[marktwain]

Government enforcers often destroy more property value than the law calls for in fines. This is essentially extra-legal punishment, and should not be allowed.

[DManA]

Wonder what the insurance company has to say about it?

[Blood of Tyrants]

What was the reasoning behind shooting grenades at an empty house for 4 hours?

[winner3000]

I agree with the thought, but not with the word “always”. If an alleged criminal runs away from police and barricades himself in his own house, then he should not be compensated as he had a hand in the destruction of his property.

For most other cases, I agree. This is especially relevant when government either takes away property or restricts its use for environmental/endagered species reasons. Since we all supposedly benefit from the loss of the property owner, the pain should be spread out among taxpayers, and maybe the resulting strain on public budgets would bring back sanity to the rapacious appetite of government so they would do it only when it makes sense.

[109ACS]

It was all worth it because the JBTs got to play with their nifty toys.

[UnwashedPeasant]

A man’s home is his castle, and these days, it needs to be built like a castle to protect from random SWAT teams.

[SeaHawkFan]

I know the laws of Washington very well. Governments agencies almost always deny the claims, but almost always end up paying for the damage.

Assuming she has homeowners insurance, the insurance company will pay and then the insurance company will go after the government.

[PoloSec]

"If such destruction is necessary to enforce the rule of law, then the cost should be spread among the taxpayers that hire those who did the damage, as they all benefit from the rule of law and are the ones who could have mitigated the amount of damage done."

The above statement may be true, in a free republic, but not under communist dictatorship.