User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:02:24 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would hate it. The guy is out $400k because he improved the size of the home during rebuilding, hell he even enlarged the foundation. He has chosen to spend a lot of money to prove a point. Thats his choice, he may lose. I feel sorry for what happened, but not for him refusing to take the good will deductible gesture and choosing to fight his battle. His losses are his choice. The article says nothing of the sort. This whole thing is about a town shirking it's responsibility to it's citizens. Innocent people should never suffer due to the actions of gov't. My bil sued the town he lives in for violating his civil rights. It all started when his father tried to turn an abandoned railway into a bike path. The good old boy network in cahoots with the town didn't want that. The town started fucking with his son's business. Issue permits then immediately send out desist letters. Parking tickets on cars parked in attached garages all kinds of shit. FBI got involved. He won 250k for that. This guy deserves every bit of that 400k and then some |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:03:16 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm a child so I don't know what killdozer is about? 
You're trying too hard to attack me. Very silly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:03:34 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you trying to justify the killdozer comments against police?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:04:06 PM EST
[#4]
Next time make sure you have an armed shoplifter in your house so you don't get your house blown up for no reason, dumbass.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:04:42 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, I mean the ones who wouldn’t have damaged the house in the first place. Civil case homeowner vs the suspect for the damages. Also, for those that suggested the homeowner should just claim it on HIS insurance (which he did do), please understand that some policies specifically exclude damage or anything associated with an intentional governmental action. Sort of a force majeure type of situation. Cities/Counties and departments, however, obviously have coverage for intentional acts committed by their employees. I'm actually curious why the homeowner couldn't/didn't sue the city's insurance department. Perhaps Colorado is one of those states where the government entity has to accept responsibility for someone's legal claim to be valid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:07:11 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Struck a nerve, didn't I Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: I'm a child so I don't know what killdozer is about?
You're trying too hard to attack me. Very silly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:11:01 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, but feel free to twist my comments any way you see fit. Quote HistoryQuoted: No, but feel free to twist my comments any way you see fit. You combined three separate statements by three separate people into a single message. Seriously? In the original killdozer event police weren't the target of it. Let me illustrate how this process works. Quoted: So if the cops blow up your house and give you nothing in compensation you will be peachy keen with it? Quoted:
Response seems appropriate For al qaeda compound. In afghanistan Quoted: Again... And to be clear, this was not a simple shoplifting case. It involved an armed shoplifter who tried to run over a police officer, fled from police, broke into a residence, and stayed barricaded for 19 hours. His penalty was 100 years in prison, so not some slap and tickle caper. That's fucking disgusting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:14:16 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you trying to justify the killdozer comments against police? Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:15:16 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's either a policy or it's not. "Welp, just launched an artillery shell into an orphanage, good thing I followed policy so no one can get mad at me " |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:16:49 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My point is where do you draw the line on damaged caused? You said pay it out of pension fund. Answe me this: why should a firefighter have to pay out of his/her pension fund so something an officer 100 miles away does? What would you have done to get the suspect out with no damage caused? I absolutely agree paying it out of a pension fund is insane. Other public safety employees shouldn't be punished for the actions of a few. That would be entirely wrong, and in my opinion it is immoral. But doesn't the same logic apply to this homeowner. He's being punished (damage to property) due to actions of two other parties (suspect and the PD involved). Wouldn't it be right for this man to be made whole if we're going to be consistent? I know the cop hate and trolling that some on ARFCOM engage in must be frustrating, but some of us here are fair-minded people who try to rationally look at every situation individually. I think the city has a responsibility to have proper insurance for their PD to cover acts like this. And I don't think this is a case in which the city should've completely contested liability. Meaning that if the 400k number was excessive because of upgrades made during the rebuild they shouldn't have to cover that. But, I'm sure that would be somewhat balanced out by loss of use and other related expenses. I have no issue with the city fighting to only pay what is fair. To think, however, that their 5k offer was sufficient, or that the homeowner should have to file a claim on HIS insurance, pay the deductible (lot of companies are moving from flat dollar deductibles to 1-2% of claim amount deductibles), and deal with premium increases isn't a fair position at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:18:13 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Twist comments? You combined three separate statements by three separate people into a single message. Seriously? In the original killdozer event police weren't the target of it. Let me illustrate how this process works. The cops blow Al Qaeda? In Afghanistan? Again? That's fucking disgusting. The first post was what I believe was a killdozer comment directed at police. The other post was a killdozer graphic, which I also believe was directed at police. What, pray tell, was so hard about that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:20:13 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is that any different than the cops of arfcom defending the killing of homeowners? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:20:19 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you trying to justify the killdozer comments against police? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:23:16 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What the fuck are you babbling about? Quote HistoryQuoted: What the fuck are you babbling about? ETA: to be more exact... Quoted:
Did the officers make it home safe though? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:27:41 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What the hell are you on about? I used the OP's thread title and comment to indicate the clear topic of the thread - the police doing what they did. The first post was what I believe was a killdozer comment directed at police. The other post was a killdozer graphic, which I also believe was directed at police. What, pray tell, was so hard about that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:30:21 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The police totally demolished a house and its contents to catch a shoplifter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:30:51 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, actually. Reimburse the owner to make them whole.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:31:49 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Rich, coming from a guy who routinely posts the quintessential, "At least the police got home safely." Much to your chagrin, they apparently did. Yet you're only here to try and attack other members with your bullshit made up accusations. Shouldn't you be in the garage jerking off thinking about the time you popped those perps for having their high capacity 13 Rd babnana magazines out there in the People's Republic of California? Trying to explain freedom to a dolt like you is like explaining color to a blind man. You just don't fucking get it. Now go get your shine box Benedict, grown ups are talking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:32:40 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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: 10/30/2019 10:32:49 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My point is where do you draw the line on damaged caused? You said pay it out of pension fund. Answe me this: why should a firefighter have to pay out of his/her pension fund so something an officer 100 miles away does? What would you have done to get the suspect out with no damage caused? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:33:26 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, that would be after shift change so, Overtime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:35:00 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What the hell are you on about? I used the OP's thread title and comment to indicate the clear topic of the thread - the police doing what they did. The first post was what I believe was a killdozer comment directed at police. The other post was a killdozer graphic, which I also believe was directed at police. What, pray tell, was so hard about that? But if you think about it, Killdozer comments get posted against the federal government, shitty municipalities, bad companies, etc. Is it ever justifiable to kill random people who simply because someone thinks a government, company, or police officer screwed them over? Of course not. I always thought Killdozer comments were made in jest, but if people are saying it literally, instead of in a joking manner, then it is absolutely fucked up. Unquestionably that's out of line. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:38:53 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You really need to get over yourself. Quit acting like police are some kind of victim. If police wouldn't destroy homes, then not pay for the damage, this thread would have never existed and you wouldn't be getting butt hurt over a killdozer picture. And we are victims all too often - buried some of my good friends. They didn't "go home safely." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:41:38 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For one the LEOs, for another the gun wielding scum. Should the police just have shot through the doors or lit the house up? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:41:44 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You realize that would be the city taxpayers, right? I don't understand what the argument about the police, is. But I would think the cities insurance would pay for damage caused by police action. No different than when a local cop misses a turn during a chase and puts his cruiser into a building. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:44:38 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The criminal is responsible. all he had to do was surrender peacefully and it all could have been prevented. The criminal is responsible to a point. Determining that point is exactly what lawsuits are for. A jury or judge gets to decide whether or not the government's actions were reasonable and justifiable. I also agree with what another poster mentioned about how government administered funds for crime victims could play a role in a situation like this. The issue, however, is that goes back to the ability of criminal defendants to pay their fines and victim's compensation. Criminals tend to be really shitty at being able to do so. I don't think a municipality should be liable for a bunch of upgrades or other extravagance, but that's why contractors, appraisers, and insurance adjusters exist. Someone clearly has the ability to determine the true amount of damage done. In a lot of states, when two parties share liability, if one party has no appreciable assets or ability to pay, the other party is then responsible. I don't see how it is fair that the homeowner be forced to eat damages caused by the actions of the suspect and the government. He's lucky his policy didn't exclude governmental actions as many do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:47:31 PM EST
[#27]
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." Maybe if you're so concerned for the environment towards law enforcement you wouldn't continue to turn the public against them by defending absurd bullshit like this. We're not cop haters, I lost friends in high school because I didn't want to see Darren Wilson's head on a spike for shooting Mike Brown. But the continued defense of destruction of homeowners lives and property is making it hard to continue to play that role. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:48:45 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is exactly what I expected. But I didn't see that it was occupied. That does change things indeed. Not sticking up for the suspect at all, but trying to make it sound like an armed gunman was shooting at cops and hiding behind a hostage is disingenuous. Particularly when trying to justify the approach as necessary for the safety of that 9 year old and the public, when the suspect had done the opposite of indicating he presented a threat to anyone uninvolved. Basically, if the point of bringing up the kid in the house is to make us clutch our pearls and cheer for a police response, any actual concern for the kid would have been shown by deescalation. Yet the escalation only ramped up from there in the police response. If the police response of overwhelming escalation was appropriate since the kid was no longer anywhere near the house...okay, fine, but you can’t still cite that kid being the reason it was necessary to drive through the walls and shoot through the windows. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:50:37 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You realize that would be the city taxpayers, right? You do realize law enforcement represent those taxpayers, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:53:02 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If only the criminal has responsibility, then please explain why so many municipalities frequently pay out for the many examples that have already been listed in this thread? They're not doing it out of the goodness of their heart. The criminal is responsible to a point. Determining that point is exactly what lawsuits are for. A jury or judge gets to decide whether or not the government's actions were reasonable and justifiable. I also agree with what another poster mentioned about how government administered funds for crime victims could play a role in a situation like this. The issue, however, is that goes back to the ability of criminal defendants to pay their fines and victim's compensation. Criminals tend to be really shitty at being able to do so. I don't think a municipality should be liable for a bunch of upgrades or other extravagance, but that's why contractors, appraisers, and insurance adjusters exist. Someone clearly has the ability to determine the true amount of damage done. In a lot of states, when two parties share liability, if one party has no appreciable assets or ability to pay, the other party is then responsible. I don't see how it is fair that the homeowner be forced to eat damages caused by the actions of the suspect and the government. He's lucky his policy didn't exclude governmental actions as many do. Not all agencies are the same. Large cities and counties are self-insured and will do everything to minimize expenditures. Their attorneys will argue that it is their duty to protect tax payers from the liability, and offering "extra money" is a crime (gift of public funds). However, their ability to pay large amounts will suppass BFE cities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:56:44 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...snip... We're not cop haters, I lost friends in high school because I didn't want to see Darren Wilson's head on a spike for shooting Mike Brown. But the continued defense of destruction of homeowners lives and property is making it hard to continue to play that role. 
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: 10/30/2019 10:57:41 PM EST
[#32]
Eventually everyone will come to understand that the government and its agents are not on any side but their own.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:58:03 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The city doesn't have liability insurance? I don't understand what the argument about the police, is. But I would think the cities insurance would pay for damage caused by police action. No different than when a local cop misses a turn during a chase and puts his cruiser into a building. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 10:59:15 PM EST
[#34]
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." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You really need to get over yourself. Quit acting like police are some kind of victim. If police wouldn't destroy homes, then not pay for the damage, this thread would have never existed and you wouldn't be getting butt hurt over a killdozer picture. And we are victims all too often - buried some of my good friends. They didn't "go home safely." And the fact that you think that other people know less because they aren't "actual police" is very telling. And if the same arfcops didn't defend other police that destroy homes and kill innocent homeowners, maybe they wouldn't get dogpiled. And you know what else? I have a lot of coworkers that are buried right now too. Believe it or not, there are jobs that are more dangerous than police work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 11:01:16 PM EST
[#35]
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." I think any clear threats against LE are COC violations. Very sorry to hear about your friends who lost their lives. You know how GD can be. I think most people on GD make the "go home safely" comments in a mocking way and don't intend to disparage officers that didn't get to go home safely. Understandably, I can see why those comments might piss you off. I think it's a good thing that you mentioned why those comments bother you. Sometimes people need to walk a mile in someone else's shoes and understand their perspective. If you've buried a fellow officer, a joke about going home safely likely exposes some pretty raw wounds. I think both "sides" -- meaning those that typically take an anti-cop position and our LE site members -- could probably work a little harder at times to look at things from the other's sides perspective. I think it would lead to more middle ground being covered in these threads and less heated discussion. But it's GD, so I'm not going to get my hopes up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 11:01:22 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The city doesn't have liability insurance? I don't understand what the argument about the police, is. But I would think the cities insurance would pay for damage caused by police action. No different than when a local cop misses a turn during a chase and puts his cruiser into a building. Ignoring the moral issue of you broke that random dude's shit, one would think the city attorney has better things to do than escalate a civil suit over $400k, especially when most cities will throw $100k plus to any random crook who gets TASERed as go away money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 11:01:25 PM EST
[#37]
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: 10/30/2019 11:02:22 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He didn't torch the house. The police did. The same ones who engaged in a high speed chase over a stolen shirt and belt, then proceeded to talk about how important safety is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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: 10/30/2019 11:04:01 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...snip... And you know what else? I have a lot of coworkers that are buried right now too. Believe it or not, there are jobs that are more dangerous than police work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 11:05:27 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Basically, if the point of bringing up the kid in the house is to make us clutch our pearls and cheer for a police response, any actual concern for the kid would have been shown by deescalation. Yet the escalation only ramped up from there in the police response. I only ask because the described police actions in this incident of using time, distance, shielding, numerical superiority, and technology and less lethal devices to take the suspect into custody without anyone getting hurt, placing the preservation of life above all other concerns(including property damage ) would FULLY SATISFY the requirements of the de-escalation policies of the few backwards ass leftist major metro police departments that buy into it. We're pretending for the sake of argument that "police de-escalation" is not a nonsensical bullshit concept that doesn't exist in American statutory or case law.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 11:06:44 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's the criminal going to pay with? A couple of Walmart t-shirts and a Levi belt? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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: 10/30/2019 11:07:31 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Very different. This was a tactical decision to bring a felony suspect into custody with the least amount of risk to life. not a traffic accident. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The city doesn't have liability insurance? I don't understand what the argument about the police, is. But I would think the cities insurance would pay for damage caused by police action. No different than when a local cop misses a turn during a chase and puts his cruiser into a building. If the city has no liability in the destruction of property in the lawful application of police power, what check is there on simply raising the block any mildly dangerous suspect is holed up in? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 11:08:54 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Most cities are self-insured, but as I previously stated I have never heard of one being so bull headed about fixing shit the city broke in the course of doing city business. Ignoring the moral issue of you broke that random dude's shit, one would think the city attorney has better things to do than escalate a civil suit over $400k, especially when most cities will throw $100k plus to any random crook who gets TASERed as go away money. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The city doesn't have liability insurance? I don't understand what the argument about the police, is. But I would think the cities insurance would pay for damage caused by police action. No different than when a local cop misses a turn during a chase and puts his cruiser into a building. Ignoring the moral issue of you broke that random dude's shit, one would think the city attorney has better things to do than escalate a civil suit over $400k, especially when most cities will throw $100k plus to any random crook who gets TASERed as go away money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 11:09:01 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree that there are cop haters on GD that cross the line. I don't care for it either. It causes many of these threads to descend into utter chaos. That said, there's also a few LEO's here that seem to enjoy baiting and trolling. I think any clear threats against LE are COC violations. Very sorry to hear about your friends who lost their lives. You know how GD can be. I think most people on GD make the "go home safely" comments in a mocking way and don't intend to disparage officers that didn't get to go home safely. Understandably, I can see why those comments might piss you off. I think it's a good thing that you mentioned why those comments bother you. Sometimes people need to walk a mile in someone else's shoes and understand their perspective. If you've buried a fellow officer, a joke about going home safely likely exposes some pretty raw wounds. I think both "sides" -- meaning those that typically take an anti-cop position and our LE site members -- could probably work a little harder at times to look at things from the other's sides perspective. I think it would lead to more middle ground being covered in these threads and less heated discussion. But it's GD, so I'm not going to get my hopes up. 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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 11:11:20 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, either we accept a fucking mortar team shelling our homes without compensation or we're personally responsible for your coworkers deaths.... are you on crack? Maybe if you're so concerned for the environment towards law enforcement you wouldn't continue to turn the public against them by defending absurd bullshit like this. We're not cop haters, I lost friends in high school because I didn't want to see Darren Wilson's head on a spike for shooting Mike Brown. But the continued defense of destruction of homeowners lives and property is making it hard to continue to play that role. Everyone is entitled to their own perspective, but you can't see why some of the comments made might bother a LEO that lost a partner or friend in the line of duty. In an earlier post I mentioned that there are a few LEOs here that seem to troll or incite. But, I don't think his concerns about some of the things that have been said were anything other than fair. I'm neither a bootlicker or a cop-hater. My opinion is always 100% based on the individual situation in any thread like this. I believe the homeowner should absolutely be furious, and I do think this PD and its officers were WAY excessive with the amount of force they used. Someone mentioned the particulars of why negotiations broke down, and if that's accurate I believe the PD acted negligently by doing the amount of damage they did when they were on the cusp of peacefully resolving the situation. I should have just stayed out of this thread. Now I'll probably get blasted by both sides. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 11:11:54 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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... 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
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 11:16:19 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's no denying that lots of jobs are dangerous. Not many get specifically targeted while protecting the public except the police. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
...snip... And you know what else? I have a lot of coworkers that are buried right now too. Believe it or not, there are jobs that are more dangerous than police work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 11:19:15 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess they should have gone with their insurance and the offer from the city to cover their deductible then. I've previously stated none of the upgrades should be covered. I'm confident an adjuster already determined replacement costs of the dwelling and personal property (because claims were filed). Since the city's insurer is not covering this, I believe the city should've paid for the replacement costs of the dwelling and personal property, loss of use, the deductible, and a small but reasonable amount to cover premium increases. Not a cent less and not a cent more no matter how much the homeowner doesn't like it. I don't think that's an unfair position to take. And, obviously, I believe the city's payout should be offset by any assets the criminal may have had, and be offset by any funds paid out by a crime victim's fund. You don't think the city should pay anything more than the deductible? I can even see an argument for a settlement less than the total losses as the remainder is something the homeowner could claim on insurance and have to eat. But not a penny more than the paltry offer the city made? I don't think thats reasonable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 11:21:16 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Rich, coming from a guy who routinely posts the quintessential, "At least the police got home safely." Much to your chagrin, they apparently did. ETA: to be more exact... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2019 11:21:51 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok, so where does anything say that? The article says nothing of the sort. This whole thing is about a town shirking it's responsibility to it's citizens. Innocent people should never suffer due to the actions of gov't. My bil sued the town he lives in for violating his civil rights. It all started when his father tried to turn an abandoned railway into a bike path. The good old boy network in cahoots with the town didn't want that. The town started fucking with his son's business. Issue permits then immediately send out desist letters. Parking tickets on cars parked in attached garages all kinds of shit. FBI got involved. He won 250k for that. This guy deserves every bit of that 400k and then some Sorry bud. |
|
|
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.
