Police shoot dogs, family gets compensated
- Thread starter Chris0nllyn
- Start date
Sadly, the backlash from this sort of thing is the fact that police will be less likely to do anything when a "vicious" animal is running loose, biting and eating small kids. I know if it was me, in the situation where I was posed with the choice of whether to shoot a dog that was charging a kid and killing the dog or not shooting and letting the dog attack the kid, i'd opt to let the dog bite the kid. Even if the kid suffers massive injury due to the fact that the officer failed to fire on the dog, the officer can easily articulate that by shooting the dog, he would have faced disciplinary action, civil lawsuits and public embarassment for doing his job. Warren Vs. D.C. protects the officer if the officer decides to "not take action" against the dog.
I am all for rights, freedoms, etc. However, it seems that the more liberals are allowed to have a say in how things go in court, the more the police get their hands tied, and society further slides down the moral drain. Liberals have fought hard against controlled hunts where deer are overpopulating to the point where they almost starve, shooting an animal to relieve its suffering to the point where police often beg citizens to do the killing to avoid any backlash from liberal supervision or inquiries, and fought for "pets rights" to restrict the use of force against animals that are rogue, roaming, and searching for kills (even if it means small children, like in the case of the Charles County attack).
Furthermore, these lawsuits do the taxpayers no service, as when the offending government and entity pays out money, the politicians simply raise taxes to make up for the loss. So laugh it up, everytime the government pays over some sort of "johnny slipped on ice" or "Officer Joe hit gangsta Joe with the baton" it comes out of taxpayers funds. Some payouts have reached ridiculous proportions, and i'll be frank, I think that the payouts should be limited, and or cancelled altogether. For example, if you killed a cop, and then you turned around and sued, even if you win, the government should have the right to refuse paying you because you killed a government official, like in the ruby ridge case. You should also be limited in how many lawsuits you can file in a lifetime, so if you have reached your limit of 3 or 4, then you are done. No more serial litigants tying up the courts with ridiculous lawsuits.
I am all for rights, freedoms, etc. However, it seems that the more liberals are allowed to have a say in how things go in court, the more the police get their hands tied, and society further slides down the moral drain. Liberals have fought hard against controlled hunts where deer are overpopulating to the point where they almost starve, shooting an animal to relieve its suffering to the point where police often beg citizens to do the killing to avoid any backlash from liberal supervision or inquiries, and fought for "pets rights" to restrict the use of force against animals that are rogue, roaming, and searching for kills (even if it means small children, like in the case of the Charles County attack).
Furthermore, these lawsuits do the taxpayers no service, as when the offending government and entity pays out money, the politicians simply raise taxes to make up for the loss. So laugh it up, everytime the government pays over some sort of "johnny slipped on ice" or "Officer Joe hit gangsta Joe with the baton" it comes out of taxpayers funds. Some payouts have reached ridiculous proportions, and i'll be frank, I think that the payouts should be limited, and or cancelled altogether. For example, if you killed a cop, and then you turned around and sued, even if you win, the government should have the right to refuse paying you because you killed a government official, like in the ruby ridge case. You should also be limited in how many lawsuits you can file in a lifetime, so if you have reached your limit of 3 or 4, then you are done. No more serial litigants tying up the courts with ridiculous lawsuits.
I just shot my fing dog in the head, where to i collect my fing money gdamit.
Http://mdean.tripod.com/immunity.html
This article is old, but very informative about law enforcement and their duty to protect you and your family from dangerous criminals and or animals (in this case), an insight on the "duty to act." It leaves you wondering why the state has further left citizens defenseless with restrictive firearms laws, whether your defending against dogs or whatever.
This article is old, but very informative about law enforcement and their duty to protect you and your family from dangerous criminals and or animals (in this case), an insight on the "duty to act." It leaves you wondering why the state has further left citizens defenseless with restrictive firearms laws, whether your defending against dogs or whatever.
You are disgusting. A pig indeed.