Comments by "Vikki McDonough" (@vikkimcdonough6153) on "The Police Blew Up The House! (The Case Of)" video.

  1. 16:23 - Apparently, the city and the police department conveniently ignored the fact that the Takings Clause itself draws no such distinction and names no exceptions to the requirement that property owners be compensated when their property is taken.
    34
  2. 6:58 - "We have a suspect who's armed and possibly under the influence of goodness knows what. Let's escalate the situation further!"
    3
  3. Wait, if the city refused to pay for the destroyed house, how did the Lechs get the money to rebuild it?
    1
  4. "We had to destroy the home to save it." - The police.
    1
  5. 21:54 - I would submit that counsel for the defendants is incorrect in their interpretation of whether takings under police power require compensation, as the text of the Fifth Amendment itself refers not to "takings under eminent domain", but, rather, merely to "takings"; nowhere in the Fifth Amendment is there anything to support the contention that takings under police power are exempt from its requirement for "just compensation". The notion that the ordinary meaning of "taking" requires the taker to retain possession of what is taken is also bogus, as detailed in Kimmerbelly's amicus curiae.
    1