Maryland roommates claim police detained them at gunpoint for no reason and shot their pet dog: "No remorse"
Maryland roommates claim police detained them at gunpoint for no reason and shot their pet dog: "No remorse"
The roommates claim officers unnecessarily shot their pet dog, a boxer mix named Hennessey, which was left paralyzed and ultimately euthanized.
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're viewing a single thread.
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.
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?
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.
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
Permanently Deleted