jnelsoninjax Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 GREENWOOD VILLAGE, Colo. - "There was one gunman with a handgun and they chose to turn this house into something that resembles Osama Bin Laden's compound." Leo Lech is more than a little upset, and he is not afraid to express it with colorful language. After all, the house he purchased for his son now has gaping holes where it once had walls and windows. Past the exposed studs and insulation of the condemned structure, you can see artwork on the wall of a 9-year-old boy's bedroom. "In any civilized nation ... this is the act of paramilitary thugs," he says he told the chief of the Greenwood Village Police Department. The chief, Lech said, brushed it off. The damage was inflicted by police and SWAT officers who were working to capture Robert Jonathan Seacat, a suspected 33-year-old shoplifter who allegedly barged into a random home Wednesday afternoon, and opened fire on police when they tried to arrest him a short time later. The incident began Wednesday afternoon, when he was allegedly spotted shoplifting in Aurora. Seacat then drove to a nearby light rail station, where he ditched his car and ran. Eventually, he ran into Lech's house on South Alton Street in Greenwood Village, where the 9-year-old boy was inside. Police dispatchers and the child's mother, who is engaged to Lech's son, talked the child out of the house. The boy was unhurt, but the standoff was just beginning. Seacat wasn't taken into custody until Thursday morning. The SWAT team said it used chemical agents, flash-bang grenades and a "breaching ram" to end the nearly 20-hour standoff. "There was obviously some kind of explosive that was fired into here," Lech said, showing 7NEWS anchor Anne Trujillo the cavernous hole in the wall that used to protect the boy's bedroom. Those holes are visible in nearly every room on the second floor. A neighbor, who says the SWAT team used his home as a base of operations, points out that whatever the police used to blast the holes sent debris flying. "When they used the explosives to blow apart the side of this house here, they broke our windshield," the neighbor said. "There are holes just like this one all through the back of the house too," Lech said. "They methodically fired explosives into every room in this house in order to extract one person. Granted, he had a handgun, but against 100 officers? You know, the proper thing to do would be to evacuate these homes around here, ensure the safety of the homeowners around here, fire some tear gas through the windows. If that didn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaceelf Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 "There was an engagement ring in there that would have been John's great-great grandmother's. It survived two World Wars, OK, but it didn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flawedspirit Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Glad to hear something good came out of it Erm, the ring didn't survive this. Also, jesus christ! Are the police forces in America just gonna drop the charade and just start calling themselves soldiers now? Because they're basically a military force now, one that is accountable to nothing and no one it seems. Gerowen and WAQT 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaceelf Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Erm, the ring didn't survive this. I know. Good times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flawedspirit Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 I know. Good times. Errr, yeah.... "good" times. I'm going to go stand far away from you now. Bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfirth Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 The police aren't liable for the damage. So they don't care. The criminal is liable for the damage he caused, including the damage done while the police were attempting to apprehend him. But good luck getting any money out of him. Especially while he's in prison. The insurance company will be waiting a long time to collect from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishanx Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Hey, I have the entire army against me in GTA V. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Overlord Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Hey, I have the entire army against me in GTA V. True, but the houses are indestructable, so it cancels that out. MikeChipshop 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeChipshop Member Posted June 7, 2015 Member Share Posted June 7, 2015 The police aren't liable for the damage. So they don't care. The criminal is liable for the damage he caused, including the damage done while the police were attempting to apprehend him. But good luck getting any money out of him. Especially while he's in prison. The insurance company will be waiting a long time to collect from him. So wait... Police have freedom to destroy innocent civilians belongings with no come back? Damn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_alex Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 I'm sure everything would have been a lot better if police behaved like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bOQitInC84 The internet is full of social justice warriors.... Praetor and FunkyMike 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trag3dy Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 So wait... Police have freedom to destroy innocent civilians belongings with no come back? Damn. First it was a stand off and second it was SWAT, not your regular police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyMike Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 I'm sure everything would have been a lot better if police behaved like this: The internet is full of social justice warriors.... .. in an alternate reality .. far far away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arachno 1D Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 But good luck getting any money out of him. Especially while he's in prison. The insurance company will be waiting a long time to collect from him. Wouldn't it be a weird twist in the tail if the accused actually didn't get prosecuted for the shoplifting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoctorD Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Well thank goodness he only robbed a place (sarcasm) , just imagine if he downloaded a song from an illegal site and violated copyright laws. .....The neighbors houses would have been gone as well. FunkyMike, The Evil Overlord and greenwizard88 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 First it was a stand off and second it was SWAT, not your regular police. Irrelevant. That still shouldn't give them carte blanche to destroy the property and homes of completely innocent people who's only "crime" was to exist. The police should be 100% responsible for the damage they cause. WAQT, Liana, Alera and 2 others 5 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arachno 1D Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Well thank goodness he only robbed a place Allegedly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 What's next... drone strikes? Sadly I'm not even joking. Alera 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rohdekill Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Irrelevant. That still shouldn't give them carte blanche to destroy the property and homes of completely innocent people who's only "crime" was to exist. The police should be 100% responsible for the damage they cause. Uhm...no. Why should taxpayers cough up money because of one idiot? The insurance covered the house. And, the insurance company will hound the criminal for the next 75 years to collect their money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spenser.d Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Uhm...no. Why should taxpayers cough up money because of one idiot? The insurance covered the house. And, the insurance company will hound the criminal for the next 75 years to collect their money. That's a pretty ###### system. I'm not okay with getting my house blown up by the police just because I have insurance. WAQT 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim K Global Moderator Posted June 7, 2015 Global Moderator Share Posted June 7, 2015 Well thank goodness he only robbed a place (sarcasm) , just imagine if he downloaded a song from an illegal site and violated copyright laws. .....The neighbors houses would have been gone as well. ...and fired at cops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 ...and fired at cops. And that justifies the cops destroying a house? Uhm...no. Why should taxpayers cough up money because of one idiot? The insurance covered the house. And, the insurance company will hound the criminal for the next 75 years to collect their money. Why should the home owner, renter, and insurance company bear the costs of the cops heavy handed incompetence to apprehend ONE criminal for a minor offence? Anibal P, The Evil Overlord and Stoffel 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim K Global Moderator Posted June 7, 2015 Global Moderator Share Posted June 7, 2015 And that justifies the cops destroying a house? Curious ... where did I say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Uhm...no. Why should taxpayers cough up money because of one idiot? The insurance covered the house. The police actions here were clearly unreasonable and excessive. They shouldn't be allowed to destroy a house and avoid any liability. The police should be held financially liable to prevent situations like this from occurring in the future. And, the insurance company will hound the criminal for the next 75 years to collect their money. He didn't cause the damage, therefore he has no liability. It was the police who damaged the building. The police here acted like children with new toys - 'oh look, explosives... I wanna go!', 'can I drive the tank through the fence?', 'I bet we could destroy this entire house!'. Not only is such behaviour reckless and disproportionate but it's also expensive. Explosives aren't cheap and having so many officers at the scene is extremely wasteful. This speaks to the systemic problems with policing in the US. WAQT 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Curious ... where did I say that? You accentuated the criminal's other crime, of firing at cops, effectively excusing their response to open fire in return (which is reasonable), but that action was far above and beyond an appropriate response. They should have backed off a little and waited the guy out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xendrome Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 and opened fire on police when they tried to arrest him a short time later. Making sure all of you noticed this before you comment, since the story is written as bait. BTW fixed the title. Jim K 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts