Police Sue Man Attacked By K9 Dog In His Own Yard

I read a story today. A 54 year-old man was sleeping in his fenced in backyard when a dog jumped the fence and woke him by sinking its teeth into his arm. The man tried to fight off the dog, as any person would, and a voice on the other side of the fence shouted at him, telling him that the dog was a police K9 unit, and when the man stopped fighting the dog, he would be released. Again like any other person would, the man did no such thing, and he began punching the dog in the head. Three police officers broke through the fence and beat the man with fists, knees, and flashlights, and subdued and cuffed him.

The man spent three months in physical therapy. He sued the police department and was awarded over $1 million in conpensation and punitive damages.

However, it is the US Supreme Court petition filed by the police which I find most disturbing. The police department in question asserted two things in its petition. First, that their police dog's behavior, jumping a fence and performing a "bit and hold on a sleeping man," did not infringe the man's Fourth Amendment protection against illegal seizure because the police did not intend for the dog to do so. Second, that the police officers involved were entitled to "qualified immunity," since the dog had unexpectedly bolted from the handler's control. The petition claims qualified immunity is there to "shield them [police officers] from civil damages liability as long as their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated."

I have no bias against police officers. In fact, I am if anything for them. All the police officers I have personally dealt with have been very good, honest people, even the ones who have written my speeding tickets. I have friends and family who are members of the police force, and I feel safer knowing that the police are never more than three numbers away.

I trust the members of our police forces. But I do not trust them blindly.

I know that there are officers out there not worthy of that trust. Officers that feel that since they did not indend for their dog to attack the man, they were not responsible for the attack. That since the man refused to hold still while he was being attacked by the dog, they were entitled to "subdue" him, with their fists and knees and flashlights.

Ours is a time when the nanny state is stronger than ever. The state has given itself the right to take my money from me in order to protect me. It would cost me $86 to drive down the road without my seatbelt on. It would cost me even more, in most states, if I were to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. I cannot smoke in bars, I pay extra tax on alcohol, and even my weekly $10 poker game is illegal. The state does all this to protect me from the horrors I would inflict on myself.

But who watches the watchers?

All the officers involved in our story, except one who was fired after an unrelated incident, retired within the next three years. While their petition was rejected by a jury, the officer's themselves were given no punishment. They were left to retire and collect their tax-funded pensions. Just as the poor man was left to collect his tax-funded, though well deserved, settlement from the police department.

Police officers are more than willing to protect me from others who would do me harm, and even to protect me from myself.

I just wish someone would protect me from them.

To read more about Ken Rogers's assault, please visit http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/05/dog-and-man-in-washington.html