Federal court rules that police have a right to shoot your dogs. Legal or not?

[The Whovian]

Should this be legal or not?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-c...162939226.html

I'm a big supporter of the police. I think, for the most part, they do a great service for all of us. My step sister is a police officer. But in no way do I think this is right and it should not be legal.

I can understand if the dog is not under control and attacks a police officer. Then they should be able to defend themselves and shoot the dog. But to follow a dog and then shoot it because it growled at the officer and moved a few inches toward them? That isn't right.

This is going to get out of hand and it's going to end up with a police officer getting killed because someone is going to be so ticked that they killed their dog, their going to shoot back and it's just going to get out of hand.

I have two dogs and would be horrified if the police entered my house and just because they barked at him, they shot them.

What does everyone else think?

[hedgehogvampire]

Oh my god, thats horrible. I mean one one hand if the police officer is looking around at the house because of a case or whatever they should feel safe but at the same time the dogs are completely innocent in this. There should be an other way, does the owner of the dog at lease get a heads up before the police officer shoots the dog because this could be avoidable if the owner just moves the dog out of the way. I eel very uncomfortable about this law. :/

[MindofShadow]

Should this be legal or not?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-c...162939226.html

I'm a big supporter of the police. I think, for the most part, they do a great service for all of us. My step sister is a police officer. But in no way do I think this is right and it should not be legal.

I can understand if the dog is not under control and attacks a police officer. Then they should be able to defend themselves and shoot the dog. But to follow a dog and then shoot it because it growled at the officer and moved a few inches toward them? That isn't right.

This is going to get out of hand and it's going to end up with a police officer getting killed because someone is going to be so ticked that they killed their dog, their going to shoot back and it's just going to get out of hand.

I have two dogs and would be horrified if the police entered my house and just because they barked at him, they shot them.

What does everyone else think?

its ok if they shoot people who "threaten" them, I guess dogs aint no different

[Carabas]

Oh my god, thats horrible. I mean one one hand if the police officer is looking around at the house because of a case or whatever they should feel safe but at the same time the dogs are completely innocent in this. There should be an other way, does the owner of the dog at lease get a heads up before the police officer shoots the dog because this could be avoidable if the owner just moves the dog out of the way. I eel very uncomfortable about this law. :/

It's not a law. It's a court ruling and it can (and almost certainly will) be challenged in a higher court.

its ok if they shoot people who "threaten" them, I guess dogs aint no different

It sadly is of course entirly in line with the other Judge Dredd crap American "cops" get to do.

[numberthirty]

Should this be legal or not?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-c...162939226.html

I can understand if the dog is not under control and attacks a police officer. Then they should be able to defend themselves and shoot the dog. But to follow a dog and then shoot it because it growled at the officer and moved a few inches toward them? That isn't right.

What does everyone else think?

I think that is seems like the ruling is discussing a pretty specific set of circumstances...

“Given the totality of the circumstances and viewed from the perspective of an objectively reasonable officer, the dog poses an imminent threat to the officer’s safety,” the ruling reads. “The standard we set out today is that a police officer’s use of deadly force against a dog while executing a search warrant to search a home for illegal drug activity is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when … the dog poses an imminent threat to the officer’s safety.”

[hedgehogvampire]

It's not a law. It's a court ruling and it can (and almost certainly will) be challenged in a higher court.

Ok my bad, I didn't see that part. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Dr Quinch]

This strikes me as absurd. Of course a dog is going to bark if a stranger enters the house.

Once again I am relieved that most British coppers don't carry guns.

[The Whovian]

“Given the totality of the circumstances and viewed from the perspective of an objectively reasonable officer, the dog poses an imminent threat to the officer’s safety,” the ruling reads. “The standard we set out today is that a police officer’s use of deadly force against a dog while executing a search warrant to search a home for illegal drug activity is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when … the dog poses an imminent threat to the officer’s safety.”

I think that is seems like the ruling is discussing a pretty specific set of circumstances...

The problem with that is the police sometimes smash into the wrong home while executing the search warrant. So, if they do that and end up shooting a dog in a house they shouldn't have been in, is it still going to be legal?

[The Whovian]

If the dog poses an imminent threat to the officer's safety, does the officer carry no other than guns? Don't they usually use tear gas while executing a search warrant?

Yeah, why not just use a tazer on the dog instead of shooting it?

[GOLGO 13]

Depends on the dog I would think.

If you shoot a 90lb pit bull or a 120pd Rottweiler that the owner refuses to leash/put in the bathroom I think the LEO has some wiggle room here.

If he shoots a 8pd Pomeranian or similar lap dog then that's a no-no.

[x-men_fanatic]

I think it's absolutely ridiculous. But then again this is America where PEOPLE get shot even when they have their hands up and aren't a threat.

[numberthirty]

If the dog poses an imminent threat to the officer's safety, does the officer carry no other than guns? Don't they usually use tear gas while executing a search warrant?

Yeah, why not just use a tazer on the dog instead of shooting it?

If the threat is "Imminent", why would you?

[GreenLanternRanger]

Yet another DEPLORABLE action by the federal government. I expect more stupid & horrible things over the next four years. Of course a dog is going to bark and maybe even attack a stranger that breaks into its house. It is defending itself and it's master. It has no concept of what a policeman is, it just knows a potential threat to itself and those it cares about are there.

ANYONE WHO SHOOTS A DOG IS A MONSTER! END of discussion!