Court Rules Police Officers Can Legally Execute Your Dog if It Does Anything But Sit Silently

by pawbuzz on in Dogs 701

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded Monday that police officers are justified in killing citizens pets; even if those animals are not attacking or attempting to attack them.

Judges MOORE and CLAY (Circuit Judges), and HOOD (District Judge) heard an appeal from the plaintiffs Mark and Cheryl Brown, of Battle Creek, Michigan.

The Browns filed a lawsuit against the BATTLE CREEK Police Department; the City of Battle Creek, and police officers Jeffrey Case, Christof Klein, and Damon Young; for the death of their beloved dogs at the hands of sadistic cops.

The incident occurred on April 17th, 2013, when police were attempting to execute a search warrant on the home where the Browns were living because a police informant reported another man, Vincent Jones was distributing heroin, cocaine, and marijuana from the residence.

Jones was apprehended before police arrived on the scene.

Mark Brown, who was not a suspect in the search; had gone home on his lunch break to let out his two pit bulls. After doing so, he locked the door and headed back to work when police arrived and detained him.

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.

The Browns dispute the claims by police that the dogs were barking.

Mark Brown even testified the smaller of the two dogs had “never barked a day in her life.” Officer Klein said the larger dog was barking and “lunged” at him, but later admitted the pet “had only moved a few inches.”

Despite there being no attack, Klein fired a round at the dog. Both dogs ran away from the officers to the basement, obviously fleeing in fear.

There, the two dogs were shot and killed by the officers who felt that they could not properly clear the room and effectively execute the search warrant on the home, explaining they “did not feel [the officers] could safely clear the basement with those dogs down there.”

Going further, the officers stated the “basement was loaded.

You’ve gotta look under beds, you’ve gotta do everything, and [the dogs] basically prevented us from doing that, and they were protecting that basement.” Klein testified the smaller pit bull was “just standing there” when it was shot and killed.

In spite of these sadistic admissions, the appellate court ruled in favor of the officers; the police department, and the other defendants. They agreed with the lower court ruling that the police officers were covered under “doctrine of qualified immunity”; and were therefore not liable for compensating the plaintiffs in the case.

SEE ALSO: A police dog was shot while chasing a suspect — now his partner sees him again

The precedent has now been set. Cops can legally kill your dogs for the sole act of being a dog. If your dog moves, it is dead, if he barks, it is dead. If your dog does anything but sit silently in the other room, it is dead.

However, as the above case illustrates, even if they are silent in the other room, police can still kill them; just to make their search for arbitrary substances deemed illegal by the state — that much easier.



Share This Post:
Tags:

701 thoughts on “Court Rules Police Officers Can Legally Execute Your Dog if It Does Anything But Sit Silently”

  2. Ruth Jess

    - Edit

    Reply

    Sounds like Judge Trump to me…everyone either acts & thinks like him or loose their benefits of running in his circle of supporters. WHO THINKS IT’S OK TO SHOOT A FAMILY’S PET WITHOUT JUST CAUSE…IT’S SIMPLY GIVING APPROVAL FOR TRIGGER HAPPY POLICE OFFICERS TO SHOOT FIRST THEN ASK QUESTIONS…GUESS IT’S GIVING THEM PERMISSION TO CONTINUE KILLING INNOCENT CITIZENS BASED ON THE COLOR OF ONE’S SKIN OR ETHNIC ORIGIN!!!

  9. Paula Smith Heuck

    - Edit

    Reply

    This makes me more angry than dam Isis because these judges and cops are Americans. If anyone tries to hurt my dogs they’ll have to hurt me first and I have security cameras to prove they are cowardly bullies with power. But probably if I can get to my gun, then my dogs will be safe. I pray for our law enforcement but these cops are making it hard. Shoot criminals, cause they ask for it, but dogs don’t and they are in their own homes.

  20. Cindy Baker

    - Edit

    Reply

    If my dog were killed, I would have no one to blame but myself. He barks, he claws at his fence to get close to you, and then he licks you to death. I’m a bad parent and I failed to train him right. I’ve introduced him to cops and shook their hands with him watching but may not help. I’ll keep trying though.

  25. Sheri Sullivan Daugherty

    - Edit

    Reply

    This ruling seems terribly cruel. In spite of it, it would be hoped that police officers would be able to use reasonable judgement in killing any animal in the house where they have a warrant to search. They have dogs and pets of their own, so they should certainly understand the seriousness of the situation.

  26. Irene Wilmont

    - Edit

    Reply

    Wow what an assignine decision. Dies that mean they can just do a drive by just shooting dogs. That’s exactly what it sounds like. Dogs bark and some will growl around strangers. Shoot people now shoot dogs. Why not shoot babies too after all they are pretty noisy.

  27. Scott Graser

    - Edit

    Reply

    Not allowed to shoot a person waving a gun, threatening police officers and civilians without Morgan & Morgan(“for the Morgan’s”) extorting money in a nationally publicized incident, but the execution of an innocent animal is just fine.

  30. Steven Smith

    - Edit

    Reply

    Holy sweet heck. I’ve literally seen this link posted FOUR TIMES on this page, and each time is EQUALLY untrue!
    1) The Courts never ruled such.
    2) There is no precedent stating what the clickbait is claiming.
    3) This case presented ZERO new legal precedent, and simply maintained that dogs (or people) whose actions posed imminent threat of harm to officers (or anyone) can be lawfully stopped with deadly force.

    Full decision here: http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0293p-06.pdf

    If you don’t want bad things like this to happen:
    1) Don’t be a drug dealing, weapons-dealing gang member who has spent more of your life in jail than out, and continuing to arm gang members such that cops need to execute a Search warrant with a “SWAT” team.
    2) Don’t train your large pit-bull dogs to act obviously aggressively, such as charging at cops who have to force in a door.
    3) Don’t try to appeal a decision on such blatantly obvious lies.

  31. Steven Smith

    - Edit

    Reply

    The decision doesn’t say anything that the clickbait article is claiming it does. It also says literally NOTHING about authorizing cops to shoot a dog for no good reason. 97lbs pit bull, which was acting aggressively as officers approached to execute a high risk search warrant charged at them as they breached the door. It got shot for its troubles. Quite possibly trained to act that way, though that’s my speculation based upon the facts.

  32. Steven Smith

    - Edit

    Reply

    The decision says literally NOTHING of the sort. This article is clickbait, and nothing more. No new precedence made, nothing that says cops can shoot dogs for no reason. A large pit-bull in a gang-member’s home charged at cops executing a high risk search warrant, and got shot. If you aren’t arming gang members with firearms, or dealing large-scale-operation amounts of drugs and training dogs to act as guards, you’ve got nothing more to fear than you did twenty years ago.

  33. Steven Smith

    - Edit

    Reply

    1) This case involved a search warrant authorized by a Judge. Which is fairly normal when dealing with a gang member dealing in firearms and drugs.
    2) The actual case said literally NOTHING about shooting dogs for no reason. A large pit-bull charged at cops as they entered and got shot. I speculate that the gang-member trained the dog to act as it did, as it was acting aggressively as police approached, as well.

  34. Steven Smith

    - Edit

    Reply

    Sadly, two animals were killed in this case, but they were both posing imminent risk to officers executing a search warrant in a gang member’s home. Large pit-bulls, in the home of a repeatedly-convicted, violent felon who was dealing firearms and drugs. When the dog charges aggressively as cops enter, they can defend themselves.

    Might want to get the gang members to not train their dogs to act as guard dogs; it would have prevented any harm coming to the animals…

  35. Steven Smith

    - Edit

    Reply

    They did have a warrant. It was a violent, repeatedly-convicted felon (gang member) who was dealing in more firearms. Two large pitbulls, including rushing at cops as they entered to execute said warrant.

    There was no new precedent set, and nothing saying cops can shoot dogs just for being dogs. This article is clickbait.

  36. Steven Smith

    - Edit

    Reply

    The decision doesn’t say anything that the clickbait article is claiming it does. It also says literally NOTHING about authorizing cops to shoot a dog for no good reason. 97lbs pit bull, which was acting aggressively as officers approached to execute a high risk search warrant charged at them as they breached the door. It got shot for its troubles. Quite possibly trained to act that way, though that’s my speculation based upon the facts.

  37. Steven Smith

    - Edit

    Reply

    The decision doesn’t say anything that the clickbait article is claiming it does. It also says literally NOTHING about authorizing cops to shoot a dog for no good reason. 97lbs pit bull, which was acting aggressively as officers approached to execute a high risk search warrant charged at them as they breached the door. It got shot for its troubles. Quite possibly trained to act that way, though that’s my speculation based upon the facts.

  38. Steven Smith

    - Edit

    Reply

    1) This case involved a search warrant authorized by a Judge. Which is fairly normal when dealing with a gang member dealing in firearms and drugs.
    2) The actual case said literally NOTHING about shooting dogs for no reason. A large pit-bull charged at cops as they entered and got shot. I speculate that the gang-member trained the dog to act as it did, as it was acting aggressively as police approached, as well.

  39. Steven Smith

    - Edit

    Reply

    The decision doesn’t say anything that the clickbait article is claiming it does. It also says literally NOTHING about authorizing cops to shoot a dog for no good reason. 97lbs pit bull, which was acting aggressively as officers approached to execute a high risk search warrant charged at them as they breached the door. It got shot for its troubles. Quite possibly trained to act that way, though that’s my speculation based upon the facts.

    Also, the decision was rendered before Trump took office, so….. yeah.

  40. Steven Smith

    - Edit

    Reply

    The decision doesn’t say anything that the clickbait article is claiming it does. It also says literally NOTHING about authorizing cops to shoot a dog for no good reason. 97lbs pit bull, which was acting aggressively as officers approached to execute a high risk search warrant charged at them as they breached the door. It got shot for its troubles. Quite possibly trained to act that way, though that’s my speculation based upon the facts.

    It won’t end up in the Supreme Court, because there is literally ZERO legal precedent made, here, and the defence is basically one of “I disagreed with the trial judge, and they should disregard that my claims are so outlandish so as to be completely unbelievable”

  41. Steven Smith

    - Edit

    Reply

    Very fake news. This article has been posted FOUR TIMES (sometimes from different clickbait link sites, but it’s the exact same case, and 3 of those times involved the word-for-word identical article), and each time has been equally untrue.

    So…. Props to the admin for sucking, I suppose.

  42. Steven Smith

    - Edit

    Reply

    Labrador Lovers Where is your quality control? Why are you RE-posting this blatantly untrue tripe? Literally 15 seconds of Googling provides the actual legal decision, and anyone with 10 minutes can learn the entirety of the facts. Heck, you’d know the article is full of bull within the first 2 minutes of reading.

    I know clickbait is ‘all-the-rage’, but seriously…. If even the most modest fact-checking is beyond you, at least have the decency to not post the exact same article multiple times!

  44. Gary Loucks

    - Edit

    Reply

    This is so obviously totally wrong! I love and back up the police. I respect the law. The police should be at least respectful of the citizens who appreciate and respect them by acting at least a bit compassionate about their dogs. Give the person a moment to gather the dog or dogs up and put them in the car, or another building or whatever. Not slaughter them and be enabled to do so at any arbitrary moment for any reason. At the worse, a dog is looked upon as property, at least in this state. How can any authority be permitted to just destroy property? A house, car, land, cattle, horses are all property. Get the drift?

  49. Susan Brock

    - Edit

    Reply

    That is so disgusting all dogs bark at strangers .if your not smart enough to know if the dog is just sounding off warning ,then your not smart enough to be a cop.use some common sensed you want to shoot your gun for kicks, do it in a shooting gallery

  50. Linz Yis

    - Edit

    Reply

    So firefighters go into burning houses and bring out terrified dogs that can and do snap at them and occasionally actually bite them but an officer cannot deal with this? Maybe we should just promote the firemen to police officers. What dog doesn’t bark when someone unknown comes into your home or on your property?!

Leave a Reply to Mike Van Ditto Cancel reply