Conn. Cop Cleared in Accidental Postal Carrier Shooting

RI-DIC-U-LOUS. FIVE years for this horsesh$t. People wonder why our judicial system is slow? Maybe it's frivelous lawsuits like this one tying up the courts' time. The officer saves this person's life then gets sued. Sooner or later we're going to have to carry malpractice insurance like doctors and nurses.

"In his lawsuit, Wilds, who retired from the postal service after the incident, claimed Gomez used unreasonable force in controlling the canine attack, violating his civil rights."
So, we ought to let dogs gnaw people so we do not get sued? Wilds, IMHO, is a f-ing tool. Glad everything turned out all right for Officer Gomez.

I'm surprised Wilds didn't sue the Post Office for not giving him bite-proof pants! You know he would have sued if Officer Gomez hadn't done anything and later learned she was an officer. Just another A-hole looking for a quick cash-out after hiring a shyster lawyer who convinces him it's the right (and profitable) thing to do.

Unresaonable force when she shot the dog??? Maybe if the Officer would have said "Bad doggy"!! the dog would have let go?? Not surprising however. Here in Dayton a number of years back we had several Officers stumble upon an attempted abduction of two adult females and stopped the abduction.

To show her gratitiude after being saved from the bad guys one of the females filed a complaint against one of the Officers saying he was "Rude" when he spoke to her during the intervention.

or you could just move to England........

Why did this guy not just sue the owners of the dog in the first place? Oh wait, because he could get more money out of the officer by being able to sue the city.. The only accountable person here is the owner of the dog for allowing it to run loose.. And then this idiot says the officer used unreasonable force??? What should she have done? Lure the dog off with a treat? Spray it with a hose? We all would have shot that dog.. I guess she should have just let it rip his throat out..

WOW!!
To Blondie, I totally agree with you. The home owners were at total fault because they were the ones letting a vicious dog run loose, and I believe by reading the article that they were sued. It said in the article that the jury ordered them to pay $250,000 to the postal carrier.
It's not like he will ever see the money though.
You also hit the nail on the head with your comment about sueing the officer and the city. He figured it would be an easy, guaranteed buck, and more then what he would get out of the Gomez family, so he went after the city. He didn't even care that the officer was trying to get the vicious dog off of him.
This is a sad, sad situation.

I don't believe this article has anything to do with a "gun-control" issue.
It is not an issue of the firearm being mis-used here. If nothing else, it would come down to a matter of bad marksmanship ( and I'm not saying that it was ), I'm just saying that that would be the only arguement that might fly here.

Sad to say this but it just goes to show no good deed goes unpunished. Bet the Officer, who had finished her shift, wishes she had just drove on to her aunt������s house. Instead she possibly saved the life of a thankless jackass who turned around and sued her. Glad the jury came back in her favor; it restores my faith somewhat.

Suzy Q in MC: Guns may not be a problem in Merry Ol' England, but you will sure get stabbed quick as hell! Please tell me what the gun did wrong, and I will be more than happy to get rid of it.