Skip to comments.WA:Governments Should Always Pay for Damaged Property
Posted on 05/29/2014 5:34:32 AM PDT by marktwain
In Washington State, a homeowner is asking why the City of Renton is not willing to pay for extensive damages done to her home by a City SWAT team, on a search for her son who was not there.
Clearly, MS De La Torre was not guilty of any crime. The destruction of her home is, in effect a tax imposed on her without any due process. 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.
For more than four hours, SWAT team members fired grenades through walls and windows and blasted in the doors with explosives.
De La Torre came home from work while police were still there.
(An officer) just kinda shook his head and said, I am so sorry, maam. Its your house and its ruined; we destroyed it, she said. Police officers and detectives that were there told me to file a claim with the city of Renton.
Wonder what the insurance company has to say about it?
I wonder what the ambulance chasers have to say...
I also wonder if the members of the SWAT team have personal insurance policies to cover their share...
What was the reasoning behind shooting grenades at an empty house for 4 hours?
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.
Not covered because of one of the following, I'm guessing
Act of God?
[Suspected] Commission of a crime?
There's probably some sort of disclaimer in the policy related to the government's involvement.
It was all worth it because the JBTs got to play with their nifty toys.
They heard a dog barking inside? Finally got him with a grenade.
It does not take much to be an alleged criminal.
A man’s home is his castle, and these days, it needs to be built like a castle to protect from random SWAT teams.
Like I have said before, the SWAT team is only for show and to give the paramilitary types something to do. In a situation such as Columbine or Sandy Hook, the SWAT team will wait safely inside their armored vehicles until the coast is clear.
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.
“It looked really cool”... /s
The above statement may be true, in a free republic, but not under communist dictatorship.
I know, but very rarely should anybody be resisting arrest and putting others in danger. But apart from that, everyone else should get compensated for damaged property.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.