Comments by "dr1flush" (@dr1flush) on "Institute for Justice" channel.

This sucks but should police force/ taxpayers pay for what happens in a stand off in these situations? Idk lm really asking. Seems like renters insurance or homeowners of anything.
17
Sue insurance company, state isn't paying anything
7
@Mr.Ekshin The insurance company is going to deny coverage under "exclusion B.1.c. of the CP 10 30 form". This avoids coverage for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by “seizure or destruction of property by order of governmental authority.”. This is a losing battle especially in texas.The texas government is never going to give her any money. She could however potentially get money for the man committing suicide in her house depending on her homeowners insurance.
4
@Greg042869 once there's a standoff and peoples lives at risk property and money comes second. Imo and probably realistically the man committing suicide in the house is more damaging than anything the police did. If you wanna debate police tactics like shock and awe they aren't trained to deal with this to begin with. I'm not entirely convinced tax payers should foot the bill for this . Where do you draw the line? What if all that happened was the man killed himself when police came in, or if the police were forced to kill him, should tax payers pay the damage for every crime/ damage to property? I think not . The man died btw ,who cares about a fence and some damage's from flash bangs or whatever else. Like the ladies in bed cause her stuff got wrecked and didn't blink about the death but idk in her mind. I get she has limited income but come on .Why we even have insurance if they don't insure our things lol? If someone commits suicide it's extremely costly up to 20 grand for paid cleaning crews, no exaggerating. That falls on the homeowner I believe
4
@hellshade2 I'm pretty sure video says he had hostages. You're saying just wait 2 days or wait it out with hostages and someone who's suicidal? I know the police aren't trained properly to handle these situations.
3
@hellshade2 . He barricade himself inside with guns and took hostage .. So regardless of if he realesed them or not he had a hostage at one point. They said they were there 7 hrs . Maybe the police should just wait another 7 hrs after he realesed hostage then another 7 then another 7 . fuq outta hereeeeee with condescending sparky sheet . Spoken like a true arm chair 20/20 hind sight key board warrior who would pee himself. I'd like to see you be a hostage at gun point then cry cause they broke a fence and some other stuff 👌. Damages are a fence flash bangs damage garage and windows ,it's not like you couldn't live there. She wants tax payer to pay for the suicide clean up imo , that's what they don't tell you. A fence 6 windows and garage door isn't 50 grand in texas I doubt.When you have people's lives on the line a fence and some damage's to property don't matter.
3
@ModelLights did I say I'm the decider in this case? I'm not allowed to have an opinion? Thanks for giving me your opinion on how I'm not allowed an opinion👍 Oh her lawyer says the 5th you say.... Federal Court had already ruled there is no TAKING if the police destroy an innocent person's house during a law enforcement operation . She's going to lose even though you're CONVINCED lol. Not that I entirely agree with this doctrine it is the reality of the situation. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It's what's going to happen, you'll see
3
@ModelLights it's called " personal property insurance" or some type of homeowners ,it' is the insurance that will help/ completely cover break in and various crimes not the government. 🤷 Just how it is
3
@ModelLights the government ... ESPECIALLY texas is never paying.
3
Don't forget. This is not the first case and homeowners always lose. THIS IS TEXAS ALSO , she's screwed
2
@justinnav yes homeowners is who you go after . You go after state as well but they ain't paying this is texas 😆
2
@coachp1389 the gov isn't taking anything and they sure aren't taking property for public use. The suspension on evictions isn't communism it's capitalism. Deferred payments isn't communism lol
2
@ModelLights she's ESPECIALLY going to lose in Texas imo. That's why they are literally laughing at her.
2
@danielchrist8651 like why TF we even have insurance if it isn't going to insure anything for things out of our control that we are victims of🤷
2
@kevinnobody3052 what's wrong and what's right aside, the insurance company will deny the claim under "exclusion B.1.c. of the CP 10 30 form". The government will say something like"lost doors and windows during police actions were not willful malicious damage to harm the insured or the insured’s property ". SHE could HOWEVER possibly be compensated for him committing suicide by homeowners.
1
@Mr.Ekshin there's a lot of similar cases you can cite. Are you saying go after insurance company? That's what I'm thinking, her homeowners might cover the suicide if he shot himself, it could be considered" explosion" and covered. Texas isn't going to help ... At all for doors and windows and insurance had even less of a chance there .
1
@Mr.Ekshin no. Way off ...That's not what happens, typically they will say no. Just look at this case in denver I can cite. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.denverpost.com/2020/03/11/colorado-swat-house-destroyed-supreme-court/amp/ The insurance company paid out + $345,000 and the city paid nothing. Very similar case some random criminal broke in and hid in house and it was even declined to be heard by supreme court. The house was literally 10x worse than hers , every single window destroyed and house unhabitable ....They lost , there are so many cases exactly the same. Literally EXACT same situation , TEXAS is NOT going to pay her the city is not going to pay her the police are not going to pay her. You go after insurance company for compensation under homeowners insurance agreement. GUARANTEE IT city is not paying even 5%
1
@Mr.Ekshin . Look again at" Lech family " in colorado. https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/2020/06/29/swat-team-police-leo-lech-supreme-court-5th-amendment/%3famp 5,000$ was all the city gave them (that's not covering legal fee to sue city)for 585,000 $ worth of damage. This was in colorado and here we are in Texas. So again you can try but it's not at all like you think. YOU'RE WAY OFF
1
@Mr.Ekshin imo ray is right you're wrong, insurance company should always pay.. Google " lech v. city of greenwood village supreme court " insurance paid state didn't. Try and find a case where the state actually paid full compensation or even some .. .... Good luck lol I won't hold breath, no offense. The state isn't actually taking anything like her lawyers claim in takings clause , many cases i cite 🤷
1
@justinnav if you follow the link in my comment2 or 3 directly above you I cite a case were insurance pays and state didn't... Same exact case basically. 345 k from insurance 5,000$ from state for 545,000 damage from swat.... Same situation random criminal takes over house swat destroy.
1
@danielchrist8651 did I say that? the police are not trained do deal with mental issues is what I mean and recognize . If someone mentally disabled isn't complying what typically happens? They only train to get job done and that's imo why situation like this results in the defendant dead. Do you think the original intentions of the criminal were to take hostage on some random house so he could commit suicide inside? No it escalated to that point because police aren't properly trained to deal in many situation other than shoot and ask questions after.
1
@danielchrist8651 I'm not blaming police I'm blaming their training . You asked I'm just trying to clarify. I'm saying in general also not necessarily just this case I don't even EXACTLY know what happened here. Maybe guy did want to end it in someone's house. I believe we can agree police training for mentally unstable/ disabled people could improve. What I know is you go after insurance company here and state, but expect nothing from city. Follow the link above or google "lech family home colorado" . Supreme court declined the case. Insurance paid 345,000$ from 545,000 ( give or take) of damage done by SWAT. SAME SITUATION LITERALLY 10 x worse to their property. The city gave them $5,000 for over half million in destruction resulting in house being unhabitable because a random criminal hid inside. Same situation and that was in colorado here we are in Texas. Let's. Not. Be. Naive. I'm not saying what's right and wrong btw, id like to be clear. This is just REALITY of her situation.
1
@rp1645 Google " lech home colorado" . Basically the same case only 10x the damage was done . Random criminal hid in innocent person's house. City paid 5,000$ on 548,000$ (give or take) worth of damage done by SWAT team. Over half million dollars in damages and house was unhabitable. Homeowners insurance paid 345,000$ ( give or take) and again the city paid 5 k. That was colorado the supreme court declined to hear case and now we are in Texas. It's obvious what's going to happen
1
@davidpage7900 did you ACTUALLY look into "lech family "case? There's nothing more to@ if you look into that case. That's the reality of the situation weather is right or wrong is up for conversation. Texas is NEVER going to pay for the cost of damage done by SWAT. The gov didn't gain anything so it's ruled in court the taking clause didn't apply to police caused destruction. The SUPREME COURT decline the case there's your sign🤷 Again "lech family vs swat " same EXACT SITUATION 10x worse and house unhabitable. Insurance company paid city didn't( unless you consider 5 k for over half a million worth it). I have literal cases I can cite to prove what's going to happen 🤔
1
@davidpage7900 btw when I wrote that op I was ignorant of the reality of the situation. I was correct the insurance company is to pay not the state. Go look into any case , do you think this is the first time this happened?
1
@rudymcqtriii4509 no the city never pays for police destruction. Better you know the reality of the situation. Read all my comments
1
@anthonyp.4734 lol get mad at me lmao. I'm the decider,I made the law haha..👌 I'm telling you the reality of the situation, get mad at me idc lol. Your home owners insurance covers it, police don't pay for the destruction they cause to prevent crime. Police have nothing to gain from destroying your home to save you . The" takings clause" already is written, just Google it , they use it in court to defend police actions. It's always used to defend police destruction of private property because they have nothing to gain. Google " lech family Colorado". Better you know the REALITY of the situation than be like this woman. This isn't a new story, it happens all over usa alllll the time. You go after insurance company , city isn't paying you ANYTHING
1
@anthonyp.4734 Idk what that means
1
@sampleowner6677 that's not what happens. Police are not responsible for the destruction they cause because they have nothing to gain. It's the way it is
1
@sampleowner6677 idc about your opinion tbh , I'm just letting you know what the reality of situation is. Google " lech family home Colorado" , the case went to supreme court and that case was much worse. Police are not liable for any damages because they have nothing to gain from damage to your property. Your home owner insurance is liable.
1
@sampleowner6677 I get your point but think about the potential consequences of police being forced to use discretion on damage to property. Life above property always, if they have a budget and it has been exceeded then what? The police don't have anything to gain from breaking your house apart besides maybe not getting killed. If I remember correctly ( in this case)the guy rented and commits suicide because she wanted to kick him out so she can move in. Right? imo she wants to have someone pay for the suicide cleaning which is extremely expensive . This is what I think because the house was not destroyed badly it was one room with broken windows and fence. The lech family home was completely destroyed and was uninhabitable and the state paid like 5 grand or something silly. This is what you get home owners insurance for and then sue your insurance company. It's just the way it is
1
@sampleowner6677 she wants taxpayers to pay for suicide cleaning which can cost up to 30k is what I think. Besides the suicide there isn't much damage It's a fence and window. It's not tyranny if the police have nothing to gain, they are literally there to help you lol. I guess they should just not come next time ? They don't have a choice they have to respond and they have nothing to gain at all. It's capitalism not tyranny you're responsible for your own property and you can get insurance
1
@sampleowner6677 at first I thought like you. Now I've since changed my mind. It's called home owners insurance / renters insurance. Only she benefits from the destruction they caused, she wanted him removed so she could move in. If you rent your home and don't have insurance or make someone get renters you're crazy. The supreme court already rules on this matter so I wouldn't bother fighting the state. If you read the lech family story their insurance pays for the damage ( if I'm not mistaken) and the state paid like 3 k out of over 1/2 million dollar on damage ( I may have messed up the numbers but it's basically what happened). Again idc about what you feel should happen I'm letting you know the reality of situation.
1
" there is no taking" means the police have nothing to gain . It doesn't benefit the police department in any fiscal way.
1
and idk exactly the details of insurance . I believe in previous cases they said Home owners insurance is the one that paid out. Personal property is something else you insure I think like a car or boat maybe.
1
Protecting and serving that fence like a mfr
1
@Milesco just Google " lech family swat colorado".
1