- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Michigan court rules okay for police to kill your dog
Posted on 12/25/16 at 12:08 pm to skrayper
Posted on 12/25/16 at 12:08 pm to skrayper
quote:Irrelevant. I don't own a pit bull.
So if a cop barges into your house without a warrant, and your dog barks angrily at him to protect your kids, you're okay with the cop blowing off the dog's head?
2
Posted on 12/25/16 at 12:09 pm to Five0
The opinion doesn't exactly help their case (cops) if anything it makes their actions even worse.
And is it that difficult to call animal control if you're to big of a pussy to handle the animal yourself in a non-lethal way.
And is it that difficult to call animal control if you're to big of a pussy to handle the animal yourself in a non-lethal way.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 12:11 pm to ballscaster
It's completely relevant.
If someone comes into my house. Doesn't matter who, my Aussie is going to bark. He's not mean and he won't attack but he's a big boy and he sounds like he'll frick you up.
If someone comes into my house. Doesn't matter who, my Aussie is going to bark. He's not mean and he won't attack but he's a big boy and he sounds like he'll frick you up.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 12:16 pm to skrayper
Dog/animal lovers won't like it, but the ruling actually makes a lot of sense.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 12:16 pm to Shunface
quote:
And is it that difficult to call animal control if you're to big of a pussy to handle the animal yourself in a non-lethal way.
They were serving a high risk warrant on the residence of a gang member that was:
1. Known to be armed
2. Known to be with other armed persons
3. Selling cocaine and heroin out of the house.
Should probably send an unarmed animal control officer in first.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 12:20 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Proves my point. I'm fine with cops "racially profiling" dogs. They have too much shite to worry about and don't have time to figure out whether your dog is going to kill them or not. Pit bull = statistical threat. A bullet instantly quells that threat and makes cops safer. Cops > dogs.
I rarely agree with ballscaster, but in this instance he's 100% correct.
Pets are property. Sorry, that is the harsh truth. You can fantasize that they're family or your siblings or whatever, but at the end of the day, they are owned commodities. As such, if they become or are perceived as being imminently capable/threatening of LEO lives/responsibilities, they don't get the benefit of the doubt.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 12:30 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
No one has posted the best part of the opinion yet, which may or may not be in the article I didn't click on.
Some turncoats in the department were going to testify for the dog owner that the police in that precinct take great pride in shooting dogs, to the point when an officer shoots a dog he gets a sticker on his locker as a badge of honor. Court: that's pretty bad, but it still doesn't make them responsible for shooting these two particular dogs.
At the very least this is willful destruction of private property.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 12:38 pm to SlapahoeTribe
Page 22 first full paragraph expressly states there was NO evidence of a tally. So...
ETA the above portion of the opinion:
Despite this evidence, we find that Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence showing that “the need” for a specific policy and/or training “was so obvious and the likelihood that the inadequacy would result in the violation of constitutional rights was so great that the [City] as an entity can be held liable here for the extent of [Plaintiffs’] determined damages.” Leach v. Shelby Cty. Sheriff, 891 F.2d 1241, 1248 (6th Cir. 1989). This is largely because there was no evidence indicating that participation in the tally system was systematic or widespread, and there was no evidence that the police department’s supervisory personnel sanctioned such a system or even knew of its existence.
LINK
ETA the above portion of the opinion:
Despite this evidence, we find that Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence showing that “the need” for a specific policy and/or training “was so obvious and the likelihood that the inadequacy would result in the violation of constitutional rights was so great that the [City] as an entity can be held liable here for the extent of [Plaintiffs’] determined damages.” Leach v. Shelby Cty. Sheriff, 891 F.2d 1241, 1248 (6th Cir. 1989). This is largely because there was no evidence indicating that participation in the tally system was systematic or widespread, and there was no evidence that the police department’s supervisory personnel sanctioned such a system or even knew of its existence.
LINK
This post was edited on 12/25/16 at 8:36 pm
Posted on 12/25/16 at 12:55 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Irrelevant. I don't own a pit bull.
Do you think they just shoot pit bulls? Cuz they don't.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 1:21 pm to Shunface
quote:Way bigger issue than whatever happens to your dog, hence the Bill of Rights.
If someone comes into my house
Posted on 12/25/16 at 1:29 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:Nobody *likes* it, but it's true.
Pets are property. Sorry, that is the harsh truth. You can fantasize that they're family or your siblings or whatever, but at the end of the day, they are owned commodities. As such, if they become or are perceived as being imminently capable/threatening of LEO lives/responsibilities, they don't get the benefit of the doubt.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 7:31 pm to skrayper
Title is misleading. A Michigan Federal Court made the initial ruling. On appeal, the lower court's ruling was affirmed by the 6th Circuit.
The OP linked article also misleads by drawing conclusions not supported by the facts.
It absolutely, with 100% certainty DID NOT rule that it is ok for police to kill your dog if your dog does anything other than sit silently. Such a conclusion is hardcore stupid to the bone.
It's better to read the facts than just make up stupid shite. Is it really that hard for some of you to understand the actual words of a court ruling written in plain English?
The OP linked article also misleads by drawing conclusions not supported by the facts.
It absolutely, with 100% certainty DID NOT rule that it is ok for police to kill your dog if your dog does anything other than sit silently. Such a conclusion is hardcore stupid to the bone.
It's better to read the facts than just make up stupid shite. Is it really that hard for some of you to understand the actual words of a court ruling written in plain English?
Posted on 12/25/16 at 7:52 pm to Willie Stroker
Spot on analysis. At least the article included a link to the actual decision. It is 25 pages and explains every aspect of the case.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 8:04 pm to Five0
quote:
Spot on analysis. At least the article included a link to the actual decision. It is 25 pages and explains every aspect of the case.
And the ruling makes perfect sense, given the relevant facts of the case.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 9:03 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
No one has posted the best part of the opinion yet, which may or may not be in the article I didn't click on.
The opinion is in the article (surprisingly since it contradicts the obvious bias of the article).
quote:
Some turncoats in the department were going to testify for the dog owner that the police in that precinct take great pride in shooting dogs, to the point when an officer shoots a dog he gets a sticker on his locker as a badge of honor. Court: that's pretty bad, but it still doesn't make them responsible for shooting these two particular dogs.
You should read the below portion FROM THE ACTUAL OPINION.
Despite this evidence, we find that Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence showing that “the need” for a specific policy and/or training “was so obvious and the likelihood that the inadequacy would result in the violation of constitutional rights was so great that the [City] as an entity can be held liable here for the extent of [Plaintiffs’] determined damages.” Leach v. Shelby Cty. Sheriff, 891 F.2d 1241, 1248 (6th Cir. 1989). This is largely because there was no evidence indicating that participation in the tally system was systematic or widespread, and there was no evidence that the police department’s supervisory personnel sanctioned such a system or even knew of its existence.
quote:
One of the guys was joking that he'll gladly help write the petition to have the whole court try to reverse the panels dumb, dumb ruling.
Well, if he enjoys wasting his time or has more free time than sense I wish him the best of luck in lieu of:
Given Jones’ criminal history, gang affiliations, the types of drugs he was suspected of distributing, the fact that the officers had no time to plan for the dogs, in addition to the officers’ unrebutted testimony that the dogs either lunged or were barking aggressively at the officers, the nature and size of the dogs, the fact that the dogs were unleashed and loose in a small residence, all culminate into a finding that the officers acted reasonably when they shot and killed the two dogs. Viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, we find that a jury would conclude that Officer Klein, Officer Young, and Officer Case acted reasonably in shooting and killing Plaintiffs’ dogs. Summary judgment was therefore appropriate.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 9:10 pm to SlapahoeTribe
quote:
He told them he had a key, and that they didn’t need to destroy the front door to gain entry into the home. But destroy it they did.
Page 24, last paragraph.
Third, as Defendants’ counsel stated during oral argument, the officers would not have used the keys Mark Brown offered to give them because the officers would not have had any idea whether those keys were the correct keys. Defendants’ counsel persuasively argued that Mark Brown could have given the officers the wrong set of keys, and the resulting delay could have given somebody in the house the opportunity to destroy the drugs or time to prepare to attack or shoot the officers as they entered the residence. See United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31, 40 (2003) (“[W]hen circumstances are exigent because a pusher may be near the point of putting his drugs beyond reach, it is imminent disposal . . . that governs when the police may reasonably enter”). Finally, the damage to the front door was “slight.”
ETA:
All of my earlier post have been updated with the relevant quotes from the actual written opinion of the court.
This post was edited on 12/25/16 at 9:12 pm
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News