That really leaves the random victim out to dry. You cant get that kind of money out of most shoplifters no matter how hard you sue them. Would you hold this same position if it was your house the police bombed?
This is an ironic response to a situation which is literally about bringing justice.
If that’s your point of view, why pursue the shoplifter in the first place? Could’ve just used that line against Walmart and saved everyone a lot of hassle.
I agree that it's unjust. The problem is, the suspect who didn't surrender is the one who owes is at fault and who owes the compensation.
The police, or let's say, the government, or maybe just the populace in general, do have a duty to catch criminals and not just let them rampage about the neighborhood. Doing something about the guy after cornering him in a house is not an elective procedure.
Now maybe there's an argument to be made that the officers risking their lives to arrest the guy should have risked their lives differently, in consideration of the homeowner's finances. I haven't ever tracked down a suspect, gotten shot at, or planned a home invasion against a prepared defender, so I'm not equipped to have that argument.
You might consider an analogous situation. What if a toddler crawls into somebody's unlocked car during a heat wave, gets locked inside, and the police break into the car to rescue the toddler? Who's responsible for paying for the damage to the car? It's neither the police nor the car owner. The toddler's parents are responsible. It's the same as the situation where a gunman holes up in a house. The only basis for requiring the police to pay for breaking the window is some sort of fuck-the-police mentality, which people are applying to the situation where they tracked down an armed suspect.
The idea is that if police have consequences for their choices, they will choose behaviors that inflict less collateral damage. The choice that police had in this case, for instance, were to blow up the house in a military-style raid, or to sit back and wait for the guy to run out of water or food or tire of being under siege. They chose the more destructive option. It would be helpful if they were incentives for them to choose a less destructive option.
What a heartless outlook. It's one thing for something bad to happen, it's another for the government to randomly blow up your house and peace out. I honestly have a very hard time believing you would have this attitude about your own things if you ever get thrown under a bus.
In his novel Heliopolis, Ernst Jünger devotes a chapter to the relationship between justice and grace. It's not completely unexpected that the title of that chapter is called "In the War Academy". PDFs are easily found online.
Yes, I have home owners insurance to cover this. The reason the homeowners brought a lawsuit is so insurance can recoup their money. The insurance co cannot sue as themselves, they must subrogate the homeowner and the only way to do that is by
waiting for a civil suit (and the ins co fulfilling their duty to indemnify)
I’m shocked at the number of people talking authoritatively about this case and yet forget the basics of home ownership..
Did you read the article? The insurance only paid half of the damage. And the neighbors house was also heavily damaged and their insurance didnt pay anything.
Then boohoo to that guy he went cheap on his insurance. My policy says no such thing. It’s all about the text in your policy, you have 30 days to dispute policy verbiage when you sign up. You should really take advantage of that!