No it certainly doesn't preclude her "being in danger", especially considering her alleged boyfriend's record. But it still sounds like a family issue as opposed to a legal/criminal one.
http://www1.odcr.com/results
No it certainly doesn't preclude her "being in danger", especially considering her alleged boyfriend's record. But it still sounds like a family issue as opposed to a legal/criminal one.
http://www1.odcr.com/results
execpt for the dog shooting?
That depends on the totality of the circumstances in any given situation.
[While attending the ILEETA Conference last month, I attended a class facilitated by Laura Scarry, a Chicago attorney who represents law enforcement officers accused of civil rights violations at the state and federal level. Ms. Scarry advised participants of this change in the court’s view regarding dog shootings. We learned, in fact, such a shooting could possibly be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment! This class informed participants of current court rulings in place by circuit courts ruling that the use of deadly physical force can result in a federal civil rights lawsuit if a dog is “wrongfully” injured or killed.
For the purposes of this article, the portion of the Fourth Amendment under discussion is where the Fourth Amendment discusses that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. The federal courts recognize a dog, one’s canine companion, as an “effect.”
The precedent in place is a result of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case of Fuller v Vines, 36 F.3d 65,68 (9th Cir. 1994). In this case, an officer’s shooting and killing of a defendant’s dog could constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. As of the ILEETA Conference, at least three federal circuit courts of appeal have noted that the shooting of a dog by police is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The flexibility of the courts to address changing expectations of society with the passing of time is firmly in place within the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights .A dog is now protected from a “wrongful death.”
The use of deadly physical force against a dog will not be tolerated unless, as in all shootings, objective reasonableness is established by the totality of circumstances in place at the time of the incident based on the officer’s understanding of the facts. Such an understanding is formed:
• From the perspective of a reasonable officer
• On the scene
• At the moment force was used.
• Without 20/20 hindsight
• In circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving...]
http://lawenforcementtoday.com/tag/dog-shooting/
But it still sounds like a family issue as opposed to a legal/criminal one.
.execpt for the dog shooting?
.and it looks like the 4th backs up my ascertation
.Thanks for the Info
.execpt for the dog shooting?
.and it looks like the 4th backs up my ascertation
.Thanks for the Info
If the agency in this case follows any reasonable standard at all, a use of force report should've been filed. That should be obtainable under a FOIA request.
Again it would depend on the situation, in one case there was no warrant and the dog shooting was justified;
Jury's Verdict Favors HPD In Federal Dog-Shooting Case
http://articles.courant.com/2012-05...20529_1_fatal-shooting-dog-emotional-distress
While in another case there was a warrant and the shooting resulted in a large award.
Family gets $333,000 for 2009 raid in which cops killed dog
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ot-dog-20110819_1_family-dog-damages-officers
Pretty sure any report will contend the dog was aggressive/attacked, and since there was nobody there but the officers who can contest it?
Unless the property was clearly posted and the officers entered anyway the only issue I see at all is whether the residents of Carter and Love Counties want valuable LEO resources used to chase errant teens as opposed to other needs.
Well we had a member here claiming "the dog was let loose on the officers". If that's the case, then someone had to be there to do the letting loose. If that were the case, I'd expect said someone to be arrested. That member also said the girl was there. If so, then why is she still considered missing? There are still WAY to many holes in this story.
Well we had a member here claiming "the dog was let loose on the officers". If that's the case, then someone had to be there to do the letting loose. If that were the case, I'd expect said someone to be arrested. That member also said the girl was there. If so, then why is she still considered missing? There are still WAY to many holes in this story.
I know what was claimed, I'm just going by what was in the article and video I posted. Yes there are still questions, we'll see if we ever get any further answers or not.
Hmmm so no warrent equals good shoot
warrent gone wrong equals payoff
.Nothing was found in either case, somehow ...this is wrong
Similar threads
