United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Good citizen invites police into his home to help them, they shoot his dog four times
Source:
Signs of The Times
URL Source: http://www.sott.net/article/297715- ... -they-shoot-his-dog-four-times
Published: Jun 13, 2015
Author: Jean Strong
Post Date: 2015-06-13 18:11:15 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 7688
Comments: 49
© KWES NewsWest 9Yet another family pet has been ruthlessly brutalized by the cops.
In Odessa, Texas, U.S. Marshals shot Spot, a 15 year old dog, multiple times while attempting to serve an arrest warrant.
CBS 7 News says that the cops were swarming a neighborhood looking for Austin Dawson, who had "violated his parole."
Homeowner Anthony McDowell allowed police to search his property. "I said you can come in the house and look. I'm giving you permission", said McDowell.
The cops were warned that there was a dog in the back yard.
Despite the warning, they shot Spot multiple times, claiming that he "came towards them in an aggressive manner."
Spot is fighting for his life at a vet clinic in Odessa. Although the vet believes he will survive, he will never walk again.
"That's the reason he said hey he ain't here, why didn't we just leave? But he made it his business to let us know that he's serious come back here and kill our dog. He put two slugs into my dog for no apparent reason and we asked him why and he couldn't give us no justification. He didn't run charging barking or nothing. My dog was scared of the police officers," said a distraught McDowell.
This man tried to be a good citizen.
He gave the cops permission to search his place and they rewarded his honesty and cooperation by tearing his house apart and trying to kill his dog.
They knew there was a dog present, there was absolutely no excuse for such an action.
The homeowner was present; all they had to do was have him secure the dog.
As usual, the lame old "I felt threatened" excuse was trotted out.
It appears that by simply existing, dogs threaten law enforcement.
It is baffling why heavily armed and armored "brave" men are so incredibly terrified of dogs.
It is horrifying that so many cold-blooded killers are given guns and badges and allowed to slaughter dogs with impunity.
It is obvious that these cops kill because they like to kill. It is crystal clear that they have declared war on us and our dogs.
Nothing has stopped them; they have no regard for life in any form. We are under siege by an enemy we are not allowed to repel. This is America, people, how long are we going to allow this to continue?
Watch the video.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-3) not displayed.
.
.
.
#4. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#2)
BANG!!! BANG!!! BANG!!! ("Threat nullified. Officer Safety maintained. Do you copy?")
If a dog owner does not control his dog and the dog threatens the police....then shoot the "fracken" dog. Next article, please...
A man walked into his back yard one morning and found a gorilla in a tree. He called a gorilla-removal service, and soon a serviceman arrived with a stick, a Chihuahua, a pair of handcuffs and a shotgun. "Now listen carefully," he told the homeowner. "I'm going to climb the tree and poke the gorilla with the stick until he falls to the ground. The trained Chihuahua will then go right for his, uh, sensitive area, and when the gorilla instinctively crosses his hands in front to protect himself, you slap on the handcuffs." "Got it", the homeowner replied. "But what's the shotgun for?" "If I fall out of the tree before the gorilla", the man said, "shoot the Chihuahua."
The homeowner was present; all they had to do was have him secure the dog. " Yep. The cops in my area do not act like that. The ones we have are far more sensible, and intelligent. Ours are not a bunch of cowards. This story is very sad, I hope the man's dog recovers. Si vis pacem, para bellum
The cops were TOLD there was a dog, they didn't have any fucking reason to shoot it. They had NO BUSINESS going into the yard - they searched the house, the fugitive was not there - their reason for being there was CONCLUDED. "That's the reason he said hey he ain't here, why didn't we just leave? But he made it his business to let us know that he's serious come back here and kill our dog. He put two slugs into my dog for no apparent reason and we asked him why and he couldn't give us no justification. He didn't run charging barking or nothing. My dog was scared of the police officers," You give me no reason to believe the homeowner and not the cop....so, why should I believe the homeowner and not the cop? It is as I said: If a dog owner does not control his dog and the dog threatens the police, then shoot the fracking dog....BAM! BAM! Don't make me come over here again....
You're pathetic. Cops are gods to you and your fetid ilk. Your individual concepts about cops are skewed, because you only ferret out and believe yellow journalism stories about officers who allegedly behave badly. HEROIC COPS are all around and only sometimes will they make the news with their great performance…..while your trashy blogs continue to pump out biased stories and like videos of a very small percentage of police who do not properly conduct themselves and are eventually weeded out. That you are continually inundated during your selective cherry picking reading with experiences and stories of bad police but not good ones….will forever give you a skewed perspective. There are many problems facing us and it ought to be obvious to you that police officers aren't the problem, but will continue to play significant roles in all future solutions. Go BLUE!!!
Atta Boy! Can you ever get off your knees and stop worshiping the police state? Nope - didn't think so. Piss off. I put three people on Bozo. You don't have to bother with nonsense. I have decided not to even have authority worship from these three on my computer.
My wife and laughed pretty good
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
When either my wife or I say: “What do I do if…”
Ha... especially if it's a criminals pit bull Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Shoot the pit bull if it threatens...
I got a neighbor who lets her dogs bark in her fenced backyard, its very annoying, and rude.
Most pet owners are inconsiderate. If people didn't mind barking, dog shit in their yard or cat shit in the garden dirt, THEY'D BUY THEIR OWN DOG OR CAT.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
The owner apparently didn't realize the number of rights he surrendered by allowing a voluntary search. The police can intrude, snoop, collect evidence, and shoot a dog or cat. The homeowner will have no recourse because he invited them onto the premises. Whatever happened to "You can't search my property without a search warrant"? You'd think that a black man would know better than to consent to a police search. Apparently not. If the police have any reasonable cause to search your house, they can go to a judge for a warrant. The reason they asked for a voluntary search is that their desire to search this guy's house was inherently unreasonable. Now his 15yo dog is shot up and he's got a big vet bill to pay.
You notice I checked the source video to find the breed. Most often, when you have a long article that somehow avoids the name the breed of a dog shot by cops, it's a pitbull or a Rottweiler. The reason news media will avoid mentioning the breed is that 90% of the public is happy for the cops to shoot any Rottweilers or pitbulls for any reason. Dobermans are pretty unpopular with the public too.
LE is allowed to search my house anytime they desire. My dog will be locked in his kennel. Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Let's not forget that if the article has a cop hating agenda, it's a little hard to get the sheeple to hate a cop more than a pit bull... so of course they leave it out. Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
It is. If you read a lot of these cop-shoots-dog stories, you notice how unpopular the pitbulls are with the public. The more times you mention "pitbull", the less sympathy there is.
Whatever happened to "You can't search my property without a search warrant"? They can search without one but they cant use what they find as evidence against you. I agree with your premise though, its illegal for us to lie to a police officer in an investigation, yet its perfectly legal for them to lie to us to get a confession or agree to a plea. Personally police have ALWAYS been polite and professional to me here, but if anything they say or ask indicates you are a possible suspect, tell them you want to wait to consult a lawyer,
Definitely true with public school teachers,
They can't search without permission or a warrant. That's the only reason they asked this guy's permission to begin with. AFAIK, it is legal to lie to local cops in every jurisdiction in the country. And it is legal for cops to lie to you. It is, however, illegal to lie to FBI and federal authorities. Notice that Dennis Hastert is now being prosecuted for lying to FBI even though he committed no crimes while paying off his blackmailer.
And if the police chief will not control his cops, and the cop threatens someone, then shoot the freakin cop?
If a dog owner will not control his dog and the dog threatens the police....then shoot the "fracken" dog. And if the police chief will not control his cops, and the cop threatens someone, then shoot the freakin cop? Not I. But, I am curious about your intent and therefore ask: Is there a law authorizing the action you advocate? If there is no law, are you publically recommending and supporting this particular call to action….whereby you are encouraging or stirring up violent behavior and advocating unlawful action when you post: “And if the police chief will not control his cops, and the cop threatens someone, then shoot the freakin cop?” Please define “threatens.”
Yes, I picked up on that immediately from your post. I also noticed the author cared to flavor his yellow journalism by stating that the pit bull was “ a 15 year old dog.” Then Decard so proudly added boldness, as if it mattered in his asinine attempt to portray the dog to be harmless. Here is what a “harmless” pit bull can and will do: SHOOT THE DOG...SHOOT THE DOG!
Interesting. I thought that making false statements to police officers is a crime in and of itself in many jurisdictions and filing a false police report can lead to multiple criminal consequences. I believed the charge "false report to a peace officer" is one of the few types of speech that is not constitutionally protected. Lying to a law enforcement officer can result in a criminal conviction, depending on where you live and the extent of the deception….the criminal charge of filing a false police report can either be a misdemeanor or a felony. OTOH: Police officers allowed to lie to you. They can lie to you when they are questioning you. GrandIsland?
Which explains why cops shoot these dogs so routinely and why the public in general hates those breeds. And why did the homeowner let the dogs out of the house at all? He was asking for them to get shot. The owner is responsible for controlling his animals. They should have been on leashes outside the house. . . . Addendum: checking YouBoob, I see the following write-up: AMPA, Idaho — Footage from a body-worn camera has led a dog owner to make a heartfelt apology to the officer who fatally shot his pit bull. The incident began Monday night when police responded to a welfare check at a Nampa home, KTVB reported. Seconds after an officer knocked, announcing their arrival, two dogs charged through the doorway. More news... update In the video, an officer moves backward before shooting one of the dogs, a mastiff-pit bull mix. Anthony O'Hare, its owner, was next to arrive on the scene. "I came running out the door, and I saw my wife with my dog, laying on the ground," O'Hare said. "She's flipping out. Everybody's flipping out." At a Wednesday press conference, the officer's belt was displayed, which showed bite marks on his can of OC spray. During the press conference, KTVB showed a stunned O'Hare the police video of what happened. "To me, it sounded like you saw the dog, he came up, he came down, then you shot him," said O'Hare, speaking to the officer. "But...I would've done the same thing. I swear I would've." In a Facebook poll, most viewers agreed the officer did the right thing. "I'm sorry from the bottom of my heart that that police officer had to deal with that," O'Hare said. "I'm sorry, I'm really sorry. I wish I could take it back." Police should probably be trained to wear a forearm shield to help them handle a dog attack, also useful against a person with a knife or machete.
Filing a false police report is different from lying to police. Your right not to incriminate yourself does include concealing info and even lying to police. The courts many years ago allowed an exception for FBI and some other federal policing agencies, back when they mostly dealt with organized crime and foreign espionage operations. Given the extent to which the FBI and other feds are used as domestic police now, this decision should be revisited by the Court. Fat chance! I've never heard of a single case of prosecution for lying to police. Only for lying to FBI and other federal policing agencies. Not sure if the lying penalties apply to BATFE, IRS, etc. But I know lying to the FBI is a federal crime, the most recent example being the prosecution of Dennis Hastert for lying to FBI about the payments he made to his blackmailer and why he withdrew the cash for the payoffs. Paying off the blackmailer was not illegal (and statute of limitations likely protects Hastert from kiddie diddling charges). But Hastert lying about the payoffs to the FBI was. nolu chan?
Absolutely!
I thought that making false statements to police officers is a crime in and of itself in many jurisdictions and filing a false police report can lead to multiple criminal consequences. I believed the charge "false report to a peace officer" is one of the few types of speech that is not constitutionally protected. Lying to a law enforcement officer can result in a criminal conviction, depending on where you live and the extent of the deception….the criminal charge of filing a false police report can either be a misdemeanor or a felony. OTOH: Police officers allowed to lie to you. They can lie to you when they are questioning you. GrandIsland? I can speak for NYS. I'll give you the short answer. Verbally lying to the police is just as legal as not speaking to them at all. It's your right. Verbally lying on a police report or statement YOU SIGN is a misdemeanor. Police lying, in the course of an investigation, for the purpose of solving a crime, is called deception and IS ALLOWED. Cops are allowed to lie, verbally, just like civilians are. Now, depending on how great the deception is could lead to a judge throwing out any evidence that the deception caused to be discovered. As far as the Feds, I'm not sure about them. They are the most official fuckers they know... so there probably is a federal law that makes verbally lying to an agent illegal. Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Apparently, this is another area of criminal law that varies by state. Apparently, in every state, you must give your name to police (if you give a name at all). You don't have to show ID at all unless driving a motor vehicle. In some states, it apparently is illegal to lie about your name, address, social security number. The civil rights lawyers always seem to advise that silence is your best defense. Give your name only (and drivers' license if driving) then shut the hell up. Any info given to police is very likely to be used against you or further any attempt to prosecute you.
I think Hastert's statute of limitations for molesting ran out years ago. So he is only guilty of paying hush money which is not illegal at all. Lots of people get paid hush money, often as a direct result of court cases. The "structuring" they accuse him of is pretty nebulous. As long as Hastert has routinely kept large amounts of cash on hand, that won't stand up. Upshot: the only thing they can get him for is lying to the FBI. If even that.
I would think any verbal lie to any LE agency would be constitutionally protected UNLESS the person has been arrested and during the booking process, refuses to answer booking questions (like full name, SS #, dob and so on) or lies about the booking info... the charge would be O G A ...obstructing governmental administration. You really wouldn't be charged for "lying"... you'd be charged for obstructing the ability to process the right person BECAUSE you lied.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
It's already well established in "case law" than cops are justified to use deadly force against anyone they perceive as a threat to their safety or the safety of those around them. The 14th Amendment equal protection clause requires that this just precedent apply equally to all. Therefore, a citizen who perceives a police officer as a deadly threat should be justified in gunning the cop down. Imagine a case where someone starts getting shot at. He takes cover, and sees a cop coming at him, firing his weapon. What does he do? The same thing the cop does if the roles are reversed and return fire, which a cop will be found justified in doing , or something a cop would never do, which is surrender to someone who is trying to kill him? A citizen being fired upon by a cop may already know that the cop is legally justified in shooting him simply because he may be in fear for his life. Knowing this, does not the citizen have a legitimate fear for his own safety from the cop, and therefore have the same justification as the cop does for using deadly force against the cop? Or does the law not apply equally in this case? That the law applies unequally between the two people because one of them is wearing a police uniform? Apparently the law does apply unequally to date. But given the climate, I wouldn't be surprised if a cop killing self, defense case arises sometime soon. A few times cops have raided people's homes and been killed in self defense (usually in the night). Most often the home owners are killed as well, but in the rare case they are not, home owners have been found justified is using deadly force, though only because there was reasonable doubt that they knew the people busting into their home in the middle of the night were there to protect the community. The next question is, easy. Is the homeowner justified in shooting even if he knows they are cops, given the above? Your question is completely inappropriate, as it is baiting and attempts to pull my comment out of context.
Thank you.
It still exists. He consented to the search. I would say it was because they lacked probable cause. Probably. The cops say the dog approached in a threatening manner. That is taken as presemptively true. There appears to be no evidence to prove it untrue. If you want to go that way, the best tactic is to ask for a warrant through the closed, locked door. It is difficult to reconcile a broken door with an alleged invitation to come in and search.
Federally, making an oral lie to the FBI can get you time in the slammer. Martha Stewart was not sent away for the underlying crime they were investigating but for making false statements in interviews. http://coveringbusiness.com/2012/05/15/what-martha-stewart-did- wrong/ The nuances in Stewart’s case ultimately drove the government to back down from charging her with insider trading. Instead, it focused its case on the lies she told to cover the trade. When questioned by the SEC and the FBI in the months following her trade, Stewart said she had no knowledge of Waksal’s trade and that she had sold on a standing agreement with her broker to sell if shares traded below $60. Bacanovic corroborated the story, but his assistant Faneuil eventually came forward and revealed the truth, furthering the case against Stewart. Later, Stewart’s own assistant, Annie Armstrong, testified that Stewart had tried to change a record of Bacanovic’s phone message to her about ImClone. To the jury in Stewart’s trial, it seemed clear she had lied. “This is a woman who pays attention to details… I mean that’s her life, to pay attention to a lot of details. And she knew what was going on with her portfolio,” jury member Rosemary McMahon said in an interview with “Dateline” in 2004. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years. (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding. (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to— (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
Comments (45 - 49) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIf a dog owner will not control his dog and the dog threatens the police....then shoot the "fracken" dog.
#5. To: Deckard (#3)
(Edited)
#6. To: misterwhite, GrandIsland, A K A Stone (#5)
#7. To: Deckard (#3)
(Edited)
" They knew there was a dog present, there was absolutely no excuse for such an action.
#8. To: Gatlin (#5)
(Edited)
If a dog owner does not control his dog and the dog threatens the police....
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#9. To: Deckard (#8)
#10. To: Gatlin (#9)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#11. To: Deckard (#10)
#12. To: Gatlin (#11)
HEROIC COPS are all around
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#13. To: Deckard (#10)
(Edited)
#14. To: Deckard (#12)
HEROIC COPS are all around
Go BLUE...Go BLUE...Go BLUE!!!
#15. To: Don (#13)
#16. To: Gatlin (#6)
#17. To: GrandIsland (#16)
My wife and laughed pretty good
The other automatically responds: “Shoot the dog!”
Then after a good laugh….we work out a solution to the “if.”
#18. To: Gatlin (#17)
When either my wife or I say: “What do I do if…” The other automatically responds: “Shoot the dog!” Then after a good laugh….we work out
#19. To: GrandIsland (#18)
(Edited)
#20. To: TooConservative (#1)
#21. To: TrappedInMd (#20)
#22. To: TrappedInMd, Deckard, nolu chan (#20)
(Edited)
#23. To: Gatlin, GrandIsland (#19)
Shoot the pit bull if it threatens...
#24. To: TooConservative (#22)
Whatever happened to "You can't search my property without a search warrant"?
#25. To: TooConservative (#23)
The reason news media will avoid mentioning the breed is that 90% of the public is happy for the cops to shoot any Rottweilers or pitbulls for any reason. Dobermans are pretty unpopular with the public too
#26. To: GrandIsland (#25)
it's a little hard to get the sheeple to hate a cop more than a pit bull...
#27. To: TooConservative, Deckard, nolu chan (#22)
The owner apparently didn't realize the number of rights he surrendered by allowing a voluntary search. The police can intrude, snoop, collect evidence, and shoot a dog or cat. The homeowner will have no recourse because he invited them onto the premises.
#28. To: GrandIsland (#18)
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on
#29. To: TrappedInMd (#27)
They can search without one but they cant use what they find as evidence against you.
I agree with your premise though, its illegal for us to lie to a police officer in an investigation, yet its perfectly legal for them to lie to us to get a confession or agree to a plea.
#30. To: Gatlin (#2)
If a dog owner will not control his dog and the dog threatens the police....then shoot the "fracken" dog.
#31. To: Pinguinite (#30)
(Edited)
#32. To: TooConservative, GrandIsland (#23)
(Edited)
You notice I checked the source video to find the breed.
#33. To: TooConservative, GrandIsland (#29)
(Edited)
AFAIK, it is legal to lie to local cops in every jurisdiction in the country.
#34. To: Gatlin (#32)
(Edited)
Here is what a “harmless” pit bull can and will do:
A good reason for cops to wear cameras. We don't have to rely on (self-serving) accounts of the incident. Nampa police released this video Wednesday of what happened when an officer shot and killed a pit bull/mastiff mix while trying to do a welfare check at a home earlier this week. The light colored dog is the pit bull/mastiff. The dark colored dog is a pit bull/Chesapeake mix.
#35. To: Gatlin, GrandIsland, nolu chan (#33)
I thought that making false statements to police officers is a crime in and of itself in many jurisdictions and filing a false police report can lead to multiple criminal consequences. I believed the charge "false report to a peace officer" is one of the few types of speech that is not constitutionally protected. Lying to a law enforcement officer can result in a criminal conviction, depending on where you live and the extent of the deception….the criminal charge of filing a false police report can either be a misdemeanor or a felony.
GrandIsland?
#36. To: TooConservative (#34)
A good reason for cops to wear cameras. We don't have to rely on (self-serving) accounts of the incident.
#37. To: Gatlin (#33)
To: TooConservative, GrandIsland AFAIK, it is legal to lie to local cops in every jurisdiction in the country. Interesting.
#38. To: GrandIsland, Gatlin, nolu chan (#37)
I'll give you the short answer. Verbally lying to the police is just as legal as not speaking to them at all. It's your right. Verbally lying on a police report or statement YOU SIGN is a misdemeanor.
#39. To: GrandIsland (#37)
As far as the Feds, I'm not sure about them. They are the most official fuckers they know... so there probably is a federal law that makes verbally lying to an agent illegal.
Dennis Hastert, a former speaker of the House of Representatives, has been charged with lying to the FBI and making cash withdrawals from banks in a way that was designed to hide that he was paying $3.5 million to someone for his "misconduct" from years ago, a federal indictment released on Thursday said.
#40. To: TooConservative (#39)
(Edited)
#41. To: Gatlin (#31)
Not I. But, I am curious about your intent and therefore ask: Is there a law authorizing the action you advocate?
If there is no law, are you publically recommending and supporting this particular call to action….whereby you are encouraging or stirring up violent behavior and advocating unlawful action when you post: “And if the police chief will not control his cops, and the cop threatens someone, then shoot the freakin cop?”
#42. To: Pinguinite (#41)
(Edited)
#43. To: TooConservative, TrappedInMd, Deckard (#22)
Whatever happened to "You can't search my property without a search warrant"?
The reason they asked for a voluntary search is that their desire to search this guy's house was inherently unreasonable.
Now his 15yo dog is shot up and he's got a big vet bill to pay.
#44. To: GrandIsland, Gatlin, TooConservative (#37)
As far as the Feds, I'm not sure about them. They are the most official fuckers they know... so there probably is a federal law that makes verbally lying to an agent illegal.
For the SEC to build an insider trading case against Stewart, it also would have to show that her transaction violated some duty to refrain from trading on the information in question. Stewart did not have such a duty herself. She wasn’t on the Imclone board of directors and had no official ties to other insiders like Waksal. She had merely traded on a tip. However, she knew Bacanovic had breached his duty as a broker when he told her about Waksal’s trades.
18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]