Roommates who sued a Maryland county Monday claim police officers illegally entered their apartment without a warrant, detained them at gunpoint without justification and unnecessarily shot their pet dog, which was left paralyzed and ultimately euthanized.

The dog, a boxer mix named Hennessey, did not attack the three officers who entered the apartment before two of them shot the animal with their firearms and the third fired a stun gun at it, according to the federal lawsuit.

The lawsuit seeks at least $16 million in damages over the June 2, 2021 encounter, which started with Prince George’s County police officers responding to a report of a dog bite at an apartment complex where the four plaintiffs lived. What happened next was captured on police body camera video and video from a plaintiff’s cellphone.

  • Empricorn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    105
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Pretty fucked up, but not surprising… Why do settlements come from uninvolved taxpayers, rather than the police “union”!?

          • jonne@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The legal fiction that is qualified immunity needs to be banned. It was just made up buy judges.

            • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s fine when used properly. When acting in good faith, officers, just like any company employee, should generally not be held liable.

              However, if they are not acting in good faith, or their actions deviate from good practice, then much like a chemical company employee dumping something toxic out into the environment, then yes they should face personal civil and criminal liability.

              For example, if there’s an active shooter, and the police shoot and kill him, I think most people would agree that that’s acceptable, and the family of the shooter should not have grounds to sue over the shooter’s death.

              If the police walk up and shoot your dog for no reason, that’s unacceptable and they should absolutely face personal liability.

              Per the article:

              “After reviewing all of the evidence in this matter a determination was made that actions of the officers didn’t generate criminal liability because they were acting in good faith,” the office said in a statement to The Post.

              I hope the court disagrees, but I’m not going to hold my breath.

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also: police should have to have insurance to carry firearms. If they’re bad cops, that insurance cost should eventually exceed their pay.

        Speed when you don’t have to? That hurts your insurance. Found conducting illegal terry stop? Hurts insurance. Unnecessary discharge? Lol, your insurance just got expensive as fuck for the next 5 years. How bad do you wanna serve and protect? Minimum wage sound good?

          • zaph@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s pretty much impossible to prove that the discharge was unnecessary, same as it’s impossible to prove that cop killed someone unnecessarily.

            We charge people with gun crimes daily so this can’t be true.

            That’s why people demand damages from the city, not the cop himself.

            People sue the city and not the cop because laws protect the cop and prevent them from facing the civil consequences directly.

        • ours@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not being able to breathe and police brutality? Name a more infamous combo…

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s really not a solution. It just means when the pension fund gets low, they get bailouts from government anyway.

          • QHC@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You just made that shit up. This proposal hasn’t even been put in place so how could anyone know for certain that would happen??

            • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The federal government already did it with the teamsters. Social security exists to bailout seniors from poverty. There is no way that the government is just going to allow large amounts of people to just get fucked on retirement.

      • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wouldn’t they just quit? Why not just suggest firing the whole lot of them if you’re fine with replacing them?

    • AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      The police are funded by taxpayers, so it doesn’t matter if it’s the city or the police that pay for it, you still foot the bill no matter what. The only solution where citizens don’t lose is if cops are required to carry personal malpractice insurance, like doctors. IMO making cops personally liable for their murders is a good place to start.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        it does matter though because if the money for paying for damages illegally caused by police comes out of their budget they’ll at least feel that until the next year’s budget kicks in. As-is, police are completely removed from any responsibility for their actions.

    • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      FWIW, these judgements are typically paid by the city’s insurance, although that’s also funded by the taxpayers. I don’t know how department policies and the like affect the premiums, but I would really be interested in learning.

    • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like it’d be worse to have taxpayers care even less about what police are doing. That said, it’s mind-blowing taxpayers don’t seem to care as it is