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

originally posted by: boohoo
You are simply trying to derail the discussion, please bow out now.

No, I am pointing out that any compensation comes from the policy holders who contributed based on a calculable risk matrix. Saying the police need to have a policy means the residents of whatever township they patrol needs to pay for said policy.

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.

You want answers on livestock? Go to a livestock website.

Your ad hominem shill and troll comments demonstrate that all you want is an echo chamber instead of people questioning your naïveté.

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.

Who cares if you do not want mandatory insurance or not? Regardless, it will be the taxpayer footing the bill for said insurance. How many police have shot multiple pets?

A more practical tact to take would be trying to have the status of your pet changed so they are no longer just considered 'property'.

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

We all just have missed the Moderator title next to your name.

originally posted by: Witness2008

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.

Here is a link to the kind of insurance policy I am refering to. The main customer is Law Enforcement and Dogs used to generate income (real working dogs, like TV & film, herding etc):

www.thehartford.com...

This kind of policy covers much more than burial, cremation, etc because of the high financial cost to train the insured dog to do the work.

Here is another story about dog shootings by LEO's being deemed “unreasonable seizure” by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California:

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, for example, ruled in favor of the Hells Angels in a case where police officers shot two dogs during a raid. Calling the shootings “unreasonable seizure”, the court chastised the police for failing “to develop a realistic plan for incapacitating the dogs other than shooting them.” The Hells Angels eventually received a total of nearly $1.8 million in a settlement.

www.petsadviser.com...

By getting an insurance company to cite a dollar value on the dog, the outcome seems to be something that would cause more trouble for the department, in addition to the issue of “unreasonable seizure”

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
A more practical tact to take would be trying to have the status of your pet changed so they are no longer just considered 'property'.

Not going to happen anytime soon, nor does such a discussion fall anywhere within the scope of my original question.

AugustusMasonicus, you're still trolling BTW. IMMEDIATELY HALT your attempts to derail this topic.

a reply to: boohoo

Now we're getting some where. I will read over the judgements and get back with you.

Personally I would love to see greater protections for pets, regardless of breed, and if it means insuring them I'm all for it.

Perhaps a few payouts from a city could get the tax payers to finally do something about an ever growing problem.

originally posted by: boohoo
Not going to happen anytime soon, nor does such a discussion fall anywhere within the scope of my original question.

I think it is a more practical approach then expecting taxpayers to bear an additional burden on the pretext that they may one day gun down someone's pet.

AugustusMasonicus, you're still trolling BTW. IMMEDIATELY HALT your attempts to derail this topic.

Must have missed that Moderator tag again.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Must have missed that Moderator tag again.

What is your purpose here? Either you have experience in livestock insurance claims and/or unreasonable seizure rulings, in regards to dog shooting, OR YOU DO NOT!

Back to the topic at hand here is a link another article regarding unreasonable seizure and animals:

www.animallaw.info...

originally posted by: boohoo
What is your purpose here? Either you have experience in livestock insurance claims and/or unreasonable seizure rulings in regards to dog shooting, OR YOU DO NOT!

Nope, neither. Just pointing out the inanity of asking the taxpayers to shoulder another burden. You want pet insurance? Fine with me.

Bad cops should be prosecuted and as a dog owner I would want my pet considered more than property but asking people to pay this in not something I would support.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Nope, neither. Just pointing out the inanity of asking the taxpayers to shoulder another burden. You want pet insurance? Fine with me.

Bad cops should be prosecuted and as a dog owner I would want my pet considered more than property but asking people to pay this in not something I would support.

STOP, STOP, STOP,STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP!

More links to related info, on this webpage the LEO rhetorically asks, "Since when did it become a constitutional violation to shoot at an animal?":

m.lawofficer.com...

The writer also states the following:

How to Minimize Your Risk of Violating the Constitution During a Potential Pet Shooting

-At a minimum, officers should document the basis for having contact with the animal. Was the officer called as part of a “dog running at large” report?

-Did the encounter occur during law enforcement operations—i.e., the execution of a search warrant?

-Officers should also report any known history of the dog. Did the complainant report that the dog had bitten people in the area before? Is the officer aware of previous dog bites or aggressive behavior?

-Officers should describe the dog’s actions before they made the decision to use deadly force. Was the dog growling? Exposing its teeth? “Bearing” down on all four paws? Did the officer observe the dog’s hair on its back stand up? Bark? Break away from a restraint?

-Finally, officers should document the type of dog and its weight, as well as the surroundings. A thorough recitation of the events in a police report will no doubt assist in the defense of these expanding claims.

We have a problem and only money out of the guilty officers pocket will solve it.

originally posted by: boohoo
We have a problem and only money out of the guilty officers pocket will solve it.

And how is that going to happen?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
And how is that going to happen?

And we circle around again...

By taking out an Animal & Livestock Mortality Policy on Pet dogs, declaring an insured dollar value. Letting the insurance companies duke it out when a claim is filed.

originally posted by: boohoo
And we circle around again...

By taking out an Animal & Livestock Mortality Policy on Pet dogs, declaring an insured dollar value. Letting the insurance companies duke it out when a claim is filed.

And none of that comes from the officer.

Pets are not livestock, and the more I think about it you want insurance companies to step in, you are part of the problem. Do you want insurance companies telling your doctor that she can't treat you? No, do you want insurance companies telling you that your home is not worth the damage it incurred in the flood ? No. But you want them to put a price on a family member? I see that you are frustrated that your first post isn't going anywhere and you need to call a lot of us shills and trolls like you are going to hurt my feelings. You at least picked a fitting name for yourself.
Pets are not livestock and I doubt you will get an insurance company to agree that they are.

I dont know about insuring dogs. They are not like regular live stock. They are tools and have little residual value. If you insured your dog, are you allowed to still put it down when it becomes useless or violent? I guess as long as you don't make a claim but... i could imagine there would be be a few fraudulent claims. Dogs are not a guarantee like a cow is for milk. Sometimes you have to go through a few till you get a good one. I could see a couple of farmers being slick and try and get the insurance company to pay tje ones that didnt work out.

I could be talking out my arse and not even understand you right.

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?

The OP is about dogs, not people. If you want to address the people issue in the same manner, start a thread

This thread is about dogs.

S&F OP

Personally, if someone shot my dog, I would probably shoot them back.

As for pet insurance? Most people that are targeted by the police in aggressive heavy-handed manners are in the "lower economic classes", when is the last time you heard of a police popping a dog in the gated communities and such? For me, it was never. People that get targeted can usually not even afford to insure themselves, let alone their pets.

originally posted by: JHumm
Pets are not livestock, and the more I think about it you want insurance companies to step in, you are part of the problem.

Pets are not livestock and I doubt you will get an insurance company to agree that they are.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
I dont know about insuring dogs. They are not like regular live stock. They are tools and have little residual value.

OK, I explained this already, this type of insurance EXISTS and is required for certain types of working dogs (movie and television performing dogs for example). The insurance policies of this kind are typically called "Animal & Livestock Mortality Insurance". It covers other animals, besides livestock and also exotic animals. This part is NOT open for debate because the policies exist and are issued by a number of insurance companies. This is a fact, they exist, and can be taken out on an animal by any individual. The coverage terms, policy limits and premiums are what I came here to ask about. But NOT ONE person has chimed in with a single personal experience, just opinions on tax burdens and conjecture!

Hartford Insurance company offers them, here is a link to the policy:
www.thehartford.com...
www.thehartford.com...

Broker outlining the requirement for animals used in film and television:
www.csins.com...

Here is another broker listing "accidental shooting" as covered under Animal and Livestock Mortality Insurance:
www.csins.com...

I posted this topic to collect procedural and legal knowledge about Animal & Livestock insurance claims. Some of you guys are totally in left field here. We need to get back to the topic, leaving out all the supposition, being framed by 4 ,very vocal, detractors.

So, back on topic AGAIN: People should try taking out Animal & Livestock Mortality policies on their dogs, as a form of discouragement, to LEO's prone to shoot pets. With the end purpose being, the insured dog owner can be covered, either in court or arbitration, by the insurance companies legal teams, if their dogs are accidentally killed by negligent LEO's and a claim is then filed by the dog owner.

a reply to: Witness2008

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.

Hmmmm,

A quick phone call to one of the insurance suppliers can give us an answer I believe.

If I get a chance, here in Australia the pet industry is quite large and only growing and a number of insurance companies offer pet insurance, Like I said If I get a chance in the next couple of days as I work night shift so calling up these companies with customer service available at times when I sleep might not happen until the weekend if I can remember or actually I have to Sonja to the vets in the next week for her annual so I will ask them as they have offered pet insurance a few times to me so the vets might some idea but most likely when it comes to policy and what covered I would have talk direct to the insurance supplier.

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.

However if its covered in pet insurance which all policies I have come across covers for surgery if your pet has an accident.

So as Pet insurance is gaining popularity and more pet owners are getting it I believe it could be implemented into a policy.

However, Its only in the states (U.S.) that this seems to be an issue as I cant really recall of an incident where cops shot a person pet here in Australia that wasn't the pet of a suspect they were about arrest.

a reply to: TKDRL

Personally, if someone shot my dog, I would probably shoot them back.

Its good I don't own a firearm otherwise I would walk your path as well if mine were shot.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

However if its covered in pet insurance which all policies I have come across covers for surgery if your pet has an accident.

So as Pet insurance is gaining popularity and more pet owners are getting it I believe it could be implemented into a policy.

In the USA, pet/dog "health/vet insurance" is different and separate from, "dog biting human/dog insurance" and "pet death by accident" insurance. In the USA the pet/dog "health/vet insurance" industry is not related at all to the "dog biting human/dog insurance" and "pet death by accident" insurance industry.

Can all these insurance products be purchased under one company in Australia?