"Puppycide by Gavel: How the Judiciary Uses the Police Killing of Dogs to Reinforce Justifications for Police Violence" (by Jeremy Smith): Review 1

Vote: Publish as is.

The manuscript is well written. The author analyzed the cases related to the topic very comprehensively. The ethnographic content analysis of themes in police canine shootings was appropriate for the subject matter. The arguments were very well reasoned. The paper was organized coherently, and the flow of thought transitioned from one theme to another very well.

There was nothing I could add substantively to the manuscript because it was well written, as submitted. There were a few errors, as follows:

p. 3

Typo errors:

1. Two Pinellas County deputies shot two dogs who were allegedly running at large an “aggressively trying to get into a man’s home” (Lang, 2011, p. 3B)

Should be “and” instead of “an”.

2. Eventually, every white person was legally obligated to enforce the state’s slave laws by physically harming slaves found of their slave owner’s property without proper authorization (Parénti, 2001)

Should be “off” instead of “of”.

p. 4

3. Even some jurors believed that it was appropriate for officers to use some degree of physical force against those perceived as “harden criminals” (Paulsen, 1954, p. 428).

Should be “hardened” instead of “harden” or if this is indeed a direct quote, there should be a “(sic)” after the word “harden” because of the typo error.

p. 10

4. The Sixth Circuit’s reliance on the barking as indicative of aggression highlights another important pillar of (incomplete thought)

The above sentence is a hanging sentence (incomplete thought). Please clarify the thought.