Homeowner lost after police destroyed home...

[CountryGent]

If you don't mind me asking, which company were you with? I'm currently looking at upping my coverage and I want to go with someone who will give me what I need without costing a fortune.

For the home and umbrella insurance, State Farm. Auto, Progressive. Cheers.

 

[nwslopoke]

I would prefer option #3. Officers, I will get him out of my house myself. Then announce the 3 second rule. You have 3 seconds to get out.

People should have the right to destroy their own property. This second party destruction has gotten out of control.

 

[Boboclown]

$5,000 isn't bubblegum when we're talking about home repair. That MIGHT have covered cleaning up the mess before the repair.

$5,000 is what the city offered, insurance paid more. He sued city for more than that.

We are going in circles. He had insurance. Insurance has a rebuild amount. I bet you he got every bit of what it would cost to rebuild his existing structure. He chose to build a new house instead. Its not a free ticket to get a whole new house.

He got over $300,000, whether or not that completely covers tearing down then rebuilding who knows. Its not like Colorado is the cheapest place for things to be done.

Just saying $5,000 was what the city offered, not the insurance. Personally idgaf about the house situation, more or less that I get to worry about police destroying my house cause of a person hiding in it, especially cause it can happen when I'm gone and would have to come home to see that sh!t.

 

[Knebel]

They blew holes in the walls with explosives and drove an amored vehicle through someones house....TO CATCH A SHOPLIFTER you gotta be kidding, takes overzealous to new level. Shooting birds with cannons. This is in no reasonable relation to the offense and definately should the homeowner be reimbursed.

 

[Jcon268]

They couldn't have tear gassed the guy out? He's in a confined space. I just find it excessive that they would need to do as much damage as they did and ram a vehicle through the house. No I'm not a tactician but there should be limitations on invoking excessive damage on someone's private property.

By the way, all of this stemmed from some stolen merchandise? It feels like I'm missing something. How did it escalate to this?

 

[DLS]

Most insurance policies will "make you whole" unless modified by riders, provisions etc. "Making you whole" restores your property to pre-loss condition. If you want coverage that will allow you to gain more than that in payout you need to pay more in premiums. I carry Total Replacement Cost on my home. This pays to rebuild back to the current state of my home, regardless of inflation etc.

In this guys case, the insurance company paid the full amount (minus deductible) that restoring his home to the prior condition would have cost. There were probably provisions for loss of use etc. as well (to cover things like motel costs).

The homeowner decided to rebuild a more costly home. That's his right, he can do what he wants, but the insurance company (nor the taxpayer) has any obligation whatsoever to fund this decision. The additional costs are all on him ... the courts decided correctly.

The city offered to cover his deductible (the $5,000) so in the end had he accepted that offer and rebuilt the home to the current condition it was prior to the loss he would have been exactly where he was before (made whole) and it would have not cost him anything other than the huge inconvenience of dealing with living life until the home was rebuilt.

The son is SOL and it's his own fault for not carrying renters insurance. It's dirt cheap and would have compensated him for loss of use and the cost to replace the lost possessions.

So, these are people that chose to not cover their responsibilities (insurance in this case) and want to be rewarded by the taxpayer for their greed, ineptitude, ignorance ... whatever it was. Sorry folks, stupidity on your part does not make a responsibility on my part!

So some are arguing that the police over did the response and could have made different choices that would not have impacted the home so drastically. This has no impact on the above. The police make decisions in real time, under pressure, with limited intel and resources. No court in the land will get into the quagmire that would be second guessing a response after the fact. So, maybe the police over did it, maybe not.

It doen't matter, had these folks been properly insured and not greedy (by wanted to be made better rather than whole) they would have been compensated regardless of how out of line the police response had been.

 

[NW Backpacker]

Police should have insurance to cover damage caused to property of innocent people and which isn't paid by the innocent person's insurance. How much damage do police inflict on property of innocents each year? If it isn't a huge amount, then insurance shouldn't cost that much to cover it. That's the way it works in our legal system - I damage your stuff unintentionally, you can make me pay for it, right? Should be the same for police or anyone else.

This particular case is messy, but I think the police should only be liable for repairing his old home minus whatever his insurance would have covered.

 

[DLS]

The city offered to cover his deductible, so the homeowner would have had no out of pocket expenses to rebuild his home.

That's the way it works in our legal system - I damage your stuff unintentionally, you can make me pay for it, right? Should be the same for police or anyone else

Not actually. What you state applies to private parties in their interaction with each other. Public safety services fall under different legal codes. In this case it's the "Police Powers" statutes that govern, and these statutes make it clear that the government (taxpayer really) is not responsible to cover these costs.

It all boils down to the legal system realizing there is private insurance available for reasonable costs and realizing that the law needs to make the most sense for the most people. It would be an unreasonable (and hugely expensive) policy to make the government (taxpayer) responsible for these costs when there are better, much less expensive remedies available to society (private insurance).

 

[No_Regerts]

They blew holes in the walls with explosives and drove an amored vehicle through someones house....TO CATCH A SHOPLIFTER you gotta be kidding, takes overzealous to new level. Shooting birds with cannons. This is in no reasonable relation to the offense and definately should the homeowner be reimbursed.

Miss the part where the guy started shooting at them?

Kinda like when some guys did some stuff?

 

[nwslopoke]

So, these are people that chose to not cover their responsibilities (insurance in this case) and want to be rewarded by the taxpayer for their greed, ineptitude, ignorance ... whatever it was. Sorry folks, stupidity on your part does not make a responsibility on my part!

I don't agree that a home owner is responsible for someone else's actions. Especially criminal actions. Like saying an old woman is at fault for getting smashed in the face by a felon fleeing the police. In this case, the city (shockingly) found that they were not responsible. Is the reverse true. Someone smashes their car thru a library window. Please, just pay the cost of the glass.

 

[No_Regerts]

They couldn't have tear gassed the guy out? He's in a confined space. I just find it excessive that they would need to do as much damage as they did and ram a vehicle through the house. No I'm not a tactician but there should be limitations on invoking excessive damage on someone's private property.

By the way, all of this stemmed from some stolen merchandise? It feels like I'm missing something. How did it escalate to this?

When some stolen merchandise turns into the guy shooting at the police, it was his escalation.

 

[No_Regerts]

I don't agree that a home owner is responsible for someone else's actions. Especially criminal actions. Like saying an old woman is at fault for getting smashed in the face by a felon fleeing the police. In this case, the city (shockingly) found that they were not responsible. Is the reverse true. Someone smashes their car thru a library window. Please, just pay the cost of the glass.

The police aren't responsible, the bad guy is! He'll get charged restitution, which he may never pay, but its his responsibility.

 

[No_Regerts]

$5,000 is what the city offered, insurance paid more. He sued city for more than that.

He got over $300,000, whether or not that completely covers tearing down then rebuilding who knows. Its not like Colorado is the cheapest place for things to be done.

Just saying $5,000 was what the city offered, not the insurance. Personally idgaf about the house situation, more or less that I get to worry about police destroying my house cause of a person hiding in it, especially cause it can happen when I'm gone and would have to come home to see that sh!t.

The police won't randomly destroy your house as long as someone who just shot at them doesn't randomly choose your house and name it the Alamo.

 

[Jcon268]

I'm not wanting to get into some political back and forth here but it seems some are of the belief that police and government agents bear no liability because they are protected by bureaucracy. They hold a liability if someone gets hurt and they should bear responsibility when property is damaged. It's really "do as I say, not as I do." I respect what police do but I also deeply respect property rights and the government not stepping on those rights unchecked. It's concerning when an entire home can be destroyed and no resolve for the owner. And if a house can be destroyed, where is the line drawn about what actions are or aren't permissible? At the very least the department should have to defend their actions in court. Was driving a vehicle into the house and using explosives really necessary to accomplish the task of apprehending the suspect? Seems excessive.

Please note I'm not talking about the insurance but specifically about how the courts absolved the government of any responsibility. If they want to put that back on the suspect they were pursuing, then make that guy pay back the homeowner in full. Garnish his wages, hell, make him help rebuild the guy's house with his own hands. Just don't make people who aren't involved pay the price.

 

[No_Regerts]

I'm not wanting to get into some political back and forth here but it seems some are of the belief that police and government agents bear no liability because they are protected by bureaucracy. They hold a liability if someone gets hurt and they should bear responsibility when property is damaged. It's really "do as I say, not as I do." I respect what police do but I also deeply respect property rights and the government not stepping on those rights unchecked. It's concerning when an entire home can be destroyed and no resolve for the owner. And if a house can be destroyed, where is the line drawn about what actions are or aren't permissible? At the very least the department should have to defend their actions in court. Was driving a vehicle into the house and using explosives really necessary to accomplish the task of apprehending the suspect? Seems excessive.

Please note I'm not talking about the insurance but specifically about how the courts absolved the government of any responsibility.

Once again, its the perps responsibility. HE chose to steal, HE chose to run, HE chose to shoot at the cops, HE chose the house. There were exigent circumstances due to at least one person in the home, maybe more.

Ever done an entry on a house with someone armed inside? Its far safer to use robotics and armored vehicles than send people in there, especially if the guy already shot at you.

The perp gets caught and since he's at fault, restitution will be ordered at the cost of all of the damage. On this case, its a lot. Normally its not this bad. He'll likely never pay it off, but its his responsibility.

 

[Jcon268]

Once again, its the perps responsibility. HE chose to steal, HE chose to run, HE chose to shoot at the cops, HE chose the house. There were exigent circumstances due to at least one person in the home, maybe more.

Ever done an entry on a house with someone armed inside? Its far safer to use robotics and armored vehicles than send people in there, especially if the guy already shot at you.

The perp gets caught and since he's at fault, restitution will be ordered at the cost of all of the damage. On this case, its a lot. Normally its not this bad. He'll likely never pay it off, but its his responsibility.

I'm all for holding the perp responsible. But they need to make him do it. They should have everything they need to hold him to that restitution given that he opened fire on police. These bubblegum criminals cause a lot of damage to society and they need to NOT be put through the revolving door.

 

[Boboclown]

The police won't randomly destroy your house as long as someone who just shot at them doesn't randomly choose your house and name it the Alamo.

Local pd been shutdown few times already. They probably would.

 

[guntinker]

The Case is a messy one how ever $5000 doesn't seem to me to put that house back as a whole the integrity of the structure has been compromised, chemical tear Gas, besides repairing that house and just being in it or looking at it can cause a mental situation of constant fear and been defensive it only fair he tore it down and put a new structure.

 

[DLS]

It's not just $5,000. It's 5K PLUS the 300K or so the insurance company was obligated to (and did) pay. It's only the extra add ins over and above what the homeowner already had that was not covered.

Why should that be the societies or the insurance companies responsibility? Why should this guy come out BETTER off at other's expense. That is what he is claiming should be done at taxpayer or insurance premium payer expense.

If because tear gas, smoke damage, etc. caused the structure to be so bad it had to be removed insurance would have covered this, assuming the homeowner was carrying his moral and legal obligation to be properly covered.

But this guy removes the foundation claiming it was no longer fit for use. That's BS. Structures totally lost to fire or flood are commonly rebuilt on the old existing foundation with no ill effects. BTW, if the foundation was in fact needing replacement and he was properly covered insurance would have covered this expense as well. For the life of me I can't see how that would ever happen short of earth movement such as in an earthquake or flood which by the way need special riders to your policy.

This guy wanted a better house and for you and I to pay for it. That is the only reason for the new foundation. I call this entitlement and greed.

Common law and the legal system we have that has stemmed from that common law embodied deeply seated societal and moral norms. One of those is that we, as citizens, should not expect to profit at the expense of others (yeah I know that modern welfare turns this on its head). I don't have the right to profit unfairly at another's expense.

That is what this guy is doing, wanting to have MORE than before and have others pay for his GAIN. He was not cheated in any sense of the word. He was offered to be made whole, and snubbed his nose at the offer because he though he could get more.

We are also confusing the rights afforded by private property law, Police Power and Eminent Domain (which does not apply in this case, but the homeowner went to court saying it did ... and rightly lost).

 

[Certaindeaf]

I think it's just way over the top when the cops pissed in the goldfish pond and cracked a few beers.

just kidding