> that an officer’s subjective fear of a minor wound from a dog bite
i _hate_ shit like this. i have very strong opinions on the militirization of cops in america being in opposition with individual sovereignty, but when you write absolutely, obviously idiotic things like this it just destroys the cause. why are you forcing me into a position of defending my enemy because you cant stop yourself from using blatantly false... lets say hyperbole.
dogs are dangerous. theres no part of your body you can give a dog to bite that doesnt have a high probability of causing permanent damage on everything but the lightest, most timid bites (assuming we're talking about 30+pound animals).
you might as well say "an officers subjective fear of minor stab wounds". dont be obtuse. there are many problems with officers being directed into peoples backyards authorized lethal force with legal permission to murder people and animals, but none of them are the officers fault.
oh? how many of those interactions were you intentionally trespassing with the intent to either capture or kill the dogs owners?
dogs dont know anything about uniforms. they read body language and smell hormones, pheromones, etc. it sounds like you work with dogs, so surely you know it is significantly important to approach unfriendly, angry, or anxious dogs WITHOUT a focused, anxious intent expecting violence - like a cop would, breaking into someone's yard.
This does not make sense. There are other professions who come into contact with strange dogs on a daily basis (postal workers, Ups, delivery men, landscapers, utilities inspectors). How many get bitten or face aggression? They would face this issue on a much larger scale but it not so.
Ending qualified immunity is a red herring. As long as police unions keep their corrupting power, they'll just demand indemnification from the city as part of their contract.
And it's pretty irrelevant here, as I don't think the victims are successfully suing the various cities for killing their dogs. What really needs to happen is 1. actual criminal charging and prosecution of police officers, by an independent prosecutor that doesn't rely on a working relationship with police department for the bulk of their cases and 2. proper civil putative and emotional damages for pet deaths, rather than the legal system's current tendency to write it off as a petty loss.
By “indemnify”, I take it that you mean “agree to have prosecutors not press charges?” Or do you mean “agree to pay all costs?” I thought q.i. was about the criminal side, people win civil suits anyway.
QI is purely about the civil side. People currently win civil suits against the city for police officers' actions, with settlements coming out of taxpayers' general fund rather than anything affecting the miscreants. Ending QI would make the officers personally liable. Indemnify means the city agreeing to pay all damages suffers by the officers, and would mean essentially restoring the conditions we have now.
I think police should have better procedures in place to try to prevent shooting dogs. It definitely happens more than it should.
That said, bites are incredibly dangerous and not something to downplay. This is pure ignorance. No infectious disease doctor is likely to agree that dog bites are always a "minor wound." People are hospitalized, lose limbs, and die from infections caused by bites. Puncture wounds should always be treated by a doctor.
Even a small dog can inflict a dangerous wound. Kicking a dog is a good way to get a bitten on the foot. Restraining a dog without injury is extremely difficult.
Police should employ pepper spray against dogs, or maybe there's a better technology available that they should start using.
But, when there is a legitimate case where a police officer reasonably fears that a dog is about to bite them, they should be be free to shoot. This is basic self-defense against great bodily injury. Every American has this right, not just police.
It's on owners to do their best to prevent police from interacting with their unrestrained dogs. That doesn't mean it's always the owners fault if a police officer is forced to shoot a dog. Sometimes it's just a bad situation and no one is really at fault.
I have friends who read gas meters for many years. This is a job that involves coming in contact with dogs of all sizes and demeanor.
If a gas company can handle sending some 18 yo kids into thousands of backyards a week to deal with dogs then I'm sure law enforcement officers can be trained to handle dogs with the same outcomes that the gas company sees (no amputations from dog bites to my knowledge.)
There is no equivalence between a meter reader and a police officer's situation. Some subset of police interactions may be similar but many will be very different. A police officer's interaction is much more likely to be heated, urgent, close quarters, and unavoidable. A meter reader can just leave if necessary, which is what they do.
For example, police officers frequently have to enter a home during a domestic dispute with a dog that is riled up due to its owners having a physical altercation.
"It's on owners to do their best to prevent police from interacting with their unrestrained dogs."
This there is the problem. Why should the general public be afraid of police when on a daily basis their dogs do interact with other professionals and workers?. This is because of fear inculcated by their behavior and there is no recourse later.
Police are doing a very different job than any other service worker likely to interact with a dog (as I explained in the other comment).
The general public has very little interaction with police officers at all. A random member of the general public should have approximately zero fear of their dog being shot.
The people having their dogs shot are usually doing something to attract the attention of police and/or not being responsible with the care of their dogs.
In other cases police officers are wrongfully shooting dogs. These are almost certainly the minority of cases but clearly this number should be as close to zero as possible. Police officers should be fired and sued in cases of negligence.
i _hate_ shit like this. i have very strong opinions on the militirization of cops in america being in opposition with individual sovereignty, but when you write absolutely, obviously idiotic things like this it just destroys the cause. why are you forcing me into a position of defending my enemy because you cant stop yourself from using blatantly false... lets say hyperbole.
dogs are dangerous. theres no part of your body you can give a dog to bite that doesnt have a high probability of causing permanent damage on everything but the lightest, most timid bites (assuming we're talking about 30+pound animals).
you might as well say "an officers subjective fear of minor stab wounds". dont be obtuse. there are many problems with officers being directed into peoples backyards authorized lethal force with legal permission to murder people and animals, but none of them are the officers fault.