A fleeing criminal escaping the scene of a minor crime is caught by a police dog. In the process of being chewed up by the dog, he pulls a gun and puts a round right between its eyes.
Should he be charged with murder or homicide of a police officer? Or is he duilty of destruction of public property because the dog is just that; like the leash and collar that he's wearing. Give me reasonswhy you believe one way or the other.
2007-10-27 11:01:24 · 7 answers · asked by ? 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
A dog is not a human, therefore the dog cannot be an officer. As the dog is not human you cannot face the death penalty for killing it. I'd say that he was largely guilty of destroying public property - though of course the judge would use his descretion when making a judgement - a police dog is not an everyday piece of property.
2007-10-27 11:23:29 · answer #1 · answered by Mordent 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
You don't take a human life for killing a dog. However, because a weapon was used in a felony, a long prison term is an appropriate punishment.
As for the specific crime, the dog being a dog and all rules out a whole bunch of stuff - no assault, for example. There's cruelty to animal regulations that have been violated but that seems pretty tame. Destruction of public property seems OK, but again, the act seems to be more serious than busting out a police cruiser's window.
Perhaps since the dog in surely not on foot patrol (pad patrol?) by himself, the assault could be not on the dog, but on the handler, the dog being an extension of the police officer, a far more serious crime.
2007-10-27 18:14:25 · answer #2 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Okay the dog, unlike the crook, is under control. He will not chew up the bad guy too bad. Also, these dogs are highly trained and the officers who run them are not only their partners they are are the dogs family. When the crook pulled the gun he is extremely lucky that the cops (human) did not put a slug into him. When he killed the police dog he became guilty of homicide. These dogs are not pets. They are highly trained and always under their partners control. They are police officers. If he (the crook) had a working brain he surely would have realized that he was caught and just gave it up. He turned a minor crime into something major by first running and then by killing the police dog.
2007-10-27 18:14:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Murder and homocide are defined as the killing of a human being, not a canine. Also, police dogs are not really officers (they are not sworn, cannot read Miranda warnings, etc.). However, the offenses you mention are not the only possible charges. Animal cruelty, unlawful flight to avoid arrest, etc., are possibilities, too.
2007-10-27 18:11:07 · answer #4 · answered by StephenWeinstein 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Charge the criminal with everything you possibly can. some charges will be eliminated in the plea deal. The more charges there are to start with the more there are left at the end.
2007-10-27 18:16:49 · answer #5 · answered by t. B 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Killing a dog that is killing you should give on the death penalty? No, it shouldn't change his sentence for the original crime at all, maybe a higher bail.
2007-10-27 18:08:04 · answer #6 · answered by Ben Has Questions 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Murder AND homicide of a police officer.
Reason: I like dogs.
Also there are states with mandatory sentencing laws for 'gun discharged in commission of a crime' and I think this would qualify for that, too.
2007-10-27 18:10:55 · answer #7 · answered by DAR 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋