Steve - you are obviously not a police officer, and obviously do not live in Philadelphia. Sure, I could have been trained to be "less hostile" in Philly - we actually are trained to act in that manner - and we could take away the military weapons and tactics." Of course, since we already outgunned on the streets, these options would only make us a bigger target than we already are.

This year, we six of my fellow officers have been shot in the line of duty - one fatally. Despite what Anderson may think, most in my profession are threatened - or feel that way - when we arrive to work. The fact is, in Philadelphia, if you shoot a cop, you're a local hero. Try going to your job with that idea in the back of your mind.

I'm sure everyone - including me - would love to live in a rose-colored world with sunshine and lollipops where no one shoots at the cops, no one sics their dogs on us, and crime is eradicated. Until that happens, however, I'll make sure I go home safely at night. If the occasional mistake is made, I'd rather a dog be lost than another human being.

It is actually the local authorities more likely to do violate my rights than Bush or federal officials. In my county the tax assessor has recently stated his people have a right to enter fenced back yards without permission and the water commission searches for backflow valves without homeowner permission. None of this is a result of Bush administration policies. It is the nature of government or any organization to always push the limits and boundaries. It's up to us to push back and settle somewhere in the middle.

In either case the government is not evil, it's simply following the natural path. Letting emotions play too large a part of our thinking on this subject muddies the water and makes it harder to create sound public policy.

Careful what you wish for guys. Smile, there may well be a government camera pointing at you.

Following up on this point, what drives me crazy is the common American mindset that misdeeds committed by public officials or employees should result in huge payments by taxpayers to the affected person.

You are forgetting Paul that the police are agents of the people--i.e. citizens and also taxpayers. So they are the ultimate party that is responsible. If the taxpayers don't like it, then vote for candidates that will put in place better procedures, rules, and policies.

Maybe if instead we held the employee accountable instead of the taxpayer there wouldn't be so many of these kinds of incidents in the first place.

Agreed, but then you have to get rid of the knee-jerk attitude of: Cops are Heroes. Further, the taxpayers/citizens need to put people in charge who will make meaningful changes to deal with the code of silence that is present in many, if not all, police departments.

That said, obviously when a public employee causes actual damages (and not the emotional damages stuff) while acting in accordance with applicable policies, the injured person should be compensated and taxpayers have to pay for it as a cost of doing business.

Emotional damages don't count? So, if I were to abuse you emotionally (i.e. psychologically...some might even call this torture) then your view is "no harm no foul"? Pardon me while I find this assertion to be complete Bravo Sierra.

But punitive or emotional damages tacked on won't bring the dog back or stop the next shooting.

Actually that is precisely the point of punitive damages. The point is to make the cost of wrong-doing hurt so that somebody finally does something to change the bone-headed policy that lead to the problem in the first place. Like serving no-knock warrants on non-violent offenders and using police who only have half-assed training and can't check a damn street sign/address.

Now if you want to do something like burn the money that goes towards punitive damages, fine by me. But getting rid of them then reduces whatever incentive there is by taxpayers to actually do something about incompetence, corruption, or bad policies.

Instead, if the cop is deemed to have acted inappropriately and then faces appropriate consequence (like paying even a modest amount of damages out of his own pocket) maybe the next cop won't shoot to kill.

And what "modest" amount should be paid to the family of Kathryn Johnston?

The other comments are absolutely correct. I especially like making the wrong doers pay, not the taxpayer.

Also when something like this happens the victims should be compensated but not something outrageous like a million dollars for a dog death.

Following up on this point, what drives me crazy is the common American mindset that misdeeds committed by public officials or employees should result in huge payments by taxpayers to the affected person. Maybe if instead we held the employee accountable instead of the taxpayer there wouldn't be so many of these kinds of incidents in the first place.

That said, obviously when a public employee causes actual damages (and not the emotional damages stuff) while acting in accordance with applicable policies, the injured person should be compensated and taxpayers have to pay for it as a cost of doing business. But punitive or emotional damages tacked on won't bring the dog back or stop the next shooting. Instead, if the cop is deemed to have acted inappropriately and then faces appropriate consequence (like paying even a modest amount of damages out of his own pocket) maybe the next cop won't shoot to kill.

If a person kills a police dog it is considered the dame as killing a police officer. I think it’s ironic and wrong. Yes it is a special case but I think the law goes overboard.

Until the courts start looking at reasonable attitudes and alternatives and holding the cops to those, cops will continue to kill people's dogs and get away with it.