YES! More judges need to do this.

Did the dog take the stand?

She fought the paw and the paw won.

/Got nuttin!

Sounds like she got bitten in the ass twice.

Wolfmanjames: She fought the paw and the paw won.

/Got nuttin!


/I LOL'd

i hate it when a frivilous lawsuit comes back to bite you in the arse.

Wolfmanjames: She fought the paw and the paw won.

/Got nuttin!

LOOL

LeroyBourne: Did the dog take the stand?

No, it sat, lay down then rolled over

That's better than being injured on the butt by a cane, nein?

Isn't every lawsuit filed against a police officer frivolous?

Your dog wants rump roast.

what, what?

If a person shoots a police dog that is considered the same as shooting an officer, so why not allow her to name the dog as a defendant. It should be no different than if a police officer bit her.

I don't care about the lawsuit, her butt or the judge. The farking dog was called Liberty? Was it wearing a flag cape and drawn by Stan Lee? - 'cause that is some pure cartoon cringe, right there.

More details seem necessary. If a person can be charged with harming a police dog why can't it work the other way around?

Anyone read the article? I wonder what this woman was doing when the dog bit her? Also, the article notes there was no report of the dog-bite when it occurred... there could be a few reasons for this but it doesn't help her case.

I can imagine several scenarios that would make this frivolous and perhaps ONE that would make this legitimate. In the case of the legitimate scenario, I assume that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. It says a fight broke out. Who was fighting? If she were perhaps trying to restrain one of her relatives and the dog got confused and out of control and bit her on the ass, I'd say there's a rather gray area that needs to be explored.

Perhaps there was some lack of control on the part of the police when it came to the dog?

And don't they treat police horses as if they were an officer on the force? So maybe that's why she went with this silly suing the dog tactic.

tacojohn: If a person shoots a police dog that is considered the same as shooting an officer, so why not allow her to name the dog as a defendant. It should be no different than if a police officer bit her.

Speaking on behalf of the dog: WHARRGARBL!

tacojohn: If a person shoots a police dog that is considered the same as shooting an officer, so why not allow her to name the dog as a defendant. It should be no different than if a police officer bit her.

Because a dog isn't mentally competent to stand trial, but it is competent enough to conduct its official police business.

By the way, you're an idiot.

OutsmartBullet: tacojohn: If a person shoots a police dog that is considered the same as shooting an officer, so why not allow her to name the dog as a defendant. It should be no different than if a police officer bit her.

Because a dog isn't mentally competent to stand trial, but it is competent enough to conduct its official police business.

By the way, you're an idiot.

Sounds like most cops. :)

OutsmartBullet: tacojohn: If a person shoots a police dog that is considered the same as shooting an officer, so why not allow her to name the dog as a defendant. It should be no different than if a police officer bit her.

Because a dog isn't mentally competent to stand trial, but it is competent enough to conduct its official police business.

By the way, you're an idiot.

Let's see, if I make a dangerous product, with no warning label, and it kills/hurts someone, I get sued. The police force have a dangerous product, that is also treated exactly the same way, as far as law goes, as a human. It hurts someone not breaking the law. But that's ok. I guess. I mean, this bypasses hippie/freeper barrier and goes right into common sense, and you don't seem to be grasping the concept.

FTA:

according to the police report of the incident, no evidence that Starks was bitten was found.

If that's true, doesn't that make this whole lawsuit thing frivolous??

AppleOptionEsc: Isn't every lawsuit filed against a police officer frivolous?

This.

AppleOptionEsc Quote 2009-03-29 01:41:15 PM
OutsmartBullet: tacojohn: If a person shoots a police dog that is considered the same as shooting an officer, so why not allow her to name the dog as a defendant. It should be no different than if a police officer bit her.

Because a dog isn't mentally competent to stand trial, but it is competent enough to conduct its official police business.

By the way, you're an idiot.

Let's see, if I make a dangerous product, with no warning label, and it kills/hurts someone, I get sued. The police force have a dangerous product, that is also treated exactly the same way, as far as law goes, as a human. It hurts someone not breaking the law. But that's ok. I guess. I mean, this bypasses hippie/freeper barrier and goes right into common sense, and you don't seem to be grasping the concept.

First of all Dogs are not treated "just like" police officers. You will NOT get the death penalty for killing a police dog, if that is all you did.

Second the police dog is not offered as a product, so consumer protection laws do not apply.

Impudent Domain: Second the police dog is not offered as a product, so consumer protection laws do not apply.

Either way someone has to be held accountable for the dogs behavior. If my dog gets lose and bites someone on the face or on the rear... I am held accountable, the same if someone comes into my house or wanders into my yard. There's probably a good chance that my dog would be put to sleep, aka "destroyed."

The biggest mistake she made was suing the dog but that was probably due to her lack of success suing the city.

However, instead of trying to find out the really interesting and relevant details, the news agency just went the XOMG! Woman Sues Dog attention-whore route.

This raises an interesting ethical question - should a living creature be trained as a weapon?

Still need some additional information in this article.

Woman sounds like your everyday trash but judge sounds like a complete asshole (unless it was just obvious that the woman was making everything up)

If the dog *DID* bite her (which hurts like f'ing hell by the way) when she *shouldn't* have been bitten, then it's ok for her to sue. She's probably kind of an idiot and isn't exactly sure who to name as a defendant. She probably heard the whole urban myth that the rest of us did that police animals are considered to be police officers for all intents and purposes of the law.

...so she named the police officers present, including the dog (erroneously yes...but not obnoxiously frivolous)

The article states that the *police report* didn't show that she was bitten. Does anybody here have to be given links to evidence showing that police reports OFTEN leave out information if it incriminates police officers?

Overall it's impossible to make any sort of judgment using that craptastic article as a guide.

If the woman was an innocent bystander and was bitten, then she deserves to have her case heard and the judge needs to fark off for demanding fines against the plaintiff because she didn't fully understand the legalities. A lawyer would cost her about $5000. You shouldn't have to have a ton of extra income to file a claim in court.

If the woman was obviously NOT bitten then she deserves to be fined...and possibly jailed, but she deserves to be fined for the false claim itself, not because she listed a police dog on the complaint along with the police officers.

seems like you missed a perfect chance to use the Dumbass tag

Bit in the ass by a police dog named Liberty. Dear god I love the symbolism. It's like a political cartoonist took control of the universe.

Ok, everybody saying that you should be able to sue a dog, you're wrong.

First, she was suing the dog, as well as the police department and other officers, not just the dog by itself. The fine was for naming the dog in the suit.

Second, she also missed her court appearance, causing another $500 fine. And her case hasn't been dismissed yet, because she can pay the grand and keep it going.

Finally, here's what caused the original incident. The cops were at her daughter's house because the kid had missed school, when they found the daughter's boyfriend had an outstanding warrant. If I had to guess, I'd say the mom was over there giving the cops crap when the dog "bit" her.

Interestingly there is a lot of president for suing "non-persons" and "objects" in the course of civil forfeiture or civil lawsuits.

The judge actually broke a long and evil tradition of this type of legal proceeding by citing this woman with a frivolous penalty.

Here's why and how. Every time you see an court action where the government want to confiscate property there will often be a court proceeding where the government will sue the property of object they intend to userp. You will see a cases like "United States of America v Currency" or State of Arizona vs One Ford Mustang" or
"United States of America v. 19.5 Acres of Pasture Land"

Suing the dog as a defendant? At least in the federal system it is legally sound and done all the time. But it is generally used as a tool in a takings.

Your dog wants buttocks.

So, let me get this straight.

You cannot sue, and name the dog as the defendant, but if you KILL a police dog you're charged with killing an officer?

This doesn't make sense.

+100 for this comment left on the web site.

Fred G commented 8 hours 32 minutes ago
Liberty was interviewed after the incident and reported that he was under the impression that she was packin a giant hamburger pattie in her bloomers and furthermore big a$$e$ made him violent. He said it was tasty.

Where's the HERO tag?

McGruff had no comment but was recorded pinning a medal on the canny canine

Couldn't they matchup lower K9 bite mark?

You know what's the best part about being bit in the but-tocks?

It's the ice cream.

/can't type with a suthun accent

AppleOptionEsc: OutsmartBullet: tacojohn: If a person shoots a police dog that is considered the same as shooting an officer, so why not allow her to name the dog as a defendant. It should be no different than if a police officer bit her.

Because a dog isn't mentally competent to stand trial, but it is competent enough to conduct its official police business.

By the way, you're an idiot.

Let's see, if I make a dangerous product, with no warning label, and it kills/hurts someone, I get sued. The police force have a dangerous product, that is also treated exactly the same way, as far as law goes, as a human. It hurts someone not breaking the law. But that's ok. I guess. I mean, this bypasses hippie/freeper barrier and goes right into common sense, and you don't seem to be grasping the concept.

If a police dog does something wrong, it's not like nobody is liable; you sue the department or its handler or whatever. All I'm saying is that it doesn't come out of Rin Tin Tin's pension.

nebjammer

That would have been LBJ, not JFK.



Lyndon B. Johnson: America owes you a debt of gratitude, son. Now I understand you were wounded. Where were you hit?
Forrest Gump: In the buttocks.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Oh that must be a sight.
Lyndon B. Johnson: I'd like to see that.
Lyndon B. Johnson: God damn, son.

I agree, the article is a bit weak on details.

The woman could have been completely compliant and got attacked by a poorly trained guard dog. In this case, the police force should be liable for damages and the dog put down.

On the other hand, the bite could have never happened or the woman was trying to hit the police officer with a tire iron...

Not enough information to really know what happened.

Bathia_Mapes: YES! More judges need to do this.

I agree completely!Too many people are filing trivial lawsuits that are absolutely ridiculous just to get some money out of it. It's a waste of people's time and more judges need to take a stand.

As a technical question, this has already been resolved as a matter of law.
"One cannot achieve higher authority, or greater immunity, by acting through a subordinate than acting personally."

If the cop stabbed the woman with a knife, himself, because she was standing close to someone else (not resisting, or evading, or attacking), I don't think there would be any question that he would (at the very least) lose his job and be sued - if not sent to prison. It's called "felony assault with a deadly weapon".

Why is he (and his employers) in some way immune because the dog he controlled (trained and brought to the scene specifically to bite people) did what it was trained to do?
He didn't actually make that command? That's his problem, not hers - and it's as useless as arguing that "yes, the bullet from my gun struck you, but I didn't pull the trigger on purpose".

McGruff ain't takin' no jive these days, is he?

rkl307: As a technical question, this has already been resolved as a matter of law.
"One cannot achieve higher authority, or greater immunity, by acting through a subordinate than acting personally."

If the cop stabbed the woman with a knife, himself, because she was standing close to someone else (not resisting, or evading, or attacking), I don't think there would be any question that he would (at the very least) lose his job and be sued - if not sent to prison. It's called "felony assault with a deadly weapon".

Why is he (and his employers) in some way immune because the dog he controlled (trained and brought to the scene specifically to bite people) did what it was trained to do?
He didn't actually make that command? That's his problem, not hers - and it's as useless as arguing that "yes, the bullet from my gun struck you, but I didn't pull the trigger on purpose".

Have you even been reading? She can't sue the dog, but she CAN sue the police officers that controlled the dog. She got hit with the frivolous lawsuit thing for "naming the dog as a defendant." All of the other defendants she named are still defendants.

I doubt she's going to get anything, though, because "no evidence that Starks was bitten was found."

So if the judge allows her to sue the dog and she wins, how is the dog supposed to pay? Does he have his own bank account, or does he pay her in rawhide bones and squeaky toys?

The Judge figured that she had padded her case.It was obvious from her briefs....

And yet currency can be charged with a crime. Interesting, that.

To me, there should only be an additional fine (for putting the dog in as a defendant) if the woman fully knew that the dog could in no way be named.
She may very well have thought that putting the dog as a defendant would ensure that the dog would no longer be a police dog, or some such. I don't know, people are stupid. I don't know if stupidity/ignorance should be a fine.

/obviously, missing the court date should be
//and if it turns out there is literally no evidence she was bit, THAT should be a fine