Scruit

"And I'm not responsible for what my fist does." *BAM*

Walk away. I used to work in the same building as one of those companies. You pay per bid whether you win or not. If you pay a dollar per 1c bid and win at item at $20 then the company just made $2000 for that $500 ipad. One person pays $20, plus his share of the $2k worth of bids. Everyone else just pays their share of the $2k worth of bids. Do this instead: Send me $100. I might send you an ipad. I might not. Sound like good deal?

Where do you get "unnecessarily" from? Are you saying the officer should think "Well, I am in HIS yard so I should just left him chew on me for a while to make up for it"? I value human life above a dog's life and any person acting in good faith should be allowed to defend against a dog. Everyone gets clouded by the fact it is a cop who did it. What if it was a firefighter or paramedic that had to be in the yard to gain access to an emergency scene?

Gotcha. Sometimes the sarcasm isn't evident even with the smiley. I didn't think the debate is as much about giving dogs human rights as it is about recognizing the emotional impact of losing a domesticated pet. Nobody can deny there is emotional distress when you lose a domesticated pet - the question is should people be compensated for that? Or should the aggressor be punished. I personally don't understand the concept that money will make the pain go away. I'd give my mother's life insurance back in a heartbeat if I could have her back. I think you should only be able to sue for demonstrable financial losses that you can product receipts and documentation for, but that's just me. I *DO* think that punitive damages work well as a deterrent, but that the money should go to related charities instead of the person suing. You kill someone's dog intentionally? You pay them for the dog, vet bills, costs incurred in finding/training another dog. Then you pay an appropriately "painful" amount of money to the local human society.

Before you make this into a 2a rant... A CCW holder would have no right to be in the yard therefore he'd be in the wrong even before drawing the gun.

The delivery person wouldn't go into a fenced back yard.

The story indicates the attack happened after the pursuit when the dog's yard. I haven't seen any suggestion that the dog was loose. This does raise other questions: Did the officer leave a gate open and the dog followed him? Did the officer damage a fence allowing the dog to leave? Was the dog even fenced in at all? Did the dog engage the officer IN the yard, or follow him outside the yard? Did the officer shoot the dog in the yard or outside it? Did the dog follow the officer and engage him outside the yard in a manner in which the officer thought ti was just a stray dog? Still under any of these variations, the officer had a legal right to be in the yard. Even if the officer allowed the dog to escape after passing through the yard then there is still no basis for tort unless it can be established that he freed the dog negligently, recklessly or intentionally, rather than accidentally during the heat of the moment.

That's almost, ALMOST one of the most stupid things you have said. And that's saying something.

You can't recover for emotional distress for animals. http://www.animallaw.com/damagesemotionaldistress.htm

I can see both sides. The dog was in his own yard. The officer has a legal right to pursue lawbreakers through private property. Just one of those things where nobody acted in bad faith yet something bad still happened.

People don't typically leave dogs in the front yard unless it is fenced in. UPS won't go into a fenced back yard with a dog. By law we are all required to create safe access to our front door for anyone who wished to contact us for lawful reasons, although if the front yard is fenced and it is clear there is a large dog there than that's too as long as visitors know that. I was a paperboy as my first ever job - and this was in the UK where newpapers are put through the mail slot in your front door. Fenced front yard with dog = pick you paper of from the fence line, I'm not coming in. I got to know the dogs on my route and which dogs were ok. When it doubt, no paper. If they complain then they are told they have to provide me a safe way to deliver or they don't get their paper.

I don't see dog owner being charged if the dog was in his own yard.

I think you earned that one.

Nice, although this pic makes it look like your arm is broken!

Teh funneh? Looks like he's doing pull-ups, not a bench press with no weights.

All I have is the feeling that I was me. Kinda like in a dream where you know some fact (that may or may not be real) and don't question it. I often have dreams where I am in a house that I understood to be my house, but after I wake up and think back to the dream the house was nothing like any house I've been in.

Ambulance booted while at emergency scene: http://www.wwltv.com/news/eyewitness/brendanmccarthy/Ambulance-gets-booted-while-tending-to-emergency-181631351.html?hpt=us_bn8 The employee who put the boot on was cited by police and fired by the store: http://www.wwltv.com/news/local/orleans/EMS-boot-181879731.html

Not that it matters. The Martin family long ago accepted that M attacked/punched/pinned Z, but they said the attack was justified.

And we are all innocent until proven guilty. Generally, forcing someone to go through a trial when prosecution has no reasonable case is malicious prosecution. Don't forget we're talking about Florida here - the Stand Your Ground law grants prosecutorial immunity to those who can demonstrate that their actions are covered by the statute. I have no grounds to suspect that Z broke any laws leading up to the moment he was attacked by M. As such, the facts of the case made public so far ostensibly fall under SYG and appears it should have granted him immunity. Nobody in their right mind can continue to argue that M was not the physical agressor. Elbow jokes aside, nobody can argue that Z was legally required to give M a "sporting chance" by fighting him mano-a-mano. Until someone shows me where Z broke any laws in his initial encounter with M I will simply not accept that M acted reasonably in attacking Z. Further, given the information released so far, I have yet to see a shred of actual evidence that disproves anything that Z has said about the events. I get the argument that a jury should decide if a killing was self defense or not, but I would counter that the state regularly exercises prosecutorial discretion in choosing to NOT charge someone with a crime when the facts of the case could never result in a conviction from a jury.

So he was arrested because of the chance he "can be" guilty? Not Probable Cause? What evidence are you aware of that the killing was unlawful?

I am not happy that a man was indicted and arrested as a result of a public outcry, rather than based upon actual evidence of a crime.

There has been no evidence of murder released as of yet. Hint: Homicide <> Murder

Just released by the defense - obtained from the prosecution via discovery... Zimmerman claimed his nose was broken by Martin: I think this image helps the defense more than it helps the prosecution.