It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Kratos40
a reply to: nighthawk1954
Unfortunately, you will be seeing more of this. More cops are as they retire will be replaced by Iraq/Afghanistan ex-soldiers who are untreated for PTSD and have excess testosterone due to the MAOA gene.
This is why we have douchebags patroling our streets to bring in more revenue. Sad but true.
originally posted by: boohoo
originally posted by: sirhumperdink
the pay outs will always be less than the pay ins so no thats a horrible idea
all you would be doing is dumping tons of money into insurance companies
if anything they would lobby for more dog shootings so more people would fear enough to buy the insurance
The purpose is not to get a large payout from the insurance company after the dogs death by cop. The purpose if to make the insurance company get involved on the legal side, once a dog is killed, especially in large numbers among policy holders. The legal effect against Law Enforcement would be even greater, if all dogs shot by police happened to be covered by the same insurer, as well. They would likely draw up real data, about police shooting dogs, to strengthen their cases.
Remember the insurance company would have to pay out the claim, for a dogs death by cop. Do they want to pay it or would they rather the negligent police department pay it instead? If there was an insured horse and a cop shot it for feeling threatened you better believe the insurance companies would spend the money in court fees to get the department to pay up. Once the case is settled I also guarantee the department, on the losing end, would make a long standing public policy against shooting insured horses (some horses can be insured for MILLIONS of dollars BTW). You never know what kind of precedents are out there on the legal books for animals covered under Animal & Livestock Mortality Insurance. Which the insurance companies have certainly fought and paid for through legal expenses over many decades. Law Enforcement certainly doesn't know ANY of them and could end up unpleasantly surprised in a court room after a wrongful dog shooting.
As I stated, if the number of dog owners carrying Animal & Livestock Mortality increases, the chances of a dog being shot by police that is carrying such insurance also increases. Since we know the individual police officers will not be prosecuted and that the laws will not change, the only solution is to make insurance companies take up the fight for us, based SOLELY on the fact that the insurance company doesn't want to be paying out money every time a scared cop shots a non threatening dog. Just like my horse example above, if cops shoot enough insured dogs in a negligent manner, the insurance companies are going to be make it a big headache for any department that does so willy-nilly. To my knowledge, there have been no dogs shot that were carrying Animal & Livestock Mortality Insurance. However, there have been more than a few breeding show dogs shot by law enforcement and in those cases the Police departments settled for much more then the standard $300 plus medical expenses. Imagine if those dogs had been insured as well, the pay out amount in damages would likely have been much higher. Also remember, the insurance covering the individual officer and the departments insurers will also be involved in the legal discussion about payout. Three insurance companies talking about a claim, involving a negligent cop whom shot a dog due to irrational fear, can't be good for institutional public policies that encourage officers to shoot civilian owned dogs on a whim.