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.

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • ExLisper@linux.community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • zaph@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • ExLisper@linux.community
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.