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.

        • jonne@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          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
            ·
            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.

        • 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.

      • ours@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        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
          ·
          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?