• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police raid?

Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police raid?


  • Total voters
    34
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

Yes, I do want them to wait a reasonable amount of time (most charges are put together in less than 2 months). The police should not be responsible for damages caused during the collection of evidence when that evidence results in conviction. They would essentially be paying the criminal for committing crime.

Or just paying part of his/her fines for him/her.
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

If the police did not really have probable cause, or skipped some step in obtaining a warrant, or went beyond the type of search they were authorized to do, or basically did anything fishy, then yes. If the police followed the rules and did not use excessive force, then no. Police would have to do a cost analysis every time they went after someone, and would render them too weak.

HOWEVER!! Most of this crap, searches and confiscation of property, wouldn't be an issue if we weren't expending most police power on hunting down drug users and small time pot dealers. Like a lot of the problems with police these days, this would be a moot problem if we ended drug prohibition.

And there it is....

I was wondering when the pot users and small time dealers argument would come in........

Pot users buy from small time dealers who buy from big time suppliers/traffickers.....

OR... just Johnny B up the street growing plants in his mom's basement..... whichever...
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

If the police did not really have probable cause, or skipped some step in obtaining a warrant, or went beyond the type of search they were authorized to do, or basically did anything fishy, then yes. If the police followed the rules and did not use excessive force, then no. Police would have to do a cost analysis every time they went after someone, and would render them too weak.

HOWEVER!! Most of this crap, searches and confiscation of property, wouldn't be an issue if we weren't expending most police power on hunting down drug users and small time pot dealers. Like a lot of the problems with police these days, this would be a moot problem if we ended drug prohibition.

Make all crime legal then you wouldnt have to worry about the police at all....YOU WOULD BE FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

Make all crime legal then you wouldnt have to worry about the police at all....YOU WOULD BE FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Free to get tied up and beaten by the local thugs while they raped your wife and children because there are no consequences and far too many people in our society are like...

"EWWW... GUNS!!"""

<now just picture a man in a sweater vest holding the magazine weld of a gun up with his arm extended as far away from his body as humanly possible with a look of disgust on his face>
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

Been thinking more about this thread, and the various points made, and I will slightly modify and break down my thoughts a bit more.

In the majority of cases, I'm not so sure a person should be reimbursed... provided all safeguards such as warrants and such are properly done. Eventual proven guilt vs innocence shouldn't matter. That's an emotional response, and as I have said on so many other areas, emotion should be minimized as much as possible when it comes to our justice system. Sorry, but if you're a legitimate suspect, you're a legitimate suspect. Sucks, I know, and is not ideal, but there has to be some reasonable balance and not everything can be ideal.

Having said that, there are exceptions...

  • It is not unheard of for LE to take people's items, i.e. computers, etc., and then never give them back because the investigation is never technically closed. That crap has to stop. Take the computer, examine the hard drive or whatever, but it should be given back within a reasonable time frame. 30 or 60 days would be reasonable. If it's not given back... in the same condition and working order as when taken... it's purchased by LE.

    And if a person's work life is on said computer? The person should be able to at least get immediate copies of whatever they need to continue their livelihood while the computer is being examined.
    -
  • It is also not unheard of for LE to ransack a person's dwelling and/or vehicle. To the point of dismantling things then leaving them dismantled. I have no doubt that this is actually fairly rare, but it does happen. That crap needs to stop, also. There will be times where something more intrusive is necessary, but the vast majority of searches only require non-destructive looking. Reimbursement should be allowed, pending review by a court/judge whether the intrusiveness was warranted or not.
    -
  • On this point I will not waiver. If they raid/search the wrong place, they pay. Period. No exceptions. No excuses. I understand that it is usually, if not always, an honest mistake. I don't care. There needs to be accountability, even for honest mistakes, and this type of mistake is far too serious to dismiss. The ONLY question LE should ask is, "To whom do I write the check?".

    I would limit this to actual damages, though. No punitive damages (unless maybe death or serious injury is also involved, at which point a court should be involved).
 
Last edited:
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

  • It is not unheard of for LE to take people's items, i.e. computers, etc., and then never give them back because the investigation is never technically closed. That crap has to stop. Take the computer, examine the hard drive or whatever, but it should be given back within a reasonable time frame. 30 or 60 days would be reasonable. If it's not given back... in the same condition and working order as when taken... it's purchased by LE.
  • For the most part I agree, but I would say as soon as a decision is either adjudicated, or disposed, depending on what the item is. You obviously can't give a firearm back to a person who used it in a crime for example. I pretty much agree with the rest. Especially the last item, though I believe they already pay for damages caused by mistaken address.
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

For the most part I agree, but I would say as soon as a decision is either adjudicated, or disposed, depending on what the item is. You obviously can't give a firearm back to a person who used it in a crime for example. I pretty much agree with the rest. Especially the last item, though I believe they already pay for damages caused by mistaken address.
Some nuances or possible minor exceptions to the exceptions, sure.

As far as paying for mistaken addresses, my main point is that there shouldn't even be a question about it. No resistance. Ne hedging. Just do it. Personally, I think even a formal apology is in order, but I know that asking a lot.
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

Free to get tied up and beaten by the local thugs while they raped your wife and children because there are no consequences and far too many people in our society are like...

"EWWW... GUNS!!"""

<now just picture a man in a sweater vest holding the magazine weld of a gun up with his arm extended as far away from his body as humanly possible with a look of disgust on his face>
I wonder what percentage of these broken doors and destroyed walls are a result of the War on Drugs. I'd guess that drug raids account for almost all of them. Just one more reason to support an end to the "War on Drugs".
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

Free to get tied up and beaten by the local thugs while they raped your wife and children because there are no consequences and far too many people in our society are like...

"EWWW... GUNS!!"""

<now just picture a man in a sweater vest holding the magazine weld of a gun up with his arm extended as far away from his body as humanly possible with a look of disgust on his face>
I could just as easily say that many murders and deaths result in this country as a result of people being too comfortable with guns. It's not "Ewwww, guns" that is the problem, It is "OOOOOOOOO, guns!" that is the problem.
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

If the raid is performed through legal sanction and the raid results in charges and later a conviction, then no...they should not have to pay for damages sustained at the property.


I don't agree. Just because you are convicted of "a crime" that does not mean police get to destroy and take your property. If a door is broken in after the person refused to open it or it for a MAJOR felony, no the police/government doesn't have to pay. But tearing up furniture and then find some personal use pot justifies it? No.
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

I don't agree. Just because you are convicted of "a crime" that does not mean police get to destroy and take your property. If a door is broken in after the person refused to open it or it for a MAJOR felony, no the police/government doesn't have to pay. But tearing up furniture and then find some personal use pot justifies it? No.

I don't even get what you're saying, here. Police most often destroy property when dealing with an unwilling suspect or when information leads them to believe they cannot access evidence (which must be clearly listed on the warrant) without doing so. Most police don't just go in with battering rams and jack hammers for no good reason.

Secondly, how many police officers get warrants to search homes for misdemeanor pot possession?
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

Make all crime legal then you wouldnt have to worry about the police at all....YOU WOULD BE FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

It would be hilarious if I actually said that, wouldn't it?

Free to get tied up and beaten by the local thugs while they raped your wife and children because there are no consequences and far too many people in our society are like...

"EWWW... GUNS!!"""

<now just picture a man in a sweater vest holding the magazine weld of a gun up with his arm extended as far away from his body as humanly possible with a look of disgust on his face>

And maybe that violence would be a lot less of a problem if we stopped wasting police power on hunting down contraband and actually focused on catching violent criminals, like the aforementioned thugs and rapists. Investigating violent crime doesn't take nearly as much property destruction or confiscation as hunting down contraband does. Tearing apart a home looking for drugs, taking someone's car because they drove it while carrying drugs, taking someone's computer because they torrented a new song... this is a ridiculous thing to send police to do when 15-20% of all women in this country will be raped sometime in their lives. Hunting down rapists doesn't require the same types of police actions as hunting contraband.

So, a lot of this destruction and taking of property is only conducted in pursuit of what ought to be a secondary function of police. So, as I said, if we stop wasting police efforts on secondary purposes, this will be a moot issue until they actually catch all the rapists, murderers, and violent criminals, and no one can get away with such crimes anymore.
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

I view a police raid, done correctly, like a tornado hitting my property. (e.g. They flatten my fence getting to the house they are raiding to prevent and escape of suspects.) However, if the raid was done incompetently, e.g. they got the address wrong, then a settlement on the damages should be reached. And if an out of court settlement can't be reached, sue.
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

I don't even get what you're saying, here. Police most often destroy property when dealing with an unwilling suspect or when information leads them to believe they cannot access evidence (which must be clearly listed on the warrant) without doing so. Most police don't just go in with battering rams and jack hammers for no good reason.
Please don't tell me you find this acceptable.
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

I could just as easily say that many murders and deaths result in this country as a result of people being too comfortable with guns. It's not "Ewwww, guns" that is the problem, It is "OOOOOOOOO, guns!" that is the problem.

Murders and deaths in this country are overwhelmingly a result of idiots killing each other over an illegal substance, or while "high" ON an illegal substance.
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

I don't agree. Just because you are convicted of "a crime" that does not mean police get to destroy and take your property. If a door is broken in after the person refused to open it or it for a MAJOR felony, no the police/government doesn't have to pay. But tearing up furniture and then find some personal use pot justifies it? No.

I don't give a **** if it is a MAJOR felony or not.

Regardless the level of crime that would require a warrant, you don't have the right to refuse to open the door and then have your door replaced because you weren't compliant.

Being wanted for a lower crime does not give one the right to resist police.
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

And maybe that violence would be a lot less of a problem if we stopped wasting police power on hunting down contraband and actually focused on catching violent criminals like the aforementioned thugs and rapists.
What don't you get about violent criminals? They have something in common.


Drug problems.

Investigating violent crime doesn't take nearly as much property destruction or confiscation as hunting down contraband does.
And most of the time, unfortunately, and contrary to popular TV programming, alot of violent crimes result in, "Leads Exhausted" status. Its when we work these drug investigations that someone decides, oh, I know about such and such shooting. Which generates a lead, and creates an opportunity for us to solve the case, all because asshole had a few crack rocks on him.


Tearing apart a home looking for drugs, taking someone's car because they drove it while carrying drugs, taking someone's computer because they torrented a new song... this is a ridiculous thing to send police to do when 15-20% of all women in this country will be raped sometime in their lives. Hunting down rapists doesn't require the same types of police actions as hunting contraband.
Hunting down rapists requires leads. I think you very significantly fail to understand how rape investigations work, or any investigation for that matter. I also think you fail to understand how it is impossible for a patrol officer to say, "I think I'll go hunt me down a rapist tonight" Considering rape happens 98% of the time INDOORS and also virtually all the time between people who know each other. So you can't police to come kick your door in to check to make sure you aren't getting raped at that moment?




So, a lot of this destruction and taking of property is only conducted in pursuit of what ought to be a secondary function of police. So, as I said, if we stop wasting police efforts on secondary purposes, this will be a moot issue until they actually catch all the rapists, murderers, and violent criminals, and no one can get away with such crimes anymore.
I love to see it when people act as if because this group of officers over THERE are executing search warrants on drug cases, that these guys up there in that office aren't chasing down leads on a Burglary, Robbery, Homicide, Sexual Assault, Child Abduction, etc.


Your failure to understand how drugs are usually at the center of 3 of the above listed major felonies, and why drug investigations are helpful in solving these types of cases.
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

And yet if illegal drug deals are the cause of most of this violent crime, you don't see the benefit in drugs NOT being associated with crime? There's not a lot of people getting killed in illegal liquor deals, are there? Because you can buy liquor legally and don't have to go through crooks to get it. If there's no more illegal drug trade, than according to your own words, Caine, a lot of violent crime won't happen.
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

It's is often said that the seriously real issue with drugs is not so much the use, nor so much the crime while used... not saying those are unimportant, mind you... but rather the crime associated with the "marketing" and distribution.
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

And yet if illegal drug deals are the cause of most of this violent crime, you don't see the benefit in drugs NOT being associated with crime? There's not a lot of people getting killed in illegal liquor deals, are there? Because you can buy liquor legally and don't have to go through crooks to get it. If there's no more illegal drug trade, than according to your own words, Caine, a lot of violent crime won't happen.

Now you have figured out the CORRECT side of the Drug Law argument.
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

Some nuances or possible minor exceptions to the exceptions, sure.

As far as paying for mistaken addresses, my main point is that there shouldn't even be a question about it. No resistance. Ne hedging. Just do it. Personally, I think even a formal apology is in order, but I know that asking a lot.

I agree with that.
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

The police/justice system had better be more careful....I think they are trying to be...If they raid an obvious nest of criminals, then those perpetrators had best have thick wallets, for they will lose everything.
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

Now you have figured out the CORRECT side of the Drug Law argument.

Then what were we arguing about in the first place? A lot of the damage to property that we're discussing in this thread takes place in the investigation of drug crimes. Allow a legal channel for obtaining drugs, similarly to how alcohol and tobacco are handled, and the drug crimes will disappear, since the consumers of drugs (and, of course, make possession and use legal) will purchase them legally. No more drug crime, no more drug busts, no more property destroyed or seized searching for drugs. No more chopping up the Fourth Amendment, either.
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

Should home owners/renters be reimbursed from damage that occurred during a police raid?

Yes
No
Maybe
other


I say yes the individual should be compensated. If law enforcement destroys and or damages property the the property owner/renter should be compensated.

I think that they should. But the city sees it as a part of the "necessary carrying out of the job"; it's just like when a fire department destroys half your home to put your stove out . . .
 
Re: Should homeowners/renters be reimbursed from damage that resulted from a police r

Then what were we arguing about in the first place? A lot of the damage to property that we're discussing in this thread takes place in the investigation of drug crimes. Allow a legal channel for obtaining drugs, similarly to how alcohol and tobacco are handled, and the drug crimes will disappear, since the consumers of drugs (and, of course, make possession and use legal) will purchase them legally. No more drug crime, no more drug busts, no more property destroyed or seized searching for drugs. No more chopping up the Fourth Amendment, either.

Talk to your politicians then.
Its the job of law enforcement to enforce the laws, not write them.
There are many involved in law enforcement that are supportive of drug laws. There are many in law enforcement that are not.
There are many outside of law enforcement that are supportive of drug laws. There are many that are not.

Until such time as there are legal channels made to allow users to get their fix, there will be violent crime related to drugs, and there will be drug enforcement as an added way of law enforcement to attempt to control the problem.

Law enforcement refusing to enforce the drug laws, while the black market drug trade is still necessary due to it being impossible to pick up a pack of factory rolled marijuana joints or cocaine packaged in sleeves similar to Goody's Powder at the local Bi-Lo, then you have the violence associated with the black market trade, and you have more violent crimes because people responsible who don't get caught for the violent crimes are also not getting taken off the streets because they slipped up and got caught with drugs.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom