United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: SWAT Team Blows Up Innocent Man’s Home in Search of Clothing Shoplifter—Deal With It, Says Court
Source:
From The Trenches/FTP
URL Source: https://fromthetrenchesworldreport. ... deal-with-it-says-court/256614
Published: Oct 31, 2019
Author: Jack Burns
Post Date: 2019-10-31 15:23:51 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 2382
Comments: 18
Greenwood Village, CO – A Federal Appeals court has granted police new powers for which they will not be held accountable. They can now completely destroy your home and they will not have to pay for it. That’s what happened to Leo Lech’s home in 2015 after a shoplifter — accused of stealing a shirt — illegally entered his home, forcing Greenwood Village SWAT to go room by room ransacking the place with explosives. The 19-hour standoff ended with the suspect being taken into custody, but not before the home, as TFTP previously reported, was destroyed. The place looked like it was hit with a bulldozer. None of the windows were intact, and the doors were blown off their hinges. The Lech family’s possessions were completely destroyed, left in tatters after the SWAT team showed no concern for the home nor its belongings. According to the DailyMail: Greenwood (police) fired gas munition and 40-millimeter rounds through the windows of his home in the June 2015 standoff with the shoplifter who had barricaded himself inside. Cops even went as far as driving an armored vehicle through the doors, tossed flash-bang grenades inside and detonated explosives in the walls of the property. Initially, the Lech family was offered $5,000 in housing assistance and insurance deductible compensation, a far cry from what it would take to simply raze the home, let alone rebuild it. Leo Lech sued the city, but the court ruled what happened to the home did not amount to eminent domain and was simply a result of a police matter. Therefore, the city was under no obligation to condemn the home nor rebuild it. In other words, apart from the $5000, Lech was getting nothing else. Lech commented in 2015: If you look at the photos of Osama Bin Laden’s compound, I would say his house looks better than mine does. In 2017, after being offered the $5,000, Lech had this to say. If you take private property for the public good, you have to pay the owner just compensation. $5,000 is not just compensation. Lech appealed the decision to a higher court but on Wednesday was denied, yet again. He says he’s now going to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States and he has a lot more to say about how police upended his life and the lives of his other family members. Leo Lech was renting the destroyed home to his son John, his girlfriend, and their son. Far from being a tenant in a rental home, when police destroyed all of John’s possessions along with his dwelling, he says he was forced to live with his parents, find another job, and force his son to attend another school. The chaos which ensued from the SWAT melee which included an estimated 50 officers, truly caused the family an enormous amount of discomfort the family says. And, rightfully so, they are upset, to say the least. On Tuesday, Lech told the Washington Post: It just goes to show that they can blow up your house, throw you out on the streets and say, ‘See you later. Deal with it,’…What happened to us should never happen in this country, ever. It’s true America. We don’t know whether to categorize it as the effects of a Police State or Judicial Tyranny, but one man’s quest to get his home rebuilt by the very police department which completely destroyed it with grenades, explosives, gas canisters, battering rams, and an armored personnel carrier (typically used by the military), ended in defeat. In the land of the free, the cops can now destroy your home completely and you’ll be left to pick up the pieces. Hopefully, Lech and his lawyers will appeal to the SCOTUS and the dangerous precedent will be overturned. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 13.
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
WHAT A TRAVESTY !!!! From a PR standpoint, for the Police Department, and all police departments, this is a disaster!!!!! But I am sure the Canary Clan are proud of this, and high fiveing !!!!
From Reason In a statement to the Post, Greenwood Village's attorney pointed to a review of the incident conducted by the National Tactical Officers Association, a nonprofit that trains SWAT teams. The police raid that destroyed Lech's home, the group concluded, was carried out in "in a highly commendable manner." Surprise, surprise! Are there any limits to what police can do in pursuit of a suspect? nolu and the courts think there are NO limits to what cops can do.
Once again, complete, total, utter bullshit. Neither nolu, nor the courts, think that. Try reading the Court opinion which directly contradicts you. The Circuit Court stated at page 15-16:
Who cares what some deep state asswipe judge wrote. It was wrong and the home owner should be compensated or allowed to kill those who destroyed his home.
It was cops from Colorado, in Colorado, exercising the police power of the sovereign, to apprehend an armed and fleeing criminal who had barricaded himself in the house and shot at police. Lech's lawsuit in Federal court relied upon proving a violation of his constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment. Exercising the police power in Colorado did not effect an eminent domain taking, and it did not violate Lech's 5th Amendment constitutional rights.
There are no replies to Comment # 13. End Trace Mode for Comment # 13.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: Stoner, (#1)
(Edited)
#7. To: Deckard (#5)
nolu and the courts think there are NO limits to what cops can do
Finally, contrary to the Lechs’ position, we see no indication that defining the police power broadly enough to encompass the defendants’ actions in this case will signal to police they may “act with impunity to destroy property” or deprive them of “reason to limit the destruction” they cause simply “because they will not bear the burden of the cost and will be absolved of any responsibility” for their actions. Aplt. Br. 31. This argument overlooks other limits placed on the police power. Indeed, even the Lechs concede that the police power is subject to the requirements of the Due Process Clause. See Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 228 (1957); AmeriSource, 525 F.3d at 1154 (“As expansive as the police power may be, it is not without limit. The limits, however, are largely imposed by the Due Process Clause.”); Lowther v. United States, 480 F.2d 1031, 1033–34 (10th Cir. 1973) (holding that where government “destroyed appellee’s property without having any authority in law to do it,” its actions were “contrary to the [D]ue [P]rocess [C]lause of the Fifth Amendment”). And as the defendants point out, police officers who willfully or wantonly destroy property may also be subject to tort liability. See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-118(2)(a).
#9. To: nolu chan (#7)
#13. To: A K A Stone (#9)
Who cares what some deep state asswipe judge wrote. It was wrong and the home owner should be compensated or allowed to kill those who destroyed his home.
Replies to Comment # 13.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]