# Here is why we need new laws protecting pets **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 27, 2016, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-is-why-we-need-new-laws-protecting-pets/775713 "2016-12-27T18:05:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![JcWoman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jcwoman/32/2889_2.png) [@JcWoman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JcWoman)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2016, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-is-why-we-need-new-laws-protecting-pets/775713/1 "2016-12-27T18:05:11Z")
This article is making the rounds among my dog-owning and rescuing Facebook community: [“Court rules police can shoot your dog if it moves or barks”.](http://www.wkyc.com/news/court-rules-police-can-shoot-a-dog-if-it-moves-barks-when-officers-enter-a-home/379110523) 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. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2016, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-is-why-we-need-new-laws-protecting-pets/775713/2 "2016-12-27T18:25:30Z")
> [@JcWoman](#): > > 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. . . 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. ---
**Author:** ![JcWoman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jcwoman/32/2889_2.png) [@JcWoman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JcWoman)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2016, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-is-why-we-need-new-laws-protecting-pets/775713/3 "2016-12-27T18:48:55Z")
If the kid moves or yells, the cop can shoot him? Seriously? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2016, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-is-why-we-need-new-laws-protecting-pets/775713/4 "2016-12-27T18:51:27Z")
Some kids are biters. So there’s always that danger. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2016, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-is-why-we-need-new-laws-protecting-pets/775713/5 "2016-12-27T18:51:40Z")
> [@JcWoman](#): > > If the kid moves or yells, the cop can shoot him? Seriously? :dubious: 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2016, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-is-why-we-need-new-laws-protecting-pets/775713/6 "2016-12-27T19:07:13Z")
> [@JcWoman](#): > > This article is making the rounds among my dog-owning and rescuing Facebook community: [“Court rules police can shoot your dog if it moves or barks”.](http://www.wkyc.com/news/court-rules-police-can-shoot-a-dog-if-it-moves-barks-when-officers-enter-a-home/379110523) 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: > [@](#): > > The standard we set out today is that a police officer’s use of deadly force against a dog while executing a search warrant to search a home for illegal drug activity is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when…the dog poses an imminent threat to the officer’s safety. 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: > [@](#): > > As the Ninth Circuit reasoned, “[t]he emotional attachment to a family’s dog is not comparable to a possessory interest in furniture." (quoting Hell’s Angels) 402 F.3d at 975−78 (holding that the killing of guard dogs was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment where “the officers were not presented with exigent circumstances that necessitated killing the dogs”)… But they also agree that officer safety is to be weighed higher than pet safety: > [@](#): > > There is no dispute that the shooting of Plaintiffs’ dogs were severe intrusions given the emotional attachment between a dog and an owner. . . . On the other hand, insuring officer safety and preventing the destruction of evidence are particularly important governmental interests that the courts must strive to protect. > . > . (re-ordered for clarity) > . > Based on the precedent set forth by a large number of this Court’s sister circuits, we hold that as a matter of first impression there is a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to not have one’s dog unreasonably seized. > . > . > . > This analysis allow[s] for the fact that 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. . . “The task of this [C]ourt is to put itself into the shoes of the officers at the time the actions took place and to ask whether the actions taken by the officers were objectively unreasonable.” . . .Thus, the standard we set out today is that a police officer’s use of deadly force against a dog while executing a warrant to search a home for illegal drug activity is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when, given the totality of the circumstances and viewed from the perspective of an objectively reasonable officer, the dog poses an imminent threat to the officer’s safety. For the record, that’s essentially the same standard that applies to the use of deadly force against a person. ---
**Author:** ![JcWoman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jcwoman/32/2889_2.png) [@JcWoman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JcWoman)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2016, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-is-why-we-need-new-laws-protecting-pets/775713/7 "2016-12-27T19:18:54Z")
This is the issue I have: " 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. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2016, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-is-why-we-need-new-laws-protecting-pets/775713/8 "2016-12-27T19:40:59Z")
Let’s hope it never comes to that. It’s worth noting that most cops get through their entire careers without resorting to shooting anyone or their dog. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2016, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-is-why-we-need-new-laws-protecting-pets/775713/9 "2016-12-27T19:53:03Z")
> [@JcWoman](#): > > This is the issue I have: > > " 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. ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2016, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-is-why-we-need-new-laws-protecting-pets/775713/10 "2016-12-27T20:46:59Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2016, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-is-why-we-need-new-laws-protecting-pets/775713/11 "2016-12-27T21:09:17Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > 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. This, definitely. Why does a pet have the right to die with dignity, but a human doesn’t? And then there are people who believe that a dog’s life has value, but cats are expendable. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_Many\_Cats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Two\_Many\_Cats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_Many_Cats)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2016, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-is-why-we-need-new-laws-protecting-pets/775713/12 "2016-12-27T23:01:19Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > And then there are people who believe that a dog’s life has value, but cats are expendable. Yeah, but a cop who shoots a cat, and then claims it was self-defense and that his or her life was in danger will be laughed out of the precinct. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2016, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-is-why-we-need-new-laws-protecting-pets/775713/13 "2016-12-28T00:12:11Z")
> [@Two\_Many\_Cats](#): > > Yeah, but a cop who shoots a cat, and then claims it was self-defense and that his or her life was in danger will be laughed out of the precinct. They never met one of my cats, when I’m trying to get a pill down his throat.