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 ...
That'd be a 10 to one return on a small investment ~ can't hardly beat that one no how.
Once I get my money you can stir them up eh.
$5000 at the most for a dog. The only people who lose here are the taxpayers. No dog is worth $600,000
That’s not funny
WTF??? The dog isn’t even dead though it may have run up some steep veterinarian bills.
not supposed to be funny.
A moral victory should be good enough.
Taking that much money from taxpayers is just wrong.
Hey Dennis, I missed the part where they said the $600,000 was for the dead dog.
Please point that part out to us.
The ruling was good, but I think the funds should come right out of that PD’s operating budget —the PD needs to suffer, not the innocent taxpayers.
This is happening more and more and I think cops should take out a bond for these types of events —when finally they can’t get coverage, well, the PD would know what to do with that guy’s contract...
Same for judges who pen-whip applications for no-knock warrants
Moral victories do not change policies or the politicians that institute them.
The taxpayers of these districts elected people who put these shoot fog policies in place. It’s up to them to make good on their error. Sucks greatly for those who didn’t vote for them, but elections have consequences.
And it it takes bankrupting towns and cities to teach the lesson, so be it.
Lessay when you got pulled over for speeding, your ticket was paid by the CITY —not by you.
Does anyone think that would deter you from future speeding?
The transgressor should be the payer —then everything works.
I have a cat, the cops could shoot it for less than half that.
You expect comedic talent from a psychotic?
I’d rather my tax dollars go for this than any of O’Malice’s other corrupt “programs”.
Some cop is always going to make a bad decision about something. That's no reason for one person (and his lawyer) to get rich.
Give the money back to the taxpayer and fire the chief of police. That'll be a better solution.
That is BS. A dog is your best friend a member of your family. The anguish of losing your best friend and a member of the family should be compensated for.
Except it does not work that way in real life. The system is what it is. Sucks, but that’s the recourse.
If the law made cops personally liable there would be no cops. Am I happy that taxpayers get screwed? No. But if they keep electing idiot liberals that make dog shooting a priority in contact with the public, they deserve what they get.
Well then, dogs get shot, live with that real world.
No reason to then do additional wrong by getting rich unjustly.
The only way to stop this is to hold the shooter(s) COMPLETELY responsible if the jury finds they violated PD policy.
PD policy should be that pets on their own private property are treated as “children” with regard to limits on the use of deadly force.
Finally.
Can I come shoot your dog for no good reason and tell you to just deal with it?
No?
Well then you have a dilemma.
Can I come pick your pocket because some stranger shot my dog?
No pity at all for Maryland taxpayers. They elect this ring of freaks, now they get to pay for them again.
I hope they win settlements all over America for every dog that is shot without cause which is what they are doing.
It’s time to intimidate back in the courts.
I can understand a circumstance where you’d shoot a pit bull.
But a choco lab? That’s hard for me to see.
How about answering my question and then I’ll answer yours.
If I come and wrongly shoot your dog under color of authority, are you supposed to just shut up and take it? Or is the authority that wrongly shot your dog going to be held accountable?
Since the law is that police are not personally liable, you have a choice. use the legal process to toss the idiots that created the shooting gallery mentality and elect people with sense, or pay dearly via taxes every time one of these cops blasts Fido.
Or just say “Yes sir, sorry sir!” and slink off into a sear-filled corner.
Politicians ‘change’ policies like this only when thrown from office or under the very credible threat they will be. Taxpayers only pay attention when their pocketbooks are emptied.
Your way gets dead dogs and incremental increases in governmental overreach. Mine makes voters/taxpayers accountable for the people they elect and the laws/rules they govern by.
That sounds like the conservative way to me.
I won the argument. Why linger, LOL?
On what planet?
Lets put it up for a vote.
Anyone here think Donna makes a better point?
This should be a wake up call to those creating, us VS them, militarized war like police policies.
We need a few more of these actions to get government's attention.
Boy, you’re really pissed that somebody finally got justice for their shot dog, aren’t ya?
Some people come on here saying all kinds of stuff, but those capable of critical thought are easily able sort through it.
We need to end these punitive, militarized war like police policies.
Donna is all wet.You won Norm.
“If the law made cops personally liable there would be no cops.”
I disagree.
If an officer is violating PD policy or the law, he is acting outside his authority & therefore, “on his own”. Whether he is shooting a dog or a child, if he is committing a crime, no uniform or badge should exempt him from criminal & civil penalties.
If that means no one wants to be a policeman (I seriously doubt that), then we are better off in a society with fewer policemen & where personal responsibility is still supreme. No one should be exempt from their deadly actions.
Thats the only legal thing we can do short of CW2.
Lawsuit is the recourse and taxpayers can either vote for pols who end this idiocy or keep paying while we keep losing our rights/freedoms. I don’t see any other option available.
I want in on the jackpot boy ~ so, whach you sayin’?
No he isnt, because the PD/taxpayer will still be held responsible for the rogue cop actions. He still committed the crime under color of authority.
Seriously, if today the law became “All cops personally responsible”, do you think any would stay? Or enough to constitute a PD?
I know If the people I worked for would hang me out to dry, I’d quit.
Agreed.
No.
I agree that making the taxpaying public aware that -they’re- paying for the acts of renegade dog-killing cops is exactly the shovel upside the head that they need to wake up.
You cannot get some people mad enough to hold public servants accountable until it affects *their* life/wallet.
We live in a self-absorbed society where, if it doesn’t affect *me*, why should *I* care?
That’s how these cops slipped in the first place...nobody cared enough to hold them accountable because it’s not *their* dog/kid/property....yet.
What kind of individual shoots a choc lab? A miserable sumbitch who happens to be a jack booted thug cop.Unreal.The taxpayers are the ones that voted in that kind of nonsense so they get the bill.Fitting.
Your post sums this issue up perfectly.
Where do you draw the line donna? The kids maybe?
Your post makes no sense.
Started drinking early today?
Usually you’re not this incoherent until after midnight.
************************************
Is that a trick question? :)
Agreed
Yep!
Just fire the Chief of Police. It’s simple.
Here’s your problem:
“Resentment is like taking a poison and waiting for the other person to die.”
- Malachy McCourt
The CONSERVATIVE position - which is news to you:
TORT REFORM
The American economy suffers from excessive litigation which increases the cost of doing business and slows economic growth. The Club for Growth supports major reforms to our tort system to restore a more just and less costly balance in tort litigation.
Gingrich has been a clear and consistent advocate for lawsuit abuse reform for years. The “Common Sense Legal Reform Act” was part of the Contract with America in 1994, and was passed by both the House and Senate, but vetoed by President Bill Clinton. The bill would have reformed the tort system by penalizing frivolous and predatory lawsuits by imposing “loser pays” rules and capping punitive damages.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=903
Its not news to me smart ass.Tort reform would be an excellent idea and the only problem is that most of the politicians are liars/lawyers and will not pass it.So you are left with the only recourse of jury awards against the perps in this case(cops).If you get in the wallet you will effect change.
Cool. The new chief comes in and keeps the policy. Net gain ZERO.
Donna, Whether you like it or not and your unique views of what conservatism constitutes aside, it is the responsibility of THE PEOPLE to restrain their government. The tools available are the ballot box and the courts. Then CW2.
Tort reform is great. I’m all for it. But RIGHT NOW the rules/laws are what they are and no conservative in their right mind refuses to use them ‘just cuz’.
If people refuse to live up to their responsibilities and vote out/down pols and laws that harm them, they should pay the cost of their decision.
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.