City Sued For $1 Million After Cop Murders A Tiny Dog For The Crime Of Being Lost

You know what kind of person kills animals on the regular? Psychopaths, at least according to a casual survey of pop culture references. You know who else? Cops. But I repeat myself.

Laurel Matthews, a supervisory program specialist with the Department of Justice's Community Oriented Policing Services (DOJ COPS) office, says it's an awful lot. She calls fatal police vs. dogs encounters an epidemic" and estimates that 25 to 30 pet dogs are killed each day by law enforcement officers.

30 dogs a day. Only a handful of court cases where courts have found officers violated the Constitution by killing innocent pets. Judges often hold that killing an animal amounts to a seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, but in most cases, qualified immunity carries the day.

Occasionally, it goes the other way. A court stripped immunity from a cop who killed a dog 13 seconds after arriving to a call about people cleaning out their cars in a vacant parking lot. In another case, immunity was denied when the court determined the officer acted unreasonably by killing a family's dog while other officers on the scene were shouting at him to back off and all the family to bring their dog back inside.

Then there's this incident, which could easily serve as a metaphor for policing as it's practiced here in the United States:

Lawsuit: Deputy Tried To Shoot Charging' Pomeranian, Shot Woman On Porch Instead

This case is more of the same. Hopefully, it will end like the ones listed above: with a denial of qualified immunity. A family whose deaf and blind 13-pound Shih Tzu was shot and killed by Sturgeon, Missouri police officer Myron Woods earlier this month has sued the city and the officer for $1 million, as Nina Golgowski reports for the Huffington Post:

[Officer] Woodson had been called in to help find the owner of the dog, a 13-pound Shih Tzu named Teddy. The officer shot him twice at point-blank range, as seen inbody camera footage.Minutes after the shooting, Hunter, who'd gotten a call from a friend about Teddy escaping his backyard kennel, confronted the officer.

At no time during the encounter between Teddy and Defendant Woodson did Teddy show any aggression towards Defendant Woodson," states the complaint. Teddy never barked, growled, or even moved towards Defendant Woodson. Instead, the small, blind and deaf dog simply kept trying to walk away, oblivious to the danger that Defendant Woodson posed to him."

The body camera footage backs up the lawsuit's claims. I must warn you this is a tough watch, even if you're fairly accustomed to footage of inexplicable acts of violence committed by police officers.

It's a hideous chain of events. The officer starts looking for the dog while armed with the restraint device animal control officers use on animals: the extended pole with a loop at the end of it. While the officer had no way of knowing the dog was deaf and blind, he had nothing to worry about. He had a restraint device and was dealing with a small Shih Tzu that not only ignored the officer's presence, but was in obvious distress.

But like many living things in obvious distress (people undergoing mental health crises, people undergoing physical health crises, potential suicides, and... um... lost dogs), the officer chose to end the crisis by killing the living thing in obvious need of assistance.

Roughly five minutes into the recording (and less than two minutes after encountering the dog), officer Myron Woods ditches the restraint device, pulls out his gun, and kills the dog.

Any normal person would try to help someone or something in distress. Pretty much any officer that considers themselves reasonable" thinks the problem can be solved with bullets and, if need be, even more bullets.

It only took one to kill this dog. And, of course, the officer felt he had done the right thing. He was so confident in this conclusion he felt comfortable sharing his rationale with the owner of the dog he had just killed.

When Hunter confronted Woodson about what he had done, Hunter said the officer told him he thought Teddy looked injured or abandoned and wanted to put him down."

The town could have (and should have!) left this officer to fend for himself after he committed this truly senseless act of violence. But it didn't. Instead, it spun this as nothing more than good police work from an officer acting in the interest of public safety.

In astatement Thursday,the city said it is standing by the officer's actions. Officials have reviewed the dispatch report and body camera footage and believe the officer acted within his authority" to protect citizens from the dog causing injury to others.

The dog's strange behavior appeared consistent with the dispatch report of an injured or possibly sick dog," the city said, after initially claiming in aseparate postthat the officer feared it had rabies. It added that it would send its officers to a local county animal control facility for training and education in hopes that this unfortunate situation does not occur again."

Even the person who reported the lost dog called for the officer's resignation. She also expressed her displeasure of the city's support for the officer to the mayor. Mayor Kevin Abahamson refused to respond to this (and complaints from other city residents), choosing instead to resign after the city's board of Aldermen took issue with the statement released by the mayor about the shooting.

And just to drive the point home that this was a truly senseless killing by an officer who could have done literally anything else to handle this completely non-threatening situation, here's a bit from the lawsuit (filed with the assistance of the Animal Legal Defense Fund) that details officer Woodson's actions and statements as captured by his own body camera:

Teddy's attempt to simply walk away from Defendant Woodson indicated a total lack of aggression on Teddy's part as well as his desire for avoidance rather than confrontation.

As he walked after Teddy, Defendant Woodson audibly remarked Maybe I'll get a blanket and just wrap you up," indicating that he perceived no threat or danger and believed that he could possibly get close enough to just reach down and safely pick Teddy up by covering him with a blanket.

Despite contemplating simply using a blanket to safely capture Teddy, Defendant Woodson did not return to his vehicle to obtain a blanket but rather transferred his catch-pole from his right hand to his left hand and followed after Teddy.

[...]

In walking after Teddy, Defendant Woodson did so in a calm manner, even whistling and calling out to Teddy.

Even with Defendant Woodson following after him, Teddy showed no signs of aggression, did not turn around to face his pursuer, and did not bark or growl.

Upon reaching within feet of Teddy, Defendant Woodson made no further attempts to use his catch-pole (which he had facing the wrong way rendering the device effectively useless and abandoned anyway) and instead unholstered his firearm.

On May 19, 2024, at 5:43:27 p.m. (five-forty-three p.m. and 27 seconds or 17:43:27 in military time), Defendant Myron Woodson - while in the employ of Defendant City of Sturgeon, while on duty and attired in the uniform of his department, and while acting under color of state law - calmly and deliberately removed his firearm from his holster and fired a single shot into Teddy from near point-blank range.

At the time Defendant Woodson fired his fatal shot into Teddy, Teddy was seemingly unaware of the mortal danger presented by Defendant Woodson and was angled away from Defendant Woodson and again simply attempting to walk away.

Defendant Woodson's shot caused the little dog's body to jerk backwards and fall to the ground.

At the moment he shot Teddy, Defendant Woodson was not in fear for his safety or the safety of anyone else.

Approximately five (5) to seven (7) seconds later, Defendant Woodson fired a second point blank shot into Teddy's body.

That's what you'll see in the video embedded above, if you've got the stomach for it. If not, I'm sorry. The dry text version contained in the lawsuit isn't that much easier to take.

Now, it's up to the federal court to decide whether this was a reasonable" act by a police officer. I sincerely hope it does not decide it is. Given what's alleged in the lawsuit and captured on Woodson's body cam, this was the act of an officer who just got tired of playing dog-catcher and opted to play dog-killer instead.