No one has posted the best part of the opinion yet, which may or may not be in the article I didn't click on.

Some turncoats in the department were going to testify for the dog owner that the police in that precinct take great pride in shooting dogs, to the point when an officer shoots a dog he gets a sticker on his locker as a badge of honor. Court: that's pretty bad, but it still doesn't make them responsible for shooting these two particular dogs.

I listen to a very libertarian podcast from the institute for justice. One of the guys was joking that he'll gladly help write the petition to have the whole court try to reverse the panels dumb, dumb ruling.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by SlapahoeTribe

Tiger Nation

Member since Jul 2012

12125 posts

Posted on 12/25/16 at 12:30 pm to FalseProphet

quote:
No one has posted the best part of the opinion yet, which may or may not be in the article I didn't click on.

Some turncoats in the department were going to testify for the dog owner that the police in that precinct take great pride in shooting dogs, to the point when an officer shoots a dog he gets a sticker on his locker as a badge of honor. Court: that's pretty bad, but it still doesn't make them responsible for shooting these two particular dogs.

At the very least this is willful destruction of private property.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Five0

Member since Dec 2009

11354 posts

Posted on 12/25/16 at 9:03 pm to FalseProphet

quote:
No one has posted the best part of the opinion yet, which may or may not be in the article I didn't click on.

The opinion is in the article (surprisingly since it contradicts the obvious bias of the article).

quote:
Some turncoats in the department were going to testify for the dog owner that the police in that precinct take great pride in shooting dogs, to the point when an officer shoots a dog he gets a sticker on his locker as a badge of honor. Court: that's pretty bad, but it still doesn't make them responsible for shooting these two particular dogs.

You should read the below portion FROM THE ACTUAL OPINION.

Despite this evidence, we find that Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence showing that “the need” for a specific policy and/or training “was so obvious and the likelihood that the inadequacy would result in the violation of constitutional rights was so great that the [City] as an entity can be held liable here for the extent of [Plaintiffs’] determined damages.” Leach v. Shelby Cty. Sheriff, 891 F.2d 1241, 1248 (6th Cir. 1989). This is largely because there was no evidence indicating that participation in the tally system was systematic or widespread, and there was no evidence that the police department’s supervisory personnel sanctioned such a system or even knew of its existence.

quote:
One of the guys was joking that he'll gladly help write the petition to have the whole court try to reverse the panels dumb, dumb ruling.

Well, if he enjoys wasting his time or has more free time than sense I wish him the best of luck in lieu of:

Given Jones’ criminal history, gang affiliations, the types of drugs he was suspected of distributing, the fact that the officers had no time to plan for the dogs, in addition to the officers’ unrebutted testimony that the dogs either lunged or were barking aggressively at the officers, the nature and size of the dogs, the fact that the dogs were unleashed and loose in a small residence, all culminate into a finding that the officers acted reasonably when they shot and killed the two dogs. Viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, we find that a jury would conclude that Officer Klein, Officer Young, and Officer Case acted reasonably in shooting and killing Plaintiffs’ dogs. Summary judgment was therefore appropriate.

0 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board