As I am so involved in the world of ethics, I often think about things from a slightly different point of view than many people. For example, in a “cops and robbers” movie where cars crash through store-fronts, I wonder “Who pays?” Does the insurance company simply smile and write a check to cover the damages? Suppose it wasn’t just any car, but a police cruiser? How is the store owner compensated?
Greenwood Village
The town of Greenwood Village, Colorado has addressed my pondering but I am afraid the answer leaves me with many more questions than answers.
Imagine you are in the bind of Leo Lech. Leo owns a home that is worth about $580,000. More accurately it was worth that amount. In 2015, Leo rented the home to his son and his son’s girlfriend. One day, while they were both at work, an armed shoplifter broke into the home. The criminal was being pursued by the police.
After refusing to give himself up, the police issued one final warning before all hell was allowed to break loose. The criminal answered the police with gunshots and the SWAT team essentially destroyed the home. All of the windows were blown out, tear gas permeated the structure, the structure was breached with an armored vehicle and virtually every wall was reduced to Swiss cheese. In all, the standoff lasted for 19 hours before the criminal gave himself up.
When the dust settled, the only victim was Mr. Lech’s home. He thought the city would pay for the damages. They laughed at him and the case was brought to court.
After adjudication, the federal appeals court ruled (according to the Denver Post): “a local police department does not have to compensate a homeowner whose house was destroyed by 19 hours of gunfire between officers and an armed shoplifting suspect who had chosen to barricade himself inside to evade arrest.”
In fact, the case was appealed and the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision. Lech was not entitled to anything from the city.
Temporary Living Assistance
The city did “award” Lech $5,000 in what they called temporary living assistance. Said Lech, “The bottom line is that destroying somebody’s home and throwing them out in the street by a government agency for whatever circumstances is not acceptable in a civilized society.”
There was somewhat of a silver lining (or perhaps brass) in that Lech’s insurance agreed to offer some compensation. They paid him $345,000 in damages. Some close to the case called the payment “a miracle” since the neighbor next-door to Lech suffered $70,000 in damages to his home and got nothing.
The City of Greenwood Village conceded:
“The Courts have recognized that while these types of events present difficult questions, the police should value life over property and may act pursuant to their police powers accordingly.”
Ethical Questions Raised
Given the ruling, I cannot help but think of the ethical questions that swirl around this case. My first question is if this ruling will always be equally applied? Suppose the police had shot up the mayor’s home or a high-profile celebrity’s home? Would there also be no compensation?
How will the IRS handle this situation? The victim is taking in excess of a $200,000 loss. Will he be able to claim that loss or the entire amount? The house, at last report, is so trashed it is uninhabitable.
Then there are other rumors swirling around this case. That the gunman was starting to “cave-in,” and that the force used was excessive and unnecessary. What might have happened had another hour or two been allowed to pass?
While the police were doing their jobs, does the average, law-abiding citizen have any property rights? It is not so easy and obvious an answer. Mr. Lech paid his taxes; he maintained the property and he undoubtedly made improvements that increased the property value. Does that not count for any consideration?
Finally, there is the long-standing matter of oversite. As the SWAT team was essentially destroying the home (and apparently much of the neighbor’s home) were they a bit too aggressive because they knew the law would always be on their side?
These questions all deserve ethical answers.
