Drug Smuggler Sues U.S. Over Dog Bite

[b2r]

 Drug Smuggler Sues U.S. Over Dog Bite


A man transporting marijuana over the border with Mexico says a Border Patrol dog mauled him—and the U.S. needs to pay.
Jose Manuel Marino-Najera had been walking through the desert with a bundle of marijuana on his back for three days when he ran out of water. The 31-year-old father of one had been working on a grape harvest in Caborca, a border city on the Mexican side of the Sonoran Desert, when he found out about an opportunity to get to New York. He had an uncle there and, hopefully, would find work. Crossing the border illegally, with the help of coyotes, or smugglers, is typically a very expensive endeavor. But Marino had found a group willing to help him make his way north free of charge. In fact, they would pay him if he made it. All he had to do was carry a backpack filled with marijuana across the border with him.

Marino and the others in his group, all of them hauling marijuana on their backs, had made it to the Arizona side of the desert through an undesignated port of entry when they decided to stop. Dehydrated and feeling weary, Marino lay down beside another migrant under a tree and fell asleep. When he awoke, his arm was allegedly being mauled by a Border Patrol dog.

All of these details are according to a claim filed against the United States by Marino in federal court last week. The claim says that two Border Patrol agents and a canine approached a member of Marino’s group at around 7 a.m. on June 21, 2013. The agent handling the canine unleashed him to sniff the man’s backpack, and the dog scratched and barked, indicating there were drugs inside, the claim says. As the agents apprehended and detained the man, the dog remained unleashed, and ran down the hill to where Marino was sleeping. Marino says that the Border Patrol agents ignored his cries for help, allowing the dog to maul his arm for several minutes before putting the canine back on the leash. The claim states that the man who had already been detained could see the dog biting Marino’s arm from where he and the agents were standing, and could hear Marino crying for help.

                  www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/10/drug-smuggler-sues-u-s-over-dog-bite.html

[EVT1]

Sounds like a valid claim. What's the problem?

[zibazinski]

Too bad dog didn't do the job. Bad dog!

[Politically_Incorrect12]

How's it different than a police dog taking down a suspect until the police can get to him/her?

[zibazinski]

Because, whine, it's not "civilized." Whats not civilized is the fact that invaders should be shot on sight. Especially those carrying drugs.

[The Captain]

Another outstanding example of the kind of honest person who doesn't want to break any of our laws or suck money from the taxpayers.  Just want we want to invite more of to this country.

[The Captain]

b2r - your link doesn't work - will you please check and see if you can post to the article?

Thanks

[zibazinski]

Non citizens should be entitled to NOTHING including a right to sue.

[Tennesseer]

"Non citizens [here illegally] should be entitled to NOTHING including a right to sue."

Fixed?

Non-citizens here legally should be allowed the right to sue.

[zibazinski]

Yes. As long as they're not on the dole. If they're on the dole, they should be deported back to where they are from.

[The Captain]

Dec 12, 2014 10:21:48 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Non citizens [here illegally] should be entitled to NOTHING including a right to sue.

Non-citizens here legally should be allowed the right to sue.

I think anyone is entitled to basic human rights - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (ie we don't have the right to shoot to kill simply because they are here illegally)

However, the right to sue is not, what I would consider, a basic human right.

AND just to clarify - I don't consider it a human right the liberty to live wherever you want without permission.

[Tennesseer]

Dec 12, 2014 10:26:02 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Dec 12, 2014 10:21:48 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Non citizens [here illegally] should be entitled to NOTHING including a right to sue.

Non-citizens here legally should be allowed the right to sue.

I think anyone is entitled to basic human rights - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (ie we don't have the right to shoot to kill simply because they are here illegally)

However, the right to sue is not, what I would consider, a basic human right.

AND just to clarify - I don't consider it a human right the liberty to live wherever you want without permission.

Just so I understand your position: Are you of the opinion foreign nationals here on a Green card or H-2A or H-2B visa should not be allowed to sue, say if they were injured in a car crash or some other type of event which was not their fault?

[chiver78]

Dec 12, 2014 9:05:16 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

How's it different than a police dog taking down a suspect until the police can get to him/her?

from the OP, it sounds as though he was already restrained/arrested, no?

As the agents apprehended and detained the man, the dog remained unleashed, and ran down the hill to where Marino was sleeping.

police dogs aren't generally allowed to chew on suspects already in custody.

[The Captain]

Dec 12, 2014 10:52:45 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Dec 12, 2014 10:26:02 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I think anyone is entitled to basic human rights - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (ie we don't have the right to shoot to kill simply because they are here illegally)

However, the right to sue is not, what I would consider, a basic human right.

AND just to clarify - I don't consider it a human right the liberty to live wherever you want without permission.

Just so I understand your position: Are you of the opinion foreign nationals here on a Green card or H-2A or H-2B visa should not be allowed to sue, say if they were injured in a car crash or some other type of event which was not their fault?

If they are following our rules and abiding by our laws they have all the rights of US Citizens. 

[The Captain]

Dec 12, 2014 11:08:04 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Dec 12, 2014 9:05:16 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

How's it different than a police dog taking down a suspect until the police can get to him/her?

from the OP, it sounds as though he was already restrained/arrested, no?

As the agents apprehended and detained the man, the dog remained unleashed, and ran down the hill to where Marino was sleeping.

police dogs aren't generally allowed to chew on suspects already in custody.

I read the OP differently, the guy chewed up was not restrained/arrested - the police were up on the hill wrapping that up with someone else.  It apparently took them a few minutes (how long is not exactly specified) to get from the guy they had restrained to the guy at the bottom of the hill who had been sleeping.  He was not restrained when the dog went after him.

As the agents apprehended and detained the man, the dog remained unleashed, and ran down the hill to where Marino was sleeping. Marino says that the Border Patrol agents ignored his cries for help, allowing the dog to maul his arm for several minutes before putting the canine back on the leash. The claim states that the man who had already been detained could see the dog biting Marino’s arm from where he and the agents were standing, and could hear Marino crying for help.

One way or another I have a problem with this.  Police dogs are highly trained and intelligent (as supposedly are their handlers) and I thought they don't attack unless ordered to or unless they assess a threat to their handler, or if they see someone running away.  Something doesn't sound right either way here.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Agreed, Captain.  My guess is there's more to the real story other than some poor guy with drugs sleeping under a tree minding his own business and being attacked by a dog.

All of these details are according to a claim filed against the United States by Marino in federal court last week.

I'll wait for the rest of the story.  I could "claim" the dog actually planted the drugs on me but that doesn't mean it's true.

[chiver78]

I guess I took it to mean that he dozed off after already being restrained. if he's restrained, what else is there to do while he's sitting there?

I didn't read the link, I will say. just the OP.

[EVT1]

I would argue the right to sue is a basic human right- how else can people settle things in a civilized society?

People or entities that wrong people should not get a pass because of who the victim is. That makes no sense.

[The Captain]

Dec 12, 2014 15:46:22 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I would argue the right to sue is a basic human right- how else can people settle things in a civilized society?

People or entities that wrong people should not get a pass because of who the victim is. That makes no sense.

I don't think the law agrees with you:

"jurisdiction simply means a court's power to hear and decide a case. The U.S. and state constitutions, as well as federal and state laws, grant and limit courts' jurisdiction. To make a legally valid decision, a court must have both subject matter jurisdiction (power to hear the kind of case a lawsuit involves) and personal jurisdiction (power over the parties involved in the lawsuit)."

www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/subject-matter-jurisdiction-state-federal-29884.html

I'm not sure how this guy can file given the supposedly aggrieved party is not in the US.

[swamp]

Dec 12, 2014 9:10:12 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Because, whine, it's not "civilized." Whats not civilized is the fact that invaders should be shot on sight. Especially those carrying drugs.

How do we know they are invaders on sight?

[The Captain]

swamp - I'm actually glad you chimed in.  I thought in order to be involved in a lawsuit the courts had to have jurisdiction over you (see my link in earlier post).  Since this guy is now in another country and not a US citizen I'm not sure how he can sue?

Any ideas?

[swamp]

Dec 12, 2014 16:06:18 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Dec 12, 2014 15:46:22 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I would argue the right to sue is a basic human right- how else can people settle things in a civilized society?

People or entities that wrong people should not get a pass because of who the victim is. That makes no sense.

I don't think the law agrees with you:

"jurisdiction simply means a court's power to hear and decide a case. The U.S. and state constitutions, as well as federal and state laws, grant and limit courts' jurisdiction. To make a legally valid decision, a court must have both subject matter jurisdiction (power to hear the kind of case a lawsuit involves) and personal jurisdiction (power over the parties involved in the lawsuit)."

www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/subject-matter-jurisdiction-state-federal-29884.html

I'm not sure how this guy can file given the supposedly aggrieved party is not in the US.

the action happened in the US, so he has a right to sue here, where the incident occurred.   He was here when it happened, so the court has personal jurisdiction over him.

[EVT1]

Swamp beat me to it- but I was going to illustrate how under your theory we might as well let every illegal alien that committed a crime out of jail and quit arresting them since the courts have no jurisdiction

[Deleted]

Dec 12, 2014 11:11:23 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Dec 12, 2014 10:52:45 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Just so I understand your position: Are you of the opinion foreign nationals here on a Green card or H-2A or H-2B visa should not be allowed to sue, say if they were injured in a car crash or some other type of event which was not their fault?

If they are following our rules and abiding by our laws they have all the rights of US Citizens. 

Well... not ALL of them. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, for example.

[NastyWoman]

Well... not ALL of them. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, for example

nor do they have the right to vote

[Deleted]

Dec 12, 2014 20:31:49 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Well... not ALL of them. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, for example

nor do they have the right to vote

Yeah... that was kind of my point. See what I quoted, to see the reasoning behind my statement.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 12, 2014 15:46:22 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I would argue the right to sue is a basic human right- how else can people settle things in a civilized society?

People or entities that wrong people should not get a pass because of who the victim is. That makes no sense.

I do think there is something to be said for setting limits for what a person can sue for if that person is in the middle of a crime (i.e. homeowners should not be able to be sued when a person breaking into their home gets hurt). I already have an issue with people being able to sue over issues that are not meant to cause harm, but still may...like a person getting hurt on a trampoline and the homeowner being liable.

[EVT1]

There are some limits like that.

Depends on the circumstances in your examples- if the trampoline was just left out in a yard or a homeowner sets a shotgun trap tied to the door of a shed or garage- or actually sits there waiting with one  like that one man- course no point in suing some in jail for the rest of their life.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 15, 2014 18:35:58 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

There are some limits like that.

Depends on the circumstances in your examples- if the trampoline was just left out in a yard or a homeowner sets a shotgun trap tied to the door of a shed or garage- or actually sits there waiting with one  like that one man- course no point in suing some in jail for the rest of their life.

It's the homeowners yard...why shouldn't they be allowed to leave it out in their yard?

[EVT1]

Attractive nuisance- if you had a fence you could. I am referring to young children though- if some older kid breaks their arm it's on them.