Discouraging Law Enforcement from shooting dogs, by taking out an Animal Mortality Insurance policy

To the mods: I tried to post this to the "posse comitatus" forum, but could not. Can anyone move it there?

Since we all know this kind of "accidental shooting of pet dogs" seems to be pretty common today with Law Enforcement and we know that the officers are only going to get a "slap on the wrist", due to the dogs being considered low value "property", what can we do if the criminal courts are going to ignore these kinds of events? Could people perhaps get insurance companies to lobby on their behalf, indirectly, by "insuring their dogs" like ranchers do with livestock?

I for example, have sport dogs that I have spent a lot of money and time training, with officially recorded titles and such (no breeding). Could people like me start insuring their dogs as "livestock" per say, with an insured valuation? Not to necessarily recover the cost of the dog, if killed, BUT rather to get the insurance companies to fight on my behalf after having to file a claim.

Here's what I mean, say dog owners start collectively taking out "Animal Mortality Insurance" on their pet dogs in large numbers, like an AKC breed group for example (10,000+ people sometimes per breed club, millions AKC wide), using an insurance provider like Hartford, under their livestock insurance policies(dogs can be added to such policies, usually police or working dogs).

How many dogs shot by police, per year, do you think the insurance companies would tolerate, before they begin to put the screws into the legislators?

You don't see many horses, cows, hogs or other livestock getting shot very often by law enforcement. I think the reason why, is because they are an established commodity with an insured value. If that same kind of insuring practice was done on dogs in larger numbers, I believe the "accidental shooting of pet dogs" by law enforcement will also decline.

What if ALL the people whom had dogs shot by police also had taken out Mortality Insurance policy on their dogs with Hartford, even for a nominal payout amount. Wouldn't it then be pretty much make a slam dunk civil case against the department because the dogs were an insured asset and not just a pet? Now imagine if just 10% of the dogs that have been shot by police also had such a a policy and insured value, the actuaries would be going crazy.

I've been wondering about how civil law would handle such a situation, especially when the livestock is carried under an Animal & Livestock Mortality Insurance Policy. I've recently posted this idea to a previous thread on ATS, about civilian owned dogs being shot by police, with no warrant nor permission to enter the property:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In that thread, I pondered a hypothetical situation occurring with livestock getting shot by Law Enforcement, in contrast to dogs. Seems I was correct and such a thing has occurred, which may have precedence in the USA courts (yes, I know this particular video is of Canada Police). Here is a link to that ATS thread which I also posted to:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now to clarify further, the purpose in taking out an Animal & Livestock Mortality policy on a dog, is not to get a large payout from the insurance company after the dogs death, by cop. The purpose is to make the insurance company get involved on the legal side, once a dog is killed in a negligent manner by an LEO. The legal effect against Law Enforcement would be even greater, if an increasing number dogs shot by police also happened to be covered by Animal & Livestock Mortality Policies. The insurance companies would likely draw up real data, about police shooting dogs, to strengthen their cases.

Since 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 the claim 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 LEO department, on the losing end, would also make a long standing public policy against shooting insured horses (some horses can be insured for MILLIONS of dollars BTW). Also we don't know what kind of precedents are out there on the legal books, for animals covered under Animal & Livestock Mortality Insurance. Which, at this point, the insurance companies have certainly fought and paid for through legal expenses, over the course of many decades. Law Enforcement certainly doesn't know ANY of these laws and could end up unpleasantly surprised in a court room, after a wrongful dog shooting which was covered under an Animal & Livestock Mortality insurance policy.

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 also 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, under questionable circumstances. Just like my horse example above, if cops shoot enough insured dogs in a negligent manner, the insurance companies are going to be making it a big headache for any department that lets it officers do 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 typical $300, plus immediate medical expenses. Imagine if those dogs had been insured as well, with a specific dollar value, with a pay out amount on the policy. The damages found in court would likely have been much higher at the end of the day. 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. Imagine the possibility of a cop whom shoots dogs negligently becoming uninsured individually and uninsurable departmentally.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the insurance angle? Does anyone here have experience with livestock mortality insurance? Is it possible to have a custom policy written up, that only covers accidental death by Law Enforcement personnel? How would an underwriter respond to such a request? My guess is that such an event would be considered very rare, with low risk to the insurer. So, would that mean a person could get low premium coverage, on a dog, with an established insured value, based on Animal & Livestock Mortality Insurance standards? The AKC already works with Hartford providing Dog Club insurance, I'd imagine they would be interested in expanding their markets that increase their overall revenue.

Part of the reason that this country is screwed up is because insurance companies are involved in the law making and they really shouldn't be. I wouldn't want to give them any more power than they have now which is way too much.

a reply to: boohoo

That's a great idea and it made me think of another.

Maybe we can get insurance providers to provide insurance for "beating-to-death-by-government" policies or "shot-while-unarmed-by-police" policies. I would hate to see the big insurance companies be the ones to finally get some tough regulations on police through but, hey, an enemy of my enemy is kind of like a friend and all that.

a reply to: boohoo

I read your post concerning the cow. I know of many folks that carry insurance on their companion animals, smart thing to do If you breed them. There is also health insurance for pets. Death policies I think could and should cover death by cop, and would be a major deterrent for frightened, trigger happy LE.

Insurers will pretty much write policies for individual needs if the buyer is willing to pay for it. The problem I see in this is the types of neighborhoods where most dogs are shot may not be the demographics that would support any type of trend in this direction. A lot of folks would have to take part in order for premiums to be affordable.

Given that in most states pets are considered property I'm wondering if home owners insurance covers the wrongful death of a pet? It certainly does if they bite some one.

While I appreciate your sentiment it would not force the police to pay for killing your pet unnecessarily. To make it effective the police would be the ones who would have to take out those policies. Otherwise you are paying for it along with other policy holders.

originally posted by: JHumm
Part of the reason that this country is screwed up is because insurance companies are involved in the law making and they really shouldn't be. I wouldn't want to give them any more power than they have now which is way too much.

To be blunt, we have run out of options, civil lawsuits by individual has proven to be infective in regard to negligent pet shootings by LEO's. I'm not going to wait for an "accident", this is the only proactive thing I can think of that "could" change public policies on this issue.

Please don't comment any further unless you are familiar with Animal & Livestock Mortality Insurance Policies.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
While I appreciate your sentiment it would not force the police to pay for killing your pet unnecessarily. To make it effective the police would be the ones who would have to take out those policies. Otherwise you are paying for it along with other policy holders.

You are taking a simpletons view. The individual officer and the department both take out separate insurance polices, per the officers employment. All three will be engaging with each other should a claim be filed. In this case it would be the dog owner initiating it. The goal is not to be "compensated" for the dogs death, but to attempt to render the individual officer uninsurable, if possible. Which is more likely to happen if three insurance companies end up at the arbitration table or court together discussing one individuals mishaps.

originally posted by: Witness2008
Given that in most states pets are considered property I'm wondering if home owners insurance covers the wrongful death of a pet? It certainly does if they bite some one.

This has typically not been effective. The dog owner usually gets little more than $300 because they are considered pets or low value property by the insurance company and the courts. The Animal & Livestock Morality Insurance "elevates" the dog to "more than a pet" status. Remember the purpose is not to be "compensated" its to establish the dog as a valuable commodity that must be treated accordingly. You don't see cops bashing in the windows of a Bentley all that often, but they'll smash up old beater Honda Civic's all day. Even the tow guys are more careful with Bentley's, just in case they get a chance to auction it later. I'm sure the insurance policies that the department and the individual officer carry, frown upon the physical bashing of exotically expensive cars.

a reply to: JHumm

Given they have this power and aren't going away, why not put it to good use like in cases such as these?

a reply to: boohoo
Do police officers have to post bonds like other government officials do? If so, one might be able to sue and attach the officer's bond (or the department's bond). Bond companies revoke bonds after they have to pay out on them, and without the bond, the individual or organization cannot continue in an official capacity. This would work for everything from dog killings to police brutality cases. Need a legal eagle to weigh in on this.

originally posted by: boohoo
You are taking a simpletons view. The individual officer and the department both take out separate insurance polices, per the officers employment. All three will be engaging with each other should a claim be filed. In this case it would be the dog owner initiating it. The goal is not to be "compensated" for the dogs death, but to attempt to render the individual officer uninsurable, if possible. Which is more likely to happen if three insurance companies end up at the arbitration table or court together discussing one individuals mishaps.

And you are taking the fascist view. In case you missed the last five years there has been a pretty heated debate about forcing people to purchase health insurance. Now you want to for people to purchase livestock insurance?

Who do you think is going to pay that? If you say the department or the officer you obviously do not understand how your municipal taxes function in regards compensating them. We will end up paying it.

And you call me a simpleton.

To be blunt, why didn't you ask this question about all of the unarmed, or otherwise not a threat, PEOPLE who have been shot by police without consequence?

And another thing is that these shootings are not "accidental " they are very much on purpose. If anything the insurance companies should mandate that the cops pass an IQ test with a decent score and some common sense, like don't go into a dog's yard uninvited.

a reply to: boohoo

I donno, it hasn't help much to prevent the killing of humans by rabid cops.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
And you are taking the fascist view. In case you missed the last five years there has been a pretty heated debate about forcing people to purchase health insurance. Now you want to for people to purchase livestock insurance?

Who do you think is going to pay that? If you say the department or the officer you obviously do not understand how your municipal taxes function in regards compensating them. We will end up paying it.

And you call me a simpleton.

You are simply trying to derail the discussion, please bow out now. Your comments are not contributing in any way to the discussion at hand, which is to collect procedural and legal knowledge about Animal & Livestock insurance claims. You have been outed as a shill, please find another place to camp out and troll.

I NEVER said anything about mandatory insurance coverage. I said more people should try taking out policies, so that they can be covered by the insurance companies legal teams, when their dogs are accidentally killed by LEO's. You are also pretending to forget that I mentioned a concept involving the overall "insurability" of an officer, once they have caused too much property damage. Insured dogs as valuable property is a possible means to lessen the lethal force of LEO's against dogs.

originally posted by: JHumm
To be blunt, why didn't you ask this question about all of the unarmed, or otherwise not a threat, PEOPLE who have been shot by police without consequence?

originally posted by: Aliensun
I donno, it hasn't help much to prevent the killing of humans by rabid cops.

I knew someone would say this and guess what? The same strategy applies. Do you think many of the folks whom were shot had multimillion dollar Variable Executive insurance policies taken out on them? You know the kind that got paid out when Steve Jobs died or when a pro-athlete overdoses? If Steve Jobs were shot by a cop, both the department and the individual cop would be rendered uninsurable, for LIFE, instantaneously.

Not many, IF ANY, of the people shot by cops had this kind of insurance coverage on themselves!

To AugustusMasonicus, Aliensun & JHumm, IMMEDIATELY HALT your feeble attempts to derail this topic.

If you cannot answer this insurance and legal question, you serve no purpose in replying to this thread any further.

a reply to: boohoo
This is not an insurance problem, and really not a legal problem at the root.
There are laws against killing innocents and laws against discharge of a firearm within city limits.
These dogs are murdered by the ".001 percent" of the officers that are bad.
Then somehow this same .001 percent officers investigate and never prosecute.
Something tells me that the supposed .001 percent is actually the number of good.
But hey, prove me wrong, I have days worth of cases where crooks covered for crooks.
I will stand on my original thought, "If someone takes what is precious to me, I will visit the same tenfold on theirs".
Dogs excluded.
I could never harm a dog, everything else is fair game.
Everything.
Truth is, all a terrorist understands is terror.

Maybe you should get some insurance on your thread to HALT us. My question is just as valid as yours is it not?

originally posted by: JHumm
Maybe you should get some insurance on your thread to HALT us. My question is just as valid as yours is it not?

I answered your question, please use your reading comprehension skills, during your re-read of my replies to your discourses. Thanks for commenting, your participation is no longer needed or welcome at this time.

Lets get back to the topic:

Since we all know the "accidental shooting of pet dogs" seems to be pretty common today with Law Enforcement and we know that the officers are only going to get a "slap on the wrist", due to the dogs being considered low value "property", what can we do if the criminal courts are going to ignore these kinds of events? Could people perhaps get insurance companies to lobby on their behalf, indirectly, by "insuring their dogs" like ranchers do with livestock? To clarify further, the purpose in taking out an "Animal & Livestock Mortality" policy on a dog, is not to get a large payout from the insurance company after the dogs death, by cop. The purpose would be to make the insurance company get involved on the legal side, once a dog is killed in a negligent manner by an LEO. The legal effect against Law Enforcement would be even greater, if an increasing number dogs shot by police also happened to be covered by Animal & Livestock Mortality Policies.

originally posted by: Orphanim
a reply to: boohoo
Do police officers have to post bonds like other government officials do? If so, one might be able to sue and attach the officer's bond (or the department's bond). Bond companies revoke bonds after they have to pay out on them, and without the bond, the individual or organization cannot continue in an official capacity. This would work for everything from dog killings to police brutality cases. Need a legal eagle to weigh in on this.

I can tell you that in the UK, government doesn't carry insurance, so there cannot be any exchange between two insurance companies, any act committed big or small by government sources is a legal process and you must make a claim for damages. Stuff like RTA's would always go to court to prove responsibility, unless otherwise directed by the DPP, (director of public prosecutions) if necessary according to the circumstances. If the police kill a dog, the claim would likely be for stated damages, any dog insurance would be a separate issue.

Oh BOO-HOO

We get your point, but why do you want this for dogs and not all the people who are murdered by police? Where were you when police shot the old man in the hall and then put him in the bed and lie? Or the 90 pound kid that was shot because the cops didn't have time for this S#! T?

originally posted by: JHumm
Oh BOO-HOO

We get your point, but why do you want this for dogs and not all the people who are murdered by police? Where were you when police shot the old man in the hall and then put him in the bed and lie? Or the 90 pound kid that was shot because the cops didn't have time for this S#! T?

AGAIN! I answered your question, please use your reading comprehension skills, during your re-read of my replies to your discourses. Thanks for commenting, your participation is no longer needed or welcome at this time.

The same strategy applies to people. Do you think many of the folks whom were shot had multimillion dollar Variable Executive insurance policies taken out on them? You know the kind that got paid out when Steve Jobs died or when a pro-athlete overdoses? If Steve Jobs were shot by a cop, both the department and the individual cop would be rendered uninsurable, for LIFE, instantaneously.

Here is a link to a story citing such an instance, where the insurance company made the final decision to pay, not the Police Department:

www.kshb.com...

Not many, IF ANY, of the people shot by cops had this kind of insurance coverage on themselves! So in conclusion, such a policy could be taken out on a human being, as well, BUT would be considerably more costly than the same on a dog and is therefore renders its far outside the realms of this discussion.

You're nothing more than a shill trying to derail the discussion, from gaining real traction and the actual passage of knowledge among individuals participating. You've been found out, your cover is blown!

Lets get back to the topic AGAIN:

Could people perhaps get insurance companies to lobby on their behalf, indirectly, by "insuring their dogs" like ranchers do with livestock? To clarify further, the purpose in taking out an "Animal & Livestock Mortality" policy on a dog, is not to get a large payout from the insurance company after the dogs death, by cop. The purpose would be to make the insurance company get involved on the legal side, once a dog is killed in a negligent manner by an LEO. The legal effect against Law Enforcement would be even greater, if an increasing number dogs shot by police also happened to be covered by Animal & Livestock Mortality Policies.

a reply to: boohoo

It is possible to find accidental death policies for pets, but they are fairly vague and looks like they only cover the cost of burial, cremation, and therapy for owners.

Livestock are a source of income, and much easier to write a policy on given that they are born with a price tag. I don't know how one could put a price tag on love, certainly in the mind of an insurance agent.

You are correct in that the body count left by out of control cops are lacking any that had a big insurance pay out. The regular guys either have little to no life insurance, certainly not enough to motivate an insurer to drag a city into court.

I suspect that most insurance companies would weigh the amount that will be paid out on a dog and the amount that it would take to press the issue with those that are responsible.