
No one would suggest that the police should put anyone at risk to avoid property damage. Indeed, one account said that Seacat fired his weapon through a garage door to keep officers at bay. There was good reason to send the SWAT team and there was good reason not to storm the house. However, this was also a shoplifter alone in a surrounded dwelling. Given the account of a possible gun, it was wise to try to wait him out but the police decided to destroy parts of the home after about 20 hours of a standoff.
The couple says that no one from the police or the city offered to help them. Rather, they told the media that “basically, they came in, they blew up the house, and they said, ‘Okay. See you.'”
After trying to use Seacat’s sister to get him out, the police used a “breaching ram,” robots, and flash bang grenades. They also cut off all of the power to the entire neighborhood.
I am unconvinced that police could not wait out Seacat but I am certainly willing to defer to their judgment. However, when it comes to the cost, I would think that the city is entirely on the hook for the damage and should have immediately put the family up in a hotel, particularly when they have a young child. Under the common law, “public champions” like fire fighters and police are not responsible for damage to private property but the modern approach is to allow for such compensation. Thus, it was common to destroy homes to create fire breaks and technically no compensation was required. Today compensation is generally given.
The case also raises a concern over the increasing militarization of police departments and the tendency to use paramilitary forces rather than simply wait out felons like Seacat. The fear is that with the availability of larger SWAT unites and armored vehicles, police are inclined to use the higher level of force.
What do you think?
Source: Westword
