As a civilian the President has immunity from prosecution while performing duties. Within the staff at the White House is a lawn care person with different political practices than the President.
This dog belongs to the President.
1. The President’s dog bites the lawn care person for no apparent reason. Is the President liable? Is the President charged with a crime?
2. The President feels threatened by the lawn care person and the dog bites the lawn care person. Is the President liable? Is the President charged with a crime?
3. The President is feeling real animosity toward the lawn care person due to a brief conversation they had and the President orders the dog to attack the lawn care person. Is the President liable? Is the President charged with a crime?
I will write what I believe to be the correct answer tomorrow. I wanted anyone who cares to a fair amount of time to deliberate the differences. Thank you.
So, did everyone think it through?
This is the way I see it. I am sure there can
Be other points made besides mine.
In all three scenarios the President is liable for the dog biting the lawn care person. This is the President’s dog and should have the dog under control at all times. That doesn’t mean he alone is liable to the lawn care person. If there were personnel caring for the dog that dog attendant would be held liable as well, but, not in all three scenarios. At the point where the President takes control of the dog and sends it to attack the law care person, the President is solely liable.
In the second scenario, the dog acted out of instinct, but, there was no physical aggression toward the President. The exhibition of fear would have trigger the attack. It is questionable as to what exactly about the lawn care person resulted in an expression of fear. At any rate the lawn care person is benign in his demeanor and cannot be the reason for the attack. The dog attendant and the President still should have maintained control. This was not a police action.
As to criminality.
In the first scenario, there may be reason to contain the dog’s aggression differently and the dog may suffer consequences, but the President and the dog attendant are not criminally responsible.
In the second scenario there is an action by the President that triggered the dog’s aggression. Depending on what trigger the dog’s aggression, all three human beings could be held criminally liable. If the lawn care person deliberately acted as if aggressive or there was a verbal exchange, the lawn care person could be held responsible for criminal assault. There was no physical altercation so the dog’s aggression cannot be justified. The other alternative is that the actions by the lawn care person are completely benign and the President over reacted either intentionally or unintentionally. Here again the aggression by the dog is legally fuzzy. One would have to read the President’s mind to know if the actions that triggered the dog were intentional. The dog in this scenario could have been the purpose of training. The dog has no consequences. There is no criminal charges that would apply to a surprise reaction by the President.
The third scenario is more clear to criminal intent. There was a verbal exchange of ideas and words, possibly angry expression by each of the persons. The dog would clearly be interested in such an exchange and the dog attendant would be more alert to the dog’s aggressive posture. But, the control falls to the President where at one point turns the dog loose to attack the lawn care person. There is definitely assault. The actual contact by the dog is battery. The President would be charged criminally. Depending on the outcome of the condition of the lawn care person there can be severe consequences for the President. The dog attendant better be trying to get the dog under control after the dog began the attack or the attendant could be held for criminal negligence.
The purpose to this entry is obviously as a thought experiment to begin a civil understanding of how nuance plays a huge role in law and its application. There are definitely clear understandings of law, but, there are also grey areas and why the USA have judges to weed out the truth as it applies to the very serious application of the law.
All these relationships are personal when there is interaction. The relationships turn professional when the duties are being carried out. The President’s animosity of the lawn care person is personal and not allowed in the duties. Retribution for personal political differences is illegal.
——————-
Hey, Texans, too. Pay attention. Retribution is not the Rule of Law. Retribution, depending on the severity, can be a crime. Popping a chewing gum bubble in a disliked person’s face isn’t illegal, but, publicly advertise a specific judge should be impeached IS a crime. It is a form of intimidation because of death threats.
It actually has to be said?
It should not have to be public discourse. Respect for judges is automatic. The courtroom is a place where innocence or guilt is decided. There is no public discourse.
End of discussion.
(Click here)
