The War On Terriers
This whole area strikes me as a perfect scenario for a law school question. Under what circumstances do the police have a right to shoot dogs? Obviously, they’ll always say that the dogs were attacking, but if the police have invaded private property without a warrant, and the owner of the dogs is given no notice that they were there, how is the dog supposed to know that they were “good guys” and not the bad guys it is their job to protect against? Nothing is more dangerous than police in hot pursuit or police acting under a mistake, as unlike criminals, they’re acting under legal authority, and if you don’t know they are there, anything might happen.
There’s a lot more.
June 13th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Years ago, police raided my friend’s home and shot his rottweiler. A pair of police pounded on the front door while another one hopped the backyard fence. The dog was in the back and started barking. He was trained not to ever be aggressive towards people, and given police propensity to lie, only the cops really know how he reacted to a stranger in the yard. The big, gentle fellow survived the attack and the resulting surgery, thankfully.
What is also interesting about such scenarios is that under New York law (and most other states too, I suspect), the most you can get for wrongful death of a pet is the monetary value of the pet. I haven’t researched this personally, but I’m told there’s no provision for compensating people for the emotional value of a losing their beloved pet. It’s just property, like a stereo or a car.
Some jurisdictions have begun to discuss changing that standard, but in New York at least, even if you could get the cops on the hook for shooting your dog improperly, you wouldn’t get much recompense for it.
June 13th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Of course a cop’s gonna shoot a dog when they’re raiding a house.
The dog’s an unknown variable that can’t be trusted to comply with the officer’s orders.
Those asswipes in NOLA, on the other hand, should be prosecuted.
June 13th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
By the same standard, can the cops destroy other property of a person that can’t be trusted to comply with the officer’s orders?
I don’t mean to equate the two — animals are a bit more unique than most property — but if a police officer is justified in destroying any dog because that dog could potentially be hazardous, why not destroy any other property that could potentially be hazardous?
In both cases, it’s simple property destruction, but I hope I’d have a chance of restitution if some police officer broke into my home with a warrant for another town and sledgehammer to a handgun and a couple long knives. I don’t think it would be justified, at the very least.
I could understand if we were talking about clear danger — the dog or the knife actually attacking — but in many of the examples that clearly isn’t the case. We tend to see dogs as uncontrollable monsters when trained to attack, but in my experience, the vast majority really shouldn’t be much of a threat to anyone with SWAT armor and hefty boots.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
And the police wonder why an ever increasing portion of the population view them little more than state-sanctioned street gangs.
June 13th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Due to my screwed-up hierarchy of status, somebody shooting my dog is going to experience the rough equivalent of a Claymore in his mug.
I was raised by a Border collie. I give that as my rationale. ‘Scuse me, but I prefer dogs to most hoomin’ beans. A dog has never defrauded me. A dog has never stolen from me, assaulted me, made promises not kept, or caused any trespass in any way, shape, form or fashion.
As soon as humans can meet that standard, then I’ll change my opinion of them. In the mean time, screw them.
Regards,
Rabbit.