Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

ecstatic

(34,959 posts)

9. That sounds really unfair

Reply to In It to Win It (Original post)

Wed Oct 11, 2023, 09:55 PM

Oct 2023

Heartless asshole (corrupt?) judges covering for their partners in blue.

It is absolutely disgusting that a ruling like this could happen in this country, but at this point I'm not surprised. The past 8 years have really opened my eyes.

Just think about what this ruling means because it could happen to any of us. Hopefully homeowners insurance covers situations like this but who knows? How would one even begin that conversation? Hey Allstate, does my insurance cover SWAT team damage or is that an add-on benefit?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

18 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

5th Circuit holds that a homeowner may not recover when her house is destroyed by a SWAT team [View all] In It to Win It Oct 2023 OP

They aren't required to compensate for damages done when raiding the wrong ... marble falls Oct 2023 #1

dont ya know the gestapo is above the law nt msongs Oct 2023 #2

"where all sides agreed..." don't see how SWAT and all sides agreeing fit uponit7771 Oct 2023 #3

This is just wrong! markpkessinger Oct 2023 #4

And if there's a mortgage, the homeowner will be paying on nothing... brush Oct 2023 #8

Judge Higginson who wrote the opinion was appointed by Obama. former9thward Oct 2023 #11

Thanks. You're so helpful. But what about the other judges on the Fifth Circuit? brush Oct 2023 #12

Even if it's not legally *required*, what about some basic decency here? Silent3 Oct 2023 #5

"they should all contribute to a joint insurance fund to cover things like this" Hassin Bin Sober Oct 2023 #13

Are you saying the city probably is insured, but the city's insurer is fighting the payout? Silent3 Oct 2023 #14

Both. I'm saying this is very likely a battle behind the scenes of the insurance companies. Hassin Bin Sober Oct 2023 #15

As a society, we should protect citizens when they, through no fault of their own... Silent3 Oct 2023 #17

Works for me. Hassin Bin Sober Oct 2023 #18

If swat destroys my home they are oaying moonshinegnomie Oct 2023 #6

Future is not looking so good anywhere. PufPuf23 Oct 2023 #7

That sounds really unfair ecstatic Oct 2023 #9

Unless NowISeetheLight Oct 2023 #10

shithole court is loaded with RW appointees Celerity Oct 2023 #16