APD Shot and killed buddy's dog

[jimlongley]

Very sad situation. My sympathy goes out to your friend. Not able to see exactly where the dog was in relation to the officer, but that shot definitely was taken awfully quickly. My gut says he overreacted big time to the dog coming to investigate and then tried to cover it with his blaming your friend for not getting his dog, when in reality your friend had not even had time to process what was going on and react himself. This is one time when the dash cam audio will be an asset for your friend to prove liability on the city.

In the one video, at second 45, the officer says "Hey Wh??? SHOW ME YOUR HANDS, SHOW ME YOUR HANDS, GET YOUR DOG" and then BANG! at second 49, and then shortly thereafter he can be heard whining "Why didn't you get your dog?" as if he had actually given the owner time to react to the first "SHOW ME YOUR HANDS" much less to anything else.

[Beiruty]

I am more concerned why the Police officer has to draw on unarmed person who is not a threat or even aggressive or non-compliant. That would be an aggravated assault if done by a civilian. That officer has be sent to for long time re-training and long time office desk duty to cool down and learn to control his fear. He behaved like scared bat squirting out from a cave.

[puma guy]

Without inflaming this anymore than it aleady is I'd like to pose a question. If this was a CHL and the situation were the same sans the perceived threat of domestic violence would APD defend the action to dispatch a dog under similar circumstances or be charging with a crime? i.e. barking dog approaching unrestrained? Let's say someone with a CHL is replying to an ad for the sale of an item and owner's dog comes at them.

[Dave2]

Without inflaming this anymore than it aleady is I'd like to pose a question. If this was a CHL and the situation were the same sans the perceived threat of domestic violence would APD defend the action to dispatch a dog under similar circumstances or be charging with a crime? i.e. barking dog approaching unrestrained? Let's say someone with a CHL is replying to an ad for the sale of an item and owner's dog comes at them.

Dunno, but short of actually lunging for my throat, there's not much that a dog that size could do to scare me into shooting that quickly.

I've never really understood the fear of a lone family dog. There was an English Mastiff I knew once that I thought might be able get the better of me if he'd tried, but he turned out to be a giant teddy bear.

[speedsix]

...if the CHL were to be threatening an unarmed, non-threatening homeowner with his firearm, and screaming wildly, then shot a dog which came at him barking...all this on the homeowner's property...I'd say said CHL would be in an undefensible position...

...I agree, Dave2...my usual response to a barking dog on that dog's property is to drop to a knee and speak softly...the dog does not perceive a threat and settles down...giving the homeowner time to introduce us...I go on others' property and into others' homes on a daily basis, and usually win the dog within 2-3 minutes...they're just going to protect the hand that feeds them...can't blame them for that...

[ScooterSissy]

... Let's say someone with a CHL is replying to an ad for the sale of an item and owner's dog comes at them.

Gotta modify that a little. How about replying to an ad from a neighbor, and going to the wrong house.

With gun drawn...

[VoiceofReason]

I am more concerned why the Police officer has to draw on unarmed person who is not a threat or even aggressive or non-compliant. That would be an aggravated assault if done by a civilian. That officer has be sent to for long time re-training and long time office desk duty to cool down and learn to control his fear. He behaved like scared bat squirting out from a cave.

Was there a weapon involved in the initial report? If so I can understand the officer drawing his sidearm.

How would you know the subject was “unarmed” until you have searched him? I agree the officer probably overreacted but none of us were there and don’t know all of the details. It is easy to criticize when one is sitting safely in front of his/her keyboard and take all the time he/she wants to think about what he/she would do in a situation we don’t know all the facts about.

[VoiceofReason]

dashcam footage:
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/aust ... dogs-death" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Who has NEVER gone onto someone else's property who had dogs and not have them run up to you? Give me a break. I've been slobbered halfway to death from much bigger, intimidating dogs than a little healer.

I have been bitten twice, once by a German Sheppard. The owner didn’t didn’t see the dog bite me and she was telling me the dog wouldn’t bite. She didn’t believe me when I told her it had bitten me. The dog bit me on the front of my upper leg, left teeth marks and drew blood without tearing my pants.

[speedsix]

I am more concerned why the Police officer has to draw on unarmed person who is not a threat or even aggressive or non-compliant. That would be an aggravated assault if done by a civilian. That officer has be sent to for long time re-training and long time office desk duty to cool down and learn to control his fear. He behaved like scared bat squirting out from a cave.

Was there a weapon involved in the initial report? If so I can understand the officer drawing his sidearm.

How would you know the subject was “unarmed” until you have searched him? I agree the officer probably overreacted but none of us were there and don’t know all of the details. It is easy to criticize when one is sitting safely in front of his/her keyboard and take all the time he/she wants to think about what he/she would do in a situation we don’t know all the facts about.

...those of us who HAVE spent several years on the streets usually consider what's in the subject's HANDS to determine whether or not to draw and cover them...more often it's handled as you posted earlier...then search him/her if/as the situation calls for it...the fact that the officer greatly overreacted is not in dispute, with the facts we are given here...where one is sitting when coming to these conclusions makes little difference to the conclusions drawn...Beiruty's concerns are valid and well supported by the supplied facts...the dashboard audio tells us a lot...

[C-dub]

... Let's say someone with a CHL is replying to an ad for the sale of an item and owner's dog comes at them.

Gotta modify that a little. How about replying to an ad from a neighbor, and going to the wrong house.

With gun drawn...

Part in red is your biggest problem. The officer thought he was going into a bad situation and even then there was no reason to have already had his gun out. A CHL has even less of a reason to already have their gun out in your scenario.

[Jumping Frog]

I hear all the uproar, and there are simply of couple of issues rolling around in this head of mine.

First, I think getting focused on leash laws was a diversion, because it isn't the leash law that is at issue. The issue is any person (not just LEO's) has the right to defend himself against an attacking dog anywhere he has a right to be. There are two key nuances in that statement. First, what is a reasonable person's interpretation of "attacking dog". Second, the issue of whether they have the right to be on a certain property.

Let's leave the property issue alone for a minute and look at the scenario of a stray dog unaccompanied by an owner running towards you barking aggressively while you are walking in the park. Nowhere does it say you have to let yourself get bitten first to see if the dog is really attacking or just barking. That situation can happen fast. I could see myself going from recognizing a bad situation to actually shooting at a dog within 4 seconds, so the elapsed time on the video does not seem surprising or unusual.

Now, let's look at the property issue. Regardless of the right address or wrong address, that officer had the right to be on that property. He was responding to a call at the address he had been given. You cannot fault the officer for being on that property since he had a right to be there, so the whole "private property" argument falls apart.

As far as gun drawn, we heard a couple of shouts for "show me your hands". Obviously, the officer couldn't see his hands or he wouldn't have been shouting. We don't know exactly when he pointed the gun at the homeowner. For all we know, he had his hand on his holstered sidearm, or he had the sidearm at low ready, until that moment he had someone coming towards him. When he transitioned to actually pointing the gun at the person is a big unknown. So we can debate our suppositions endlessly, like other recent cases in the news, or we can simply admit we don't know what that officer was really facing.

Lastly, I was also struck by the thought that when it was all said and done, that officer did go home safely to his family at the end of his shift. That isn't something to be taken for granted and minimized by people using 20-20 hindsight.

[mamabearCali]

I hear all the uproar, and there are simply of couple of issues rolling around in this head of mine.

First, I think getting focused on leash laws was a diversion, because it isn't the leash law that is at issue. The issue is any person (not just LEO's) has the right to defend himself against an attacking dog anywhere he has a right to be. There are two key nuances in that statement. First, what is a reasonable person's interpretation of "attacking dog". Second, the issue of whether they have the right to be on a certain property.

Let's leave the property issue alone for a minute and look at the scenario of a stray dog unaccompanied by an owner running towards you barking aggressively while you are walking in the park. Nowhere does it say you have to let yourself get bitten first to see if the dog is really attacking or just barking. That situation can happen fast. I could see myself going from recognizing a bad situation to actually shooting at a dog within 4 seconds, so the elapsed time on the video does not seem surprising or unusual.

Now, let's look at the property issue. Regardless of the right address or wrong address, that officer had the right to be on that property. He was responding to a call at the address he had been given. You cannot fault the officer for being on that property since he had a right to be there, so the whole "private property" argument falls apart.

As far as gun drawn, we heard a couple of shouts for "show me your hands". Obviously, the officer couldn't see his hands or he wouldn't have been shouting. We don't know exactly when he pointed the gun at the homeowner. For all we know, he had his hand on his holstered sidearm, or he had the sidearm at low ready, until that moment he had someone coming towards him. When he transitioned to actually pointing the gun at the person is a big unknown. So we can debate our suppositions endlessly, like other recent cases in the news, or we can simply admit we don't know what that officer was really facing.

Lastly, I was also struck by the thought that when it was all said and done, that officer did go home safely to his family at the end of his shift. That isn't something to be taken for granted and minimized by people using 20-20 hindsight.

I am glad no person got shot, that is good, of course. What I find interesting is that the assumption that an aggressive dog can only be dealt with by lethal force. Does the police officer not have pepper spray? I am a civilian and I carry pepper spray precisely for this reason. As a non-lethal option. The police officer was called to a DD, but had not seen anything that should have been a threat---why was his gun out at all? As has been said before, we need police officers with cool judgement, not ready to go off at the slightest thing. IMHO this fellow seems pretty jumpy, and needs at minimum some retraining. If he was an officer in my district I would be worried...this time all that was lost was a dog, what will happen the next time he gets nervous on a call? No one wants that to happen, so I really think he needs to get some help.

He may have been called to the wrong house but he still shot a persons dog for precious little cause. He needs to say he is terribly sorry he had to do that and replace the dog. Don't circle the wagons and don't cite leash law that is less than clear. If he had broken the door down on a mistaken call I am betting the department would have replaced the door, replace the dog.

[grettlerj]

This really bothers me. I have two 2 dogs and they are part of my family. That dog could not have really hurt him. It probably weighted ~35 lbs. He could have done something other than shoot the dog.

[Keith B]

This really bothers me. I have two 2 dogs and they are part of my family. That dog could not have really hurt him. It probably weighted ~35 lbs. He could have done something other than shoot the dog.

A 35 lb dog CAN severely injure you. Dog bites even from 15-20 lb dogs can be a serious. In this case, I do believe the officer reacted poorly as he seemed way too fast on the trigger. I think it was a over reaction to being startled by the dog and since he already had the gun in his hand he used the first tool he had available, which sadly lead to this dog losing his life for doing what dogs do, they bark.

There are also many people who have cynophobia (a fear of dogs) and react in a very poor manner if a dog barks or even just have to be close to a dog. My wife had a very bad experience this with a DPS Sgt. at a license office a few years ago when we were raising a service dog, and I really believe the woman was extremely afraid of a very docile animal that was not acting even the least bit aggressive. To not hijack this thread, here is a post about that viewtopic.php?f=83&t=25568&p=325650" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[puma guy]

... Let's say someone with a CHL is replying to an ad for the sale of an item and owner's dog comes at them.

Gotta modify that a little. How about replying to an ad from a neighbor, and going to the wrong house.

With gun drawn...

Part in red is your biggest problem. The officer thought he was going into a bad situation and even then there was no reason to have already had his gun out. A CHL has even less of a reason to already have their gun out in your scenario.

It could be the wrong address in a newspaper ad or even someone approching the property to invite someone to come to a church Sunday service. I don't know that being at the wrong address would be pertinent or not so assuming there's not a no tresspassing sign or similar posting, I'll pose the question differently. Are LEO's under a different standard reacting to a perceived threat such as the barking dog coming toward them than a CHL? redundancy here: would both be protected under a case of defending themselves?