Jury awards family $300K after police kill man’s dog during search

http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2266575&spid=

August 20, 2011 10:15 a.m.

Thomas Russell III describes watching a police officer shoot his canine “best friend” two years ago as “the scariest thing I ever saw.”

On Thursday, a U.S. District Court jury decided Russell, 20, and his family deserved to be compensated for the Feb. 27, 2009, police search of the family’s South Side home during which “Lady,” the family’s black Labrador, was shot dead. The jury awarded the family about $300,000.

“That was my best friend,” said Russell, who was 18 at the time. “We did everything together. When I worked out, she’d be right there watching me. She’d sleep when I’d sleep.”

The Russell family originally sued the city of Chicago in January 2010, accusing police of excessive force, false arrest and inflicting intentional emotional harm — among other claims — during the 2009 search of the family’s apartment in the 9200 block of South Justine. Though police searched for drugs, they found none in the apartment, the family’s lawyers say. Russell and his younger brother, Darren, were handcuffed during the incident, attorneys for the family said, and both boys had shotguns placed against their heads. At some point, Lady appeared and an officer shot her, the family’s lawyers said. Lady was a sweet dog, and police had no reason to fear her, Russell said.

Jenny Hoyle, a city’s Law Department spokeswoman, said they are “extremely disappointed” with the verdict. “The officers involved in this case were executing a valid search warrant when this incident occurred and were simply protecting themselves,” Hoyle said. “We are extremely disappointed and reviewing all of our options. In particular, we think the damages awarded to the plaintiffs were excessive.

© Copyright 2011 Sun-Times Media, LLC

Can you imagine a labradore being a threat to ANYTHING, not in his food bowl?????. ME EITHER

Even if the dog had been in defense mode, it should have been expected. A bunch of armed ninjas bust through the front door, and what else would they expect? Just an excuse. That no contraband was found, makes me think of they same type of incident here, 1 1/2 yr ago. SWAT raid, no drugs, stale warrant, dead dog.

Just a wee bit late to say , sorry, wrong house. Too bad about the dog, he was acting defensive.

This needs to be moved to "good positive news" simply because there's 1 court in 1 very corrupt city that's doing the right thing.

I'm wondering as to the source of information the cops operated off of. (Grammatically, that's horrible, but it conveys the point.)

a77ssii wrote:This needs to be moved to "good positive news" simply because there's 1 court in 1 very corrupt city that's doing the right thing.

DONE !!

I remember this case, those thugs bust in and shoot the dog right off the bat just for barking. I was so pissed off about this case. 300k certainly takes the edge off but I would want 10 minutes alone with the so called law officers who blasted my dog too.

Glad they gave him something though.

I'm wondering as to the source of information the cops operated off of

Irregardless; a sworn law enforcement officer had to go before a sworn in Judge, to swear that the articles contained in the application for a warrant are TRUE. So much swearing. So little truth.

Grim , I think I know what your saying though. The guy really could be a slimebag hardcore drug dealer who sells to catholic preeschoolers. Or, the guy is truly totally inocent. Either way the police obtained bad information, used that bad info, and a judge signed off that enough probable cause was their based on said info. Mistakes DO happen.
WIth that said though they are responsible for ANYTHING that happens using that info.

One thing that always bugs me....I see these things happen, "cops violate this and that right, kill innocent animal/person, destroy property" or whatever. "Victim" sues and gets money, problem goes away. Why does no one ever say "I don't want your f'in money - I want your policies changed to ensure this never happens again"? Maybe start respecting peoples property and rights? If the person was co-operative with those serving the warrant, there shouldn't have been an issue with him locking the dog up - they could have even watched him do it.

I've seen this story too many times, family dog(s) killed since officer was scared and/or lacked the training to deal with an animal. Even on calls to non-violent situations with non-violent animals they come in guns blazing. Had a situation in my neighborhood where an officer came by to do a "safety check" since the little turdler had called 911 on accident, and the cop ends up shooting the family dogs in the yard so she could get to the door since she "felt there was a threat from the animal" (little ass dog too, btw lol). One news story and a check or two later, no biggie apparently.

I do realize that it's hard to say no to a big fat check, especially after the damage is already done - but allowing agencies to pay off victims rather then face justice themselves isn't really changing anything. I have heard the addage "you gotta hit em where it hurts - in the pocketbook" but it doesn't seem to be working LOL.

Rant over. I love animals, and think people should respect them more - or at least take a little more responsability for supposedly being the superior species on the planet LOL.

Disallowed, this case was a no knock warrant for narcotics distribution...... according to the officer who swore the warrant. He didn't have a chance to put the dog away.

I thought I read that the kid asked if he could put the black lab away, and they told him no. Eh...I'm probably confused.