As family shrieks, police kill dog (probably due to a lack of fresh donuts)

CNN ^

[spetznaz]

COOKEVILLE, Tennessee (CNN) -- Police video released Wednesday showed a North Carolina family kneeling and handcuffed, who shrieked as officers killed their dog -- which appeared to be playfully wagging its tail -- with a shotgun during a traffic stop.

The Smoak family was pulled over the evening of January 1 on Interstate 40 in eastern Tennessee by officers who mistakenly suspected them of a carjacking. An investigation showed James Smoak had simply left his wallet on the roof of his car at a gas station, and motorists who saw his money fly off the car as he drove away called police.

The family was driving through eastern Tennessee on their way home from a New Year's trip to Nashville. They told CNN they are in the process of retaining a lawyer and considering legal action against the Cookeville, Tennessee, Police Department and the Tennessee Highway Patrol for what happened to them and their dog.

In the video, released by the THP, officers are heard ordering the family, one by one, to get out of their car with their hands up. James Smoak and his wife, Pamela, and 17-year-old son Brandon are ordered onto their knees and handcuffed.

"What did I do?" James Smoak asks the officers.

"Sir, inside information is that you was involved in some type of robbery in Davidson County," the unidentified officer says.

Smoak and his wife protest incredulously, telling the officers that they are from South Carolina and that their mother and father-in-law are traveling in another car alongside them.

The Smoaks told CNN that as they knelt, handcuffed, they pleaded with officers to close the doors of their car so their two dogs would not escape, but the officers did not heed them.

Pamela Smoak is seen on the tape looking up at an officer, telling him slowly, "That dog is not mean. He won't hurt you."

Her husband says, "I got a dog in the car. I don't want him to jump out."

The tape then shows the Smoak's medium-size brown dog romping on the shoulder of the Interstate, its tail wagging. As the family yells, the dog, named Patton, first heads away from the road, then quickly circles back toward the family.

An officer in a blue uniform aims his shotgun at the dog and fires at its head, killing it immediately.

For several moments, all that is audible are shrieks as the family reacts to the shooting. James Smoak even stands up, but officers pull him back down.

"Y'all shot my dog! Y'all shot my dog!" James Smoak cries. "Oh my God! God Almighty!"

"You shot my dog!" screams his wife, distraught and still handcuffed. "Why'd you kill our dog?"

"Jesus, tell me, why did y'all shoot my dog?" James Smoak says.

The officers bring him to the patrol car, and the family calms down, but still they ask the officers for an explanation. One of them says Patton was "going after" the officer.

"No he wasn't, man," James Smoak says. "Y'all didn't have to kill the dog like that."

[ambrose]

You know, I am giving some consideration to starting a website which will profile these abusive cops, and include their photos, home address and telephone number. Let nature take its course.

[Ouachita]

James Smoak looks at the
grave of his dog that was
fatally shot by a Cookeville
police officer after Smoak
and his family were stopped.

[TaZ]

BTW, I've heard this guy in two radio interviews and he sounds like a real calm, down to earth guy...

He said his family has been shattered by the incident and that he insisted that the cops give him his pooch in the bodybag they put it in, so they could bury it back home.

[budwiesest]

The only justification I can think of for the cop shooting the dog would have been if the dog were over six feet tall, with a beard you could wrap around your fist, with bad kidneys, wearing a turban, and going by the name of "Bin".

[TaZ]

Oh yeah, did I mention they brow-beat him when he asked to see their names & badges...the officer in charge told him, "I thought you said that if I let you out of the car and handcuffs you wouldn't cause any problems?".

[lawgirl]

They legally can't. ;-D NOW they can let the emotions of the people influence how much money they give them (and that might be up to debate according to legal precedent) but they cannot legally say "we award damages for emotional distress." There are VERY strict precedents for rewarding "intentional infliction of emotional distress". Usually it is only allowed for seeing a close family member seriously injured/killed. While I count my cats and family dog as a member of the family, America's judicial system doesn't. ;-D

[Ouachita]

I hope those f*ckers get a real long vacation as a reward for their brave deed.

[TaZ]

"They legally can't. ;-D NOW they can let the emotions of the people influence how much money they give them (and that might be up to debate according to legal precedent) but they cannot legally say "we award damages for emotional distress." There are VERY strict precedents for rewarding "intentional infliction of emotional distress". Usually it is only allowed for seeing a close family member seriously injured/killed. While I count my cats and family dog as a member of the family, America's judicial system doesn't."

Have you ever filed a complaint?

I guess we have to see what complaint is filed on behalf of the family and if the judge allows it to stand.

[ambrose]

Check out this related story (contains some additional facts):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/819436/posts

[TaZ]

BTW, I run a legal newswire service that every major lawfirm in NYC subscribes to and I have personally seen "Infliction of emotional distress" cases filed for everything from an wrongful termination of employment contracts and landlords harassing tenants to wrongful arrests and securities fraud.

If the lawfirm representing add "intentional infliction of emotional distress" on as a count in the complaint, they are not doing their job.

[TaZ]

I meant to write; If the lawfirm representing the family doesn't add "intentional infliction of emotional distress" on as a count in the complaint, they are not doing their job.

[fire_eye]

I'm sure that this family, like every other American family who's been brutalized by the cops for the simple reason that cops brutalize *everybody* who isn't a cop, will now be avid and fervent supporters of the police, of police levies, of the legal system, etc. etc. and will be even more willing than ever to come to the aid of officers in trouble, to cooperate during an emergency, etc. etc...

as will everyone who hears about this sort of thing...

Good work, cops. Just keep it up - You don't need public support; we're all just "civilians". Nothing to see here... just get on back to your bragging session at the donut shop...

[lawgirl]

Have any of these suits resulted in recovery on that charge?

[Movemout]

What a sad story. I travel in TN quite often and I just can't believe these guys did this. This is a cock up of the worst sort. I agree that these guys need their badges lifted
and never work law enforcemnet again.

[TaZ]

"Have any of these suits resulted in recovery on that charge?"

Sure, they drop off in the pressroom final judgement/opinions off regarding these actions all the time...occassionally I see awards for intentional infliction of emotional distress made by juries as well.

Although, I'd say most of the time the complaints are thrown out by the judge due to their frivolous nature...

[Godel]

The officers life should be ruined. He should be sued and/or given prison time. They specifically asked for them to close the doors, then after that, they shoot a dog with a wagging tail. That is unforgivable. Of course, a true civil rights violation like this, you won't hear anything from the liberals or the ACLU. They're too busy making sure terrorists get a chance to read the Koran every day.

[lawgirl]

occassionally I see awards for intentional infliction of emotional distress made by juries as well.

Although, I'd say most of the time the complaints are thrown out by the judge due to their frivolous nature...

The award by juries--what kind of cases? I wonder what happens upon appeal. This has been a traditionally very restricted award. I can believe they are thrown out--possibly for the fact that the claim is not supported by the restrictive framework for traditional awards under this theory.

In any occassion, I still stand by my statement that intentional infliction of emotional distress is not applicable in this case. Am I saying they don't deserve it? Heck no. I'd love to see the policemen pay personally through the nose for what they did. I just think that realistically this family will have to get their pound of flesh via different causes of action.

[Rightly Biased]

bump to self

[wgeorge2001]

I have and will continue to support the police because I know that most officers do take their job (to serve and protect law abiding citizens) seriously, but fools like this give the whole police force a bad name because of their irrational and unnessary behaviour.

[republicman]

This is horrible, I'd like to see the cop who did this fired, or worse.

That being said, in a nation that has millions of cops, there are always bound to be a few who are incompetent or worse.

But just as bad as these cops are the sickos here who use these rare acts of a small few to disgrace an entire group. Most of which is the only thing standing between criminals and the rest of us.

Bad cops make me sick

But so do copbashing whackos