US police destroy home, untouchable

[mrswdk]

An innocent California man has his house smashed to pieces by a legion of police, causing more than $150,000 USD of damage, and is told by the courts that the police will not be required to pay a penny of compensation to him because he is legally owed nothing.

Ninth Circuit Says Man Can't Sue Officers Who Destroyed His Home To Capture An Unarmed Homeless Man

The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court has just delivered some bad news to a homeowner who saw his farmhouse destroyed by an unknown number of cops who arrived at the scene in 55(!!) vehicles, including a "Crisis Response Team" motorhome and two helicopters. Two SWAT teams were involved -- one from the Fresno (CA) Sheriff's Office and one from the Clovis PD.

This was all in response to a homeless man who had been spotted by a neighbor breaking into David Jessen's house after being rousted from a nearby construction site. The homeless man refused to come out and threatened to shoot officers. The man was actually unarmed and had done nothing more than help himself to the contents of Jessen's fridge when the supposed standoff began. Several hours later it was over. The combined forces of two law enforcement agencies resulted in $150,000 of damage. Five rooms were teargassed. Four doors and seven windows were destroyed, along with 90 feet of fencing that was rolled over by SWAT vehicles. An entire wall was ripped out as well.

But the (court's) decision comes to the depressing conclusion that citizens and their homes are at the mercy of police officers in situations like these. Many law enforcement officials speak proudly of the discretion they have at their disposal. Far fewer actually exercise that omnipresent option.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200 ... -man.shtml

[mrswdk]

A few comments under this news article, from some American citizens showing their appreciation of the liberty and freedom they enjoy in their great American democracy:

Police. Don't trust them. Never invite them into your home. Don't call them for anything that doesn't require an armed response (read: Army) and even then distance yourself from it as quickly as possible. If a cop is following you in your car, pull over and make a phone call... to anyone, it doesn't matter... and leave the phone call connected if the cop pulls up behind you. Even better, install cameras in your car that can record audio and store their data in the cloud (make sure someone else has access to your recordings, too).

Avoid them at all costs.

I really wish I could read that and think 'That's some serious paranoia there' rather than 'yeah, that's what it's come to these days and what you need to do to stay safe'.

Over 40 years ago in The Gauntlet it was way over-the-top farcical parody. Now it is the way things are.

A person breaks into a home, Ok, does some minor damage, but the police come along and completely destroy the home. What kind of logic is this? The police department should be paying for fix this. What a bunch of disgusting tyrant pigs, and the courts who go along with this crap.

... you can never, EVER, trust "law enforcement". Even in the best of circumstances, wary public must never trust police because they are not on your side. They will lie, cheat, steal, kill... whatever it takes to further THEIR agenda, not the safety or protection of the public.

It's a good thing law enforcement has not been given thermo nuclear devices. We might be missing entire villages if it were up to the cops to apprehend one single unarmed dude.

[mrswdk]

Cue un-evidenced assertions that America is far better than China because communism.

[jimboston]

Cue un-evidenced assertions that America is far better than China because communism.

I suppose it’s unlikely a homeless person in China would have a gun, but it’s not so crazy to believe that’s possible in the USA.
(I’m not presenting this as a ‘plus’ for the US... just making a comment / observation.)

It’s pretty easy though to take one crazy over-the-top incident and imply it’s “representative’’ of life in the US.
It’s especially easy to do in a Free Society where the Media is able to report instances of official excess.

It’s hard to compare this to a similar incident in China, because in China it wouldn’t be reported.

[mrswdk]

I suppose it’s unlikely a homeless person in China would have a gun, but it’s not so crazy to believe that’s possible in the USA.

And therefore the police response was proportionate and the court's ruling justified?

[KoolBak]

Absolutely.

He is a criminal. He broke into someone's home. f*ck him and Go Police!!

Wouldn't have been a problem at my house......

[ConfederateSS]

Absolutely.

He is a criminal. He broke into someone's home. f*ck him and Go Police!!

Wouldn't have been a problem at my house......

----Well, to be fair...He wouldn't of made it in your house...He would of been shot 100 yards from your front door...Torn to pieces by your dogs...All the police would of had to do...Is come and take away ,what was left of him... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

[jimboston]

I suppose it’s unlikely a homeless person in China would have a gun, but it’s not so crazy to believe that’s possible in the USA.

And therefore the police response was proportionate and the court's ruling justified?

No.

Why would you extrapolate that?

I think it means that the police may have had reason to be concerned about how they might approach the house and apprehend the individual.

Based solely on the linked story, it appears IMHO that the police went overboard.
It also feels wrong that the police/city wouldn’t compensate for the repairs.

I don’t think police are always responsible for repairs, and so that’s why they’re fighting it... they don’t want to set a precedent.

I could see a scenario where a man breaks in your house, and in the process of arresting the guy the police break a door or there’s some other damage. I don’t think the police would necessarily be responsible in that circumstance. In this case, the excessive damage (as describe in the linked story) seems like it’s overboard... and so it suggests maybe the authorities should be responsible.

Of course, this is one story and “Monday Morning Quarterbacking”... so my thoughts would need multiple sources and detailed accounts to be fully fleshed out more than the comments above.

[jimboston]

When you read not original story... which is linked. in the story you linked... the homeowner told the police that he had a loaded gun in the house and easily accessible. So the police DID have valid reason to believe the man inside had a firearm.

So maybe the force wasn’t as excessive as the first link suggests.

I still think it might be nice to have some insurance or police to help the homeowner.

[KoolBak]

Absolutely.

He is a criminal. He broke into someone's home. f*ck him and Go Police!!

Wouldn't have been a problem at my house......

----Well, to be fair...He wouldn't of made it in your house...He would of been shot 100 yards from your front door...Torn to pieces by your dogs...All the police would of had to do...Is come and take away ,what was left of him... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

[mrswdk]

@jim Just to be clear, you think a proportionate response to one man who may or may not have a gun hiding out in a house includes two SWAT teams, two helicopters, and a tactical assault on the house that destroys an entire wall?

[jimboston]

@jim Just to be clear, you think a proportionate response to one man who may or may not have a gun hiding out in a house includes two SWAT teams, two helicopters, and a tactical assault on the house that destroys an entire wall?

@mrswdk

Do you know how to read? Do you understand what. the word “maybe” means?

Do you understand the phrase “Monday Morning Quarterback”?

Do you understand how lawsuits work?
(A suit for “damages of $150K” likely means there was significantly less than $150K in damage. They sue for a higher number in order to hopefully settle for a number less that’s closer to actual damage.)

Did you read the first article? The one where the homeowner informed the police that THERE WAS DEFINITELY A LOADED GUN in the house? So that combined with the threat, from the criminal who illegally broke into the house, constitutes in my mind a belief that a reasonable person would think it;s highly likely the criminal has a gun.

[2dimes]

The response team should stand by.

Mrswdk can drop by and call out. "Good afternoon. Could you please come out for a chat? We would like to know if you are unarmed and willing to vacate the premises or if you're on some substance and need to be forcefully delt with?"

If he is shot that establishes malevolence, then the response team moves in to get the criminal out.

[HitRed]

Is what,me worry? OK?

[jonesthecurl]

Is what,me worry? OK?

Are you afraid a wall fell on him?

[mookiemcgee]

Is what,me worry? OK?

Yes the city and county of San Francisco have put him up at the hilltop Ritz Carleton through the end of June. He's drinking champagne mojitos at the rooftop bar between his in room massages and can't be bothered with us. He's working on a new program to legalize all drugs, as well as his autobiography.

[2dimes]

Don't buy cheap house insurance in the US.

[mrswdk]

Do you understand the phrase “Monday Morning Quarterback”?

Sorry, I don't speak LSD. Can we get a translator in here?

Did you read the first article? The one where the homeowner informed the police that THERE WAS DEFINITELY A LOADED GUN in the house? So that combined with the threat, from the criminal who illegally broke into the house, constitutes in my mind a belief that a reasonable person would think it;s highly likely the criminal has a gun.

And therefore that it is reasonable for two SWAT teams to storm the house so forcefully that they demolish a wall.

[KoolBak]

Yep.

Find something else american to hate on ;o)

[Dukasaur]

Absolutely.

He is a criminal. He broke into someone's home. f*ck him and Go Police!!

Wouldn't have been a problem at my house......

That's not how I read the article. The person who had his home destroyed didn't break into anything. The homeless man they were chasing was unconnected to him, as far as I can tell.

Apologies if I'm reading it wrong, but it seems to me like they basically blew up the house of an innocent homeowner who had nothing to do with the criminal.

[KoolBak]

Correct. The criminal broke in and holed up. They went in and got him. Done.

Right? That's how it works.

[mookiemcgee]

Absolutely.

He is a criminal. He broke into someone's home. f*ck him and Go Police!!

Wouldn't have been a problem at my house......

That's not how I read the article. The person who had his home destroyed didn't break into anything. The homeless man they were chasing was unconnected to him, as far as I can tell.

Apologies if I'm reading it wrong, but it seems to me like they basically blew up the house of an innocent homeowner who had nothing to do with the criminal.

Yeah pretty fucked up, I would be curious to know if insurance would even half to pay or if this guy is 100% fucked.

[Dukasaur]

Correct. The criminal broke in and holed up. They went in and got him. Done.

Right? That's how it works.

Well, while I do think it's ridiculous to call out a swat team for one homeless bum, I won't argue that part.

But the homeowner, who essentially is an innocent bystander in this affair -- don't you think he deserves some consideration?

[KoolBak]

Sure. Home insurance covers damages from break in / home invasion. If he didn't have insurance I'd say that's his problem as it's required

[jimboston]

Do you understand the phrase “Monday Morning Quarterback”?

Sorry, I don't speak LSD. Can we get a translator in here?

Did you read the first article? The one where the homeowner informed the police that THERE WAS DEFINITELY A LOADED GUN in the house? So that combined with the threat, from the criminal who illegally broke into the house, constitutes in my mind a belief that a reasonable person would think it;s highly likely the criminal has a gun.

And therefore that it is reasonable for two SWAT teams to storm the house so forcefully that they demolish a wall.

Apparently you don’t know how to read.

You seem to possess this reading disorder where you are only able to read parts of my posts.

Interestingly it appears to be very select parts that when taken out of context often seem to distort the meaning of the post taken as a whole.