Here’s a controversial one for you. Police safety meets Homeowner rights.
Which side do you fall on?
It has been open season on cops lately, and we applaud measures intended to keep them safe.
We also recognize that government overreach is a real issue and that government can sometimes be heavy-handed on the enforcement side.
When a police officer executes a court order on private property, what is he supposed to do if he sees a dog?
The courts made a ruling about when police can use force on a dog.
From the Battle Creek Enquirer:
A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court that dismissed a case against Battle Creek police officers for shooting dogs during a drug raid.
In an opinion released Wednesday the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati agreed with the U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids’ dismissal of a suit against the City of Battle Creek, the Battle Creek Police Department and three police officers…
…The dogs were shot as officers from the Emergency Response Team executed a search warrant, looking for drugs.
The officers said the two dogs were on the couch when officers entered the home and one dog was shot when it lunged at the officer. That dog went to the basement, blocking officers from searching. The first dog was killed. Officers then saw the second dog, which was barking, and it too was killed.
The suit was filed March 17, 2015, and in January attorneys representing the city and the officers sought to have the suit dismissed, arguing both qualified immunity and that the seizure of the dogs was reasonable. The lower court dismissed the case on March 29 and that decision was appealed.
In upholding the dismissal, the appeals court noted that many other federal courts have concluded “the use of deadly force against a household pet is reasonable only if the pet poses an (imminent) danger and the use of force is unavoidable.”
Is it fair to the cop? Is it fair to the dog owner? Or is it just about right?
Cops: Is this Court Ruling About Shooting Dogs Fair?
