Police Break Into House Under Restoration

Homeowner Upset Police Used House For Training

WTF? Am I reading this wrong, or is the Kansas City police department in the habit of randomly looking around for vacant houses to bust into for training exercises without bothering to, oh, check and see if they belong to somebody? :eek:

And presumably break into a house without probable cause and/or a warrant?

Why am I not at all surprised? Odds are the owner won’t get a penny out of them, either.

He should be thankful it wasn’t the fire department doing the training! :slight_smile:

People are actually shocked that cops don’t have respect for the property of mere ‘civilians’?

I’m shocked. When I read the preview I thought it would be a case of police busting in because they thought it was a drugs den or something. This adds a whole new terror to “buy to let”. Got no renters in? Well, the police will be along shortly to kick in the door and rampage around the house. How is this legal?

Lots of departments use vacant houses for training. We do it all the time. They’re great for room clearing excersises and other scenarios.

That’s the absoulutely outrageous part! Finding out if a dwelling is abandoned is as easy as checking the web site of the County Treasurers office, or if it’s not on there, making a phone call to that office. About 3 minutes work either way! Somebody fucked up and they should pay!!

So I guess roast duck with mango salsa would be out of the question?

I’m not 100% happy with your tone…

:wink:

What I don’t get is that the Police somehow think it’s OK to break down the door of a house that’s vacant. :eek:

The house still isn’t government property, they have no right to damage it or leave it open to vandalism and squating.

Looks like someone woke up on the wrong side of the rock.

There’s a difference between vacant and abandoned. Vacant just means that someone doesn’t happen to be living there at the time, but the property is still owned by someone. Abandoned property may revert to local government ownership depending on the laws of the jurisdiction(s) involved.

The police’s actions are understandable if some error gave them bad information that the property had been abandoned rather than merely vacant (and therefore seized by the government for public health and safety reasons). Of course, the blame would then attach to the bureaucrat responsible for the screwup.

However, the story doesn’t mention that, so I have to assume that the police did not offer that as a defense.

If you read the whole article, it does say the police asked the previous owner of the vacant house if they could use it for training. He told them no, but I’m guessing this is more a case of an address accidently winding up on the wrong list, rather than deliberate malice.

I don’t think anyone is accusing the relevant police of malice. It just seems to be a case of negligently not making sure that either the house was abandoned or that they had permission from the owner. If it were malicious, then it would be a crime, but with mere negligence, they still should pay the owner for the damage.

I’m not sure that I’m any more comfortable with the concept that the cops were incompetent, vs. malicious.

Malice probably wasn’t the right word. Some previous posters seem to be of the opinion that the police just drive around looking for vacant houses to break into. It seems more likely here that the address accidently got onto the “have permission from owner to come in at night and wreck up the place” list due to a paperwork error.

Of course the police dept. should pay for all the damages.

Maybe you ought to tell the KC police that. The police spokesperson quoted in the story used the term “vacant.”

I also love this bit:

So they admit that the cops used the house for training, and they admit this to a news organization on the public record, but they’re still not going to actually do anything about it until he files a claim.

Is their bureaucratic machinery really so fucking backward that they can’t begin the investigation and the process of reimbursement on their own?

I’m not going to worry about it until they start shooting people. Just for practice. You know, because they didn’t look like had anything important to do.

“Vacant”, “vagrant”, what’s the difference?