Thread by @billybinion

This is Carlos Pena. Last year, a SWAT team threw more than 30 grenades into his printing shop, destroying almost everything. Carlos was not suspected of a crime.

Then, the city left him with the bill. He can no longer make a steady living.

He's not the first victim. A thread.

It's not unheard of for SWAT teams to destroy innocent people's property—with extreme displays of force—while pursuing fugitives.

It's also not unheard of for the state to ruin those people's lives by refusing to pay them for the damages.

Which is what happened to Carlos. /2

In August 2022, a fugitive barricaded himself inside Carlos' shop. Cops threw dozens of teargas canisters, ravaging the walls, windows, ceilings & equipment. The fugitive escaped anyway.

Afterward, Carlos reached out to the city for help. The city says it's not their problem. /3

Carlos is now $60,000 in debt. And it has cost him tens of thousands of dollars in revenue from lost clients.

Since the government destroyed his shop & its contents, he now has to work out of his garage—at a much-reduced capacity—just to survive. /4 reason.com/2023/07/27/a-s…

This is Leo & Alfonsina Lech. In 2015, a SWAT team blew up their home while in pursuit of a suspected shoplifter.

The Lechs had to demolish their house, which was worth $580,000. The city gave them all of $5,000.

A federal court ruled that was OK. /5 https://t.co/voqTZJX4wyreason.com/2020/06/29/swa…

Some courts have said that the gov't can destroy innocent people's things without having to pay for it as long as the action was taken under "police powers."

Most insurance policies don't cover damage caused by gov't. Which means those victims sometimes end up with nothing. /6

This is Vicki Baker. In 2020, a SWAT team threw explosives into her home, smashed every window, and drove through the door in a BearCat armored vehicle. Again, they were pursuing a suspect who had barricaded himself inside her house.

And again, the government refused to pay. /7

Vicki is in her 70s. She had stage 3 cancer & was hoping to retire. But the raid turned her life upside-down. "I've lost everything," she told me.

The city then told her she didn't meet their definition of "victim."

This is what her house looked like. /8 https://t.co/k9FnAvNm44reason.com/2021/03/05/swa…

After SWAT destroyed her home, she spent $50,000 making repairs, some of which she took from her retirement. She filled two 40-foot dumpsters with ruined belongings. Her daughter's dog went deaf and blind during the raid.

But sure, the government says she's not a victim. /9

Vicki sued. The city did everything it could to block her from getting help after it ruined her home. Imagine dying on that hill.

The good: A judge sided w/ her, calling the law "untenable."

The bad: It didn't set precedent, so there will be more Vicki Bakers in the future. /10

Carlos is also suing. He says he doesn't fault the police for trying to subdue a fugitive.

But he wants the court to say what should be obvious: The government cannot destroy an innocent person's life—and then leave them hanging out to dry. /end reason.com/2023/07/27/a-s…