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 ...
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.
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.