- cross-posted to:
- thepoliceproblem
- cross-posted to:
- thepoliceproblem
Roommates who sued a Maryland county Monday claim police officers illegally entered their apartment without a warrant, detained them at gunpoint without justification and unnecessarily shot their pet dog, which was left paralyzed and ultimately euthanized.
The dog, a boxer mix named Hennessey, did not attack the three officers who entered the apartment before two of them shot the animal with their firearms and the third fired a stun gun at it, according to the federal lawsuit.
The lawsuit seeks at least $16 million in damages over the June 2, 2021 encounter, which started with Prince George’s County police officers responding to a report of a dog bite at an apartment complex where the four plaintiffs lived. What happened next was captured on police body camera video and video from a plaintiff’s cellphone.
You must log in or register to comment.
Someone shared in another thread that police officers in the U.S. kill something like 10,000 dogs a year. Psychopaths murder dogs. You don’t become a cop unless you’re a psychopath.
Never, ever let a cop into your home if you have a dog. Cops are driven by fear and sadism.
Never, ever let a cop into your home
they can come back with a warrant or not at all. the police are absolutely not here to help and nothing will be made better by police involvement.
Also don’t open the door for police. I’ve seen numerous encounters where they’ll block the door and refuse to let you close it. Once you try to close it or a gentle breeze comes by an pushes the door into their foot, they’ll violently throw you to the ground, taze you, and then charge you with assaulting a police officer.
Not true, I know I guy who got fired from the company I worked for a few years ago, so what did he do when he wasn’t good at the job, he became a police officer.
Are you sure he wasn’t a psychopath?
I’m sure, I played soccer with him and hung out with him a few times outside of work. Pretty sure I would have noticed if he was a psychopath. Believe it or not, not everybody is a psychopath, and psychology is more complex than the black and white labels people like to dole out in the comments section on the internet.
If you’re not qualified to diagnose someone as a psychopath, you are equally unqualified to determine that someone is not a psychopath, especially if you’ve only “hung out a few times.”
Narrator: He was, in fact, a psychopath. His name was… NocturnalMorning. spooky music
Not sure if that person was me, but reposting a recent comment I made to that effect anyhow. The estimate and the word “epidemic” both originate from a DOJ report of all things.
I believe the DOJ report is linked somewhere in that article, if not I’ll dig it up if requested.
Cops in this country kill so many dogs each year that a specialist at the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) community-oriented program services office says it has become an “epidemic.” The DOJ estimates that around 25 to 30 dogs are killed by cops every day, with some numbers as high as 10,000 per year. The totals could, in fact, be higher, since most police agencies do not formally track officer-involved shootings involving animals.
These people did nothing wrong and were accosted by armed thugs in their own home. The dog did nothing wrong and was murdered. The taxpayers did nothing wrong and will pay out tons of money to these people. The police, who did everything wrong, will face no repercussions for their actions because qualified immunity dictates that they didn’t necessarily know that holding innocent people at gunpoint violates their rights.
When police break the law, they should be tried on a matter of whether or not the taxpayers are responsible for what occurred.
People like this should never get our tax dollars spent on their well-being.
We should be way more angry about this than we are.
When police break the law, they should be tried
that would be a hell of a start
We should be way more angry about this than we are.
A lot of time, effort and money is spent convincing people that the police and their abuse are things that only happens to those people.
Fun fact about this blatantly criminal police department, they currently have an officer on trial for murder because he shot a suspect 7 times while that suspect was HANDCUFFED AND IN THE FUCKING POLICE CAR
This incident happened four years ago, and taxpayers who did nothing wrong have already settled with the victim’s family for millions. The judge presiding over the case has openly accused the prosecution of sandbagging the case for four years and rejected a plea deal the prosecution offered the officer because the victim’s family protested that it was too lenient. This man shot and killed a cooperative, restrained suspect and the prosecution is doing everything they can to let him off the hook, down to and including just not having a trial because they think he’ll be convicted. This is what we mean when we say ACAB, that the police engage in blatant, open criminality up to and including murder and then an entire system does everything it can to avoid holding them responsible. Same story with Jackie Johnson, the DA who initially failed to charge the men who murdered Ahmaud Arbery. She’s been charged with misconduct as well, but it’s been years and she’s not even been arraigned. She violated the law and her oath of office in order to cover up a lynching because one of the murderers is an ex-cop and friend of hers, and she’s being protected from the consequences of enabling a lynch mob by a system that knows that the cops are there to use violence to protect aristocrats from the underclass. Same with Freddie Gray. The neighboring police department in Baltimore arrested him for having a knife even though that isn’t illegal, loaded him into a van, then the official story is “no one knows what happened and no one did anything wrong but he died of a broken neck”.
The police are a street gang. They get to use violence any time they want to without responsibility, and in exchange for that they allow the wealthy to occasionally funnel that violence toward inconvenient people. There is no law, only favor and violence.
There’s also this one from a while back: https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/county-settling-suit-over-raid-of-md-mayors-home/1899889/
maaaaaan we taxpayers pony up a lot of money for the privilege of getting fucked over for no reason, huh?
Tyrrany is a reason itself, apparently.
Pretty fucked up, but not surprising… Why do settlements come from uninvolved taxpayers, rather than the police “union”!?
Paying damages out of police retirement founds would be a simple, one step, foolproof solution to this problem. You don’t want lower retirement? Stop breaking the law. Oh, you’re one of the 5 good cops in the country and this would hurt you even though you did nothing wrong? Actually report the bad cops instead just watching. Thanks.
Require officers to carry liability insurance like doctors
Except I don’t think the officers are ever found liable, only the police departments.
The legal fiction that is qualified immunity needs to be banned. It was just made up buy judges.
It’s fine when used properly. When acting in good faith, officers, just like any company employee, should generally not be held liable.
However, if they are not acting in good faith, or their actions deviate from good practice, then much like a chemical company employee dumping something toxic out into the environment, then yes they should face personal civil and criminal liability.
For example, if there’s an active shooter, and the police shoot and kill him, I think most people would agree that that’s acceptable, and the family of the shooter should not have grounds to sue over the shooter’s death.
If the police walk up and shoot your dog for no reason, that’s unacceptable and they should absolutely face personal liability.
Per the article:
“After reviewing all of the evidence in this matter a determination was made that actions of the officers didn’t generate criminal liability because they were acting in good faith,” the office said in a statement to The Post.
I hope the court disagrees, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
Yeah but apparently the cops themselves usually get to decide if they acted in good faith.
Also: police should have to have insurance to carry firearms. If they’re bad cops, that insurance cost should eventually exceed their pay.
Speed when you don’t have to? That hurts your insurance. Found conducting illegal terry stop? Hurts insurance. Unnecessary discharge? Lol, your insurance just got expensive as fuck for the next 5 years. How bad do you wanna serve and protect? Minimum wage sound good?
I wonder if this would weight heavier on police out in the field vs behind a desk.
Except this is America. It’s pretty much impossible to prove that the discharge was unnecessary, same as it’s impossible to prove that cop killed someone unnecessarily. That’s why people demand damages from the city, not the cop himself. You can argue that the police force was run incorrectly and demand money from the people that run it but the cop is always innocent. I know this is BS but this is how it works. That’s why money should come from the retirement found. If the entire organization is responsible the entire organization should pay.
It’s pretty much impossible to prove that the discharge was unnecessary, same as it’s impossible to prove that cop killed someone unnecessarily.
We charge people with gun crimes daily so this can’t be true.
That’s why people demand damages from the city, not the cop himself.
People sue the city and not the cop because laws protect the cop and prevent them from facing the civil consequences directly.
People sue the city and not the cop because laws protect the cop and prevent them from facing the civil consequences directly.
Yes, the laws protect them from civic consequences but not criminal. If you would prove that the cop murdered someone he would go to jail, not just paid damages. But as I said it super difficult to prove that cop murdered someone because all the cop has to say is that he was afraid for his life and he’s all good. He has the right to shoot the moment he thinks his life is in danger. To convict a cop you have to prove that he wasn’t thinking that. How do you do it? He would have to directly say “BTW I know I’m not in any real danger” as he shoots the victim. There were many many cases where a cop shot someone running away, laying on the ground or even sleeping and was found innocent. All his lawyer has to say is that the cop thought that the victim was reaching for a gun. There was no gun at all? Doesn’t matter, the cop thought that there was one.
And than there’s the expert witness testimony thing where “experts” are paid by police union lawyers to testify, that the cop was actually in danger. Ever heard about the “fact” that a person with a knife is dangerous when he’s closer than 7 meters (21 feet rule)? It was invented by one of those experts. It’s total BS but it helps save cops from jail. They will testify that “yes, the victim was running away and had no gun but according to our studies the cop was justified in thinking, he was in danger”. And that’s it, he’s free to go. Many many cases like that.
This is exactly the solution. I won’t hold my breath though…
Not being able to breathe and police brutality? Name a more infamous combo…
It’s really not a solution. It just means when the pension fund gets low, they get bailouts from government anyway.
You just made that shit up. This proposal hasn’t even been put in place so how could anyone know for certain that would happen??
The federal government already did it with the teamsters. Social security exists to bailout seniors from poverty. There is no way that the government is just going to allow large amounts of people to just get fucked on retirement.
Ok, so I’m thinking that theyo pay out some money in damages and the retirement found looses 10% of assets. The projected retirements for cops that are still working gets lowered. The cops closest to retirement lose less, for example 5%, younger cops loose more, for example 15%.
You’re saying that in this situation those younger cops will just keep doing what they’re doing hoping that they will lose all the money and get bailed out? I’m thinking they will start complaining about the aggressive cops that cost THEM actually money. It’s not about taking away all their retirement. It’s about slowly lowering it down so that they start paying attention. I think it would work. But of course it will never happen. We’re just playing fantasy politics here.
That gives every cop a financial motive to lie for each other, cover up incidents and silence witnesses.
No it doesn’t. It does the exact opposite.
When a psycho cop in the department shoots an innocent kid in the back, the other cops will have to decide either to plant a gun on him or have their their retirement funds drained by a lawsuit.
So you’re saying now cops don’t plant guns on people, don’t lie and don’t intimidate witnesses? Have you seen the news, like ever?
Wouldn’t they just quit? Why not just suggest firing the whole lot of them if you’re fine with replacing them?
It doesn’t matter if they quit or not. It’s the police department that pays damages, no matter if the cops still work there or not (this is how it works now). Once the retirement found looses some $ and the retirements gets lowered cops will be very quick to report bad apples before they actually kill someone (as they should be doing now).
You are incredibly optimistic. I would bet money they just start making deals with criminals like they used to.
I don’t think I’m optimistic at all. Police departments already pay out damages. It’s not some wishful thinking. Police already lie, plant evidence, threaten witnesses and make deals with criminals. And they still do lose civil cases and pay. Of course it only happens in the most extreme cases but it does actually happen. If each such case meant they lose money they would try not to have such cases. How? By getting rid of the most aggressive officers. It would not fix all the issues but it would help.
The police are funded by taxpayers, so it doesn’t matter if it’s the city or the police that pay for it, you still foot the bill no matter what. The only solution where citizens don’t lose is if cops are required to carry personal malpractice insurance, like doctors. IMO making cops personally liable for their murders is a good place to start.
it does matter though because if the money for paying for damages illegally caused by police comes out of their budget they’ll at least feel that until the next year’s budget kicks in. As-is, police are completely removed from any responsibility for their actions.
FWIW, these judgements are typically paid by the city’s insurance, although that’s also funded by the taxpayers. I don’t know how department policies and the like affect the premiums, but I would really be interested in learning.
I feel like it’d be worse to have taxpayers care even less about what police are doing. That said, it’s mind-blowing taxpayers don’t seem to care as it is
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
They are gonna back them, and they are gonna defend this. It’s what they do.
deleted by creator
“ The county offered to compensate Umana for her veterinary bills if she agreed to refrain from publicly speaking about the shooting, but she rejected the offer, according to her lawsuit.”
Sickening
“or I’ll sue you and the city for 10x that? Eat my dead dogs dick you insufferable pigs.”
Closer to a thousand times that much, if not more actually.
deleted by creator
the people paying hush money are usually the good guys
Ah yes paid vacation for fucking with civilians and shooting their dog
But you have to understand that they are actually the victim. Their ego got hurt when the evil civilians refused to answer a question.
ACAB
I’ll be honest, if a policemen did that to a pet of mine, their aim better be good enough to one tap me, otherwise they’re dead.
Advice I got from a cop for self defense situations. If you have to use lethal force, you’re legally better off if you finish your plate because dead people don’t testify. Be aware of that school of thought, because the cops are too.
I’d root for you in this hypothetical situation. Their aim isn’t good enough to one tap, that’s why their protocol for dealing with anything remotely scary is to have 10 of them mag dump onto one target.
You’d probably go to prison for life, though. The right to self defense didn’t apply when the aggressor is a cop.
What’s up with US police and dogs, what’s the beef? I used to work briefly on emergency services and dogs, no matter how demonic, were just pushed aside if they decided to come have a sniff. Which rarely happened in the first place.
the overlap between people who would make good police officers and those who get a boner from killing animals and hurting women and minorities is 100%, because those are significant parts of the job description
And they only hire people who ‘fit the culture.’ No good guys with guns allowed!
It’s just part of the power trip.
They are trained to treat everything as a threat.
They’re allowed to kill dogs with no questions asked, so they do. I assume the only reason they don’t kill cats is because cats usually have the good sense to hide.
ACAB.
Leak the footage perhaps?
deleted by creator
Just read the title and my first thought was “PG county?” And sure enough, fuck those cops.
Fuck those. That is completely unnecessary.
I’ll just say this. If you name your pet after liquor, I’m automatically assuming you’re trashy. Police were there to investigate a dog biting incident, and I somehow doubt these 4 are faultless.
based entirely on that trashy ass pet name.
Did they name their dog after liquor?
Maybe they adopted the dog with that name.
Maybe it’s named after W. Louis Hennessy, an American jurist who serves as judge in the District Court for Charles County, Maryland.
Maybe it’s named after the NY Jets long snapper.
Maybe your preconceptions and biases speak more about you than the people in the story.
Be better.
maybe you’re an idiot, I’d encourage you to be much better
You made up fiction to justify your own bootlicking tendencies, and they called you out on it. No one here thinks the person you’re responding to is an idiot.
We are convinced you’re a fucking moron though.
lmao bootlicker? holy shit your legitimately mentally unwell reading into so much. go touch some grass
You made stuff up to justify police illegally detaining people and killing a dog; and I’m mentally unwell lmao. Bootlicker projection at its finest
I see you’ve never lived near trashy people before. People with pittbull mixes love to tout that it’s the owner that makes them violent, and they’re not inherently dangerous.
oddly enough, that’s the exact same line of thinking people advocating against gun control use. “It’s not the gun it’s the person wielding it.”
Well a yorkshire terrier left off the leash isn’t going to do much, but a pitt mix? there’s a reason pittbulls and pitt mixes are responsible for 65% of dog attack deaths.
So when I hear about a dog bite attack, that had been traced back to a pitt mix named after a godamn liquor (nobody names their dog after a bridge, people who lapped that comment up are morons), excuse me if I presume that these trashy ass people are terrible dog owners, let their dog bite someone, and now they’re trying to play it off like they’re just innocent babes lost in the wood… nah. I don’t buy it. I for one, doubt these four are faultless in all this.
which is exactly what I said in the beginning.
Man you’re completely fucked in the head. Enjoy being a bootlicking dipshit I guess.
Lol great comeback
You’re right, we should strip away the rights of anyone with a dog name you don’t like. That feels like a normal and sane thing to do.
Deciding they deserve what they got because you think they’re trashy is what makes a person trashy, not naming a pet after booze. JFC what an unhinged take.
You should feel bad for having this perspective. Reflect on that and try to be better in the future!
Yeah if you can just take your opinion and shove it up your arse. That’d be great.
I realize I’m inviting down votes as well, but, ignoring the dog’s name, did he actually bite someone? If so, I can understand why the police were there and that is different from officers randomly barging into an apartment and shooting whatever dog happens to be around (which is a great story to stir people up and get clicks). Though it is still odd how it was handled, I would expect an animal control officer to be first to make contact with the dog’s owners. Not to go straight to shooting the dog?
deleted by creator
Agreed.
So you didn’t read the article, then.
No I can’t seem to get it to open, which is a problem on my end.
Are the police the correct organization to handle a potential dog bite?
At least where I live, animal control falls under the police department. Could be different elsewhere.
Do you want to pay more money to make another organization who can or even more money to fire, reorganize, and train an entire county first response system?
Can I have both?
Yes, alas, nobody ever wants to pay for it lol.
which is a great story to stir people up and get clicks
And also a thing that happens all the time.
