AMERICA-More dogs have been shot and killed (18 known) by police than there are days in this New Year. Police are bringing the New Year in with a bang, and the public has had enough.
The public not only has to watch out for gunmen killing their children and family members, but now have to protect their family pets from the police that are servants of the public.
It seems police are tired of walking on the legal side of society, so they now think they can take the public’s civil rights from us. Not only are they violating the due process Laws by entering private, fenced property; they are now telling the public a crime has been committed before the fact; which is unconstitutional under void for vagueness “A servant of the law cannot create a crime before one has been committed and cannot say a crime has been committed without a law.”
The void for vagueness is a doctrine derived from the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. It requires criminal laws to be drafted in language that is clear enough for the average person to comprehend.
If a person of ordinary intelligence cannot determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed under a particular law, then the law will be deemed unconstitutionally vague. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that no one may be required at peril of life, liberty, or property to speculate as to the meaning of a penal law. Everyone is entitled to know what the government commands or forbids.
The void for vagueness doctrine advances four underlying policies. First, the doctrine encourages the government to clearly distinguish conduct that is lawful from that which is unlawful. Under the Due Process Clauses, individuals must be given adequate notice of their legal obligations so they can govern their behavior accordingly. When individuals are left uncertain by the wording of an imprecise statute, the law becomes a standard-less trap for the unwary. The Free Dictionary by Farlex [Void for Vagueness Doctrine, read more…]
The police and their departments are stating, “The dog was a threat,” (vague) a threat to who or what? To use deadly force, the threat has to be deemed a threat to society. A dog, which is personal property, would have to be deemed a threat to society through the due process laws. These dogs did not touch the officers, so there is no proof of a crime. The police cannot make up a crime for their actions; this would be considered “retroactive.” If the dog has not caused harm, the officer cannot say "it will" without proof and due process. Police officers cannot make laws, they can only enforce them.
The majority of the dogs that have been killed have not violated any laws. The police are taking our private property and destroying it without due process.
Example: The police cannot take my car away and destroy it because I receive one D.U.I., they can take my right to drive it away. If I am convicted of several D.U.I.’s then by law they can take my car from me and sell it or destroy it because I have been proven by law to be a danger to society.
The second violation would fall under the” moral and ethical law (the law behind the law),” this law is what governs all of society to this day. The law is silent and it means the majority of the population has to feel the same way to be considered moral and ethical for the society as a whole. This is why we have prisons and criminals because the majority of the population deems the persons act immoral or unethical.
The third and final violation would fall under the fourth amendment curtilage exception, which protects the outdoor area immediately surrounding the home. Courts have treated this area as an extension of the house and as such subject to all the privacy protections afforded a person’s home.
The curtilage exception means a Police officer cannot enter your yard unless he has a warrant or official court paper to serve. If the officer enters your property (unless that property is public or a lien) on probable cause then that officer is liable in a court of law to prove beyond a reason-of-doubt that there was an emergent criminal act in process that had to be acted on immediately. If the officer has a warrant and or official court papers to serve, that officer does not have the right to destroy your property. That would be a civil and criminal destruction of property.
The polices war-on-dogs has been no different than the poachers in Africa, they are killing the animals that have the right to be on that land, and taking a vital part of our history with their callous disregard for life.
All the above information can be found in Criminal Law [tenth edition] Thomas J. Gardner/Terry M. Anderson.
More Examiner articles to enjoy:
Colorado Deputies respond to wrong business and kill man's best friend
ACLU of Nevada question the LVMPD shooting of Bubba the dog
Would you like to be notified when the next story is published? It's FREE! Please click the Subscribe LINK on this page, if you would like to automatically receive the articles as soon as they are published.
Follow me on Facebook at Kansas City Animal Advocacy Examiner
Thank you for reading and sharing these animal articles. We can make a difference in the lives of animals around the world.
Have an idea for a story? Contact me at: email@example.com