Horrifying precedent court rules cops can allow dogs to maul innocent people

[MindWars]

A disturbing and reckless precedent was just set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit which held that the US Constitution does not necessarily require cops to stop a K9 from tearing an innocent person to shreds. Seriously.
Horrifying Precedent — Court Rules Cops Can Allow Dogs to Maul Innocent People
-------------------------------------------------
Well isn't this just special. Protest it this is a job for ANTIFA

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Somehow, I just can't take the activist post seriously.

 

[DrainBamage]

Somehow, I just can't take the activist post seriously.

It's deeper than that... like most others on this forum I can't take MindWars seriously.

Either way this is a sensationalist headline that completely misstates what the court ruled on. The case was about liability since this guy sued the officer, and whether the qualified immunity that shields officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably. The ruling states "it protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law" which is a reasonable view given dude was hiding in the bushes and didn't identify himself to officers as they went right past him looking for an armed robbery suspect.