Consent Of The Governed

What if someone trespassed on your property inside a clearly established fence and killed one of your animals? What kind of liability would that trespasser have?

Now what if the trespasser works for the government?

That is the question raised by a disturbing incident in Polk County, Georgia, where a family says police officers entered a fenced pasture while searching for a missing person and shot and killed their young miniature donkey, HeeHaw.

According to the farm owner, the officers entered the pasture around 12:45 in the morning without permission or warning. HeeHaw was a bottle-raised donkey that had been around people his entire life. The family says he approached the officers while braying. Officers reportedly attempted to use a Taser before one officer shot and killed him.

The officers were not there because of any complaint involving the donkey, the farm, or the owners. They were reportedly searching for a missing child.

That fact matters, because police can have legal authority to enter private property without a warrant in genuine emergencies. If officers reasonably believe a missing child is in immediate danger and may be located on private property, the law can give them latitude that an ordinary citizen would never have.

But emergency authority is not unlimited authority.

A fence still means something. Private property still means something. An animal owner’s property rights still mean something. Once government agents enter private property, their actions should still be judged by necessity, reasonableness, and the circumstances they actually faced.

That is why the body-camera footage is so important. What did the officers know before entering the pasture? Did they have information suggesting the missing child was actually there? Was there an immediate emergency requiring entry through the fence? How did the donkey approach them? How much time passed between the encounter and the shooting? Was retreat possible? Why was a Taser used? Most importantly, what caused the officer to conclude that killing the animal was necessary?

These are not anti-police questions. They are accountability questions.

Imagine reversing the roles. Suppose an ordinary citizen crossed through a clearly established fence in the middle of the night, entered somebody else’s pasture, and shot a family animal. That person’s explanation would immediately be scrutinized. Investigators would want to know why they were there, whether they had permission, whether they reasonably feared injury, whether they could have avoided the confrontation, and whether destroying the animal was justified.

Working for the government should not make those questions disappear. It should make them more important.

Government employees sometimes have legal privileges ordinary citizens do not have because we entrust them with responsibilities ordinary citizens do not have. Police can pursue suspects, enter property under certain emergency circumstances, detain people, and use force when legally justified.

But those extraordinary powers come with extraordinary responsibility.

The government does not gain ownership of your property simply because an officer crosses the fence line. A badge should not transform an otherwise questionable act into an unquestionable one.

There may ultimately be evidence showing that the officers reasonably believed entry into the pasture was necessary. There may even be evidence showing that the donkey presented a danger they could not safely avoid. That determination should be made from the evidence, not from assumptions made either for or against the officer.

Release the body-camera footage when the law allows it. Release the incident reports. Explain the basis for entering the fenced property. Explain the attempted Taser deployment. Explain why HeeHaw had to die.

Because the principle involved here is much larger than one heartbreaking story about a donkey.

Private property rights do not cease to exist when government arrives. Government authority is legitimate only so long as it remains accountable to the people who granted that authority in the first place.

That is the entire meaning of Consent of the Governed

Facebook

Consent Of The Governed

YouTube

San Antonio, Texas