originally posted by: virraszto
Several months ago, I saw on tv that cops shot and killed a dog. They were chasing a criminal who "might" have been hiding in this backyard. There
was a party going on at the house, and the cops went in through the front door and out the back and shot the family dog that was in their fenced in
yard. They said it got in their way.
I started a thread a while back about "insuring dogs" as a financial and legal deterrent to keep LEO's from shooting them in a careless manner. This
idea was QUICKLY poo-pooed by a highly vocal minority in that thread. However, I still stand by my premise, if dogs become an insured asset like show
horses or BMW's, LEO's won't be so quick to shoot because the insurance company lawyers will have to be involved when a claim is filed. Here is a
link to that original thread:
Although the original discussion was successfully derailed, there were a few unresolved points that I think make the idea of taking out "Animal
Mortality Insurance" policies on pet dogs a valid tactic:
-If a dog has a set insured value, of say $10,000, and is then shot by police on private property, the owner would then file a claim against their
Animal Mortality Insurance policy, which they had previously taken out on the animal. So, as with all insurance companies, they will then subrogate
the damages from the responsible party. 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”
- LEO's can be held personally liable in any "Title 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit", which includes "unreasonable seizure" (i.e. shooting someones secured
pet dog, without a warrant or cause to enter a private property). So if LEO's can be held personally accountable for a Title 1983 Civil Rights
lawsuit, and a dog getting shot by an LEO can be deemed an "unreasonable seizure". When a dog with an "insured dollar value" is shot, it could
trigger an insurance claim to be made against the individual officers personal insurance policies (not necessarily the department). An LEO being
found personally liable for an "unlawful seizure", dog shooting, could possibly render the shooting officer uninsurable OR at minimum end up with an
increased personal insurance premium, due to claims being filed by any side.
- LEO's don't usually say that there were any "code violations" when the dogs were shot, just that they felt "threatened". The LEO's can certainly get
tangled up in the "unlawful seizure" issue, which could put the possible "code violations", that got the dog shot in the first place, into question.
-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.
- Dog owners typically gets little more than $300 because "pets" are considered low value property by the LEO's insurance company and the courts.
However Animal & Livestock Morality Insurance "elevates" the dog to "more than "pet" status. Remember the purpose is not to be "compensated in full"
the purpose is 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. Dogs can have this same status if they are insured. If LEO's find out that even as few as 1 in 20 dogs could have an
insured valued of $10,000, you can bet your house that fatal shooting will reduce.
- "Animal Mortality Insurance" policies covers much more than burial, cremation, etc because of the high financial cost to train the insured dog to do
the work. In the USA, pet/dog "health/vet insurance" is different and separate from, "dog biting human/dog insurance" and/or "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" nor to the "pet death
by accident" insurance industry.
originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
Knowing this, what is the easiest way to strike fear into the hearts and minds of a naive populace? Shock and awe..... Swat teams to serve warrants,
murdering family pets, and even family members are becoming more and more common. It is all provocation. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that
"peaceful protests are the only way to effect change" nonsense. It's not true. They laugh at our promotion of non-violent reaction. They laugh
because they are conditioned to meet any opposition with violent response.
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. So when was the last time a police department shot
and killed someone covered by a $1+ million Key Person/Executive Insurance policy? None that I know of, but there would certainly be financial
consequences for doing such, should it ever occur in the near future.
For example in 2012 a loose dog, running at large, in Des Moines, was shot and killed by police, they settled out of court for $51,000 in damages,
that was not insured by an "Animal Mortality Insurance" policy. All it takes is one poorly executed "LEO welfare check", resulting in an "unlawful
seizure", the death of a dog with an insured value of $10,000 and having been the cornerstone of a dog breeding program, that provided the sole income
for the owner. If something like this EVER went to trial and the cop lost due to being found guilty of "unlawful seizure", money would be coming out
of his own pocket and you can bet the farm, that the "typical" lethal engagement rules would change for dogs. Same thing applies to an insured human,
insured cow or insured horse, take your pick. Encountering an "insured dog" would likely take any department completely by surprise, post-shooting,
when the insurance claim comes in. They will not be expecting it at all.
edit on 28-7-2014 by boohoo because: (no reason given)