City Loses Immunity Defense Due to Genius Legal Move

Eminent domain appears to be the best path to fight these cases.
ij.org/

[@Vivacemalt]

The worst part is that they're not even wasting *their* money fighting the cases rather than paying her. They are wasting the *taxpayers'* money to fight the case against a TAXPAYER.

[@FarkJoeB]

Lawsuits won against cops should come out of the police pension fund. I'd bet they'd rethink that corrupt blue line bullshit.

[@ianbattles7290]

Exactly - it doesn't cost the prosecutor *anything* when they take a case to trial and lose. Failure has no consequences for them.

[@barkobama7385]

Make cops carry their own malpractice insurance like a doctor or lawyer or engineer, problem solved.

[@JesusChrist42000]

​@@barkobama7385that doesn't solve the problem because it was malpractice. They were operating within what is allowed, I do think it's a good idea but it wouldn't be malpractice.

[@kchristiansen]

Look up the concept of tax choice, I think it’ll be of interest to you. It would allow us to create accountability for policy by restricting government control over our own money.

[@stephenmcelroy1179]

I had a faimly member that the state took her property for just this to build a highway, fast forward twenty plus year's and the highway was completed and all was going smoothly, it turns out the state wound up adjusting the original plan just enough to just miss her place. She opens the news paper one morning and her place is going up for sale by the county she lived in. This property is now right beside a highway exit ramp, and worth a couple of million dollars, as it turned out her attorney had input a clause that if the property winds up not being used in the process it was taken for she had the first option and the right to purchase it back for the exact amount she was given for compensation. This ruffeled some feathers. She wound up buying it back for something like thirty thousand dollars. Be sure your legal rep, installs a similar clause in any situation like this you end up in.

[@franst4595]

Brilliant

[@nysteelhorse]

I am so happy to hear this story! Good for her and her attorneys!

[@mcsomeone2681]

Only 30k for an entire house in this economy smh, if the state department of transportation was forced to pay out every homes actual appraised value urban freeway expansions would likely be hauled overnight.

[@charlescarmichael1124]

Oh that's just awesome!!

[@MartenKrueger-sx4me]

I love a good story! Fantastic!!🤑👍

[@btrenninger1]

I think the key to these cases is getting them in front of a jury. Any jury member can easily put themselves in the shoes of the victims.

[@JohnDoe-qz1ql]

A key aspect in not having That happen is govt immunities.

[@AlcideIzMine]

Except bootlickers.

[@onceagain6184]

Sometimes, judges try to prevent people from having a jury trial in civil cases.

[@Batzoid]

City, we demand a jury of our peers. Proceeds to fill the court with neighboring city Meyer's

[@Nickle314]

Same for QI. QI should be a defence to put to the jury, like self defence. It should not be ruled on by a judge as its a matter of fact.

[@stucbr1100]

I love it, a win for the citizens. Anything that encourages governmental accountability is always welcomed.

[@docsavage8640]

But it's not a win. Taxpayer money will be paid out. A win would be if the officials had to pay with their own money.

[@stucbr1100]

@@docsavage8640 that will happen when the majority of voters in this country demand it. Put up candidates who advocate for said position.

[@1rotbed]

Kudos to the woman’s lawyer who didn’t just bring the same old loser case but used a good strategy to do something different.

[@sarowie]

well: the Institute for Justice surely brainstorms up douzends of ideas, waiting for the perfect case to try the argument on. Otherwhise, it would be an ineffective use of money. Now, most arguments will fail, but only by trying different arguments in different cases they have a chance of cracking a case. Note that the city could always stop the process at any time by paying out the woman, while the case is hanging in revision. Or the city can accept a lower court awarding money. The idea being that "in principle" avoiding a sound argument to be heard by the US supreme court is in the interest of police agencies avoiding payouts.

[@ehsnils]

@@sarowie I wonder how many cases that haven't been brought to court where the property owner just had to take it and now they find out that there's a way. There may be a wave of cases coming now for damages that haven't been to court.

[@carmichaelmoritz8662]

@@sarowie in the end it's all just a show run by wealthy clowns.

[@csickpuppy]

@@carmichaelmoritz8662 technically it’s not so much wealthy clowns as it is Elitist ones.

[@katiekane5247]

​@@carmichaelmoritz8662 is that a tent I see smoldering?

[@johnnixon4085]

About 25 years ago while I was living in Philadelphia, the police executed a search warrant on the wrong house on my block. They figured it out right after entry, so the only damage was the door, but it was in the dead of winter and the only resident was an elderly woman. The next day, 4 police officers showed up and replaced her door at their expense.

[@davidhibbs3396]

It's called taking responsibility. Those days appear to be over. It went the way of the white knight persona. Wiped out by the greed of a few.

[@tyree9055]

It's nice hearing of an Old School idea like that. Too bad these governments and companies of today with the personnel of today don't understand these concepts...

[@RedMcCarl]

Back when philly still had some brotherly love

[@rhoonah5849]

That's the way it should be.

[@cmj0929]

Which is exactly what should happen, I don’t understand the argument when the cities don’t want to pay for damage they caused just because it’s “in the execution of their duties”

[@1BlueH2oDiver]

Common sense prevails! This IS huge! Congratulations to the Institute of Justice-I’m putting you on my donation list.

[@xlerb2286]

Our city was trying to stick it to a mechanic that had a single person auto repair shop that had been grandfathered in on a zoning change where the city later changed their mind and said he had to be out in a month. City wouldn't negotiate, reconsider, or even adjust the timeline before the IoJ came along. As soon as the city heard the IoJ was backing him they caved. Long story short the fellow with the garage can stay there as long as he wants and the mayor got on TV saying how the city had reconsidered because they wanted to do the right thing and it had nothing to do with the IoJ. Right mayor Pinocchio, whatever you say.

[@silicon212]

This wouldn't have been the case of City of Mesa vs Baileys Brakes would it?

[@AngelaMerici12]

They wanted to do the right thing... Okay, why not doing the bad thing in the first place? 🤔

[@donaldj001]

"Our authority was challenged and we don't want to give the appearance that people can just challenge our authority."

[@melaniemedeiros3125]

LMAO, thank you for that last sentence it was priceless. Please excuse me as I need to change into dry pants now.😂

[@3xceIIent]

Maybe this is a different case but I feel like Steve covered something similar in the past.

[@BruceNewhouse]

I love when someone beats the government by using the rules that the government has written to ensure they win court battles against their own citizens. Thank you Institute For Justice and Mr Lehto.

[@Diddz]

makes one wonder, if the government will now try to remove that rule from the books so that it cant be used against them....

[@joshstephens413]

@@Diddz See they can't because if they disband that law then they can't force people from their homes for city improvement projects and if they just try to write out the compensation portion of the law then there will be riots. Eminent Domain has finally gotten to the point where it is being used against the government and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. About the only thing they can do is get rid of Qualified/Sovereign Immunity and tell cops that from now on they have to be careful because they are no longer protected and that any damages an individual officer commits will come out of their own paycheck and that they will now be held legally and civilly liable for every action they take.

[@doommmmmmm]

@@Diddz they won't remove it they'll just refine it to further screw over the people who keep them in business.

[@Mysdia]

@@Diddz the rule is the US constitution. No doubt the city would rewrite it if they could, But they don't have the political capital to pull off a constitutional amendment like that.

[@BruceNewhouse]

@@TheBooban Steve shared the story with explanation and analysis. To me that is something I am appreciative of.

[@josephbrown9665]

Steve we used this in Louisiana and it worked with the state judge who ruled that they took possession of our property when they took possession of the house when a criminal claimed into the window of the garage. . He locked himself up in the garage. The police destroyed the garage and they took possession of the house before they got him out of the garage. They kicked in the front door and broke out windows. My neighbors were outside telling them that they had the keys and they could control our dogs. They were going to shoot my dogs but they stopped when they were told that my wife is a lawyer so they better stop and think about what they are doing. Well they did and they got the neighbors to come in and get my dogs. My neighbor was able to get the dogs and let one in the garage and the guy gave up. He didn’t like my dog.

[@arribaficationwineho32]

Thank you for telling us.

[@davetdowell]

Sounds more like your dog didn't like him 🙂

[@fraidykat]

​@@davetdowell His dog Loved him. Nice new toy!!

[@thewaywardwind548]

Wait a minute. I just now found this channel and am amazed at a lawyer who recognizes that there should be some common sense in the law. I might have to change my blanket distrust of lawyers. This case is absolutely important and was decided correctly. When it gets to the Supremes, they should do the right thing and uphold the Fifth Circuit and make this the law of the land. At that time, the Institute for Justice which footed the bills for fighting this case should be reimbursed for their costs as well as the homeowner.

[@dawaey9183]

It’s interesting how when things go before a jury and not a judge we get results like this. I have a feeling if a judge had been the sole decider it wouldn’t have gone this way

[@toriless]

Most likely

[@jeffreyredfern2260]

The judge actually decided that the city was liable. The jury decided damages.

[@prst99]

@@jeffreyredfern2260 are you sure? The video explained the judge allowed it to be decided by a jury trial. The usual operation is where the judge decides there is no case worthy of a jury trial.

[@dawaey9183]

@@jeffreyredfern2260 Oh, how nice. Thank you for correcting me and it’s nice to see a reasonable judge in a case like this.

[@jeffreyredfern2260]

@@prst99 Pretty sure, since I was Baker's lawyer in this case!

[@Mark16v15]

I'm amazed at how evil these cities can be, allowing their police force to trash an innocent person's home, and then claim, "that's their problem, not ours". Thank you SL for bringing this atrocity to our attention, even providing a link to the Institute for Justice so that we can financially help their causes, which I did.

[@allenhartley7321]

11

[@firesurfer]

This is one of the origins of law, ''the Magna Carta'' 1215 ''"No free man shall be seized, imprisoned, stripped of his rights or possessions, outlawed, exiled. Nor will we proceed with force against him except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice"

[@alfredoperez9017]

Honestly , this law sets a bad precedent for police .When shit hits the fan you dont want police leadership thinking about property cost when lives are on the line . Police budgets are going to bloat to compensate for all the additional costs or police departs are goin to be way more stingy about actually sending the swat if it means a substantial financial L .

[@Mark16v15]

@@alfredoperez9017 It would be interesting if you would feel the same way if a fugitive ran into your house, forced you out at gun point, then had a shoot out with police resulting in $100,000 in damages to your property. Although I understand your argument, I don't believe the solution is for the innocent to have to pay. I'm thinking that cities would need to buy some sort of insurance for such situations. And maybe there other ways to handle such situations. If the cops cut off water and electricity to the house, and took other non-damaging measures, maybe that would do the trick. It's worth someone doing some research so that a guy like you isn't left with a six-figure bill.

[@trevorsmith2006]

​@@alfredoperez9017 No. Police just need not behave like entitled a**holes and be respectful of private property.

[@jeremyhubbardTX1]

That's unreal. Those mofo's would have no problem taking every dime you had if you destroyed public property. They all must be held accountable!!!!

[@cnsgains5506]

What's ridiculous is that this lady offered them her garage door opener and they opted to just blow it up instead. I'm sure that sealed the deal for the jury. Absolutely no regard for accountability.

[@ingegaugerlarranaga4210]

@@cnsgains5506 cops behaving like cops, what a shock

[@skillethead15]

@@cnsgains5506 Yep, they don’t give af what they do because they know they won’t be held liable. And what makes me sick is how the government said they wouldn’t pay for the damage and her insurance wouldn’t either. We pay taxes and premiums to the 11:49 government and these insurance companies for years and they both just dismiss you when you need them. This lady did nothing wrong and had all her stuff in order to make sure she was covered if something happens. And when that thing happened everyone was like “tough luck” pay for it yourself. It makes my blood boil.

[@ianbattles7290]

Exactly - they are hypocrites who only want personal accountability for you, not them

[@itsjustme1616]

That case you referenced about the swat team destroying the house, I was there that night and the next day boarding the place up (I worked for a company that had a contract with the Denver police/surrounding counties to secure buildings for different reasons). It was way worse than pictures showed. We had to wear respirators and goggles because they used so much tear gas every time you touched something or took a step, a bunch of the particles got kicked up. The front room that no longer had a wall up front was a little boys room. The back was destroyed too. It was just, unbelievably surreal trying to get that place closed up. That job will stick with me forever.

[@ianbattles7290]

The police will destroy a house over a petty crime and then turn around and tell the public that "violence isn't the answer"...

[@NormalizeBeingNormal]

but soon as you say that's wrong you get called unpatriotic or a cop hater ..lol

[@WarPigstheHun]

I'm sorry you had to work through those hazards. Thanks for sharing.

[@WarPigstheHun]

​@@NormalizeBeingNormal yeah this isn't about hating cops. It's about being fair. Sure it's their job but they don't need to destroy the entire building.

[@B_Bodziak]

@@WarPigstheHun They're not thinking about the ramifications of property destruction when trying to apprehend someone they believe is dangerous.

[@wjcolby]

Eminent domain NEVER properly compensates homeowners. They offer peanuts and when or if you refuse they take it.Then they resell to big companies who do real estate and condos.

[@thewaywardwind548]

"Eminent domain cases say the owner of the property gets compensated." Uh-huh. BUT it's the government that decides the compensation. My mother's parents owned a farm in Texas and the federal government decided to build the Sam Rayburn dam that would flood their farm. "Ma'am, we're gonna put eight feet of water right here in your front yard. You've gotta go." Problem is the compensation offered for 147 acres of farm and pasture land was just enough to buy ten acres near town where the water wasn't going to reach. My family did what all good Americans would do in similar circumstances. They sued the government for more money -- AND WON. Small problem, though. The additional monies the government paid was just enough to cover the lawyer's fees. Oops.

[@bryanmacklem2654]

It's actually a fairly simple argument to prove that government is using imminent domain, at least for the duration of the incident. The simple question would be "during the incident, would any of the law enforcement officers have allowed the home owner entry into the home, or even onto the property at all?". If the answer is no, then the government has seized control of the property and anything done to it is their fault.

[@NoName-io2pb]

Inverse Condemnation applies to actual takings, effective takings, and simple damages which the government fails to justly compensate pursuant to the 5th and 14th Amendments.

[@RealPackCat]

With the damage incurred, they should have condemned the property and built her a brand new house or let her pocket the cash.

[@ignazachenbach5406]

Put succinctly: _you break it, you buy it._ This is great law and I sincerely hope SCOTUS affirms it.

[@coffeepeachesplans]

Accidents are different

[@FlyinRaptorJesus]

I actually think this was appealed and overturned..

[@ignazachenbach5406]

@@FlyinRaptorJesus I couldn't find any docket to the effect of _City of McKinney_ v. _Baker._

[@smokedbeefandcheese4144]

@@coffeepeachesplans not really you still got a pay for it. If you do an accident you’re still liable. If the police are breaking down the wrong house door. They should be definitely paying for that and probably should be buying you a nicer door for the trouble.

[@randomstuff-qu7sh]

Perhaps the reason its been overlooked in the past is because eminent domain is used as a way for the government to legally force you to sell your property to them. In this case, its kind of coming at it backwards saying "You already used this citizen's property for the public good, now you need to compensate her for what you took". Glad she did get compensated and I hope this does pave the way for more successful compensation cases in the future.

[@daltooinewestwood6380]

She hasn’t been compensated yet. The case is being appealed. She has to win again in the appeals court/Supreme Court

[@timferguson8654]

My brother always told me you were just renting your property off the government while you are here on earth

[@bradleypidge7812]

🎉This needs to go to the Supreme Court so badly😮. Oh my gosh, if this becomes federal law and all states are required to be bound to the responsibility of the actions of their police officers, there will be new codes of conduct for police officers to act by.😊

[@colin-nekritz]

Supreme Court is corrupt and on the take, they’ll take a bribe and side with the government. The right wing is sliding the country into fascism.

[@jerrycallison6125]

I've been following this case since they first destroyed her home. Yes, there was an intruder who barricaded himself in there and the police had to get him, BUT, that does not divest them of the responsibility for the damages done. This is especially important as insurance will not cover damages caused by "police actions." So grateful for IJ!

[@TimoRutanen]

I think there's a mixup somewhere along the line in the system. The individual policemen might have to have some kind of immunity to getting sued for damage that happens when they trample someone's house since an individual person couldn't afford to do what he needs to. But the police department or the city (or their insurance) should still pay for it. Now for some reason, the city is claiming IT is immune to payment too, which is indeed quite silly.

[@jerrycallison6125]

@@TimoRutanen With respect, that is common practice. Cities/governmental bodies never take ownership of damages caused in pursuing miscreants. That falls on the property owner. Now, of course, the property owner is able to sue the perp, but guess how far that gets them, especially if they suicide or are killed in the process. This lady had the house sold, but it hadn't closed yet. Of course, that sale fell through, causing a double loss on her part. Read up on the case. You will be amazed at the damages done that the city tried to skate on. She is not the only one to have it happen to, either.

[@Razdasoldier]

Link to trial info?

[@accuratealloys]

The police could have waited him out.

[@edwardwright8127]

Where’s the fun in that?

[@ravenrock541]

The police enforcement agencies (and other agencies) have long dropped the pretense of 'preserving life and property'. Instead, they go after their target at any cost.

[@jamisonmunn9215]

Not true, they usually wait until the problem resolves itself. The don't care how many innocent people are killed in the process.

[@saints16o5o87]

Property always comes before life be it a stolen car or burglarised home, or if its only a belt as Steve mentioned. That stolen belt meant destroying someones home. For what? A fine for shoplifting. Insanity. Uncorroberated Police testimony often only an opinion on say turn signal distances or such nonsense is a major problem in the US. One persons word against anothers doesnt stand up in court anywhere else in modern western society. As long as money is made from Policing there will be no end to unlimited budgets from public taxes paying for Jails, militarised Police Depts, and attorneys who cover the ass of this financial gold mine. Ill never understand the need to pay cash bail for non violent crimes. Lock up those accused of violence and release the rest on bail conditions stating failure to appear or further charges while bailed mean jail. You would instantly slash 100,000s of untried innocent inmate numbers saving billions every year and remove a large part of the profit motive of local Pds and Sheriff dept who run local jails for innocent people awaiting trial.

[@stormthrush37]

Yes, because it's not really about justice, it's about making already powerful people and organizations feel more powerful still.

[@MadocComadrin]

If that was true, we'd still be having high-speed chases.

[@Thegreatblazingsun]

Its always been like this its just visible now

[@joeshmoe7967]

Disgusting that both the governments at all levels and the insurance companies can sleep at night knowing darn well they are weaselling out of doing the right thing. Thankfully she prevailed.

[@williamshearer8396]

If insurance companies had to cover government acts, they'd go bankrupt or stop offering coverage at all. The government has enough impunity and moral hazard as it is.

[@MaryWehmeier]

Corporations have no conscience.

[@armandhammer9617]

Some people can't sleep Untill they've screwed someone over.

[@bl1429]

Police officers should be required to get their own liability insurance, fresh out of the academy. If they screw up, their insurance goes up. If they can't get insurance, they can't be a police officer.

[@user-fe8gx3ie5v]

​@@bl1429Again, that would be a conflict of interest. They would make police a business.

[@jessicabamber8732]

I am an attorney in California. I was recently discussing with one of my neighbors, using this strategy for this very purpose.

[@melissar.2594]

Best wishes to you!

[@straycat1674]

The fact that the city or the department won’t take care of this after they do it, it’s disgusting and immoral. They act like it’s some big burden on them actually do the right thing.

[@skillethead15]

Exactly, it’s not like they are trying to bring criminal charges for the destruction of her house, she just wants the damages paid for. It’s so stupid how little the government cares about us when we vote them in and pay their salaries. Imagine you treated your boss like crap everyday, that’s what government does to us.

[@ajkendro3413]

The problem is the cops are operating out of fear and then do dumb things. If they would take a step back and think instead of just reacting, things would be different.

[@XJWill1]

@@ajkendro3413 Not quite. The problem is that the cops have zero incentive to minimize the damage, since they know that they will not be held accountable for damage in any way. On the other hand, if they can decrease their chance of getting hurt by even one tenth of one percent by damaging the property, then they will happily damage the property.

[@Agmanthion]

yeah. i feel like the police handled the confrontation correctly. the fault falls on government, lawmakers, elected officials, ect. if the government damages property, no matter why, they should pay to repair it.

[@hollismccray3297]

As my late mother-in-law used to say, "The principle of the matter can be very expensive." It violates common sense and any vestige of justice that property owners in cases like this can't get compensated. Finally some good news!

[@toriless]

Well, the entire idea you have rights is delusional, you have temporary permissions until the government decides to take them away, eminent domain means you have no right to property and the fraudulent US documents declare, and the same for so-called freedom as the Japanese citizens discovered in WW2 or life, as innocents murders in TX have experienced. You can not even poop on toilet if a LEO decides to take it away under civil asset forfeiture. DOJ what an ironic name! Should be Department of Takings !!

[@suzannek3406]

I live in McKinney. I wish I could have been on that jury. That makes me proud that my local residents are starting to see the light and realize that QI and SI are total BS and need to be abolished. I was called for jury summons on a criminal case a few weeks ago. I was dismissed after I answered that I watch a lot of cop watch videos and have seen way too many police violate law and civil rights, therefore I would have skepticism of police testimony unless I could review the individual officer’s personnel file and public complaints filed.

[@CertifiedClapaholic]

Why would you say that if you really wanted to be on the jury? Why??

[@williamrgrant]

Right, you’ve got to play the game :) Not volunteering this kind of information (you’re not lying, just don’t voluntarily give it up) is how you get on the jury and can help make a difference. The state wouldn’t want you - a cop skeptic - on the jury, but the defendant would!

[@kevinbarber2795]

QI and SI?

[@viperbananas]

​@@kevinbarber2795 qualified immunity, sovereign immunity

[@garthwiebe574]

Your exactly who needs to be on a juror . You sound like you could weigh both sides and put justice back into our justice system.

[@gregoryfoster8179]

I was reading another story today about property in TX destroyed (farm and home) as a result of state building highway that resulted in the land becoming susceptible to flooding. They took it to 5th Circuit Appeals under the taking clause and they refused to rule, so they were able to get the U.S. Supreme Court to agree to hear it. Not done yet but article says probably will be in their favor and could effect the entire country. I'm no lawyer, but sounds great. I think the IFJ is handling that one too.

[@alastermyst]

Maybe I'm just one of those dirty constitutionalists, but how gov should handle these things seems obvious. Gov damages innocent person's property, gov pays to fix it, then, the gov can take the crimina(s) to court to reimburse "enforcement costs" as it were. Might have issues but something like that seems like the common sense, ethical thing to do in a country where citizens are supposed to have rights.

[@barnabusdoyle4930]

Curious where the concept of qualified immunity came from in the US Constitution, then how it has become such a twisted and corrupt term and system that the original meaning is completely lost. Qualified immunity needs to be defined in law with heavy limitations, I acknowledge that it needs to be there for some things but right now they use it as a way to literally get away with murder

[@axhed]

"make me." - gov't

[@abikeanditsboy3449]

Stop making sense!

[@ryanjones2297]

@@axhed "Don't threaten me with a good time" -me

[@justanoman6497]

or, in this case, estate of the criminal(s), as the criminal have expired. But yeah, this is the model I would prefer. I suspect that the government tend to not go this route as many, possibly most, criminals are insolvent.

[@markmills344]

I just donated $25 to the Institute for Justice because of your appeal on their behalf. Thank you for the interesting cases you highlight, Steve!

[@toriless]

I gave then $250, I wish everyone could afford that much. I remember when I could not, it was not that long ago.

[@catherinepetersen3789]

I truly hope Grandma wins all the way to the Supreme Court!!! 🙏 If I had the money, I'd donate to the Institute of Justice!!!

[@alisonl6767]

"The fly on the wall..." YES!! Why not ask the Instutite for Justice to do a spot with you and talk about this case. Sounds like it could be a great exposure for them, as well. A win-win. Thanks for the quality content. Keep up the great work!

[@ThrawnFett123]

I had an argument with some buddies years back when one of these "cops destroyed the house" stories hit. This was basically one of the idle arguments I had made. Under the 5th they should sue for FORCED eminent domain. Usually its city forcing homeowner, but theirs no theoretical reason shouldn't work in reverse. The city already took it when they destroyed it, the state usually has predetermined calculations they use, and, since it was already taken, either they have to buy the entire thing at pre-taking rates, or make it whole again and return it to owners since that would be cheaper than the entire property for "fiscal responsibility". It's a bit different, but I'm glad to see it works.

[@gavnonadoroge3092]

ThrawnFett123, and your buddies were right because you didn't do jack about it for years, and it took someone else to actually go to court over it.

[@ThrawnFett123]

@Gavno Nadoroge I haven't had my house destroyed by cops, and I am not a lawyer. I have 0 standing to help random people I've never met with an at the time completely unproven legal theory based on taking the law literally

[@gavnonadoroge3092]

@@ThrawnFett123 it doesn't matter what your excuses were, the point is you didn't do anything about it, and yet in your original post you made it sound like it was a good thing. if you have a natural talent to find unproven legal theories, why don't you do something about it, and actually use it, instead of making excuses?

[@ThrawnFett123]

@Gavno Nadoroge give me three hundred and seventeen thousand dollars. Right now. I have an idea, discussed with those same buddies, to make a mechanical trigger that can store trigger pulls from a single person, and be released with a safety all at once. ATF rules state safeties are encouraged and can be used to stop a trigger action. A machine gun is one trigger pull resulting in more than one bullet. There's a gap there, that a clockwork mechanism since electronic has been ruled against, gives a legally sound theory they cannot touch by statutes. Second point besides the money, you're gonna have to pull the trigger, and release the safety yourself. Don't worry, as soon as you transfer the funds, I can get the ball rolling. All you have to do is pay, and in less than 9 months you WILL be in front of a circuit judge

[@gavnonadoroge3092]

@@ThrawnFett123 i can't give you that amount of money. however i can see how machine gun enthusiasts, or even a gun company might be interested in contributing to that idea. so you can do some things to make your idea happen. start a gofundme campaign, and ask your buddies to publicize it. also write to gun publications and ask their members towards contributing to your idea.

[@UncleKennysPlace]

The "qualified" in "qualified immunity" supposedly means that public officials are covered _only_ if any damages occur whilst they are doing their jobs in the normal manner. Is destroying a house a typical action for police? I'd like to see a jury decide that point.

[@herseem]

I would say that if there is a 'reasonable' decision that a SWAT team is needed, then the SWAT team will use the methods they consider are reasonable and normal 'in the circumstances', which is the circumstances they have been trained for and the reason they exist. So I would say the police would likely win that argument.

[@michaelsommers2356]

Qualified immunity and sovereign immunity are entirely different things.

[@davidh9638]

Doesn't a judge usually rule on qualified immunity before it gets anywhere near a jury?

[@jon_j__]

"Qualified immunity" is different to "sovereign immunity". If qualified immunity applies then you can't sue the individual public official for something they did in the normal pursuit of their job. (IE: You should be suing the government, not the individual.) If sovereign immunity applies then you can't sue the government. (Usually this is because the harm came about as a direct result of a necessary function of government - foreign policy is a classic example. Eg: "I had a great business deal set up with a company in Russia which you ruined with your sanctions" would fail due to sovereign immunity.) In this case, the argument that the police officers' actions caused damage so the homeowner should be paid fails due to both qualified immunity (can't sue the individual police officers) and sovereign immunity (can't sue the government). I personally think the latter is a bit of a stretch... but I guess it's well-established law, so there's no way of arguing with it other than to push for specific federal legislation.

[@JohnDoe-qz1ql]

​​@@herseem If SWAT is needed, by definition, No circumstance is normal or routine. Gladly most don't think alike otherwise govt accountability would be nonexistent.

[@bobboberson5755]

Nice to see my charity donations to the Institute for Justice are being well spent!

[@PupOrionSirius26]

A valuable investment. And the case precedent they set, may end up helping many down the road, including yourself possibly. 👍

[@michaelshrader5139]

They refused to even talk with me about my case.... I'll never give them a dime, and will forever remind people of my animals the state illegally seized and is refusing to return (even though I've explained to them with their own documents exactly why their seizure of my animals was illegal). Seems like the IJ helps just about anybody, but me. :-|

[@machintelligence]

@@michaelshrader5139 They also support the spending of taxpayer dollars on religious schools. There are arguments for this stance, but it is not one I agree with, so I have not donated to them. YMMV

[@ronmcmartin4513]

@@machintelligence--So because Biden is Not Trump, you voted for a Potato. High Crime & Inflation, Open Borders, human trafficking & worsening drug crisis is better than Mean Tweets.

[@charlesd9483]

@@michaelshrader5139 Reach out to other channels (auditors, cop watchers, lawyers) and hopefully someone sees a case that has merit and agrees to help or possibly contact the IoJ themselves for you. Remember all these channels probably get asked for help constantly so it may take some time, but going through a lawsuit involving the government will probably be a long process as well. Good luck, know the feeling.

[@Reginatus]

Ironically said officers are paid their salaries by tax payer dollars but if they screw up, they claim they can't be sued. That's absolute shit honestly.

[@SilentKnightProductions]

Let's hope this case gets referene down the road. Polar opposite experience about 10 years ago in eastern Washington state: Police chased an armed robbery suspect who jumped my in-laws' fence, police crashed into it, kicked through a gate, ripped off a back-yard shed door to capture the baddie. The next morning, without even a phone call, a representative from the police dept showed up to make sure everyone was ok, gave a case number and said to get it all repaired and send them the bill. Easy peasey.

[@jerrybrooks870]

SilentKnightStudio, that's the way it should always be handled, but unfortunately, that's a rare occurrence.

[@michaelshrader5139]

In other words, they actually did the RIGHT THING! Wow! 😲

[@kaboom4679]

Clearly , the hired help know their proper place in that town and conduct themselves accordingly . Unfortunately , this is a very rare situation and not typical of most governments anywhere .

[@ashefallprime4563]

Steve represented my family in a failure to warrant case. He is a good man in a profession full of frauds.

[@falcon127]

The INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE is a very important organization

[@everythingpony]

It was overturned

[@jackbelk8527]

@@everythingpony That changes nothing about the value of the organization.

[@nensondubois]

Very true.

[@ivor7407]

Yes it is. Canada needs a similar organization like it.

[@Jon.......]

Cool! Eminent Domain! The police "took" your property and owe you full value. If they choose not want it later and return it, they need to return it as they received OR compensate the original owner enough to restore it to its previous condition.

[@NuncNuncNuncNunc]

How did this ever not violate the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. It's both disturbing and disgusting that local or state officials and police would take issue with compensating individuals for damage caused capturing dangerous individuals.

[@ravengrey6874]

Eminent Domain is outlined by the 5th amendment in the US, so in this case, it was used

[@seraphcreed840]

The judges interpret these things. The judges favor police.

[@barnabusdoyle4930]

Why would the police and DA have an issue with a legal defense that allows them to drop a nuke on your home and kill every member of your family and neighborhood and there is no accountability or responsibility for any deaths or damages? Of course courts would uphold this kind of BS immunity, gives them incentive to not look at possible side effect or consequences

[@4k8t]

Someone has to raise the issue and frame it in a way that does not infringe on previously established case law such as sovereign immunity. If there was a hint of "the police did this [in the course of their lawful duty] and the owner should be compensated for damage the police inflicted on the property", the case would have been summarily judged. Since the suit said (in effect) "the police took the property [in the course of their lawful duty so for a public purpose 'public safety'] and the owner should receive just compensation for the change in value of the property while it was in their custody" and a jury agreed.

[@davidblauyoutube]

@@4k8t Bingo. I've wondered why more attorneys haven't pursued this avenue sooner.

[@ickster23]

These cases really show how there is an "us and them" attitude with those who label themselves public "servants".

[@coffeepeachesplans]

Servants are the worst

[@linardskinard8199]

They are the enemy, don't kid yourself

[@joerapo]

Our government is parasitic.

[@LuckyBaldwin777]

It's gov't of, by, and for itself.

[@soniag4516]

Tip of the iceberg. Govt Law enforcers are no longer "publ8c servants"

[@jamesanderson6812]

Making a precedent is what it is all about / or keeping it from happening!!! Thanks for your work !!

[@samlindsey1078]

I remember that video and how much damage was done. It is my opinion, based on what I have seen in video and witnessed in person, that law enforcement cause unnecessary damage, because they know that they have the immunity and therefore are not as prudent or careful when people's property is concerned. I'm glad to see a win for this lady, and I hope she recovers all her loses, including the time and effort to pursue this case.

[@NuclearSavety]

.... hey look, there is still one window intact, give me another tear gas shell ....

[@netwrench6570]

Made me think about Dirty Harry and that poor lady's diner; "you feel lucky...?"

[@mattp5991]

Extra rounds expended, multiple unneeded tear gas and flashbangs used, and all the doors and windows smashed.... because "well, our department doesn't always get the training that we need, so we turned it into a big, destructive training exercise..."

[@michaelautrey6641]

because they dont care. cops are almost untouchable. what kind of people do you get when they realize being a cop gives that much power? cops do whatever they want to.

[@TheXxemarosaxx]

Police have the right to use all the toys that they have it’s a law 😂

[@harakhty5605]

For the government, these cases are never about the money. It's about maintaining their power.

[@dragons_red]

Money power

[@michaelshrader5139]

Ain't it amazing how no suspect ever holes-up in a wealthy person's mansion that the police then destroy trying to get them?

[@kaboom4679]

What was that famous line ? Something about " trading one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away " ?

[@eilenekellogg-ki2br]

Everything in this system is about money.

[@knowyourrights9793]

THANKS Steve for bringing light to these stories so we all know what's going on!!

[@michaelshrader5139]

Steve is a good guy. I cannot say the same for the IJ however. 😐

[@chrispavin1373]

I love the ingenious way this lawyer did their job. BRILLIANT!!!

[@bujin5455]

Most heart warming thing I've heard in a long time. Boy it's nice seeing real justice happening for a change. Definitely going to be looking to send a little something over to IJ.

[@LilTikiBoy]

Be better if they took these settlements directly from the police pension funds. Might make these assholes think twice before they decide to play super soldier to catch a shoplifter.

[@bujin5455]

@@LilTikiBoy I don't know that that is legally possible, but I like the way you think. ...never hurts to have a little skin in the game. Fundamentally, the problem with society is we have a proliferation of systems that do not have aligned incentives structures.

[@CorporateCornholio]

@@LilTikiBoy It was a hostage situation but a shoplifter, is that what Lehto told you, it was shoplifting? The contractor, hired by the homeowner, took a fifteen year old hostage and barricaded himself in the house with the hostage. Do not take my word for it, look this up for yourself. Then make an informed decision.

[@glennrishton5679]

I think the part of cases like this that makes me the most angry is that the decision to not pay ultimately comes down to one person or a small group such as a mayor, a city council and city lawyers. So these are people actually living in the same city giving the middle finger to a fellow resident of the city. So while sovereign immunity may have been based on immunity for a king ruling by divine right none of these city officials, employees of the voters, rule by divine right.

[@toriless]

Yep, a mayor is just your owner if you live in a city which is WHY I do not.

[@RDKirbyN]

It's always class struggle. Every single time. Owning class vs working class. They don't care about us.

[@themanhimself3]

Mayors have a tendency to be horrifically corrupt.

[@rickmcintosh1771]

No mortal king rules by Devine right. The uneducated people in the past were easily fooled.

[@fonda7760]

Eminent Domain! I love it! Good for this woman! There are so many people whose homes have been destroyed only to realize, ‘Oops, wrong house!’ If these gov’t officials had their home destroyed in like manner would they be so cavalier!

[@otravis676]

In the 70's the city of Phoenix wanted to buy all the properties around 7th st and Jefferson in order to build a baseball stadium. My grandfather refused to sell his mechanic shop so the city sent in an inspector to look for a reason to condemn the building and of course they found a reason......bad wiring. The city then (without doing anything to fix the bad wiring) let the Sheriff's department use the building as a maintenance shot for a number of years then leased it to two other companies before tearing it down. When the city took the building form my grandfather they gave him pennies on the dollar. Eminent domain is a scam the cities use in most cases just to get what they want and almost never pay what the property is worth cause they know most people don't have the resources to fight them.

[@roberteltze4850]

There was a city (I think it was in Texas) that used eminent domain to take a bunch of property to build a stadium. They ended up taking more than they needed and once everything was built they sold off property around the edges for 10x what they gave the owners in the eminent domain settlement. Those owners then took them to court claiming that the city selling the property established the value and they were undercompensated. The city claimed that the stadium improved the property value so they were justified. The city lost and had to make some big payouts. I think the city was correct that the stadium did increase property values but I expect the jury was outraged that the city took more than they needed and then profited from it.

[@otravis676]

@@roberteltze4850 I always like hearing the government get screwed gives me that warm fuzzy feeling inside

[@michaelshrader5139]

@@roberteltze4850 And all for a damned sports stadium! To play games in! That's just nuts and not at all what Eminent Domain was intended for!

[@TacticalKiwi4862]

I only just heard about this case a few days ago. And it's already won in favor of the home owner! Awsome!!!Awesome!!! Go IJ

[@peterkn2]

It's amazing to think that the government has been doing this for so long and they're fighting to keep this status quo.

[@kairu_aname]

And people think that it's perfectly fine to allow them to continue down the path of tyranny

[@MPee76]

Amazing? Not really. The alternative would be a complete disaster. Imagine if there was no sovereign immunity and the government had to pay for all the damages done to a property by police doing their jobs. So if you owned a property and it's getting a bit banged up and the kitchen could do with an upgrade.. So why not give the police an anonymous tip that something very illegal is going on and have the cops storm the place and get the city paying for the renovations. People would abuse the f*** out of that law

[@billjames8036]

The fact that this is even something that has to be done is crazy.

[@charlesandrews2419]

Thanks for posting. Progress is one win at a time. Thanks to the Institute of Justice. More thanks to everyone helping to support them.

[@lJUSTwanaCOMMENT]

Could you imagine if this became precedent nationally? Cops would have to actually be conscious of citizens' property! OH WHAT A FKIN NIGHTMARE!

[@Milz]

if you think 3 or multiple solutions to a problem, you'll almost always find a way that works. That attorney deserves all the credit he gets. bravo honestly

[@MeRia035]

Honestly, insurance companies are so corrupt. I'm so sorry for this woman. It could & can happen to any one of us at any time😢 ❤️🇺🇸❤️

[@michaelsommers2356]

Not all insurance policies are the same. They can have different coverages and exclusions. You'd have to read the policy in question to know if the damage in this case should have been covered.

[@johnclements6614]

Its the people who vote for low taxes but still want stuff. They then get a government that does not want to spend money on things that will not get them votes.

[@Hamish_A]

Yes the insurance company is not great, but it will be in the contract specifically because of issues like this. Primarily here it's the governmental side that's in the wrong here.

[@justins8802]

This case is hardly about insurance companies. An uninsured person should also be able to be made whole when someone destroys their home. The government shouldn’t be able to do this and pawn it off on the people and their insurance companies. They government should have to compensate people fairly, and they can get their own insurance to cover it.

[@sarowie]

@@michaelsommers2356 The interesting things are those not covered. You get a list of coverages and exclusions, but what is not covered is only implied, not specifically written out. How would it be? If you take insurance for your home that includes natural disaster, burglary and so on, but cops show up... then the cops are not a natural disaster nor burglars - they are cops.

[@deandamron9225]

❤😊 .... though I like to listen to your posts, this is one I truly love! It's about time government personnel and entities are held accountable for their actions, just like [they] do to the public. It is only right. Thank you for the insight and humor.

[@stormthrush37]

Y'know it's amazing how much money, time, and equipment the police are prepared to throw around to nail offenders for minor crimes but then suddenly when they've committed what amount to crimes of their own in the process they suddenly act like they're penniless. The real game is revealed: it's all about some people feeling powerful rather than actual justice. In any event this is a perfect legal argument and defense and I hope it succeeds and is carried through at the highest levels. Though with the corruption evident in the highest levels of our government for an extended time especially in the Supreme Court I doubt it.

[@thedave1771]

Also, if they were liable for the costs they might think ahead and act more responsibly rather than going nuts.

[@Max_Griswald]

That has zero to do with this case and this video, though. Unless you consider kidnapping a 15 year old girl to be a minor crime, which is different than a crime against a minor.

[@dlanbatal]

@@Max_Griswald yeah thats my concern here, i'm generally in favor of this case law, but it does have potential to dissuade police from intervening in similar cases, which could allow actually major criminals to slip away and repeat offend. I feel there needs to be some balance on this

[@raybrensike42]

Our government is not a king. Neither are they too big to fail.

[@makeshift_battlefield_music]

Its kind of infuriating that there would even be any question about whether the property owner should be compensated, even moreso that its just assumed by the state that they should not be. Regardless of any justification they could provide, it is objectively unethical. It makes no difference to the property owner _why_ their property was damaged or whether it was damaged by a criminal or the state.

[@ianbattles7290]

The government and the criminal can both destroy your home, *but only the criminal will be punished for it.*

[@Twinspinner]

I've lost count of how many times I've watched this video in the last 7 months, this is easily one of the best legal outcomes I've ever heard and I never get tired of hearing it

[@CaptTonyNEO]

Great story Steve. Thanks for bringing the Institute for Justice to our attention.

[@michaelshrader5139]

Yeah they help just about anybody BUT me of course... they wouldn't even talk with me about my illegally seized animals. 😕

[@katiekane5247]

​@@michaelshrader5139 you realize they can't take every case? They choose one's that might advance case law. Sorry about your pets though.

[@williezar2231]

Is there a single person here that wouldn't want their city to pay for damage to their house if they committed no crime? It should be part of the police budge, lord knows they almost always have more than enough. Maybe pass on tanks or plate readers.

[@zachklopfleisch8501]

Making it part of the police budget requires them to actually make a cost-benefit analysis of their tactics. So many police abuses boil down to the police not having to bear any of the cost of their actions.

[@johnclements6614]

People vote for lower taxes. Then they get this sort of thing as it is only a couple of voters as opposed to the city/ county paying to take out insurance and putting up tax for all.

[@olejniczak12]

​@@johnclements6614 So why is it that even with higher tax rates, this was still happening? This isnt a tax issue, this is a corruption issue

[@POVwithRC]

​@@johnclements6614 citation needed.

[@johnclements6614]

@@POVwithRC You really think that the tax rate is not an election issue.

[@cmorris9494]

My grandparents had part of their farm for a highway eminent domain. They got little money for it and they pretty much lost their farm. At least they got to keep their house.

[@gbear1005]

Better to agree to a long term lease. 99 yrs.

[@JohnDoe-qz1ql]

​@@gbear1005 What happens if the govt doesn't Want it leased. You gotta accept the money.

[@sarowie]

@@gbear1005 negotiating with a municipality about eminent domain is... tricky. You long term lease sounds like a bad idea, so that would not be accepted (and would not make his grandparents whole). A better strategy is to ask for an equivalent land and home, so that you can continue your life style. Sound reasonable, right? Now, no home can replace your own home and you loose access to the woods, where you play with your dog, so... this other farms looks nice, but... could I get a few more acres as compensation? Oh, and the moving expenses please. Note that the municipality can rezone areas - that means they can create valuable land by rezoning, which has little cost to the taxpayer.

[@gbear1005]

@@sarowie disagree from experience. I was in this situation.. eminent domain was to get access and use of land they could not get control of. But I thwarted that with a lease giving control (but keeping the mineral rights!) at a similar cost, and when they failed to develop the property as stipulated in the lease (building a city building and some road additions) ..project cancelled due to ..I dunno what.. was able to take the land back. Double win.

[@Phillip-cw9xn]

They took her property. Pay for it.

[@CableGuyRyv]

The argument against "imminent domain" that I had heard was that the property was returned, so no compensation is required. I'm eager to see this go all the way to the Supreme Court if it must. Cops that destroy private property with reckless abandon need to be held responsible. If that means they need to think twice before driving a tank through someone's front door, then all the better.

[@CheeseBeer90]

Returned destroyed so they must pay for the damages…

[@mckenziekeith7434]

There is a lot of legal precedent about what amounts to a "taking" of a property. I would say that surrounding it with armed personnel and destroying it might constitute a taking. The higher courts will have to decide. Qualified immunity is intended to protect individual people like cops and government officials when they act in good faith. In an eminent domain case, the defendant would not be a police officer or government official, but the government itself. If they "take" the house, they have to pay the plaintiff for the house, but then they own it. So they can fix it up and sell it to recoup some of their expenses, and no individual cop or official will have to pay. In a takings case, you force the government to compensate the owner of the house at fair market value. I am not a lawyer. This is just my understanding.

[@youztuber5000]

The fact this isn't the way things are already just shows how unrespectable our government is..

[@LarryMaccc]

Thank you, I’m glad the lady was made right. I also appreciate learning of the Institute of Justice. That sounds like a great cause.

[@paulmann8570]

"Why not give that money to individuals that they've harmed?" To the government, it's better to put the money back through the system not only to stop themselves from giving it to somebody they owe, but to try and extort them for even more. Pride, Greed, Wrath, an entire Vicious Cycle.

[@longWriter]

...I'd figured that the government was spending more to defend the case than a settlement would cost them because they wanted to discourage people from suing them.

[@paulmann8570]

@@longWriter That's a valid theory, though considering the growing population that would rather see the government burn, I honestly think this, plus the recent victory, would cause them to take it to court even more. Either way, to think our taxes go to this nonsense cycle.

[@MrJdsenior]

@@paulmann8570 Government burn? You gotta be kidding. Changed, maybe taken back to its original intention and scope, oh hell yes, and idiotic laws changed, definitely, but what did you have in mind as an alternative system, maybe China's or Russia's? Maybe like the Haitian govt? Or NK? If so, go live there a while. Ours definitely needs some fixing, but who in their right mind is going to serve in govt? As I see it, that is the basic problem. It's kind of like, "Oh, you're a new congressman (or women), come over here and let me assign you your portion of the wall to beat your head against". "Either way, to think our taxes go to this nonsense cycle." If that were the extent of it, we'd be in GREAT shape, sorry to say.

[@paladin181]

Giiving it back to the people they've harmed without a fight means they'll have to do it again and again. If they fight it, there's still the chance they win. If they don't, it's a license for anyone to make them open the pocketbook. Sure, they SHOULD open the pocketbook, but you know...

[@douglashughes2331]

Just a thought: Say the daughter or the owner of the house went to the SWAT team in the middle of the raid and said "I want to go into my house now" and they said no, would that stand to strengthen the chances of winning under this theory? Them saying no would show certain that the house was taken and they would not grant her access.

[@gmailisaretard]

Nah, in that case they are protecting the public by refusing access to a dangerous building or area. After all, there was potentially a suspect in the area or building.

[@zerog2000]

@@gmailisaretardbut her home was private property she is entitled to enjoy on her own, not a public place. If they would restrict her from entering her own property, then that may strengthen the case that her home was taken from her, if only temporarily.

[@mikemmikem2758]

I agree. Get these cases to a jury and they'll win every time. The other note is using huge amounts of taxpayers dollars to appeal these cases when if they simply settled all they'd have to pay is, in this case, 50K. All this crap about English 'common law' is archaic and has no business in our courts of law. And governments wonder why people are so pissed off and go nuts sometimes. Great video. Count me in.

[@deusvult6920]

You day they'll win every time. But you underestimate the typical bootlicker

[@B_Bodziak]

Especially since English law was in place to protect the king and his landowning friends.

[@B_Bodziak]

@@deusvult6920 What's with all the "bootlicker" comments? This has nothing to do with whether people support or don't support police officers.

[@havenbastion]

Common Law is the basis of all modern law.

[@mckenziekeith7434]

Qualified immunity was created the US supreme court in 1967, and modified by subsequent decisions. They weren't really worried about sovereign immunity. It isn't just a carryover from feudal times. The concern was that public officials would be paralyzed by liability concerns if they were not made immune from damages when acting in good faith. There are actually a lot of valid traditions in ancient law such as habeas corpus and the castle doctrine which protect citizens or the accused. The prohibition on ex post facto laws also is rooted in tradition (although in the US, it is also written into the constitution).

[@susanbelida6981]

Thank you Steve!! Great news🎉 hurray!!! Institute for Justice works hard for folks. Lord bless them.

[@Lightfytr]

I’m so happy I found this organization through you and I’m happy to send them a donation monthly! They do great work!

[@michaelshrader5139]

Yeah they help just about anybody, except me they wouldn't even talk with me about my case where the state illegally seized my animals in spite of the state's own documents I found that make the animals completely legal to possess. But hey, I don't really matter after all. 😕

[@Lightfytr]

@@michaelshrader5139 I’m sorry to hear that, I have no doubt that there is a long list of people who they have to turn down. But they really are helping a lot. So for me I am happy to continue donating. Good luck to you.

[@pabloa7121]

Awesome to hear this from the Institute for Justice. Can’t imagine what this woman had to go through. Even now that she won.

[@danb9186]

Typically in an eminent domain case it is that in the event of the government not paying and no longer needing the property condemned, the property has to be returned to the original owner, typically the compensation is outlined in the taking, ie when a gas line or sewer line crosses a farmers field, I have seen many roads returned but none of them even had any type of cleanup, and now that you have me thinking about this I’d like to take a look at the taxes to see if any adjustments have been made as a result of abandonment of these properties. This was a very smart argument.

[@davidmalin1884]

This episode popped up on my KZbin page this morning. Love seeing other Michiganders using their expertise to help others like this. Are your microphones originals? I was in the radio biz for 50 years and used many like those in various settings. I’m a ham radio operator (W8PHN) and have a “Lollipop” mic, like the one on your shelf, I use when firing up my 70’s classic Kenwood TS-520. Keep up the good work. By the way, grew up in Flint/Davison back when it was a great place to live. Brother and sister still in Davison and Fenton. Not too far from Atlas. Dave M. Rockford, MI

[@MB-ig6gl]

I love this, especially as a former resident of that city. It was a small town with small town politics that had accelerated growth into a city over a couple years, but kept that old town good ol' boy network (this was an extreme example of Texas). Heck their school district "contracted" high cost lawyers to get their way. They don't mind spending taxpayer money on lawyers or administrative salaries. Last time I checked McKinney Elementary School Principals make $133K, and it is a very low COLA. One example of their use of immunity was a simple case I read about. Landscaper at one of the schools ran over a piece of metal with their lawnmower. It threw this piece of metal all the way into someone's house (broke the window). The homeowner tried to get someone to pay to fix the window. Well they just claimed immunity. The landscaper was a contractor but they said due to that the immunity covered them. No apology, nothing. That is their standard response. Obviously that was just a claim filed, not a court case. I don't know how tossing a piece of metal through a window is considered a "normal activity". It is negligence that the landscaper did not check the field first before mowing, and its not like the homes are that close.

[@barnabusdoyle4930]

Actually, using qualified immunity as a defense for BS like that only encourages negligence on the part of any type of city contractor or worker. It creates the environment where the police get to use their laser satellites to destroy a home that someone who stole a pack of socks from Walmart is hiding in because they police don’t have to worry about consequences. The police departments are full of people who never face consequences for their actions and are incredibly dangerous because of this fact.

[@michaelshrader5139]

In this country we do NOT have a King, and NOBODY is supposed to be above the law! This entire QI and SI thing is merely made-up and not codified in the Constitution nor it's Amendments anywhere.... QI and SI are not right, not Constitutional, and courts need to realize that fact! SMH!

[@everythingpony]

I'm what? That's not police tho

[@brendamorris6475]

IJ is out there doing great work.

[@franklyanogre00000]

I always thought this was a case of imminent domain... like with that shoplifter that they fired grenade launchers at the house he hid in then drove a tank through the wall.

[@michaelsommers2356]

'Eminent', not 'imminent'.

[@davidh9638]

What's all this I hear about Eminem having his own domain?

[@rusticpartyeditz]

@@davidh9638 Sounds shady to me

[@JohnDoe-qz1ql]

​@@davidh9638 His new website...DUUUH!!!

[@jerrybrooks870]

@@rusticpartyeditz , and slim.

[@KathyPantisano]

Best news I’ve heard in a long time!! Maybe all those people that the police went to the wrong house will get their money back too ! Finally loophole for the people!!!!

[@jonimaricruz1692]

The SWAT boys are always looking for a chance to slip their leash. After all, you can’t have all that training and the GI Joe gear that they got from civil forfeitures just sitting around. That adrenaline rush of hearing “GREEN LIGHT” over the radio just can’t be beat.

[@bust3dstr8]

So true....police have many junkies in their profession. Drug of choice...adrenaline.

[@johndoe-so2ef]

And this is exactly why all swat should be disbanded/outlawed.

[@JohnDoe-qz1ql]

​@@johndoe-so2ef Well their place IS needed even if minimally. Normal police cannot handle such circumstances. Then again I've seen cases where they did the Same normal police would do, just shoot up the building.

[@stevehartwell1861]

Demilitarize the police, get rid of SWAT cosplay cops, get rid of QI, make municipalities pay for damage

[@michaelshrader5139]

LE acts far too often like a "gang". Gang mentality leads to poor decision making, clearly! How do we stop the police from becoming gang-like in the 1st place? A rational well trained person would think, let's get a drone out here and into that house and put eyes on the suspect before we do anything else (since the hostage had already been released and nobody else was inside the house except the suspect... who was dead already apparently!).

[@blainelytle341]

Thank you Steve for doing the fine work of keeping We The People informed ! And Thank You for the information about the Institute For Justice ! God(s) Bless You and Your Family !

[@farmerinthesky]

AWESOME video. SL/IJ: You're bringing our country back! Keep it up!

[@RevRonC]

Tremendous use of imminent domain. I hope this case gets appealed and progresses to the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court rules in her favor. That would amount to a complete reconsideration of how government entities respond to these situations, and hopefully would result in just settlements out of court for the majority of these incidents.

[@user-ts6dg3xl4j]

Super...defund...code enforcement also...they are destroying Florida property rights everyday

[@SyBernot]

Something like this happened to me. Some guy with warrants being followed by a couple of plain cloths turns down my street and when he realizes it's a cul de sac he pulls into my neighbors drive way and bails. The cops pursue and gunfire is exchanged. The cops fired 36 rounds hitting the fugitive only 3 times most of that gunfire hit my house. When I heard the commotion (it went on for several minutes) I gathered the family into the bathroom (the only all interior place in the house) and called 911 to report the gun play in my back yard. Every one was safe no one in the house got hurt but the back of my house was riddled with bullet holes. The next day the state forensics lab showed up and took down my siding, insulation and retrieved all the bullets they could find as evidence. Then they left. Just left it all on the ground bare sheeting exposed to the elements. I think I spent around 7K residing my house and there were no offers or avenues that I felt I could pursue to recoup my money. Best part is I later got a summons to court and missed an entire day of work to testify that what I heard was bang bang, "Police officer, drop your weapon", bang bang, then bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang (2 seconds of silence for the reload) bang bang bang bang bang, you get the idea. They put my sleeping family in jeopardy, shot up my house, did nothing to correct the additional damage while looking for evidence, then had the balls to ask me to testify. I think the guy got 6 years on top of what ever his warrants were for but we got F'd hard by the system and we were just sleeping/watching TV on a random night in our town. It ain't right but it's been like 20 years and we are thousands of miles away and none of us miss the neighborhood. Cops should have to pay for their damage. I know that sounds harsh but they feel like they aren't accountable and when that happens they aren't and citizens have to pay for their damage. We already pay taxes to employ these people, at the very least some of that money should come back to us when things go sideways. As a victim I feel like I shouldn't get F'd twice just because I got F'd the first time. Still sour after all these years...

[@MidwestBoom]

Just the tip of the iceberg

[@samsprague2846]

My dad was the Corporation Council of Albany NY, and evicted entire neighborhoods to build the Empire State Plaza. The Lost Neighborhood documentary covers this but does not mention him by name. His position was that the government needs to compensate them for the (fair market) value of the home PLUS compensate them for the harm they were subjected to by being forced to leave involuntarily even under a legal proceeding.

[@garrettjones8448]

Big fan of your work. For a country that prides itself on “independence”, we sure do use a lot of law from when were subjugated by the 👑

[@hootersnoocher8467]

Every time I heard about a case like this, I thought of eminent domain or the takings clause. Some time back in St. Clair Shores, there was a case of the roommate of the owner barricaded himself and the house was destroyed by the police in extracting the man and the home was further damaged by the further neglect. A total loss.

[@rochellecaffee1417]

Thank you !! Please KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, STEVE!! I, for one, am LISTENING!!

[@michaelmaloskyjr]

Now that's refreshingly novel legal theory: The State basically "possesses" property in pursuit of their public responsibility (safety) and then offers compensation for that period of possession. Just like our man just said, a town that big could easily just gift the woman $60K; she wasn't claiming wrongdoing or punitive measures. Whatever happened to the basic legal tenet of "Make the party whole again?" A $60K check is the simplest path there, jeez.

[@gsneff]

Takings clause is what immediately came to my mind. I’m surprised this isn’t the normal course taken by attorneys. I don’t even have a law degree, just a public policy guy at a small think tank, and takings clause was my first argument I thought of.

[@sittingindetroit9204]

Our town spent over a million dollars to fight a civil lawsuit by taxpayers for their illegal activity. The crazy thing is that when they lose, these same taxpayers have to pay the judgement to themselves. Only people who win in this scenario are the outside lawyers.

[@johngagne986]

The issues created by the Warren Court's pronouncement of Qualified Immunity continue to haunt our nation and give the governmental employees like Police a blanket of coverage that needs to be reformed. CATO Institute and the Institute for Justice are playing field adjustments that are very much welcomed! Come on please appeal this case!

[@zerieth6620]

I'm for some partial immunity. There are loads of people that will sue for anything under the son over a traffic infraction. A cop would spend more time in court than out doing his job if there wasn't some protection. But the courts have taken this completely out of control with crazy blanket immunity. If a cop does something, and it turns out it was unlawful, they shouldn't be immune from being sued.

[@johngagne986]

@@zerieth6620 I under stand your position and believe it or not I support that but for very specific reasons. I agree and what you describe as why it is important and precisely why the Warren court issued this pronouncement during the height of the late 1960's race riots. The problem however is that the methodology required to block QI establishes a nearly impossible legal standard to meet. In that a case of an identical situation and circumstance must be cited by the plaintiff where the officer was shown to over step/abuse their authority with similar outcomes and 2) there is no financial impact on the department nor the officer even if found to lose QI. The taxpayers pick up the tab imposed by any court through their municipal insurance which the taxpayers pay for. Also the officers typically leave the area and become cops somewhere else. The record does not follow them. Those issues need to be addressed.

[@adherry8142]

Just out of curiosity I checked how that is regulated in Germany. Apparently we based our reimbursement system on .....eminent domain law.

[@smileycamel5635]

Great outcome , well do. Brilliant job by Institute For Justice getting this in front of a jury!

[@seannemo8076]

That judge knew exactly what they were doing when they put this case before a jury.

[@jacobfreeman5444]

Yeah, keeping his legal career safe by not opining on it himself.

[@lugo5678]

This is absolute genius. Please keep updating this case as it progresses.

[@joeg1992]

Thanks for pointing out the Institute for Justice, you have mentioned them a number of times and I finally went and donated.

[@michaelshrader5139]

I wouldn't, they made me feel like I just do not matter at all when I tried to contact them about my animals the state illegally seized and will not give back! All because I complained to loudly about a wealthy developer who kept flooding my property and home in Plum Grove TX... I just, don't matter I guess. The IJ certainly didn't seem to think so. I mean, I've lost everything and the IJ wouldn't even talk to me how awesome is that? 😞