User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:24:08 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You realize that would be the city taxpayers, right? I would be willing to bet, most Greenwood village taxpayers would want the city to pay for what happened. What do you think his neighbor's opinion would be if it was his home. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:24:36 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is super fucked up, both places I have copped at had a risk management department that would come out and survey damage and cut a check for damages we caused to third party property in the course of doing business like kicked in doors or broken windows 
They wouldn't pay you if you barricaded in your own house or whatever but if we had to boot some old ladies door cause she fell down or bust into a lockout apartment complex for a DV in progress or something they never gave anyone problems with reimbursement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:24:52 AM EDT
[#3]
Interesting moral hazard problem.
On one hand, if the police are free to destroy property in the course of doing their job with no responsibility, they will destroy property more willingly and carelessly than if there was a consequence. On the other hand, if the police are looking at a bill every time they have to break something to get the job done, they will inevitably look the other way with greater frequency at the expense of the safety of the public. No opinion here on that one. I'll just keep my insurance sharpened up and hope for the best. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:27:21 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks for your sentiments. Your comments are thoughtful and reasonable. You've got my vote for Moderator. I think most of the "officer got home safely" comments are snotty and written by members who deep down wish the officers hadn't gotten home safely. Just my feeling... As to your latter comment, you may be right. Maybe I'm naive, but most people here are good people. I prefer to think the majority of those comments are in jest or people letting off steam about a frustrating situation. But, again, I may be wrong and I'll admit that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:27:32 AM EDT
[#5]
So if I'm driving through an intersection with a green light and a drunk driver runs a red light and crashes into me. The firefighters pension fund should pay to fix my car because to the damage they did removing me from the vehicle with their hooligan tools and jaws of life?
Thats stupid. The criminal is the one responsible. My insurance company should fix my car then go after the criminal for restitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:28:42 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The criminal is responsible. all he had to do was surrender peacefully and it all could have been prevented. His surrender was arranged. Some guy with a hard in decided using a cell phone wasn't a good enough way to communicate and chucked a "throw phone" in and shut off his cell phone. They got his sister in Boulder as that was a negotiated demand that he talked to her. She never did. 39 minutes later they fucked up the innocent guys house. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:29:02 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting moral hazard problem. On one hand, if the police are free to destroy property in the course of doing their job with no responsibility, they will destroy property more willingly and carelessly than if there was a consequence. On the other hand, if the police are looking at a bill every time they have to break something to get the job done, they will inevitably look the other way with greater frequency at the expense of the safety of the public. No opinion here on that one. I'll just keep my insurance sharpened up and hope for the best. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:30:09 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That gets more expensive than that house, fast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:31:36 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or people that are so dense that they see a police thread and go full retard and don't realize that: 1. The city should pay people for shit they have to break to accomplish lawful tasks. and 2. Armed felons who commit home invasions after fleeing from the cops should be taken into custody by means that include breaking shit, if necessary. Are not contradictory statements  But there's people here from both sides arguing the opposite of both number 1 and number 2. Maybe people just like to come here and argue because they're tired of fighting with their wife? Or they're just trolling. Pick your poison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:32:48 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting moral hazard problem. On one hand, if the police are free to destroy property in the course of doing their job with no responsibility, they will destroy property more willingly and carelessly than if there was a consequence. On the other hand, if the police are looking at a bill every time they have to break something to get the job done, they will inevitably look the other way with greater frequency at the expense of the safety of the public. If I have to break shit it is a simple question of is there an exigent situation in progress meriting breaking someones shit or not. Believe it or not we don't randomly kick doors down or break windows if it can be avoided, it's a pain in the ass, it bought you a police report if you weren't already writing one, and you have to sit and wait for the fire department to come secure it once everything is done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:32:56 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm quite over myself, retired actually. My concerns are with this site and the environment in which members seem to know more than any of the actual police and dogpile any of us when we weigh in on issues. In my opinion, killdozer comments directed at police is a violation of COC #4. But hey, no big deal, right? And we are victims all too often - buried some of my good friends. They didn't "go home safely."  But you've shown you're quite good at stretching. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:34:18 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if I'm driving through an intersection with a green light and a drunk driver runs a red light and crashes into me. The firefighters pension fund should pay to fix my car because to the damage they did removing me from the vehicle with their hooligan tools and jaws of life? Thats stupid. The criminal is the one responsible. My insurance company should fix my car then go after the criminal for restitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:34:46 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess they should have gone with their insurance and the offer from the city to cover their deductible then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:35:49 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you read the affidavit they actually did change shifts. Right down to the swat team. I'd say 80% of posters here do little more than read the title or headline and then search for their opportunity to opine with outrage and certainty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:37:13 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 
ARF is full of cop haters. Your beef, as if you live in the affected jurisdiction, is with the city NOT THE POLICE. The police have precious little in the liability decision making process. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:39:40 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Arf is full of cop haters only in your victim mentality mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:43:14 AM EDT
[#17]
I bet if the guy doesnt rebuild the house, the city will condemn it and steal the property from him.
That would be a poetic end to this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:45:09 AM EDT
[#18]
If the city public works people, in the course of performing their duties for the public good, burst a water line and flood my house, should the city pay me to fix my house?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:45:31 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you want to hold criminals liable for their actions unless it involves the police to a degree that you don't personally like? No, your not biased at all. But please keep on rambling and ignoring the fact that the dirtbag thief was also armed, initiated the high speed pursuit, invaded someone's home, shot at officers, attempted to steal a vehicle, and pushed a 19 hour standoff because he was drugged up moron. All of that is in the police affidavit linked in the article. But, none of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread. Certain members see the word police in a title have to jump in and go sideways defend shit that doesn't even apply. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:47:30 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is obvious trolling. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I guess they should have gone with their insurance and the offer from the city to cover their deductible then. The city made an offer. The homeowner refused it. The homeowner filed a lawsuit that didn't fit per 3 judges. The homeowner lost the lawsuit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:51:02 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The article does say everything I stated. You just want to be outraged. Sorry bud. The only thing that mentions that is the town lawyer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:51:10 AM EDT
[#22]
So the lesson is shoot the bad guy as he breaks into your house, and gift wrap him for police, got it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:57:36 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So until he was in the house no one knew he was armed. There was no high speed pursuit and there was a surrender negotiated up until 39 minutes before they went fallujah. The communication with the suspect was cut off by an on-scene commander, not the negotiator. All of that is in the police affidavit linked in the article. But, none of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread. Certain members see the word police in a title have to jump in and go sideways defend shit that doesn't even apply. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So you want to hold criminals liable for their actions unless it involves the police to a degree that you don't personally like? No, your not biased at all. But please keep on rambling and ignoring the fact that the dirtbag thief was also armed, initiated the high speed pursuit, invaded someone's home, shot at officers, attempted to steal a vehicle, and pushed a 19 hour standoff because he was drugged up moron. All of that is in the police affidavit linked in the article. But, none of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread. Certain members see the word police in a title have to jump in and go sideways defend shit that doesn't even apply. The suspect, Robert Jonathan Seacat, had stolen a shirt and a couple of belts from a Walmart in neighboring Aurora, Colo., and then fled in a Lexus, according to a police affidavit. A police officer pursued him in a high-speed chase until Seacat parked his car near a light rail station, hopped a nearby fence leading to the interstate, and then crossed five lanes of traffic on foot. He climbed the fence on the other side — and then, shortly thereafter, came upon the Lech residence. So he was armed. Got it. If he was going to surrender he would have done it. This all stems from his poor decisions and he should be held liable. Unless the homeowner can find something the police did that was illegal then he took a lawsuit gamble and lost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 12:57:54 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: lol, if this kind of thing ever became routine, insurance companies would just write up another exclusion for "acts of law enforcement in performance of their duties" or something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 1:01:00 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not enough to infer I'm a liar by "stretching" things, but the repeated insults are uncalled for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 1:04:40 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He fled. He started the pursuit by fleeing. All he had to do was stop and take responsibility for his actions. So he was armed. Got it. If he was going to surrender he would have done it. This all stems from his poor decisions and he should be held liable. Unless the homeowner can find something the police did that was illegal then he took a lawsuit gamble and lost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 1:09:57 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read the police affidavit. Not some article. It is quite detailed. The link to it is in the article. If you want to know what they did and what happened in their own words, read it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: He fled. He started the pursuit by fleeing. All he had to do was stop and take responsibility for his actions. So he was armed. Got it. If he was going to surrender he would have done it. This all stems from his poor decisions and he should be held liable. Unless the homeowner can find something the police did that was illegal then he took a lawsuit gamble and lost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 1:17:19 AM EDT
[#28]
I'm not responsible for where my bullets go if I am protecting myself from a murderer then, right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 1:25:33 AM EDT
[#29]
The 400k was the repair cost - most of which was covered by the deductible. The city offered to cover the deductible plus 5k and the family refused to settle, instead they gambled for a payday and lost.
The tenant did not have renter’s insurance - the bulk of the out of pocket loss was personal effects not covered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 1:26:38 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The criminal is responsible. all he had to do was surrender peacefully and it all could have been prevented. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If the FD's actions alone totaled the car I would say it was unreasonable. The PD's actions alone got the house condemned. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 1:29:31 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if I'm driving through an intersection with a green light and a drunk driver runs a red light and crashes into me. The firefighters pension fund should pay to fix my car because to the damage they did removing me from the vehicle with their hooligan tools and jaws of life? Thats stupid. The criminal is the one responsible. My insurance company should fix my car then go after the criminal for restitution. Plus you can just choose to deny care and they'll walk away from you. You don't have to worry about paying a dime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 1:31:08 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[/b] Can you fast forward to the part where the homeowner that had nothing to do with it got his house dozed with no compensation?  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 1:34:06 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote History
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 1:37:50 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here we have another guy who didn't read the police affidavit. His surrender was arranged. Some guy with a hard in decided using a cell phone wasn't a good enough way to communicate and chucked a "throw phone" in and shut off his cell phone. They got his sister in Boulder as that was a negotiated demand that he talked to her. She never did. 39 minutes later they fucked up the innocent guys house. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: The criminal is responsible. all he had to do was surrender peacefully and it all could have been prevented. His surrender was arranged. Some guy with a hard in decided using a cell phone wasn't a good enough way to communicate and chucked a "throw phone" in and shut off his cell phone. They got his sister in Boulder as that was a negotiated demand that he talked to her. She never did. 39 minutes later they fucked up the innocent guys house. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 1:50:17 AM EDT
[#35]
Here is the opinion from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals if anyone wants to read it (it's relatively short).
The judges: Monroe G. McKay (appointed by Jimmy Carter) Jerome Holmes (appointed by George W. Bush) Nancy Moritz (appointed by Barack H. Obama) Mortiz wrote the opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 1:54:49 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I refuse to rewatch that movie because the writers didn't realize who the good guy was and made it so the bad guy won. Jamie Fox; the massive lumpy turd that he is took the role and part way through filming decided that he should be the good guy and refused to continue shooting unless his role was rewritten. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 1:58:14 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not sue the criminal, or his family, who caused the problem? Perhaps filing a lawsuit under eminent domain wasn't the best option? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 2:00:25 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well I consider cop hater an insult. Since it is repeated often all over arf. Is it also uncalled for? This is a classic technique. Stretch for COC violations, play the victim card, a few light jabs and then they're going to dog pile you until you say something they think they can get a sympathetic mod to work their magic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 3:01:36 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There was a cop in NY who had a crook run into his house. I think after a failed entry where a swat team member accidentally killed another cop the house ended up burning down after they fired gas canisters or whatever into the house. Rumor is crook was dead but who's going to order a second entry |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 8:24:57 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did YOU read the affidavit? Because I did and your entire argument is a cherry picked bunch of BS! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 8:37:58 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What’s with all the cop hating threads? Is it crap on Police day? Wtf |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 8:38:29 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They're baiting. This is a classic technique. Stretch for COC violations, play the victim card, a few light jabs and then they're going to dog pile you until you say something they think they can get a sympathetic mod to work their magic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 8:39:02 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The people who actually put forth the effort to do the damage are not responsible. Cop logic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 8:45:38 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is that any different than the cops of arfcom defending the killing of homeowners? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[/b] Can you fast forward to the part where the homeowner that had nothing to do with it got his house dozed with no compensation? And everyone complaining about killdozer is missing one of the major parts of that entire incident - no one except the driver died. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 8:49:13 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He fled. He started the pursuit by fleeing. All he had to do was stop and take responsibility for his actions. So he was armed. Got it. If he was going to surrender he would have done it. This all stems from his poor decisions and he should be held liable. Unless the homeowner can find something the police did that was illegal then he took a lawsuit gamble and lost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 8:50:14 AM EDT
[#46]
Sounds like something that would happen in Russia
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 8:50:54 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The city made an offer for what they felt responsible for. The guy refused it. Not the cities fault the guy refused it then lost. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The people who actually put forth the effort to do the damage are not responsible. Cop logic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 8:51:41 AM EDT
[#48]
I don't know why the homeowner thought he would win this one?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 8:53:50 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know why the homeowner thought he would win this one? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2019 8:55:45 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perhaps he thought we lived in a just society where people that do harm to you are held accountable for their actions. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
