•The first is the militarization of law enforcement. Dynamic raids in which police officers burst into a home in riot gear can serve two important purposes: improving officers' safety, and preventing drug dealers from flushing the goods down the commode. But they also ramp up the officers' adrenaline, the confrontational atmosphere, and the us-vs.-them attitude on both sides. A less commando-style approach will get a very different response –– from both human and animal occupants –– than a phalanx of screaming men in combat mode.

What's more, while some raids are necessary, many times close-combat, room-clearing operations constitute massive overkill. Take the February raid in Columbia, Mo., in which a SWAT team shoots two family dogs –– one of them a corgi –– in the presence of young children. (You can watch it, if you can bear to, at http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/05/video-of-swat-raid-on-missouri.) The officers found only a small amount of marijuana, enough for a misdemeanor charge. Now, you can blame the parents for inviting the traumatic event by having pot in the house. But you also can question the lack of perspective in the war on drugs, and whether a dime bag of weed merits the kind of Delta Force operation more appropriate for the hideout of a Columbian narcoterrorist.

•The second problem is the lack of training in how to handle potentially aggressive pets. Unlike the Postal Service, which provides such training, most police departments don't. Here in Central Virginia, spokesman Gene Lepley says the Richmond Police Department offers no formal training on the subject. He does add that its officers have considerable experience, however, and if they know in advance a dog is present in a home they will make plans to deal with it, such as using a fire extinguisher to incapacitate it. (Regarding the Danville incident, Lepley passes on the remark from a Richmond SWAT officer that a dachshund "probably would have gotten a boot, not a bullet.") Chesterfield provides some education and has similar practices. (Henrico did not respond before deadline.)

•The third problem is impunity. The firing of the officer who shot the dachsund in Danville is atypical. The usual response from a police department in such situations is that the officer was following procedure, and is therefore blameless. But "that's our policy" is no excuse if the policy is wrong. No action ever has been taken against the officers in Prince George's, for instance –– or, say, against the Oklahoma police officer who stopped in Tammy Christopher's driveway to ask for directions a couple years ago. Her dog –– a Wheaten terrier –– ran out of the house. As Balko reports, "it's difficult to tell [from the video] whether the dog is charging the officer or bounding out to greet him." No matter: The officer shot and killed it. He was cleared of wrongdoing.

•The fourth, closely related, problem is the general societal attitude toward family pets. Killing a dog does not rise to the level of killing, say, a 3-year-old child. But it ought to rise above the level of putting a bullet through a sofa –– especially when the dog presents little or no threat. Last month in D.C., officers went to the home of Marietta Robinson with a search warrant naming Robinson's grandson. She let them in after getting their permission to confine her 13-year-old lap dog, Wrinkles, in the bathroom. An officer opened the bathroom door and shot the dog anyway. Justification? None necessary. Why not?