[hwillis]

> After being chased by police for stealing clothing from a Walmart, Seacat barricaded himself in a house at 4219 South Alton Street in Greenwood Village, Colorado. By the time Seacat was finally extracted from the premises, the house had been destroyed by law enforcement in their efforts to flush him out. The homeowner—Leo Lech—filed a lawsuit against the municipality for compensation, but was ruled against by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; he appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, but the court declined to hear the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_of_Robert_Seacat

[xvokcarts]

The same wiki article also describes the absurdness of the whole thing:

> At 10:38 pm, SWAT entered the house and used a stun grenade to conceal their movements [...] During the next 10.2 hours, a Lenco BearCat was driven through the front door, tear gas[1] and 40 mm grenades were repeatedly launched inside, shots were fired upon the house, and explosives were detonated to destroy several exterior walls.

Just amazing multiple people (the authorities) were present and none of them stopped to think "gee, that house is somebody's home".

[Ajedi32]

That's a different situation, because at least there it could be argued the damage was ultimately Seacat's fault for engaging in a shoot out with law enforcement on someone else's private property; the police were just doing their job apprehending an armed suspect. With a drug test that comes back negative, the person being tested clearly isn't at fault.

That said, I think it does probably make sense for there to be some sort of financial incentive for police to not create more collateral damage than necessary. Like maybe the damages should come out of the department budget initially and then they could get a judge to decide how much of that was the suspect's fault and recover that amount from them, assuming they can pay? Policing is a social service and I don't think externalizing the costs of social services onto innocent bystanders is a good idea; it makes the agency less accountable for the monetary costs they incur if those costs aren't tracked as part of their budget, and it's bad PR.

[hwillis]

> At 10:38 pm, SWAT entered the house and used a stun grenade to conceal their movements, but were driven back outside by gunshots (though criminalists would later establish that they were not fired upon). During the next 10.2 hours, a Lenco BearCat was driven through the front door, tear gas and 40 mm grenades were repeatedly launched inside, shots were fired upon the house, and explosives were detonated to destroy several exterior walls.

Whether or not police have any imperative to consider the impact of their actions, this situation was clear incompetence and reckless destruction. They're just as much doing their job by forcing drug tests on random people. The person may not have been on drugs, but all police would have to do is say they saw "erratic behavior".

> Like maybe the damages should come out of the department budget initially and then they could get a judge to decide how much of that was the suspect's fault and recover that amount from them, assuming they can pay?

This is just a different bad incentive; it incentivizes police to completely ignore situations or to find someone to hold accountable. Just extend the logic to the other expenses of an investigation- hourly pay, overtime, materials, forensics. Making a criminal pay for their own arrest is a terrible idea.

Police should pay for all the drug tests they demand, and for all the damages incurred in the process of investigating or arresting a suspect. Those things are not related to the crime itself, like a fine is. They are part of the cost of investigation and operation.

[Ajedi32]

> This is just a different bad incentive; it incentivizes police to completely ignore situations

If the societal cost of enforcement exceeds the societal cost of non-enforcement, then perhaps they should ignore the situation.

> or to find someone to hold accountable

This is why it would have to be decided by a judge as part of sentencing. If they're actually accountable then why shouldn't they be held to that?

> Just extend the logic to the other expenses of an investigation- hourly pay, overtime, materials, forensics. Making a criminal pay for their own arrest is a terrible idea.

I don't necessarily disagree, but just to play devil's advocate: why? It's their fault the public had to spend money on this, so why shouldn't they pay for it? (One argument I can think of is that for small crimes the cost of enforcement may greatly exceed the bounds of reasonable punishment for the offense, but what about when that's not the case?)

> Those things are not related to the crime itself

I'd argue exchanging gunfire with police is definitely a big part of the crime committed in this case. The shoplifting that started the encounter is practically irrelevant compared to that.

[fc417fc802]

Broadly agree with you and would like to add that if in this particular case the department had expected to foot the bill for their destruction I imagine they would have readily found a slower but cheaper approach. They went with the fast, expedient, and above all exciting (for them) approach precisely because they knew they wouldn't be the ones paying for the aftermath.

> It's their fault the public had to spend money on this, so why shouldn't they pay for it?

How about transparency and uniform enforcement of the law? Fines should be formally codified, not implicit and variable depending on incidentals internal to that particular investigation. The legislature is always free to direct those proceeds wherever they would like.

[hwillis]

> > or to find someone to hold accountable > This is why it would have to be decided by a judge as part of sentencing. If they're actually accountable then why shouldn't they be held to that?

I am more insinuating that it will lead to much more falsified evidence- something that is already a problem even while completely shielding them from consequences.

> why? It's their fault the public had to spend money on this, so why shouldn't they pay for it?

Because that isn't really accountability, practically speaking. The department funding is very distantly coupled to personal impact. When a division of a company does badly, they don't cut its funding as a form of incentive or punishment. Individual performance is done through the system of management and personal incentive. You don't want to fund the police based on how many crimes they solve- you do it based on how much crime exists. Likewise you shouldn't cut funding for bad policing- it's something that can also just be actively managed instead of simplified to a budgetary concern.