Swat And Dogs

January 3, 2017

All Posts, News

Swat And Dogs

Most people who read this already understand that Swat has become a way to punish people the police do not like without bothering with a trial.

In the United States, Swat is usually employed to serve search warrants on the residences of motorcycle club members. Frequently the searches are authorized under circumstances that police allege to be “exigent” by judges – say a family court judge – who don’t know much about how the justice casino really works. Frequently the police are searching for a few joints. Occasionally, Swat searches the home of a known motorcycle club member for insignia and souvenirs that would prove what they already know – that he actually is a club member.

Typically, these raids occur before dawn. Typically, your door is breached and your windows are blown out with flash-bang grenades. Sometimes, in states like California, the police are required to say, “Police! Search warrant! Demand entry,” as fast as they can before they blow out your windows and break in your door. They order your children out of bed, point guns at them and then make them stand in their driveway like animals in a zoo for all the neighbors to see. They cuff up your wife and send her out to stand next to your children in whatever she happened to wear to bed. They cuff you up and rough you up. And just about always they kill the family pet or pets in cold blood.

Short of actually gunning down the occupant – which happens occasionally – the murdering of the pets seems to bother people the most. All of America loves pets. Since 2014, all 50 states have had laws that make animal cruelty a felony. About a year ago, the Federal Bureau of Investigation added animal cruelty to its list of Class A felonies. But you get a pass if you are a cop.

The issue of killing your dog has been litigated several times and the rulings have been inconsistent. One landmark is a 2005 decision in a case titled San Jose Charter Of The Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose. In that case the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to give immunity to police who shot three dogs at a residence. In that case the court ruled that shooting the dogs was unreasonable

But a case decided last month by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals went the other way.

Battle Creek Swat

On April 16, 2013, in order to substantiate a tip from a confidential informant, the Battle Creek, Michigan Police Department “conducted a trash pull” at a residence in the city. “The trash pull recovered baggies with residue of marijuana and cocaine, a small amount of loose marijuana, and mail addressed to” an alleged small time drug dealer named Vincent Jones and Mark and Cheryl Brown. The home was owned by a woman named Danielle Nesbitt. Jones, the drug dealer, the guy the police were after, was the father of  Danielle Nesbitt’s child and he sometimes stayed there. Nesbitt’s parents, Mark and Cheryl Brown. lived in the basement.

Battle Creek police planned the Swat raid on Nesbitt’s home for days. As Swat was enroute to Nesbitt’s home, detectives arrested Jones away from the home but the raid continued anyway. When Swat arrived at the house they found Mark Brown standing outside. He had come home from work on his lunch break to let his two dogs out. He told the police the house was unoccupied except for his dogs and offered to unlock the front door. Swat cuffed him and broke in anyway.

The dogs barked when Swat broke in the front door. One of the two dogs moved its head as it barked. A Swat officer named Christof Klein considered that a lunge. As the second dog ran for the basement Klein shot the “lunging” dog. After he was shot, that dog ran for the basement, too. Swat followed the dogs down to the basement and “did not feel (the officers) could safely clear the basement with those dogs down there.”  So they killed both dogs.

The details are chilling. One dog was killed as it tried to escape.


In March 2015, the Browns filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Battle Creek and the Swat officers who conducted the raid on the grounds that Swat had “violated their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure when the officers unconstitutionally seized their dogs and unreasonably forced entry into the residence.”

Last March 28, a federal district court ruled the Brown’s “presented no evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to their Fourth Amendment claims of unreasonable seizure of their two dogs and the (demolished) front door.” The court also ruled that Battle Creek was blameless for the Swat team’s actions. So the Brown’s appealed. They argued “(1) it is clearly established that a government official’s unreasonable killing of a dog is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment; and (2) the seizure of the dogs was unreasonable.”

The Battle Creek Police Department, the city and Swat officers who broke down the door and killed the dogs argued “that the district court correctly concluded that the officers are immune from this action under the qualified immunity doctrine and that, in any event, they did not violate a clearly established right pursuant to the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, defendants assert that: (1) Plaintiffs have no constitutional right to be free from the unreasonable seizure of a dog because this Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States have not held that such a right exists; and (2) if the Court determines that Plaintiffs have this right, then the officers did not violate this right because the shootings were reasonable inasmuch as the Court’s review of the excessive force claim is limited to the moments preceding the shootings.”

Appeals Ruling

Ultimately the Sixth Circuit sided with the cops ruling, in effect, that no cop wearing body armor and carrying a machine gun should ever have to be afraid. And, if a cop says he is afraid he must be afraid.

The appeals court did recognize that “a large number of this Court’s sister circuits have already concluded that, ‘the use of deadly force against a household pet is reasonable only if the pet poses an (imminent) danger and the use of force is unavoidable.’” The court also allowed that, “Based on the precedent set forth by a large number of this Court’s sister circuits, we hold that as a matter of first impression there is a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to not have one’s dog unreasonably seized.”

But the court ruled for Battle Creek Swat anyway. “Police officers,” the court ruled, “ are often forced to make split second Judgments – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”

“Thus, the standard we set out today,” the court wrote, “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.”

“There is no dispute that the shooting of Plaintiffs’ dogs were severe intrusions given the emotional attachment between a dog and an owner,” the court said. But “insuring officer safety and preventing the destruction of evidence are particularly important governmental interests that the courts must strive to protect.”


38 Responses to “Swat And Dogs”

  1. rollinnorth Says:

    “Judge Advances Case Against Cops Who Killed Man’s Dog

    In court filings, both sides cite a 1990s lawsuit brought by the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club after law enforcement officials killed three dogs while executing a warrant. The case, which reached the U.S. Supreme Court, ended in 2006 when Santa Clara County and the city of San Jose settled separately for over $1.8 million combined.

    Aguaristi’s lawyer says the Hells Angels case shows the killing of a dog is recognized as a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and that the Merced officers didn’t do enough to prevent the dog’s death.

    The defendants argue the facts of the May 2018 incident are miles apart from the Hells Angels case, where the officers left dead dogs and damaged property during the search. Matzkind says the Merced officers ‘demonstrated reasonableness’ and should be immune to the Fourth Amendment causes of action.”



  2. Lady Says:

    I have trained dogs for more years than I care to count, and know that no matter what you do a dog is going to bark at any intrusion into their space that you as their owner and handler have not approved of. It is just not in their makeup, they are going to protect it or at the very least alert you so that you can.

    Then we come to the point that some of these dogs may be trained as service dogs, which if you have not had a need for one, trust me they are not cheap! So the cops take out a service dog for barking or moving to protect what they feel is an aggressive move toward their owner, which may be a child, yet no one is held responsible for it! I think not!!

    The only reason this law was put into effect was because it has not happened to someone this Judge knows or to them. Let a cop kill one of their beloved pets and see what happens. You can bet that somebody would catch hell for it!!

    Someone somewhere needs to know how to go about repelling this before every dog hating cop in America decides to start using this as a defense for even a minor infraction to shoot your pet!

    Much love and Respect to those that have earned and deserve it,

  3. JEMMER Says:

    These guys dress up like soldiers and point weapons at women and children and kill people’s dogs for no good reason other than that they know they can get away with it. If they want to be soldiers, join the Army, go to Afghanistan, and take on somebody who can actually fire back. Most of these guys would turn and run in a real firefight.

  4. David Says:

    Cops kill pets because their life is worthless and miserable and they want everyone else to be miserable.

  5. James Crawford Says:

    What few understand is that the policy to shoot all dogs encountered increases the risk that the subjects that are targeted for a SWAT raid will be shot. Cops really are human so their reactions are human. The sound of gunfire is alarming, increasing the paychological perception of risk. Once cops start shooting at dogs during a raid, their already elevated stress and fear is increased causing them to respond even more aggressively to any perceived threat.

  6. Jaded Says:

    What a pathetic ruling. What the hell? If you are afraid of a dog that barks, you should not have a gun – period. As an aside, good points, Paladin.

  7. Ol'LadyRider Says:

    Anyone who is afraid of dogs has no business being a cop. Anyone who is afraid of people has no business being a cop. Anyone who thinks being a cop and being afraid of dogs and people is ok has no business being a judge.

    Obviously “psychological testing” is missing the mark.

  8. Somebody Says:

    So neither the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of government will end this barbaric practice. Not making a threat, but I’m wondering how long it will be before somebody, with this in mind, realizes that there is probably something that the cop loves as much as the owner loves his dog. I wonder, just for the sake of curiosity, if this practice would continue if there was retaliation in even about .1% of these instances. I also wonder if the lack of retaliation is what has made the government comfortable with allowing this to continue.

  9. Nuke n' Pave Dave Says:

    A person’s choice of personal defense weapon is as, well, personal as their choice of deodorant. Everyone has their own idea of what constitutes the best weapon to wield when their life is in jeopardy and as every person has different capabilities and levels of proficiency, this choice is going to be as different as everyone is. My personal choice is my Wilson compensated .45 acp. But for someone else it might be a bit much to handle if they aren’t used to +P recoil. Something one’s both familiar and comfortable with will get them further than anything else simply because they will have less apprehension with it rather than a firearm they only drag out when the door is in the process of coming in on top of them. I suppose the old saw that says “run whatcha brung” applies above all else?

  10. Sieg Says:

    One small note, people seem to be focused on the fact that most gun-thugs lack balls, and I can’t disagree.

    I would point out, however, that the primary reason for shooting dogs ISN’T because they are scared of them, it to terrorize and punish the owners. If they’re REAL lucky, the owner might even do something to justify them shooting him, like, oh, yelling.


  11. hoosier.roadie Says:

    This is just another fine example of the growing pussification of law enforcement. LEO’s are so afraid that they need to wrap themselves up in armor, hide their faces behind masks and carry military style weapons. They are so frightened by a man (or woman) with a knife that they feel they need to shoot them, center of body mass, to neutralize the threat to their own lives. (4 or 5 LEO’s with batons, pepper spray, tazers and a shotgun in the trunk can’t disarm a woman with a pairing knife without killing her?) Now, the LEO’s are so afraid of the family dog that they need to kill it in its home. My mailman has more balls than these officers: He hasn’t shot a barking dog in the neighborhood yet.

  12. Paladin Says:

    @ Anonymous,

    In my humble opinion, the problem with the Saiga 12 is that in a confined area (house / room) it’s unwieldy, heavy and hard to reload, especially with its thirty-two round, drum magazine. On open ground, the Saiga 12 lacks range (the ballistic advantage) and also lacks needed accuracy. I absolutely agree that any gun is better than no gun, but I do caution against bringing a shotgun to a rifle fight.

    I would never be so rude as to tell someone how to run their gunfight, but having taught urban warfare for a number of years, I personally think you would be better served with a suppressed, 16″ barreled AR-15 / M-16 rifle. The AR-15 / M-16 platform is fast handling, quick to reload and one can carry multiple thirty round magazines on one’s person. On open ground, the AR-15 / M-16 will be ballistically on a par with the weapons of your opponents. The AK-47 is also a viable option. I just happen to prefer the ergonomics of AR 15 / M-16 rifle and I like the fact that the bolt locks back after the last round fired on the AR-15 / M-16 rifle, whereas this feature is absent on the AK-47 Rifle.

    Whatever your choice of weapon, practice with it until it becomes an extension of yourself, then practice some more. The goal is to be able to operate your weapons as easily as you operate your car. In other words, without thinking about it. In a firefight, one needs to focus on the enemy, the enemy’s tactics and one’s own tactics. There is no time to focus on the operation of one’s own weapon. BTW; to be viably tactical, one needs a minimum of one-thousand rounds of ammunition for every caliber of combat weapon one plans to deploy.

    Long May You Ride,


  13. Nuke n' Pave Dave Says:

    When Dick Nixon founded the LEAA their original directive was to do a psychological profile on patrolmen in metropolitan areas of two hundred thousand population and larger. What they found was immediately squashed: that the low sixties percentile of said patrolmen had enough of a psychological problem that they had to strap on a gun and badge to be able to go out and interact with the public in a relatively normal manner. In other words, well over half of them were whack jobs of the highest order. Sure looks like things haven’t gotten any better since then. Maybe if we issue them all ten milligrams of Valium daily before they go on shift…

  14. Anonymous Says:


    I watched the video you posted, very interesting, I did not expect .556 range ammo to have more penetration than .308 or other ammo made specifically for penetration.

    However personally when that tactical column kicks in my door and the sausages start filing in, rather than penetration, I would prefer to give them a lead shower of apocalyptic proportion.

    Since the AA12 is not legal for civilians https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c

    The next best option is a saiga 12 with 32 round (or higher) drum and bump/slide fire mechanism.

    Rather than hope your round penetrates the armored area of a target, you can overwhelm that target(s) with so much lead delivery on target that the only end result will be a pile of ground sausage patties on your door step. https://youtu.be/ECea6CUc49Y

    “Once you see it one time then you’ll understand that it is probably the most powerful weapon in the world, there’s no way that anybody within 200 yards can face this weapon and survive it, you just cannot do it, there’s so much lead delivery on target that its just destroying everything in its path.”

    I’m not an expert but I believe the saiga 12 gauge and slide fire is legal in most states, at least where I am, in Texas, it is.

  15. troyez Says:


    -First I need to throw out a warning to all law enforcement personnel who may be reading this comment, so I cannot be held liable for any possible violence done to you and/or your canines.


    Remember what G. Gordon Liddy said in the 1990s? He was speaking of a hypothetical situation where the feds (could be SWAT too) break into your home when you’ve done nothing wrong (it happens A LOT), check it out:
    “Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they’re going to be wearing bulletproof vests.” … “They’ve got a big target on there, ATF. Don’t shoot at that, because they’ve got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots…. Kill the sons of bitches.”
    Now I’m not saying what you should do, just quoting one of Tricky Dick Nixon’s lawyer pals.
    And if the police can shoot citizen’s pet(s) if they feel threatened, shouldn’t it cut both ways? Police dogs are always biting innocent people, what if I’m a concealed-carrier and I’m attacked by a police dog? I can protect myself with my legally-carried firearm, right? The precedent has been set in the Sixth Circuit now, hasn’t it? Am I wrong?



  16. Paladin Says:

    Since the conversation on this thread is moving toward SWAT raids and tactics, the following video is important and should be of interest to those that take their personal safety seriously. I will also post this link on Aging Rebellions, which can be found on FB.



  17. Sieg Says:

    “in the very near future, citizens will be forced to make split second judgments – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary to protect themselves, their loved ones and their animals from being sized by the police.”

    Exactly. When raiding parties are met with fire, who will be to blame? How long must the American People be subjected to the murderous actions of the gun-thugs before they assert their RIGHT to defend their homes, family, and chattel? And “they” wonder why “heroes in blue” get shot.

    When we were raided, I was on the second floor, and heard “police with a warrant” chanted three times, as fast as is possible, at the same time as the flash-bangs came through the lower windows. Fortunately, both of our dogs were in the room with me, and I managed to get them into a small upstairs room before the breaching party hit the door. They lived to bark another day. When this happened, I had my M1A next to my bed, one 20-round mag seated, ten more loaded mags in a carrier-bag next to it. When I first heard the noises outside, I went to the windows overlooking the driveway and saw an MRAP and a line of pigs in Tommy Tactical gear…I wasn’t there for a few minutes, but in a South American treeline. My dog came up beside me to see what was out there, and he broke into my head…only reason we-and a goodly number of piggy’s-are alive today.

    (yes, kids, it’s damn near time)

  18. Britbiker Says:

    When I was much younger I owned a large German shepherd dog who was not aggressive but would put on a good act if someone came in the house uninvited,house was raided by drug squad and dog started barking at the first ones through the door,they were screaming at me to stay still and restrain your dog! Couldn’t do both so I grabbed the dog intending to shut him in the bedroom they hit us both with there nightsticks arrested me and the dog, when they let me go in there morning I go to collect the dog who is nearly dead they had muzzled him with a stretch bandage so tight he couldn’t open his mouth and had trapped his tongue out of his mouth so it was bitten and pouring blood , he also had a large open gash on his head which the vet said looked like the edge of a block of wood ,I tried to get the pigs to pay the vet bill but no luck .Thank Fuck our pigs don’t have guns!

  19. stlrzfan Says:

    When one applies to become a police officer one of the many, many things that must be passed is a psychological evaluation. So reading stories like this, which are so common it is sickening, has made me think that ‘psychopath’ is now a job requirement. Hmmm. Immunity and a gun. And lots and lots and LOTS of people who all passed the same psych test sharing the same hive mind.

  20. Fr. Abraham Says:

    Ya know, for a bunch of self-proclaimed “heroes” who are supposed to be the “brave protectors of society”, cops seem to be the most chickenshit cowardly individuals that ever lived.

    I sure am glad the pizza guy, the UPS guy, or the meter-reader guy don’t possess the same combination of armament and fear. Seriously, think about it. If Pizza Hut drivers displayed this sort of behavior, PETA would give up entirely on attacking the fur & leather industry and declare war on pepperoni!

  21. Mad Dog Says:

    “Police officers,” the court ruled, “ are often forced to make split second Judgments – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”

    This is the same rationale and mind set that the police use to justify murdering people. I guess it would be surprising if dogs were treated any better.

  22. Roswell Says:

    The evolution of our police state continues. I don’t like cops never have and probably never will because I think there’s something fundamentally wrong with someone who just wants to go around imposing their will on other people. The fact is that today’s cops or even worse because they are flat out cowards. There is no longer even pretense that they are concerned with the safety of citizens above their own.. The only concern they have is with their own safety even at the expense of the citizen. Combine the sadistic nature of someone who gets off imposing his will on others and cowardice and you have people that will walk in the door and shoot anything that moves including people’s dogs.

  23. Tom Barker Says:

    Very disturbing article, especially for a dog lover. I and several other writers/researchers on police misconduct have pointed out the problems with the “War” mentality of a small minoirty of police agencies and police officers, especially those in SWAT teams. Not all police officers would shut a defenseless family pet, just like not all members of outlaw motorcycle clubs engage in serious and violent organized crime, but some–an unknown numer–do. The problem on police misconduct is that we have no reliable and accurate statistics on it, particularly “Whoops” raids–wrong house, wrong person–and the shooting of innocent persons or animals. Until some agency or interest group gets behind the gathering of data, Whoops raids and the saluaghter of innocent persons and pets will continue. I applaud the Rebel for his attention to this terrible problem.

  24. Paladin Says:

    Having trained dogs for and competed in Schutzhund (German protection dog trials), I know a little bit about dogs and their mentality. Dogs by nature are pack animals. Living in a household, dogs are part of the family pack. The leader of that family pack, whether a he or she, will be the head of that household.

    Dogs are territorial by nature. In most cases, a family dog will run up to a stranger, stop short and bark. This behavior is typical of a dog defending the pack’s territory. Unless trained to do so, rarely will a dog back up its bark with a bite, and this is where the expression “The dog’s bark is worse than its bite” comes from.

    Contrary to what cops may think, cops are pretty stupid (don’t ask me how I know this) and in general know very little beyond what they can quote from their State’s penal code book. Other than the standard excuse of: “I was in fear for my safety”, cops will also hide behind a universal, generalized law that requires dogs to be under the direct control of their owners, even when fenced in on the owners property and within the home.

    There are some things that one can do to minimize the excuses cops can and will use when abusing or killing one’s dogs. They are: 1) remove or refrain from using signs that proclaim “Beware of Dog”. Displaying this sign tells the world that you own a problem dog and that you are aware of that fact. 2) remove or refrain from using signs that proclaim “Guard Dog on Duty”. This sign tells the world that you have a purpose trained dog on the premises. This sign can also run one afoul of municipal ordinances that require special licensing for the possession of such dogs. Displaying either sign can negate one’s home owner’s insurance regarding a dog bite claim. 3) naming one’s dog Killer, Chopper, Nitro, etc. won’t be to one’s advantage if one finds oneself in court, having to defend against a law suite involving a dog bite.


  25. Brad H Says:

    I was going to post something on this article but Popeye and Paladin hit the hi points.

    As usual, well informed readers spread information to others.

  26. NCRider Says:

    I hope the Regulars here do not mind me taking it upon myself to say this. But to those that may not give it much thought, this story is another reason why all of us should donate to this site. Its not about how much we enjoy the AR, but rather the importance of what Rebel does. Even those that do not comment, please be sure to donate regularly, anything helps, so Rebel can continue his fight of making people aware.



  27. TX_Biker Says:

    Well Said Paladin

  28. Hold_The_Phone Says:

    Well said as always Paladin.

    They get a free pass to murder beloved family members in cold blood. The bastards get to kill an animal who scared and frightened by being woken up by loud noises and strangers moving to their pack leader aggressively. Hell, my dogs bark when they hear my bike pull up because “DADDY IS HOME!!!” About the only thing my dogs would harm is a bowl of kibble.

    Yet, they call us the violent animals.

  29. Only me Says:

    After the Santa Barbara illegal search and seizure debacle a few years back someone I know was raided one morning as the family was getting ready for their day. As they came through the door he had the foresight and enough time to shove his dogs into the backyard. That saved his dogs but then the masked motherfuckers snatched his baby out of the high chair and ran down the street with the child screaming in terror.


  30. Rock G Says:

    Well this may not get published but here go’s. I have 4 dogs I love more than most people. I find this information disturbing to the point I’m actually angry. The videos are horrific and depict a Nazi state with storm troopers kicking in front doors only to shoot and eventually kill the family dog. (After it wails and cry’s out in pain) for its whole family to listen to. All this shit for what? Because the guy sold some pot, stole a car or at least they suspect he did? Any asshole cop worth a paycheck would investigate and know in advance the guy had a wife, kids, a large breed dog, a fence, a two story house and pink fucking curtains in the fucking kitchen window, WTF! So why take the guy down in his own house at 3-4am and endanger the guy’s family? Because they don’t give a fuck about the guy’s family that’s why. To cops it’s more important to protect themselves than anyone else.
    Cops never rush in anywhere to save anyone in a dangerous situation. They prefer to hide outside behind a tree like a bitch and wait until 100 of their cop buddies show up to help. Remember Columbine High School and the two kids that leisurely walked around inside killing other kids at random while the cops sat outside waiting for their cop buddies to show up? Yep, kids died because the cops are more worried about their own safety than yours or mine.
    So why do cops come in your home and kill your dog when it barks at them? Because they want to feel safe from getting possibly bitten by a dog that will naturally defend its home and family after all isn’t that why many of us have dogs, they protect us and because we love them of course. Combine this cop aggression/pussy fear along with the very real ideology that lots of cops just can’t wait to shoot their fucking gun and a barking dog is just the right medicine to cure their fucking itch. When is the last time you read or heard a story in the news where a cop was killed by the family dog? How the fuck about NEVER!
    Want to change this asshole cop behavior? The fastest way to do that is make them pay. Cities, County’s whatever don’t like having to pay out cash because elected officials have to answer to taxpayers at election time. Combined with the fact almost everyone is an animal lover it wouldn’t take too much to recruit the ASPCA and other animal rights advocates to help you locally get an ordinance or law enacted requiring cops to a) Determine if a large breed dog might be present on a property before a search and seizure warrant can be issued. b) Require cops breaching a residence door to wear protective arm and shin guards to safely handle dogs attempting to bite them. c) Require cops to bring an animal control pole to warrant serving activity. d) Provide monetary damages to be paid to the pet owner if these procedures are not followed perhaps as much as $10,000. The cops already wear bullet proof gear and lots already have arm and shin guards so this is not a big deal. They already have a big steel door breaching devise that they drop on the ground right after smashing in your door with it so if they don’t need the animal control pole after all they can drop that too.
    We need to change their thinking on this. There are roughly 80 million dogs in households across America. Among all types of law enforcement agency’s there are roughly 900,000 law enforcement people some in the field and some in offices. Cops are much more likely to enter our homes to encounter our pets than our pet is likely to enter their police station. That concept alone dictates they need to be trained to handle family pets safely instead of killing them like the chicken shit assholes have been doing.
    Once again, when was the last time you read a story about a cop being killed by a dog? NEVER!

  31. popeye Says:

    Yet killing or injuring a police dog will get you 10 years under federal guidelines. Unless of course you are a cop who kills a police dog – thats OK. Anyone else see a pattern here?

  32. rocco151 Says:

    ….the detectives arrested Jones away from the home but went to his girlfriend’s home where he stayed once in a while and executed the raid anyway…shot two dogs just because they were on the premises…and then a judge actually has the temerity to state that this behavior is from the “perspective of objectively reasonable officers”…once again I have to agree with the observation of Paladin earlier…if the actions of these raids is reasonable then all bets about protecting yourself and your family (and pets) are off !

  33. Paladin Says:

    “Police officers,” the court ruled, “ are often forced to make split second Judgments – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”

    in the very near future, citizens will be forced to make split second judgments – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary to protect themselves, their loved ones and their animals from being sized by the police.


  34. Phuquehed Says:

    It’s just another way for the country’s worst criminal syndicate – the cops – to do what they please. After all, who but a pussy with a badge and a gun feels they need to shoot every animal that looks crooked at them? None of the pussies have any shame, so them admitting that they’re the biggest pussies on the planet doesn’t seem to bother them. I bet deep down though their wives and girlfriends want to tell them what pussies they think they are.

  35. Angry White American Says:

    Dog killing cops are HEARTLESS CUNTS. Dog killing SWAT goons are RABID HEARTLESS CUNTS.

Leave a Reply