Family gets $333,000 for 2009 raid in which cops killed dog

[percysunshine]

Apparently you've never been to a dog park. They all wear their collars, and sometimes they get in fights. WITH EACH OTHER. Not with the people attending them.

I notice you skipped the bit about what would happen at my house.

Oops, I ment 'leash'.

At your house, you tell the dogs, by voice intonation, or action, that the stranger is 'OK'. Dogs are good at picking up on that stuff. Better than some people are.

 

[BDBoop]

Loved this response by XveryYpettyZ on Fark.

It's a 9 year-old black lab.... so of course they should have shot him.

Old dogs are just wilier than young dogs, and black labs are known to be excessively aggressive. No doubt the dog was just ACTING like most labs ("People!!!??!??! I LOVE people!!!!") before it sprang into action and wiped out an entire city block.

 

[DiAnna]

Not only do I agree with the award, I believe the officers involved should be disciplined by the department, and have a reprimand in their permanent records.

The boy asked permission to get the dog, and was denied. The dog was literally shot in cold blood. Certainly the jury thought so. I can't imagine the horror and grief I would experience to see a beloved pet of nine years murdered in front of my eyes.

I hope this award is upheld on appeals, and only wish the punitive damages levied against the officers involved had been higher instead of basically pocket change.

 

[FA_Q2]

Way, way, WAY too much. Are you all on crack. There is no reason for a settlement of that size over a dog. I don't care how much they loved it. This is one of the problems with our legal system. If they had bulldozed the house it would not have been as much as that and I, for one, would not burn my house down to save my dog. Sorry.
What should have happened was jail time for the officers and loss of all benefits associated with the job. This was a crime but I don't think it was something that can be paid for civilly.

 

[editec]

No comment on the dollar amount of the award.

But I didn't read that these cops were put in prison for home invasion and domestic terrorism.

Hence my conclusion is that justice was still not served.

 

[BDBoop]

Way, way, WAY too much. Are you all on crack. There is no reason for a settlement of that size over a dog. I don't care how much they loved it. This is one of the problems with our legal system. If they had bulldozed the house it would not have been as much as that and I, for one, would not burn my house down to save my dog. Sorry.
What should have happened was jail time for the officers and loss of all benefits associated with the job. This was a crime but I don't think it was something that can be paid for civilly.

Do you even have a dog. And if you think we're all on crack, then you think that a federal jury was as well. The cops fucked up six ways from Sunday, and I'm sorry you'd rather be living in China, but you DON'T get to shoot THE FAMILY DOG for no good reason.

Had there BEEN a good reason, the case would not have been heard and awarded, with punitive damages as well.

The award was fair. It was none of that multi-million dollar shit. Those boys grew up with that dog. Nothing would have prepared them for seeing their 9 y/o dog shot and killed before their eyes.

You dimwatt.

 

[CMike]

Good

 

[FA_Q2]

Way, way, WAY too much. Are you all on crack. There is no reason for a settlement of that size over a dog. I don't care how much they loved it. This is one of the problems with our legal system. If they had bulldozed the house it would not have been as much as that and I, for one, would not burn my house down to save my dog. Sorry.
What should have happened was jail time for the officers and loss of all benefits associated with the job. This was a crime but I don't think it was something that can be paid for civilly.

Do you even have a dog. And if you think we're all on crack, then you think that a federal jury was as well. The cops fucked up six ways from Sunday, and I'm sorry you'd rather be living in China, but you DON'T get to shoot THE FAMILY DOG for no good reason.

Had there BEEN a good reason, the case would not have been heard and awarded, with punitive damages as well.

The award was fair. It was none of that multi-million dollar shit. Those boys grew up with that dog. Nothing would have prepared them for seeing their 9 y/o dog shot and killed before their eyes.

You dimwatt.

I have had plenty of dogs. My first lived 21 years. 300K is asinine. I never said the cops should get away with it nor did I say what they did was OK. That is why I said that they should see JAIL time. Instead, we get the taxpayers shoveling our hundreds of thousands of dollars for a dog. NO, that settlement was not justified.

 

[CMike]

Honestly, I understand why the police wouldn't give them to secure the dog. They are probably afraid that they can get rid of evidence.

That said I agree with the award. Dogs are dear parts of the family.

 

[George Costanza]

Hate to tell you this, folks, but the measure of damages in a dog killing case is the fair market value of the dog, which is usually what was paid for the dog to begin with unless the dog has some special skills which render it more valuable.

Punitive damages can be added if the killing was done recklessly.

There has to be more to this story than what is in the OP.

BTW, I am a long time dog owner and love dogs. Our last was Missie - a golden retriever who was human. If some fuck ass cop has shot her, I would have shot HIM. So don't shoot the messenger. I have done a jury trial for the negligent killing of a family pet by the pound. The verdict was in favor of the plaintiffs (the family) in the amount of $500.00, which was pretty good, considering they had paid ten bucks for the dog to begin with.

Nonetheless, if you are a young lawyer out there, don't think your are going to make a living trying dead dog cases. You won't.

 

[BDBoop]

Hate to tell you this, folks, but the measure of damages in a dog killing case is the fair market value of the dog, which is usually what was paid for the dog to begin with unless the dog has some special skills which render it more valuable.

Punitive damages can be added if the killing was done recklessly.

There has to be more to this story than what is in the OP.

BTW, I am a long time dog owner and love dogs. Our last was Missie - a golden retriever who was human. If some fuck ass cop has shot her, I would have shot HIM. So don't shoot the messenger. I have done a jury trial for the negligent killing of a family pet by the pound. The verdict was in favor of the plaintiffs (the family) in the amount of $500.00, which was pretty good, considering they had paid ten bucks for the dog to begin with.

Nonetheless, if you are a young lawyer out there, don't think your are going to make a living trying dead dog cases. You won't.

Obviously, this most certainly is not the norm. However. Since what you are saying is true, then how did this award happen.

 

[Sallow]

Way, way, WAY too much. Are you all on crack. There is no reason for a settlement of that size over a dog. I don't care how much they loved it. This is one of the problems with our legal system. If they had bulldozed the house it would not have been as much as that and I, for one, would not burn my house down to save my dog. Sorry.
What should have happened was jail time for the officers and loss of all benefits associated with the job. This was a crime but I don't think it was something that can be paid for civilly.

The penalty against the city was for terrible hiring and training practices.

Personally I am sick of hearing these stories. Law enforcement should have proper warrants and allow people to secure their dogs when exercising them.

 

[BDBoop]

Way, way, WAY too much. Are you all on crack. There is no reason for a settlement of that size over a dog. I don't care how much they loved it. This is one of the problems with our legal system. If they had bulldozed the house it would not have been as much as that and I, for one, would not burn my house down to save my dog. Sorry.
What should have happened was jail time for the officers and loss of all benefits associated with the job. This was a crime but I don't think it was something that can be paid for civilly.

The penalty against the city was for terrible hiring and training practices.

Personally I am sick of hearing these stories. Law enforcement should have proper warrants and allow people to secure their dogs when exercising them.

They should. But that would be too easy.

 

[FA_Q2]

Way, way, WAY too much. Are you all on crack. There is no reason for a settlement of that size over a dog. I don't care how much they loved it. This is one of the problems with our legal system. If they had bulldozed the house it would not have been as much as that and I, for one, would not burn my house down to save my dog. Sorry.
What should have happened was jail time for the officers and loss of all benefits associated with the job. This was a crime but I don't think it was something that can be paid for civilly.

The penalty against the city was for terrible hiring and training practices.

Personally I am sick of hearing these stories. Law enforcement should have proper warrants and allow people to secure their dogs when exercising them.

Again, all true but the settlement does nothing to address that issue. All it does is stick it to the taxpayers for something they should not have been paying for. That is why criminal charges against the cops were what should have been in order. At least firing them was called for. Instead, I would doubt that much happened to the cops at all and instead this enormous settlement for their dog was reached.

 

[chikenwing]

Way, way, WAY too much. Are you all on crack. There is no reason for a settlement of that size over a dog. I don't care how much they loved it. This is one of the problems with our legal system. If they had bulldozed the house it would not have been as much as that and I, for one, would not burn my house down to save my dog. Sorry.
What should have happened was jail time for the officers and loss of all benefits associated with the job. This was a crime but I don't think it was something that can be paid for civilly.

The penalty against the city was for terrible hiring and training practices.

Personally I am sick of hearing these stories. Law enforcement should have proper warrants and allow people to secure their dogs when exercising them.

Again, all true but the settlement does nothing to address that issue. All it does is stick it to the taxpayers for something they should not have been paying for. That is why criminal charges against the cops were what should have been in order. At least firing them was called for. Instead, I would doubt that much happened to the cops at all and instead this enormous settlement for their dog was reached.

I gotta agree on this one,The tax payers are victims also,throwing cash at the problem will never solve issues like this. Criminal charges,and personal responsibility,let the perps, and the cops where in this case, foot the bill.

 

[Sallow]

I half agree with both of yas..

The cops should be immediately fired.

 

[Missourian]

Way, way, WAY too much. Are you all on crack. There is no reason for a settlement of that size over a dog. I don't care how much they loved it. This is one of the problems with our legal system. If they had bulldozed the house it would not have been as much as that and I, for one, would not burn my house down to save my dog. Sorry.
What should have happened was jail time for the officers and loss of all benefits associated with the job. This was a crime but I don't think it was something that can be paid for civilly.

The penalty against the city was for terrible hiring and training practices.

Personally I am sick of hearing these stories. Law enforcement should have proper warrants and allow people to secure their dogs when exercising them.

Yes, and the city will certainly miss that money that they work so long and hard to accumulate...oh...wait a minute...

So what your post should say is "The penalty against the tax payers of the city was for living in the city...their taxes with be raised accordingly."

 

[Shogun]

Way, way, WAY too much. Are you all on crack. There is no reason for a settlement of that size over a dog. I don't care how much they loved it. This is one of the problems with our legal system. If they had bulldozed the house it would not have been as much as that and I, for one, would not burn my house down to save my dog. Sorry.
What should have happened was jail time for the officers and loss of all benefits associated with the job. This was a crime but I don't think it was something that can be paid for civilly.

The penalty against the city was for terrible hiring and training practices.

Personally I am sick of hearing these stories. Law enforcement should have proper warrants and allow people to secure their dogs when exercising them.

Yes, and the city will certainly miss that money that they work so long and hard to accumulate...oh...wait a minute...

So what your post should say is "The penalty against the tax payers of the city was for living in the city...their taxes with be raised accordingly."

..which can go on to pressure the city to train their cops better and hire a few that are not legal vigilantes trying to play out some rambo fantasy.

either that, or fire the offending cops and charge them with a civil lawsuit so that they can pay for their own fuckups. It's not open fucking season on pet hunting just because some asshole with a badge picked a career with job hazards.