Guess owner is being forced to sue. Allegedly city offered a whopping 5k..... http://www.9news.com/mb/news/local/m...destroyed-home
Bad timing with all the other unjustified ignorant cop hate, but this one really pissed me off at the time.
Printable View
Guess owner is being forced to sue. Allegedly city offered a whopping 5k..... http://www.9news.com/mb/news/local/m...destroyed-home
Bad timing with all the other unjustified ignorant cop hate, but this one really pissed me off at the time.
Page not found..... Anyone got another link?
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/03...-village-swat/
Comment in the comments...
Dunno if the guy is totally right in his analysis, but I have to agree in general.Quote:
Leegal • 2 days ago ....said Tonya Haas Davidson, Greenwood Village city attorney. “That was to cover his out-of-pocket deductible and provide for some temporary housing,” she said. “That’s what happens to everybody that has insurance. If you have a fire in your home, the fire department that cuts a hole in your roof doesn’t pay for the damages it causes.”
Uh yeah, Tonya, and when the insurance company finds out that the fire was started by arson, or a faulty water heater subject to a recall, or by electrical work performed by an intoxicated or unlicensed electrician, etc... the insurance company then goes after the proximate (legal) cause of the fire, and settle it through SUBROGATION!!! Since it was your COPS, blasting, bombing, and ramming away, the needle points right back at you.
GV is going to argue that the city, as well as any city/county employees, were simply acting in 'good faith' and that the circumstances became so exigent that the only way to settle this was by flexing their militarized-police muscle. They are wrong. Was ramming, smashing, blasting, gassing, and burning the house an option? Well yes it was, and they proved that much, but it certainly wasn't the ONLY option.
GV is really stretching any U.S v Leon - good faith - arguments to a legal breaking point with this one. The Government, from the federal tiers and all the way down to the municipal level, changed the way that they operate, in terms of having carte blanche to run ramshod though civilians, and all of those pesky, bothersome, and watered down civil rights which ordinary citizens used to possess once Leon was decided. Nowadays, all that it takes is a government employee saying "well I THOUGHT that I was doing the right thing, by gosh by golly!!" and the Judges decide the case(s) - against the citizens - before a court appearance is ever made.
Enough is enough - militarized police, jumping to level 99, before even thinking what may take place between levels 1-98, can not prevail here! For the sake of justice, please let the little guy win; the Constitution was meant to protect the citizen from the government, not the other way around.
Dang, that's crazy.
In my experience with the government, compensation is a smallpox laden blanket.
I'm intimately familiar with this situation and it was amateur hour with GVPD. There were other options to see if the bad guy was still in the house besides bringing in the heavy gear to knock holes in the house ultimately destroying it. It turned into a training mission. The suit was actually filed back in January.
There are a few good cops on GVPD but that Dept has been plagued with bad administration/bad officers going back to the "suicide" of Lawrence Ocrant in 1984. Hasn't gotten much/any better.
The GVPD probably just needs the Obama Justice Department and the UN to take it over. That should fix things.
[facepalm]
Awesome!! [ROFL2]Quote:
Originally Posted by cstone
I'm gonna take issue with your statement, given I worked there for 10 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc45
So what's your take on the situation. Did this seem like a reasonable outcome to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by OneGuy67
$5K is pretty pathetic. I don't even think insurance would cover this??? Would they?
That's cool and I respect that, I still stand by my statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneGuy67
From the outside looking in, I would say it was overly excessive; however, I wasn't there and there may be information they were privvy to that I am not. One thing to remember is, there were 3 SWAT teams from Aurora, Arapahoe SO and the GV ERT there, along with all their commanders. Douglas SO was also there with some toys. Also, it wasn't a simple shoplifting that started the event and to top it off, the suspect shot at an Aurora PD officer who is a friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSS
If you think you are aware of the internal workings of the department, but weren't an employee there, you really don't know much then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc45
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneGuy67
+1 That pretty much goes with any profession/company/industry.
Why wouldn't insurance cover it? It wasn't the owner's fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by bryjcom
Before you say "insurance won't cover it because it wasn't an accident, it was deliberate" - well, if a crackhead burns my house down I'm pretty sure insurance will cover that.
If it doesn't I'm not going to sue the crackhead I'm going to sue my insurance company because what the hell am I paying premiums for if not un-anticipated catastrophic events that destroy my house?
Whether the insurance company can then turn around and sue GVPD for indemnification (and I'm pretty sure such a suit would be barred by the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity unless it was a civil rights case) is not the homeowner's concern. He paid his premiums, now the insurance company needs to pay him.
Because insurance companies do there best to wriggle out of any payouts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martinjmpr
So why is the beef with GVPD? Ought to be with the insurance company if they are, in fact, trying to "wriggle out" of paying. But the article doesn't seem to indicate that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wulf202
Has he even filed an insurance claim?
Insurance policies have a specific exclusion for police action. For example, if your house gets raided and torn apart, insurance won't cover.
Maybe he (the home owner) can get some traction because he wasn't the reason the police were there, but I don't know.
I'm pretty sure the exclusion is for illegal activities on the part of the insured, not on the part of a 3rd party. ;) If I'm Walter-Whiting it in my basement I can't very well file a claim when SWAT kicks my door in and starts tossing flash-bangs, can I?Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
But in any case, he needs to file a claim. IF his claim gets denied, then he can come after the city.
Note that his home is worth $450k and he tried to get a 600k settlement from the city. Sounds to me like he's just tryna get paid.
You'd think so, but often rioting is not covered, which wouldn't be the fault of the home owner either. I agree that he should definitely file a claim. The insurance company stands to come out of this looking like the hero.
By the time he gets a check the house could be worth 600k. The "Justice system" is slow.
Too little facts reported to make any educated suggestions. Big surprise.
If it was the mayor or a local judges house, it would have already been repaired. Hopefully a federal jury will have the city pay for it.
Rebuilding costs often exceed the market value of the property, as demolishing the existing structure, repouring the foundation, permitting(which GVR has been giving him grief over) etc. add to the costs. When our next door neighbor's house burned down, taking the other half of the duplex with it, their insurance company paid out over $230k on the claim where the unit was at about $110k market value, and they didn't replace the external walls or the foundation.
Not to mention cost of having to live somewhere else.
I would bet personal items were destroyed in that mess as well.