Brooklyn Man Files $2M Suit Claiming NYPD Neutered His Dog

Not a whole lot of details here, but if it's true it doesn't surprise me in the least.

I'm starting to wonder if cops just hate dogs generally.

Brooklyn Man Files $2M Suit Claiming NYPD Neutered His Dog

Gregory Drummond says police arrived at his Bushwick apartment building last September, after his downstairs neighbors had a domestic dispute.

He claims an officer grabbed a tenant through the gate, "put their hands in his pocket, retrieved keys for the gate and the property, and entered the apartment."

Yikes. 4th Amendment, anyone? Anyone?

Drummond, who is dating the owner of the building, says police wrongfully accused him of squatting and arrested him.

He says he asked NYPD to call his girlfriend so she could look after his dog. Instead, police allegedly took the canine to the pound and told them it was a stray. Workers then neutered the animal.

And to add insult to... injury? (It hardly seems like the appropriate word):

In addition to taking his dog, he says NYPD confiscated his TVs, video game consoles, cell phones and money, without documenting the seizure so he could get them back.

Naturally, he was cleared of all criminal wrongdoing.

His dog is, however, still missing his balls.

4th Amendment. Good joke man. You really don't know the score at this point in the game. We are back to the Wild West. Law does not apply to those that "enforce" it anymore.

originally posted by: skunkape23
4th Amendment. Good joke man. You really don't know the score at this point in the game. We are back to the Wild West. Law does not apply to those that "enforce" it anymore.

Granted, the 4th Amendment was tossed out the window long ago.

Does that mean I shouldn't call attention to its being trampled upon?

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: skunkape23
4th Amendment. Good joke man. You really don't know the score at this point in the game. We are back to the Wild West. Law does not apply to those that "enforce" it anymore.

Granted, the 4th Amendment was tossed out the window long ago.

Does that mean I shouldn't call attention to its being trampled upon?

It is routinely trampled. The only hope of rectifying the situation is to take a case through the courts. This will cost more money than most can afford.

originally posted by: skunkape23

The only hope of rectifying the situation is to take a case through the courts.

Now that's funny.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: skunkape23

The only hope of rectifying the situation is to take a case through the courts.

Now that's funny.

I'm laughing with you. Sometimes that's all you can do.

Any way to turn this around and neuter cops?

The only person who scares me more than a cop is someone raised by one. Zoinks, Scoob.

originally posted by: chasingbrahman
Any way to turn this around and neuter cops?

"Hi, I found this stray cop just kinda wandering around my backyard for no reason. He's a bit aggressive, and I think he may be sick. Is there anything you can do for him?"

Ha.

Having read the article the following can be stated:

The man may very well be entitled to getting paid money for the neutering of his animal, however in a court of law there would be questions and he would have to provide proof of the following:

Breed, what kind of breed is the dog? Is it a rare breed, or one that is more common?
Is this a show dog? Contrary to popular belief, most show dogs have to be intact, unfixed, and have all of their parts.
Is this a dog where the man is breeding?
And the lineage of said animal, does it have papers showing it was from a litter of animals that have been in show time and time again, of a championship line?
All of those questions ultimately will determine the price of the animal and what he can really expect from the courts to be offered for his trouble. The one good thing that this man can be thankful for, is that they did not kill his dog. So that indicates it to be a breed that is not considered to be one of the more dangerous breeds.

And ultimately, the police may end up losing in this case, especially if it can be proven that they falsified the report. Also one must wonder about the condition of the animal as well, as most who either currently work in the humane society or have worked in animal shelters, can often tell the difference between a pet and a stray animal. A pet that is taken care of, you can tell, as it is most often, clean, well groomed, well fed and looks overall healthy. Did no one stop to look at the condition of the animal and see what it looked like.

What we should be more disturbed about is the falsifying of the police report and that they did not document any of what all was taken from this man. This in itself shows a lack of following the law and corruption on the part of the police department itself. Where it is thinking it is above the law. And it will ultimately lose its case in court for failure to follow police procedures that are there to protect the officers. Ultimately the man has the police by the proverbial body part, and is squeezing hard. The dog is going to be the icing on the cake.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig

What we should be more disturbed about is the falsifying of the police report and that they did not document any of what all was taken from this man. This in itself shows a lack of following the law and corruption on the part of the police department itself. Where it is thinking it is above the law. And it will ultimately lose its case in court for failure to follow police procedures that are there to protect the officers. Ultimately the man has the police by the proverbial body part, and is squeezing hard. The dog is going to be the icing on the cake.

True.

But as skunkape32 pointed out above, the civil rights thing is old hat, as is internal corruption. The rampant abuse of animals by the police is (as far as I can tell) a relatively new phenomenon.

They had to corral the dog, put him in the car, drive him to the "vet", then lie and say it was a stray, knowing full well what they "do" to stray dogs.

That's a lot of energy (and tax dollars) invested in a peripheral aspect of what was supposed to be a simple domestic altercation investigation that had nothing to do with the poor dog.

Makes me question their priorities.

a reply to: NthOther

He should probably be very thankful

that they didn't

neuter HIM.

originally posted by: NthOther
... His dog is, however, still missing his balls.

There's an app for that ... wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuticles

a reply to: NthOther

I believe it will be the false police report and procedures that will cinch the case. All this man has to do, is prove to a judge and jury that he did indeed have the items in question, then show the report on the dog as part of the evidence and he will win in court, and will get a large settlement from the city and State.

The saddest part of all of this, is that the people of New York will ultimately have to foot the bill for this. Now if he is willing to drop the case, in exchange for replacing of his dog, and his items, and punitive fines, court costs, attorney fees and that the officers all involved were to get fired and lose their pensions, I think that would be a better judgement than anything else.