Skip to comments.Detroit-area judge fines woman who sued police dog
Posted on 03/29/2009 11:13:07 AM PDT by Chet 99
WARREN, Mich. - A woman sued a police dog that she blamed for injuries after it bit her in the buttocks. To a suburban Detroit judge, the bottom line was that the lawsuit was frivolous.
So Warren District Judge David Viviano slapped 55-year-old Inez Starks with a $500 fine.
The Eastpointe woman filed a lawsuit last August against the city of Warren, several police officers and Liberty, a German shepherd dog in the police department's K-9 unit.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
That doesn’t sound very frivolous to me. Unless the dog barely nipped her, not even breaking skin.
Well ain’t that a bite in the arse!!!
Wouldn't we need some data (pics) regarding the "victim" to be able to provide a definitive judgment regarding the thoughts of the dog?
WARREN, Mich. — An Eastpointe woman who sued a Warren police dog was fined by a judge to pay $500 for frivolously naming the dog as a defendant. She was also fined another $500 for failing to appear in Macomb County Circuit Court for a February hearing.
Inez M. Starks, 55, filed a lawsuit in August against the city of Warren and several police officers for a 2007 incident outside of her daughter’s Warren home. During the altercation, Starks claimed she was bitten in the buttocks by the Warren police dog Liberty.
Starks said she was bitten by the German shepherd April 7, 2007, outside of her daughter’s home during a confrontation between police, her daughter and others.
Police went to the home after receiving a truancy complaint against Stark’s daughter involving her daughter’s child. During the visit police found the woman’s brother, who had an outstanding warrant. The dog was brought in because the man started to flee.
The Macomb Daily reported that Starks, who was living across the street from her daughter at the time, said she came over to complain when a fight broke out, causing the dog to attack. Starks said she was bitten on her right buttock.
Starks claims the bite caused damage to her sacroiliac nerve, impairing her ability to walk and keeping her in pain.
But according to the police report of the incident, no evidence that Starks was bitten was found.
Judge David Viviano ordered Starks to pay the $1,000 fine by April 13 or her case will be dismissed.
According to the Maccomb Daily, even if Starks does pay the fine to have the case restored, attorney Raechel Badalamenti, representing the city of Warren, said the defendants will still ask the judge to dismiss the case.
If a police dog barges into your home and you shoot the dog in self defense that is considered murder of a police officer.
Justice is no longer a consideration in America.
Officials do not have to follow the same rules and the subjects. ( We are no longer citizens )
That doesnt sound very frivolous to me. Unless the dog barely nipped her, not even breaking skin.
Then that must mean that the dog wasn’t putting out a 100% effort while doing his job.
“Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?” “WOOF
I wish more judges would do what Judge David Viviano did. We would have a lot fewer frivolous lawsuits if more judges fined those who bring such suits...I would also recommend sanctioning the attorneys who file such frivolous lawsuits.
I wonder how Ms. Stark explains nerve damage (though she seems to be a very nervy person) when she cannot demonstrate she was actually bitten and had no medical evidence to present. I cannot envision someone being bitten by a canine not seeking medical attention. Her case was clearly frivolous and not only was she rightly sanctioned, her attorney should also have been sanctioned.
Not the point. You don’t sue the dog, even if he tore an arm off... you sue his owner.
I’m not necessarily inclined to immediately believe the government on this matter. I have no idea whether or not she in fact lied, it’s just that I don’t completely believe a) what government prosecutors & judges say or b) what media outlets say; and especially c) what prosecutors & judges say through the media. About anything. Not these days.
She did sue the ‘owners.’ “The Eastpointe woman filed a lawsuit last August against the city of Warren, several police officers and Liberty, a German shepherd dog in the police department’s K-9 unit.” From mlive. Funny how only a few articles tell more of the story than “she sued a dog.”
I pretty much agree with Judge Viviano except the fine should have been larger.
There is a guy in Oakland who felt the same way.
It must have been a member of the union.
Well, you do have a point there. However, in the case of police dogs, they are considered police officers. So maybe she should’ve sued the department?
Just another excerpt from the case files of:
So, you want your judges to treat their courts as revenue centers for the gov't??
Da Judge fined her, BUT said her case would be re-instated after payment of the fine.
If he truly felt the case frivolous, why reinstate after she enriches his coffers??
She’d have to have a pretty small a$$, and have sustained a pretty deep bite wound to have nerve damage, I’d think. Somehow, I doubt either is the case! Surely she has medical evidence to present?
Did the Dog get checked for HIV after that?
I’m not a doctor so I don’t know. I don’t know what “nerve damage” entails, exactly. All I know is I’m not going to take the media’s accounts as factual on their faces, any more than I’d immediately take her account as factual without further research.
Would that be the guy on the BART train that was lying prone on the ground that was shot in the back by a transit cop? Caught on video no less.
When things like that happen it can make things very dangerous for other cops and the public. It might be why there were four dead Oakland officers shot dead a few weeks later, and why there was a mob supporting the killer.
It can turn into war right before your eyes.
If you shoot and kill a dog, police dog or not, you will not be charged with murder. You cannot legally “murder” a dog. Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. A dog ain’t human.
Hyperbole annoys me...
I wouldn’t go so far as to say nobody in the police force or court system doesn’t want justice. I would say many regard it as their own personal sandbox to make up the rules as they go along.
And I would also say there are many in the police and court system that taint it so that most people believe they are all corrupt. Certainly with dogs there is one set of rules for police and another for citizens.
It will be for killing an officer. There are special laws that make police dogs ‘officers’. Such laws are only in place in certain areas of the US, not country-wide.
I wonder if Snoopy, the world-famous attorney, has come forward and offered to serve as counsel for the dog.
This charge is still not murder. Murder involves killing another human being. Killing an animal, reguardless of its status is not murder.
No ands, ifs, or buts. In order to commit murder, a human being must die. Nothing else works...
...the bottom line...
I know, dummy. I didn’t say it was. Read what I actually write instead of just going off.
In Post 8, 1believer wrote "If a police dog barges into your home and you shoot the dog in self defense that is considered murder of a police officer."
In Post 26, I wrote, "If you shoot and kill a dog, police dog or not, you will not be charged with murder. You cannot legally murder a dog. Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. A dog aint human."
Then you wrote in Post 28, "It will be for killing an officer. There are special laws that make police dogs officers. Such laws are only in place in certain areas of the US, not country-wide."
You stated that "it", refering to the charge, would be murder. If not, what the hell did "it" refer to. You aren't suggesting a dog is human are you? What does "it" refer to if not the charge of murder?
You cannot murder an animal. A dog is an animal. You cannot murder a dog. See how that works, dummy?