Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Chicago police must pay 330k for killing dog in home raid


jasonluckydog

Recommended Posts

A federal jury says Chicago law enforcement must pay $330,000 to a family after officers shot their dog during a home raid that turned up no illegal activity.

Thomas Russell, then 18, opened the door to his home in February 2009 to find police officers with their guns drawn. He asked if he could lock up his 9-year-old black labrador, named Lady, before letting the officers inside. The Chicago Tribune describes what happened next:

Police refused the request and came into the house, the lawsuit said. When Lady came loping around the corner with her tail wagging, Officer Richard Antonsen shot the dog, according to the suit, which alleged excessive force, false arrest and illegal seizure for taking the dog's life.

The cops handcuffed Russell and his 16-year-old brother, and eventually charged Russell with obstructing their operation.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/chicago-police-must-pay-330k-killing-dog-home-200148841.html

The cops should of also been fired and 330k is not enough should of been 3 million. I hate bad cops with a fuging passion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until cities/counties grow some balls and start firing people, poo like this is going to happen.

Whomever did the investigation, the ordering to search, and the actual searching officers should be fired with no access to pensions.

If you want employees to do the right thing, threaten their way of life. No hiding behind unions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this is clearly a case of cops shooting a dog. I would use this in the case against the cops that mowed down a dog in Gastonia if I were the family's lawyer! I think that happened just about a month ago!

The dog wasn't acting agreesively and yet the G-town Police shot it like 6-8 times! (If I remember the what I read correctly.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate when I visit people who have vicious dogs. I would never trust such a savage beast that is easily capable of killing me.

In this case the cop should've let them put the dog up first since they offered. But during a raid you can't really let someone go do something like that, they might destroy evidence.

Complicated scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate when I visit people who have vicious dogs. I would never trust such a savage beast that is easily capable of killing me.

In this case the cop should've let them put the dog up first since they offered. But during a raid you can't really let someone go do something like that, they might destroy evidence.

Complicated scenario.

Like you visit anyone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why bother trolling? I personally found the topic interesting. You should read the article. Maybe you'll have something significant to contribute then.

Why you haven't contributed anything since you signed up, unless you count being pro-rape contributing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem quite obsessed with me. Do you even know what this topic is about? Also I don't recall being pro-rape, just pro-modesty while having an understanding of how the human mind works.

I don't support someone stealing your food but I wouldn't suggest you eat a hamburger in front of a starving Somalian.

Also you reference a post where I commented on the topic and offered a differing opinion which led to further discussion. Compare that to you making off topic comments that clearly contribute nothing and only derail topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate when I visit people who have vicious dogs. I would never trust such a savage beast that is easily capable of killing me.

In this case the cop should've let them put the dog up first since they offered. But during a raid you can't really let someone go do something like that, they might destroy evidence.

Complicated scenario.

Dog's don't inherently pose a threat. Very few dogs are aggressive, particularly inside dogs. Most aggressive dogs are abused and mistreated or dogs who have gone senile in old age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I don't think Dave touches the defense. That might be a mark against him but definitely a huge red flag for evero. He refuses to run anything other than soft zone and when you don't get pressure that's an awful scheme
    • You don't have to convince me. I think not picking up the option should absolutely be firmly on the table but I just do not see Tepper and Morgan doing that for previously stated reasons. Therefore I'm not going to bother entertaining the notion. Just hoping we actually get real viable competition. If that doesn't happen at the minimum then my perception of that is complete and utter professional malpractice.
    • It was absolutely a catch, and I can’t believe how many folks were stating, before the NFL’s apology, that the overturn was the right call.  The ultimate question in this case is this: can a player complete a catch with only one hand? Of course, we all know the answer to that question, and it is an emphatic “Yes.” T-Mac maintained complete control with one hand (believe it was the right) while the other came off when the ball hit the ground. The ball was in the same position in the one hand (watch T-Mac’s fingers in relation to the NFL shield on the ball) after touching the ground as it was when it first went to the ground. Going back to the question above, if one hand can establish control, then there was no need for the other to stay on the ball, so long as the ball doesn’t move in that one hand that stays on it   It blew my mind that they overturned this in the first place. This should not be a “We got it wrong on the replay because there wasn’t clear and convincing evidence.” This should have been, “That was absolutely a catch.”
×
×
  • Create New...