Police dog attack

Chdamn said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agreed
As to the timing 3 weeks or 3 days still isn’t a time frame suitable to addict a fetus if used correctly. And even if it was that is a suit for the doctor.
Click to expand...
Possibly, I'm no doc. My 26yr old son gets hooked bad after three days, I know I'm irritable after three days of percocets & my back starts to itch. I hate the stuff.
It still isn’t a 4th violation
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
Last edited:
Cowboy said:
Was your child born addicted?
Click to expand...

No. But my wife took them for less than 2 weeks at about 20 weeks gestation. The kidney stone passed and she required no further meds. That's likely a much shorter and less intensive course of treatment than a late term pregnant woman suffering multiple, severe dog bites. Bites that reportedly required multiple surgeries.
 
Last edited:
Apparently Indiana has a statute holding the owner of a dog liable for all medical costs. Apparently that statute specifically excludes police K-9s. That may explain the attorneys attempt to make this a federal civil rights issue feeling his chances in state court were less than a slam dunk.

I'm less convinced than others here that an unintended 4th amendment infringement means there was no infringement.
 
rantingredneck said:
Apparently Indiana has a statute holding the owner of a dog liable for all medical costs. Apparently that statute specifically excludes police K-9s. That may explain the attorneys attempt to make this a federal civil rights issue feeling his chances in state court were less than a slam dunk.

I'm less convinced than others here that an unintended 4th amendment infringement means there was no infringement.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the dog bite thing is only valid against the person the dog was supposed to bite.
 
J R Green said:
I'm sure the dog bite thing is only valid against the person the dog was supposed to bite.
Click to expand...

It should be. I suppose we will see as that case works it's way toward conclusion.

The sad thing is that her hospital costs were not automatically covered in this situation given the circumstances.
 
rantingredneck said:
It should be. I suppose we will see as that case works it's way toward conclusion.

The sad thing is that her hospital costs were not automatically covered in this situation given the circumstances.
Click to expand...

When someone files lawsuits it's pretty hard to fault any person,business or government to pay anything until settled.
 
Cowboy said:
When someone files lawsuits it's pretty hard to fault any person,business or government to pay anything until settled.
Click to expand...

That assumes that there wasn't an initial offer to cover the costs. If there was and she turned it down to roll the dice for a higher payday then I'm in agreement. If she asked for costs to be covered and they said no here is the applicable statute then I'm not....
 
rantingredneck said:
The sad thing is that her hospital costs were not automatically covered in this situation given the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Please allow me to unburden you of this sadness, I’m very comfortable assuming that she isn’t sweating how to pay for her care and that her care was not compromised.
 
rantingredneck said:
It should be. I suppose we will see as that case works it's way toward conclusion.

The sad thing is that her hospital costs were not automatically covered in this situation given the circumstances.
Click to expand...
We don't know that they weren't. The only reason they wouldn't cover the bill is that it was more than their insurance deductible at which point they would let the insurance company handle it.
 
J R Green said:
We don't know that they weren't. The only reason they wouldn't cover the bill is that it was more than their insurance deductible at which point they would let the insurance company handle it.
Click to expand...

After the attack, she said, officers told her that her medical bills, which have since reached six figures, would be taken care of. But Mancini, 21, said she has received nothing from the city.

Mancini's attorney, Jon Little, told IndyStar that Indiana has a law granting immunity for police dogs, and their handlers, in such incidents. According to Indiana law, a dog and its owner are exempt from the state's dog bite liability statute if the dog is owned by a government agency and the "dog is engaged in assisting the owner or the owner's agent in the performance of law enforcement or military duties."

"In Indiana, by law, and by previous precedent, police dogs can run amok without any form of redress for people," Little said. "That's why we're bringing a federal claim for deprivation of liberty for the time she was being mauled by the dog, the literal time she was being mauled by the dog.

"If this doesn't work, there is absolutely no way for her to sue, or anyone to sue, in Indiana when they are brutalized by a police dog."

IMPD officials declined to comment for this story because of the pending litigation.


Seems like someone told her her costs would be taken care of, then they weren't.

If someone has other information please do provide it.
 
rantingredneck said:
After the attack, she said, officers told her that her medical bills, which have since reached six figures, would be taken care of. But Mancini, 21, said she has received nothing from the city.

Mancini's attorney, Jon Little, told IndyStar that Indiana has a law granting immunity for police dogs, and their handlers, in such incidents. According to Indiana law, a dog and its owner are exempt from the state's dog bite liability statute if the dog is owned by a government agency and the "dog is engaged in assisting the owner or the owner's agent in the performance of law enforcement or military duties."

"In Indiana, by law, and by previous precedent, police dogs can run amok without any form of redress for people," Little said. "That's why we're bringing a federal claim for deprivation of liberty for the time she was being mauled by the dog, the literal time she was being mauled by the dog.

"If this doesn't work, there is absolutely no way for her to sue, or anyone to sue, in Indiana when they are brutalized by a police dog."

IMPD officials declined to comment for this story because of the pending litigation.


Seems like someone told her her costs would be taken care of, then they weren't.

If someone has other information please do provide it.
Click to expand...
Well if the lawyer said it it must be true.

Six figure medical bills? Riiight. No wonder they decided to let her sue.
 
J R Green said:
Well if the lawyer said it it must be true.

Six figure medical bills? Riiight. No wonder they decided to let her sue.
Click to expand...

Multiple surgeries for her. Several weeks in NICU for her kid.

Yep you're right, she's making it all up.
 
rantingredneck said:
Multiple surgeries for her. Several weeks in NICU for her kid.

Yep you're right, she's making it all up.
Click to expand...

I just cannot take the word of a lawyer as the truth. Yeah I get she has been through a bunch of crap. But I just cannot believe that baby's addiction came from this incident. I can understand the rest and I'm sure she will be paid. Chances are they filed this lawsuit first knowing it would be dismissed so they could play it up big in the media. You know lawyers are sneaky like bastards. Hell im afraid to roll over at night because I sleep with one.

I would guess this is a compensation case where the lawyer is going to get at least 33% probably more if the woman couldn't front any cost.
 
Last edited:
So your pregnant wife is on her porch and she gets attacked by a dog. You hear her screams and come outside and sever said dogs head from its body.

Can you expect to be killed by his handler?
 
According to the article she had a subsequent surgery due to the infection ( dog bites are nasty). The baby was born prematurely three days later. Addicted AND infected. Yeah I believe that is possible.

Do I trust lawyers? No. There are lawyers on the other side too ya know ....

The actual lawsuit makes for interesting reading too. This bit sort of floored me....

"The City argues that Ms. Mancini cannot overcome qualified immunity because she cannot point to any analogous case "clearly establishing a bystander's constitutional right to be free from dog bites during a police dog's pursuing of a fleeing felon." (Filing No. 13 at 6.) "
 
Chdamn said:
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.
Click to expand...
Bwahahahahahaha talk about lack of information, you admit to missing several details that were actually IN the article! :D And I see that being the trash guy makes you an expert at visually assessing someone’s level of drug addiction based on a picture of someone directly after being mauled by a dogo_O
 
Tailhunter said:
So your pregnant wife is on her porch and she gets attacked by a dog. You hear her screams and come outside and sever said dogs head from its body.

Can you expect to be killed by his handler?
Click to expand...
What do you expect them to do to a Bona fide cop killa
 
Cowboy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nope, I also don’t believe everything a cop tells me either, as a matter of fact I have a healthy distrust of most people in general, but really we are going to get caught up in the fact that because a lawyer says it it can’t be true, we can come up with better scenarios in our heads that much better support our own biases vs the words of a dirty stinking lawyer!:eek:
 
NoNameHaveI said:
Bwahahahahahaha talk about lack of information, you admit to missing several details that were actually IN the article! :D And I see that being the trash guy makes you an expert at visually assessing someone’s level of drug addiction based on a picture of someone directly after being mauled by a dogo_O
Click to expand...
Meh.
 
rantingredneck said:
According to the article she had a subsequent surgery due to the infection ( dog bites are nasty). The baby was born prematurely three days later. Addicted AND infected. Yeah I believe that is possible.

Do I trust lawyers? No. There are lawyers on the other side too ya know ....

The actual lawsuit makes for interesting reading too. This bit sort of floored me....

"The City argues that Ms. Mancini cannot overcome qualified immunity because she cannot point to any analogous case "clearly establishing a bystander's constitutional right to be free from dog bites during a police dog's pursuing of a fleeing felon." (Filing No. 13 at 6.) "
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point though. Each lawyer is going to frame their case in the light most favorable their client. You can't look at either and take it as truth. I don't believe anything a lawyer puts on paper without evidence to corroborate the claim.
 
rantingredneck said:
Ms. Mancini cannot overcome qualified immunity because she cannot point to any analogous case "clearly establishing a bystander's constitutional right to be free from dog bites
Click to expand...
You want more proof that this is a bad lawyer? You can't tell me that in the entire history of our nation there hasn't been a case of a dog biting the wrong person and who was held responsible. The lawyer should have had that information ready since, you know , that's why he was there.
 
J R Green said:
You want more proof that this is a bad lawyer? You can't tell me that in the entire history of our nation there hasn't been a case of a dog biting the wrong person and who was held responsible. The lawyer should have had that information ready since, you know , that's why he was there.
Click to expand...

Dear God......
 
rantingredneck said:
Based upon what evidence exactly?
Click to expand...
She lives in a neighborhood that could be generously described as being in need of revitalization, it isn’t terrible but it’s no better than average income folks. From the description of her injuries and multiple surgeries I estimate that her medical bills will be in the range of 5-10 years salary for her. That’s a number that’s so hard to get your head around that it’s just play money. She knows that she can never pay it, so don’t sweat it. Conversely, if she had insurance they would pay and litigate, not her problem.
In America we provide most urgent health care without regard to the patients ability to pay so I expect her care wasn’t compromised.
About the baby, no reason to think she is an addict and it seems at least as likely that the lawyer overstated the baby’s addiction as that the mom is a long term drug user.
 
JimB said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Claiming a constitutional violation is quite a stretch. It’s no diff than an errant bullet hitting someone. The officer & Dept should be liable for that bullet and the dog in this case.

This woman is a victim of poor representation IMO.
 
Pink_Vapor said:
Belgian Malinois are unstable. I've gone to multiple ADRK/AIRK Rottie shows with Schutzhund dogs. The last one had 160+ Rotties and it was comfortable walking around with the dogs, most were on a leash. A few Malinois show up from time to time and are Bat Guano Crazy.
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/nation-world/national/article219669170.html
Click to expand...
I won’t go so far to say they’re unstable but they do REQUIRE constant and very strict training. A friend has 2, both protection trained, from very reputable blood lines. I wouldn’t call Mals good pets but these 2 are really well trained and the owners like the temperament and don’t see the constant need to work with them as a downside.
I much more prefer my laid back lab/beagle, Doberman/lab mixes.
 
Chdamn said:
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.
Click to expand...
You handled that surprising well. kudos. :)
 
If the dog mistakenly bit her, she should get her expenses paid. Its the cost of using an animal you "really" don't have total control of. I liken that to a person hit by a patrol car while in pursuit, or catching a stray bullet during a shooting. Cost of doing that sort of business.

I call the child addicted to pain killers a crock of crack. I am in the medical field.

I was at Team training at the range one day and one of the Malionis bit another officer just there doing training. They are a bit high strung in that role. I just kept my distance during training with them, and I have huge German Shepherds. They are trained to want to eat ass....and training like that is a lot of stimulation for them to be exposed to.
 
Jerzsubbie said:
I won’t go so far to say they’re unstable but they do REQUIRE constant and very strict training. A friend has 2, both protection trained, from very reputable blood lines. I wouldn’t call Mals good pets but these 2 are really well trained and the owners like the temperament and don’t see the constant need to work with them as a downside.
I much more prefer my laid back lab/beagle, Doberman/lab mixes.
Click to expand...
I prefer the protection, and stability of my Rotties. My grandson's best friend.
Andrew.jpg
 
rantingredneck said:
Mancini's attorney, Jon Little, told IndyStar that Indiana has a law granting immunity for police dogs, and their handlers, in such incidents. According to Indiana law, a dog and its owner are exempt from the state's dog bite liability statute if the dog is owned by a government agency and the "dog is engaged in assisting the owner or the owner's agent in the performance of law enforcement or military duties."
Click to expand...

The above link yielded a "Not Found" response, but this link to IC 15-20-1-6 works.
 
gc70 said:
The above link yielded a "Not Found" response, but this link to IC 15-20-1-6 works.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting. According to the statute the Govt. owned exception is only against criminal liability, not damages. The lawyer is FOS, inept or lying.

IC 15-20-1-6Dog bite liability: exceptions

Sec. 6. An owner of a dog is exempt under section 4 of this chapter if the dog commits an act described in section 4 of this chapter during the period that the dog is owned by:

(1) the United States;

(2) an agency of the United States; or

(3) a governmental entity (as defined in IC 34-6-2-49);

and the dog is engaged in assisting the owner or the owner's agent in the performance of law enforcement or military duties.

IC 15-20-1-4Dog bite liability; criminal offense

Sec. 4.

Section 3 is the civil damages section.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom