5th Circuit holds that a homeowner may not recover when her house is destroyed by a SWAT team

[Silent3]

14. Are you saying the city probably is insured, but the city's insurer is fighting the payout?

Or are you saying the victim is insured, but the victim's insurer is fighting providing a payout?

In case there's any confusion about what I said, I was talking about cities having insurance for things like this -- the kind of insurance that would cover damage caused by ANY raid that wasn't the fault of a homeowner who was raided, not the kind of insurance that only pays out when the police explicitly fuck up.

We shouldn't screw people over just because a criminal breaks into their house, and then the police go in and cause rampant destruction, proper procedure our not, going after the criminal.

Now if this victim has been made whole already due to their own insurance and/or donations, then I'd agree there's no reason for the city to pay them even more.