You ****ed up, Holmes!
- Thread starter ZYBORG
- Start date
You can sue anybody for anything. If the lawyer thinks he can get a settlement, he’ll take the case.
Holmes could say he was there to do some work on the house. If no “beware or dog signs” I could see a settlement. Homeowners insurance could balk too and just pay rather than have a huge legal battle.
Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app
Klaus is absolutely correct.
We are supposed to have out gates padlocked to prevent access to our backyards where our dogs are kenneled. This is to show an overt action of B&E.
Yes, we’ve been sued and lost when some random kid walked through the yard, opened the gate, then got mauled by one of our K9s.
Nonsense but it is what it is.
Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app
I don't agree with the outcome but you're correct. Hopefully the pooch doesnt take the blame.
From the video this guy got what he deserved but can spin it 1000 ways.
yeah man, thanks. You are telling me shit that I already know… but thanks.
I dont believe i ever said to Klaus, that he was incorrect…
In your story about this suit that you lost… did the incident happen at home or work facility?
I would imagine that things are a bit different when you are talking about a trained K9 mauling a kid..
what did you “lose” in the suit exactly?
what law were you found in violation of?
In case it wasnt clear enough, let me remind you, that the point im arguing against is…. A home owner’s dog being forcefully euthanized after some dumbass trespasses and gets mauled…
Never have I ever stated that civil suits are a non issue (unless you live in a woke state).
It was funny how the dogs were wagging their tails as they tore this pos up. He went to wailing on the one dog but it wouldn't let go.
They were wagging their tails because they actually having fun "playing with" him. So much fun, that later when he said 'bye boys, I'm outta here", they pulled him back in for another round of tail wagging fun. LOL.
I don't think that you are following that criminal liability does not matter.
You do not need to break "laws" to be liable by a civil court.
In my instance I had to go to court and was told that the dog would be destroyed if it happened again.
This was in spite of not having any criminal liability.
"Illegal" is based on what a prosecutor wants to charge. All things equal if the dogs killed the trespasser or if the trespasser was a kid or this was the 4th time this happened there would be charges.
Last edited:
I didn’t do a lot of digging. The video you posted looks to be from a reposter. So the story is not complete, going through the comments, this may have been Jamaica (?). Regardless, even though that dude is B&E you know that if cops were to show up to that scene the dogs would be shot. Cops don’t say “Well he is a criminal, so we can’t go in until the dogs stop chomping.”
You are clearly NOT understanding civil liability. Being in violation of law is not required at all.
I can sue my neighbor because the color of his house bothers me. Claim it reduced the value of my house. No laws being broken.
This was at a coworkers house. This K9 was not trained to bite, attack, or protect the house in any way. It was purely a narcotics detection K9. Trespasser got into backyard.
It’s a civil case. You lose money. What are you not understanding??
Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app
Last edited:
They were throwing water on the dogs because it is used to separate the "animals" during sex. Didn't work in this case because they dogs were still fu69ing him up! HAHAHAHA
Last edited:
My dog doesn't like black people either 
I must have mispoken… i was under the impression that you all would know I am talking about tort law, instead of criminal.
In other words, im interested to know which statue or common law was used as a legitimate basis to find you all liable for injuries.
how were you found liable/negligent?
yea… i can see that happening… i was thinking more like the owners being home and able to gather the dogs inside before the popos got there…. I dont see the dog being euthanized for defending the owners and their property… especially if they are putting no one else in danger…
Criminal/common law and civil law are two different things.
Online Degree Programs - WashULaw
Academics Our online master’s degree programs from the top-20 ranked Washington University School of Law1 uphold the same rigorous academic standards that have made our on-campus programs among the best in the nation. Students will enroll in courses that are designed and led by the same faculty...
onlinelaw.wustl.edu
Liability to trespassers and burglars
Trespassers and even burglars are not necessarily denied recourse for a dog bite. Under rare circumstances, even a burglar can recover compensation. The analysis is complicated. All dog bite statutes exclude burglars and other trespassers. Therefore the only way a burglar can recover...
dogbitelaw.com
This does not get into the biggest determinate of liability which is how deep your pockets are. Chances are that if you have killer dogs to protect your shit you have money which means that you are inherently vulnerable to civil lawsuit.
If you think dogbite liability is complicated you better brush up on the civil liability you have if you shoot someone.
Criminal/common law and civil law are two different things.
Online Degree Programs - WashULaw
Academics Our online master’s degree programs from the top-20 ranked Washington University School of Law1 uphold the same rigorous academic standards that have made our on-campus programs among the best in the nation. Students will enroll in courses that are designed and led by the same faculty...
Liability to trespassers and burglars
Trespassers and even burglars are not necessarily denied recourse for a dog bite. Under rare circumstances, even a burglar can recover compensation. The analysis is complicated. All dog bite statutes exclude burglars and other trespassers. Therefore the only way a burglar can recover...
This does not get into the biggest determinate of liability which is how deep your pockets are. Chances are that if you have killer dogs to protect your shit you have money which means that you are inherently vulnerable to civil lawsuit.
If you think dogbite liability is complicated you better brush up on the civil liability you have if you shoot someone.
i know criminal law and civil law (common law / statutory law) are different things… i had just pointed that out…
i was curious about the details of your lawsuit and how you lost it (were found negligent/liable)….?
If you dont feel like sharing, thats fine, bro… lol
Dude literally got raped by a dog. lol
Realized or perceived damages.
In the case of the dog, damages were the injuries.
In the hypothetical case about the house paint and reduced value of a neighboring home, the judge could order a repaint of the house or a cash settlement.
My experience is limited but I’ve been involved in a couple civil cases and they both settled during mediation. My lawyer told me that is the norm. The lawyer getting paid by the insurance company (if there is one) loves it and it’s just a game of nerves. Who will give in first, the insurance company or the person paying out of pocket to sue??
Heck. Divorce is a perfect example. Says right on the divorce papers “you are being sued”. No laws are broken, but somebody is paying!!
Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app
This might be like 2 retards talking chess, but I dont think it is that simple….
My understanding is that in order for someone to lose the civil suit (tort law case), there must be a legitimate basis for liability. Such liability would be governed by a statue or common law…
Maybe an actual lawyer can chime in and help shed light on it….
anyway… this is way derailed…. Tis thread was meant for people ****ing up… lol
Users who are viewing this thread
