Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't understand why this police officer thought he had to shoot the dog which approached him with a wagging tail and never reached him. I'm glad the damages have been awarded but doubt if they will ever see any of it. Appeals and dragging of feet with lots of delays are what usually happens. At least it might make the next police officer think twice before shooting a friendly dog.
I am amazed it went to trial and got through the legal system so quickly. I suspect the $200,000 award (seems large to me) IS intended to send a message to the cops that indescriminately shooting dogs is unacceptable and will have a high cost.
There's far too many of these stories of cops showing up at the wrong houses doing raids and shooting grandmothers and dogs as well as just indiscriminately shooting dogs that aren't even threatening.
This is for our rights and protection as citizens as well as for the police. Someone comes knocking in my door I'm gonna start shooting, if the cops are at the wrong house I'm going to wind up being charged for killing a cop for simply protecting my home.
This whole militarization of police is a huge problem.
I'm totally good with the settlement. There needs to be a punitive cost to acting that recklessly. Glad the dog survived too!
The best when the reports in these kind of stories include "The cop pulled his gun" or "The cop issued a warning" - because, um, the dog is going to understand what that means?
Living in Maryland I"m familiar with this story, it's one of many as this is a growing problem all over this country. An officer shot a dog who was fighting with his dog at a local dog park. Every dog owner around here knows this story, officer got off with basically no punishment.
Where I live in the upper mid-west we have several dogs a year shot and killed even when they presented no possibility of a threat. There have been several cases of family dogs shot while secured in their own fenced back yard when they presented absolutely no threat at all. My own dogs always travel in their crates in the car not only for the obvious safety reasons, but also because police feel justified in shooting and will shoot any dog that it perceives to be a threat whether or not it actually is threatening an officer or actually able to threaten an officer. So, for instance, in the case of a traffic stop or accident, an officer could say that an uncrated barking dog in the back seat of a car was a threat to them and feel justified shooting it.
As far as I am concerned any settlement that holds the officer accountable is good but largely irrelevant because it doesn't teach LEO's about dogs, actual vs. perceived threatening situations, what dog-related situations call for their attention or are more productively dealt with in other ways, or hold the office accountable- it isn't the officer who pays any settlement.
As well and more importantly, a settlement wouldn't bring my dog back.
While it is true that the officer does not pay the settlement any jurisdiction will see this and I would think act to try to prevent this sort of thing in the future.
Where I live in the upper mid-west we have several dogs a year shot and killed even when they presented no possibility of a threat. There have been several cases of family dogs shot while secured in their own fenced back yard when they presented absolutely no threat at all. My own dogs always travel in their crates in the car not only for the obvious safety reasons, but also because police feel justified in shooting and will shoot any dog that it perceives to be a threat whether or not it actually is threatening an officer or actually able to threaten an officer. So, for instance, in the case of a traffic stop or accident, an officer could say that an uncrated barking dog in the back seat of a car was a threat to them and feel justified shooting it.
As far as I am concerned any settlement that holds the officer accountable is good but largely irrelevant because it doesn't teach LEO's about dogs, actual vs. perceived threatening situations, what dog-related situations call for their attention or are more productively dealt with in other ways, or hold the office accountable- it isn't the officer who pays any settlement.
As well and more importantly, a settlement wouldn't bring my dog back.
THere there was a recent story in the past year where a chicago cop shot a puppy of like less than like 3 months old if I remember correctly and the dog was within its own yard cop just rolled up and shot him.
I agree I would love to see cops have a bit more common sense in terms of whats a threat and whats not a thread but at the same time i think there's a difference between a loose dog in public vs dogs being shot secured in their own yards or police entering wrong houses shootings dogs within someones house.
Personally I would love to see soem citizens start shooting back when common sense would dictate its appropriate
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
