Man sues city after police shoot, kill dog

[1911Tuner]

Barr wrote:

At the very least the officers should be "court-martialed" by a police review

Since court martial is in italics, I assume that you understand that a court martial is afforded to military personnel, not civilians...and that's what police officers are, regardless of the paramilitary image that many of them have been promoting recently.

It's long been my belief that if you're innocent, you want a court martial. If you're guilty...you want a civil trial, complete with a defense team willing to dance around the issue, spin the truth, and cloud the facts with smoke and mirrors. The court martial is designed to get to the truth...period.

 

[tallpaul]

In response to my queries, there are apparently both technical and human-error reasons which can lead to similar circumstances. In those instances, it is someone's or something's fault, but not the responders.

But maybe it was their fault. Why is an important answer.

Regardless, if they believed they were at the correct location then their actions will be viewed in that paradigm.

---

As for the dog, the norm in training dictates that dogs get shot before responders get bit. That said, reasonable efforts should, of course, be taken to avoid doing so. Most LEOs would only do so out of perceived immediate danger/need. (Think of how many dogs are successfully negotiated daily vs shot annually.)

Ya know this BS that its "not the responders fault" is typical we are better than you... If I or anyone else did something based on info someone else gave us IE- go over there and take my car enter my house etc we would be cuffed n stuffed so fast it would not even be funny....

as far as handling dogs in that manner.... if ANYONE does my dog harm on my /its property they may not leave standing up... same as if it was my wife or kids...

I agree with the earlier comment that harming a police dogs has a severe penalty so harming my family member should too... they should not get a free pass.... if I did not mean to or it was an accident does not cut it for us peons it should not cut it for the professional!

I had this wrong house discussion with a local swat guy who had his swat badge proudly displayed. I asked if he ever entered the wrong place and of course he said yes- I asked if he was charged for the breakin n entering etc and all the LE backspeak started- we can't be charged- shouldn't be etc... HOW DARE I QUESTION HIM LIKE THAT! I told him that if they ever entered the wrong place in full assault they likely would be shot- he said but we have uniforms and badges to which I responded- they sell those items on ebay/internet every day and even badguys can yell- police- warrant... and since some know they are not criminals then it must be a home invasion - boy was he pissed

truth is ya can't tell the difference and ifin ya are not a crook what else are ya gonna think

 

[Deanimator]

Duplicate

 

[Deanimator]

truth is ya can't tell the difference and ifin ya are not a crook what else are ya gonna think

I've got a long series of documented death threats against me by neo-Nazis. That means I'm in "launch on warning" mode. If you kick my door in, you get shot, PERIOD. Add to this the fact that there has been White supremacist activity in the Cleveland PD, and you have endless possibilities for mischief (stolen uniforms and credentials, etc.) and NO margin for error on my part. I can't afford to assume that anybody who kicks in my door means well, and LET some inbred goosestepper shoot me. Kicking in my door is a strict liability offense. Make sure that's what you REALLY want to do before you do it.

 

[Ala Dan]

Law Suit City

Admitted mistake, and the victim is entitled too a damage settlement~!

 

[ilbob]

warning.

threat closure imminent.

i am curious why it is that the last 5 or ten years have seen so many dog shooting by cops. how did they manage to get by previous to that without having to shoot them.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Don't forget the JSO shooting of the old man last year...

Don't forget about the "undercover" drug cops in Jacksonville FL who shot the old man who told them to get off his property. That JSO shooting was a total cluster-&*$%!

I hope the old man's family got a big fat paycheck from JSO.

RS

 

[fletcher]

The fact that we get, at a minimum, one of these stories each week really shows that something needs to be done. I think the officers should be held just as liable in the city in cases such as this.

Notice what was not said: "Riggin's house was poorly marked" - which was all they would have had to say.

Although they could have said that, it would still prove them no less stupid, but may help deflect some of the not-so-informed peoples' comments.

"Is this 915? I don't see a marking"
*Looks left - 905* *Looks right - 909*
"Yep, must be it"

 

[Deanimator]

I think the officers should be held just as liable in the city in cases such as this.

I draw a distinction between stupidity and malice.

These guys seem to be nitwits as opposed to criminals. If I were the victim, I would be satisfied with administrative punishment for them, involving loss of pay and derogatory information in their personnel files. I would still go after the city with both fists.

Contrast simple buffoonery with the despicable criminality of the Atlanta PD. They didn't just get the wrong house, they faked up a warrant to do it, then planted drugs and tried to coerce false testimony to cover it up. This case doesn't even come close.

 

[highorder]

The fact that we get, at a minimum, one of these stories each week really shows that something needs to be done.

I draw similar parallels to the large number of reported shootings these days. the power of the web works the same way as the agenda of the MSM and their ability to dig up all the reports of "gun crime"

these things may have been more common in the past then we may think, but fewer stories get overlooked these days.

also, I think that exposure of Government crime is a good thing, while sensationalism of "gun crime" is dishonest.

 

[RKBABob]

4) The article gives no indication that there was an audible burglar alarm several houses down, just that there was an alarm.

5) We don't know what info the alarm company sent the officers, and how that information correlated to the actual neighborhood.

I would think that, if the alarm company was at fault, the police would have been shouting it from the rooftops! Why would they be describing the way in which houses in that neighborhood are marked, and not mention that the alarm company gave them bogus information?

Also, I would think that the homeowner's lawsuit would be against the alarm company for sending armed officers into the wrong house, and not against city hall.

 

[Deanimator]

Also, I would think that the homeowner's lawsuit would be against the alarm company for sending armed officers into the wrong house, and not against city hall.

It seems unlikely that the alarm company did that, and so far there's no evidence that it did. There's NO doubt that the police went to the wrong house. Probably absent evidence of malfeasance of some sort, the individual police aren't pecuniarly liable. Since they were operating on behalf of the city, the city almost certainly IS liable. That doesn't mean that the police shouldn't be punished administratively if it can be shown that they acted negligently. If they were negligent and aren't punished for it, the city should be hammered politically for coddling incompetents. That should be an element of any suit against the city. Adequate supervision of its employees is a DUTY.

 

[ilbob]

one would think that in the intervening two years the city could have made some kind of effort to apologize and make things right. but that would require them to man up and admit to the problem, and that just isn't going to happen.

 

[Deanimator]

one would think that in the intervening two years the city could have made some kind of effort to apologize and make things right. but that would require them to man up and admit to the problem, and that just isn't going to happen.

Two years?

If so, that's evidence of bad faith. That jacks the award up.

 

[Feud]

I still find it funny that most of the people here are willing to condemn the Police based almost solely upon the individual testimony of a person who is seeking financial gain, and which is drawn from a legal suit in which the filer may say virtually anything regardless of truth (such as this example).

The article isn't about the incident, it's about the homeowners lawsuit and so it makes almost no effort to actually give a fair treatment to the issue.

You all are imagining the police storming the house in some kind of SWAT raid when the evidence could be just as easily be seen as a couple officers responding to the house, that they think is being burgled, hear noises inside but none is coming to the door, head around back and see that the glass door is open (a common entry point) only to have a dog attack them requiring them to either be mauled or fight back.

If we want people to respect our gun rights and to seek out factual information on them rather then mass media infotainment that's meant to sensationalize and make money, then perhaps we should first do the same ourselves. They may be guilty or they may be innocent, the article doesn't give enough info to say, and the response here is nothing shy of hypocritical.

 

[Deanimator]

If we want people to respect our gun rights and to seek out factual information on them rather then mass media infotainment that's meant to sensationalize and make money, then perhaps we should first do the same ourselves. They may be guilty or they may be innocent, the article doesn't give enough info to say, and the response here is nothing shy of hypocritical.

And most importantly, this is the ONLY incident of this sort in recent memory... right?

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Deanimator,

If so, that's evidence of bad faith. That jacks the award up.

Which may be good news for the victim but is it justice? Consider this- should the victim be awarded $50M to compensate the actions of two thugs who will pay for it? The answer, of course, is his neighbors while the thugs continue on their merry way.

Selena

 

[Officers'Wife]

Wow Fued,

With a strawman that big you could feed all the starving deer in Colorado.

 

[ilbob]

I still find it funny that most of the people here are willing to condemn the Police based almost solely upon the individual testimony of a person who is seeking financial gain, and which is drawn from a legal suit in which the filer may say virtually anything regardless of truth

Is it your contention the article did not accurately quote the police, or that the facts the reporter cited are not correct? It would not be the first time a reporter falsified a story, but it seems unlikely that he would do so in this case.

 

[Sholiz]

Since police officers have to enforce the law, they should be held to a higher standard when their actions damage the ones they are supposed to protect.

But the Supreme Court has ruled that Police have no obligation to 'protect'!

 

[Feud]

Is it your contention the article did not accurately quote the police, or that the facts the reporter cited are not correct? It would not be the first time a reporter falsified a story, but it seems unlikely that he would do so in this case.

Not at all, it is my contention that the article is not reporting on the incident at all (it is two years too late for that), but on the lawsuit filed. As such it uses excerpts from the suit, which may or may not be presented by the plaintiff correctly, and which are intended to convince a court that the plaintiff should receive financial compensation.

We know that there are at least two officers involved (due to the admitted use of both sides of the plural form), but we do not know their testimony on the matter. I find it wrong to pass judgment on the matter having heard testimony from only one side, provided by only one person.

 

[bluestarlizzard]

of course the dog lunged. it was a rottie. it was probably a very sweet affectionate dog that would drown you with slobbery kisses and sit in your lap even though only its head would fit. it was also probably territorial and extreamly protective of its home.
now, pretend your a 'little' rottie, sleeping on the couch in your living room, dreaming of belly rubs and table scraps, and out of the blue, lots of peoples bust throw the door with big sticks and yelling. i would assume your first responce as a proper doggie would be to jump up, growling, barking and, indeed, slavering. now we (human brains are back) have two scenarios. one is the dog in question is agressive to strangers in its home whom he hasn't been introduced to. that dog will hurt you. and he has every right to. he is a dog, its his house and its his to gaurd as he see's fit and the human nicities (like being able to read 'POLICE' on the jackets/bodyarmor) are beyond him. the second scenario is that he thinks "NEW FRIENDS!!!!!" and is mearly greeting them in the time honered rottie manner, big bark, big leap and lots of kisses.
either way, the owner deserves a LOT more then "whoops, wrong house, sorry 'bout your dog."
i can understand the officer first through the door shooting the dog. i don't understand why the dog was not givin medical care immediatly. i hope the owner gets real compensation and a REAL apoligy, and the department sends out a big memo regarding PROPERLY identefing addresses.

they can pull me out of the shower buck naked, but if they shoot my dog and prevent me from caring for her, i will be a greek fury after the butts of those who made the mistake.

 

[Geronimo45]

Regarding GPS:
How was the GPS point figured? Was it a simple division process - 10 houses on a 1000 meter road, houses must be 100 meters apart... or was it an actual value taken in that area? If it was taken at the truck, it may've been parked right in front of the other guy's house. Maybe that point was figured back when Selective Availability was turned on. Lots of ways to get GPS errors.

 

[Firethorn]

The police screwed up.

It happens. The military drops bombs in the wrong place, killing allies. Surgeons leave tools and sponges inside of their patients. Doctors misdiagnose. Car Mechanics make the wrong call for fixing something, etc...

We're humans, failure will happen.

Still, I think that the police should maintain a fund to 'make things right'. If officers manage to NOT have any liability accidents during the year, split the fund up as a bonus to the officers.

Bust down a door by mistake? Post an officer until it can be fixed, and PAY for the fixing out of the fund. Basically, take care of the liability before you can be hauled into court. Apologize. I've heard that by doing this you can prevent lawsuits the majority of the time.

In this case - Make the officers apologize, pay for the dog - including at least some suffering. Yes, lawyers would have to be involved - A dog is more valuable emotionally than a door, after all. This is where the apology comes in. Reprimand the officers, conduct an investigation, remedial training, adjust procedures, etc...

Most people don't WANT to be against cops. Give people the impression you're trying to do your job as best as you can and they'd be willing to forgive quite a bit. Best way to give this impression? Actually do your job!

 

[JWarren]

If we find out that the alarm had/has an audible component-- such as most residential alarms I've ever seen (including mine and everyone around us), then this entire discussion takes a new level...


-- John