Skip to comments.Chicago police must pay 330k for killing dog in home raid
Posted on 08/19/2011 8:10:23 PM PDT by Artemis Webb
A federal jury says Chicago law enforcement must pay $330,000 to a family after officers shot their dog during a home raid that turned up no illegal activity.
Thomas Russell, then 18, opened the door to his home in February 2009 to find police officers with their guns drawn. He asked if he could lock up his 9-year-old black labrador, named Lady, before letting the officers inside. The Chicago Tribune describes what happened next:
Police refused the request and came into the house, the lawsuit said. When Lady came loping around the corner with her tail wagging, Officer Richard Antonsen shot the dog, according to the suit, which alleged excessive force, false arrest and illegal seizure for taking the dog's life.
The cops handcuffed Russell and his 16-year-old brother, and eventually charged Russell with obstructing their operation. He was found not guilty. According to NBC, the jury awarded $175,000 to Russell, $85,000 to his little brother, and $35,000 each to the brothers' parents. The officer who shot the dog owes $2,000 in damages, and his supervisor owes $1,000, according to NBC.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Damn shame the trigger happy cop didn’t have to shell out more than 2k.
Glad the family is getting a payment, but the cop, not the city, should have to pay.
His $2K fine is NOTHING. And what an idiot - shooting a dog whose tail was wagging!
All these payouts should come out of the police’s budget.
Only then would there be any accountability for their actions.
He felt threatened by a 9 year old black lab? what a chicken ____ fagot.
Protecting themselves from being licked and drooled on. What idiot would shoot a Lab wagging its tail?
“And what an idiot - shooting a dog whose tail was wagging!”
He must have confused the dog with a gator! Hey, Sonny Crockett had a gator on board his boat, and you didn’t mess with that fella/s;)
I know, but it’s a start. Too bad the taxpayers are going to get shafted for the rest of the bill.
sound like the police officer was in the wrong here. The police officer and supervisor should be fined more
Wouldn't that be "Chicago taxpayers" who have to shell out the cash?
Fine? how about FIRE... As in FIRE the officer.
And the stupidvisor if he was there too.
Over my 28 plus years as a police officer, I have been confronted on several occasions by dogs. Without exception, I tried my best to fend off the dog with whatever was present, a trashcan lid or a fence or my coat, whatever. In all those years, I have yet to shoot a dog (and I don’t like dogs).
Why a “federal” jury?
Oh well, this is better than the usual result.
“I know, but its a start. Too bad the taxpayers are going to get shafted for the rest of the bill.”
I think it’s a great start, and a great precedent. Chicago is self-insured, but a lot of smaller cities aren’t. After having their cops using a few pets for target practice, let’s see what some of those cities’ insurance premiums look like - if they can actually GET insurance, that is.
Frankly, I’m not upset at all about the taxpayers in Chicago footing the bill. Eventually, it will hurt. Maybe that will wake them up!
The problem might be, the homeowner instinctively requesting to secure the dog...Knowing they’d shot the dog otherwise.
“He felt threatened by a 9 year old black lab? what a chicken ____ fagot.”
Are these police REALLY the type of people citizens want “protecting” (and I use that word loosely) them? Should they even be allowed to carry guns?