That's too funny, I was going to totally quote Animal Farm.
Court rules the OK for police to shoot barking or moving dogs
- Thread starter Rits
- Start date
strykerdobe
Hot Topics Subscriber
Usually most of these videos are uploaded to social media begins after the event of what caused the action.
Do you know for a fact with this incident there was no body cam footage? NO you don't and I don't.
Once again we don't know all the facts that were taken into consideration with the Court that decided this! So armchair all you want!
This happened in Miami as well a year or two ago. Police shot the dog in front of the two small children that were outside with the dog. An I am sorry doesn't cut it.No, stinking autocorrect. ROI, lol. Damn acronyms
ROE, rules of engagement.
And on the topic of compensatory damages. I'm not sure how it works elsewhere but there was a news story in neighboring San Bernardino county last year or the year before on this.
Sheriffs dept was there to serve a warrant or something, ignored signs warning of a dog, dog barked and approached and was shot.
No compensation to the dogs owner and get this, the Sheriff was serving the warrant to the wrong home. They were off by a house or two.
All that was offered was "We're sorry" .
Seems to me if you go in someone's house with forced entry to serve a warrant and the first thing you do is shoot their dog/s then you are setting yourself up for force that could end up killing a cop and the resident.
There has to be a better way.
I do not think they would use animal control because of dangers involved in a high security risk warrant so I think there should be police officers trained in capture and control of dogs that may create a problem for them.
What if they have a CRAZY relative living in the attic that comes down acting aggressive? I suppose they shoot them instead of subduing.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind how I would react to my pet being killed.
I could not control my immediate rage and would either be shot by police or be in jail for life.
I could not help or even change my reaction to this situation because my brain is not geared to accept such an occurrence. That being said, I don't do anything that would warrant a situation of busting in my house, unless they came to the wrong house. That would be a very bad day for a lot of people, myself included if that ever happened here.
I know my short comings and harming my pets would bring out my inability for logic first.
DD4MSpock
Hot Topics Subscriber
What I do know is the end result. Two dogs are dead because of a police action. And the courts have ruled (so far) that the action was "justifiable." And, IMHO, that sets a bad precedent. I fear for other dogs that might meet the same fate, given the same scenario. And I grieve for the owners, who will have no legal remedy in the courts, especially the owner who is the victim of a "wrong address" blunder. It absolutely does happen... there's no denying it! I truly hope the owners take this to SCOTUS and it gets reversed. And I wouldn't have sued under the 4th amendment, but under the "due process" clause of the 14th. The LEOs deprived those owners of their "property," and the only "due process of law" was a brain impulse in the LEO's head.
What I also know is that these types of actions by LE, and the resultant protections offered to them by the courts and "the system" are, in large part, what causes this general hostility between LE and the public. It doesn't matter whether the LEOs were justified or not. Right or wrong, the public perceives them as wrong, and perception is everything! The onus is upon LE to market themselves better to the community and do things that erase that perception, not perpetuate it.
Pounding on the 'agree' button! ( I think I broke it!
)
Chasing a dog down to shoot it again? Really? Someone obviously is scared of dogs and was trying to condone his actions. It's BS imho. I do agree what police should be able to act if theatened but logical steps should have been taken to prevent them from feeling or actually being threatened. Once you have the people in the house in custody and can proceed with the search that means you have the time to have the dogs restrained. And the cop scared of the dogs? Well next time he can stay at the office. Potential drug dealers probably have dogs.
Well, it is a pretty horrible thing to think about, but I assume the cop followed the dog and shot it again in order to put it out of its misery.
Well, maybe also because it made a nice "clean" break from the situation compared to the dog getting vet care and surviving.
Well, maybe also because it made a nice "clean" break from the situation compared to the dog getting vet care and surviving.
DD4MSpock
Hot Topics Subscriber
I think I saw a report indicating that's why the LEO followed and shot again.
That would be my only guess at why something like that would be acceptable, (the misery option that is.) But trigger happy McGee got off scott free in the end. I hope hes ostracized for some time at work!
bomary
Hot Topics Subscriber
I can't quite figure out the opinion of the author of this article.
One things that pisses me off, but I am familiar with (as being a bad idea) is the fact that there was a "beware of dog" sign (or some variance thereof) on the house/window.
If that sign (and surely they've watched this house and have been aware of the presence of dogs) concerned them (instilled the Fear of Dog in them), why wasn't someone included in the LE squad who had ways to deal with the dog/s which did not include fatal shots?
Did they think the dogs were trained to go get the drugs (or whatever they were after) from the basement and take them to a place that they would never be found?
All of the versions of the story about the second (53 lb. pound) that I've seen certainly don't seem to warrant (no pun intended) killing him/her. (I don't think any of the stories actually validate the killing of the first dog, but the second dog appears to have just been 'in the way.')
Anyway...here's the article I just read...
Federal Ruling on Dogs Shot by Police: Less than Meets the Eye | NAIA Trust
Were any of the criminals they were after injured?...or just their dogs?
One things that pisses me off, but I am familiar with (as being a bad idea) is the fact that there was a "beware of dog" sign (or some variance thereof) on the house/window.
If that sign (and surely they've watched this house and have been aware of the presence of dogs) concerned them (instilled the Fear of Dog in them), why wasn't someone included in the LE squad who had ways to deal with the dog/s which did not include fatal shots?
Did they think the dogs were trained to go get the drugs (or whatever they were after) from the basement and take them to a place that they would never be found?
All of the versions of the story about the second (53 lb. pound) that I've seen certainly don't seem to warrant (no pun intended) killing him/her. (I don't think any of the stories actually validate the killing of the first dog, but the second dog appears to have just been 'in the way.')
Anyway...here's the article I just read...
Federal Ruling on Dogs Shot by Police: Less than Meets the Eye | NAIA Trust
Were any of the criminals they were after injured?...or just their dogs?
DD4MSpock
Hot Topics Subscriber
OK, folks, "Round 2" here in Tampa. But this time, the pit bull survives, and even after attacking/injuring humans! This is an example of how to do it right! If only the LEOs in Michigan had followed some of these techniques. Those dogs might have had another chance at life! Now, if this one goes through the court system, it may be that this pit bull is condemned anyway, but at least there will have been "due process."
Pit Bull goes on Rampage after owner tried to put a "sweater" on him...
Maybe it would be better to let the Pit Bull make is own coture choices!
Pit Bull goes on Rampage after owner tried to put a "sweater" on him...
Maybe it would be better to let the Pit Bull make is own coture choices!
I agree with this wholeheartedly and I'm much more concerned about the lives and wellbeing of our law enforcement officers than I am with the lives of dogs that find themselves unfortunately inside a home that is being searched for illegal drug activity.
Are you thinking of this solely in the context of a bad guy's house? I think of this issue in the context of a good guy's house. What if the cops came to my house in error? I know a couple years ago I was having lunch with my little daughter in the house we were renting, and I looked out the front windows and saw cops on my lawn with shotguns drawn. I could tell they were heading to the house next door, but a scary thing with the threat of stray bullets. Anyway, they had the wrong house. They were responding to a home break-in call. If that guy had had a dog they may have shot it.
So, there are mistakes like that, and there are also other reasons for cops to show up at a house. If the dog barks or is interpreted as being aggressive or dangerous that dog is in peril at the hands of the cops. It's wrong.
If they go to the wrong house it's a whole different thing. Now we're talking about major liability issues. In that case, yes they'd be wrong to shoot a dog in the wrong house. I agree with you on that. But when the cops bust into a crack house any dogs inside are fair game because the lives of the cops are far more important.
The short article posted at the top of this thread doesn't tell us much so it's hard to know. We're left to assume the police had a warrant to search the house for illegal drug activity. We're not told about the behavior of the residents and we're only given some vague generalities about the behavior of the dogs. Honestly, I can't draw a conclusion (nor would a court of law be expected to) from only this short article.
I can see that in some cases the cops need to protect themselves first and do not have the luxury of messing around trying to deal with dogs. Let's say, for example, if you're a cop and you are entering an environment where you don't know from where a human threat might come – or even if you may already have a gun pointed at you – a dog coming at you (even if it is not overtly aggressive at that moment) is a liability. It can put you at enough of a disadvantage that you may be injured or die at the hands of the enemy.
Still, it is a very imperfect system. I do fear what the cops would very conceivably do to my dog if they entered my house. My Dobe goes ballistic at uninvited humans. I am not a bad guy or criminal; but because I have a good watch/guard dog, he is an eligible target for the cops.
So, what about cats? Some cats defend their homes. A cat jumping on a cop and letting loose claws and teeth is no joke.
Rits
Hot Topics Subscriber
I found the full court ruling for you here: http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0293p-06.pdf
Similar threads
