" Innocent Family Sues After Police Tried to Kill Their Dog, But Shot Their 10 yo Son Instead "

Yellow Journalism ?

I am sure someone will come along and tell us that the 10yr old was the head of the drug cartel & local "murder for hire" gang, and was personally responsible for 20 cop assassinations, and is locally known as John Dillinger Jr.

This I am sure is very helpful with local LEO public relations. /SARC

LOL !!

The incident occurred over two years ago.

There is no likelihood of proving the officer intentionally shot the child. He did not shoot the dog. See Brown v. Muhleberg TP, cited and linked below, for the difficulties in bringing this direct to Federal court.

http://raycomnbc.worldnow.com/story/26012992/deputy-who-shot-10-year-old-identified-more-charges-on-suspects

Deputy who shot 10-year-old identified; more charges on suspects

Posted: Jul 14, 2014 11:17 AM CST
Updated: Jul 19, 2014 11:30 AM CST
By Christian McKinney

[excerpt]

The situation of how the child was shot remains unclear. Sheriff Wooten said Vickers was approaching the property when a dog ran up to him. The deputy's gun fired one shot, missing the dog and hitting the child.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation in Eastman was called to investigate the shooting. They said no charges were filed against Deputy Vickers. Officials said he was on a pre-approved vacation Monday, and will be on administrative duty after he returns.

"I want to make sure that he's ready before he goes back out, because he's really upset about this. I can not explain to you how upset he is about it," said Wooten.

The shooting happened during the arrest of Christopher Barnett. Barnett is believed to be the person who shot a Douglas Police Officer early on July 10th. He is also believed to have been involved in an Armed Robbery that happened at a Flash Foods in Douglas before the officer was shot. That officer was later identified as Larry Carter.

Barnett has been charged with robbery, aggravated assault with a gun, two counts of possession of a firearm while committing a crime, and aggravated assault on a police officer.

http://www.douglasenterprise.net/news/4-million-lawsuit-filed-against-county-sheriff-deputy-2014-shooting

$4 Million Lawsuit Filed Against County, Sheriff, & Deputy For 2014 Shooting

Fri, 09/30/2016 - 4:39pm

Douglas Vickers Accidentally Shot Juvenile
By: Luke Roberts Enterprise Staff Writer
news@douglasenterprise.net

The family of a boy that was shot in July 2014 while local police were arresting a man accused of shooting a Douglas police officer has filed a $4 million lawsuit, and the defendants are Coffee County, Sheriff Doyle Wooten and deputy Michael Vickers. The lawsuit was filed in the United States Southern District Court of Georgia Waycross Division and was obtained by The Enterprise on Friday, September 30.

The 20-page lawsuit stems from an incident that occurred in 2014 when Vickers responded to the home of the Corbitt family in the Bethel community after a man suspected of shooting Douglas Police Officer Larry Carter was located in the area. While apprehending the suspect, Christopher Barnett, a dog is alleged to have advanced at Vickers and he fired two shots, one of which hit a 10-year old boy in the right leg. One of the suit’s plaintiffs is the juvenile victim’s mother, Amy Corbitt. The other plaintiffs are Jerry Rich, Elizabeth Bowen, Tonya Johnson, and Damion Stewart.

The lawsuit, states, “This is a civil action seeking damages against Defendant Coffee County, Defendant Doyle Wooten, the Sheriff of Coffee County, and Defendant Michael Vickers, a deputy of Coffee County.”

The family is suing Wooten and Vickers both “individually and in their official capacities” with the county.

The suit states the defendants “jointly and severely deprived the plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ minor children of their rights secured by the 4th and 14th Amendments of the United States and as a direct and proximate result of said deprivation defendants’ negligence, gross negligence, and the wanton and willful indifference to the rights of the plaintiffs individually and the rights of the plaintiffs’ minor children, caused the physical pain, suffering, mental anguish and ultimately the permanent restriction of one minor’s right leg.”

[snip]

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Nobody will be prosecuted pursuant to this lawsuit. It is a civil rights lawsuit filed in Federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Corbitt v Coffee County, DCGA Southern Waycross Division, 5-2016-cv-00051 (filed 1 July 2016)

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2014/title-42/chapter-21/subchapter-i/sec.-1983/

2014 US Code
Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare (Sections 1 - 18445)
Chapter 21 - Civil Rights (Sections 1981 - 2000h-6)
Subchapter I - Generally (Sections 1981 - 1996b)
Sec. 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2014)

§1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

(R.S. §1979; Pub. L. 96–170, §1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, §309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

At page 18, paragraph 50:

Defendant Wooten and Defendant Vickers had an affirmative duty to prevent, or aid in preventing, the commission of such wrongs and instead, knowingly, recklessly, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of the Coffee County citizens, these defendants failed and refused to do so resulting in the shooting of a minor. A reasonable officer would have understood that it was unlawful for him to destroy a citizen's personal property in the absence of a substantial public interest that would be served by the destruction. Brown v. Muhleberg TP, 269 F.3d 205, 211 (3d Cir. 2001).

- - - - - - - - - -

The cited case is from the Third Circuit in Pennsylvania. Georgia is in the Eleventh Circuit.

Brown v. Muhleberg TP, 269 F.3d 205, 211 (3d Cir. 2001)

The case citation contains a typo and should refer to Muhlenberg.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/269/205/532793/

The article is by Matt Agorist, hack fiction writer at The Free Thought Project, publisher of yellow shit.

Almost Everything Decktard posts is "yella shit". He and his pothead agenda posters ruined LP and this site. It's why NOBODY but PAULTARDS will seriously post here or back at LP. It's why the wheelchair republican at FR booted them all off... so he could continually attract new posters to that site.

Goldi was a CT sheltered nut... Who didn't even keep in contact with her family because of the paranoia she developed reading yella bullshit. Unfortunately, I've spoken to Stone about attracting new posters...by making a FB site for LF... He wasn't interested in normal thought. He'd rather the pothead CT fucking assholes post yella garbage.

So, it is what it is. That's why I post less and less. His last punishment of me wasn't a hardship at all... you gotta want to post here for a 15 day ban to be effective.

There is no likelihood of proving the officer intentionally shot the child.

No one claimed it was intentional.

He did not shoot the dog.

He shot AT the dog, you boot-licking freak.

Defendant Wooten and Defendant Vickers had an affirmative duty to prevent, or aid in preventing, the commission of such wrongs and instead, knowingly, recklessly, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of the Coffee County citizens, these defendants failed and refused to do so resulting in the shooting of a minor. A reasonable officer would have understood that it was unlawful for him to destroy a citizen's personal property in the absence of a substantial public interest that would be served by the destruction. Brown v. Muhleberg TP, 269 F.3d 205, 211 (3d Cir. 2001).

Your long-winded spam post would indicate that the original article is factual, not "yellow journalism" like you claimed.

Carry on, agenda posting drug addict lover.

Your long-winded spam post would indicate that the original article is factual, not "yellow journalism" like you claimed.

Your ignorant bullshit overlooks that your article is about a FEDERAL lawsuit with a CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIM.

A shot at your dog in Georgia by Georgia law enforcement is not a Federal civil rights violation by the county, the first named defendant, and the one with deep pockets.

You, of course, ignore the cited case of Brown v. Muhleberg TP, 269 F.3d 205, 211 (3d Cir. 2001), because in your idiot world, ignorance is bliss. The proof needed to prevail in a Federal Civil Rights action is described in Brown.

A shot at your dog in Georgia by Georgia law enforcement is not a Federal civil rights violation by the county

Your legal ramblings aside, the point is you pompous arrogant prick is that the cop was trying to shoot a non-threatening dog and hit a child.

WTF is wrong with you?

Why do you have to make every post like an ambulance chasing shyster?

Good grief man - this is a discussion forum, not a fucking court.

Almost Everything Decktard posts is "yella shit". He and his pothead agenda posters ruined LP and this site. It's why NOBODY but PAULTARDS will seriously post here or back at LP. It's why the wheelchair republican at FR booted them all off... so he could continually attract new posters to that site.

The FR active posters and the claimed registered accounts bear little relationship to each other. There are very many ghost accounts that appear as registered users but have never posted.

I thought they might have been subject to outside political direction/influence after the $1M judgment against FR for was settled.

He wasn't interested in normal thought. He'd rather the pothead CT fucking assholes post yella garbage.

So, it is what it is. That's why I post less and less.

If taken seriously, they are infinitely boring. They can provide some diversion if taken as entertainment or unintentional humor.

With all "free speech" sites that I have seen, it becomes evident that the biggest claimants of "free speech" mean speech that they agree with. It is utterly amazing the things you can learn on the internet, from G.H.W. Bush being a shape-shifting alien reptile, to being able to strike down Amendments to the Constitution.

Deputy Michael Vickers was never charged with any crime.

Doc 1-1, Attachment Exhibit A of the Complaint, dated June 30, 2015 is addressed to Sheriff Wooten and Deputy Vickers and states,

While we are still in the process of investigating this case, we believe Dakota Corbitt and his family have suffered damages in excess of one million dollars. If we are unable to settle this matter without litigation, we intend to bring suit for the foregoing causes of action at the earliest date allowable.

We look forward to hearing from you.

It appears the letter of the attorney (Ben Mills, Jr.) met with an unfavorable response.

Your legal ramblings aside, the point is you pompous arrogant prick is that the cop was trying to shoot a non-threatening dog and hit a child.

No, you absurd, ridiculous ignorant asshole, the point is the article is bullshit and the litigation Complaint is about the same. The article from The Free Thought Project is the bullshit that is typical of that execrable sourse.

Get it through yourt impenetrable drugged into incoherence skull that the lawsuit alleges a violation of CONSTITUTIONAL rights. Deputy Michael Vickers was never charged with any crime.

Doc 1-1, Attachment Exhibit A of the Complaint, dated June 30, 2015 is addressed to Sheriff Wooten and Deputy Vickers and states,

While we are still in the process of investigating this case, we believe Dakota Corbitt and his family have suffered damages in excess of one million dollars. If we are unable to settle this matter without litigation, we intend to bring suit for the foregoing causes of action at the earliest date allowable.

We look forward to hearing from you.

It appears the letter of the attorney (Ben Mills, Jr.) met with an unfavorable response.

In Georgia, punitive damages are limited to a maximum of $250K for the case, excepting product liability or being under the influence of alcohol/drugs. And 75% of punitive damages (less a proportionate part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees), as determined by the trial judge, shall be paid into the treasury of the state.

Punitive damages are solely to punish, penalize, or deter a defendant, not to compensate a plaintiff. In Georgia, if one desires to see a tortfeasor punished with punative damages, the money goes to the costs of litigation and to the government of Georgia. Proof is by clear and convincing evidence.

This may help explain why the case is not filed in the courts of Georgia, but an attempt is made to assert a Federal tort case of violation of the Constitution.

http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-51/chapter-12/article-1/51-12-5-1

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 51 - TORTS
CHAPTER 12 - DAMAGES
ARTICLE 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
§ 51-12-5.1 - Punitive damages

O.C.G.A. 51-12-5.1 (2010)

51-12-5.1. Punitive damages

(a) As used in this Code section, the term "punitive damages" is synonymous with the terms "vindictive damages," "exemplary damages," and other descriptions of additional damages awarded because of aggravating circumstances in order to penalize, punish, or deter a defendant.

(b) Punitive damages may be awarded only in such tort actions in which it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's actions showed willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences.

(c) Punitive damages shall be awarded not as compensation to a plaintiff but solely to punish, penalize, or deter a defendant.

(d) (1) An award of punitive damages must be specifically prayed for in a complaint. In any case in which punitive damages are claimed, the trier of fact shall first resolve from the evidence produced at trial whether an award of punitive damages shall be made. This finding shall be made specially through an appropriate form of verdict, along with the other required findings.

(2) If it is found that punitive damages are to be awarded, the trial shall immediately be recommenced in order to receive such evidence as is relevant to a decision regarding what amount of damages will be sufficient to deter, penalize, or punish the defendant in light of the circumstances of the case. It shall then be the duty of the trier of fact to set the amount to be awarded according to subsection (e), (f), or (g) of this Code section, as applicable.

(e) (1) In a tort case in which the cause of action arises from product liability, there shall be no limitation regarding the amount which may be awarded as punitive damages. Only one award of punitive damages may be recovered in a court in this state from a defendant for any act or omission if the cause of action arises from product liability, regardless of the number of causes of action which may arise from such act or omission.

(2) Seventy-five percent of any amounts awarded under this subsection as punitive damages, less a proportionate part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, all as determined by the trial judge, shall be paid into the treasury of the state through the Office of the State Treasurer. Upon issuance of judgment in such a case, the state shall have all rights due a judgment creditor until such judgment is satisfied and shall stand on equal footing with the plaintiff of the original case in securing a recovery after payment to the plaintiff of damages awarded other than as punitive damages. A judgment debtor may remit the state's proportional share of punitive damages to the clerk of the court in which the judgment was rendered. It shall be the duty of the clerk to pay over such amounts to the Office of the State Treasurer within 60 days of receipt from the judgment debtor. This paragraph shall not be construed as making the state a party at interest and the sole right of the state is to the proceeds as provided in this paragraph.

(f) In a tort case in which the cause of action does not arise from product liability, if it is found that the defendant acted, or failed to act, with the specific intent to cause harm, or that the defendant acted or failed to act while under the influence of alcohol, drugs other than lawfully prescribed drugs administered in accordance with prescription, or any intentionally consumed glue, aerosol, or other toxic vapor to that degree that his or her judgment is substantially impaired, there shall be no limitation regarding the amount which may be awarded as punitive damages against an active tort-feasor but such damages shall not be the liability of any defendant other than an active tort-feasor.

(g) For any tort action not provided for by subsection (e) or (f) of this Code section in which the trier of fact has determined that punitive damages are to be awarded, the amount which may be awarded in the case shall be limited to a maximum of $250,000.00.

(h) This Code section shall apply only to causes of action arising on or after April 14, 1997.

Good grief man - this is a discussion forum, not a fucking court.

You posted a thread about a Complaint in a lawsuit, you ignorant fuck. I posted the actual complaint. Deal with it.

The Complaint failed to mention the State remedy available via State tort action.

Your legal ramblings aside, the point is you pompous arrogant prick is that the cop was trying to shoot a non-threatening dog and hit a child.

Your story is about, and largely lifted from, the COMPLAINT in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 litigation for State violation of Federal civil rights, attempting to bypass available State remedies.

Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981)

Syllabus at 527:

Held: Respondent has not stated a claim for relief under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Pp. 531-544.

(a) In any § 1983 action the initial inquiry must focus on whether the two essential elements to a § 1983 action are present: (1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Pp. 531-535.

(b) Although respondent has been deprived of property under color of state law, he has not sufficiently alleged a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The deprivation did not occur as the result of some established state procedure, but as the result of the unauthorized failure of state agents to follow established state procedure. Moreover, Nebraska has a tort claims procedure which provides a remedy to persons who have suffered a tortious loss at the hands of the State, but which respondent did not use. Such procedure could have fully compensated respondent for his property loss and was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process. Pp. 535-544.

620 F. 2d 307. reversed.

- - - - - - - - - -

At 536:

The pertinent text of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Emphasis supplied.) Unquestionably, respondent's claim satisfies three prerequisites of a valid due process claim: the petitioners acted under color of state law; the hobby kit falls within the definition of property; and the alleged loss, even though negli gently caused, amounted to a deprivation.' Standing alone, however, these three elements do not establish a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nothing in that Amendment protects against all deprivations of life, liberty, or property by the State. The Fourteenth Amendment protects only against deprivations "without due process of law." Baker v. McCollan, 443 U. S., at 145. Our inquiry therefore must focus on whether the respondent has suffered a deprivation of property without due process of law. In particular, we must decide whether the tort remedies which the State of Nebraska provides as a means of redress for property deprivations satisfy the requirements of procedural due process.

- - - - - - - - - -

At 538:

We have, however, recognized that postdeprivation remedies made available by the State can satisfy the Due Process Clause.

At 539:

In Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., 339 U. S. 594 (1950), we upheld under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause the summary seizure and destruction of drugs without a preseizure hearing.

At 539:

See also Corn Exchange Bank v. Coler, 280 U. S. 218 (1930); McKay v. McInnes, 279 U. S. 820 (1929); Coffin Brothers & Co. v. Bennett, 277 U. S. 29 (1928); and Ownbey v. Morgan, 256 U. S. 94 (1921). These cases recognize that either the necessity of quick action by the State or the impracticality of providing any meaningful predeprivation process, when coupled with the availability of some meaningful means by which to assess the propriety of the State's action at some time after the initial taking, can satisfy the requirements of procedural due process.[4]

[4] In Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134 (1974), JusticE White noted the importance of a meaningful postdeprivation hearing when referring to many of the above cases:

"While these cases indicate that the particular interests involved might not have demanded a hearing immediately, they also reaffirm the principle that property may not be taken without a hearing at some time." Id., at 179 (concurring in part and dissenting in part).