Last week Lake Charles police killed Monkey.
Monkey was a family dog — a friendly one, by all accounts. Monkey’s picture doesn’t suggest he was particularly intimidating. Granted, in that picture, he’s dead because a police officer has just shot him four times.
Monkey was barking at a policeman who was in his yard — not by invitation, but because he was chasing a suspect. The policeman, according to a statement, “felt he was being attacked by the dog and was forced to discharge his weapon.”
Police believe that we, the citizenry, should defer to their judgment about when deadly force is warranted. They tell us that they are the thin blue line between us and violent lawlessness.
If the police are afraid of dogs like Monkey, is it even minimally reasonable to accept those propositions?
It is high time that policemen start being held *personally* responsible for their actions. No official immunity. That’ll help set up incentives to respect individual rights. Via What Else Are Lake Charles Police Afraid Of? | The Agitator. (For what it’s worth: I have friends in Memphis whose daughter was viciously attacked by a dog, and an off-duty policeman who was with them by invitation killed the dog after pulling it off her. He did the right thing. That situation, and this one, are completely different — be careful not to consider the two as morally equivalent.)
While I understand the concern about loss, this is an area I feel it’s certainly better to give the police the benefit of the doubt. I’m sure Monkey was a wonderful loving dog and may even have just wanted to play. However as an officer with no experience with the animal, chasing a suspect, full of adrenaline, having to make that quick decision is not exactly easy. Yeah, it’s sad that the friendly dog was killed. But if the officer decides not to shoot it, and he’s wrong, it’s his own life in jeopardy. It’s not like in the middle of a chase, he can stop and offer his hand to sniff. In a case where an officer has plenty of time to approach the animal and just decides to shoot it anyway even though there’s a fence between them or something, absolutely, the officer is in the wrong and the action should be investigated. But otherwise, it’s unfair arm-chair quarterbacking a split second decision between his life, and that of an animal. The animal loses every time. The alternative is police that are no longer willing to chase criminals onto private property or they possibly risk their career for protecting themselves and being wrong. That’s not an alternative that I like.
I hear you. My points are these: (1) Police killing of dogs is too frequent. (2) Killing a dog may be necessary, but if it turns out to have been an improper killing, the policeman himself personally should be liable for it. (I think the rule of personal liability should also apply to no-knock raids and other police actions that violate rights of life, liberty, and property.)
The Lake Charles cops are covering this up. The come out with statements like split second decision and one of their best cops. Then the statement o
Goes on to belittle us for caring about a dog. The spokesman goes on to say he has never received a call over a person being gunned down.
This sealed it for me, coverup lying cops.