Cop's bullet aimed at barking dog hits owner instead

Madison Record ^ | 12/08/2009 | Madison Record

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

A woman has filed suit against the Washington Park police officer who she says accidentally shot her in the leg.

Linda Hicks claims she called police to her house at 5731 Portland on Dec. 1, 2008, to request that her son be removed due to his disruptive behavior.

Responding to Hicks' request, defendant Washington Park police officer Donald Williams arrived at Hicks' residence where he arrested Hicks' son for an outstanding warrant, according to the complaint filed Nov. 30 in St. Clair County Circuit Court.

"As the officers were taking the plaintiff's son to the squad car, plaintiff's dog barked at Officer Williams," the suit states. "Apparently startled, Williams discharged his official firearm twice in the direction of the dog. The bullet or the ricochet of the bullet struck plaintiff in the leg."

Because of the incident, Hicks sustained temporary and permanent injuries, incurred medical costs and has been prevented from attending to her usual duties, the complaint says.

Hicks blames Williams for discharging his firearm contrary to policy, for discharging his firearm when he knew it would result in injury and for discharging his firearm in the absence of a threat to him.

The village of Washington Park is also named as a defendant because it is allegedly liable for Williams' actions.

In the two-count suit, Hicks seeks a judgment of more than $100,000, plus costs.

She will be represented by Philip B. Afeld and Lanny Darr of Schrempf, Kelly, Napp and Darr in Alton.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number: 09-L-639.

[Eaker]

If it had been me Barney had shot he would have just lost his first and last gun fight.

[benewton]

Of course: we’ve got two.

But if the intruders get through them, they then have to deal with the pair of attack cats.

It’s a rough world.

[thefactor]

Must've felt real good to sit and type that, huh?

So you would call the cops if your kid got a little out of hand?

[driftdiver]

Yep, you’re a cop.

Cops shoot too many dogs.

[driftdiver]

Yep, you’re a cop.

Cops shoot too many dogs.

[familyop]

He had the right to shoot a threatening dog. We all have that right. But small police agencies should consider more training. Don’t kill a dog with a firearm, while a person is behind the dog.

[driftdiver]

A bark is not an attack. Even IF it was an attack shooting in “the direction” of the dog could easily have resulted in a death or serious injury of a person.

[Eaker]

I really doubt I would call the cops unless I had a mess that required them to do paperwork prior to the coroner removing the body(s).

No it didn’t feel good but it is a fact.

If you cannot admit this guy is an idiot then your word on every other cop thread is suspect.

[driftdiver]

So what does a cop have to do to go to jail.

negligent discharge of a firearm gets most people arrested and jailed.

[thefactor]

Not gonna argue with that, but it's just that shooting a dog requires a lower standard than shooting a human.

Cops shoot a lot of animals that are about to inflict harm on them. We only care about the dogs though.

And, dogs are more likely to be at jobs to which police respond. So of course the proportion of dogs shot are going to be higher.

[randomhero97]

The real question is what is the purpose of local law enforcement other than revenue generation for government?

The Supreme Court already ruled they have no duty to serve and protect the folks who pay their salaries.

[familyop]

"Temporary AND permanent injuries?!?

Oh, NO!"

Heh. That reminds of when a cop (not now but over a decade ago), tired of doing traffic, wrote a young man for "peeling out and squealing tires." Yep. That happened, and no officer of the court complained. ;-)

[thefactor]

That was my original point. We don’t know if it was just a bark since we only have some scumbag lawyers word for it.

[dusttoyou]

Mysterious disappearance of glazed donuts does come to mind.

[driftdiver]

“Cops shoot a lot of animals that are about to inflict harm on them. We only care about the dogs though.”

No I care about the cops too. There are far too many stories where the cops shoot the dogs without cause. Cause they were barking or some such nonsense.

“And, dogs are more likely to be at jobs to which police respond.”

So dog owners are troublemakers?

[familyop]

"All the language in this article comes from the LAWSUIT!"

Yes--and from the point of view of the plaintiff. Most commenters miss such things and continue ranting subjectively.

[Engineer_Soldier]

I love dogs, but have a bit of trouble with stupid people.

That cop could have used his pepper spray (as the mail men do) or his tazer. His firearm usage would have been criminal if anybody else had done it.

[thefactor]

I agree there is enough idiocy to go around.

She failed to control her dog. He failed to keep muzzle discipline.

However, she was hit by a ricochet. We all know ricochets can go in pretty much any direction.

[Mears]

I’m the Mom of a cop and thanks for your post.

[randomhero97]

Yes--and from the point of view of the plaintiff. Most commenters miss such things and continue ranting subjectively.

That is true. However, police departments have a long history of covering up incidents or at attempting to. It's getting real hard to believe anything unless it's seen with our own eyes.