Posted on 09/22/2012 1:14:01 PM PDT by Politicalmom
The April verdict by a Frederick County jury that awarded $620,000 to a Taneytown family after their dog was shot by a sheriff's deputy was upheld by a Montgomery County judge.
An attorney for the Frederick County Sheriff's Office argued that the jury's verdict should be set aside because it went against the weight of the evidence presented during the seven-day trial. Michael B. Rynd asked Judge Marielsa Bernard to either set aside the verdict or grant his motion for a new trial.
Bernard heard the case after Frederick County judges recused themselves.
She denied Rynd's motion, saying it would be inappropriate to substitute her judgment for the jury's verdict. She issued her ruling Monday.
Rynd also filed a motion to have the $620,000 judgment lowered.
Bernard agreed with Rynd that Maryland law caps damages for veterinary bills at $7,500 and reduced the original $20,000 for those costs.
The rest of the award, $600,000, was for mental anguish, pain and suffering, according to court records.
Rynd argued that portions of that amount should have been decreased because the jury awarded the exact same amount to each of the two homeowners, Roger and Sandi Jenkins. Sandi Jenkins seemed more upset during testimony at trial, so the damages should be less for her husband, Rynd said.
Bernard denied that part of the motion.
On April 3, a six-person jury found Deputy First Class Timothy Brooks violated the Jenkinses' rights under the Maryland Constitution when he shot their chocolate Labrador retriever, Brandi, on Jan. 9, 2010, while he and Deputy First Class Nathan Rector were at their Bullfrog Road home looking for their son, who was wanted on a civil warrant.
(Excerpt) Read more at fredericknewspost.com ...
This needs to happen every time some donut-muncher does this.
The awards need to bge much higher though, and lets make the cops and their superiors personally liable. Go after their houses, too.
Get off it.
A dog is a member of the family
Blame the cops, and the taxpayers deserve to pay for employing such a jagoff.
You’re an ignorant hateful person.
Bullsh*t!
The sooner the taxpayers understand these idiots are doing this in their name the better.
They voted for this. let them suffer the consequences.
When it comews to dogs, take your purist principles and shove ‘em, okay?
Screw you, donna.
You’re crappy opinion is an epic FAIL.
As usual.
Its not a stranger, its your employee.
Even some thickheaded broad who thinks with their hormones like you should understand that.
Stuff it for once, bigmouth.
You only think you won the argument because you broads always think you win.
Now shut up and get back to the laundry, woman!
Don’t need cops
That’s what the Second Amendment is for.
In my real world, cop gets hurt...his house burns down perhaps.
There’s no longer such a thing as a ‘good cop’, Norm.
You can’t be as big of an imbecile as you just came across as.
Shoot my dog as see what happens to you, dipstick.
Several....in painful crippling places like kneecaps and tailbones.
Not a bit, Norm. Donna lost hands down!!!
Hope all you want. But it's been decided, appealed, appeal lost.
Agreed.
I pray it never becomes their dog, their wife, their kid, their widowed grandmother.
But these stories are getting out there; increasingly I’ve been noticing that fewer people (save the token cops/cop family members who typically acknowledge being such (or have other posters call out their conflict of interest on their behalf) defend these acts.
I pray the tide will turn soon.
Those who have no qualms about shooting dogs today will soon (if they do not already) have no qualms about shooting people.
Those who defend these cops may be defending the very people who will comprise Obama’s National Security Force.
Unfortunately, an increasing number of officers have forgotten that we are their employers.
Policework is perhaps the only profession in which an employee could possibly shoot an employer’s dog and not be both (1) fired and (2) jailed for it.
I don’t believe in $600,000 payouts for ginned up “pain and suffering” to anyone including dog, cat and cockatoo owners. Ohhhh..... a cop shot my pet hamster and I am traumatized for life. I am going to sue the police for a $600,000. I know I can get a dumbass jury to help me out here.
How about shooting cats. Where does that rank for you? Should I get $600,000 if an errant policeman wings my cat?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.