No court expects a landlord to be aware of what transpires in a house at any given time. If that were the case the city could sue for the cost of the operation. The landlord could be expected to make periodic inspections but unless the house is tossed like a TV cop show there is no expectation to find bombs sitting out in the open waiting for discovery.
My bigger problem is that whole thing about the defendant’s lawyer not being allowed to get evidence out so that the renter could have a proper defense. As far as I’m concerned, that makes the entire trial corrupt and should make it non-binding. Since that would mean there is no possible proof of the crime, I’d say there is no argument that the homeowner shouldn’t be repaid.
Plus, I think you’d have to be pretty stupid not to be able to come up with a way to go into a house without setting off a booby trap. I can come up with one right now: have the actual guy go in the house with a camera where you could tell what he was doing and see any evidence he tries to destroy. (If he blows himself up, who cares?) He can get the defense’s evidence out, since it’s in his own best interest to do so. And then the homeowner can be contacted, and can decide whether she wants to pay someone to go in and fix the place, or have the government blow it up for her. The decision is hers, so she has no way to argue that she should be compensated.
More like you’d have to be pretty stupid to go into a house packed full of amateur explosives if you didn’t absolutely need to go in there. Remember, the job title is “Explosive Ordinance Disposal”, their job is to make the bomb go away as safely as possible, not necessarily to weave their way past unstable explosives and potential boobytraps when there’s no need to. A bomb squad tech I met at my last base said that his preferred tool for dealing with explosives was an M-14 with a scope. When there happened to not be a risk of collateral damage, it just didn’t make sense for them to get near the bomb when they could safely make it go away from a few hundred yards away.
Found the pictures from one of the other threads about this house. There’s not a lot of room to move around in that house by the looks of it. Assuming the bomb squad techs decided to wear body armor (which it would be pretty silly of them not to use, since they’re dealing with explosives), they’d have an incredibly hard time not bumping into or stepping on anything in there.
I use the same pictures to raise issue with the claim that the landlord would have to toss the place like a crime scene to notice something was seriously not kosher with the place. Every land lord I’ve had has made a point to do periodic inspections just to make sure the place was being taken care of (basic things, like garbage not piling up, the apartment itself not being damaged, smoke detectors and AC and water heater working properly, piles of amateur explosives not piled around in plain view, you know, normal stuff.)
Just a normal part of protecting their investment, and something you agree to up front (if you don’t want them checking on the place, no problem, just don’t sign the lease, and find living arrangements elsewhere). They DO give you a few days heads-up so you can spruce the place up and hide your DVD of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.
Seeing as they sent robots in and have ample video of the contents, including the bomb making materials, AND have TATP from the grounds, this is pretty much baloney.
Clearly, you have no understanding of EOD.
Ah, I see - Let’s send in the human canary! NO ONE will complain that the authorities sent the defendant in to die. No… That would never happen.
Not.
The man was so careless with his materials that he left explosives littering his yoard… And you think a slob like that knows where he’s dropped TATP inside that cluster mess…? (you have seen the images, haven’t you?)
I sure as heck wouldn’t run that risk.
Um, no. NO ONE does that kind of cleanup - Not even the EOD types were willing to chance it. If you can’t get the bomb squad to try it, there’s no way an abatement company is going to try it; Abatement companies don’t get paid to walk into minefields.
I was all set to give my opinion on this matter. Then I came across a mistake that I simply cannot let stand:
Throwing out charges against someone because they claim that the evidence that proves them innocent is in some remote, dangerous location sets an extraordinarily bad precedent. “Your honor, I can prove that I’m innocent, but the evidence is located at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. If the state won’t allow an effort to go and get it, then you have to let me go!”
Yes, that’s also a good idea. Let the crazed bomb maker have unfettered access to his bomb making materials stored in his heavily booby trapped house. There’s no way that could possibly go wrong.
Well, that’s the trick, isn’t it? If he blows himself up, fine, but there’s no guarantee he won’t also blow up his neighbors. The whole point of burning the place down was to destroy the explosives without detonating them, because detonating them was too dangerous.
Pay someone to fix it up? Like who? How many commercial bomb disposal enterprises do you think are out there?
Well, if he called it that, he’d be in real legal trouble! Have you seen the size of Warner Brothers’ legal department?! 
How about houses that are condemd after an earthquake, fire, or some other reason. The owner is denied the use of the house and in many cases have to tear the house down. The gov took control of the house away from the owner? Only in this case for the safety of the community they removed the danger. They could have insisted that the owner remove the danger in an approved manner. In the mean time the owner would be liable for his neighbors expences of finding alternitive living. Also the expence of garding the property.
I agree it is not the owners fault that the house was dangerous, but it was not the fault of the citizens of the county.
I know a landlord who saw the front door of one of his units being broke down on the news by the police. They were making a drug arrest. He got a nice letter from the police department and one from the city. Both were saying sorry about breaking down your front door but it was necessary, and oh if it happens again the city will just take posesition of your property.
He was not allowed to bill the city for the damage to his unit. And it took him 90 days to evect the tenant even though he was in jail.
I did my best phonetic transliteration from a youtube clip. I stand by it unless you can produce the actual script from the cartoon with the canon orthography.
[sub]dammit[/sub]
An earthquake is an act of God and insurable. And while the property owner isn’t responsible for tracking down criminals, the city is. So it’s a community funded effort to deal with problem. The cost of burning the house down goes to the city.
So it is the city’s fault that the house was left in an unsafe because the city is responsible for tracking down criminals.:smack:
The failure is the city’s and not the landlord’s. The precedent for compensating victims exists and that certainly would apply to a victim who was directly damaged by a government agency.
County, actually. The house sits in an unincorporated part of San Diego county that happens to be bordered by San Marcos and Escondido.
Compensating him as a victim is one thing and a posibility.