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.
We should all applaud this ruling and hope more follow. The officer was not only acquitted but also cleared when internal affairs ruled his actions were "within policy". Well rulings like this may force a change in this policy as jurisdictions try to avoid a similar award.
Last edited by DaveinMtAiry; 01-26-2016 at 02:18 PM..
We should all applaud this ruling and hope more follow. The officer was not only acquitted but also cleared when internal affairs ruled his actions were "within policy". Well rulings like this may force a change in this policy as jurisdictions try to avoid a similar award.
We should all applaud this ruling and hope more follow. The officer was not only acquitted but also cleared when internal affairs ruled his actions were "within policy". Well rulings like this may force a change in this policy as jurisdictions try to avoid a similar award.
This is clearly one instance where IA failed in no small way.
This was a settlement out of court, that was done in order to avoid an expensive trial.
The only reason this had a good outcome is because this pet was owned by someone who could afford to pay an attorney to take the city to court. For the vast majority of us, the ruling that the officer acted "within policy" would have been the end of it.
So the only "ruling" is that the officer acted properly, meaning it leaves the door open for this to continue happening.
We should all applaud this ruling and hope more follow. The officer was not only acquitted but also cleared when internal affairs ruled his actions were "within policy". Well rulings like this may force a change in this policy as jurisdictions try to avoid a similar award.
Yep, hopefully this will force the county to change their horrid inhumane "policy".
This was a settlement out of court, that was done in order to avoid an expensive trial.
The only reason this had a good outcome is because this pet was owned by someone who could afford to pay an attorney to take the city to court. For the vast majority of us, the ruling that the officer acted "within policy" would have been the end of it.
So the only "ruling" is that the officer acted properly, meaning it leaves the door open for this to continue happening.
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.
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.
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.
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.
