Family sues Cookeville over bulldog's death

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.â€

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.â€

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.â€

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.â€

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.â€

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.â€

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.â€

“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.â€

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.â€

“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.
 
"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 ***** 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...
 
What a scumbag. These little hick towns sure scrape the bottom of the barrel sometimes.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
HINDSIGHT? Try he had no FORESIGHT, because that is what he is being castigated for.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
>>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
 
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.
 
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!
 
>>. 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".
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top