Federal Judge rules that Rott is more than property!!!!

[Soapie&Buddy'sMom]

No matter what you think about the rest of the story, it's really great news that this court ruled that the dog was not just property, the biggest hurdle in animal law. So now pet owners in this area (PA and NJ) can sue for emotional distress if someone harms their pet. One step in the right direction!!!!

http://www.readingeagle.com/re/main/892692.asp

A DOG'S DEATH
Couple's suit against officer who shot pet
proceeds after ruling from appeals court

By Dan Kelly
Eagle/Times
Kim L. Brown said that when Muhlenberg Township Patrolman David Eberly fired four shots into her dog on April 8, 1998, he did more than destroy a piece of her property.
After more than two years of legal action over the shooting, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has ruled that Brown's 3-year-old Rottweiller, Immi, was more than property.

In a split decision, the court voted 2-1 to reverse a U.S. District Court ruling that dismissed a civil rights suit Brown and her husband, David C., filed against Eberly, the township, former police Chief Harley N. Smith and Chief Robert M. Flanagan.

The circuit court decision means the case will continue against Eberly, but not the township and the chiefs.

Eberly declined comment about the ruling. His attorney, L. Rostaing Tharaud Jr., Philadelphia, was unavailable.

Anthony R. Sherr, Blue Bell, Montgomery County, the attorney representing the township and chiefs, also was unavailable.

Kim Brown said she is happy the case will proceed against Eberly and is grateful for the community support she and her family have received.

But, she said, she is upset Eberly still is a policeman.

“He shot five dogs before he shot Immi,” Brown said.

Court records show Eberly has shot six dogs, including Immi, with shotguns or his service pistol during his 16 years on the police force.

No one challenged the prior shootings because the other dogs were strays, records show.

When Eberly shot Immi, the Browns and other residents protested and asked township officials to fire Eberly for using excessive force.

Kim Brown said it is a struggle for her and her husband to teach their children that police are friendly and that their job is to help people.

She said her son, Zachary, who was 4 at the time, was traumatized.

“He's afraid that if he or his sister are left alone, something is going to happen to them,” Brown said. “We try to explain to Zachary that just because one officer did this horrible thing doesn't mean they are all bad.”

But it hasn't worked.

“If we're out and he sees a policeman or hears a siren he'll cling to your leg and hide behind you,” David Brown said.

The boy's father also said it has been too painful for him to keep another dog.

“He (David) would get frantic if the dog got out,” Kim Brown said. “We had to give the dog away.”

The shooting left their 4-year-old daughter, Piper, with only vague memories of Immi and a desire for a pet of her own.

“I want a doggie,” Piper said as she handled Immi's collar, which the family has kept.

Flanagan said the court decision has no impact on Eberly's employment. “He has already been disciplined for that,” Flanagan said.

Flanagan suspended Eberly for two days after the shooting. Eberly appealed to the township civil service commission. The commission upheld the suspension and ordered Eberly to undergo psychological testing and to be retrained in the use of deadly force.

Witnesses said Eberly was patrolling in the Brown's neighborhood when he saw Immi and stopped his car.

The dog had gotten out of the Browns' yard while they were inside packing to move to their new home in Maidencreek Township. The dog was in a parking lot next to the Browns' house.

Witnesses said Eberly clapped his hands and called to the dog, which growled at Eberly and walked away. The dog stopped and looked at Eberly, witnesses said.

Kim Brown said she was in a second-floor bedroom when she saw Eberly reach for his gun.

“I yelled, ‘That's my dog, don't shoot,' ” she said. “When I saw him take his gun out I dove through the screen out onto the porch roof and was screaming at him not to shoot.”

Eberly hesitated for a moment, then pulled out his pistol and shot the dog once in the neck, records show.

The bullet passed through the collar, which contained a license, identification and other information, and Immi fell to the ground and began crawling away, police said.

Eberly fired four more shots, three of which struck the dog in the hindquarters. A fourth bullet missed and ricocheted, and was never found, Flanagan said.

Flanagan said that while the shooting of the dog was upsetting, that was not the reason Eberly was disciplined by the department.

“Our deadly force policy is that once the threat to the officer stops, the deadly force stops,” Flanagan said.

“I'm not going to second-guess him on the need to shoot the dog,” Flanagan said. “I wasn't there.”

Flanagan said Eberly violated the department's deadly force policy by firing three shots after the dog went down.

“I also didn't like that many shots being fired in the middle of a neighborhood,” he said.

Flanagan said he believes Eberly will be cleared by a jury if the case goes to trial.

The Browns said they don't want to be misunderstood as being anti-police.

“Immi was not a vicious dog she did not deserve to be shot,” Kim Brown said. “We don't want this happening to another family.”

[Troy]

To think a psycho like that is a police officer. He needs to be placed in a new line of work...

[rottielover00]

You have got to be kidding me!!! That police officer is a lunatic!!! Whatever happened to a dog catcher. I guess you can sue for almost anything these days. Though this may be an important one

[Soapie&Buddy'sMom]

Originally posted by rottielover00
You have got to be kidding me!!! That police officer is a lunatic!!! Whatever happened to a dog catcher. I guess you can sue for almost anything these days. Though this may be an important one

It is an *extremely* important case, in fact I would call it a landmark case here, because in many states dogs (and any other pet) are considered property and thus in a civil court action damages are considered only at the dog's "replacement" cost. Like, if you have a shelter dog you got free and spent $25 to spay, you could get $25 if someone killed him, even if someone came up to your dog and spilled acid on him while you watched.
If you have a purebred Rottweiler and paid $2000, you might get $2000 (replacement value.) The fact that dogs are considered simply property is the reason that so many animal abuses get off scott free (a slap on the wrist and a fine from the criminal "justice" system)
But NOW...thanks to this court's ruling - you can sue for damages for emotional distress, not just the replacement value of the dog.
It would not bring the dog back, but it would certainly act as a deterrent and punishment, even more than a criminal action.

It's a step in the right direction because when dogs are no longer considered property, they won't be discriminated against as much as they are now in other ways (landlords, insurance, etc.) But that is in the future, sorry for going off on a tangent!

[codglvr]

In Boulder CO you are not a dog owner. you are their legal guardian. This has allowed for greater prosecution of abuse, but makes you think hmmmm, how does a dog being relegated as property in a court play into this equation.

[Soapie&Buddy'sMom]

Originally posted by codglvr
In Boulder CO you are not a dog owner. you are their legal guardian. This has allowed for greater prosecution of abuse, but makes you think hmmmm, how does a dog being relegated as property in a court play into this equation.

the biggest thing is that if a dog is considered property, you can't recover damages for emotional distress, no matter what you witness against your dog. it's the same principle as if someone shot your kitchen chair four times - you might be able to recover for the replacement cost of the chair, but you can't recover for witnessing its "murder" as it were. many courts view dogs on the same level as your kitchen chair - property, nothing more nothing less. however if you witnessed someone shooting your child four times, you could sue big time for emotional distress damages. sorry to be so clinical here but just making a point albeit badly.
iow it's a huge step in the right direction in a million different ways for a court to rule that a dog is more than just property.

i'm surprised more people here didn't pick up on the rottweiler aspect of the story
so many times police/dog catcher/etc action is "justified" based on the breed; here the opposite result...very good news for dogs and owners in general, though through sad and horrible circumstances for poor immie and her owners.

[calebmyboy]

I'm happy regarding the ruling. It is definately a step forward regarding our dogs. But, the rest of the story brings tears to my eyes thinking what they went through & to see your pet shot like that. I can only imagine what I would have done had it been my dog shot like that. I know he was a police officer & I am a christian, but I think the emotions going through me at a time like that would have caused me to do something to the policeman, that probably would have landed me in jail. Since he has a history of shooting dogs, I think he is definately in the wrong line of work. And also should have received more than a slap on the hand. :(

[Soapie&Buddy'sMom]

I read the whole case and it really shows the police officer as TOTALLY in the wrong. Immi was wearing a bright pink, one inch wide collar with her rabies tag, microchip tag, guardian angel tag, ID tag with the Brown's address and phone number, and the Brown's prior lifetime dog license. Immi got out because the back latch on the fence failed and she was just in the parking lot adjacent to the house. A stranger in the parking lot observed everything. The "officer" saw Immi in the parking lot while he was in his patrol car and pulled over, got out of his car, and approached Immi, clapping his hands and calling to her. He got about 10-12 feet away from her. Immi never approached the "officer"; in fact she withdrew and circled behind a parked vehicle in the lot. Despite this, the "officer" reached for his gun.

That was when the owner Kim Brown saw Immi and the "officer" in the lot and called out, "That's my dog".

Since my dogs have escaped from my yard once or twice, for a few minutes, this case really gets to me - imagine seeing your dog shot by a cop, while you're standing there, and your dog is not attacking or even approaching in any way. :(

[Rott4ever]

After reading the posts on this thread, I feel ill at heart and agitated. Glad that a step was taken in the right direction - it was about time someone, somewhere recognized that a dog is MUCH more to its owners than property!! To most of us, they are family members and our hearts. But, as they say in this country, the decision was half-assed. Had it been complete and JUST, the jerk would have received meaningful punishment, in fact I will go as far as to say that he should have been fired.

He has a history of such demented/vicious actions + someone besides the owner witnessed what he did to Immi. Why, then, is he still employed? Why do his superiors, under whose noses he perpetrated the sadistical act FIVE TIMES, feel that he has been punished enough? Why do they shrug and say they weren't there when the owner and the witness tell the same story? Gangsters stick together, as they can't afford the truth to come out: they see themselves as judge, jury, and executioner. It's not an infrequent syndrome that develops within the law-enforcement community, as we've all observed and concluded based on news coverage along the years.

Cover up of evil at every step, every day, in everything. It makes me ill and angry. But, like my husband points out to me sometimes, laws were created to maintain social order, NOT to administer justice. Big difference there...

The Browns should pursue this relentlessly, because this jerk, this criminal, will be considered "rehabilitated" after a few hours' re-training into the use of excessive force and loosed again upon the community. Just like a serial killer of people, he'll let things cool down for a while and then will hunt for his next victim, reverting to his old modus-operandi. A mild sentence will only serve to make him more cautious next time, more prudent. He needs to feed his deviant, blood thirsty, deranged mind, and will find ways to satisfy it.

I hope he gets moved to a precinct somewhere in the boonies, where there's folk who believe themselves to be the law and act as such. Shooting one of their dogs would be his last action on this earth, I can assure you... May God pay him in full, demon in the guise of man that he is.

By the way, if your house should catch fire or you need medical assistance, the first thing after they put the door down is shoot your dog - and I expect this would be particularly true if you have a Rott or a GSD, like I have. They won't even bother to determine whether he's friendly or not. And they are fully supported by the law in this, to my knowledge.

[ajaxsdad]

I WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE SAME ACTION TO SAVE MY DOG AS I WOULD ANY OTHER MEMBER OF MY FAMILY. with that said; they probably went and suspended him for two days as damage control. that way they would not be allowed to increase the disciplinary action, otherwise it would be considered double jeopardy. after the second dog someone should have recognized a pattern developing. he needs to have his sheild and sidearm removed. then he need's some jail time. he's no better than some of those twisted individuals that torture animals; only he hides behind his badge. i'm so paranoid of the same thing happening to ajax. he got out of the backyard the other day; my son didn't make sure the door was properly locked. anyhow, i notice the retreiver nextdoor playing with this large black dog. then i realized it was ajax. my heart was racing. he's always under my control cept this time i had no idea he got out. he could have been hit by a car, stolen, or worse of all, innocently shot by one of those who we depend on to "protect and serve".

[ajaxsdad]

my apologies if i offended anyone involved in law inforcement. i made a very broad statement. this shooter is definately the exception and not the rule.