Reply
Honored Contributor
Posts: 13,939
Registered: ‎06-17-2015

Re: DID THIS JURY GET IT RIGHT?

What does the law say in that county regarding killing a domestic animal?

 

If the officer committed this act in violation of the law, then the law should have penalized him appropriately, be it jail time, dismissal from the police force, and/or a fine.

 

My issue with this case is that the owner sued in court instead of the appropriate action being taken against the officer.  It doesn't matter if the person is an officer or not; killing the dog has to have violated some type of protective law(s) for animals.

 

The suit was almost guaranteed to award the owner some monetary compensation; had the shooter been a non-civil servant I would surmise that the outcome would have been very different for the owner.

 

There is nothing to indicate that this police force is inadequately training its officers in dealing with animals.

 

I do believe the award was excessive and the owner should have sued the police officer; the whole county had to pay for this and the officer did not have to put up anything for his actions (regardless of being a taxpayer).

 

""Out beyond the ideas of right-doing and wrong-doing, there is a field. I will meet you there." -Rumi
Honored Contributor
Posts: 25,929
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: DID THIS JURY GET IT RIGHT?

@Cakers3  If you read the article - the incident was investigated and the officer was not charged .As I stated before - you are only getting one side of the story here. And , as always on this board , a lot of jumping to conclusions that have no basis in facts is going on.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 13,939
Registered: ‎06-17-2015

Re: DID THIS JURY GET IT RIGHT?


@151949 wrote:

@Cakers3  If you read the article - the incident was investigated and the officer was not charged .As I stated before - you are only getting one side of the story here. And , as always on this board , a lot of jumping to conclusions that have no basis in facts is going on.


@151949  Hi I did read the article and did see that the officer was not charged.

 

That is why I aked what the law(s) were regarding animal cruelty.  Since the officer was not charged, this lawsuit was a stubborn push by the owner to penalize not just this officer but the whole police department.

 

Even though the officer was  "cleared", the owner still could have brought a civil suit against him and only him.  Of course, the $$ award would have been far less and even less able to be paid.

 

 

""Out beyond the ideas of right-doing and wrong-doing, there is a field. I will meet you there." -Rumi
Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,254
Registered: ‎04-04-2015

Re: DID THIS JURY GET IT RIGHT?

One of the cited articles says there were muddy pawprints on the officer's clothes.  Now some dogs are prone to jump on people - without attacking them so I don't know what actually happened here.

 

For those who say he should have used a baton to club the dog, I'm not sure that would be helpful - and at close range - where the dog is already - on top of you, I'm not sure pepper spray would be effective either.

 

It is interesting that the officer - a rookie at that - was not charged or punished.  It's so easy to indict the police - and to get emotional about the dog - who may have thought he was defending his property if he did, in fact, attack the officer, but in any case, I don't see how sticking it to the taxpayers does anything to help the situation.

Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,787
Registered: ‎02-20-2017

Re: DID THIS JURY GET IT RIGHT?

[ Edited ]

That award seems excessive 

Honored Contributor
Posts: 8,888
Registered: ‎06-08-2016

Re: DID THIS JURY GET IT RIGHT?

Miss the dog and hit a kid.

So much can go wrong when discharging a firearm.

Sends a message

Honored Contributor
Posts: 18,415
Registered: ‎11-25-2011

Re: DID THIS JURY GET IT RIGHT?


@Bri36 wrote:

That award seems excessive 


The $1.26 million verdict includes,

$500,000 in monetary damages

$760,000 for the anguish

Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,787
Registered: ‎02-20-2017

Re: DID THIS JURY GET IT RIGHT?


@sidsmom wrote:

@Bri36 wrote:

That award seems excessive 


The $1.26 million verdict includes,

$500,000 in monetary damages

$760,000 for the anguish


Still seems excessive to me...

Honored Contributor
Posts: 9,139
Registered: ‎04-16-2010

Re: DID THIS JURY GET IT RIGHT?

Excessive amount.

 

This has been in the news here and we have friends who live in Pasadena (I know the area pretty well though it has been built up horribly over the past 10 years). Also, there has been some serious drug and gang activity moving in to the point that many old timers and families who can move out... are doing so.

 

I wasn't there so I don't know what exactly happened. I will say that we had a family in our cul-de-sac that allowed their dog, not on a leash, to be out in the yard/court. It attacked 4 dogs that were on a leash while being walked; at different times and 2 were being walked at the same time. One dog died. Another cost more than a thousand in medical care. The owners are trash and just laughed it off. Yes, animal control was called, yes the police were called...it's he said, she said. Then one day a cop was out due to a call about something else regarding this house. A woman with a newborn in a stroller and young toddler were out walking from one house to hers. The dog came running around the corner and headed straight towards her child. The cop shot the dog. 

 

We applauded his action.

 

Like I said, I wasn't there for this case, I don't know why the cop shot the dog, I don't know the true details. I do believe the amount was excessive. 

Honored Contributor
Posts: 31,278
Registered: ‎08-23-2010

Re: DID THIS JURY GET IT RIGHT?


@Pook wrote:

@Dash wrote:
I bet the family is laughing all the way to the bank. Over $1,000,000 for a dog. They won the lottery. And it's tax free. The verdict is ridiculous. The jury would not have awarded as much if a child had been shot and killed. I doubt this will stand on appeal, and the people in that county and state should be outraged.

The people in that county and state should be outraged that the police are not trained on how to deal with animals!!  Even mail carriers have pepper spray and dog treats to deal with dogs.  Can't imagine anyone laughing when their dog was needlessly shot!!  It's not about the money and that should be a lesson learned the hard way to train police properly how to deal with such situations.  The officer in this case obviously didn't even use common sense!!  When any law enforcement person sees a dog in someone's yard (no matter what the reason is for him/her needing access to the yard) they should either go to the door to have the owners call the dog or if it were true aggression use pepper spray to subdue the dog or even better yet don't act aggressively themselves and give the dog a small biscuit that they should carry.  The local cops in my area all have some bisccuits with them at all times.  The cop was investigating a burglary and it wasn't a life or death situation!  If he was looking for the suspect then odds are suspect would not be in that yard with the dog so he should not have entered the property. 


@Pook

 

Very well stated, Pook !!!