Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I like your optimistic attitude, but I don't see it that way.
Try approaching a lawyer with no money and a pet killed by a LEO to see if he will take the case. Then try again. Then try again. I don't think you will get very far.
I stand by my previous statement. The only reason this had a good outcome is because this pet was owned by someone rich enough to pay an attorney to take the city to court. Uber rich, in other words.
In this case specifically, with the officer already cleared and the city represented by a plethora of lawyers, the chances in sharing a big settlement was low. 99.9% of all lawyers wouldn't take this case on contingency.
The other jurisdictions knows that the next pet that gets shot by one of their officers has an extremely low chance of being owned by someone with enough wealth or power to threaten them. This outcome will have little effect on the future, I'm afraid.
While I can see your reason for this feeling as I said as stories like this keep showing up, and this is not an isolated incident, more and more lawyers will realize the potential pay off. And again we can thank cell phone footage for this change. If this was 25 years ago I might agree with you to some extent. But now bad behavior is being captured and it makes settlements or awards like this easier to obtain. The officer was cleared because the policy was flawed. As I stated before rulings like this will go a long way to changing those bad policies for the reasons I already posted.
I like your optimistic attitude, but I don't see it that way.
Try approaching a lawyer with no money and a pet killed by a LEO to see if he will take the case. Then try again. Then try again. I don't think you will get very far.
I stand by my previous statement. The only reason this had a good outcome is because this pet was owned by someone rich enough to pay an attorney to take the city to court. Uber rich, in other words.
In this case specifically, with the officer already cleared and the city represented by a plethora of lawyers, the chances in sharing a big settlement was low. 99.9% of all lawyers wouldn't take this case on contingency.
The other jurisdictions knows that the next pet that gets shot by one of their officers has an extremely low chance of being owned by someone with enough wealth or power to threaten them. This outcome will have little effect on the future, I'm afraid.
Actually, it's Colorado, so I'm not entirely sure the lawyer didn't take this case pro bono. Getting a settlement like that in a state full of dog lovers (shelter adoption rate in the 90% range, I believe) would be a huge boost for business.
Cops are being held accountable for their actions more and more often now. The issue of dogs being shot unnecessarily has been percolating for ages. A giant settlement of this nature is going to be hugely helpful - it puts communities on notice. And the issue of being able to afford a lawyer is less relevant now in the time of GoFundMe pages and the like. I know TONS of animal lovers who would flock to a case like this with donations.
A giant settlement is also a good thing because it pushes the community to put pressure on the local law enforcement regarding their conduct and fund appropriate training. They said this guy was acting within policy, but I'm doubting that's going to be the case with any similar incidents going forward - they're going to have to change that policy.
Actually, it's Colorado, so I'm not entirely sure the lawyer didn't take this case pro bono. Getting a settlement like that in a state full of dog lovers (shelter adoption rate in the 90% range, I believe) would be a huge boost for business.
Cops are being held accountable for their actions more and more often now. The issue of dogs being shot unnecessarily has been percolating for ages. A giant settlement of this nature is going to be hugely helpful - it puts communities on notice. And the issue of being able to afford a lawyer is less relevant now in the time of GoFundMe pages and the like. I know TONS of animal lovers who would flock to a case like this with donations.
A giant settlement is also a good thing because it pushes the community to put pressure on the local law enforcement regarding their conduct and fund appropriate training. They said this guy was acting within policy, but I'm doubting that's going to be the case with any similar incidents going forward - they're going to have to change that policy.
Ok, but you realize the giant settlement happened only because the city realized it would cost them more than the settlement amount if it went to court, right?
What I see happening if it did go to court is a judge or jury awarding compensation, but in an amount no where close to $262,000. I believe the amount would be low enough that even if a lawyer did take the case pro bono, the exposure and resulting boost in business would be minimal.
Even though I agree something should be done about the way cops use guns to deal with house pets, if I were an official in another jurisdiction this particular case would not compel me to look into changing policy simply because a large payout occurred. But, like everyone else in this thread, I am glad it did occur.
PD lied and said the dog was chasing neighbors and attacking animal control officer but then the video surfaced that showed different story.
Another fine example of PD backing criminal cops.
Another example of someone else making the payment for someone else's crime instead of the one who does the criminal act.
The local municipality is responsible for the actions of their employees.
They're free to choose leaders - commissioners, council members, mayors, police chiefs - who won't tolerate this sort of disregard for the populace. Until they start demanding better behavior on the part of the people they employ, this sort of thing will be as common as it now is. When they stop tolerating it, it will become considerably less common.
The entire point of punitive damages is to disincentivize unacceptable behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier
How in hell was he acquitted in the first place?
He wore his uniform to trial. Just his being an LEO was 95% of the defense's case.
From their fellow LEOs to the local prosecutors to the juries, people are prepared to let LEOs do things that would end in convictions for the rest of us. It's a combination of a the inclination of people with power to abuse it, of people not in power to revere power, and of the endless chorus from the peanut gallery telling us that we all need to be cowering in fear - this notion that but for the people in uniform, we'd all be dead. "Give us rein to do as we will, or the local community gets it!". It's an implicit form of extortion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystery123
It's the other way actually, most are good cops.
I agree that most cops are good cops most of the time in their own actions.
But they're not good when they see another cop doing bad things and they look the other way. And when they supply false information about the bad things another cop did. Helping cover-up the misdeeds of others is as much of a problem as those misdeeds.
Great.....now we need to get Geists owner some justice. This case was even worse than Chloes. Geist was in his OWN backyard when the cop busted in and shot him.
You are missing the point. A settlement still resulted in a record payout. That is the issue, the payout not how it was reached. Now other jurisdictions have seen this settlement and I would think try to lower their exposure to such a payout by training officers and changing their policy. Other dog owners remember this and may react the same and seek council should something similar happen to them.
To claim only the rich have the ability to sue is nonsense. Lawyers often take cases with no money up front and fees coming from settlement money. And again seeing this settlement will give them more insentive to take on a case this way.
Bwhaaaahahhahaahaaa
Yeh right. Tell that to my mother who wanted to sue Rite Aide when she fell and got all scraped up one dark morning because the parking lot wasn't well lit and the curbs hadn't been painted as to be visible in the dark. She also appealed to employees inside to help her but they refused to open the doors to a bleeding elderly woman who was very CLEARLY a danger to society.
Anyway, the lawyer she approached told her it would cost too much to sue. Even though my mothers medical bills were around 400 dollars(which was all she was asking for). He made it sound like chump change which it WOULD have been to Rite Aide but was a fortune to my mother.
Now had this been a rich person, I'm pretty sure action would have been taken.
Location: Free State of Florida, Support our police
5,859 posts, read 3,295,993 times
Reputation: 9145
Cops should not be responding to animal calls at all. they should have animal control. Municipalities are so cash strapped that they assign these jobs to cops. What kind of training did these cops receive? I bet almost none.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
