50 SWAT officers bombard, destroy bystander’s house with bombs

Re:50 SWAT officers bombard, destroy bystander’s house with ... by dmckeon on Wednesday November 22, 2017 @11:16PM (#15762694)

After 19 hours trying to extract and arrest a fleeing suspect who had attempted to hide in the house, "the house was condemned by the local municipality immediately after the raid" and the city "refused to pay fair market value".

Part of the city's defense in the subsequent suit is that: "the city wants the courts to reject the Takings Clause claim, arguing that the language only applies to "those whose property has been taken for public use". "

So, law enforcement takes and uses the home's structure in an attempt to arrest someone, destroying it in the process, then the city claims that they didn't "take" the property in the first place. Wow.

At least the home owner was not the victim of a SWAT raid initiated from a false report.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:50 SWAT officers bombard, destroy bystander’s house with ... by mcphage on Thursday November 23, 2017 @12:45AM (#15763084)

> At least the home owner was not the victim of a SWAT raid initiated from a false report.

Yes, it would be a shame if some of these city leaders' houses were destroyed without compensation by the local police following false claims about intruders inside.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:50 SWAT officers bombard, destroy bystander’s house with ... by dmckeon on Thursday November 23, 2017 @02:20AM (#15763440)

It would be a great shame if the home owner's suit for an equitable resolution were derailed by this sort of escalation - an escalation that would tend to benefit the city by helping their defense make its case.

[ Parent | on HN ]