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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    142
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Someone shared in another thread that police officers in the U.S. kill something like 10,000 dogs a year. Psychopaths murder dogs. You don’t become a cop unless you’re a psychopath.

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      Never, ever let a cop into your home if you have a dog. Cops are driven by fear and sadism.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        1 year ago

        Never, ever let a cop into your home

        they can come back with a warrant or not at all. the police are absolutely not here to help and nothing will be made better by police involvement.

        • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Also don’t open the door for police. I’ve seen numerous encounters where they’ll block the door and refuse to let you close it. Once you try to close it or a gentle breeze comes by an pushes the door into their foot, they’ll violently throw you to the ground, taze you, and then charge you with assaulting a police officer.

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not true, I know I guy who got fired from the company I worked for a few years ago, so what did he do when he wasn’t good at the job, he became a police officer.

    • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not sure if that person was me, but reposting a recent comment I made to that effect anyhow. The estimate and the word “epidemic” both originate from a DOJ report of all things.

      https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/jun/16/doj-police-shooting-family-dogs-has-become-epidemic/

      I believe the DOJ report is linked somewhere in that article, if not I’ll dig it up if requested.

      Cops in this country kill so many dogs each year that a specialist at the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) community-oriented program services office says it has become an “epidemic.” The DOJ estimates that around 25 to 30 dogs are killed by cops every day, with some numbers as high as 10,000 per year. The totals could, in fact, be higher, since most police agencies do not formally track officer-involved shootings involving animals.

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    104
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/police/police-murder-trial-after-4-years-deays-prince-georges-county-michael-owens/65-5b3df74b-8c73-4e19-b40d-5aa5bc72f70d

    Fun fact about this blatantly criminal police department, they currently have an officer on trial for murder because he shot a suspect 7 times while that suspect was HANDCUFFED AND IN THE FUCKING POLICE CAR

    This incident happened four years ago, and taxpayers who did nothing wrong have already settled with the victim’s family for millions. The judge presiding over the case has openly accused the prosecution of sandbagging the case for four years and rejected a plea deal the prosecution offered the officer because the victim’s family protested that it was too lenient. This man shot and killed a cooperative, restrained suspect and the prosecution is doing everything they can to let him off the hook, down to and including just not having a trial because they think he’ll be convicted. This is what we mean when we say ACAB, that the police engage in blatant, open criminality up to and including murder and then an entire system does everything it can to avoid holding them responsible. Same story with Jackie Johnson, the DA who initially failed to charge the men who murdered Ahmaud Arbery. She’s been charged with misconduct as well, but it’s been years and she’s not even been arraigned. She violated the law and her oath of office in order to cover up a lynching because one of the murderers is an ex-cop and friend of hers, and she’s being protected from the consequences of enabling a lynch mob by a system that knows that the cops are there to use violence to protect aristocrats from the underclass.

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    These people did nothing wrong and were accosted by armed thugs in their own home. The dog did nothing wrong and was murdered. The taxpayers did nothing wrong and will pay out tons of money to these people. The police, who did everything wrong, will face no repercussions for their actions because qualified immunity dictates that they didn’t necessarily know that holding innocent people at gunpoint violates their rights.

    • foggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      1 year ago

      When police break the law, they should be tried on a matter of whether or not the taxpayers are responsible for what occurred.

      People like this should never get our tax dollars spent on their well-being.

      We should be way more angry about this than we are.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        When police break the law, they should be tried

        that would be a hell of a start

        We should be way more angry about this than we are.

        A lot of time, effort and money is spent convincing people that the police and their abuse are things that only happens to those people.

  • Empricorn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • ExLisper@linux.community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      75
      ·
      1 year ago

      Paying damages out of police retirement founds would be a simple, one step, foolproof solution to this problem. You don’t want lower retirement? Stop breaking the law. Oh, you’re one of the 5 good cops in the country and this would hurt you even though you did nothing wrong? Actually report the bad cops instead just watching. Thanks.

          • jonne@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            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
              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.

          • RubberStuntBaby@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            When a psycho cop in the department shoots an innocent kid in the back, the other cops will have to decide either to plant a gun on him or have their their retirement funds drained by a lawsuit.

            • ExLisper@linux.community
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So you’re saying now cops don’t plant guns on people, don’t lie and don’t intimidate witnesses? Have you seen the news, like ever?

        • ours@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          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
            2
            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.

              • ExLisper@linux.community
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ok, so I’m thinking that theyo pay out some money in damages and the retirement found looses 10% of assets. The projected retirements for cops that are still working gets lowered. The cops closest to retirement lose less, for example 5%, younger cops loose more, for example 15%.

                You’re saying that in this situation those younger cops will just keep doing what they’re doing hoping that they will lose all the money and get bailed out? I’m thinking they will start complaining about the aggressive cops that cost THEM actually money. It’s not about taking away all their retirement. It’s about slowly lowering it down so that they start paying attention. I think it would work. But of course it will never happen. We’re just playing fantasy politics here.

    • AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      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
      4
      ·
      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

    • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because you never arm up and surround the precincts.

      Shitlibs screeching in 3…2…

  • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    HEY ANY OF YOU MAGA SHITHEADS WANNA TELL US ABOUT HOW YOU’RE AGAINST GOVERNMENT TYRANNY? YOU GONNA “BACK THE FUCKING BLUE” AGAIN, YOU BUNCH OF PUSSIES?

  • ReallyKinda@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    1 year ago

    “ The county offered to compensate Umana for her veterinary bills if she agreed to refrain from publicly speaking about the shooting, but she rejected the offer, according to her lawsuit.”

    Sickening

  • Gabu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ll be honest, if a policemen did that to a pet of mine, their aim better be good enough to one tap me, otherwise they’re dead.

    • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Advice I got from a cop for self defense situations. If you have to use lethal force, you’re legally better off if you finish your plate because dead people don’t testify. Be aware of that school of thought, because the cops are too.

    • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d root for you in this hypothetical situation. Their aim isn’t good enough to one tap, that’s why their protocol for dealing with anything remotely scary is to have 10 of them mag dump onto one target.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’d probably go to prison for life, though. The right to self defense didn’t apply when the aggressor is a cop.

  • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    74
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ll just say this. If you name your pet after liquor, I’m automatically assuming you’re trashy. Police were there to investigate a dog biting incident, and I somehow doubt these 4 are faultless.

    based entirely on that trashy ass pet name.

    • LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Did they name their dog after liquor?

      Maybe they adopted the dog with that name.

      Maybe it’s named after W. Louis Hennessy, an American jurist who serves as judge in the District Court for Charles County, Maryland.

      Maybe it’s named after the NY Jets long snapper.

      Maybe your preconceptions and biases speak more about you than the people in the story.

      Be better.

    • arthurpizza@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re right, we should strip away the rights of anyone with a dog name you don’t like. That feels like a normal and sane thing to do.

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Deciding they deserve what they got because you think they’re trashy is what makes a person trashy, not naming a pet after booze. JFC what an unhinged take.

    • QHC@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You should feel bad for having this perspective. Reflect on that and try to be better in the future!

    • dilithium_dame@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      I realize I’m inviting down votes as well, but, ignoring the dog’s name, did he actually bite someone? If so, I can understand why the police were there and that is different from officers randomly barging into an apartment and shooting whatever dog happens to be around (which is a great story to stir people up and get clicks). Though it is still odd how it was handled, I would expect an animal control officer to be first to make contact with the dog’s owners. Not to go straight to shooting the dog?