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.

  • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    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.