songboat i just read that entire thing and that is horrifying that there was corruption on every level which prevented any justice due to evidence being ignored, destroyed or mishandled
As the plantiffs' home was condemned and could not be used as a residence, I would consider the property had been altered from its purpose.
Unfortunately this sort of case is seen by a panel of judges not a jury of your peers. If it was a jury trial they'd have won on round one.
That was only aftermath, after the home had been returned to them
This would be my argument exactly. For a family home to go from livable residence to public hazard is a major alteration in any sense of the word.
@@Cyan101 The police effectively took possession of the house when they surrounded it and stopped anybody coming near. They returned the house after it had been demolished due to it not being fit for habitation. Demolishion is a fairly major alteration that tends to affect the purpose of the property.
Cops took the house for 19 hours, used excessive force (what use did blowing the door make or the sniper positions?), trashed the house so bad that it was declared uninhabitable and the same state that police is part of declared that the house must be torn down. Soil is there but the house is definetly taken.
If the lawyers want to argue over the "alteration" part of being taken, I'm pretty sure the house wasn't a *target practice field* before the police used excessive force to blow its walls down. How's that for alteration?
What they did was not excessive force, at least the door blowing and the snipers (bulldozing the house probably was tho, although it could be debated), it's pretty much standard procedure in a standoff, as far I know. that being said, the police should definetly have paid.
@@treeble2793 12 SWAT dudes wouldn't work?
I'd rather my tax dollars go to repaying families like these than all the settlements for officer misconduct... this is infuriating
This is a form of officer misconduct.
objection: false equivalence
Wait, what?
ok but also "robot arm on a chassis exclusively for handing hostage-takers cell phones" though
I'm just surprised that police has the power to "use and destroy" a property without any compensation.
I think I think the judges should rule in favor of the plaintiff.
If american police say they found drugs in your home they can seize it and sell it to get a bonus in some states.
Police in the U.S. enjoy total immunity from responsibility and accountability.
"I'm just surprised that police has the power to "use and destroy" a property without any compensation.
"
Are you completely oblivious to how minorities are treated in the US?
It makes sense. if the police have to compensate for the destruction of property, they will not want to do anything that might destroy property. This may lead them to make suboptimal decisions in how to deal with potentially dangerous situations. This can mean a loss of life that could have been prevented, if they had just done what was necessary without having to worry about destroying property.
@@howiehiew I think you mean "if the police are held accountable for their actions, they might have to consider those actions before they take them."
Destroy a wall in order to catch a criminal safely.
Alteration: Wall removed
The function of the new form: Allow safe takedown of said criminal.
The function of the house altered beyond its initial purpose without the owners approvals.
Conclusion: Absolutely falls under the takings clause.
Exactly, can't believe the court is so dumb, should really go to the supreme Court
@@dumb1890 Alternatively they could agree that it's not under Takings clause and now we're under a different timeline.
Police operatives destroyed civilian property for no practical reason whatsoever.
Charge the entire police force with vandalism and potential terrorist acts.
@@Caldera01 i find it ironic that we're now charging the very entity that takes down terrorists with terrorist charges
@@urfaverthiaya6508 police forces aren't generally meant for counterterrorism
"Yeah we blew up your house and all but we don't have to pay for it cause we gave it back after."
Amazing logic.
Objection: Police are protected from being sued in the course of doing their job. However police are responsible for any and all grievous harm caused, physically or financially, in that pursuit as the state assumes liability in those cases. Destruction of a home, by the very order of a police supervisor, constitutes a clear disregard for personal property in their efforts to capture a felon, regardless of public good. It was a choice made for expediency rather than necessity, the very heart of most police brutality claims. As such the state/township itself is liable for damages caused by the police force when their actions are taken in the authority of said state or township, respective of the protections of the police force themselves.
"We didn't legally take the house into possesion so the takings clause does not apply." So you destroyed something you didn't own? Yeah that's something else... vandalism. But hey you're cops so we shouldn't care.
The police claim they were protecting them but did more damage then the criminal ever had the ability to do. They claim time was running out? On what exactly? This was not a hostage situation they could have waited out the criminal without ever touching the home. This is a pure example of police gaining too much power and the whole justice system building a wall around itself to protect that power.
feranoks yeah pretty much exactly. They could have just waited for the guy to fall asleep eventually and grab him.
feranoks, I just want to say that your words here are a *PERFECT* summary!
It was lazy
Police have a duty to preserve life. Storming in guns blazing would most likely have resulted in the deaths of one or more individuals. Besieging the house was not working. They had done so for many hours. They could in theory have waited for him to starve, or collapse from dehydration, by cutting off his access to food and water, sure, but that could take several days, in which time he might kill himself or others.
I think the police should have paid, since the beneficiary of the action is the general public, and so the general public should pay for this sort of thing through taxes, sure, but the law at the time did not require that.
Bringing the situation to a swift end, with the minimum loss of life, in this case 0, was the correct decision. The problem is that the wrong political decision was made afterwards. The police have the right amount of power in this case, their political superiors are just idiots, and the law should be changed via legislation.
The criminal could have killed the whole family, so I don't think it's fair to say they did "more damage than the criminal ever had the ability to do".
However, you do have to multiply the damage by its likelihood. They police engaged in actions that were very likely to cause significant damage--and how likely is it that Robert would have actually murdered the whole family?
The fact that they don't even do the decent thing and have to be brought to court and win just goes to show how broken the system is. This is just sad.
My opinion on the case: you make a mess from doing a job, it’s your responsibility to clean up (replace the house in this case) the mess you made.
Matthew Albright No governments can never do anything wrong
In general, I agree. However, this is a case where justice for the wronged party needs to be balanced with officers being able to do their jobs properly. Although in this case, it's blatantly excessive to destroy a whole house just to catch one dude with no bargaining chip whatsoever. Specially since, in the end, all they needed was to throw a shit ton of tear gas and send in the swat. Also, officer's conduct about doing as much damage as necessary without caving the roof, or just saying there'd been "some damage" is just shameful.
But let's be honest here. I expect they'll never get compensation from the courts.
@@qwerfa police do not have the right to completely demolish a house even if they're "doing their job". If some random guy came and demolished my house, that would be illegal... the police doing it doesn't make it any less illegal. Waco anyone
Or labour camps. Instead of trying to receive compensation from the police, make Seacat work without pay in order to work off the cost of the house and living expenses of the Lech's. If the police can't be liable for their actions, then Seacat must be liable for making those actions necessary
They can enter your home in the middle of the night without knock, just flat out destroy your home, or decide to kneel on your neck until you pass. And it's your fault, not theirs.
welcome to the days of the American Gestapo.
Scary isnt it?
@@miyu1424 Uh....yea....we can. The officer is on the police force. He represents the police. We can blame the police. And we do.
@@miyu1424 and as an addition to the above comment, he is not a lone officer, there are hundreds of incidents that we know about, not even including all the ones that weren’t in a public space where they can get recorded, or before cell phones. It’s not just a case of “one bad cop” this has been KNOWN to be going on since the 70s, and no new training or screening methods have been made in 50 years. So yes, the institution itself is at fault. I don’t blame the police officers who are good people doing the right thing, but those are not every police officer, and there is a duty of the organization to make sure the people who are just in it to bully people are getting screened out and not allowed to carry deadly weapons.
@@UltimateInnerSpirit Yep. I agree. I've only ever met one cop I have ever trusted. I don't know if she's retired now as I no longer live in the area.
The problem with cops is, they don't get held accountable for any abuse of power and it's not like I can just look at a cop and know, "This one's good". At least if they were held accountable, then I (or someone on my behalf) could sue if one was a bad actor, but until that happens, I can't trust cops in general (mainly because I don't know which ones are good until I learn more about that cop's character).
This was the criminal's fault. He tried to shoot people. Once he started doing that, the police had to stop him.
If the police have to cause damage in the course of subduing a violent criminal, to prevent them from harming or killing other people, all the damage done in the course of that subdual is the criminal's responsibility.
Of course, the criminal in this case is indigent, which is why they sued the police instead of the guy who was actually culpable - they wanted money, not justice.
The reality is that they got screwed, but it wasn't the fault of the police that they got screwed, but the violent criminal who broke into their house and shot at the police and refused to surrender.
The fact that this isn't common sense, that the city and police should have to pay for this, is so beyond ridiculous.
The way the law should see a case like this is that if a person's property is "taken" by the state, for whatever purpose and for whatever duration, it should be returned to the owner in the same condition it was in at the time of taking, or else the restoration should be paid for at the state's expense.
But you see, that doesn't matter. What it SHOULD be for you and me has nothing to do for how it SHOULD BE for the people in charge.
Having cops able to cheaply remove people you don't like is excellent policy if you're a oligarch worried about your increasingly uneducated constituents getting sick of you.
People siding siding with the police be like: "Well if you didn't want your house blown up, you shouldn't have lived that close to a Walmart"
Actually, people siding with the police be like, "this entire chain of events is the responsibility of the INTRUDER, not the police, and he is the appropriate target of the lawsuit, not the city."
@@davidlamb1107 Even in the unlikely case that the court finds him responsible, I doubt a guy who had to steal from Walmart has enough money to pay for a house repair. It'd just be a waste of time and money for the plaintiff.
@@johnprocrastinator pretty much. Yeah he was a known drug trafficker that could mean he has some funds somewhere, but stealing small electronics is a bad sign. Their only hope would've been to try getting compensation from the police and/or the city. If you are gonna sue anyone, always aim for the deepest pockets.
Its important to separate legal from moral.
Morally the family should be compensated, obviously. But this is a channel about legal cases and in legal cases the law matters, the law can be wrong and unjust but the law appears to allow the police to do this and I agree that probably doesn't fall under eminent domain laws under the legal definition, which is what matters in a legal case.
@UCJFlUvv5TzQyphj5-QmGCJA Honestly I'm not so sure. If we're talking about doing upwards of a million dollars in damages just to catch a petty shoplifter, then sticking him with the bill for the lulz, we could just as easily allow the police to quarantine and blow apart a neighborhood to catch a local gang, and then charge the gang members with lifelong slavery to repay the damages.
@@TheDeadnaughty Which would be part of the point of appealing it up to the Supreme Court, because this part of the law should be changed.
imagine police slowly ripping apart your house to capture one man - who has already fired his gun multiple times at cops on two separate occasions - without hurting him
and then seeing on the news that police have shot and killed someone else in broad daylight, in public for trying to walk away from a jaywalking ticket
So you're complaining because two different groups of police officers responded in different ways to two different incidents?
It would have been entirely reasonable for the police to shoot this guy, but they felt that they had a way to take him alive. And they did. Which is what we want the police to do.
If you are arguing that the police should shoot more criminals to avoid damaging people's property... I don't think that's gonna win you a ton of friends.
No, the argument is a bit less bullheaded than you've framed it. The police committed multiple acts of unnecessary property destruction in pursuit of their goal- the protection and safety of a crime suspect who posed an obvious threat- and claimed no liability because the property destruction was committed in pursuit of the police's goal. In the subsequent case, the police then demonstrate a complete lack of commitment to their purported goal: the protection and safety of a crime suspect who, in their eyes, posed an obvious threat (despite evidence to the contrary). The latter lack of commitment brings into question whether the former police action was truly a goal, and therefore, their excessive acts of destruction constituted police business.
I don't think hypocrisy like that is going to win the police a lot of friends.
@@TitaniumDragon I believe that the state should reimburse you for damages to prevent a precedent where police can wantonly level neighborhoods as long as they dont take the deeds to the land while they are at it
him: "The very people you trust to protect you: the police"
me: bold of u to assume ive ever trusted the police
I did trust them. I've learned not to since.
Aw yes all cops are bad and we shouldn't have them???? Correct????
@@millhousemillard2140 Correct.
@@millhousemillard2140 Yes. The entire institution needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up.
@@andrewparker1622 nah
This case absolutely made me see red. The defense argument boiled down to police immunity from the constitution - "It doesn't matter.... The police power comes with its own rules apart from the takings clause."
"should the police be required to pay for damages" Absolutely. 100%
Not just 100%, 1000%, each! Let's say the home cost a quarter million. That's 2.5 MILLION PER OFFICER involved in the decision... And if they don't have that money, they have to sell off everything they own until they do.
@@ZeldagigafanMatthew how old are you
I'ma take a wild guess before the vid starts and say the gov refused to pay for damages because is was all in the name of public saftey
Half right! They refused to pay damages, but because they were on the clock and didn't stay afterwards.
*Ding ding ding* Correct
The ridiculous part of all this is that they probably spent a quarter million in legal fees to avoid compensating the family a hundred thousand.
"The purpose hasn't been altered, it was meant for living in and now roaches and racoons can love there. Also you paid us to destroy that with your taxes"
Irreplaceable heirlooms and unjust compensation, they not only had no right to be doing this they didn’t fix their unjust actions. If I were this judge i would award the police the “privilege” of paying court fees, compensating for wages lost in time taken for this case that could’ve been spent working, personal responsibility of the chief to do their ABSOLUTE BEST to replace and recover all items (or fix them) and award double damages for all irreplaceable items. As for the irreplaceable ring, i have no clue.
In many countries, the police would have been forced to pay those expenses. You'd expect city hall to cover that kind of bill, as they're the ones authorizing police to operate within the city. Don't want such a huge cost? Then tell your cops to stop blowing shit up.
Welcome to the police state called USA
The man stole some items from Walmart and the police escalated the situation to the point the family lost everything?! Part of me feels sorry for the criminal even. It didn’t have to come to this.
To be fair, he escalated it by shooting. I don't know what you expect if you shoot at cops they will shoot back.
@@graphospasm5394 yeah, as much as i wish the family got compensated for damage caused, the actions of police were far from criminal and were actually reasonable, but i wish city had settled to damages caused instead.
Um did u miss the part where as soon as the arrived and approached the door they got shot at!!!
@@alperakyuz9702 technically they got insurance money. 2 things was said about it he said it wasnt enough tomfully cover it but he also said it was made nicer than it originally was
@@xtrlsidma Without any context, that's a completely subjective statement and gives off the same air as the spin that McDonalds put on that case with the old lady who got burned by their boiling hot coffee. Unless I see pictures showing that the family's new house is a mansion or something, I'm going to choose to believe that that "much nicer" comment is a load of bull.
I liked the plaintiff Lawyers argument, defining the "Taking" because they were left without a house, the house was gone, not there even. In a sense the police did taking the house because it no longer existed for the plaintiff.
_"If men do not have legal means to redress their injuries, they will resort to illegal ones."_
Machiavelli.
Where's this quote from? I couldn't find any source for Machiavelli having said this.
"Yay! More prison labor!"
US Gov
@@CAW139 freefall.purrsia.com/ff3200/fc03175.htm seems to be the original source for the attribution.
Quite possible Machiavelli said something to the same effect, but I don't think a comic strip about robots is exactly academically rigorous research material in that regard. ;)
Why machavelis the prince was written in Italian so you any English source is going to be using a creative license.
I prefer to put it as
"If men do not have legal means to fill their stomachs, they will resort to illegal ones"
“It became necessary to destroy the house to protect the house.”
The cruel irony that this happened on the day they were going for renovations
"The state never 'retained' the property" YEA OF COURSE THERE WAS NO MORE HOME
Also "wasn't altered". My English must be terrible, because I was sure the complete demolishion of something, counted as "altering" it.
@@silvervelvet8893 That wasn't the argument made. Listen again to the defense's reply.
@@allexio They claimed it wasn't altered from that of a home to some other purpose while also disqualifying total destruction or condemnation. That is to say, it conveniently entitles one to payment only if the government wants to use one's property but not if an agent of the government or other civil servant makes it so that no one can use it. It's like that kid in class who asks to borrow your pencil only to return it with the eraser all chewed up and sharpened down to a nub. Yes it's still "a pencil" and it is still "yours" but do we want to be the country where that kid as our police?
also arguable as by condemning it and threatening to jail them if they trespassed they kind of TOOK posession. and forced the demolition.
@@allexio It's was altered from a private home to a mini-battlefeield to an empty plot/conemnded building.
The purpose of the property was "altered" from a family home to a pile of rubble, so I'd say it definitely qualifies as taking.
"We did it Patrick, we saved the city!"
*The house is demolished and a family is displaced*
"Purpose has not been changed..."
Are we sure about that?
It's purpose now is clearly 'ruins.'
Ikr
When they turned the house unlivable, I don't see how they successfully argued that the purpose hadn't been altered. Wow.
how is turning a livable house meant to be lived in into an unlivable condemned pile of rubble which is illegal to even enter not "modifying its purpose"?
Because if you have a t-shirt and I cut the sleeve off that t-shirt it's still a t-shirt... now if I take that shirt and make it into a pillow case it is now no longer a t-shirt but a pillowcase and therefore has a different intended purpose.
@@user-lt2qy5wn8c Well, I disagree with your argument, if you only cut the sleeve off, the purpose of the tshirt of being used as a clothing item is not altered, but, seeing the degree of destruction on this case in this family's house, I think a more fair example would be:
"you cut the t-shirt in multiple pieces and you're not able to wear it no more" it's purpose has been altered.
This house has been returned to the family unhabitable, they can no longer use the house for the purpose it exists, since the same police would not let them enter the house for safety reasons.. (And it's not a safe place to live on anymore)
Matias I Whole lot of text just to say nothing. You are an incel
The problem with this argument is that if the police caused only a little less damage, the family would be entitled to nothing. The key question is whether the police acted in good faith and without engaging in reckless or grossly negligent behavior. If they did, the family, as a matter of law, are entitled to no relief (as a matter of morality/justice, they ought to be paid but since when has it ever been the case that morality/justice and the law perfectly coincided?
@@chrisdawson1776 Do you even know what incel means? Are you illiterate or something?
1:45 - The case of "The house the police blew up"
15:40 - The trial
16:55 - The hearing
24:05 - The verdict
25:30 - End roll ads
This is one of those cases where instead of legal precedent and jargon, you should just have a 5 year old with common sense.
Yeah, it should be one of the insurance cases you seem to hear about in TV series more often than in real life. Police caused damage to an uninvolved third party, Police has to pay or have insurance to cover it. Else the home owners should have the right to kick the police from their premises before they can cause any more damage like drive a tank into the walls or blow stuff up.
That actually has a legal basis. It's called "spirit of the law". Basically, you interpret the law as you believe the original creator of the law intended. It's whee a lot of pro vs anti arguments for the 2nd amendment come into play.
In which case you establish a society in which no one knows what is and isn't legal, because - surprise! - people often disagree about what "common sense" is, and many people's "common sense" is based on misconceptions or ignorance. That is why we have the law, because people figured out a long time ago that different people's ideas of common sense often don't match at all.
@@TheMohawkNinja You've got this quite wrong, you've mixed up two different concepts, one of which is pretty much the opposite of the lawlessness Scorch428 is advocating. The term "the spirit of the law" is an expression, not an actual legal doctrine. Interpreting the law "as you believe the original creator of the law intended" seems to be a reference to originalism and textualism. But those are the _opposite_ of what Scorch428 is saying, since they are philosophies meant to avoid the situation where judges just impose their varied ideas of "common sense" by interpreting laws flexibly.
@@Joseph_G There are many court cases that hinge and turn on the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law. So there is certainly merit in the spirit of the law argument, because often times, the spirit of why the legislators wrote the law and the letter of the law is what gets argued out in court. Sometimes the letter of the law wins out of technicality, sometimes the spirit of the law wins out of justice. Both must be provable though, you cant just infer your own interpretation willy nilly.
24:20 Courts seem to have a habit of siding with police departments, given the arguments and the legal precedent, I find it very unlikely that the appellate court would reverse the decision.
dude those lawyers are so heartless that even heartless person like me thinks like WTF!
about the case - they blew it up, they should pay.
Ahh, the legal world, personal thoughts and feelings are not welcomed there.
The rebuttal to the idea that the property had been altered in fact showed that the property had been altered, from one where a house fit for habitation existed, into an unsafe condemned structure that would never again be fit for habitation.
14:35 I can't believe Shaggy has done this, the scooby gang will never be the same.
Fun fact: Shaggy had to use 2,4% of his power to survive the explosions.
I think it’s very ironic that they go to buy things for a home renovation, and then the house is destroyed
sad irony tho.
"Pay to play legal system". In this situation, only the lawyers are the winners.
The defendant said the purpose of the property hadn't changed, yet the city legally declared it unfit for habitation. If it is unfit for habitation, surely that's a change in purpose. It was mentioned that taking it to make a blood donation centre would be cause for compensation, yet taking it and making it legally not a home is apparently not.
When he said “Oh, and the pups are ok.” I literally said out loud “Oh thank god! Had me really scared there.”
Clearly my priorities are in the right places
it was only the local police, not the ATF. the dogs were safe-ish.
Oh yeah, really okay when those dogs are gonna have lifelong lasting emotional trauma, sure thing! >_>
I was looking for this comment. I didn't want to wait and watch the rest of the video to find out if the dogs were ok after the 1st one escaped.
I am a Spanish lawyer, in Spain the law establishes civil liability for damage due to the normal or abnormal functioning of the administration.
In this case, under Spanish law, the administration would be responsible for the damage to the property since it was caused by the normal operation of the police.
Although the legal systems are different, I believe that society benefited from the arrest of the suspect and it is this, since it exercises its coercive power through the police force, who must compensate the damage to the individual who, in an advanced society, delegates his coactive defense to police .
Please excuse my basic level of English.
How many times has a housed criminal been caught without having to destroy a house..almost everytime i bet...the victims were forced to lose by authorities so they are responsible.
And somehow we are still wondering if maybe the police have maybe a little too much immunity.
"bUt WhY dOeS eVeRyOnE hAtE tHe PoLiCe?!?!?"
has the same energy as
"wHy ArEn'T IrAqIs HaPpY aBoUt ThE oCcUpPaTiOn?!?!?"
Police: "Sounds like they're in need of a little democracy." Lol
So no police????
@@millhousemillard2140 "Something has to be done about all of this poisonous butter."
"So no butter????"
So you think that the police should have just shot this violent criminal instead of trying to preserve human life?
That's what you're arguing here.
And the reality is that a lot of Iraqis liked having Americans around because they didn't like getting shot by violent Islamic militants.
Same thing, really. The people who hate the police are overwhelmingly criminals.
They should definitely keep trying. That is utter crap that they decided that and the family should push that they need the compensation
"there was some damage to the house-
*house has to be demolished*
“But.. my lord… isn’t that illegal?”
“I will make it legal.”
Objection: Something is wrong with the description of the events going on inside the store. Picking up articles off the shelf is not ever shoplifting, no matter how suspicious you look while doing it, *until the point that you attempt to leave the store without paying for them.* And store employees know this, because there are people out there who will try to bait store employees into attempting to detain them when they haven't actually stolen anything, giving them valid grounds for a lawsuit against the store. If the floor manager thought "this guy looks suspicious, I should call the cops on him," he could very well lose his job over such a boneheaded move.
Source: A friend of mine who works in Loss Prevention (aka "store security") at a store like this.
Good point
It's definitely important that we shouldn't stereotype people based on how they look, but here's a reason the store would have called police prior to the subject exiting the store past all points of purchase.
Some states have sections of their criminal statute which says that the concealment of goods inside of a store fits the culpable mental state needed for shoplifting/theft, therefore showing that they intended to commit the theft. This case is in Colorado, which has such a law. In the CO Rev Stat § 18-4-406, If any person willfully conceals unpurchased goods, wares, or merchandise owned or held by and offered or displayed for sale by any store or other mercantile establishment, whether the concealment be on his own person or otherwise and whether on or off the premises of said store or mercantile establishment, such concealment constitutes prima facie evidence that the person intended to commit the crime of theft.
I do not know if the subject in this case had concealed merchandise on his person or was just holding it, but it seems like the store loss prevention in this case has a policy of notifying police right when the person conceals goods and meets the culpability.
Mason Wheeler Concealment of goods is not legal in all states. It shouldn’t be.
I feel like the fact that he was armed should, well, maybe make calling the police more justified.
Though, it is America, and in some states at least, openly carrying a weapon isn't a crime.
So....
Was biting my nails waiting to find out if the dogs were ok.