If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Fark SearchWeb Fark

         more options... Create account

(Click On Detroit) Spiffy Woman who tried to sue a police dog for biting her on the butt is fined by a judge for filing a frivolous lawsuit   (clickondetroit.com) divider line 50
More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

6800 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2009 at 1:11 PM   |  Make this a Fark FavoriteFavorite    |   share: Share on OMGTWITTER WEB2.0share on StumbleUponshare on Facebook  more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!

50 Comments   (+0 »)


Archived thread
 
Bathia_Mapes [TotalFark] 2009-03-28 07:08:16 PM  
YES! More judges need to do this.

 
LeroyBourne 2009-03-29 01:13:12 PM  
Did the dog take the stand?

 
Wolfmanjames [TotalFark] 2009-03-29 01:14:33 PM  
She fought the paw and the paw won.

/Got nuttin!

 
Caulfield 2009-03-29 01:15:12 PM  
Sounds like she got bitten in the ass twice.

 
KwameKilstrawberry 2009-03-29 01:15:53 PM  
Wolfmanjames: She fought the paw and the paw won.

/Got nuttin!



/I LOL'd

 
farbekrieg 2009-03-29 01:16:12 PM  
i hate it when a frivilous lawsuit comes back to bite you in the arse.

 
Phil McKraken 2009-03-29 01:16:32 PM  
Wolfmanjames: She fought the paw and the paw won.

/Got nuttin!


LOOL

 
luckyeddie 2009-03-29 01:16:56 PM  
LeroyBourne: Did the dog take the stand?

No, it sat, lay down then rolled over

 
sendbillmoney [TotalFark] 2009-03-29 01:18:56 PM  
That's better than being injured on the butt by a cane, nein?

 
AppleOptionEsc 2009-03-29 01:26:10 PM  
Isn't every lawsuit filed against a police officer frivolous?

 
girljen 2009-03-29 01:26:52 PM  
Your dog wants rump roast.

 
bio4ema 2009-03-29 01:28:12 PM  
what, what?

 
tacojohn 2009-03-29 01:29:00 PM  
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.

 
barefoot in the head [TotalFark] 2009-03-29 01:31:10 PM  
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.

 
rat_brain_flies_plane 2009-03-29 01:33:13 PM  
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.

 
ttc2301 2009-03-29 01:33:56 PM  
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!

 
OutsmartBullet 2009-03-29 01:34:25 PM  
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.

 
WaveRyder 2009-03-29 01:36:28 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.


Sounds like most cops. :)

 
AppleOptionEsc 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.

 
trillium13 2009-03-29 01:46:03 PM  
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??

 
RogermcAllen 2009-03-29 01:49:29 PM  
AppleOptionEsc: Isn't every lawsuit filed against a police officer frivolous?

This.

 
Impudent Domain 2009-03-29 01:52:41 PM  
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.

 
rat_brain_flies_plane 2009-03-29 02:07:21 PM  
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.

 
barefoot in the head [TotalFark] 2009-03-29 02:10:39 PM  
This raises an interesting ethical question - should a living creature be trained as a weapon?

 
fritton 2009-03-29 02:11:00 PM  
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.

 
MagicBus 2009-03-29 02:20:52 PM  
seems like you missed a perfect chance to use the Dumbass tag

 
Wrong_Intentions 2009-03-29 02:21:24 PM  
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.

 
phyrkrakr 2009-03-29 02:23:40 PM  
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.

 
MrBentor 2009-03-29 02:33:10 PM  
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.

 
nebjammer 2009-03-29 02:38:35 PM  
images.icanhascheezburger.com

 
nebjammer 2009-03-29 02:39:15 PM  
images.icanhascheezburger.com

 
My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks 2009-03-29 02:40:30 PM  
Your dog wants buttocks.

 
Silverkarn 2009-03-29 03:13:58 PM  
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.

 
Spartan Dave 2009-03-29 03:14:23 PM  
+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.

 
Seigneur 2009-03-29 03:32:12 PM  
Where's the HERO tag?

 
Glendale 2009-03-29 03:34:36 PM  
i66.photobucket.com

 
cwolf20 [TotalFark] 2009-03-29 03:56:05 PM  
McGruff had no comment but was recorded pinning a medal on the canny canine

 
litespeed74 2009-03-29 04:06:57 PM  
Couldn't they matchup lower K9 bite mark?

 
Circus Midget 2009-03-29 04:17:25 PM  
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

 
OutsmartBullet 2009-03-29 05:02:19 PM  
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.

 
Bathia_Mapes [TotalFark] 2009-03-29 05:37:38 PM  
nebjammer

That would have been LBJ, not JFK.

4.bp.blogspot.com

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.

 
Xetal 2009-03-29 07:12:24 PM  
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.

 
jsb1186 2009-03-29 07:20:45 PM  
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.

 
rkl307 2009-03-29 07:23:01 PM  
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".

 
Hawnkee 2009-03-29 08:49:55 PM  
McGruff ain't takin' no jive these days, is he?

 
Jgok [TotalFark] 2009-03-29 09:11:31 PM  
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."

 
AuntiAnxiety 2009-03-29 09:57:48 PM  
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?

 
EngineerBob 2009-03-30 12:40:54 AM  
The Judge figured that she had padded her case.It was obvious from her briefs....

 
ProfessorOhki 2009-03-30 03:03:01 AM  
And yet currency can be charged with a crime. Interesting, that.

 
puffy999 [TotalFark] 2009-03-30 06:13:29 PM  
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

 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments


[Continue Farking]