PDA

View Full Version : CT-Cop shoots dog dead, tells 12 y/o girl, "your dog isn't going to make it".




Anti Federalist
05-28-2012, 06:56 PM
An older case, just now going to trial.

Be interesting to see if any justice is done here.



Trial To Begin Monday In Lawsuit Over Dog Fatally Shot By Hartford Police

May 17, 2012|By CHRISTINE DEMPSEY, cdempsey@courant.com, The Hartford Courant

http://articles.courant.com/2012-05-17/news/hc-hartford-dog-shoot-0518-20120517_1_family-dog-front-yard-bark-and-snarl

HARTFORD — —

Two city police officers are being sued on a claim that they shot a family dog in front of its 12-year-old owner after entering the backyard of her Enfield Street residence without a warrant.

Police claimed that a snarling St. Bernard charged at them when they went into the yard to investigate a report that guns were stashed in a vehicle there.

A jury trial is scheduled to begin Monday before Judge Robert N. Chatigny in U.S. District Court in Hartford.

Glen Harris, who is listed as the minor's guardian, filed the federal lawsuit in 2008 against the city of Hartford and two officers who were at the 2006 shooting scene, Officers John O'Hare and Anthony Pia. Pia is now a detective. Harris' lawyer, Jon L. Schoenhorn, declined to comment, citing the upcoming trial.

Calls to O'Hare, Pia and other police staff were not returned. The lawyer representing the officers, Thomas R. Gerarde, also could not be reached.

According to court documents, the Harris family had two St. Bernards that were "good-tempered and obedient" and "never bit anyone."

The 12-year-old, a girl identified only as "K.H." in court documents, had developed a special relationship with one of the dogs, named Seven.

"She felt she could talk to him and that he would listen, understand, and comfort her in a way that no one else could," a court memorandum states.

On Dec. 20, 2006, according to the memorandum, O'Hare and Pia walked into the Harris' backyard at 297 Enfield St. without a warrant. As they rounded the back corner of the house, they saw a St. Bernard, Seven, begin to move toward them. They turned and ran back the way they came, along the north side of the house, toward the front yard, the document states.

The girl ran around the other side of the house "in an effort to head off Seven's path through the front yard," it states. The girl heard two shots before she got to the front yard.

When she arrived, she saw O'Hare standing over Seven, who had fallen to the ground. The dog was breathing heavily and his tail was wagging weakly, the document states. She screamed, "Don't shoot my dog."

According to the document, "O'Hare looked at K.H., then back to the dog, and shot the dog in the head." The girl ran to the dog, screaming and crying, after which O'Hare told her, "Sorry, miss, but your dog isn't going to make it," it states.

The third bullet caused the dog's death, the memorandum states. The document states that the girl had suicidal thoughts after the shooting and was hospitalized.

The suit accuses the officers of conducting an "illegal search," calling their presence a "warrantless invasion." With the exception of the driveway, the entire property is enclosed by fences or gates, and there were three "Beware of Dog" signs posted on the property, it states.

But according to a nine-page incident report filed by police, O'Hare and Pia had received a tip from a reliable source that two handguns were stashed in an abandoned vehicle in the backyard of 297 Enfield St. They went into the yard about 3:20 p.m., and a large, full-grown St. Bernard "immediately began to bark and snarl," the report states.

Both officers ran toward the front of the house with the dog in pursuit. Pia was able to get to a sidewalk on the other side of a fence, but O'Hare ended up in the front yard "with the dog running directly at him," it states.

O'Hare was unable to elude the dog, the report states, which was "showing its teeth." He pointed his gun at it and yelled for it to get back, but the dog only hesitated momentarily before advancing again, it states.

The dog lunged at O'Hare, who fired three times, hitting it in the head and chest from 3 feet away, the report states.

Pia said the dog was trying to bite O'Hare's legs as he was running.

The report says nothing about a pause between the second and third shots or the girl witnessing the shooting — a point the defendants are expected to contest in court.

The suit claims that O'Hare's actions were "so extreme, callous and outrageous that they fell outside the scope of acceptable police behavior," in violation of the due-process clause of the Constitution.

It also claims that they entered the property illegally and that O'Hare intentionally inflicted emotional distress.

The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as legal fees.

A senior assistant corporation counsel for the city, Nathalie Feola-Guerrieri, said, "The city is confident that the officers will be found to have acted justifiably under the circumstances."

heavenlyboy34
05-28-2012, 07:04 PM
WTF?!! :mad: :mad:

tod evans
05-28-2012, 07:08 PM
How many ways can a jury be tainted?

We'll see..........

KCIndy
05-28-2012, 08:00 PM
O'Hare was unable to elude the dog, the report states, which was "showing its teeth." He pointed his gun at it and yelled for it to get back, but the dog only hesitated momentarily before advancing again, it states.


Because a dog defending its territory is going to quickly and easily understand verbal commands like, "Get Back!" and "Put your paws in the air or I'll shoot!"
:mad::mad:

Idiotic f*****g cop. Also interesting how the first guy got over a fence and the second one didn't. I wonder if it was due to an overdose of jelly doughnuts.

There needs to be a way to start finding these guys personally liable. Losing a career, pension and some personal property in a few cases might start setting precedents that would have the police thinking twice before they kill the next child's pet.

heavenlyboy34
05-28-2012, 08:07 PM
Because a dog defending its territory is going to quickly and easily understand verbal commands like, "Get Back!" and "Put your paws in the air or I'll shoot!"
:mad::mad:

Idiotic f*****g cop. Also interesting how the first guy got over a fence and the second one didn't. I wonder if it was due to an overdose of jelly doughnuts.

There needs to be a way to start finding these guys personally liable. Losing a career, pension and some personal property in a few cases might start setting precedents that would have the police thinking twice before they kill the next child's pet.
I suggest publishing photos of the criminals (cops) and details of the crimes-public humiliation is a good start. Also, circulate posters about the criminals in the neighborhoods where the crimes occur.

Kylie
05-29-2012, 07:06 AM
Another child who will be a cop hater.

Good job guys! Us adults know youre making us the enemy, and now even the children get it.

mport1
05-29-2012, 07:15 AM
My money is on no repercussions. At the very least he will get a less harsh punishment than if you, I, or anybody else not wearing a silly costume executed a dog.

libertyjam
05-29-2012, 07:24 AM
My money is on no repercussions. At the very least he will get a less harsh punishment than if you, I, or anybody else not wearing a silly costume executed a dog.


Punishment? IF read it, this is a civil suit, the only "punishment" will be in the form of Monetary damages, and doubt the two defendants give two flips about it.

phill4paul
05-29-2012, 07:31 AM
The family will probably receive some compensatory ducats which the city will extract from the taxpayers. No policy changes will be made. The officers will continue on the course of 'exemplary' performance and will be rewarded with advancement.

Xhin
05-29-2012, 09:02 AM
What was the original reason for going onto the property? Don't we have something called the 2nd amendment?

pcosmar
05-29-2012, 09:25 AM
What was the original reason for going onto the property? Don't we have something called the 2nd amendment?

We also have a 4th amendment.

on paper.

Pericles
05-29-2012, 01:48 PM
What was the original reason for going onto the property? Don't we have something called the 2nd amendment?

CT, home of Colt's Firearms, is a 2A free zone.

Anti Federalist
05-30-2012, 02:33 PM
Justified.

"Policy was followed"

Jury's Verdict Favors HPD In Federal Dog-Shooting Case

http://articles.courant.com/2012-05-29/community/hc-dog-shot-trial-0530-2-20120529_1_fatal-shooting-dog-emotional-distress

Lucille
05-30-2012, 02:43 PM
Juries. Idiots! They are nothing but tools of the totalitarian state.

tod evans
05-30-2012, 02:44 PM
Justified.

"Policy was followed"

Jury's Verdict Favors HPD In Federal Dog-Shooting Case

http://articles.courant.com/2012-05-29/community/hc-dog-shot-trial-0530-2-20120529_1_fatal-shooting-dog-emotional-distress

Not surprised.:mad:

Poor kid.....

CCTelander
05-30-2012, 02:47 PM
And once again ...


...the police have NO DUTY to protect an innocent individual's rights and property. The courts in every jurisdiction throughout the US have universally upheld this position. Here's a whole thread on the topic:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228509

Professional police forces do NOT exist to protect the rights and property of innocent individuals. They were NEVER intended for such a purpose. They exist solely and completely for the purpose of enforcing the will of the power elites, and protecting those power elites against YOU.

In other words they are, in effect, an occupational army whose sole purpose is to oppress YOU. Period.

They violate the rights of innocent individuals every day. They routinely taze, beat and kill innocent people. They destroy their property, bust down their doors, toss their premises and all this without even an apology. They throw innocent people in cages to be abused and raped. They regularly destroy the lives of innocents. They make false charges and then lie in court. The list of police abuses and usurpations goes on, and on, and on.


The cops ARE NOT your friends. EVER.

I'll bump the Myth of Police Protection thread yet again too.

Warrior_of_Freedom
05-30-2012, 04:28 PM
cops should lose their jobs. How hard is it to get the home owner to restrain his dog before investigating (WITH A WARRANT)

SewrRatt
05-30-2012, 04:43 PM
Didn't any of you read the article? There were allegedly HANDGUNS... TWO HANDGUNS in an ABANDONED CAR within the fenced backyard of a house! I'm sure the cops even actually found an arsenal of fully-automatic assault weapons and explosives and forgot to say anything about finding anything to the press! Also, millions of cops are murdered each week by people's pet dogs! These guys are heroes!

jmdrake
05-30-2012, 07:22 PM
For the record, St Bernard's are some of the gentlest dogs on the planet. :(

Brian4Liberty
05-30-2012, 07:26 PM
More cops whose first reaction to a dog is to run...

Brian4Liberty
05-30-2012, 07:29 PM
But according to a nine-page incident report filed by police, O'Hare and Pia had received a tip from a reliable source that two handguns were stashed in an abandoned vehicle in the backyard of 297 Enfield St. They went into the yard about 3:20 p.m., and a large, full-grown St. Bernard "immediately began to bark and snarl," the report states.

Do any of these fucktards understand the Constitution? Have they ever heard of a warrant?

LibertyEagle
05-30-2012, 07:36 PM
Do any of these fucktards understand the Constitution? Have they ever heard of a warrant?

Oh, those are outdated. Hadn't you heard?

heavenlyboy34
05-30-2012, 07:45 PM
Do any of these fucktards understand the Constitution? Have they ever heard of a warrant? You don't need a warrant to take out a mundane or his pets. For the public safety, ya know. :(

Anti Federalist
10-30-2014, 10:37 PM
U.S. lawsuit vs Hartford police who fatally shot dog is revived

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:59pm EDT

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/30/us-connecticut-shooting-dog-idUSKBN0IJ25420141030

(Reuters) - A federal appeals court revived a lawsuit against Hartford, Connecticut, and two police officers over the fatal shooting of a family dog, near a 12-year-old girl, after the officers entered a property without a warrant to search for guns.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said there was not enough evidence of an urgent need that would justify the Dec. 20, 2006, search of plaintiff Glen Harris' property, during which one of the officers shot and killed Seven, a 3-year-old St. Bernard.

Thursday's decision by a three-judge panel voided a May 2012 jury verdict, and returned the case to Hartford federal court for a possible retrial.

Police said the two officers, Johnmichael O'Hare and Anthony Pia, entered Harris' property based on a gang member's tip that two guns were stashed in a car in the backyard of Harris' home.

The officers said they retreated after encountering Seven, and O'Hare said the large dog growled and chased after him.

O'Hare fired three shots, killing Seven. Harris' 12-year-old daughter, who was nearby, claimed she saw O'Hare put the third bullet in Seven's head, and that he then told her, "Sorry Miss. Your dog isn't going to make it." No car or guns were found.

Harris sued Hartford and the officers in 2008, seeking damages for violating the protection against illegal searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and inflicting emotional distress on his daughter.

In Thursday's decision, Circuit Judge Rosemary Pooler said the officers had probable cause to investigate the gun tip.

But she said there was no showing of "exigent circumstances" for the officers to enter Harris' property without a warrant, even to quickly remove suspected illegal guns from areas prone to crime.

"Taken to its logical end, this argument would permit exigent circumstances anytime there is a tip about illegal guns being located somewhere in a high-crime neighborhood or city, and would allow the exception to swallow the rule," Pooler wrote.

The judge also said O'Hare and Pia did not deserve immunity because it was not "objectively reasonable" to have believed the search was lawful.

Jon Schoenhorn, a lawyer for Harris and his daughter, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Thomas Gerarde, a lawyer for the officers, and a lawyer for Hartford did not immediately respond to similar requests.

cindy25
10-30-2014, 11:16 PM
the city should pay, and those murderers should lose their houses and pensions

Mani
10-30-2014, 11:28 PM
Its good that it's being brought back up again. 8 years and still waiting for any semblance of justice. The girl could be 22 or 23 years old before this thing is over.

XNavyNuke
10-31-2014, 05:37 AM
The New York Law Journal just posted a very good summary of the decision.

http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/home/id=1202675145788/Police-to-Face-Damages-Trial-on-Warrantless-Search?mcode=1202617075062&curindex=1&slreturn=20140931073136


. The officers said it would have been more intrusive to secure the property while a warrant was being prepared because the Harris property was bordered on three sides by other privately owned parcels.
"The fact that it may have been more tedious to secure the property at 297 Enfield St. while a warrant was obtained does not create exigency," she said. "We further note that, aside from their being no urgency created by Hemingway's tip about the firearms in and of itself, there is no evidence the officers sought to corroborate the tip prior to their entry."

Heaven forbid that you inconvenience the King's men and make them late for the shakedown of the massage parlor.

XNN