Police Abuse

A SWAT Team Blew Up This Family's House While Chasing a Shoplifter. The Supreme Court Won't Hear the Case.

And no, it wasn't the shoplifter's home.

|

Five years ago, police officers in Greenwood Village, Colorado, destroyed a private residence while pursuing a suspected shoplifter who had broken in and barricaded himself inside. Last year a federal court denied the homeowners any compensation for those damages, even though they had no connection to the theft and did not willingly allow the fugitive into their house. This morning the Supreme Court announced that it will not hear the case.

Over the course of June 3 and 4, 2015, a SWAT team deployed a series of flash bang grenades, tear gas, 40 mm rounds, two Bearcat armored vehicles, and breaching rams against the home of Leo, Alfonsina, and John Lech. The Lechs had to demolish the house, which was worth $580,000. The city gave them $5,000.

This despite the fact that the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment is supposed to protect citizens from having their property taken or destroyed by the government without being justly compensated for that loss.

"The simple rule of the Constitution is that the government cannot arbitrarily single out private citizens to bear the costs of something that should rightly be the burden of society as a whole," said attorney Jeffrey Redfern of the Institute for Justice, the public interest law firm that represented the Lechs, in a statement. "If the government requires a piece of property to be destroyed, then the government should pay for it—and that's just as true regardless of whether the people doing the destroying are the local school board or the local police."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit disagreed, ruling in October that the cops acted within their "police power" when they ravaged the home in an attempt to coax the suspect, who was armed with a handgun, to surrender.

As Jay Stooksbury wrote in the December 2017 issue of Reason, the ordeal financially upended the Lech family's life. Leo Lech had to take out a $390,000 loan after having to tear down what remained of the home. As of October of last year, he had incurred an additional $28,000 in attorney's fees.

The death of George Floyd, an unarmed man killed by a Minneapolis cop, has driven new life into the conversation around police reform—not just as it relates to excessive force, but as it pertains to ensuring the public has recourse against officers who infringe on their rights. The Supreme Court recently refused to hear several cases on qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that allows public officials to violate your rights without fear of federal civil rights lawsuits, so long as the way those rights were trampled has not been outlined almost identically in a previous court precedent.

The Lech case is a microcosm for several discussions around what needs to change. There was the intensely-militarized presence: Why does apprehending a petty thief necessitate grenades and armored vehicles? There was a rather plain violation of the homeowners' constitutional rights. And there was—and is—the lack of accountability, which the Lechs no longer have hope of seeing rectified.

NEXT: COVID-19 Pool Testing Is a Stopgap Measure To Track and Curb the Pandemic

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Make 6,000 dollar to 8,000 dollar A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss AndChoose Your Own Work Hours. Click For Full Details.

    1. Start generating extra cash online from hom emore than $22k by doing very easy work just in spare time. Last month i have got paid $22745 from this easy home job. Join this job right now and makes more cash every month online. Just follow web link here to get starte….. Read more  

  2. And yet they chose to hear a second, virtually identical abortion case?

    1. The relative of my Classmate procures $530 each hour on the net. He has been out of tough work for 5 months, however a month inside the past his paycheck became $ 18468, really chipping away at the net for multiple hours. examine extra in this website online, go to the residence tab of this web website online for additional diffused factors,……. Home Profit System

    2. You’ve got to expect parents to show more concern over their kids than somebody else’s, and the ‘right’ to abortion is the Supreme court’s baby. Of course they care more about it than rights that merely were ratified as actual constitutional amendments.

    3. Start generating extra cash online from hom emore than $22k by doing very easy work just in spare time. Last month i have got paid $22745 from this easy home job. Join this job right now and makes more cash every month online. Just follow web link here to get starte….. Read more  

    4. Because Fuck You, That’s Why.

  3. “‘The simple rule of the Constitution is that the government cannot arbitrarily single out private citizens to bear the costs of something that should rightly be the burden of society as a whole,’ said attorney Jeffrey Redfern of the Institute for Justice…”

    Tell that to the Endangered Species Act.

  4. One fact that was omitted from this telling is that the homeowner’s insurance paid the claim for the house’s total insured value. The problem for the Owner is that the house was underinsured. I’m not saying that how this went down. What I’m saying is that often, “bad facts make for bad law.”*

    *I don’t remember to whom this quote should be attributed. It may have been Scalia.

    1. And?

      Its not ridiculous to expect that the people responsible for damaging the property bear the costs of making the property owner whole.

      The homeowner should be compensated the difference between actual and insured value. Insurance company deserves to be reimbursed for what they paid out as well.

      1. I agree, but this fact played an important, indeed pivotal role, in the appellate court ruling. It should at least have been mentioned here.

    2. I suspected this was the case. Regardless of any minor (or major) financial discrepancies between insured value/compensation etc., when the city destroys a home, they should have made a good faith effort to cover for the inconvenience costs attributed to the whole affair. It’s just bad optics.

      1. It’s just bad optics.

        Not to mention creating the secret “It’s OK to shred the BOR, it’s insured!” exception.

      2. That’s hardly the only thing they omitted. They omitted the part where he used the gun to shoot at the cops.

        They chased a shoplifter into the house, but they extracted somebody who had attempted to murder somebody.

        I mean, I’m sorry for them, but the real problem here is that they were underinsured. If they’d ensured for the full value, they’d be OK, the local government was willing to pick up the cost of a hotel room while their house was rebuilt.

        1. “That’s hardly the only thing they omitted. They omitted the part where he used the gun to shoot at the cops.”

          I don’t see where that’s relevant. How much ammo could he have had on him. Wait until he runs out and rush the house. There was no good reason to resort to the tactics they used.

          1. It’s relevant when Reason keeps referring to the guy as a “shoplifter”. They don’t omit the fact that he shot at the cops by accident, it spoils their narrative of police overreaction.

            Sure, the home owner got screwed, but that doesn’t mean the police destroyed a building to get at somebody who had just shoplifted.

            1. Even knowing he shot at the cops, the cops still way overreacted.

              1. I’m cool with honestly making that case. Honestly making that case involves admitting that he was more than just a “shoplifter” at that point.

        2. Insurance isn’t constitutionally relevant.

          1. No, but it’s procedurally relevant. Normally in a case like this, IIRC, the insurance company immediately pays the costs, and then goes after the local government for reimbursement. That way you get your money right away.

            The problem here is that the home owner had undervalued their house, both for insurance AND property tax purposes. And only got compensated for the amount they were claiming their house was worth. It’s not immediately obvious that they’re constitutionally entitled to change their minds about how much the house was worth after it got trashed.

            To be fair, this could have happened innocently, but, you need a procedure for deciding how much compensation is due, and “how much the owner had been claiming the property was worth” isn’t obviously a constitutionally deficient procedure.

            1. No it isn’t.

              Even if Insurance paid the entire claim, the government would still owe the insurance company. This narrative simply relies on the insurance company being a less sympathetic victim than a single homeowner

        3. The crime is not relevant. These folks should have been justly compensated by a reckless police department for destroying their house. You’re trying to turn the table on the victims because they were “underinsured”. That’s like the cop getting away with murdering Philando Castiel because “I smelled pot and was afraid”.

      3. What’s bad optics, is that police feel free to destroy an innocent person’s home I suppose because they like playing with their toys, blowing things up, they had an excuse, and had no regard for protecting the home. Imagine what would happen if they did it to a museum, and damaged the priceless pieces, it’d all be legal.

    3. It’s omitted because it’s completely irrelevant. Even if the home had been fully insured, the insurance company would have been out the money due to no fault of either themselves or the homeowner they were insuring. The insurance company had to raise rates for everyone because of the police overreaction.

      That’s no more right than if the police hit an innocent pedestrian during a high-speed chase. The pedestrian’s medical bills go to the city (or maybe to the police’s insurance carrier). They are not the responsibility of the poor schmuck who got hit.

      1. You nailed it, Rossami. It’s amazing you even have to say this shit, isn’t it? Especially here. Didn’t used to be that way. *shrugs*

      2. Even if the home had been fully insured, the insurance company would have been out the money due to no fault of either themselves or the homeowner they were insuring.

        You’ve just described insurance.

        1. So you’re saying we should treat police abuse as an act of God, a random occurrence which is no one’s fault?

          No, that’s not how insurance works. We risk-pool for things that truly are random and uncontrollable. But when someone’s at fault, they pay. (They might pay direct or through subrogation to your insurance carrier but that’s just a matter of timing, not accountability.)

          Personally, I do not want to live in a world where police abuse is random and unaccountable.

          1. You should tell that guy’s insurance company that they don’t have to pay. Maybe they’ll throw you a tip.

            1. To tell the truth, from reading my homeowner’s policy, I don’t think it would be covered. Deliberate or negligent damage by a third party might be initially payable by the insurance company, but that third party would be liable.

              I believe the police also said that the thief was responsible for the funds, but he obviously cannot pay that sort of astronomical sum.

              I would also repeat my statements from prior discussions on this. The police involved should be fired for their wasteful, reckless, and destructive actions. By escalating this from a standoff to armed warfare, they needlessly spend tens of thousands in police resources and endangered lives. The normal outcome of this sort of situation is a few hour standoff, and the criminal then gives up due to the situation being hopeless. However, they prolonged the confrontation and created unnecessary risks by giving the criminal reasonable expectation that the army attacking him with bombs would kill him.

          2. Yes, if you want to be secure from financial loss when your home is burned down by overzealous government jacket booted thugs, it is incumbent that you have sufficient insurance, unlike the Philadelphia MOVE and Waco Davidians whose big offense was they obviously lacked good insurance. Or do insurance companies treat government agents burning down the house as an Act of GOD?

            1. This is just a dumb take. If I have a half a billion dollars in my checking account and you total my $5,000 Honda Civic, that doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay for the damage you did.

              The fact that he’s not able to pay for his damaged home is entirely irrelevant. They are responsible for the damages. They should pay for the damages.

              I cannot fathom how we got sidetracked onto a discussion of whether or not you’re able to pay for it. The discussion is not about who is able to pay, it is about who is responsible. The city destroyed the home. The city owes them compensation by any rational reading of fairness and the law. The city might have a claim against the shoplyfter / shooter since their actions were a direct result of his actions. Although, I really have a hard time seeing how knocking holes in their house with a tank is a rational response to a guy with a handgun.

        2. Then the damages should go on the cops’ insurance instead of the homeowners’.

          This isn’t just a matter of strict liability (whoever caused the damages pays for the damages, even if they weren’t negligent), it’s also a matter of negligent liability, because the police used excessive force to roust the shoplifter from the house. This is the problem with police all the time, because they are lazy and stupid, they use brute force instead of deescalation tactics and waiting a person out. This is the cause of so many police killings in this country, and it’s the cause of the homeowner’s loss in this case.

      3. I’m having trouble seeing how it isn’t effectively an “It’s insured!” exception to the BOR.

        Police need to use your home… it’s OK, it’s insured.
        Police need to confiscate your printing press… it’s OK, it’s insured.
        Police need to confiscate your guns… it’s OK, they’re insured.
        Police need to confiscate the car they suspect you of running drugs in… it’s OK, it’s insured. Except that’s not OK and you get a heap of additional charges for insuring your drug car with your drug money. Also, you’ll be arrested and charged with a crime for driving a car that’s not insured.

      4. It wasn’t irrelevant to the lower court IMO.

      5. I’m not sure why it’s relevant whether the cops overreacted or not. The house was destroyed by government action thru no fault of the owners, the government should pay damages to make the owners whole. What am I missing?

    4. My Boy pal makes $seventy five/hour at the internet. She has been without a assignment for six months however remaining month her pay have become $16453 genuinely working at the internet for some hours. Click For Full Details.

      1. Your boy pal at the internet? Oh, yeah, English is your definitely your first language. I believe you, Jasmine!

    5. What I’m saying is that often, “bad facts make for bad law.”*

      *I don’t remember to whom this quote should be attributed. It may have been Scalia.

      “Hard cases make for bad law.” was Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

      Not sure if that’s the quote you’re referring to but I’m pretty sure police driving bearcats through your home adds some nuance that isn’t quite captured by ‘hard cases’.

      1. That might be it, but I remember hearing the quote the way I stated it in LS. It may have just been a prof’s opinion. It was a long time ago.

    6. Yes, if you want to be secure from financial loss when your home is burned down by overzealous government jacket booted thugs, it is incumbent that you have sufficient insurance, unlike the Philadelphia MOVE and Waco Davidians obviously lacked good insurance. Or do insurance companies treat government agents burning down the house as an Act of GOD?

    7. Pretty sure the quote is “HARD CASES make bad law.” Not sure if Scalia’s the one who said it, though.

    8. Just to be clear: I do not agree with the appellate court’s holding, I just recall this being a relevant fact to the holding, and therefore think it should have been mentioned. That’s it.

  5. Isn’t this against the Third Amendment?

    1. Only if the cops were living in the house.

      1. I would argue they were “quartered”when they barged in and then proceeded to destroy the joint. Strictly forbidden by the Third Amendment.

        Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, I’m just a Caveman. I fell in some ice and later got thawed out by your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me.

        1. You would be wrong. The third amendment only applies to quartering SOLDIERS.

          However much they might like to pretend they are, the police are not soldiers.

          This argument has already been considered by the courts and rejected.

          1. Do you know the cases? I’m curious to read about them.

            “However much they might like to pretend they are, the police are not soldiers. ”

            Technically, yes. But in reality, its quite the blurry line.

          2. Considering that “the police” didn’t exist at the time the 3rd amendment was adopted, and “the police” carry guns on behalf of the government, (Just like soldiers.) I’d say they’re constitutionally equivalent. Which doesn’t matter, because they didn’t live in the house, they destroyed it, so it’s not a 3rd amendment case either way.

            1. Meh. I think enforcing criminal laws, which is what police do, is a very different task than defending a country against foreign threats, which is what soldiers do. Plus their methodology is very different (soldiers don’t play any investigative role, for instance).

            2. “I’d say they’re constitutionally equivalent.”

              I often agree with you, but that seems like a bit of a stretch.

              1. Constitutionally equivalent in the sense that, if the city quartered police in your house, the 3rd amendment would be relevant. The reason it’s not isn’t that police aren’t soldiers, (If they’re not, they’re close cousins to soldiers from that standpoint.) it’s that they weren’t quartered.

            3. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, which is 2 years after the establishment of the US Marshals by the Judiciary Act of 1789.

              You could also argue that federal law enforcement dates back to 1772 when Ben Franklin as Postmaster General appointed a “surveyor”, which is traditionally seen as the start of the United States Postal Inspection Service, who are still around to this day and were the first government entity in the USA to designate their officers the title “special agent”.

    2. finally a shot to smash the 14th into the 3d lol.

  6. This website has run this exact same story multiple times with no changes, no updates, no differences.

    Whats the point of continuing to bring this up without any changes, other then to score emotional points?

    1. There are changes. Read the article. The point of this one is that the homeowner lost his final appeal when the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. And that just happened this morning.

      1. I guess copsuckers can’t read.

      2. Yeah, but what they didn’t change, is omitting that the “shoplifter” was shooting at the cops, which means that, at that point, they weren’t going after a “shoplifter”, they were going after an attempted murderer.

        1. It’s still millions of miles short of properly justifying what the police did.

          1. Not really. You’ve got a guy with a gun holed up in a house in a residential neighborhood, who has already demonstrated he’s willing to shoot at people. Exactly how long was the whole neighborhood supposed to live with that threat?

            Yes, they might have over-reacted somewhat, but not as enormously as calling the guy a “shoplifter” is designed to make it appear.

            1. To tell you the truth, a few hours. Probably the standoff would have been shorter if they had just used standard tactics, had a few guys blocking the entrances, and talked him down. Instead, they had an armed conflict for two days. Most standoffs don’t last that long, as the offender gives up after a while. However, given the level of force the police presented, the only reasonable assumption is that the police would kill him, so they forced him into a last stand.

        2. If the thief had fired an RPG at the cops, my position would still be that the law should require the police to reimburse the owner.

          I don’t care in this context whether the police acted rightly or wrongly. The police were acting on behalf of the general public and caused significant damages to specific innocent third parties in the process. The general public should pay for that, not the specific innocent third parties.

          1. In my book, this is the right answer.

            The courts have gotten out of control with all the immunities they’re passing around.

            I thought we would reach Peak Immunity with the Harry Connick case. As this case and recent qualified immunity cases like the theft of a quarter million dollars during execution of a search warrant have proven, we are nowhere near Peak Immunity.

    2. Emotional points? LOL. What, don’t like having your precious blue heroes called out? Well, that’s just too damn bad.

    3. I thought the earlier posts included the minor detail that the cops asked if they could go in?

    4. 11 Mar 2020 the Institute for Justice filed a writ with SCOTUS. IoJ is described as “libertarian” so Reason posted a follow up on the case. So simple a caveman (me) could see it.

  7. In fairness to the police, Greenwood Village is located within Toontown, the SWAT team was composed entirely of animated weasels and they had a warrant signed by Judge Doom. If anything, they should be praised for their restraint in not using “the Dip.”

  8. Roberts is too busy protecting the integrity of the court to waste time protecting deplorables from excesses of the government.

    1. Robert sis a disgusting piece of excrement. I hope he gets COVID and that his daughters get raped by DACA recipients.

      1. The feds aren’t sending their best.

  9. My Boy pal makes $seventy five/hour at the internet. She has been without a assignment for six months however remaining month her pay have become $16453 genuinely working at the internet ..Click For Full Details.

  10. The Supreme Court is driven almost entirely by judicial fashion and the tastes and values of the upper and ruling classes. So, they care greatly about rights and positions valued by the upper class and nothing about those valued by anyone else. So, you end up with a court that will torture the Constitution to create a right to government recognition of gay relationships, finds the insurance mandate really a “tax”, reads the statutory prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex to prohibit discrimination against gays and trannies (religious freedom and the intent of Congress and every other precedent be damned) but at the same time strikes down restrictions on abortion in the name of it’s selective concern for stare decisis, refuses to grant cert to any cases involving the 2nd Amendment effectively allowing the lower courts to read it out of the Constitution, and refuses to do anything about qualified immunity.

    I think Roberts is mostly behind this. He is a pathetic little man who lacks any moral fiber whatsoever. So, you have only as many rights as the upper classes think are important. Otherwise, you can go fuck yourself or figure out a way to make gun rights, abortion restrictions, and restricting qualified immunity popular with who Roberts considers the “right set”.

    Roberts will before he is done, likely do more harm to the legitimacy and respect the public has for the courts than any man since Justice Taney.

    1. Beautifully said. He’s vermin.

  11. SC = Suckin’ Cops
    Those assholes really are worthless. They won’t do their job, they won’t give justice to anyone, but they will arbitrarily redefine sex so men can go potty in the ladies room.

    1. They consider the right to ejaculate into another man’s colon and get a “marriage” license more important than the right to own a 30 round magazine.

  12. NEVER TALK TO COPS.

    Never let them in without a warrant.

    You cannot cooperate with police AND uphold the Constitution.

    1. As a prospective juror, I told the judge then I could not follow the rule that said I had to give law enforcement officers full credibility, and simultaneously follow the rule that I make a fair decision on the facts. I was dismissed.

  13. “Last year a federal court denied the homeowners any compensation for those damages, even though they had no connection to the theft and did not willingly allow the fugitive into their house.”

    Sounds fair to me.
    These people had no business owning a private home anyway.
    Private ownership of property is an exclusive right of our obvious betters in power.
    These people wouldn’t be whining, sniveling and crying if they had heeded the sound advice of our elitist betters by living in public housing projects.
    The only things they would have to worry about is rats, roaches, bedbugs, rampant crime, misery, having electricity, clean water, and getting through the day alive and in one piece.
    When will the little people of this nation ever learn?

  14. Speaking of blowing up people’s homes… look at these two goobers

    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/police-investigating-protesters-after-confrontation-with-armed-st-louis-homeowners/

    I read the article and was appalled at the relatively low value of their house. Well… it is in shithole America so you get what you pay for. If Hong Kongers end up moving to California in droves my propertay values will go up so high that I’ll be able to buy Bonney and Clyde out of their home and turn it into a BLM-sponsored park where we could start the next CHAZ. Welcome, Chinese!

  15. What’s the point of giving cops surplus military gear if they can’t play army man now and then?

  16. If he would have just shot the intruder, he would have saved his house.

    1. When Seacat entered the house the only occupant was a nine year old.

      Maybe fault him for not being a Kevin (Culkin)?

  17. Cops playing at soldiering. And doing a mighty bad job of it. No discipline or honor.

    1. Soldiers in combat zones follow more restrictive rules of engagement ( use of force) and have a better track record than some of these domestic SWAT goon squads.

  18. Those old Keystone Cops movies should have come with a disclaimer, announcing that they were portraying the best case scenario. Police can, only, get worse.

    “De‐​militarizing our police should not only be about taking away gear that is too often used to conduct violent raids on nonviolent suspects; it should also be about reforming the mindset, held by too many officers, that they are soldiers going to war against their fellow citizens.”

    https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-militarized-police-can-attract-wrong-officers

  19. Shoplifter: As per this article, or vs text taken from temth circuit court of appeals filings below…

    “To prevent Seacat from escaping, the officers posi-
    tioned their vehicles in the driveway of the Lechs’
    home. Seacat then fired a bullet from inside the garage and struck an officer’s car. At that point, the officersdeemed the incident a high-risk, barricade situation.4For approximately five hours, negotiators attempted to convince Seacat to surrender. After these efforts to negotiate proved unsuccessful, officers employed increasingly aggressive tactics: they fired several rounds of gas munition into the home, breached the home’s doors with a BearCat armored vehicle so they could send in a robot to deliver a “throw phone” to Seacat, and used explosives to create sight lines and points of entry to the home. App. vol. 2, 380. The officers also sent in a tactical team to apprehend Seacat. But Seacat fired at the officers while they were inside, re-quiring them to leave. When even these more aggressive tactics failed to draw Seacat out, officers used the BearCat to open multiple holes in the home and again deployed a tactical team to apprehend Seacat. This time, the tactical team was successful: it managed to disarm Seacat and take him into custody.”

    Guy should be made whole yes, but this article is full of crap in that it rides the wave to bash police, including use of have truths to do so….way to go facts, truth, and accuracy! that will always win you readers and fans! I created an account just to post this to counter your half truths in this article, so you got me, but Ill never read anything by reason.com again. No cops dead, suspect even still alive equals win….if cop was killed would you have written an article? No. Suspect killed by police, you probably would have….everyone alive, how can we bash the police, n9t the government entities that shiuld be paying for this guys house rather let’s bash the police some more, yeah!

    1. I’m confused by this comment! Are you applauding/defending the police with this play by play or proving the point that their actions were over the top and 100% uncalled for?

      1. “Breached the home’s doors with a bearcat armored vehicle”. Meaning, they deliberately rammed the house with a military grade truck instead of using less destructive tactics, such as a handheld battering ram. That is the summary of this entire operation. Excessive, needlessly destructive and violent tactics.

        They risked the lives of everyone in the area by using excessive force. Instead of just waiting him out or negotiating. Whoever was in charge needs to be fired.

  20. This is summarized at the Wikipedia article “The Arrest of Robert Seacat”.

  21. Just what do they have on Roberts?

    1. He’s just a pussy.

  22. Make 6,000 dollar to 8,000 dollar A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss AndChoose Your Own Work Hours…. Read More.

  23. Well, first the air force should carpet bombed the area to weed out any pesky witnesses, then go in with the marines to flush out the enemy..

  24. It is patently unfair for an innocent third party – in this case the Lechs – to bear the full burden of actions taken by government – in this case the police. The police were acting on behalf off the city and therefore, the city should have made the Lechs whole. The Lechs, like everyone people else in the city, would have paid their fair share through their taxes. Don’t even get me started on why SWAT felt it necessary to destroy the home in pursuit of a single assailant with a pistol. Tear gas? Sure. Armored vehicles? I gotta call b.s. on that. Better yet, take the money out of the police overtime budget so maybe they would think twice before going full Rambo next time.

  25. “…40 mm rounds…”

    Seriously? How many other houses did they pass through?

  26. I feel the points of this case are irrelevant. It all comes down to one thing; We need to stop allowing the municipal terrorist to continue running Afgan Ops in the streets of America.
    A SWAT team to go after a f@#$ing shoplifter???? What the hell would have been the loss to just let him go. Seriously, just let him have the cell phone or the bottle of shampoo or whatever it was and let him go. Really, it’s not that big of a deal.
    If the entire point of the police is to keep the public safe, then I’d say this was one epic failure.

    1. Once he started firing the gun, letting him go was not a valid option.

  27. Land of the free at work again! Free to take or destroy “your” property at any time.

    Good grief what case could be more clear than this to compensate the family. What kind of fucked up leaders do we have that would even have denied it in the first place?!?!?

  28. When all participants of a “system” are feeding from the same nose-bag, free from competition — and are allowed (by your neighbors and friends — hopefully not you) to
    • Make the laws,
    • Enforce the laws,
    • Prosecute the laws,
    • Hire the prosecutors,
    • License the “defense” attorneys,
    • Pay the “judges”,
    • Build the jails,
    • Contract jails out to private entities,
    • Employ and pay the wardens,
    • Employ and pay the guards,
    • Employ and pay the parole officers,
    One can’t honestly call it a “justice” system. It’s a system of abject tyranny.

    1. Well said.
      Probably could have just summed it up as “BAR Association in motion”.

  29. “…..The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit disagreed, ruling in October that the cops acted within their “police power” when they ravaged the home in an attempt to coax the suspect, who was armed with a handgun, to surrender…..”

    The real issue is giving these local “authorities” this kind of power! Why is it so difficult for people to imagine or understand the horrible abuses that will inevitably occur when such unrestricted power is given to people who have not earned it or shown proof they are even capable wielding such. ? .
    The second the police began pursuit of this “shoplifter” is the second they became responsible for him and responsible for their own actions while in this pursuit.
    The use of these weapons (batter rams, grenades etc.) were not done in a spur-of-the-moment, accidental, or in some kind of involuntary reaction Type of way. This entire episode required calculated thought processes and required several people to carry out several tasks in order for this to take place.
    No one can convince me that had anyone involved believed they would be held accountable for their actions that they would have acted in the same way. The entire matter is a perfect example of The systemic stupidity, lack of self control, and inability of reasonable thought processes that the vast majority of police forces or the people in charge of these police, seem to suffer from.

    1. ““…..The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit disagreed, ruling in October that the cops acted within their “police power” when they ravaged the home in an attempt to coax the suspect, who was armed with a handgun, to surrender…..””

      The critical thing to know here is that the “court” was not acting under Article III Judicial authority, but instead acting as an Article I Administrative Office, in a “Statutory Jurisdiction”, outside the constitution. Another gift of the criminal BAR Association.

      This family needs to bring a Common law Tort Claim for trial by jury, not a hearing by an administrative magistrate.

  30. [ STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME ] Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family&relative by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65o to $7oo a month. I’ve started this job and earn handsome income and now i am exchange it with you, so you can do it too. You can check it out here……www.workbaar.com

  31. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . YEr Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

    Heres what I do…… SeeMore here

  32. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month .EDs . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

    Heres what I do…………………Click For Full Details.

  33. Dear Mr. Lech,

    From the photo accompanying this article, it is obvious that your skin has a relatively low level melanin content.

    Bearing that in mind, you should simply consider yourself fortunate that your white privilege enabled you to occupy that home for as long as you did.

    Take a knee, and STFU.

  34. All the city has to do to make this right, is use their forfeiture laws to seize the money from some old lady whose granddaughter’s boyfriends cousin once sold an ounce of pot to an undercover cop. Use those proceed to pay for the damages.

    Also, the amount of insurance on the house is irrelevant.

Please to post comments