This topic contains 5 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
AnonymousThis is frightening. The cops can destroy your home to get at some suspected criminal and not have to pay for it. Although the insurance in this case paid something, it wasn’t enough. Combine this with the confiscation laws, the cops can legally destroy your house and confiscate what ever they want. Like everything in the home and everything else you own, including your life, with no recourse. This goes too far. I suppose they can take all your financial assets too, bank accounts, stocks, bonds, etc without recourse too. This sounds like they can make you bankrupt and homeless with no recourse. Yeah, you can sue, but who’s going to take your case if you are bankrupt?
Any suggestions on how we can change this?
-
In that article, they report, I quote “… compensate a homeowner whose house was destroyed by 19 hours of gunfire between officers and an armed shoplifting suspect who had chosen to barricade himself inside to evade arrest.”
My question is: Why is that SWAT’s problem if the armed shoplifter caused the problem in the first instance?
The shoplifter should be held responsible for the resultant damages caused by his deliberate actions.He could have averted that by getting out before the shooting started, not so?
-
Yeah, I read it.
But the argument the plaintiff’s lawyers concerning the 5thA, I dont think they proved their case.I do think the LE response was over the top.
I also see it as an example of why the Beto O’roke gun confiscation idea would never work.-
Must say, sitting on the outside watching in having no skin in the game, it appears to me that the USA is run by attorneys, judges voted in (?), with a jury who is there not by choice. Big business if you ask me.
I always say there are 5 sides to a case:
1) Accuser’s version of the truth.
2) What the accuser’s attorney understands that truth to be.
3) The accused version of the truth.
4) What the accused attorney understands that truth to be.
5) The truth as the Judge says it is.Note: We don’t have juries In SA, thank heavens for that! 🙂
Roman-Dutch law any day.
-
-
Anonymous@TTT Most likely the shoplifter was poor, maybe homeless. Has no money to get.
Yep, lawyers running the country. Many/most local and state judges voted in, depending on state. Federal are appointed by president and approved or not approved by congress, usually along political lines.
-
Jip, probably he was poor BUT he was seriously committed – 19 hours – wow! Use that drive by putting him to work in jail to “pay back the money” – a SA term. 🙂
Voting judges in, or Sheriffs … that, in my book, is a perfect recipe for potential problems.
The best person for the job must get the job because they are the job/can do the job, not the most liked/one with the most money to run a “campaign” to be voted in.
That is like voting for politicians. 🙂
-
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.