Police dog attack

Get Off My Lawn

Artist formerly known as Pink Vapor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
15,756
Location
Wake Forest, NC
Rating - 100%
38   0   0
didn't violate woman's rights, judge rules
This appears to be complete BS. A LEO (by the police's claim) dog can trash an “unintended bystander” on their own front porch, and no one is accountable?!?
The unstable animal should be beheaded and tested for rabies. She is owed funds from Indianapolis.
Does NC have a law that ensures the state, handler and dog are not accountable for crap like this?

Video and more: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2018/10/02/district-court-judge-rules-against-pregnant-woman-mauled-impd-k-9-2015/1499200002/

A U.S. district court judge has ruled in favor of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department in a lawsuit filed by a pregnant woman attacked by a K-9 in 2015, saying although the attack was "horrendous," it did not violate the woman's constitutional rights.

Mara Mancini was standing on her front porch when she was "mauled" by IMPD K-9, Scooter, as he pursued a man who had fled police on foot through her west-side neighborhood.

The attack left Mancini, who was seven months pregnant at the time, with severe wounds to her arm and leg. She underwent multiple surgeries and took painkillers, causing her son to be born with a narcotics addiction, according to the lawsuit.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt wrote in a Sept. 28 judgment that the department did not violate Mancini's constitutional rights because the dog's release and subsequent attack were intended for the suspect, not Mancini.


"Mancini and her son K.C., suffered horrendous injuries and a grievous lack of discretion by the officers; however, a grievous lack of discretion does not suffice to state a constitutional cause of action under binding Seventh Circuit precedent," Pratt wrote.

Jon Little, Mancini's attorney, said surgeons have told her the nerve damage to her arm, which has severely impaired the function, is irreparable. She'll likely have to declare bankruptcy to pay her medical bills without IMPD or the city being held responsible for the incident or the damages incurred.

"The city should be ashamed of themselves," he said.

IndyStar has reached out to IMPD and the city for comment.

The attack happened July 16, 2015, when Scooter and his IMPD handler were in pursuit of a suspect who had begun hopping fences in the 300 block of North Addison Street.

Mancini told IndyStar in 2016 that she heard a commotion as the dog approached her yard and stepped onto the porch to see what was going on.

636058258531624189-Mara2.jpg

This photo of Mara Mancini was taken less than a week after she was attacked by an IMPD K-9. (Photo: Provided by Saeed and Little LLP)

The dog attacked as soon as she stepped outside, she told IndyStar, and tore chunks of flesh from her arm and thigh. She began having premature contractions, which doctors were able to stop as they treated her at IU Health Methodist Hospital.

But weeks later, Mancini underwent emergency surgery to remove a golf ball-sized infection in her leg, according to the lawsuit. She went into labor and delivered her son three days after the surgery.

The infant spent several weeks in neonatal intensive care as he was "weaned off of narcotics," according to the lawsuit. Mancini's attorneys argued the premature labor was a result of the "extreme stress" she experienced during the attack and subsequent infection.


Mancini sued the city and the department in 2016, claiming the attack violated her Constitutional liberties and challenging Indiana law and legal precedent that grants immunity to police dogs under the state's dog bite liability statute.

Little said that leaves little room for redress.

"Indiana says, pretty clearly, you're out of luck when a police dog violates you," Little said.

The lawsuit argued that the attack was a violation of Mancini's Fourth Amendment right to be secure against search and seizure — a method of asserting control over Mancini.

Mancini was an "unintended bystander," Pratt wrote, and no force was intentionally directed at her, so there was no violation of Mancini's Fourth Amendment rights.

"The undisputed evidence is that Mancini was not the intended object of the officers’ efforts to seize the fleeing suspect," Pratt wrote. "[The officer's] release of Scooter, intending to seize the fleeing suspect does not mean that the officers intended to seize any other person."

A state-level case is still pending, Little said, and they're weighing whether to appeal Pratt's ruling. But Mancini will be dealing with the effects of the incident long after any litigation is put to rest.

"This has really been a traumatic event in her life — financially, obviously, with all the medical bills — but emotionally, as well," he said.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the police unleashed the dog, they should be responsible for what it does. I understand the law was probably intended to end lawsuits by arrestees, but this application is erroneous. Not sure that it’s a 4th amendment issue, that may just have been a way to get a better award than say simple assault.
 
This is one of those cases where more information is needed IMO. Just from the little info provided (not taking the wording of their lawsuit as gospel because people never lie or exaggerate in those) I can extrapolate that she is a heavy drug user. The premature birth was just as likely caused by her drug use as the event with the K9.

None of that should matter if the dog attacked unprovoked but was it truly unprovoked? There is more than likely history here at this house with the police too.
 
This is one of those cases where more information is needed IMO. Just from the little info provided (not taking the wording of their lawsuit as gospel because people never lie or exaggerate in those) I can extrapolate that she is a heavy drug user. The premature birth was just as likely caused by her drug use as the event with the K9.

None of that should matter if the dog attacked unprovoked but was it truly unprovoked? There is more than likely history here at this house with the police too.

So a K9 cop is treated and protected like any other cop. Shoot/stab or assault a k9 you get treated and charged the same as a human cop...

So chicky snack steps out on the porch, wipping Coke snot off her nose and screamin, What da *€#& goin on out here....while simultaneously cupping here pregnant swollen belly, a regular cop who was chasing a thug for robbery/ rape/ murder or what ever stops and steps up on porch and issues a severe beat down..

She is supposed to just walk away from it being happy to not cop a drug charge. No fall out for the cop doing the beat down?
 
Last edited:
The handlers don't normally just turn the dog loose. They usually keep them on a long lead until they corner the suspect. Then they let the dog get himself a little action.
 
The handlers don't normally just turn the dog loose. They usually keep them on a long lead until they corner the suspect. Then they let the dog get himself a little action.
That is probably what is supposed to happen and should always happen but,
Hundreds if not more videos on youtube showing a whole different action. Usually a door gets open and a 4 legged ass whoopin is set free.
 
This is one of those cases where more information is needed IMO. Just from the little info provided (not taking the wording of their lawsuit as gospel because people never lie or exaggerate in those) I can extrapolate that she is a heavy drug user. The premature birth was just as likely caused by her drug use as the event with the K9.

None of that should matter if the dog attacked unprovoked but was it truly unprovoked? There is more than likely history here at this house with the police too.
Kind of how I was thinking.

There's so much wrong with this story. First a District court ruling isn't the end of the line (though the department should have been held liable for damages off the bat).

Also do we know that the department didn't foot the bill for the damages already?

The plaintiffs attorney filed his claim on Fourth Amendment violations?? Where did that come from? Did the dog go into the house and search her computer? The judge can only adjudicate the violations that are brought up to the court and this case is only about the Fourth Amendment issue, the attorney picked some dumb issues. If his platform had just been "innocent bystander mauled by police dog the results may have been different.

Baby born with chemical dependency? Are we to believe the doctors sent a 7 month pregnant woman home with narcotics? Then that's who should be sued. More likely she was a user from the start.

Quoting the state had a law granting immunity for dog bites? That only works for the intended recipient of the bite, not bystanders.

There's a state level lawsuit pending still, any chance that one is for reparations?

Canine handler and his dog need some remedial training.
 
They kept hammering the 'not a constitutional violation' point so much I have to wonder what the author wants me to avoid seeing?

I get that it does not rise to that level. Is there an article in that document pertaining to mistakes by local authorities?

If you want to hold the dog and handler accountable then make a better case. Don't throw the constitution at them and cry foul when the judge calls you on your BS.
 
Last edited:
They kept hammering the 'not a constitutional violation' point so much I have to wonder what the author wants me to avoid seeing?

I get that it does not rise to that level. Is there an article in that document pertaining to mistakes by local authorities?

If you want to hold the dog and handler accountable then make a better case. Don't throw the constitution at them and cry foul when the judge calls you on your BS.
Thats the gist of it. Claiming justice denied and all that when it was a frivolous lawsuit (Fourth Amendment violation) to begin with.

I hope the attorney does a better job on the other pending case.
 
Are they trying to base it all on the first senstence

The right of the people to be , secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things ...
 
Are they trying to base it all on the first senstence

The right of the people to be , secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things ...

That’s what it looks like.

The police department should be held accountable for injuries if the attack was unwarranted. That’s hard to tell from the info given.

But that isn’t flashy and isn’t a big payday like a rights violation. It looks like the attorney is shooting for the moon instead of working on collecting what’s owed.
 
This is one of those cases where more information is needed IMO. Just from the little info provided (not taking the wording of their lawsuit as gospel because people never lie or exaggerate in those) I can extrapolate that she is a heavy drug user. The premature birth was just as likely caused by her drug use as the event with the K9.

None of that should matter if the dog attacked unprovoked but was it truly unprovoked? There is more than likely history here at this house with the police too.
You assume that the drugs that were involved were of the illegal variety, It states in the article that the drugs were prescribed by a doctor for her injuries sustained in the attack. Do you see any other indications that she was a drug user other that the fact that her son was born with a narcotic addiction? Seems like you are looking to lick some boots with JR to me, but I agree that there is a lot of information missing from the article.
 
You assume that the drugs that were involved were of the illegal variety, It states in the article that the drugs were prescribed by a doctor for her injuries sustained in the attack. Do you see any other indications that she was a drug user other that the fact that her son was born with a narcotic addiction? Seems like you are looking to lick some boots with JR to me, but I agree that there is a lot of information missing from the article.

Do you believe everything a lawyer or journalist says just because they say it?

Sometimes you have to look past the obvious to reveal the truth.
 
You assume that the drugs that were involved were of the illegal variety, It states in the article that the drugs were prescribed by a doctor for her injuries sustained in the attack. Do you see any other indications that she was a drug user other that the fact that her son was born with a narcotic addiction? Seems like you are looking to lick some boots with JR to me, but I agree that there is a lot of information missing from the article.
Lick boots? LMAO

Ok I guess it takes all kinds. So saying that they should be held responsible for injuries but more information is needed is licking boots now.

But since you asked there are several anecdotal items that lead me to that assumption. First and foremost is the presence of a K9 unit at her home. They don't usually bring them out unless they are there to search.

Second, the baby was born 3 days after the incident. 3 days is not enough time for a baby to be born addicted to a handful of pain killers. That is reserved for heavy, long term drug use.

There are a few other things but simply looking at her face she has the look of someone that is a heavy drug user. I've seen it quite a lot. It's a different look than pain or being tired.
 
Lick boots? LMAO

Ok I guess it takes all kinds. So saying that they should be held responsible for injuries but more information is needed is licking boots now.

But since you asked there are several anecdotal items that lead me to that assumption. First and foremost is the presence of a K9 unit at her home. They don't usually bring them out unless they are there to search.

Second, the baby was born 3 days after the incident. 3 days is not enough time for a baby to be born addicted to a handful of pain killers. That is reserved for heavy, long term drug use.

There are a few other things but simply looking at her face she has the look of someone that is a heavy drug user. I've seen it quite a lot. It's a different look than pain or being tired.

vybDIUO.png
 
You assume that the drugs that were involved were of the illegal variety, It states in the article that the drugs were prescribed by a doctor for her injuries sustained in the attack. Do you see any other indications that she was a drug user other that the fact that her son was born with a narcotic addiction? Seems like you are looking to lick some boots with JR to me, but I agree that there is a lot of information missing from the article.
My mother would have suffered through the pain so as to not birth a drug addicted child, but she isn't a wretched piece of white trash either.
 
First and foremost is the presence of a K9 unit at her home. They don't usually bring them out unless they are there to search


This is the only point I wanted to address in your statement. The dog wasn’t there to search her place. It attacked her while it was chasing someone else past her house according to the article. The rest of what you said I agree with.
 
This is the only point I wanted to address in your statement. The dog wasn’t there to search her place. It attacked her while it was chasing someone else past her house according to the article. The rest of what you said I agree with.

Huh. I definitely missed that.

For some reason even reading the article it seemed like they were at her house.
 
Huh. I definitely missed that.

For some reason even reading the article it seemed like they were at her house.
Hence the ole " secure in person, house (porch is free game) effects
 
Huh. I definitely missed that.

For some reason even reading the article it seemed like they were at her house.
I agree she didn’t look healthy, I’m not going to assume she’s a user w/o more info, as a society we should try to assume innocence as well.

She was injured in a ‘run by attack’.
Mara Mancini was standing on her front porch when she was "mauled" by IMPD K-9, Scooter, as he pursued a man who had fled police on foot through her west-side neighborhood”

She might have been clean during pregnancy, the boy was born weeks later.
“But weeks later, Mancini underwent emergency surgery to remove a golf ball-sized infection in her leg, according to the lawsuit. She went into labor and delivered her son three days after the surgery. ”
 
I agree she didn’t look healthy, I’m not going to assume she’s a user w/o more info, as a society we should try to assume innocence as well.

She was injured in a ‘run by attack’.
Mara Mancini was standing on her front porch when she was "mauled" by IMPD K-9, Scooter, as he pursued a man who had fled police on foot through her west-side neighborhood”

She might have been clean during pregnancy, the boy was born weeks later.
“But weeks later, Mancini underwent emergency surgery to remove a golf ball-sized infection in her leg, according to the lawsuit. She went into labor and delivered her son three days after the surgery. ”
Do you think a competent doctor would give narcotics to a pregnant woman?
 
Do you think a competent doctor would give narcotics to a pregnant woman?
My wife was prescribed opiate based pain meds for a kidney stone during a pregnancy.
Believe it or not, they can be much safer than a lot of the newfangled Franken-chemical concoctions that exist. They can also be taken for short periods of time without addiction issues too.
 
I agree she didn’t look healthy, I’m not going to assume she’s a user w/o more info, as a society we should try to assume innocence as well.

She was injured in a ‘run by attack’.
Mara Mancini was standing on her front porch when she was "mauled" by IMPD K-9, Scooter, as he pursued a man who had fled police on foot through her west-side neighborhood”

She might have been clean during pregnancy, the boy was born weeks later.
“But weeks later, Mancini underwent emergency surgery to remove a golf ball-sized infection in her leg, according to the lawsuit. She went into labor and delivered her son three days after the surgery. ”

Even if they had been there to search they should still be liable to damages in an unwarranted attack. And this is another proof that k9’s shouldn’t be considered officers.

As to the timing. 3 weeks or 3 days still isn’t a timeframe suitable to addict a fetus if used correctly. And even if it was that is a suit for the doctor.

It still isn’t a 4th violation
 
I agree she didn’t look healthy, I’m not going to assume she’s a user w/o more info, as a society we should try to assume innocence as well.

She was injured in a ‘run by attack’.
Mara Mancini was standing on her front porch when she was "mauled" by IMPD K-9, Scooter, as he pursued a man who had fled police on foot through her west-side neighborhood”

She might have been clean during pregnancy, the boy was born weeks later.
“But weeks later, Mancini underwent emergency surgery to remove a golf ball-sized infection in her leg, according to the lawsuit. She went into labor and delivered her son three days after the surgery. ”
Do they have a pre attack photo of her? I won’t judge based on the looks of her in the photo due to it being post-attack. Could have smashed her face falling down from the dog attack for all we know. There is a lot of information missing.
 
Believe it or not, they can be much safer than a lot of the newfangled Franken-chemical concoctions that exist. They can also be taken for short periods of time without addiction issues too.

That directly conflicts with the lawsuit though. The child was born addicted because of the pain medication. No other reason.
 
Back
Top Bottom