Currently animals are considered personal property under USA law. PETA has been laughed at for trying to get animals to be considered “people” under the law because it does sound like a ridiculous thing. Of course animals are not human. They can’t vote or run businesses. I’m not a PETA fan (they’re too “out there” even for me) but this is an example of what they are trying to solve with such legislation. To the cop entering your home, the dog is just a thing. If they shoot it, no big deal, you can just buy or adopt another one. But all pet owners know: it’s not a thing, it’s a beloved family member. What organizations like PETA are trying to do is to get more protection for animals than the law currently provides by classifying them not as objects (property), but as living beings. They should have the same legal protection as, say, children.
The really scary part of this court ruling is the “if it moves” part. If the dog pants, will they shoot it? If the dog lifts it’s head to look at them? If he lays down on your command?
Why should the court make this ruling against pet dogs and not kids? A kid can jump on a cop’s back if he thinks dad is being threatened. What if the kid simply screams? Of course you can’t shoot a kid, that’s ridiculous. But why are they allowed to shoot the family dog then? It’s all bullshit and this court should be ashamed of themselves.
Yes, a cop can shoot a kid, if the cop feels that the kid is a threat. That’s what it comes down to. So, yeah, your dog is a member of your family, and can be shot just like any other member of your family–under certain circumstances.
As long as he can convince a jury that he was in fear for his life a cop can shoot anyone. So when it comes to getting shot by cops our pets have as many rights as we do.
Did the members of your community read the last sentence of the article?
I did, and it does not sound unreasonable to me as a standard:
Do you think it’s unreasonable?
Can you explain why?
Your post devotes some space to lamenting the fact that dogs are considered property, but in fact the court’s opinion makes a clear distinction between pets and other property:
But they also agree that officer safety is to be weighed higher than pet safety:
For the record, that’s essentially the same standard that applies to the use of deadly force against a person.
" when…the dog poses an imminent threat to the officer’s safety." along with this comment:
“police officers are often forced to make splitsecond judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation”
Some dogs are territorial and protective, and in this case I totally see that officers need to protect themselves. However, just as many dogs are friendly and non-territorial. My dogs for example, are eager to meet new people any place, any time. Strangers are just friends they haven’t met yet. If a cop enters my home, my dogs will move forward to say hi and sniff their hands. A tense cop is just going to assume they’re rushing him to defend the house.
My real point is just this: shoot first and ask questions later policies are bad for everyone. If they shoot my dog or my husband, they’re going to have to shoot me too when I defend my own.
In this case, there was a fair amount of evidence presented that suggested the cops’ fear was reasonable, especially as to the first dog. I agree that the evidence as to the second dog was a little thin – but you should remember that this was an appeal of a dismissal below, meaning that the appeals court was bending over backward to take the facts in the light most favorable to the dog owners. So even when making every inference in favor of the dog owners and resolving every issue of material fact in their favor, there was STILL undisputed evidence that showed a reasonable officer could fear for his safety.
That wouldn’t be true in your recitation of dogs that move forward to say hi and sniff their hands – the pit bulls here were observed from outside barking frantically and jumping and snarling at the windows. Moreover, the owner was a gang member recently released from prison and the warrant being executed was for heroin and cocaine being sold from the house. All of this combined to form a concern about safety that would not (I assume) be present in your home, and all of this factored into the court’s decision.
We need new laws protecting people. Terminally ill pets can be released from the indignity and suffering of prolonged painful death, but we do not yet extend that right to people.