U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Taxpayers to Be Held Liable After Cops Steal Man’s Phone, Film Themselves Conspiring to Frame Him
Source:
Free Thought Project
URL Source: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/t ... tand-trial-frame-innocent-man/
Published: Sep 29, 2019
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2019-09-29 10:58:38 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 21700
Comments: 130
Hartford, CT — On September 11, 2015, journalist and police accountability activist, Michael Picard was illegally detained for lawfully open carrying and filming police on public property. During the illegal detainment, Connecticut state troopers confiscated his gun and his camera. However, the trooper who took the phone went on to make a critical mistake — he left the camera rolling while conspiring with fellow officers to falsely charge Picard. In 2017, it was revealed by the department that they investigated themselves and found they did nothing wrong when they conspired to frame an innocent man. “They were exonerated,” police union attorney Mark Dumas said. “The troopers didn’t do anything wrong. They were doing their jobs, and they do an excellent job.” Apparently this “excellent job” consisted of trampling the rights of an innocent person and conspiring to have them kidnapped and locked in a cage. Sure thing, Dumas. Now, because the system failed to hold the officers accountable, the case is now a civil matter and the troopers involved have been ordered to stand trial in the civil suit brought on by the ACLU of Connecticut. The taxpayers, not the officers will be the ones to pay for the crimes. The Free Thought Project spoke to the ACLU via email this week, who issued the following statement on the case. “The Constitution is clear: people have a right to protest the police, and people have a right against police taking their property from them without a warrant,” said ACLU of Connecticut legal director Dan Barrett, who is representing Picard in the lawsuit. “The evidence, including video, will show that these police employees were more concerned with covering up their bad behavior, undermining free speech, and retaliating against a protester than with upholding the law. We look forward to getting justice for Michael in front of the jury.” We agree. TFTP also spoke to Picard, who told us the following. “People have the right to protest, including the right to protest police, without ticketing or retaliation against them. I am deeply disappointed that these police ignored my rights, and I am hopeful that the court will hold them accountable so that no one else has to experience what I did,” said Picard. As TFTP reported at the time, on that September night, Picard and a friend were on public property and warning drivers of a DUI checkpoint ahead. They were several hundred yards from the checkpoint and not interfering at all when troopers drove up, without lights on, and against the flow of traffic, to begin harassing the two gentlemen. Trooper First Class John Barone, Sergeant John Jacobi, and Trooper Jeff Jalbert falsely claimed that Picard was waving his gun around and pointing it at people. However, Picard was holding a sign the entire time and did not touch his gun. Also, as you will see below, the officers admit that they were lying. “Police should be focused on public safety, not punishing protesters and those who film public employees working on a public street,” said ACLU-CT legal director Dan Barrett, who is representing Picard in the lawsuit. “As the video shows, these police officers were more concerned with thwarting Mr. Picard’s free speech and covering their tracks than upholding the law.” Had Picard actually been waving a gun, these troopers would have approached the situation in an entirely different manner, with guns drawn and possible SWAT backup. However, they did no such thing, because there was clearly no threat from the activists. The fact that there was no threat did not stop the subsequent assault, however. Two troopers approached Picard while forcefully removing his gun and then grabbing his camera, falsely claiming it is illegal to film. When Picard informs the officer can legally film here, the officer ignorantly asserts that “It’s illegal to take my picture. Personally, it is illegal.” “Did you get any documentation that I am allowing you to take my picture”? asks the cop. When Picard attempts to explain to the aggressive officer that he doesn’t need a permit because he is on public property, the trooper then makes the asinine declaration that, “No I’m not (on public property). I’m on state property. I’m on state property.” State-owned roadways and right of ways are public property. The trooper’s assertion that it is illegal to film on his ‘state property’ was entirely false and in violation of Connecticut Bill No. 245, which “protects the right of an individual to photograph or video record peace officers in the performance of their duties.” All this aggressive and unlawful behavior of these troopers, however, was about to come back to haunt them. After illegally confiscating the camera — the trooper forgot to stop it from recording. What happened next was a behind the scenes glimpse of what it looks and sounds like when cops lie to charge innocent people with crimes. The corruption starts as an unidentified trooper begins to search for anything that these gentlemen may have done to make up charges against them. However, they were clean. At this point, Trooper first class Barone chimes in describing how they now have to charge these men with something to justify their harassment and subsequent detainment. “Want me to punch a number on this? Gotta cover our ass,” explains the trooper as they begin conspiring. “Let’s give him something,” says an unidentified trooper, pondering the ways they can lie about this innocent man. “What are they going to do? Are they going to do anything?” says Sergeant Jacobi, noting that they are entirely innocent. “It’s legal to do it,” he continues, describing how the actions of the two activists are completely legal, before going on to make up charges on them. “I think we do simple trespass, we do reckless use of the highway and creating a public disturbance,” Jacobi says as he makes up these false charges against innocent people. “All three are tickets.” Once they figure out the false charges to raise, the officers then brainstorm a story of lies to back them up. “And then we claim that, um, in backup, we had multiple, um,” the unidentified trooper stutters as he makes up his fake story. “Um, they (the non-existent complainants) didn’t want to stay and give us a statement, so we took our own course of action.” The corrupt cops had then solved their fake case, lied about a cover story, and were set to charge an innocent man with three crimes — all in a day’s work. But there was just one more thing…. “Oh s**t!” blurts out the cop as he realizes their entire scandalous corrupt conversation was just recorded. Apparently, however, the officer felt that it must not have recorded their conversation as the phone was returned. The cops then gave the innocent man back his weapon, and it’s back to the DUI checkpoint for them — to harass and detain more innocent people. Picard explained that all of the troopers involved in his unlawful situation were never disciplined and allowed to progress through the ranks, with some of them retiring. Picard explains: Trooper First Class John Barone, the trooper who said it was illegal for me to record him, seized my camera and recorded himself saying, “We gotta cover our ass,” is now retired and collecting a pension thanks to the taxpayers. Sergeant John Jacobi is now retired and collecting a pension thanks to the taxpayers. Master Sergeant Patrick Torneo, the trooper who said “let’s give him something,” and then helped fabricate a story to charge me, was demoted for reportedly driving drunk, but is now a lieutenant. Lieutenant Stavros Mellekas, who conducted the internal affairs “investigation” and found that the troopers did nothing wrong, was magically promoted four ranks, and is now second in command of the Connecticut State Police. All troopers are being represented by the attorney general’s office and their defense is being paid for by the taxpayers. This is justice in the land of the free.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-52) not displayed.
.
.
.
#53. To: Deckard, A K A Stone, GrandIsland, nolu chan (#48)
(Edited)
Uh, no I didn't. I'm not going to jump through hoops for you and look it up, but Stone rescinded his ban at least a week ago. But I suppose since you've lied at least once, might as well keep' em coming. You INTENTIONALLY violated Stone’s instructions while probably assuming that he would never catch you. He didn’t – But I did. Summary: You violated that restriction and posted this first article by Matt Agorist on: Stone modified the restriction for you posting anything by Matt Agorist on: Actual posts: I just noticed this is another article by the liar Matt Argorist. No more articles from that freak. If you post more I will delete them. Then if you continue I will delete everything from free thought project. Then I will just delete you. I don't like liars. Thanks for your cooperation. A K A Stone posted on 2019-06-23 7:07:11 ET Reply Trace Private Reply https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=59300 https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=59860&Disp=13#C13 Post Matt. Don't flood us with Matt though please. A K A Stone posted on 2019-09-04 8:25:38 ET Reply Trace Private Reply For it is as GrandIsland said: All – ALL – I ever did was to point out that Matt Agorist LIED in the article. Don’t waste your time with Stone. No matter how bad Dicktard, Hondope or Fred’s Ass Hurtz treats Stone, calls him vile names on his own forum, Stone always lets them back on to post. Here is FACT. Stone could tell Dicktard not to post something, and we fucking both know, Dicktard with do what ever the fuck he wants. We also know Stone will never permanently ban a PAULTARD... so think about it. If Stone won’t permanently ban Dicktard, and Dicktard won’t follow Stones directives... THEN STONE HAS TO FLIP FLOP. It is what it is. GrandIsland posted on 2019-09-29 20:23:01 ET Reply Trace Private Reply A sad display – Ever so sad … Stone said: I’m finished … Salute,
Thank you. You are a good Person who has my respect. Hand Salute,
That should be Connecticut Senate Bill 245 of 2012, and after it is passed it is an Act, and then it is a law. Mere technicalities. However, with his usual flair (entirely false), Matt Agorist flubs the dub again. The law in question is not some grossly generalized thing with no exceptions. The law is not so general and has exceptions. Moreover, the Court has already dismissed the associated Count on summary judgment on the grounds that Matt Agorist is full of crap. The Court did not really say that, it was just my inner Agorist coming out. The Court did say, 13 days before the onslaught of Matt Agorist bullshit: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/TOB/S/2012SB-00245-R00-SB.htm Raised Bill No. 245 February Session, 2012 LCO No. 1357 *01357_______JUD* Referred to Committee on Judiciary Introduced by: (JUD) AN ACT CONCERNING THE RECORDING OF POLICE ACTIVITY BY THE PUBLIC. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2012) (a) For the purposes of this section, "peace officer" has the meaning provided in section 53a-3 of the general statutes. (b) A peace officer who interferes with any person taking a photographic or digital still or video image of such peace officer or another peace officer acting in the performance of such peace officer's duties shall, subject to sections 5-141d, 7-465 and 29-8a of the general statutes, be liable to such person in an action at law, suit in equity or other proper proceeding for redress. (c) A peace officer shall not be liable under subsection (b) of this section if the peace officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the peace officer was interfering with the taking of such image in order to (1) lawfully enforce a criminal law of this state or a municipal ordinance, (2) protect the public safety, (3) preserve the integrity of a crime scene or criminal investigation, (4) safeguard the privacy interests of any person, including a victim of a crime, or (5) lawfully enforce court rules and policies of the Judicial Branch with respect to taking a photograph, videotaping or otherwise recording an image in facilities of the Judicial Branch. This act shall take effect as follows and shall amend the following sections: Section 1 New section Statement of Purpose: To protect the right of an individual to photograph or video record peace officers in the performance of their duties.
When I read that headline by Matt Agorist I went no further for I immediately began a search to verify the premise of his story and I continue to do so today. I waste no time ever before I begin fact-checking the articles by Matt Agorist. I still have found that nowhere is there one iota of evidence to show any basis whatsoever to indicate in any way there is pending legal court action for the State of Connecticut “taxpayers to be held liable” in any way whatsoever for actions by the Connecticut state troopers in the story. Have you? It has been reported – and we both have often verified – that Matt Agorist and The Free Thought Project are entwined in a vicious circle of mutual manipulation, mythmaking and they are promoting a self-interest agenda. Matt Agorist needs to always create a crises headline to dramatize some salient facts of an actual situation whereby he appears to be responding to a crises. Far too often there are just enough facts presented but there is never really a crises – there is however much joint fabrications added to a situation. The two have become so ensnared in a symbiotic web of lies that they are virtually unable to tell the public complete truth because they flavor the situation with such soul-searching and tear-jerking drama. Paul H. Weaver, a former Harvard University political scientist, a Fortune magazine journalist and a Ford Motor Company corporate communications executive presented such a thesis in his demonstrative provocative analysis showing News and the Culture of Lying: How Journalism Really Works. Matt Agorist and The Free Thought Project have learned all of the “deceptive tricks” and they use them most effectively to unfortunately fool some. All they ever do is take a story from another source and flavor it with fabricated lies in order to create excitement which will gain sympathy and attract attention. And why Stone changed his mind to once again permit these “flavored news story atrocities” to appear on his web site – only Stone knows. Salute,
No you don't. You didn't mention one lie the cops told. Not one. How about doing that now. Instead of whining about an accurate title, yes the taxpayers will pay for the asshole liar cops on the video. Are you capable of addressing the substance of the article or are you to obsessed with Deckard and proving libertarians aren't your equal?
Free speech and open dialog. Back to my original position on the home page.
Everyone has their own agenda. Your agenda is to trash libetarians. Now I don't agree with libertarians on moral issues either. But they aren't wrong on everything that is for sure.
Judges are corrupt and this is bullshit just like Roberts and Obamacare. The cops said on tape that they had to cover their asses. So they made up stuff after the fact. The cops should be fired and imprisoned and would be if we had honest judges and prosecutors.
No you don't. What is it that you don’t understand about “lies on a first come basis?” The first lie to come was: “Taxpayers to Be Held Liable …” I have – as nolu chan also has – proved it was a lie. For, it is as I have repeatedly said: I deal with lies on a first come basis … And I am still dealing with the first lie. I will be pleased to address your point after you concede that Matt Agorist told a lie first in the headline. Will you do that – Or either prove that Connecticut “Taxpayers to Be Held Liable” for the actions by three state troopers? But you can’t do that. Can you? As I said – First lies first. You admit it was a lie or prove it to be a fact. Then I will be more than pleased to honor your request. Salute,
Free speech and open dialog. Back to my original position on the home page. GrandIsland stated in: If Stone won’t permanently ban Dicktard, and Dicktard won’t follow Stones directives... THEN STONE HAS TO FLIP FLOP. Yes, I called you a “weak-assed Flip Flopper” simply on the ground where you effectively demonstrated yourself to be. It was you who so BOLDLY stated to Deckard: No more articles from that freak. If you post more I will delete them. Then if you continue I will delete everything from free thought project. Then I will just delete you. I don’t see you running a web forum any longer. You have a registered domain that has become “Deckard’s Personal Blog.” That is an opinion – a carefully considered opinion. But I believe you cannot help but recognize this – for without Deckard filling the side-bar with cop-hating and anti-government articles, you site activity would be nothing to speak of. Salute,
Everyone has their own agenda. That is true. And you have let your web forum become a “parrot” for the Matt Aforist and The Free Thought Project through he designed efforts of Deckard running his on blog on what once was your forum. Nah, my agenda is not to trash libertarians. My agenda is to use their fuck-ups as an in-your-face mirror look-back at Deckard for continually posting cop- hating articles while he constantly proclaims that he only hates “bad cops”. It gets him riled and responsive. And I must confess – I do enjoy doing that. The libertarians are not wrong on everything and that is for sure. But everything the libertarians are right on – they stole for someone else. The have no original ideas. Research will show you that for everything they post – someone has either already said it, tried it or done it. Salute,
I have been boldly blunt with you. I never in any way intended to offend you and I sincerely hope that I did not do so. I also have been direly truthful in expressing my views and sentiments. I know of no other way - It is my nature. I wish you well … Salute,
No, I am not. I will explain why, although I fear that you will not understand. Here is but one reason: Here are 8 other reasons - People Who Were Executed and Later Found Innocent. I learned long ago as an investigating officer for Courts-Martials never to pass judgement on what I am seeing or hearing during the investigation. A judgment can be made only after all evidence is presented and carefully considered – and this usually takes place in a court of law. I have no problem with you making the snap judgments your have demonstrated that you are so ever prone to make. But I have every right to say that I think you are wrong to make them without factual verification. Salute,
Judges are corrupt and this is bullshit just like Roberts and Obamacare. The cops said on tape that they had to cover their asses. So they made up stuff after the fact. The cops should be fired and imprisoned and would be if we had honest judges and prosecutors. The quote is not from a judge or a court. It is a direct linked quote of a law of the State of Connecticut. You may call it bullshit, but it undoubtedly the actual law, as opposed to imaginary bullshit law. Real law trumps imaginary bullshit law. Identifying information as provided at my #55: General Assembly Raised Bill No. 245 February Session, 2012 LCO No. 1357 *01357_______JUD* General Assembly Raised Bill No. 245 February Session, 2012 LCO No. 1357 *01357_______JUD*
Although I had already anticipated exactly what it would be. And it was exactly as I expected. Later … Salute,
Is it inferred that the Court will require the taxpayer to pay? That would be false. As I have noted, no governmental entity is a named defendant in Picard v. Torneo, et al. Why is no element of government named as defendant? When you get done with that, the next question is: How could there be a judgment of liability against the taxpayer where no element of government is a party to the lawsuit?
[A K A Stone #59 to Gatlin] Everyone has their own agenda. Your agenda is to trash libe[r]tarians. Just for the record, my agenda is to trash misstatement of law or facts. With Matt Agorist and a few others, such misstatements are in wild abundance.
I start reading and I go into an automatic mode to either disprove or prove what I am reading. With most all the crap that Deckard posts, I continually find myself in the disprove mode. Strangely enough, after I spend all my time disproving what is in the cop-hating article – I am consequently labeled either a “cop-sucker” or a “boot-licker” when all I have done is to challenge opinions and conclusions. If the name-callers would read to comprehend and not read to confirm what they already want to think – they would then find what I am saying is true. That being – I am not defending cops. I am merely exposing the lies and disproving the lies against them. Well, maybe that does make me a cop-supporter. If so, then I will wear the title proudly for I am truly an “law and order” person. Those people who read a biased article and immediately form a firm conclusion will never cease to amaze me. To sum it all up, my analytical mind is always subconsciously asking as I read through an article: Why is the author trying to convince me what I am reading is true – and – is it really true? You and I essentially have the same agenda, which again is: Salute,
Get used to it. I does not look like it will change.
Of course I will continue doing what I am doing ... And I an thoroughly enjoying doing it ...
Picard, Doc 92 at 13-14, the Court stated: Summary judgment will enter in favor of defendants on this claim. And the Court ruled at 27: Do try to keep up old chap. You do not want to be relegated to the short bus again.
One must wonder why the taxpayer will pay if no governmental entity is a party to this lawsuit. The COMPLAINT at 2, paragraphs 10-13, identifies the Defendants: 11. Defendant Patrick Torneo was and is, at all time relevant to this suit, employed by the Division of State Police within the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, with the job title of master sergeant. 12. Defendant John Jacobi was and is, at all time relevant to this suit, employed by the Division of State Police within the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, with the job title of sergeant. 13. At all times relevant to this action, the defendants were on duty for their employer, and were wearing Connecticut State Police uniforms, badges, and pistols. No government entity is party to the lawsuit. The three officers are sued in their individual capacity. Just curious, but what is your legal theory of government liability. Do you infer that the court may order the government to pay, even though they are not party to the lawsuit? If you have no legal theory, you may have to start riding the short bus again.
I loath any reminders of the movie with that title. They would consider that a success that I've been so offended for so long. It's about as bad as those Lars Von Trier movies.
[nolu chan #74] Do you infer that the court may order the government to pay, even though they are not party to the lawsuit? Regarding a legal theory, it appears the legal theory is *c*r*i*c*k*e*t*s*. https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=60173&Disp=7#C7 Why? What is your legal theory? Do you expect the court to order the taxpayers to pay? Perhaps a U.S. Supreme Court opinion will help rouse y'all from your stupor. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 677 (1974) At 675-677: 415 U. S. 676 been suggested that § 1983 was intended to create a waiver of a State's Eleventh Amendment immunity merely because an action could be brought under that 415 U. S. 677 section against state officers, rather than against the State itself. Though a § 1983 action may be instituted by public aid recipients such as respondent, a federal court's remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, supra, and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury, Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, supra. Just asking, trying to clarify what y'all are saying. Do you expect judgment for the plaintiff and against the government?
Deckard, where are you? Bring me some fine whine. I await your legal theory of how the taxpayers are liable. In the meantime, while you hide in silence... With a view toward your CLE, here is another U.S. Supreme Court opinion. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 800 (24 Jun 1982) [footnotes omitted] At 801: At 815-19: Qualified or “good faith” immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U. S. 635 (1980). Decisions of this Court have established that the “good faith” defense has both an “objective” and a “subjective” aspect. The objective element involves a presumptive knowledge of and respect for “basic, unquestioned constitutional rights.” Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308, 322 (1975). The subjective component refers to “permissible intentions.” Ibid. Characteristically the Court has defined these elements by identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be available. Referring both to the objective and subjective elements, we have held that qualified immunity would be defeated if an official “knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury . . . .” Ibid, (emphasis added). The subjective element of the good-faith defense frequently has proved incompatible with our admonition in Butz that insubstantial claims should not proceed to trial. Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that disputed questions of fact ordinarily may not be decided on motions for summary judgment. And an official’s subjective good faith has been considered to be a question of fact that some courts have regarded as inherently requiring resolution by a jury. In the context of Butz’ attempted balancing of competing values, it now is clear that substantial costs attend the litigation of the subjective good faith of government officials. Not only are there the general costs of subjecting officials to the risks of trial—distraction of officials from their governmental duties, inhibition of discretionary action, and deterrence of able people from public service. There are special costs to “subjective” inquiries of this kind. Immunity generally is available only to officials performing discretionary functions. In contrast with the thought processes accompanying “ministerial” tasks, the judgments surrounding discretionary action almost inevitably are influenced by the decisionmaker’s experiences, values, and emotions. These variables explain in part why questions of subjective intent so rarely can be decided by summary judgment. Yet they also frame a background in which there often is no clear end to the relevant evidence. Judicial inquiry into subjective motivation therefore may entail broad-ranging discovery and the deposing of numerous persons, including an official’s professional colleagues. Inquiries of this kind can be peculiarly disruptive of effective government. Consistently with the balance at which we aimed in Butz, we conclude today that bare allegations of malice should not suffice to subject government officials either to the costs of trial or to the burdens of broad-reaching discovery. We therefore hold that government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. See Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U. S. 555, 565 (1978); Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S., at 322. Reliance on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, should avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment. On summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred. If the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to “know” that the law forbade conduct not previously identified as unlawful. Until this threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed. If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. Nevertheless, if the official pleading the defense claims extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither knew nor should have known of the relevant legal standard, the defense should be sustained. But again, the defense would turn primarily on objective factors. By defining the limits of qualified immunity essentially in objective terms, we provide no license to lawless conduct. The public interest in deterrence of unlawful conduct and in compensation of victims remains protected by a test that focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of an official’s acts. Where an official could be expected to know that certain conduct would violate statutory or constitutional rights, he should be made to hesitate; and a person who suffers injury caused by such conduct may have a cause of action. But where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the public interest may be better served by action taken “with independence and without fear of consequences.” Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547, 554 (1967).
Deckard, where are you? Stand tall and be counted. Hiding in a corner, squatting in your own puddle of warm piss is no way to go through life. I await your legal theory of how the taxpayers are liable. In the meantime, while you hide in silence... With a view toward your CLE, here is another U.S. Supreme Court opinion. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 85-1520. Argued February 23, 1987—Decided June 25, 1987 Petitioner, a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, participated with other law enforcement officers in a warrantless search of respondents’ home. The search was conducted because petitioner believed that one Dixon, who was suspected of a bank robbery committed earlier that day, might be found there, but he was not. Respondents filed a state-court action against petitioner, asserting a claim for damages under the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner removed the suit to Federal District Court and then filed a motion for dismissal or summary judgment, arguing that the Fourth Amendment claim was barred by his qualified immunity from civil damages liability. Before any discovery occurred, the court granted summary judgment on the ground that the search was lawful. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the search’s lawfulness could not be determined on summary judgment, because factual disputes precluded deciding as a matter of law that the search was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. The court also held that petitioner was not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, since the right he allegedly violated—the right of persons to be protected from warrantless searches of their homes unless the searching officers have probable cause and there are exigent circumstances—was clearly established. Held: 1. Petitioner is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if he can establish as a matter of law that a reasonable officer could have believed that the search comported with the Fourth Amendment even though it actually did not. Whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the action was taken. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800. In order to conclude that the right which the official allegedly violated is “clearly established,” the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. The Court of Appeals—which apparently considered only the fact that the right to be free from warrantless searches of one’s home unless the searching officers have probable cause and there are exigent circumstances was clearly established—erred by refusing to consider the argument that it was not clearly established that the circumstances with which petitioner was confronted did not constitute probable cause and exigent circumstances. The relevant question here is the objective question whether a reasonable officer could have believed petitioner’s warrantless search to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed. Petitioner’s subjective beliefs about the search are irrelevant. Pp. 638-641. 2. There is no merit to respondents’ argument that it is inappropriate to give officials alleged to have violated the Fourth Amendment—and thus necessarily to have unreasonably searched or seized—the protection of a qualified immunity intended only to protect reasonable official action. Such argument is foreclosed by the fact that this Court has previously extended qualified immunity to officials who were alleged to have violated the Fourth Amendment. Also without merit is respondents’ suggestion that Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, be overruled by holding that qualified immunity may never be extended to officials who conduct unlawful warrantless searches. Nor is there any merit to respondents’ contention that no immunity should be provided to police officers who conduct unlawful warrantless searches of innocent third parties’ homes in search of fugitives. Pp. 642-646. 766 F. 2d 1269, vacated and remanded.
Nice diatribe Perry Mason. You on Company time right now or are you off duty?
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Is that your legal theory? Go back to squatting in your puddle of warm piss.
Objection your Honor. The record will show that Mr. Deckard espoused no so-called "legal theory", He merely compared nolu spam's....er I mean chan.... Ahem...as I was saying, your Honor - Mr. chan has impressed us all with his nose-to-the grindstone efforts, relentlessly scouring through reams of cases that may help him in the admirable yet so sadly and strikingly Sisyphean (H/T: Tooconservative) task he has been performing and will continue to faithfully perform. The comparison to Perry Mason, the fictional TV lawyer is valid *** Golly gee, I tell you what. Danged if I don't sound just like one of them fancy lawyer-type people. And I never even went to law school.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Key word generally. Not always.
The Department of Children and Families, one of the targets of the father’s $20 million wrongful death and malpractice claim, had never removed Athena or her younger sister from the home or interviewed the mother’s boyfriend in the weeks before Athena’s death. The case had repercussions across the state because Athena had been taken to Windham Hospital only hours before her death with head injuries from abuse, but was released after treatment without a mandated report to authorities. She would return to the hospital a short time later, but would not survive her fresh injuries. https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-athena-angeles-child-abuse-dcf-20190104-rb6ibk7thnaf7o24dg35n2apwq-story.html There is a different case in connecictut and they settled and payed taxpayer money. So they do pay out and were held liable. In the end I suspect Connecticut will pay out in the case we are discussing too. If I am wrong I don't care. It is just my opinion of what will happen. States pay out all the time.
See? It's just so easy to sprinkle that term in almost any sentence. Try to work schadenfreude in there as well. Or go for the brass ring by mixing and matching these words at random. Try to fit Sisyphean schadenfreude into a sentence. Pretty soon you too can sound like the hoity-toity instead of the hoi polloi. LOL
Well, maybe. Apparently there is a state law that can into play. Although the police officer was found negligent, the court found the town responsible for paying damages because of the state's indemnification law. This law requires municipalities to assume liability for any injuries caused by an employee in the performance of his duties and within the scope of his employment that are not the result of wanton or willful conduct. Seymour filed a motion to set aside the verdict, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and a motion for a new trial. These motions will not be heard until May because the defendants cannot file motion briefs without reviewing the trial transcripts, which will not be available until then. Once these briefs are filed, the judge may accept the jury's verdict, set it aside in favor of the town, or order a new trial. Due to the state's indemnification law, courts may assign liability to parties not named in the original lawsuit. Or so it seems. I can't find anything that indicates that Connecticut's legislature has subsequently changed that law so it does seem that it is still in effect. Unless nolu can prove that avenue of liability has otherwise been closed off. Certainly, AKA has an argument to make here since a court did impose liability on a party (the town) which was not originally named as a plaintiff in the case. And a federal court could do the same, using Connecticut's own indemnification laws and precedents like this case to justify such a decision.
Spreading liability (aka passing blame for personal responsibilities) IS A LIBERAL TRAIT. I’d be cautious about how far you would support such a slippery slope... even if it is a police officer you would like to hem-up. IMHO, when someone is able to walk to a vehicle, unlock it, sit in it, start it.... and drive it any kind of distance, and they willingly drank alcohol, there is only ONE person 100% responsible.
I am not supporting it at all. I don't live in Connecticut and have no opportunities to change the unique laws of Connecticut. I am simply demonstrating a case where Connecticut law and Connecticut courts and a Connecticut jury did assign liability to a party not named in the lawsuit (the town) when an off-duty cop let a drinking buddy drive and kill himself and a few others. The jury said, at least in part, that the town was responsible because the job description for town police was that they were considered on-duty 24 hours a day and therefore they were always acting under the city's civil liability, even if the city is not named in a lawsuit. Unless the laws of Connecticut are changed, it seems to me that in another case where Connecticut state police are being sued, another jury and another court might decide that the state is responsible for their actions. So do you know whether CT state police are considered legally on-duty 24 hours a day or not? If they are, then how can the state be shielded from liability for any action of state cops as long as it happens on Connecticut soil? There may not be federal laws that can apply to this (as nolu says) but a federal court can and will impose liability if the federal court believes that the state courts are misapplying state laws or are acting corruptly in trying to let responsible agencies off the hook for their liability regarding the conduct of their employees. Federal courts are not utterly powerless in such cases even if federal laws do not apply directly. Well, you'd better move to Connecticut and inform the jurors and the voters and the courts of that fact. Have fun with that.
There is case law that state they can make arrests, off duty, provided they have the PC to make that arrest, and if they get hurt making that arrest, they are covered by work insurance. However, they aren’t paid off duty... so I would think they don’t have to act.
However, they aren’t paid off duty... so I would think they don’t have to act. And yet, in the CT case I cited, the jury did hold the town liable. Apparently, in the Seymour case, the jury concluded that the indemnification statute required the town to assume liability for its police officer. According to Frank Szilagyi, attorney for the defendants, because town regulations stated that police officers were on duty 24 hours a day, the town was obliged to indemnify off-duty officers even if they were not engaged in a “public duty imposed by law” as required by the statute. The procedural history of this case led to a complicated apportionment of liability between the parties. The case began as four lawsuits, on behalf of the each occupant of the car involved in the crash, including the driver. The passengers each individually sued the town of Seymour, the driver, and the owner of the bar that served the alcohol. The driver sued the town and the bar. Before trial, these individual suits were consolidated. Yet the jury did not read a collective verdict at the end of the trial, but found different levels of liability among the parties. In the lawsuit where the plaintiff was the car driver, the jury divided responsibility equally between the driver and the town. Yet in the other three lawsuits, the jury found the driver 53% responsible, the town 35%, and the bar that served the alcohol 12%. Douglas Mahoney, attorney for the plaintiffs, said that the inconsistency can be explained by settlements between the parties before the jury reached a verdict. In this case, the car driver's family settled with the bar before the verdict, leaving the jury to apportion liability between only two parties, the driver and the town, rather than three parties. Attorney Szilagyi also said that the bar's withdrawal from the driver's lawsuit caused confusion among the jurors and may have led them to reach the dual verdict.
Where does your local court pick it’s jury pool from? The same liberally indoctrinated people that watch MSM, get college indoctrinated degrees... and watch indoctrinated Hollyweird on TV. Pretty soon, we’ll be able to sue a taxi driver for going off duty 5 minutes before a drunk leaves the bar. Of course he could have prevented it.
Well, maybe. I wonder what the liability is if a veteran police officer poisons a neighbor's cat with a fish poisoned with antifreeze, a piece of bait intended to harm a domestic animal. What would the police officer's employer's liability be? Know of any cases like that? I know a lot of states have laws to protect domestic animals, even crappy ones like rats and hamsters and ferrets, from being killed even if the laws would otherwise allow it if they were not someone's pet. You may be able to kill feral cats in all 50 states. But a cat or dog or other pet is pretty hard to consider feral, especially if they have a home base and lack hunting skills to feed themselves which is true of a lot of pets, some of whom may kill prey, like a cat killing a mouse, but won't eat it.
If it’s roaming free... it’s feral. do·mes·ti·cate (dY-ms′t--kt′) tr.v. do·mes·ti·cat·ed, do·mes·ti·cat·ing, do·mes·ti·cates 1. To cause to feel comfortable at home; make domestic. Wild animals roam. Domestic pets belong on your property or IN your home. Do you let your cat shit on your neighbors, too? Be honest.
I don't have any pets currently. I take a very dim view of large dogs roaming free and leaving surprises on other people's lawns to find when mowing grass. I'm extremely hostile to large dogs crapping on my lawn and to their owners. Cats, well, I don't like the little dead-looking spots they cause for a month when they take a big pee on your lawn. But their turds aren't big enough to make a mess out of the mower. So I wouldn't throw a antifreeze-poisoned fish out on the lawn to kill a trespassing cat to keep it from peeing or pooping on my lawn, you know, like some cops would. We do have a roaming cat problem in the neighborhood though. Including mama cats who keep crapping out litters of kittens. They were down to two kittens, then one disappeared. Last week, I went out to walk and noticed the last kitten, barely able to navigate on its own, was crying and mewling more than a block away in the alley. I think its mama lost track of it and it wandered off. It's probably dead by now if some softie idiot didn't take it in so they could brag to their friends about "rescuing" that poor kitten, blah-blah-blah. So we're back to a couple of mama cats, waiting to get knocked up and have kittens in the spring, of which only one or two will survive to reproduce. But they don't make a big mess or pee on stuff too much. I suppose they do pose a hazard to other cats and the old bat and her granddaughter who feed the cats (sometimes) and let them live under her porch might catch toxoplasmosis from them but that is their business if they want to catch brain diseases from semi-feral cats. It's a free country and people can have all the cat-based brain diseases they want.
Comments (94 - 130) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest You posted [at lease ONE] article [by Matt Agorist] BEFORE stone rescinded that edict [against posting ANYTHING by Matt Agorist]. I did not bother to look for others.
I have not lied – I will NEVER lie. Stone restricted you from posting anything by Matt Agorist on:
A K A Stone posted on 2019-06-23 7:07:11 ET
Post Date: 2019-07-01 11:37:05 by Deckard
A K A Stone posted on 2019-09-04 8:25:38 ET https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=59243&Disp=10#C10
But you know, I took the time and went to the trouble to show that you did it at least once – knowing full well that Stone is not going to do anything about you violating his specific instructions. #10. To: All (#9) (Edited)
Title: Good Cops Honor Oath to Constitution, Uphold Man’s Right to Film, Instead of Violating It
Source: Activist Post
URL Source: https://www.activistpost.com/2019/0 ... m-instead-of-violating- it.html
Published: Jun 30, 2019
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2019-07-01 11:37:05 by Deckard #13. To: Deckard (#12)
https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=60133&Disp=24#C24
Nah, Stone will not do SHIT about you, Deckard – TOTALLY DISREGARDING his instructions – But, he surely will jump all over me and he will will tell me to “get my head out of my ass” for trying to show him where Matt Agorist LIED. #24. To: Gatlin (#22)
If you post more I will delete them. Then if you continue I will delete everything from free thought project. Then I will just delete you.
I say: WE SHALL SEE …
Gatlin
#54. To: nolu chan (#52)
(Edited)
Gatlin
#55. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#51)
[Matt Agorist] State-owned roadways and right of ways are public property. The trooper’s assertion that it is illegal to film on his ‘state property’ was entirely false and in violation of Connecticut Bill No. 245, which “protects the right of an individual to photograph or video record peace officers in the performance of their duties.”
Some district courts have held that in the context of a journalist, who is not subject to the police activity, the First Amendment right to record police activity in public is clearly established. See Stolarik v. City of New York, 2017 WL 4712423, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2017); Higginbotham v. City of New York, 105 F. Supp. 3d at 380. However, the instant plaintiff was not a journalist or even a bystander; he was a subject of defendants’ investigation and performance of their official duties. Accordingly, plaintiff’s right to record police activity or to record a police officer engaged in his official duties was not “clearly established” within this Circuit at the time of September 11, 2015, so that a reasonable defendant officer would have understood from existing law that his conduct was unlawful. See Anderson v. Recore, 317 F.3d 194, 197 (2d Cir. 2003); see also McKenzie, 2019 WL 3288267, at *7; Rivera v. Foley, 2015 WL 1296258, at *9 (D. Conn. March 23, 2015) (qualified immunity granted on basis that right to record police officers engaged in ongoing investigation was not clearly established as matter of constitutional law). Summary judgment will enter in favor of defendants on this claim.
General Assembly
October 1, 2012
#56. To: nolu chan (#55)
(Edited)
Taxpayers to Be Held Liable …
Gatlin
#57. To: Gatlin (#42)
I deal with lies on a first come basis …
#58. To: Gatlin (#56)
And why Stone changed his mind to once again permit these “flavored news story atrocities” to appear on his web site – only Stone knows.
#59. To: Gatlin (#56)
and they are promoting a self-interest agenda.
#60. To: nolu chan (#55)
c) A peace officer shall not be liable under subsection (b) of this section if the peace officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the peace officer was interfering with the taking of such image in order to (1) lawfully enforce a criminal law of this state or a municipal ordinance, (2) protect the public safety, (3) preserve the integrity of a crime scene or criminal investigation, (4) safeguard the privacy interests of any person, including a victim of a crime, or (5) lawfully enforce court rules and policies of the Judicial Branch with respect to taking a photograph, videotaping or otherwise recording an image in facilities of the Judicial Branch.
#61. To: A K A Stone (#57)
I deal with lies on a first come basis …
Oh, but my dear Sir – YES, I did. I most DEFINITELY did. You didn't mention one lie the cops told. Not one.
That is correct – absolutely correct. How about doing that [addressing the lies by the state troopers] now. Instead of whining about an accurate title, yes the taxpayers will pay for the asshole liar cops on the video.
“Whining” your ass. I am just doing a great job of “dressing you down.” … yes the taxpayers will pay for the asshole liar cops on the video.
You made a proof positive statement. Now you should show me show me where, how and when. Are you capable of addressing the substance of the article or are you to obsessed with Deckard and proving libertarians aren't your equal?
I am fully capable of addressing the substance of the article after you deal with the first lie – and thus far, you have shown that you are totally incapable of handling it.
Gatlin
#62. To: A K A Stone (#58)
(Edited)
And why Stone changed his mind to once again permit these “flavored news story atrocities” to appear on his web site – only Stone knows.
Then you are a weak-assed “Flip Flopper.” https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=60133&Disp=24#C24
I just noticed this is another article by the liar Matt Argorist.
I showed you where Deckard INTENTIONALLY violated your edict and you don’t do a fucking thing about it. Oh, but you can tell me to get my head out of my ass and stop whining – All while you Flip Flop. Geeeze …
Gatlin
#63. To: A K A Stone (#59)
(Edited)
and they are promoting a self-interest agenda.
Your agenda is to trash libetarians. Now I don't agree with libertarians on moral issues either. But they aren't wrong on everything that is for sure.
Gatlin
#64. To: A K A Stone (#63)
(Edited)
Gatlin
#65. To: A K A Stone (#57)
(Edited)
Are you capable of addressing the substance of the article …
Gatlin
#66. To: A K A Stone (#60)
[nolu chan #55 quoting Connecticut state law] c) A peace officer shall not be liable under subsection (b) of this section if the peace officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the peace officer was interfering with the taking of such image in order to (1) lawfully enforce a criminal law of this state or a municipal ordinance, (2) protect the public safety, (3) preserve the integrity of a crime scene or criminal investigation, (4) safeguard the privacy interests of any person, including a victim of a crime, or (5) lawfully enforce court rules and policies of the Judicial Branch with respect to taking a photograph, videotaping or otherwise recording an image in facilities of the Judicial Branch.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/TOB/S/2012SB-00245-R00-SB.htm
#67. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone (#66)
I waited around for your reply to Stone’s post.
Gatlin
#68. To: Deckard, A K A Stone, Gatlin (#0)
the troopers involved have been ordered to stand trial in the civil suit brought on by the ACLU of Connecticut. The taxpayers, not the officers will be the ones to pay for the crimes.
#69. To: A K A Stone, Gatlin (#59)
#70. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone (#69)
(Edited)
… my agenda is to trash misstatement of law or facts.
That is the basically the same with me. … to trash misstatement of [what is presented as] facts.
Gatlin
#71. To: Gatlin (#70)
Strangely enough, after I spend all my time disproving what is in the cop-hating article – I am consequently labeled either a “cop-sucker” or a “boot-licker” when all I have done is to challenge opinions and conclusions.
#72. To: nolu chan (#71)
(Edited)
#73. To: Deckard (#44)
[Matt Agorist] The taxpayers, not the officers will be the ones to pay for the crimes.
Some district courts have held that in the context of a journalist, who is not subject to the police activity, the First Amendment right to record police activity in public is clearly established. See Stolarik v. City of New York, 2017 WL 4712423, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2017); Higginbotham v. City of New York, 105 F. Supp. 3d at 380. However, the instant plaintiff was not a journalist or even a bystander; he was a subject of defendants' investigation and performance of their official duties. Accordingly, plaintiff's right to record police activity or to record a police officer engaged in his official duties was not “clearly established” within this Circuit at the time of September 11, 2015, so that a reasonable defendant officer would have understood from existing law that his conduct was unlawful. See Anderson v. Recore, 317 F.3d 194, 197 (2d Cir. 2003); see also McKenzie, 2019 WL 3288267, at *7; Rivera v. Foley, 2015 WL 1296258, at *9 (D. Conn. March 23, 2015) (qualified immunity granted on basis that right to record police officers engaged in ongoing investigation was not clearly established as matter of constitutional law)."
defendants' motion for summary judgment [doc. 76] is GRANTED as to count one and as to the First Amendment retaliation claim based on his asserted First Amendment right to record police activity
#74. To: Deckard (#0)
[Matt Agorist] The taxpayers, not the officers will be the ones to pay for the crimes.
10. Defendant John Barone was and is, at all time relevant to this suit, employed by the Division of State Police within the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, with the job title of trooper first class.
#75. To: nolu chan (#74)
short bus
#76. To: Deckard, A K A Stone (#74)
[nolu chan #74] No government entity is party to the lawsuit. The three officers are sued in their individual capacity. Just curious, but what is your legal theory of government liability.
[A K A Stone] The free thought project article in question contained no lies. The tax payers will pay.
But it has not heretofore
#77. To: Deckard (#76)
Henceforth, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Pp. 815-819.
B
#78. To: Deckard (#76)
Anderson v. Creighton et al, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) qualified immunity
#79. To: nolu chan (#78)
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#80. To: Deckard (#79)
Nice diatribe Perry Mason. You on Company time right now or are you off duty?
#81. To: nolu chan, Tooconservative (#80)
Is that your legal theory?
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#82. To: nolu chan (#77)
(Edited)
generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
#83. To: nolu chan (#78)
The state, faced with the expected testimony of child-protection experts and a social worker’s troubling case notes, has reached a $4.97 million settlement with the father of Athena Angeles, the 3-year-old Windham girl who was beaten to death in 2011 by her mother’s live-in boyfriend despite her bearing the black eyes and bruises of previous abuse and the warning calls of the staff at her pre-school.
#84. To: Deckard (#81)
strikingly Sisyphean (H/T: Tooconservative)
#85. To: A K A Stone (#83)
Connecticut Office of Legislative Research: TOWN'S LIABILITY FOR POLICE OFFICER'S NEGLIGENCE, 2006 In December 2005, a Waterbury Superior Court jury found an off-duty Seymour police detective negligent for failing to prevent an intoxicated driver who was drinking at a bar with him from driving. That driver veered off the road after leaving the bar, killing himself and two passengers and seriously injuring another passenger. The jury awarded more than $1 million each to the families of the deceased men, and $2 million to the crash survivor.
#86. To: Tooconservative (#85)
courts may assign liability to parties
#87. To: GrandIsland, nolu chan, A K A Stone, Deckard (#86)
(Edited)
I’d be cautious about how far you would support such a slippery slope... even if it is a police officer you would like to hem-up.
IMHO, when someone is able to walk to a vehicle, unlock it, sit in it, start it.... and drive it any kind of distance, and they willingly drank alcohol, there is only ONE person 100% responsible.
#88. To: Tooconservative (#87)
So do you know whether CT state police are considered legally on-duty 24 hours a day or not?
#89. To: GrandIsland (#88)
There is case law that state they can make arrests, off duty, provided they have the PC to make that arrest, and if they get hurt making that arrest, they are covered by work insurance.
INDEMNIFICATION
In the event that an officer is sued, the law provides that the municipality must indemnify the officer for damage or injury, not wanton or willful, caused in the performance of his duties and within the scope of his employment (CGS § 7-465). The statute allows officers “excused from official duty” to be indemnified as long as they are engaged in “the immediate and actual performance of a public duty imposed by law” at the time of the injury (CGS § 7-465). APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
Under Connecticut's comparative negligence statute, the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, apportions responsibility for negligence among the parties in the lawsuit (CGS § 52-572h(f)). The fact that the plaintiff's negligence may have been a proximate cause of the damage does not necessarily prevent the plaintiff from receiving compensation (CGS § 52-572h(b)). But if the plaintiff is found more than 50% responsible for the damage, then he cannot be compensated (CGS § 52-572h(b)).
#90. To: Tooconservative (#89)
And yet, in the CT case I cited, the jury did hold the town liable.
#91. To: GrandIsland (#90)
Pretty soon, we’ll be able to sue a taxi driver for going off duty 5 minutes before a drunk leaves the bar. Of course he could have prevented it.
#92. To: Tooconservative (#91)
You may be able to kill feral cats in all 50 states. But a cat or dog or other pet is pretty hard to consider feral, especially if they have a home base and lack hunting skills to feed themselves which is true of a lot of pets, some of whom may kill prey, like a cat killing a mouse, but won't eat it.
#93. To: GrandIsland (#92)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]