I’m complaining about it anyway.
“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,” Judge Eric Clay wrote in the court’s opinion.
Oh good, now they can not only arrest you for something that shouldn’t be illegal, they can shoot your dog too!
“Officer Case saw that ‘there was blood coming out of numerous holes in the dog, and … [Officer Case] didn’t want to see it suffer,’ so he put her out of her misery and fired the last shot,” Clay wrote.
I don’t think that’s your call to make, asshole.
The court decided that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence showing the first dog did not lunge at police officers and that the second dog didn’t bark.
That’s not how the burden of proof works, you sacks of shit.
There you have it, if your dog moves or barks when a cop is raiding your home, they’re totally free to shoot it. Fucking great. They might as well do away with those qualifiers, since there’s no such thing as a dog that doesn’t move or bark when their home is being invaded; just give cops free rein to shoot dogs with no questions asked.