Oh my. Wish you the best with everything. Is your home where the two lost their life or where the police executed a search warrant? Regardless, both homes will present challenges to the landlord. Keep us posted as to what you find out.
I don't envy your position right now my friend.
We need more people like this in the World. Maybe this will start a new trend and become a revolution opposed to the flip side that we get blasted with on TV. MTV Cribs, with people flaunting their 14 cars and 70,000 sqft houses for a family of two. Not hating, everyone is entitled to their freedoms, it's just nice to see quality people doing good things and trying to inspire others with their actions. Kudos young man, kudos!!
I missed where it stated he was going to kill his gf in the video. No they should not have walked away. They could have waited it out a while longer. Honestly I'm not even trying to second guess their tactics as I was not on scene. . I was a little surprised to hear 60 cans of tear gas in a 1200 sqft house though. I was just trying to make the point that it would cost the city more money to wait the guy out opposed to fuming him out.
BTW, if the tear gas would have started a fire, the landlord policy would have paid. Go figure. Maybe this is an issue to take to the insurance commissioner. It would be nice for landlords to at least have an option to purchase a rider for this. In the end, I think you will find the city paying for the damages.
2/2. The main point is not the landlord selecting better tenants, but the PD using better tactics. Police could have waited out the situation however it would have cost the city more money. The criminal was a danger to the public due to a felony warrant, however was not presenting an immediate danger. He was more of an inconvenience by not comming out and obeying the law. Police should foot the bill and subra gate against the criminal. When making entree through a door they often pay to replace it. It's a factored cost of doing business. This is an ugly situation for the landlord that I hope comes to a happy resolution.
Landlord Insurance policies specifically exclude situations like this when a government body does the damage. You can reference the Washington State Insurance commissioners website for supporting info. So your comment of purchasing better insurance sounds good, but is invalid.
I would reserve judgement on your comment of selecting a better tenant, as this could happen to a tenant who has no record. The criminal also could have been a visitor. The tragic incident where we lost Dep. Kent Mundell (God rest his soul) was a visitor and relative of the homeowner.
Cont.....1/2
The question I have is regarding rules of engagement. In this situation does an officer/Troop have the authority to fire a shot when his life is no longer in immediate danger? Its hard to speculate, but I would guess the kid did not intentionally run his foot over? This question has come up a lot with all the burglarys and homeowners shooting back. I know the rules are different for LEO's. From the article, I would draw the conclusion that the officers life was no longer in danger. Maybe firing out of anger or to stop a potential threat to the public? I would be pissed if someone ran over my foot. This is the second Troop to get his foot ran over in the past week. I'm glad the trooper was not seriously hurt and the kid has a chance to count his lucky stars and hopefully make a change for the better. Also happy a bystander was not struck by an errant piece of flying lead.
Only because of Benefits, Debt and other Admin Items that come along with marriage. The physical and emotional crap from the marriage is none of anyone's business. It's not the action as much as the damage path left. You will never see a Man or Gal with money leave the door open.
The Lady above "MomAlwaysSays", demonstrates the nightmare that comes along with a spouse not finalizing the paperwork. It sounds like she now is Legally Liable for this man's new life, because again, the paperwork was not completed.
At first, it seems the law is against the action, but in reality it's there as a stop gap, or financial protection. I think getting emtionally destroyed should be enough, lol.
It sounds like this is more of an administration issue than anything else. If the guy had malice for financial gain then I would say charge the man with a crime. If this is a situation where he was separated and the paper work was never completed or whatever complications comes with filing Divorce paperwork, give the man a warning to clear the administrative paperwork up or face charges. Charging this man with a crime when he has no other crimes on his record seems a little drastic. I assume there are no other crimes as he currently holds a job as a LOE. By charging him with a Crime, it will jeopardize his ability to earn an income. Again, if there was intent for financial gain, all bets are off, if not, let’s go after the real criminals and not bog down the system. In Pierce County, I was a victim of Fraud. I was able to identify the suspect by tracing back a Pizza Delivery he made to a residence with my stolen credit card. The Detective proceeded to tell me he had a stack of these cases pilled to the ceiling. NO CHARGES WERE EVER FILED.
The Total Fraud on the Credit Card came to $12, 800. We noticed the fraud when our 1st Card arrived and we called to activate it.
There must be more to the Story because the Article is lacking.
CONT: FROM ABOVES POST 2/2
I can understand that the State could not take away full visitations due to the fact he had not been charged with crime, but for Pete sake, the man was thought to have killed his wife. He should have never been able to see the children in a place he controlled. The children should have been protected.
We protect criminals and politicians better than we protect helpless vulnerable children. Things need to change; it’s not Rocket Science Olympia.
Disgusting and it makes me want to throw up. This story has been the most Gut Wrenching Story I have ever herd about. Pure Evil.
The State of Washington Removed the Children from Josh Powell because they felt Josh "WAS" (NOT COULD, BUT WAS) a Danger to his Children. The State proved to be 100% correct with their assumption.
The State should have taken every Step at their disposal to ensure these children were Protected and failed upon their Legally Obligated Duty. This is not so much about a lawsuit as it is the State Failed these children and it cost them their lives. If our State Legislator can pass the “Blue Light bill” to gain media attention in an opportune time, they sure as hell can pass legislation to insure a process to protect innocent children upon visitation. Sending the un-armed backup, to a suspected Murders house with two young children is flat out reprehensible.
Cont. 1/2
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Creation