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.)