From Yahoo:

A federal jury says Chicago law enforcement must pay $330,000 to a family after officers shot their dog during a home raid that turned up no illegal activity.

Thomas Russell, then 18, opened the door to his home in February 2009 to find police officers with their guns drawn. He asked if he could lock up his 9-year-old black labrador, named Lady, before letting the officers inside. The Chicago Tribune describes what happened next:

"Police refused the request and came into the house, the lawsuit said. When Lady came loping around the corner with her tail wagging, Officer Richard Antonsen shot the dog, according to the suit, which alleged excessive force, false arrest and illegal seizure for taking the dog's life."

The cops handcuffed Russell and his 16-year-old brother, and eventually charged Russell with obstructing their operation. He was found not guilty. According to NBC, the jury awarded $175,000 to Russell, $85,000 to his little brother, and $35,000 each to the brothers' parents. The officer who shot the dog owes $2,000 in damages, and his supervisor owes $1,000, according to NBC.

A law enforcement spokeswoman told the Tribune that the officers were protecting themselves.

 

Which part are you upset about?

That'll teach the Chicago PD, right on.

 

Where did he say he was upset?

 

I'm upset about the headline. They were fined $2,000 + $1,000 for killing the dog. That's $3,000, not $330,000. But when you're writing headlines, who cares if you're off by >99.9%.

 

 

technically the police paid $3000. The police dept (AKA tax payers) paid $327K.
that's not strong enough punishment if the tax payers paid 99% of damage and the actual offender paid 1%. I don't see why they can't garnish the wage and make him pay 50% of the damage.

 

good, f@#k cops. I saw a video of a case like this back about a year or two ago. I wonder if this was the case? The shot the mans dog right infront of him. Maybe that guy should return the favor and see how the cop like it.

 

All officers who go for arrests should be trained in animal control. For a gun-happy dog-shy officer, a playful dog looks exactly the same as an angry rabid one. I don't think the officer meant to use excessive force but the result is still the same. I would be willing to bet if a dog really wanted to attack an officer, there would be no way he'd draw, aim, and kill the animal before the dog gets a few good chomps in so I do believe that the dog was being playful...

 

MATH people. Is isn't that hard.

Yes, anyways. I have heard of this happening quite often where police bust into a home and kill the owners dog. I hope more police get fined/sued for this because it is total bullshit. Especially when its done under false pretense.

 

quite the conversation this thread has going...
"good, f@#k cops" always comes from an intellectual person.
I have yet to see a 330,000 dollar lab... Someone please post what one looks like...
Judges paid for with tax money passing out more tax money. Win win for Chicagoans.