Lawsuit Claims Detroit Dog Death Squad

Scene of dog shooting, Detroit (courtesy WDIV4)

“A shocking new lawsuit claims that Detroit police officers serving a search warrant needlessly killed three dogs inside the home before they allegedly threatened the owner,” dailymail.co.uk reports. “Homeowner Nikita Smith was horrified to find a bloody scene after officers allegedly shot one of her three dogs through a bathroom door.” “They went around and killed them. Like a death squad,” Smith’s lawyer Chris Olson told the New York Daily News. The cops had a warrant to search her home and found marijuana on the premises. So there is that. Cash-strapped Detroit recently paid an owner $100k after they shot his canine companion. [h/t TP]

 

comments

  1. avatar David B says:

    Need context. What kind of dogs, were they acting aggressively, was there a history of complaints from neighbors about these dogs. They executed a valid search warrant and found what they were looking for. I see no problem here even with this biased post against the police.

    1. avatar Kapeltam says:

      The dogs were locked away while the officers conducted the search. One got out and sat next to its owner and they shot and killed it. Another was pregnant and in the basement. Shot and killed that one. Third was locked in a bathroom and they shot through the door to kill it. At least 2 posed no threat to the officers, according to the article.

      1. avatar David B says:

        I don’t believe everything I read on the internet. Was the source the druggie homeowner? A journalist bent on vengeance? You can’t rush to judgment before all the facts are known.

        1. avatar Kapeltam says:

          I agree wholeheartedly. Their is bias everywhere and without hearing the officers side, for all we know there were never dogs and the woman hallucinated it. Or she refused to move the dogs when they wanted to search those areas and the dogs attacked the officers. But as an outsider with time to think, couldn’t animal control have been called to remove the dogs?

        2. avatar 16V says:

          I agree the facts should all be in evidence before we pass judgement. There are some scenarios where a cop has good cause to defend himself from said animals.

          The problem is some cops routinely shoot dogs, people routinely hear about it, cops are seldom punished for even the most egregious violations. The bias is that we’ve all heard this story before, and people are tired of cops just killing animals to not inconvenience themselves or because they are so stupid they couldn’t tell a dog just wanted to play with them.

        3. avatar Andrew Lias says:

          My question is how much pot was found? Finding a pound or two is a far different thing than finding a few joints or some residue. Was this really a drug dealer?

        4. avatar Ironhorse says:

          > don’t believe everything I read on the internet.

          >druggie homeowner

          Yeah, sure. You’re totally unbiased and are withholding all judgement. Thanks for the laugh.

        5. avatar Another Robert says:

          I don’t give a tinker’s damn how much pot was found. Were the dogs a viable threat to the officers or not? that’s the question.

        6. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          I don’t believe any thing reported by a person of such low character and suspect morals that they became a cop.

      2. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

        Bull

        1. avatar Kapeltam says:

          Care to elaborate?

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          Not bull. Dogs.

    2. avatar Icabod says:

      When you do read the article you learn there were three dogs, their breeds, where in the house each was and the sequence in which they were killed. Spoiler, the last dog was the only n in the bathroom. The office, open the door, looked at the dog, closed the door, asked if he should also shot the dog. Then shot through the closed door.

    3. avatar David T says:

      I agree. The breed of the dogs IS absolutely relevant. They have strategically omitted the breed from the article which suggests Pit bull or Rottweiler.

      While many of those dogs are actually sweet-natured, the people who seek out those breeds usually have (1) a character problem or (2) a judgment problem. My hat is off to those willing to rescue them from shelters and unfortunate situations.
      ,
      Anyway, I need to hear the cops side of the story.

      Also, if it turns out that the cops shot a dachshund they should be executed.

      1. avatar David T says:

        The Daily Mail article specifies two pit bulls and a rottweiler. My mistake.

        Side note: Why is England telling us about something that happened in Detroit?

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          The Daily Mail is something of a scream sheet. They report on shocking news wherever it’s found, and have a habit of picking on us former colony types.

          I have a friend in England who regards the Daily Mail policy as “If it might make someone barf, print it!”

    4. avatar arc says:

      They were locked in a fucking bathroom. What kind of dog or behavior is irrelevant when they are secured in a bathroom of all places!

  2. avatar Shire-man says:

    Dogs lives > cop lives 100% of the time.
    Even an aggressive dog. Somebody trained it to be that way. It’s as much a victim as a pimp controlled prostitute. The cop on the other hand chose to be that way.

    1. avatar David T says:

      moron

  3. avatar WadeAK says:

    Well I guarantee there wouldn’t been cop walking out of my house. Yeah sounds crazy but I love my dogs more than asshat cops. At the very least those cops should be fired. Sue the shit out of them too.

    1. avatar David B says:

      I hope it doesn’t violate TTAG’s flaming policy to call you an idiot for fantasizing about killing cops in the comments section. You are saying that the life of an animal is worth more than another’s man life, your liberty, and the respect and rule of law. Your crazy talks breeds a society that is immoral, evil, and chaotic. Let me say it clearly–the 2A doesn’t need enemies with friends like you. People who advocate murder are mentally unbalanced and should not have access to firearms.

      1. avatar 16V says:

        A loyal, trusted, companion as opposed to some chuckleheads who broke into your house, then killed your animal under color of law for no apparent reason.

        So, you’re ok with that?

        1. avatar Katy says:

          They broke in for a good and valid reason, under the duly authorized color of law. Whether or not they had a valid reason for killing the animals is disputed.

          And let’s be honest, under your definition almost nobody should ever be shot. You think that soldier had a choice or is he controlled by his countries leaders? That thug you fear breaking into your home – he is doing it under the orders of a gang leader who recruited him when he was young and impressionable.

          The cop coming into your home? He was a child of a home with strict discipline and absolute obedience to the rules, but suffered a severe dog attack when he was young. He only knows moral absolutes and irrationally fears dogs, and not by choice. He is the loyal and trusted companion of his partner, wife, and children. And you would rather kill him than animals who were bred and trained to be aggressive and to harm humans.

          So, I ask, who’s the monster?

        2. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

          Katy – The cops broke in to capture and imprison the homeowners for a mallum prohibitum offense – possession and possibly sale of marijuana. You call that a good and valid reason. I call it immoral. Just following orders doesn’t cut it as a moral defense for a crime. Yes, a soldier too is personally responsible for their actions.

        3. avatar jwtaylor says:

          “You think that soldier had a choice or is he controlled by his countries leaders?”
          Yes, a soldier has 100% control of his actions. As a soldier, I was the one ultimately accountable for whatever I did or failed to do. And so is every other adult.
          And Katy, it’s pretty clear to any rational adult, that guy walking around murdering defenseless animals, regardless if it was out of an irrational fear or just plan good old sick fun, that guy’s the monster.

        4. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          They broke in for a good and valid reason, under the duly authorized color of law.

          Katy, they thought it was a “drug house.” Doesn’t appear that it was. Also, remember that every single cop failed to show up in court to prosecute the charges so they were dropped.

          So no, it doesn’t appear that they had a good and valid reason.

        5. avatar 16V says:

          Katy, You were going for subversive humor, yes?

          They broke in for a good and valid reason, under the duly authorized color of law. Whether or not they had a valid reason for killing the animals is disputed.

          None of them showed for the hearing. That reason is valid how again? They knew it was BS in retrospect, why didn’t they know it initially? The killing of the animals is still a question. Let’s get answers and hold them accountable.

          And let’s be honest, under your definition almost nobody should ever be shot. You think that soldier had a choice or is he controlled by his countries leaders? That thug you fear breaking into your home – he is doing it under the orders of a gang leader who recruited him when he was young and impressionable.

          What does this have to do with the question at hand? At all? If you’ve read my posts over the years, you’d know I have precisely zero issues killing those who need killed.

          The cop coming into your home? He was a child of a home with strict discipline and absolute obedience to the rules, but suffered a severe dog attack when he was young. He only knows moral absolutes and irrationally fears dogs, and not by choice. He is the loyal and trusted companion of his partner, wife, and children. And you would rather kill him than animals who were bred and trained to be aggressive and to harm humans.

          This is where I’m almost positive you’re going meta (or have serious mental issues). I’ve met hundreds of cops over the years, to a man and woman they all came from seriously effed-up family environments, or had some traumatic event that drew them into policing. Not a one is some average guy/gal who thought “I’m gonna serve people”.

          Andy Griffin has been the 1% since the early ’70s.

      2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        One drop of blood from a citizen’s dog is worth more than a cop’s life.

        1. avatar Frank in VA says:

          The Animal Liberation Front would be happy to have you as a member. They probably feel the same way about deer and the hunters who shoot them.

          Most POTG, not so much.

    2. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

      Bhahaha guarantee huh?

  4. avatar 16V says:

    Another grand and glorious victory in the Drug War!

    The good people of Detroit are saved from the horrors of the evil weed, and all the violence it brings! Our fearless heroes even stopped the evil animals who surround this vile dealer of death and depravity!

    /sarc

    Nothing better to do in DET than bust a weed dealer? Are you effen kidding me?

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      in 20min from “unjustified doggycide” to more BS pothead propaganda. A rationalization a day keeps the DEA away.

      No Hitler comparisons yet.

      1. avatar Wood says:

        sieg heil!

      2. avatar 16V says:

        neiowa, I haven’t smoked pot since highschool, which was a long time ago.

        You know what really does damage to your body? Alcohol. Yet, we let people choose, or not choose, to destroy their livers, kidneys and the like, because it makes them feel good.

        Pot has some long-term issues as well, though nowhere near alcohol. You know what has almost no deleterious side effects? Opiates. A person can do opiates their whole (long) life and have nothing bad to show for it, save for they have trouble pooping at times.

        The problem with “drugs” is that they’re illegal and as such cost a hundred times more than if they were pharma pure and sold OTC. The cost is what destroys lives, and leads to crime. The drugs and the addiction? Meh, rich folks survive it, and recover, all the time.

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          Exactly. The entire “War on Drugs” charade is part of the heritage of a segment of the American population who came to this continent in order to have a place they could be the ones imposing a religion-based tyranny on everyone.

        2. avatar doesky2 says:

          @Roymond

          …and your statement is proven out by how much more religious the United States has gotten since its founding days.

          /sarc

        3. avatar Roymond says:

          Religion isn’t the issue, it’s the attitude that it’s okay to use the law to make others conform to our prejudices and preferences. That attitude has gotten much worse.

  5. avatar Priest of the center mass says:

    There’s always more to the story people.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      Yes, there is more to the story. Every single cop failed to show up in court to defend their break-in and warrant to search. Hmmmm…

  6. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    No, no, no! Idiots! It’s first we kill all the LAWYERS!

  7. avatar Clay says:

    I hope justice is properly served.

  8. avatar Groutboy says:

    Well , I’m not so sure any more..There has to be Police Accountability. Their Public Servants whos job it is to Uphold the US Constitution/Bill of Rights. This incident happened recently in Boston, Massachusetts and was captured by citizens who “Blogged it.”

    https://mobile.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10209703048076842&id=1349351186

  9. avatar Groutboy says:

    FYI : Also, This Police incident that happened in downtown Boston, MA. Was in a number of New England news reports. And is now under investigation by the state. CCTV surveillance was being pulled from buildings all round the area. I don’t know about you…But, I wouldn’t want to be stopped by that BPD “officer” and debate the 2nd amendment…

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    Calm down, people. Cops are allowed to kill all the dogs they want. Also, they can kill unarmed black people. In fact, I think it’s a job requirement.

    When cops serve a warrant, they are allowed to break into the wrong home and hold guns to the head of young children because cops cannot be expected to read the address on the warrant and compare it to the address on the building and kids are dangerous.

    Shooting of bystanders is, of course, discouraged but forgiven. Pedophilia, ephebophilia, hebephilia and other forms of degeneracy are also discouraged but, c’mon, when a cop does it, it’s not a big deal.

    However, stealing union funds is a hanging offense. Because ya gotta draw the line somewhere.

    1. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

      You stole my lines Ralph…yeah killing 3 dogs for pot. Way to go po-leece.

  11. avatar Roymond says:

    It’s important to note that none of the cops involved showed up for court, and the drug charges were dismissed. When the cops involved don’t show up to court, that tends to indicate that their case is lousy.

  12. avatar cisco kid says:

    It would have been to inconvenient to call in a dog catcher who could have removed the dogs. Lets face facts the dogs and the house were not going anywhere soon and how long would it have taken to get them professionally removed. As one Cop told me years ago “The Court System is structured in our favor so do not try and convict us on anything because we are the law,we do not just uphold it”. In other words “The State” never prosecutes its own henchmen because it is the henchmen that keep the ruling elite in power.

  13. avatar cisco kid says:

    Its interesting to note that Portugal had such an epidemic of heroin addicts that a full 1 per cent of the population was taking it. Rather than criminalize them they decided to give free medical treatment and free needles for all that wanted it. The result was the millions spent convicting and incarcerating people could then be used to prevent further addiction, save peoples lives that were hooked on the drug, promote education and run drug dealers out of business because when you can get drugs for free why would you be dumb enough to pay for them. Of course all this makes to much common sense and something like this would never pass the American Republican Controlled Congress. I wonder if are they getting kick backs from the drug dealers to prevent any meaningful programs from ever being implemented. Logic would indicate this must be the case.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Portugal has a population of 10 million, so if 1% of the population was hooked, that’s 100,000 people.

      There are neighborhoods in New York City with as many junkies.

      Honestly, I’d like to give the Portuguese system a chance. Maybe they can try it out in, say, Los Angeles.

  14. avatar Wood says:

    Interesting to me that we use senseless cruelty to animals as a warning indicator of serious antisocial and pre-serial-killer identification, but folks like to defend cops for the same behavior.

    Here we have a situation which the cops couldn’t possibly mischaracterize as “rapidly evolving” or whatever other Newspeak they use to justify their actions. Once the subject of the warrant was secured and unable to “destroy evidence”, they could absolutely have called animal control.

    This is just the same old criminal wanton waste by agents of ze state. Move along, or you’ll be next.

    Why do so many of you default to believe the cops were in the right? Or disbelieve the “civilians” story? As a group, cops commit more crime than non-leos who are licensed to carry. Why would would you ever default to trust them?? They need to earn it like everyone else.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      In most departments, >50% of the dog shootings are performed by <10% of the officers.
      Most would call them sociopaths or psychopaths.
      I don't know why the vast majority of cops aren't clamoring loudly for removal of the psychos from the force.

      In some departments, the pathology is institutionalized. Take Chitcago, Albuquerque, and Detroit for example. And the wanton behavior isn't limited to animal cruelty.

  15. avatar Wilson says:

    This is one of those things that often goes both ways. Sometimes cops have a legit need to shoot a dog that’s threatening them. Other times it’s fairly clear they’re doing it for kicks or because it’s SOP.

    To me the real issue here is the war on drugs. These guys were looking for pot, I mean seriously what a joke. If you think pot is seriously harmful to people or causes people to go rob liquor stores or something… well you’re an idiot.

    Drugs should be legal, yup all drugs should be legal. The arguments for “drug control”, at their root, are exactly the same as those for “gun control”. They both boil down to the same philosophy: people are irresponsible with inanimate objects so it’s up to the State to regulate your life because you’re likely too stupid to live without hurting yourself or someone else. Sorry, I just don’t buy that argument. Drugs cause murder and mayhem the way guns cause murder and mayhem or the way spoons make people fat or pens are cause misspelled words and terrible grammar.

    Yes, some people will do stupid things with just about anything they can get their hands on that doesn’t mean the government needs to get involved. We see what’s happened when they do, we all lose freedom and our rights are trampled. Under the pretense of controlling “dangerous” substances we’ve basically shredded the Bill of Rights and destroyed Amendments 4,5,6 and 8. We’ve given away a ton of our rights and equipped the cops like paramilitaries while giving them the authority to act like the Stasi all in the name of combating drugs, a battle btw, we spend billions on each year and are LOSING.

    You don’t even have to do drugs to get caught up in this. The cops bust some guy and turn him into a CI in exchange for not filing charges. He starts randomly giving them an addresses of “dealers”. One of them happens to be yours. All of a sudden its 0300, the door’s getting kicked in, flashbangs are going off, your kids are screaming, men in tactical gear are shooting your dogs as well as possibly you and your kids. In the best case, your dogs are dead, children terrified, you’re out a door, your house is trashed and you won’t even get a “We’re sorry, wrong address” from the PD. If it all goes pear-shaped, well they’ll just light your ass up for holding a sandwich and get away with it. Hopefully you had life insurance ’cause the PD ain’t paying a dime for wrongfully killing you in your own house.

  16. avatar Watts' Twat says:

    #DogsLivesMatter

    Yeah I want to hear more before passing judgement on the cops, is there body-cam video? Also the officers involved NOT showing up to court for a case that warranted a raid is awfully suspicious.

    We should be marching in the streets,

    No Milk Bones! No Peace!

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      If you’d take the trouble to use the link provided and read the DailyMail article, you might be able to make a more informed judgment. Scheech.

  17. avatar Matt N. says:

    l think body cams should be mandatory on all cops. I’m not talking about the kind with the privacy buttons that will always be conveniently engaged at critical points of interaction. I mean always on, all the time. These guys should be held accountable for their actions just like the rest of us.

  18. avatar Spartacus Khan says:

    Anyone pointing a gun at one of my family members, pets included, is committing suicide by homeowner. I don’t really care what authority you think you have in my house or what excuse you use to break in or what the consequences to myself may be. The well-being of a threat – ANY threat – is of less than no concern to me beyond ending that threat.

    1. avatar LHW says:

      Prepare for those guns to be turned towards you and the triggers to be pulled.

  19. avatar Garfield says:

    DOG LIVES MATT ER

  20. avatar _________ says:

    ………for weed? No heroin? No child sex trafficking? No suicide vests? Just weed? This country is fucking disintegrating.

  21. avatar Brian pulled a weapon on a big dog growling at him in the street, then the dog sniffed his hand and he scratched the dog's butt and made a friend and made the big dog go back into his yard. says:

    Who the f(** does that to dogs?

  22. avatar Warlocc says:

    I saw the picture of the bathroom door, and bathroom behind it.

    Even if the others were justified (which, judging by that picture, they weren’t), that was some sociopathic behavior right there. You can see the bullet holes in the door. There’s no way they can say that the dog behind the door posed a threat.

    Drugs or not, this Is way overstepping authority.

    I agree with some of the other commenters. At some point you have to treat criminal activity as criminal activity, and if someone comes into your home shooting at your family or belongings, it’s time to return fire.

    1. avatar cisco kid says:

      I do agree with you but reality is a far different matter. The cops do not uphold the law, they are the law and the corrupt judicial is set up to protect them every step of the way and the cops know it. They can break into the wrong house, kill the wrong people, trash the inside of the house and confiscate anything they desire and reality dictates most people do not have near enough money or political clout to do anything about it. Any good Liberal lawyer can warn you what you will face if you attempt to take on the “establishment”. I often wonder if the KGB learned everything it knows from the CIA.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email