Ping
Posted on 12/06/2017 4:17:51 AM PST by GregNH
PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona jurors who will decide a malicious-prosecution trial against former Sheriff Joe Arpaio were told that one of Sen. Jeff Flake's sons suffered from depression as a result of a now-dismissed animal cruelty case that the lawman brought against him.
The jury was told on the opening day of the civil trial that Austin Flake and his ex-wife Logan Brown still suffer emotional distress from the charges they faced when 21 dogs at a kennel operated by the younger Flake's in-laws died from heat exhaustion. The Flakes were watching the dogs while the in-laws were in Florida.
The lawsuit filed by the couple alleges Arpaio pursued charges against them to do political damage to the Republican senator from Arizona and gain publicity for himself. While jurors were told about Arpaio's efforts to publicize the case, the elder Flake was barely mentioned during opening Tuesday's opening statements.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Ping
A prototype Snow Flake.
:: The lawsuit filed by the couple alleges Arpaio pursued charges against them to do political damage to the Republican senator from Arizona and gain publicity for himself. ::
And, 21 canine carcasses in one location had absolutely NOTHING to do with the charges.
Good one Flake.Now you’ll be on every left wing sucker list for two generations. Oh, I forgot, you are one already.
This has got to be satire.
Like the 21 neglected dogs that baked to death slowly did not cause emotional distrsss to their owners
Let’s get this straight...the young son of a US Senator negligently operated a kennel causing the death of 21 dogs, and he’s suing Joe Arpaio for prosecuting him?
Sounds like pure projection right there.
Austin and his then wife are such snowflakes. If my dog were to die the way those dogs did, I would be fuming and taking those Flakes to court, too.
And, 21 canine carcasses in one location had absolutely NOTHING to do with the charges.
“Austin Flake and his ex-wife Logan Brown still suffer emotional distress from the charges they faced when 21 dogs at a kennel operated by the younger Flake’s in-laws died from heat exhaustion.”
seems wrong. seems likely they have any depression or issues because at the root, they know they did wrong and were caught, not just because of they had charges filed against them. Until they face the root cause of their “depression” or other feelings about this situation they will stay “stuck” by their own choice, no one else did this to them. they allowed dogs to die while in their care.
The real issue here is the fact that a corrupt lawyer in a black robe is allowing other lawyers to take up court time on this POS case.
Shakespeare was right.
I am not totally familiar with the law in Arizona but when did a sheriff start prosecuting people. It would seem he would gather facts, make arrest and refer the case to a prosecutor to determine if charges should be taken to court
That appears to be ignored, that the junior Flake was responsible for checking on the cogs wdlfare while his in-laws were gone. He either did not check or he checked and dix nothing. Either way he was negligent and responsibke for their deaths.
The apple does not fall far from the tree.
If my dog was one of those 21, both Flakes would have been taken to the desert, hog-tied, and allowed to enjoy baking to death like my dog did.
Right on!
Here! Here!
And a cheap-ass MFr too. Over $100K a year and ‘donates’ $100?? Talk about putting your $$ where you mouth is.
Sheriff Arpaio has a mixed record on how much pressure he uses to get people prosecuted, and Maricopa county has had to make settlement payments on his behalf before.
That doesn't change the facts in this case however, and from what I can gather Flake's son was negligent, made false statements to the police and may have tampered with evidence.
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.
