[1911]

The North Carolina family who's pet bulldog was shot by a police officer during a traffic stop are now suing.

Cookeville police stopped the Smoaks family on New Year's Day after a 911 call in Nashville. The call turned out to be bogus, but the traffic stop turned out to be deadly for the family pet. Their pet bulldog Patton was shot when he ran toward one of the officers.

Video of the incident garnered national attention. Now the family is suing the city of Cookeville and the Cookeville police officers, dispatchers and state police officers involved in the incident as well as the Cookeville chief of police for violating their civil rights.

[Bill Hook]

I saw the story a while back and all I can say is GOOD.

Some idiots need firing down there.

[1911]

Firing?



At the very least!





I was really surprised that people did not form a lynch mob on that officer.

[Waitone]

In general I put lawyers in the same category as big fat bottle flys. Then come times when they are absolutely necessary to see to it justice is done. It irritates me the Smoaks have to go through the civil side of the system. I'd just as soon as see the state work these clowns over.

[Bowlcut]

well things are kinda slow and sleepy down here in the south. I spent a good 6 years of my life in Cookeville at school, and was just up there not a few hours ago for a wedding. I know a few of the city cops but more of the county cops. hardly any of them are hot headed indviduals, or even people with an attitude problem. from my explanation of the events that happned, by people on both the inside and outside of the know, was that as far as cookeville knew it was still a felony stop with possible threat to them. so they were pumped for sure. the call didnt get made that it was bogus. so they didnt know what to expect, and adrenalyne was flowing. remember cookeville, despite being a pretty big college town, is at best mayberry in the 70's it seems. small town...and these guys that protect us have to deal with old women and their lost cats, to college kids hopped up on all sorts of drugs trying to kill people. not fun. so i personaly dont think its those guys fault totaly....something like that...

[4v50 Gary]

Violation of civil rights? Sounds like an attorney's attempt to get an out of court settlement. No civil rights are violated when the family pet is killed. Can't quite equate "due process" with killing of an animal. Generally, when a critter is killed, cost of the critter is the amount of recovery permitted. So, if it's a pound pooch, you get pound pooch $ even if it was the best dog in the world. If it's AKC, you get the AKC value of the dog.

[Redlg155]

I don't know. Was the bulldog restrained? Agressive?



Good Shooting
Red

[1911]

Dog was restrained in the car with the doors closed with its loving family until the innocent family members were forced out of their car at gunpoint. Dog got out because the owners were forced to leave the car with their hands on their head. The dog got out after repeated pleas from the family to close the door because they had dogs in the car and they did not want them to get out and get hit by traffic. The dog did get out wagging its tail bouncing along when it picked up on the flashlight that was attached to the end of the shotgun. The family child use to play with the dog with a flashlight.

unlike 4v50Gary I hope the jury awards the family with a big fat ck for emotional distress.

[TheeBadOne]

http://www.goenglish.com/GoEnglish_com_BeatADeadHorse.gif

[Jeeper]

It is really sad because I doubt the family will get much money for this. You cant get emotional distress damages for loss of property which is what dogs are condsidered. Honestly if someone did that to my dog I would kill them no matter if they were a cop or not. If the family begged to let them close the doors so the dog would be safe then it is really reprehensible of the cop not to let them. You can get out of a car and close the doors without being threatening. I would have closed the door no matter what the cop said. I would have made him shoot me because this is ridiculous. I am by no means a crazy PETA nut but I really think that the law needs to be changed regarding damages for loss of pets. Peoples pets are more important to them a lot of times than their family is. I mean you can get money for NIED(Negligent infliction of emotional distress) for watching something bad happen to a relative even if you hate them. I would like to see them get a bunch of money for this. But I seriously doubt they will.

[1911]

we'll see!

[Zach S]

I can honestly say I'm sick of hearing about this.

During the time I was hearing about this on the news, I also heard about a woman in West Asheville(?) starving her kid, a few reports of child abuse, and a couple from Florida(?) leaving a baby on the steps of a nearby hotel, i think wrapped in a plastic bag. Details were scetchy at best because they were in a hurry to get to the real important stories, Patton for example, and guys I went to HS with who set a dog on fire. I havent heard much since, I got tired of the news and turned it off.

Now for my take on Patton. First off, I think it sucks that it happened, I do feel sorry for the Smoaks, and IMO the doors of the car should have been closed, but if you were to put me in that officer's shoes at that moment, I would have probably done the same thing.

[Dorian]

Can someone put a link to the video?

tried cnn.com but they want 9.95 a month to look at ????ty news!

[Bigjake]

Honestly if someone did that to my dog I would kill them no matter if they were a cop or not

Honestly, If you have to do something that blatently stupid, use a knife and keep responsible gun owners out of it.

It does suck about the dog, and the cops may have over-reacted a little, but they do want to make it home alive & intact same as the rest of us.

[FedDC]

Based on the dogs that cops usually deal with IE Crack houses surrouned with Pit Bulls that will attack when the Police show up...drug dealers on the street corner that have been known to keep Pits with them to sick on the officer when he tries to stop them...I even saw footage a while back where a dog was locked in the trunk bc they intended to give a consent search and let the dog jump out at the cop.

This can not be viewed from the vantage point of hindsight. It has to be viewed as it was unfolding for the guy on the scene. he believed that he was facing armed robbers...most criminals that have dogs have vicious attack dogs...the dog got out and came toward the officer who tried to back up, but did not even have the suspects cuffed up yet. he did not know if anyone had weapons (Which he had reason to believe were on scene in the possession of the suspects) or if there was anyone waiting to jump up and shoot at them from the backseat. He fealt threatened and responded to stop what he percieved to be a threat. I would not have holstered up and removed my lethal force option until all of the suspects were secured, to do otherwise is a good way to die from gunfire while you have a holstered gun. he felt threatened by the dog, it came at him and he shot it. It makes sense if you look at it from his point of view and not from hindsight. Turns out he was probably wrong, but he didn't have all of the info when he had to make the call. Based on what he knew at the time, he was right and should not be punished.

[1911]

FEDDC,Where do I start?


“he did not know if anyone had weapons (Which he had reason to believe were on scene in the possession of the suspects)”

Why did he have reason to believe that they had weapons?There were no reports from Nashville dispatch that weapons where used.

“ or if there was anyone waiting to jump up and shoot at them from the backseat.”

The car had already been cleared by a THP officer who closed the driver’s side door.Thus eliminating that theory.








“I would not have holstered up and removed my lethal force option until all of the suspects were secured, to do otherwise is a good way to die from gunfire while you have a holstered gun. “

If you will follow the story a little closer you will see that he used a shotgun.




“he felt threatened by the dog”

Why? The dog did nothing but wag his tail and chase the flashlight. He never growled and showed no signs of aggression.

I would suggest that you review the tape of this incident frame by frame before you post.

[FedDC]

Ok, since I have actually done felony stops, allow me to explain: A car being "Cleared" does not mean that it is absolutely empty. It does not mean that it has been searched. It simply means that a cop looked through the windows and saw that there was no person in the car. There could be weapons.

The fact that he had a 12 Gauge makes even more of a point that he had to shoot bc he could not holster it and pull out his OC. He had his hands full. That makes the shooting even more justified. That type of weapon can not leave your hands until it is secured back in the cruiser.

As for the dogs behavior, I am not a dog Psychiatrist. I do not pretend to know what every dog is thinking. I was however told in training that the ones you have to worry about are the silent ones that aren't trying to scare you. They are the ones that will attack you. We were specifically told that when a dog comes at you silently it is bc the dog has no fear and has confidence that it can attack. Dogs that bark are not as much of a threat bc they are barking from a distance to try and scare you. Watch a Police dog attack someone. It only barks until it is released. Once it has the option, it gets quiet and attacks. It is not "Growling" or anything else. It is running and biting. Having seen that in person, I am far more concerned about dogs that are silent and come at me than dogs that bark from a distance.

Instead of judging how a Felony Stop was done, maybe you should do some research on how they are conducted and the hazards assosciated with them. Then you will understand what happened. It is sad, but the officer chose safety over restraint. In his shoes, I would have probably done the same.

[Bainx]

What is there not to understand?

Officer freaked....dog shot.

[FedDC]

No, officer percieved threat, responed to percieved threat...dog shot. If he had freaked out and fired 5 shells in all directions...I would agree that he "Freaked" but in this case, he fired in a controlled fashion and stopped what he perceived to ba a threat. Shootings have to be examined from the perspective of the shooter and what he saw/felt. If we look at it in hindsight, it isn't fair to the shooter, be he LEO or not.

[rbrowning]

The two accounts of this stop that I read agreed on one very important point. Both the mother and the son repeatedly pleaded with the officer by the passenger side door to close it to keep the dog in. He acknowledged that. If he had listened to them this regretable situation would have been avoided. If the officer at the door had been trying to make the stuation more secure he should have shut the door without being told for several reasons.

First, there is a dog inside. You don't know if it is vicous or friendly. But if it is contained you know that it can't attack.

Second, there may be weapons in the car. Close the door to make them less accessable to those that you just pulled out of the car.

Why didn't TN's finest secure the scene? Maybe there was a little too much adrenalene flowing and not enough thinking going on. Maybe better communications. Maybe better training. Maybe...

I know that situations like this are tough, but this is what seperates the wanabes from those with the right stuff. Unfortunately you don't know for sure if you will pass the test until it is too late. Most officers spend many years without being really tested like this. Unfortunately this officer didn't posess or use the right stuff in this situation. And it has brought a big black mark on a lot of other really fine officers.

[1911]

FEDDC

Shotguns can most certainly be "holstered".Take some training at Gunsite or Thunder Ranch and you will find out real quick how to holster a shotgun.

As a matter of fact it is a lot faster to "holster" a shotgun than it is a handgun.

[lawcox]

Before the death of common sense, coinciding with the invention of exhorbitant civil law suit damages, they would have taken the cost of the dog out of the officer's pay, disciplined him, and gone on with life. This wouldn't have made national news, and it certainly would not have been a civil rights infringement.
If the officer had not shot, and the dog tore a chunk out of his leg, it would not have made national news. If the officer had used OC, it would not have made national news. I wasn't there and I don't know what the officer saw from his point of view, so I'm not going to Monday morning quarterback. I don't think it should be his job.
Civil damages should be for the cost of the dog, period. Emotional distress is an unfortunate part of life, but it has gotten way out of hand in the courts.

[FedDC]

No, you can not holster a shotgun. If you SLING it with a traditional sling behind the back it is not available for use and you can get a back injury falling on it. If you drop it in front with a tac sling it is still available if someone wants to grab it and drag you around with it. Also, Dropping it with a tac sling can drape it over your weapon if you try and push it around out of the BG's reach. That is why many agencies, mine included do not put slings on shotguns. The guy with the Shotgun does not usually make contact with the suspect, he acts as cover officer. Shotgun slings do have a place, but in a felony stop where you have to dismount quickly and bring it to bear, they can be a problem. The funniest example I ever saw was when one of our guys had one on his 870 and we were training with it. He had to do some PT and then pick it up....the sling hung on his webgear and he couldn't get it to his sholder...he must have stood there for 30 seconds pulling on it trying to get it up without ever just letting it back down. The look on his face was priceless.

As far as my training, I have been lucky. We trained with Delta after We graduated from the reactive shooting course at FLETC. Additionally we regularly train out at Weapons Training Bn @ Quantico. I don't feel that Gunsite is going to add much to that...not that I wouldn't like to go if the dept would pay for it.

[Watchman]

Im with FEDDC on this one.

Having done felony stops, what most armnchair commandos fail to realize is the fact that an officer usally at the most has but a few seconds to react to a situation that may be reviewed by by several people sitting in the complete saftey of a courthouse...sometimes for months.

In any felony stop and officer is at a disadvantage due to the fact that he must REACT to an act that may be hostile.

Remember that the officers recieved a call about a possible robbery. At that time, that was all the info that they had. In that situation, you must ASSUME that the people are armed and dangerous until proven otherwise.

As tragic as shooting a dog is, after looking at the video, I cant see where the oficers involved violated any procedure. Yes the folks will recieve a settlement, they may even get some money for emotional distress. It was no more than a simple mistake of identity, unfortunatley that dog got shot before that was cleared up.

I'd like to say that I would not have shot the dog myself, but having been in somewhat similar circumstances myself, I cant honestly say that I wouldnt have. Having been involved in some rather nasty raids that involved big ugly trained dogs that ended up getting shot on the spot, I tend to have a more healthy respect for their abilities than the average Joe that only deals with his happy go lucky lab or his almost human basset hound.

I find it somewhat amusing however, to read many off the crtisisms of those that have never been there or done that. To see the sometimes heated responses of those that are so sure of themselves if they were in the same situation, while sitting in the saftey of their homes where the worst thing that can happen to them is that they might spill a beer on their keyboard and muck up their computer. :what:

[TheeBadOne]

http://www.goenglish.com/GoEnglish_com_BeatADeadHorse.gif

[1911]

"As far as my training, I have been lucky. We trained with Delta after We graduated from the reactive shooting course at FLETC. Additionally we regularly train out at Weapons Training Bn @ Quantico. I don't feel that Gunsite is going to add much to that...not that I wouldn't like to go if the dept would pay for it."

I hate to clutter up this thread but here goes.

I think that you will find that if you take a course at Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, Louis Awerbuck or Randy Cain that there are several options outside the conventional wisdom of the Federal govt that Law Enforcement can employ with a shotgun and a sling.

A sling is to a shotgun what a holster is to a handgun: Clint Smith.

The common and accepted practice of transitioning to a handgun/mace is to have a hasty sling/strap on your shotgun. Next take the strong hand and move it back to the rear swivel stud. Next procedure would be to simply run your support arm through the sling and either let it hang in the pocket of the elbow or run it up to the offside shoulder in a African carry position.Its generally faster to let it hang in the support elbow.

If executed properly a person can transition much faster with a shotgun than they can holster a handgun.

[1911]

I wish the self proclaimed experts here would at least have their facts strait and have knowledge of the situation before posting.

Watchman:


The police never received a call about a possible robbery. That delusion was created by a overzealous dispatcher by the name of Timothy McHood.Read here about the facts in the case.


Dispatcher McHood's interview




Timothy McHood was one of three Tennessee Highway Patrol dispatchers who played roles in the Jan. 1 traffic stop that culminated in the shooting death of a family pet.
McHood was later interviewed about his role in the stop of the James Smoak family by an agent for the THP's Criminal Investigation Division as part of an internal review of the Smoak case.
The following is Special Agent William Farris' report of his talk with McHood, conducted Jan. 6. McHood works for the THP in Cookeville. Parentheses appear where Farris or his typist included them. Information in brackets has been added by editors for ease of reading.
On January 6, 2003, I conducted a non-custodial interview of Timothy Glenn McHood, white male, date of birth 2/26/64, SSN [McHood's Social Security number was obscured on the copy of the report given to The Tennessean by the THP.]
The nature of the interview conducted involved the Smoak felony traffic stop in Putnam County on January 1, 2003.
Operator McHood stated he recalled the events leading up to the traffic stop in the order as follows:
1. Operator Brock took the first (NAWAS) telephone call from Nashville, Tennessee Highway Patrol Operator [Shannon] Pickard, concerning the green station wagon with large amounts of money being thrown out of the windows.
2. Next, Cookeville Tennessee Highway Patrol received a teletype from Nashville inquiring about a recent robbery that could have occurred involving a green station wagon. [The underlining here was done by Farris or his typist.]
3. Operator McHood immediately put the BOLO [''be on the lookout''] broadcast out over radio air. He noted that the green station wagon could possibly have been involved in a robbery. [Underlining is by Farris or his typist.]
4. Operator McHood stated a few minutes after Nashville notified Cookeville by Nextel [a wireless telephone-like device] and advised the green station wagon might have a South Carolina license tag, they (Nashville THP) found an I.D. with the money. Operator McHood stated Nashville THP (Operator Pickard) kept on stressing, large amounts of money. [Italics here are by Farris or his typist.] Operator McHood then broadcast this information over the radio.
5. A few minutes passed when Trooper Bush acknowledged over the radio he might have spotted a green station wagon going eastbound on Interstate 40 that fit the BOLO description.
6. After catching up to the vehicle, Trooper Bush then relayed the vehicle had 2-3 occupants inside.
7. Operator McHood immediately talked to Nashville THP by Nextel and told Operator Pickard he would have the registration information soon. Within five seconds, Trooper Bush relayed the license tag information. Operator Pickard advised Operator McHood that he has already checked the license tag and the identification matches the vehicle information. Operator McHood states that was the end of the Nextel communication.
8. Next communication by Operator McHood with Nashville was on the NAWAS telephone. McHood told Operator Pickard that Cookeville THP units were 10-81 [making a stop] on the green station wagon with the South Carolina license tag at the 287-mile marker, eastbound.
9. Next Operator McHood stated that immediately after Trooper Bush stopped the vehicle, he (Operator McHood) contacted Nashville (Operator Pickard) by Nextel and asked if they (Nashville THP) had determined if the vehicle or person had actually been verified as being involved in any criminal activity. Operator McHood is not certain if Trooper Bush inquired about this information prior to approaching the vehicle. The response from Nashville was that no agency had responded to the teletype inquiry. Operator McHood stated this communication from Nashville to Cookeville was done by Nextel after Operator McHood passed that information by 2-way radio to Trooper Bush. The next thing McHood recalls was the final contact in which Lieutenant Andrews asked that the radio tape log be removed.
Operator McHood stated that it is normal procedure for all teletype information received that involves the Cookeville District including Interstate 40 to be relayed to all cars.
Operator McHood stated that similarly some calls from Nashville THP and/or BOLO information goes without every [ever] being inquired upon, but stressed that Nashville kept on calling and communicating about the vehicle, which seemed to him that this was very important.
He further stated that he did not know that it was only a billfold/wallet with money blowing out of it until the incident was over.
Operator McHood stated that when he receives a teletype with the subject heading ''Recent Robbery'' or anything similar, he relays this information primarily for the concern of officer safety.

[FedDC]

At some point, are we all just going to say "So What." It was a dog, not a person. I feel for the family and I do think they deserve $ for a new dog, but this seems to be getting very personal for some folks. It was a dog. Dogs die, I hate it too and I have lost a dog to gunfire while duck hunting. It is very Sad, but I don't think it is worth all this. I'm signing out if this topic before it gets ugly.

[Watchman]

The police never received a call about a possible robbery.

Next, Cookeville Tennessee Highway Patrol received a teletype from Nashville inquiring about a recent robbery that could have occurred involving a green station wagon. [The underlining here was done by Farris or his typist.]

Operator McHood immediately put the BOLO [''be on the lookout''] broadcast out over radio air. He noted that the green station wagon could possibly have been involved in a robbery. [Underlining is by Farris or his typist.]

Gee 1911...
call me simple, but when I get a BOLO that says a green station wagon could have possibly been involved in a robbery, just what I am supposed to think ? Its a fact of life that some communications are in error. Until somebody (yourself perhaps ?) comes up with a foolproof system, mistakes like this are gonna happen.

So far... points 1-9 are standard procedure.

Operator McHood stated that when he receives a teletype with the subject heading ''Recent Robbery'' or anything similar, he relays this information primarily for the concern of officer safety.

Overzealous ? It appears to me that he is simply showing concern for officer safety, a subject that you dont apear to grasp too well. He is in the unique postition of being damded if he cares and damded if he dont. If it was a robbery and the suspects were armed and dangeous and he didnt think it nesscesary to pass on the info to the cops, his head would be the first to roll. He does show concern and all of the armchairIvebeento15shootingschoolrcommandos come out and crucify him as being "overzealous."

End of discussion. See what you wanto see. Nobody is gonna change your mind and nobody really cares anyway. Whatever you decide, be sure not to spill your beer on the keyboard, you might screw up your computer and be unable to respond. What a tragedy that would be eh ?


::scrutiny:

[C.R.Sam]

Let's keep it civil.
Attack the arguement, not the arguer.

Sam

[Bill Hook]

he believed that he was facing armed robbers

With kids??? :rolleyes:

[TheeBadOne]

Dakota tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.


You are beating a dead horse when you insist on talking about something that cannot be changed. Example: "I'd like to talk with you again about what happened." Reply: "Oh, come on. Let's not beat a dead horse."

Beating a dead horse is an action that has no purpose, because no matter how hard or how long you beat a dead horse, it is not going to get up and run. Example: "Let's not talk about it any more. Okay?" Reply: "You're right. We're just beating a dead horse."

To repeatedly bring up a particular topic with no chance of affecting the outcome is beating a dead horse. Example: "Dad, are you sure we can't get a new computer for the upstairs?" Reply: "Son, we talked about this and the decision was 'no'. You are beating a dead horse."

All the best

TBO

[LawDog]

With kids???

Not only "with" kids, but "are" kids.

Stop-and-rob convenience stores in major metropolitan areas get robbed and cashiers get killed by teenage punks every day.

Mothers get their 14-year-old twin daughters to rob banks while Ma waits in the getaway car. (http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGASO9A20LD.html)

LawDog

[buzz_knox]

Maybe we can now find out the facts behind the other dogs the cop shot (at least 2 at last account) and why he left Metro in Nashville for Cookeville.

TBD, lay off the spamming/trolling/whatever. If you don't want to participate, then don't. Saying dead horse over and over just wastes bandwidth.

[Labinnac]

This thread is useless without a link to the video so we can all see it for ourselves.

If it exists, would some one please post it?

Thanks,

[Daniel T]

Search the Legal and Political forum with the keyword "cookeville", and you'll find plenty of links that may or may not still be active.

[Gewehr98]

We got your hint the first and second times you posted the dead horsey graphic. Which means your third post could be construed as tenderizing equine flesh in and of itself. Now, if you really want to come out and say you side with the LEO on this topic, why not just do so? You've done it before, it should be easy. :rolleyes:

[W Turner]

Most of the time in cases like this, I will side with LE, despite the fact that I am not in LE myself. In this case, I believe the officers were negligent.

As some other posters here have pointed out, the car had been searched for weapons and other suspects and found to be "clear" of these. There was also a dog in the car that was in plain sight. Using the viewpoint of a reasonable and prudent person here would dictate that the doors of the car be shut so that the dog would be one less thing to be concerned about.

I personally feel that the family's pleas that the door be shut contributed to the problem. Many officers' first response, when asked for something by a suspect, is to ignore it for many reasons. Most of these reason are centered around the " that piece of %&^* is not going to tell me what to do" mentality. Reasonably speaking, this attitude would be exacerbated in a high threat situation like a felony stop. This does not excuse the officer(s) involved from negligence. They refused to close the doors and will now face the repercussions.

FWIW- I do not believe that the officers actions (shooting the dog) were unreasonable given the situation, just that the officers on the scene as a whole were negligent by not closig the doors of the vehicle. If the dog is locked up in the car, there is no threat.

Mino

[TheeBadOne]

Originally posted by: Gewehr98
Uhh, TBO...

We got your hint the first and second times you posted the dead horsey graphic. Which means your third post could be construed as tenderizing equine flesh in and of itself. Now, if you really want to come out and say you side with the LEO on this topic, why not just do so? You've done it before, it should be easy. :rolleyes:

I figured the photo I posted may not have been all that clear (best I could find) so I thought I'd make sure my meaning was clear. Your statement: "Now, if you really want to come out and say you side with the LEO on this topic, why not just do so? You've done it before, it should be easy", is indicative of your own personal bias. All I've done is remind everyone this topic has been debated "Add Nauseum" previously.

All the best

TBO

[Bill Hook]

All I've done is remind everyone this topic has been debated "Add [sic] Nauseum" previously.

Well, thanks for the reminder. I find it better than the usual "copaganda."


"Nothin' to see here, move along."

[Waitone]

Fed DC, first welcome to the THR.

Permit me to offer a comment on the whole ugly episode. I am not LE. I am not friends with LE. I have utmost respect for LE simply because it is a job that must be done. The risk is high. The pay is low. In short LE is a career path one will pursue because of dedication on principals and not filthy lucre. LE must make decisions in fractions of seconds while members of internet fora and lawyers can pick through over years. And, oh, by the way it is a job most people and their families can not or will not tolerate.

That said the Cookville incident represents all that is wrong with LE. I perceive an increasing militarization. I perceive an increasing tendency to resort to force. I perceive an increasing tendency to hide behind the claim of professionalism. The idea being an officer was performing his job in a professional manner yet without regard to the fundamental rightness or wrongness of the action.

The situation in Cookville was unfortunate yet at the same time as the story was further refined it increasingly failed the smell test. Most American citizens are blessed with copious quantities of common sense and quite often that is only way we can judge an incident. So while internal affairs conducts an investigation to judge the participant's response against procedure Joe and Martha Sixpack judge the participant's actions against common sense. And the judgement gets increasingly rigorous as more information comes in.

In Cookville's case 2 pieces of information smell funny. First, the officer with the shotgun is reported to have had a smirk / grin / smile on his face. Second, the officer had a history of similar incidents in other jurisdictions. Sorry, it doesn't smell right. So how does Joe and Martha get the whole story out? Civil court. I dislike the idea but quite often civil court is the only way details of importance your average citizen gets aired out. And this comment from a guy who has a love-hate relationship with the profession of lawyering.

[Ala Dan]

Hey All Ya'll Hold It Just A Minute-

C.R. Sam, I got a great idea!





Fire all the police personell concerned; and hire me, as I need a job!

[rebbryan]

LOL theebadone, at this topic again i see, the one on glocktalk got closed because everyone who supported to cop was a meany poopy head :neener:

i'll say it again, just because you watch COPS, Miami Vice, etc. doesn't give anyone the right to judge how they think a cop should act. you don't watch ER and then go tell a doctor what he should do, do you? the cops don't watch a show about your job and then come bitch at you at your work place about what you do wrong, do they? no, you're not trained to handle the situtation so don't assume you'd know what to do.

i don't like dogs i don't know, and anything bigger than a poodle would get shot. whip out pepper spray you say? when you put a video of yourself on the internet holding a shotgun and while still holding it your whip out your pepper spray from your belt and are able to spray the dog then i'll give that some thought, till then you couldn't do it. :banghead:

good shoot
:banghead:

[buzz_knox]

i don't like dogs i don't know, and anything bigger than a poodle would get shot.

Black letter rules like that do a great job by eliminating the need to think or make rational decisions. Of course, they are also one of the reasons why so many come across as anti-LEO.

the cops don't watch a show about your job and then come bitch at you at your work place about what you do wrong, do they? no, you're not trained to handle the situtation so don't assume you'd know what to do.

This assumes that the LEO is trained to handle the situation, or is psychologically able to do so.

[Bill Hook]

i'll say it again, just because you watch COPS, Miami Vice, etc. doesn't give anyone the right to judge how they think a cop should act. you don't watch ER and then go tell a doctor what he should do, do you? the cops don't watch a show about your job and then come bitch at you at your work place about what you do wrong, do they? no, you're not trained to handle the situtation so don't assume you'd know what to do.

Well, until Hillary gets in, physicians aren't civil servants; cops are and anyone who is a US citizen is qualified to judge. A resident in the officer's jurisdiction even more so. If you don't like how the officers in your area act, make a complaint to the PD, city officials, as well as county and state and get others to do the same.

Imagine, I have no right to criticize those who are taking my tax dollars. Who'd a thunk it? :rolleyes:

[Quartus]

With kids???


Sadly yes, Bill. Some vermin have no compunction about putting kids in danger. Even LITTLE kids. So cops can't assume that people with kids are no threat.



I can understand the cops caution in view of the warning given. I can understand guns drawn and I can understand having everyone get out of the vehicle. As long as they did these things politely, I have no problem with any of those actions.


But can someone suggest any good reason for ignoring the family's pleadings (and what would appear to be common sense) and leaving the door open? :confused: I've seen this done on several occasions - either the subject being questioned or bystanders pointing out some perfectly reasonable thing to a LEO, and being ignored. Why is that?

[Daniel T]

You're not ever going to get a good answer to that, Quartus. You're not a cop, you wouldn't understand. The Blue Line and all that. Because they said so.

[rebbryan]

>>But can someone suggest any good reason for ignoring the family's pleadings (and what would appear to be common sense) and leaving the door open? <<

so officer jim initiates a felony stop on mr. thug for armed robbery. mr. thug says "go close the door so my little doggy doesn't get out". officer jim goes to close door and mr. thug's accomplice (unknown to police) is laying down in the backseat with an ak-47. the bagpipes will sound quite nice at officer jim's funeral.

>>Imagine, I have no right to criticize those who are taking my tax dollars. Who'd a thunk it? <<

sure you can criticize, doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. when your house is burning down are you gonna tell the firefighters what water stream to use and where to ventilate? no. why? because you don't know anything about it (assuming you don't, as most people don't, you may, but you still would let them do their job)

[Bill Hook]

so officer jim initiates a felony stop on mr. thug for armed robbery. mr. thug says "go close the door so my little doggy doesn't get out". officer jim goes to close door and mr. thug's accomplice (unknown to police) is laying down in the backseat with an ak-47. the bagpipes will sound quite nice at officer jim's funeral.

Didn't THP already clear the car? Seems keeping those big, bad dogs INSIDE the car would've been a way to minimize the threat, had any of the officers in question had enough brains.

But who am I to judge, after all, all I have is a common sense, which is no substitute for rules, procedures and "training."

[gunsmith]

All Dogs Go To Heaven

[Intune]

Darn pesky State police, don't they know when to hit the ERASE button? This guy would have made a good stupid crook. Instead, he's a ... well, nevermind, use your own imagination.

What’s behind Eric Hall’s threat to sue Cookeville?

By GEOFF DAVIDIAN
Editor of The Putnam Pit

COOKEVILLE, Tenn. (June 29, 2003) – Police Officer Eric Hall is not acting like someone who’s angry, afraid and traumatized that personal information about him has been released to the public.

Mr. Hall would be a key witness in a lawsuit likely to be filed against the City of Cookeville by the Smoak family of North Carolina, whose pet was executed gangland-style by Mr. Hall.

Mr. Hall interpreted the pet’s wagging tail in such a way that blowing its head off with a shotgun was deemed “reasonable” by the “independent police chief” hired by the city to “investigate” Mr. Hall on the basis of documents presented to her by the Cookeville government.

While inquiring minds wonder whether videotape in Mr. Hall’s squad car during the Jan. 1, 2003 stop of the Smoaks was illegally erased, there’s no question about the Tennessee Highway Patrol tapes, not in Cookeville’s custody, that document the tail-wagging victim seconds before his head was blown off by a threatened-for-his-safety Mr. Hall.

Whether the tape was altered is certainly a question those seeking justice for the Smoaks may ask, but it is also a problem for Cookeville taxpayers who may have to compensate the Smoaks as well as plaintiffs in several other cases stemming from the alleged incompetence, criminal behavior or corruption of government officials.

Mr. Ward writes that his client, Mr. Hall, is in such danger and has been so violated by this release of his social security number the he will sue for “several million dollars” unless the City responds by July 5 and is “willing to negotiate in good faith” and pay him “a more reasonable amount.”

Mr. Hall’s attorney is apparently acknowledging that a request for “several million dollars” is an unreasonable amount.

Mr. Ward says the city refuses to cooperate with the FBI, which has learned unnamed rich people will pay $100,000 for someone to kill Mr. Hall, which also seems like an unreasonable amount. From the tone of some letters received by the City, many people would probably do it for much less.

“It is doubtful that the released information caused Eric Hall significant damage,” says Cookeville lawyer Samuel J. Harris, “but Hall was a willing participant in the media circus in his attempt to convey to the public the spin as to how the Smoaks caused him so much anguish by his shooting their dog.

“If Eric Hall has suffered so much from this event, one can only imagine the trauma suffered by the Smoak family. Yet, ironically, Eric Hall's callous acts toward the Smoaks is typical of the culture of the City of Cookeville governmental apparatus -- an arrogant, uncaring culture that Eric Hall acknowledges exists in his attorney's demand letter.”

Mr. Harris, the Putnam Pit's chief counsel and a constitutional law advocate, said that "when the Fascist treatment of the innocent family from North Carolina occurred on January 1, 2003, I heard many people say, 'What are their damages?' Eric Hall's attorney makes clear that the stress and anguish one suffers as the result of constitutional violations are arguably worth millions. Hall however does not have a very good civil rights case.”

According to his attorney’s assertions, Mr. Hall is in the care of a psychiatrist, on the verge of needing workers comp, disability pay or hospitalization. Yet today, Mr. Hall was scheduled to report for duty at 2 p.m., according to a police dispatcher. Inquiring minds wonder why he is still armed and roaming the streets, protecting the public from the criminal and insane element, when his own lawyer puts him partially within that category. Inquiring minds also wonder what is really behind the release three weeks after its delivery of the shake-down letter – unless it is to prepare taxpayers for a secret payoff arranged to keep money from the real victims – the out-of-town Smoaks.

But that is beyond this column. Let’s stick to what we know.

Charles Ward, Mr. Hall’s Murfreesboro lawyer, argues in a June 5, 2003 letter to Mayor Charles Womack that Mr. Hall was placed in “special danger” when the City of Cookeville “failed to ‘black out’ all of the social security and driver’s license numbers of Officer Hall and the name and date of birth of one child” when the City sold Mr. Hall’s personnel records to The Putnam Pit.

Mr. Hall is in such danger and has been so violated by this release of information, Mr. Ward writes, that he will sue for “several million dollars” unless the City responds by July 5 and is “willing to negotiate in good faith” and pay him “a more reasonable amount.”

From the letter we learn that people come around Mr. Hall’s home, “knocking on windows, and absolutely frightening his wife and children to the point of hysteria.” In addition, “Officer Hall’s wife is suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome, and his entire family has consulted the professional help of a psychiatrist due to the death threats.”

So beyond the City’s alleged release of confidential information about Mr. Hall’s social security number, we now learn from Mr. Hall's agent even more confidential, personal and sensitive information, such as:

Mr. Hall is seeing a psychiatrist;

Mr. Hall’s wife is hysterical and has post-traumatic stress disorder;

Mr. Hall’s daughter cannot play outside;

The Halls do not feel safe in their home.

Imagine if one more incident occurs involving Mr. Hall. If it does, can it be argued that the city didn’t know he was about to blow up after Mr. Hall’s own lawyer reveals that he is under the care of a psychiatrist? Some have argued after watching the Tennessee Highway Patrol tape of Mr. Hall shooting a dog Jan. 1, 2003, that he was unbalanced back then. After his Social Security number has been released, who knows what might snap.

Imagine if Mr. Hall is killed by a $100,000 hit man after the city refuses to cooperate with the FBI in a death threat investigation. Imagine the payout there.

In fact, Mr. Hall may be worth more dead than alive to his family.

Worse yet for Mr. Hall: Imagine if he is not killed or attacked by a $100,000 hit man; as long as he’s alive it looks like the only threat comes from his own thoughts, which is why he is visiting a psychiatrist, one must assume. Otherwise, he should call a home alarm company and spend the money there.

Let’s also look at the revelations from Mr. Hall’s attorney who wants to sue for “several million dollars” over Mr. Hall’s social security number.

According to the National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which was created within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in 1989 by Congressional mandate,

“[PTSD] is a psychiatric disorder that can occur following the experience or witnessing of life-threatening events such as military combat, natural disasters, terrorist incidents, serious accidents, or violent personal assaults like rape. People who suffer from PTSD often relive the experience through nightmares and flashbacks, have difficulty sleeping, and feel detached or estranged, and these symptoms can be severe enough and last long enough to significantly impair the person's daily life.”

To obtain the compensation, Mr. Hall has retained an attorney to negotiate with the City following the alleged breach of confidentiality regarding his Social Security number and daughter’s birth date and name. Yet, the Halls may have to divulge even more personal information, such as how frequently they have sex. The reason they will have to address their sexuality is because the city should be certain that Mrs. Hall actually has PTSD before paying damages, and one of the symptoms of PTSD is loss of interest in social or sexual activities. Does she get aroused? Does she initiate foreplay? Has she had an affair? Has Mr. Hall? The jury will want to know.

According to the National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder’s information for victims, located online at PTSD and Relationships, “Trauma survivors with PTSD often experience problems in their intimate and family relationships or close friendships.”

“PTSD involves symptoms that interfere with trust, emotional closeness, communication, responsible assertiveness, and effective problem solving.

Survivors may experience a loss of interest in social or sexual activities, they may feel distant from others, and they may be emotionally numb.

Partners, friends, or family members may feel hurt, alienated, or discouraged because the survivor has not been able to overcome the effects of the trauma, and they may become angry or distant toward the survivor.

Feeling irritable, on guard, easily startled, worried, or anxious may lead survivors to be unable to relax, socialize, or be intimate without being tense or demanding. Significant others may feel pressured, tense, and controlled as a result.”

As Mr. Hall’s attorney has described this dark psychological hole that is the Hall home, does the City have any choice but to take him off the streets?

In a short telephone interview with Mayor Womack, The Putnam Pit asked whether Eric Hall – a traumatized man living on the edge; a man seeing a psychiatrist following the trauma of his social security number being released; a man whose wife is suffering from PTSD; a man who is afraid there is a contract out on him and who is getting no protection from the police department – should such a man still be riding around with a shotgun in a city car?

Mayor Womack said he would not discuss anything that might be related to a possible lawsuit, on the advice of City Attorney Thomas M. (T. Michael) “Mike” O’Mara.

Mayor Womack said that he understood that his name is on this administration, but “I’m one vote out of five.”

“I’ll try to do the best I can,” he said.

The mayor did not respond to questions regarding why he and Councilman Sam Sallee received Mr. Ward’s letter rather than the city attorney or City Manager Jimmy Dale Shipley. Nor did he know why the other members of the council were not copied with the letter.

In short, Mr. Womack said only that he was working to make Cookeville a better place than it was a few years ago, and pointed to the city-sponsored citizen satisfaction survey as a snapshot of public opinion, which he said was on the Internet.

[Futo Inu]

"Both the mother and the son repeatedly pleaded with the officer by the passenger side door to close it to keep the dog in. He acknowledged that. If he had listened to them this regretable situation would have been avoided."

Yep. Sounds like a typical arrogant ahole officer who WON'T be told what to do. He should be fired and publicly caned. There is NO reason not to just shut the damn door. It takes all of one second and a microjoule of caloric energy. Can be done with buttocks if hands are full.... with gun trained on the dangerous human suspects. Would have avoided the whole thing. Only arrogance that defies common sense prevented it.

Gary, yes, damages for say, theft/conversion, or negligent destruction of an animal are generally limited to the market value of the animal in the law. BUT, if, and that's a big if, there IS a valid argument of liability under a deprivation of rights theory by a governmental actor/defendant (such as a 1983 claim), which is admittedly dubious, THEN it's quite possible that other damages would be properly considered, over and above the market value of the animal, and could include the pain and suffering (mental) elements for having lost a dearly loved family pet. I hope they prevail for a large amount on the lawsuit.

It's wrong that the cops' family has to suffer. People should leave them alone. He, OTOH...

[Bill Hook]

What a scumbag. These little hick towns sure scrape the bottom of the barrel sometimes.

[Daniel T]

so officer jim initiates a felony stop on mr. thug for armed robbery. mr. thug says "go close the door so my little doggy doesn't get out". officer jim goes to close door and mr. thug's accomplice (unknown to police) is laying down in the backseat with an ak-47. the bagpipes will sound quite nice at officer jim's funeral.

While that may make a great excuse in a single-cop on single- or mulitple-BGs scenario, it doesn't quite cut the mustard in this specific situation. Which you would know if you were paying attention.

[FedDC]

Yeah, there was no bias at all in that article...and Columbus Invaded America...and there really is a vast right wing conspiracy...and Clinton wasn't anti gun at all...right. The officer may have gone to counseling, but at my dept we are required to do so after any shooting...they didn't say anything about that now did they??? Also, his family is being threatened. That is no joke. Maybe folks here should try working in an environment where people try to kill you...and then judge what he did...or even better, wher eprople threaten to kill your wife and kids. Think it doesn't happen? A trooper I know in MS was investigating some drug dealers that said they would rape and kill his wife and daughter...they shot up his house one night while he was on shift and about a week later he got a frantic call from his wife who had gotten home and opened the mailbox, only to find a huge rattlesnake placed inside. It was there to bite her when she opened the box, but fortunately she had not gone to the mailbox early in the day and the heat had made the snake very very lethargic, almsost dead. These things happen and I hope the department gets sued for a ton of money by the officer for releasing his information.

[12-34hom]

Making a mountain out of a molehill.

The cop haters are in rare form on this thread. :scrutiny:

12-34hom.

[Bill Hook]

The cop haters are in rare form on this thread.

Assume you're a cop? Don't behave in a despicable manner and there won't be anything to hate. Pass it on.

Kill some familiy's dog through willfull negligence, with glee it seems (and a history of the same), and then try to rip off the taxpayer and see how many friends you make.

You'd be smart to dissociate yourself from the JBTs and macho authority-craving rednecks who infest a significant part of the LEO community. If you wish to be an apologist for this sort, then don't expect anything less than being tarred with the same brush.

It's a disgrace what our tax dollars buy in many places.

[Boats]

I don't hate cops. I hate stupid cops.

What galls me is all of this "woe is me, walk a mile in my moccasins" talk. Like every street situation is rocket science or something? More likely it is the byproduct of a form of preconditioning that expects the worst out of everyone and every situation and acts accordingly, facts be damned. Yes, there is situational awareness--and then there is paranoid cynicism.

What amount of training is required to sort out that one and one's fellow officers have felony stopped the Griswolds in their own car rather than the Mafia or renegade white power meth-amped druggies in a stolen station wagon?

Just how many cops are required to determine that a station wagon has a lot of glass to peer through, even as one covers the other(s) with a ready firearm? Might one discover an unrestrained dog with but a casual inspection or a parley with the suspects?

Once it is determined that the "suspects" who are all showing their hands and complying with orders, are "confessing" that they have a dog onboard and are pleading with you not to let it run amok on the shoulder of a presumably well-traveled highway, how many brain cells does one need to be able to rub together to determine that not having a dog possibly run out into traffic might be a darn good way to prevent a traffic accident or otherwise complicate the situation?

How many years on the street are required before one can determine that the "righteous shoot" of a dog that was stupidly let out through officer orders, when it could have easily been prevented, merits the illegal erasure of the unit's video camera?

At what point in service under the shield does one's IQ fall to the point that one demands emotional suffering money from one's employer whilst simultaneously having to maintain that the true victims of misapplied authority are not due anything more than the cash equivalent of a bulldog?

It does seem that almost anyone who has ever strung two sentences together is qualified to comment on this clown's police work.

[FedDC]

Ok, this assessment that I am reading of the officer is only slightly less baised than HCI's thoughts on the NRA. Since when does he have a "History" of killing some poor families dog? He killed some dogs in the past...so what? I have shot several dogs in the line of duty. One had been hit by a car, spine broken and became vicious. It was a Rotwieler and bit the first guy that tried to help him...he got shot. Second dog was in a foot chase where a guy ran into his house and had two pit bulls in the back yard...one of them was charging another officer and we shot it. I love dogs and don't go around trying to shoot them, but having been on the receiving end of dog attacks and had to kill them. I am proud to call this man a fellow officer and don't think that most of these assessments are very unbiased... If you hate cops, just say so. Don't try to hammer a guy that did what he thought he had to to defend himself. It is sad that it turned out that there was no crime, but he didn't know that. Hindsight is 20/20, but he did not have the luxury of hindsight that all the cop haters are using to bash him on here.

[Boats]

HINDSIGHT? Try he had no FORESIGHT, because that is what he is being castigated for.

[Sergeant Bob]

Just curious here. Say I was walking down the shoulder of the road after some target practice out in the field and a cop stopped to check me out. What would happen if I shot the cops (K-9) dog because I was afraid it was going to attack me? Would I simply have to pay for the dog and all would be forgotten?

[Daniel T]

If you hate cops, just say so.

Right, because anyone that doesn't immediately excuse police misconduct automatically "hates" cops. Try to apply some non-protectionist critical thinking to the matter, will you?

[Quartus]

Say, folks, how about we calm down and get this back on a civil level before somebody locks the thread, okay?


Hey, FedDC, you think that editorial was just a tad biased, eh? :D He did make some good points, though. The lawyer WAS pretty stupid to essentially annnouce that their initial demand was NOT reasonable. For the record, I do think the ossifer should collect something on this - releasing personal information was WRONG, no matter WHAT the officer did.

Since when does he have a "History" of killing some poor families dog? He killed some dogs in the past...so what?


IIRC, the other two were questionable. Nothing like your shoots. Apparently there was already a perception that this guy was a bit trigger happy with dogs. Don't you think that deserves an impartial investigation?



so officer jim initiates a felony stop on mr. thug for armed robbery. mr. thug says "go close the door so my little doggy doesn't get out". officer jim goes to close door and mr. thug's accomplice (unknown to police) is laying down in the backseat with an ak-47. the bagpipes will sound quite nice at officer jim's funeral.


Nobody is suggesting they do something stupid like that. Casually walk up to a car which hasn't been cleared and just close the door withouth any caution at all, right? The reality is, you can close a door without being stupid. Especially when the car has already been cleared. That doesn't mean you ASSUME it's perfectly safe, but closing the door on a car containing a dog while keeping yoiur eyes open for threats is not rocket science.


And if erasing a video tape doesn't ring alarm bells with y'all, I don't know what more can be said.

[buzz_knox]

The tape from his car got erased? Didn't know that. I thought that tape would be part of the investigation, and therefore would be in an evidence locker somewhere. Ah, well. Guess they shouldn't have left that magnet on top of it.

[buzz_knox]

If you hate cops, just say so.

Not me. My agency's police force are now my no. 1 client. Good guys generally.

But I do hate bad/stupid cops. Like the cop who murdered a disabled vet in my home town, and then got away with it when his force called it a justified shooting. Yeah, two rounds in the back of a vet who had to walk with a cane, and was walking away from the cop when he got shot. Nice.

[Intune]

That article is biased as all get out but the basic information, minus the vilification, is corroborated by other sources. I find it interesting (perhaps only to my sick mind) that the officer's mouthpiece is squawking about the perceived harm done to his client, death threats, soc # released, post trauma syndrome when nothing has actually HAPPENED to the officer unlike the Smoaks. No, I am not saying he hasn't been wronged. Death threats are no joking matter. However, I consider a felony stop a death threat if one is on the wrong end of multiple police muzzles and doesn't follow instructions explicitly. No trauma with a headless family pet performing death throes right in front of the handcuffed family members? Including children? Said headless corpse placed in the back of the vehicle for the rest of the fun trip home? WOW! Sorry 'bout that folks, it happens. Ya'll enjoy the rest of your trip though TN and come back now, ya hear! They would have shot my handcuffed butt right there on the roadside 'cause I would have been trying to bite this genius worse than the dog ever could have. And you know what? They would give the same line to my widow, "sorry 'bout that ma'am, the officer felt threatened." If one can't perform their duties objectively, seek other employment. This officer probably likes my sig line...

[rebbryan]

>>While that may make a great excuse in a single-cop on single- or mulitple-BGs scenario, it doesn't quite cut the mustard in this specific situation. Which you would know if you were paying attention.<<

guy can still kill one cop even if there are multiple cops, sure the thug'll die, but officer jim's still dead. i'm paying attention, you're just not thinking

>>And if erasing a video tape doesn't ring alarm bells with y'all, I don't know what more can be said.<<

gosh, then every police dept must be covering things up. you think they have an infinite number of tapes and infinite storage capacity to store every officer's tape? the case was done with, it happened quite a while ago, tapes get reused around here, i'd assume the same with them. and since they're suing it's up to them to present evidence, not the police department

>>. What would happen if I shot the cops (K-9) dog because I was afraid it was going to attack me?<<

you'd be shot. the dog wouldn't be outside the car unless it was needed

[buzz_knox]

gosh, then every police dept must be covering things up. you think they have an infinite number of tapes and infinite storage capacity to store every officer's tape? the case was done with, it happened quite a while ago, tapes get reused around here, i'd assume the same with them. and since they're suing it's up to them to present evidence, not the police department

Yes, I'm sure whenever there is an officer involved shooting caught on tape, it gets erased in the ordinary course of business, especially after making national news. As for presenting evidence, there's a certain thing called spoiliation of evidence. If you know or should know that a lawsuit is likely or in fact has occurred, and you destroy evidence, the trier of fact is authorized to find that the evidence was harmful to your case. So, basically, the police dept. shot itself in the foot here.

[rebbryan]

well they're just now deciding to sue, it's not like this happened last month, taking your sweet time's not mentioned in any law i know of

[Quartus]

That article is biased as all get out


Uh, folks, that "article" was an EDITORIAL. By the same editor that published the officer's private information. (Which was reprehensible.)


Editorials are SUPPOSED to be biased!

[Intune]

True. Editorial not article. I messed up. Don't make me hide my choc lab! Oh, Cookeville, not Nashville. Whew! :D :rolleyes:

[Sergeant Bob]

>>. What would happen if I shot the cops (K-9) dog because I was afraid it was going to attack me?<<

you'd be shot. the dog wouldn't be outside the car unless it was needed
We don't really know why the cop has the dog outside the car, maybe he's afraid of people with guns? But you're probably correct about being shot. That is exactly my point. I guess some dogs are more equal than "civilians". Unless the dog belongs to the "civilians".

[buzz_knox]

well they're just now deciding to sue, it's not like this happened last month, taking your sweet time's not mentioned in any law i know of

Actually, it is. It's called a statute of limitations, and is designed to provide a reasonable time for the purposes of obtaining counsel, investigating claims, ascertaining injuries/damages, etc. before the right to sue is cut off. These people are well within TN's statute of limitations for personal injury suits, let alone property damage.

[Quartus]

You get a year to file suit in Kaliforny. Don't KNOW about other states, but I suspect that's about average.


Insurance companies will sometimes try to stall you past that period.

[Bulldog]

Just for the record, this heinous act had nothing to do with me...

[Zackmeister]

Here is a link to a webpage with the video.

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_1660897,00.html

[Labinnac]

Link no work!

I surfed for a while trying to locate it myself but didn't find anything.

Please post it again if you can.

Thanks,

[Zackmeister]

Okay, this time I just linked to the page. Try it again.