From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

I'm going to push BTR701's buttons a bit by saying Kelo v. City of New
London (2005), the opinion written by Stevens that was widely condemned,
that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not offer
comprehensive protection to property owners harmed by bad acts that are
legal under eminent domain law of their own states. I believe strongly
in federalism and dislike federal courts ignoring stronger guaranties of justice found in state constitutions in the perpetual zeal to harmonize
all law across the country (for the benefit of, spit, our largest corporations). While Keto dealt with necessity, it didn't deal with
police actions in an emergency, and is not on point.

Not being a lawyer, I never understand why arguments under state law
aren't raised nor why federal judges do not always rule on state law (in situations in which they have not been found unconstitutional under
fedreal law). Here is one of those scenarios.

I'm not sure if this case is Baker v. City of McKinney, Texas, or
McKinney v. Baker. This is the second time it's been to the Fifth
Circuit, and this time, the municipality was the appellant and should be
named first. But I couldn't spot references.

In 2020, McKinney police chasing a fugitive who hid in a bystander's
house, the home of Vicki Baker, did $10s of thousands of damage to the
home to capture the fugitive. Doctrines of necessity and public safety
mean that the property owner has no protection from police action, The
question is if, in the aftermath, they are owed compensation for the
tort. Just because property was destroyed in police action, does the
property owner, uninvolved in sheltering the fugitive from justice,
simply bear the loss? A loss of this type isn't typically covered by
insurance.

In the first instance, she filed in federal court, lost at trial, then
lost again on appeal. She sought protection under the Fifth Amendment,
which was denied.

In the second instance, she went back to federal court but made
arguments under the Texas state constitution. This is an Institute for
Justice case (I'm not sure when they began representing her). Steve
Lehto did a video and made a point that because various states joined
the union later in its history, there was more experience with various provisions of the law and would write stronger language in their state constitutions than comparable language in the federal constitution.

She won at trial court and on appeal.

On second appeal, a Trump judge on the panel remarked that Steele v.
City of Houston (1980), a Texas supreme court case, raised as precedent
in Baker's favor, was "pretty devastating for your position" to
McKinney during argument.

I would ask, did Baker have rotten counsel the first time around? Here
is a state law ruling on similar-enough facts in support of her
positiln. Why not sue in state court if federal precedent is lacking?

https://www.courthousenews.com/fifth-circuit-grapples-with-citys-liability-for-home-destroyed-in-swat-raid/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBzfn3OEyYQ
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On May 24, 2026 at 11:57:15 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

I'm going to push BTR701's buttons a bit by saying Kelo v. City of New
London (2005), the opinion written by Stevens that was widely condemned,
that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not offer
comprehensive protection to property owners harmed by bad acts that are
legal under eminent domain law of their own states. I believe strongly
in federalism and dislike federal courts ignoring stronger guaranties of justice found in state constitutions in the perpetual zeal to harmonize
all law across the country (for the benefit of, spit, our largest corporations). While Keto dealt with necessity, it didn't deal with
police actions in an emergency, and is not on point.

Not being a lawyer, I never understand why arguments under state law
aren't raised nor why federal judges do not always rule on state law (in situations in which they have not been found unconstitutional under
fedreal law). Here is one of those scenarios.

I'm not sure if this case is Baker v. City of McKinney, Texas, or
McKinney v. Baker. This is the second time it's been to the Fifth
Circuit, and this time, the municipality was the appellant and should be named first. But I couldn't spot references.

In 2020, McKinney police chasing a fugitive who hid in a bystander's
house, the home of Vicki Baker, did $10s of thousands of damage to the
home to capture the fugitive. Doctrines of necessity and public safety
mean that the property owner has no protection from police action, The question is if, in the aftermath, they are owed compensation for the
tort. Just because property was destroyed in police action, does the
property owner, uninvolved in sheltering the fugitive from justice,
simply bear the loss? A loss of this type isn't typically covered by insurance.

In the first instance, she filed in federal court, lost at trial

?!?!? She *lost* at trial?

That must have been some magnificent BULL-level jury selection on the part of the city's lawyers. How did they find twelve ordinary people who, after being given the facts of the case, somehow sided with the *government*? Twelve
people who thought it was perfectly reasonable for the government to destroy your house, then walk away without even so much as an apology, let alone compensation for the damage.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On May 24, 2026 at 11:57:15 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

I would ask, did Baker have rotten counsel the first time around? Here
is a state law ruling on similar-enough facts in support of her
positiln. Why not sue in state court if federal precedent is lacking?

https://www.courthousenews.com/fifth-circuit-grapples-with-citys-liability-for-home-destroyed-in-swat-raid/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBzfn3OEyYQ

Ironically, just before seeing your post, I was watching a police dasocam
video of a high speed chase in Ohio. At one point during the chase, the cop overcompensated and sideswiped an innocent person pulled over on the shoulder and caused significant damage to her vehicle. The cop recovered and kept on with the chase.

I was thinking, I bet the PD tries to weasel out of paying that woman for her truck. If she's smart, she'll also claim to have resulting pain from the
impact so that they're motivated to give her actual replacement value (instead of Blue Book value) for her vehicle to avoid a much larger jury award at trial for her pain.

I also think the cop could be guilty of a felony-- hit and run. He smashed
into her and then left the scene. He can't claim that there was necessity to catch the fleeing felon because there were about 12 other cops also chasing him, so his presence wasn't necessary. The law requires he (like all the rest of us) remain at the scene and render aid. Instead, he left.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 24, 2026 at 11:57:15 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

. . .

In the first instance, she filed in federal court, lost at trial

?!?!? She *lost* at trial?

I apologize. I screwed up. This was an Institute for Justice case frpm
the start. They argued she had rights under BOTH the federal and state constitutions.

The jury ruled in her favor... under the federal constitution. Juries
don't rule on the law so that had to be the court's instructions. She
lost on first appeal, that her rights to be made whole in the aftermath
of a police emergency did not exist in Fifth Amendment Takings Clause precedent, but they said in the ruling that that take no opinion on
whether the state constitution protects her rights.

Huge hint: Refile and make your argument under state law only.

. . .

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

Verily, in article <10uvj0a$ntc0$5@dont-email.me>, did atropos@mac.com
deliver unto us this message:

I also think the cop could be guilty of a felony-- hit and run. He smashed into her and then left the scene. He can't claim that there was necessity to catch the fleeing felon because there were about 12 other cops also chasing him, so his presence wasn't necessary. The law requires he (like all the rest of us) remain at the scene and render aid. Instead, he left.

Even if it legally qualifies, the other cops won't arrest him. It
wouldn't even get to the DA declining to bring charges.

Overall, I think it's good that there are a lot of places where human
judgment can halt the justice machine. It helps the lawfully but
wrongfully accused. Unfortunately, it also lets the system enforcerers
treat themselves as a special class.
--
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 5/24/2026 3:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On May 24, 2026 at 11:57:15 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

I'm going to push BTR701's buttons a bit by saying Kelo v. City of New
London (2005), the opinion written by Stevens that was widely condemned,
that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not offer
comprehensive protection to property owners harmed by bad acts that are
legal under eminent domain law of their own states. I believe strongly
in federalism and dislike federal courts ignoring stronger guaranties of
justice found in state constitutions in the perpetual zeal to harmonize
all law across the country (for the benefit of, spit, our largest
corporations). While Keto dealt with necessity, it didn't deal with
police actions in an emergency, and is not on point.

Not being a lawyer, I never understand why arguments under state law
aren't raised nor why federal judges do not always rule on state law (in
situations in which they have not been found unconstitutional under
fedreal law). Here is one of those scenarios.

I'm not sure if this case is Baker v. City of McKinney, Texas, or
McKinney v. Baker. This is the second time it's been to the Fifth
Circuit, and this time, the municipality was the appellant and should be
named first. But I couldn't spot references.

In 2020, McKinney police chasing a fugitive who hid in a bystander's
house, the home of Vicki Baker, did $10s of thousands of damage to the
home to capture the fugitive. Doctrines of necessity and public safety
mean that the property owner has no protection from police action, The
question is if, in the aftermath, they are owed compensation for the
tort. Just because property was destroyed in police action, does the
property owner, uninvolved in sheltering the fugitive from justice,
simply bear the loss? A loss of this type isn't typically covered by
insurance.

In the first instance, she filed in federal court, lost at trial

?!?!? She *lost* at trial?

That must have been some magnificent BULL-level jury selection on the part of the city's lawyers. How did they find twelve ordinary people who, after being given the facts of the case, somehow sided with the *government*? Twelve people who thought it was perfectly reasonable for the government to destroy your house, then walk away without even so much as an apology, let alone compensation for the damage.

I don't know about this instance, but... in one where the perp poses a
lethal threat, the cops would be *obliged* to disregard property damages
in order to capture him. Logically, imo, liability would be the perp's.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On May 24, 2026 at 1:01:24 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 5/24/2026 3:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On May 24, 2026 at 11:57:15 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

I'm going to push BTR701's buttons a bit by saying Kelo v. City of New
London (2005), the opinion written by Stevens that was widely condemned, >>> that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not offer
comprehensive protection to property owners harmed by bad acts that are >>> legal under eminent domain law of their own states. I believe strongly
in federalism and dislike federal courts ignoring stronger guaranties of >>> justice found in state constitutions in the perpetual zeal to harmonize >>> all law across the country (for the benefit of, spit, our largest
corporations). While Keto dealt with necessity, it didn't deal with
police actions in an emergency, and is not on point.

Not being a lawyer, I never understand why arguments under state law
aren't raised nor why federal judges do not always rule on state law (in >>> situations in which they have not been found unconstitutional under
fedreal law). Here is one of those scenarios.

I'm not sure if this case is Baker v. City of McKinney, Texas, or
McKinney v. Baker. This is the second time it's been to the Fifth
Circuit, and this time, the municipality was the appellant and should be >>> named first. But I couldn't spot references.

In 2020, McKinney police chasing a fugitive who hid in a bystander's
house, the home of Vicki Baker, did $10s of thousands of damage to the
home to capture the fugitive. Doctrines of necessity and public safety
mean that the property owner has no protection from police action, The
question is if, in the aftermath, they are owed compensation for the
tort. Just because property was destroyed in police action, does the
property owner, uninvolved in sheltering the fugitive from justice,
simply bear the loss? A loss of this type isn't typically covered by
insurance.

In the first instance, she filed in federal court, lost at trial

?!?!? She *lost* at trial?

That must have been some magnificent BULL-level jury selection on the part >> of
the city's lawyers. How did they find twelve ordinary people who, after
being
given the facts of the case, somehow sided with the *government*? Twelve
people who thought it was perfectly reasonable for the government to destroy
your house, then walk away without even so much as an apology, let alone
compensation for the damage.

I don't know about this instance, but... in one where the perp poses a lethal threat, the cops would be *obliged* to disregard property damages
in order to capture him. Logically, imo, liability would be the perp's.

Well, as the Texas Supreme Court said in Steele: "We do not hold that the police officers wrongfully ordered the destruction of the dwelling; we hold that the innocent third parties are entitled by the Constitution to compensation for their property."


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 24, 2026 at 1:01:24 PM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

. . .

I don't know about this instance, but... in one where the perp poses a >>lethal threat, the cops would be *obliged* to disregard property damages >>in order to capture him. Logically, imo, liability would be the perp's.

Well, as the Texas Supreme Court said in Steele: "We do not hold that the >police officers wrongfully ordered the destruction of the dwelling; we hold >that the innocent third parties are entitled by the Constitution to >compensation for their property."

The fugitive would be liable for the damage he caused, and for damage
from forseeable consequences. In the home invasion, the broken door then injures an occupant, that's forseeable. But the police used various
tactics that the fugitive is not responsible for, tear gas and other
poisonous chemicals, armoured vehicles that destroyed the outside
property. They punched through a wall, destroyed windows, and of course
there were bullet holes.

Let's reject moviePig logic for not being logical in any way.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On May 24, 2026 at 1:39:25 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 24, 2026 at 1:01:24 PM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

. . .

I don't know about this instance, but... in one where the perp poses a
lethal threat, the cops would be *obliged* to disregard property damages >>> in order to capture him. Logically, imo, liability would be the perp's.

Well, as the Texas Supreme Court said in Steele: "We do not hold that the
police officers wrongfully ordered the destruction of the dwelling; we hold >> that the innocent third parties are entitled by the Constitution to
compensation for their property."

The fugitive would be liable for the damage he caused, and for damage
from forseeable consequences. In the home invasion, the broken door then injures an occupant, that's forseeable. But the police used various
tactics that the fugitive is not responsible for, tear gas and other poisonous chemicals, armoured vehicles that destroyed the outside
property. They punched through a wall, destroyed windows, and of course
there were bullet holes.

Let's reject moviePig logic for not being logical in any way.

The government should pay the homeowner, then recover whatever it can from the criminal. In no event should the homeowner just be told, "To bad, so sad" and left to bear the loss on their own.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 24, 2026 at 1:39:25 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 24, 2026 at 1:01:24 PM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

. . .

I don't know about this instance, but... in one where the perp poses a >>>>lethal threat, the cops would be *obliged* to disregard property damages >>>>in order to capture him. Logically, imo, liability would be the perp's.

Well, as the Texas Supreme Court said in Steele: "We do not hold that the >>>police officers wrongfully ordered the destruction of the dwelling; we hold >>>that the innocent third parties are entitled by the Constitution to >>>compensation for their property."

The fugitive would be liable for the damage he caused, and for damage
from forseeable consequences. In the home invasion, the broken door then >>injures an occupant, that's forseeable. But the police used various
tactics that the fugitive is not responsible for, tear gas and other >>poisonous chemicals, armoured vehicles that destroyed the outside
property. They punched through a wall, destroyed windows, and of course >>there were bullet holes.

Let's reject moviePig logic for not being logical in any way.

The government should pay the homeowner, then recover whatever it can from the >criminal. In no event should the homeowner just be told, "To bad, so sad" and >left to bear the loss on their own.

With the strong language in Steele, what is your theory on why Institute
for Justice didn't file in state court to begin with?

Lehto read the comparable language from Texas's constitution.

Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution ("Taking
Property for Public Use; Grant of Special Privileges")

(a) No person's property shall be taken, damaged, or destroyed
for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being
made, unless by the consent of such person, and only if the
taking, damage, or destruction is for: (1) the ownership, use,
and enjoyment of the property, notwithstanding an incidental
use, by: (A) the State, a political subdivision of the State, or
the public at large; or (B) an entity granted the power of
eminent domain under law; or (2) the elimination of urban blight
on a particular parcel of property.

I disagree with Lehto. He said the language is similar enough to the
federao constitution that he didn't see it granting additional rights.

But the word "damaged" is in there. There have been court arguments and
rulings in which the property owner lost, with "taking" interpreted to
apply to the property in whole, but in part. Baker's home was damaged,
but not taken as a whole. If the federal constitution doesn't recognize pro-rating the taking or trying to figure out what use remains to the
property owner, like being left with an unbuildable lot thanks to
building and zoning codes, the Texas constitution's language appears to.

Lehto simply said that for whatever reason, the Fifth Circuit lacks
pred\ident under this particular set of fact, damage due to police
protecting the public.

Say, look at federalism-in-action here:

(b) In this section, "public use" does not include the taking of
property under Subsection (a) of this section for transfer to a
private entity for the primary purpose of economic development
or enhancement of tax revenues.

(c) On or after January 1, 2010, the Legislature may enact a
general, local, or special law granting the power of eminent
domain to an entity only on a two-thirds vote of all the members
elected to each House.

Keto is not the law in Texas!

But then we get

(d) When a person's property is taken under Subsection (a) of
this section, except for the use of the State, compensation as
described by Subsection (a) shall be first made, or secured by a
deposit of money; and no irrevocable or uncontrollable grant of
special privileges or immunities shall be made; but all
privileges and franchises granted by the Legislature, or created
under its authority, shall be subject to the control thereof.

and we are back to the hypocrisy of eminent domain. The state has
reserved "quick take" to itself. The property is taken up front; the
fight about just compensation occurs later. The property owner, having
lost the property, is in a very weak position.

Utilities and railroads and highway agencies have this power given their
need for useful rights of way, but generally, this shouldn't be allowed
for all takings.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 5/24/2026 4:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On May 24, 2026 at 1:01:24 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 5/24/2026 3:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On May 24, 2026 at 11:57:15 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>> wrote:

I'm going to push BTR701's buttons a bit by saying Kelo v. City of New >>>> London (2005), the opinion written by Stevens that was widely condemned, >>>> that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not offer
comprehensive protection to property owners harmed by bad acts that are >>>> legal under eminent domain law of their own states. I believe strongly >>>> in federalism and dislike federal courts ignoring stronger guaranties of >>>> justice found in state constitutions in the perpetual zeal to harmonize >>>> all law across the country (for the benefit of, spit, our largest
corporations). While Keto dealt with necessity, it didn't deal with
police actions in an emergency, and is not on point.

Not being a lawyer, I never understand why arguments under state law >>>> aren't raised nor why federal judges do not always rule on state law (in >>>> situations in which they have not been found unconstitutional under
fedreal law). Here is one of those scenarios.

I'm not sure if this case is Baker v. City of McKinney, Texas, or
McKinney v. Baker. This is the second time it's been to the Fifth
Circuit, and this time, the municipality was the appellant and should be >>>> named first. But I couldn't spot references.

In 2020, McKinney police chasing a fugitive who hid in a bystander's >>>> house, the home of Vicki Baker, did $10s of thousands of damage to the >>>> home to capture the fugitive. Doctrines of necessity and public safety >>>> mean that the property owner has no protection from police action, The >>>> question is if, in the aftermath, they are owed compensation for the >>>> tort. Just because property was destroyed in police action, does the >>>> property owner, uninvolved in sheltering the fugitive from justice,
simply bear the loss? A loss of this type isn't typically covered by >>>> insurance.

In the first instance, she filed in federal court, lost at trial

?!?!? She *lost* at trial?

That must have been some magnificent BULL-level jury selection on the part
of
the city's lawyers. How did they find twelve ordinary people who, after >>> being
given the facts of the case, somehow sided with the *government*? Twelve >>> people who thought it was perfectly reasonable for the government to destroy
your house, then walk away without even so much as an apology, let alone >>> compensation for the damage.

I don't know about this instance, but... in one where the perp poses a
lethal threat, the cops would be *obliged* to disregard property damages
in order to capture him. Logically, imo, liability would be the perp's.

Well, as the Texas Supreme Court said in Steele: "We do not hold that the police officers wrongfully ordered the destruction of the dwelling; we hold that the innocent third parties are entitled by the Constitution to compensation for their property."

I don't question the "fairness" of their entitlement. but I have a hard
time seeing (in my example instance) either the cops or the govt.
responsible as other than automatons. I take no issue with the govt. compensating for damages it wreaks in enforcing the will of the people, provided that policy has been agreed as part of the social contract.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2