The issue is not that there was minor damage, there was a direct “intentional infliction of emotional distress”, excessive use of force, false arrest, etc.
The cops were liable for the damage and IIED, etc. The judge did a cover up for the cops. That’s how the game is played against the weak.
A jury would have creamed the city and police, and you know that.
Again, this is Nevada where nothing is as it seems, and corruption goes unpunished as long as Harry Reid is around.
Sorry, all legally wrong.
Please see #44. Like it or not, the cops had full legal authority to be there under an exigent circumstances provision. Their argument is that there is no way to foretell the actions of the domestic assaulting neighbor and by their not being there, great harm could have come to the woman next door. It is a consistently prevailing argument.
Ergo, no liability was created.
The emotional damages were certainly not intentional. They were as a result of the homeowners refusal to obey a lawful order of the LEO.
There was no false arrest. It as not false, as it was caused by the homeowner’s resisting the LEO in the performance of their sworn duty.
This has nothing to do with Nevada. It is simply a case where the LEOs had a legal right to be where they were, like it or not, and all the damages that occurred came as a sole and direct result of the homeowner’s attempted refusal to prevent them from being there.
It has nothing to do with being weak. It has to do with not understanding the law, and then being physically stupid about it.
If you want a Constitutional law system, fine. I agree we should have it. But it works all the time, not just when we like it.