Killing 4-legged cops almost as bad as 2-legged
Well, since the police have been such a stimulating topic here lately, how about this? The cops can kill your kid's chained puppy on a mistaken no-knock raid, with no consequences. But kill a police dog that's escaped and threatening you (and is wearing no ID as a police dog) on your own property, and it's a third-degree felony (5 years and $10K), AND you have to pay 11K for the dog. And what was police property doing in a private residence anyway? Deeter was as responsible for controlling his dog as for controlling his firearm.
City law director Dave Hackenberg said shortly after Flip was killed, he sent a bill to Mr. Whitman for more than $11,000 that the city paid for the dog. He said that under Ohio law, a person who shoots and kills a dog is responsible to pay for it.
Unfortunately, he's right:
959.04 TRESPASSING ANIMALSSections 959.02 and 959.03 of the Revised Code do not extend to a person killing or injuring an animal or attempting to do so while endeavoring to prevent it from trespassing upon his enclosure, or while it is so trespassing, or while driving it away from his premises; provided within fifteen days thereafter, payment is made for damages done to such animal by such killing or injuring, less the actual amount of damage done by such animal while so trespassing, or a sufficient sum of money is deposited with the nearest judge of a county court or judge of a municipal court having jurisdiction within such time to cover such damages. Such deposit shall remain in the custody of such judge until there is a determination of the damages resulting from such killing or injury and from such trespass. Such judge and his bondsmen shall be responsible for the safekeeping of such money and for the payment thereof as for money collected upon a judgment.
I'd feel better about this if Ohio had an adaquate leash law that Deeter could be prosecuted under.
Comments
Posted by: Brian Gray
Posted on: December 27, 2006 01:06 PM
I wonder why the officer was not penalized in some form? Seems he or his family has just as much blame in this incident.
I also wonder why the person did not call 911 or animal control, before jsut shooting the dog. It appears he did not even fire the gun into the air or other means to scare the dog away. He is lucky the police trained dog did not automatically attack when seeing a gun pointed at it.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: December 27, 2006 01:43 PM
I'd agree that there's plenty of stupidity to go around here. What I don't understand is why a member of one group of people ("citizen") pays for stupidity with 5 years of jail while a member of another group ("police") pays with....what exactly?? It smacks a bit of "privilege" (literally, private law).
Posted by: Brian Gray
Posted on: December 27, 2006 01:49 PM
The law that was broke was killing a trespassing animal. If I had a $10,000 dog that was loose and you shot it on your property, you would have to pay for its replacement as well.
Even though the police offer was not charged with anything, I do not think that is totally necessary. If my dog wandered on to my neighbors property, I would not want to be charged crimally, especially if it did nothing wrong.
I do think morally and ethically, the police offers family should pay for at least half the value of the dog. It was their error that led to the entire incident.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: December 27, 2006 02:11 PM
It's a clear problem with the law. How am I to know whether it's a feral mutt or a police dog? And where's your responsibility to keep your dog from trespassing on my property? This is of particular interest because I have a neighbor who lets his dog go loose at times. The dog hasn't killed any chickens, but he eats the food we put out for the barn cats and defecates on my land. I knew I was within my rights to put down a marauding dog (though that wouldn't be the best way to keep peace in the neighborhood), but I didn't know I would be financially responsible. I also don't know it it's a registered dog, so it might be of interest to the animal warden.
Posted by: Brian Gray
Posted on: December 27, 2006 03:30 PM
You cannot know if it is wild, escaped, or a police dog. I guess that is why you should have the authorities deal with it, unless you are in great harm. I guess if you are the first to take action, you can expect a bill in the mail.
I assume you are out in the country. I expect most cities have addressed this issue more precisely.
Posted by: dry dog food recall
Posted on: May 17, 2007 12:54 PM
Really, unbelivable. Sometimes it seems to me that the police is above the law, or "above the law". How can you tell is the dog is a police dog or not? It's kind of like hitting a cop that is threatening you without identifing himself.
Posted by: making your own dog food
Posted on: May 20, 2007 04:55 PM
I kind of feel sorry for the dogs. Yes, I know this is "besides the point" but that's me...
Posted by: Chief Constable
Posted on: November 8, 2007 06:38 PM
I can't believe that this really happend. This makes a mockery to the law.
Posted by: Helena
Posted on: October 17, 2010 07:50 AM
So if the dog's not even making it visible that it's a police dog, and you kill it, you pay and pay a lot?
Does the person who created this law even think?