Justices: Maybe The Takings Clause Doesn’t Cover Destroying An Innocent Person’s Home To Arrest A Suspect
Justices: Maybe The Takings Clause Doesn’t Cover Destroying An Innocent Person’s Home To Arrest A Suspect
This may not mean much in the grand scheme of things but it’s good to see these objections on the record. It’s incremental, but in these times, every increment helps, especially when th…
from the too-little,-too-late,-and-actually-probably-nothing dept
*We conclude that, as a matter of history and precedent, the Takings Clause does not require compensation for damaged or destroyed property when it was objectively necessary for officers to damage or destroy that property in an active emergency to prevent imminent harm to persons. *
Except that the hostage had already been released. There was no imminent harm to persons because the police had the guy cornered alone in a house. They could have called in negotiators and waited the guy out. Their actions were by no means necessary to prevent harm.
We bombed the apartment complex because it was necessary to find the suspect, who was not in the apartment complex, and who was, in fact, not actually the correct suspect, and who, in fact, was a name we made up just to fuck with people because we respect and uphold the law.