I shouldn't be so hard on the police. That's only two wrong-house fuckups in two weeks for this department.

I had to re-read both stories a couple times to make sure one wasn't a duplicate. Astounding.

A family's dog is worth at least an officer's toe. Use the same weapon he did. I bet he'll never forget killing that family's best friend, and departments all across the country will somehow mysteriously manage to stop shooting people's pets.

Most of the trainers do a dog shoot. And some of the cops want to act out the trainer's fantasies.

When police attack your dogs territory on a no-knock warrant, your family dog will sense the danger and might well actually attack. He will put on a show, at least.

Knowing that, they should carry a catch stick because a bullet will not always stop a dog quickly and the bullets can ricochet all over, and it's easy for a defense attorney to protray the police as assholes to a jury.

If the officers would each check each the case before entry, instead of just relying on the leader like a bunch of privates, and if the trainers weren't often just guys who can't be trusted on the streets anymore this would not happen.

Don't be hard on them. It's takes a true scholar to nail research all the way down to "address" and "house description". Normal research only covers stuff like "saw a suspicious vehicle" "down the street that way" "maybe about six houses down".

There do seem to be plenty of incidents where a cop has been quick to shoot a family pet without looking very hard for alternatives. Maybe the shooter has never had a dog and doesn't understand their behavior.

Now, I'm not going to carry water for the Gwinnett Police. I used to live there and they have never enjoyed a sterling reputation among the locals. However, a look at the area with Google Street view makes it clear that it would be easy to mix up the house numbers. In fact, there doesn't appear to be a 1468B in the street view leading me to wonder whether the address is perhaps a manufactured home recently moved onto a vacant lot visible in the photos. Nonetheless, a briefing from whoever had been conducting the surveillance could have prevented the whole thing.

Warrant??? The story wasn't very detailed, but did they have a warrant? If so I think we should make a new law that requires them to read it.

In my view it's worth one hell of a lot more....In a bad shoot it's worth his job, civil, and possibly criminal liability

By the way, I agree with you Scott.
100%

I'd be willing to wager you and I would stand in a very large crowd of folks wanting some kind of punitive action against someone shooting the family pet. Shooting the family dog seems to happen far too often in the interest of "Officer Safety".

but at least for some of these guys (like the leaders), we'd have to figure out a way for the lawyers to translate the legalese into Dick and Jane format!!! If they would just hire a couple 12 or 13 year olds to read the addresses, ride by on their bicycles and verify that "yes, there appeared to be thug-types or hookers hanging out in the yard and not an old lady hanging up laundry" (or in our area, "nope, looked like a nice asian family instead of a black gang member living there"), it seems like they could avoid many of these incidents.

I don't think we'll be able to really do anything about the no-knock abuse that seems to be getting worse, unless the actual departments AND the officers involved start being held liable for damages and punishments when these things go wrong -- judgements that get paid off by the city insurance don't seem to be having much effect...

What a novel idea! If only we had a document that outlined that very system...

Oh wait. We do. The Fourth Amendment.
The idea is that the person who swears on oath and affirmation (thus obtaining a warrant for search or siezure of specific things, in a specific place), that the material in the warrant is true, takes upon themselves before a judge the personal responsibility and liability of intruding on the rights of the person named in the warrant - or, by extension, any accidental wrongs comitted against the owner of "the wrong house", or case of mistaken identity.

They are, in fact, sticking their own heads out on the chopping block for the citizen to seek damages against (should anything sworn to be true in the warrant, later be found false or innacurate). In my opinion, that includes shooting dogs that were not named to be shot on sight in the warrant.

I see tremendous wisdom in that. If only we would follow the Constitution...

But then, I'm also of the opinion that we should have peace officers and sheriffs, instead of "Law Enforcement" and associated city law enforcement corporations. Call me crazy.

I like that way of thinking, however in practice the people swearing to the warrant usually have some sort of legislated immunity from liability.

For example: If a DHS investigator was told to bugger off when he wouldn't say why he wanted in the home and got his feelings hurt and decided to contact an MPD officer and say fabricate facts and then the MPD officer swears to the warrant with no first hand knowledge or even contact with the people involved and then the MPD SWAT sacks the house while the subject of the warrant isn't home & they do a massive ammount of property damage. Well, So basically, if you assert your 4th ammendment right not to be searched without warrant, a DHS worker can and will lie in a good faith effort to get a warrant, under the guise of "its for the children". Just a heads up, the government officials have already been granted immunity from liability in this area.

Macx, you are making my point for me. That should not exist, and is contrary to the implications of the 4th.


Uh-huh. By... other government officials?
I wish I could grant myself immunity for a variety of things.



And so, lest I be accused of being a broken record,