APD Shot and killed buddy's dog

[flintknapper]

A quick google search shows this type thing is happening more frequently all across the U.S.

It clearly points to the need to for more/better instruction concerning the contact between LEO, the public and their animals.

http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-da ... ghborhoods" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Encounters between police officers and dogs are on the rise and, more and more often, they're ending with dogs being fatally shot in residential areas.

The Dayton Daily News recently reported that the Dayton Police Department is on track this year to double the number of dogs fatally shot just two years ago. Internal investigations have cleared the officers in every one of the 44 fatal dog shootings since 2008.

Even if every one of those dogs was threatening the officer, why aren't they looking for alternatives to firing weapons in neighborhoods, especially when Dayton has a community initiative to reduce gun violence?

Despite the rise in dog ownership, police receive little to no training on how to handle dogs or understand their behavior. As a result, dogs are commonly shot by police because their behavior was misinterpreted. In addition, animal control in every city manages to handle encounters with stray, aggressive dogs without the use of firearms.


I urge citizens to familiarize yourself with the law (including those local to you)…and really put the “heat” on officials when/if there is a clear (or reasonably suspected) mis-shooting of an animal.

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ddus ... ngpets.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ScooterSissy]

Regarding firefighters not entering your home...

If everyone is out and the integrity of the structure is unknown, they will go defensive.

Risk a little to save a little, risk a lot to save a lot is what our fireboys have told me.

Flint, if you really think I just need to accept a beating now and again because it's part of the job, then you're out of touch with realty. Understanding and accepting risk is different than turning a blind, unprepared eye to it. It's like you write off an LEOs right to self defense because of his or her chosen profession. Wow.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that someone needs to accept a beating now and again. Nor is anyone suggesting a LEO has no right to self-defense. What some of us are suggesting is that those issues don't seem to apply here.

Police are given the privilege, right, nod of approval, whatever one chooses to call it, to enter our property unannounced and armed. They give orders that we are expected to obey without question (at the moment). Those privileges, or whatever they are called, come with a certain level of responsibility. That level doesn't appear to have been achived in this case.

In short, a law-abiding citizen should have the expectation that an officer will not enter their property and kill one of their pets when no one on site is breaking a law or doing anything wrong.

Barring that expectation, I suspect you're going to start finding citizens ready to defend themselves and their property, and (again absent that expecation) I couldn't find fault with them doing so.

[Keith B]

OK folks, the thread is starting to heat up. Keep the dicussions civil, no LEO bashing and we will be good. Otherwise, the thread will be locked.

[t_kopecky]

Speaking personally, I do not really care what your chosen profession is. As a fellow citizen of the United States, I expect you to have your facts perfectly in order before you engage in any type of conflict on my personal property. Spoken or unspoken, court-verified or not, it is your PERSONAL duty to make sure your business is in order before bringing it into my life.

[matriculated]

Flint, if you really think I just need to accept a beating now and again because it's part of the job, then you're out of touch with realty.

Nice try, you need never “accept” a beating, only understand that the competent carrying out of your duties might involve an occasional injury or some discomfort and the least amount of force necessary to effect the situation at hand is what defines “competency”. Please dispense with the sarcasm.

Understanding and accepting risk is different than turning a blind, unprepared eye to it.

No argument. So how do you make the leap from what I posted to this?

It's like you write off an LEOs right to self defense because of his or her chosen profession. Wow.

Nothing could be further from the truth, I have several friends that are LEO and 3 family members either past or present LEO. I hold them ALL to a high standard…owning to the powers invested in them, I happen to think that is reasonable and appropriate.

“Self Defense” is not forfeited as a matter of profession, but neither is the responsibility to exercise it in an appropriate manner, just so we are clear.

All excellent points, flint.

[magillapd]

I worry about this type of thing happening at my house. We have 2 dogs, they are kept either inside with us or outside in the back yard (8'' fence) with electric cattle fencing around the primeter to keep the one from jumping/climbing over the fence)

In my neighborhood, there are 5 different streets that repeat addresses. So one could go to the correct number but may be on the wrong street. Two streets up from me there is a rental home with the same numbers and I hope to God that the police don't come to my house instead of theirs.

My dogs, if inside will bark and jump at the front door if someone knocks. I have beware of dog signs posted on both side fences as well as by front door. Mine have never bitten anyone, but I want people to be aware that there are dogs there.

I would be heartbroken if a police officer shot my dog, I would be OUTRAGED if it happened because they were not at the correct address.

As a 911 Dispatcher I know first hand the importance of getting the correct information from callers and making sure that information gets passed along to responding officers correctly. I also hate having to hear when our officers have to shoot a dog, but everytime it's been justified and was only as a last resort.

I hate it but I know that sometimes they have no choice out there. But, the department SHOULD be requried to make sure that it was justified and if not NEEDS to make it right. Additional training for the officer should be a priorty.

Now, I have to ask, does the ASPCA or Humane Society offer any type of training for LE regarding dog's body language?

[VMI77]

"So it is not very likely at all that they would not react to pepper spray." I can only assume that your participation in this forum is based on your possession or intent to possess a firearm that is carried for defense of self and if applicable the defense of others, should the situation arise. If that is the case, "it is not very likely" that you will ever use said firearm. But then again you know. NEVER base your survival on "it is not very likely". Again, playing what if's, what if the officer previously in his career was injured by a dog and had attempted to pepper spray the said previous dog with no effect. Is the officer going to risk injury a second time in a serious bodily injury/possible death situation by spraying a dog that might not react to the pepper. No, he is not. Also, with the unknowns of the situation and already having his service weapon drawn, is the officer in a split second decision making time frame going to holster his weapon and draw whichever less lethal device he's going to use to subdue the charging/barking/growling dog. I cant speak of your familiarity with working dogs but they are very quick and agile. My boxer can make it (in full sprint) up the stairs of my house in 3 steps. He can jump the privacy fence in my back yard. I have seen heelers jump onto the backs of cattle and cross the herd to get to the other side. The officer simply wouldnt have had time to react, transition and re-engage. If he wouldve attempted he would have been defenseless against the dog and wouldve had to try to defend himself after the attack had begun. He was able to stop the perceived threat before the attack began. Bottom line: The officer was put in fear of his life and sever bodily injury due to circumstances out of his control.

My knowledge of dogs is with my pets through the years (shepherds, beagles, basset hounds, a Bernese mountain dog and good old fashioned mutts) and some amount of study of the smelling capability of dogs (nasal sensitivity). I do know that a barking dog is entirely different than a charging dog. Perhaps in all the training police officers have they should receive some with dogs as they are sure to encounter them. The electrical company around here trains their people on how to deal with dogs (they go in and through people's back yards all the time) they don't have the option of shooting the dog, and they have a near flawless record on dog bites. I just simply find the number of times I hear "cop shot dog" to be on the unacceptable side. I want everyone to go home with the same number of holes in them they left with, but if the power company can have less than one dog bite a year and they go into hostile dog situations on a regular basis it is suspect to me that the police cannot minimize the number of dogs shot.

I wouldnt expect you to be able to understand the functions of "Use of force" as it pertains to police work as we receive HOURS upon HOURS of training in the matter, much in the same fashion I couldnt expect myself to understand the functions of the complexities of the work you are trained to do. It would be unfamiliar territory for both us. Heres a model that helps break it down. As far as youre examples, if an officer gives you a lawful command, such as "stand up, and turn around, youre under arrest", and you answer with "go away and leave me alone" (in not so nice terms) the officer is legally justified in pepper spraying you based on the use of force continuum. Does it always happen that way, no it doesnt. Is it legal and justifiable, yes it is. If a person spits at me (in Tx its a felony) it could be to temporarily blind me, so that they can easier assault me or it could be to infect me with whatever communicable disease they have. (yes, it actually happens) This scenarior is a little more in depth. If the spit is precursored with "im gonna (insert bodily harm intended)" then the action would be "assualtive" and the legal and justifiable response would be deadly force. Again, does it always happen that way, no, but it would be legal and justifiable. "The suspect who was known to have extensive criminal history pertaining to assault on police, interferring with police, and weapons charges stated to me, "Im going to kill you" and then spat in my face. The spit was followed by the suspect attempting to punch me with his right fist. I was in fear that the suspect would cause me great bodily harm or follow through with his threat of death. I backed away from the suspect and gave loud clear commands to "get on the ground" and "youre under arrest". I wiped the suspect's saliva from my eyes and could see that he was still approaching me in a combative/assaultive stance. The suspect had his left hand in his pocket and was refusing to follow my commands. I drew my service weapon and fired at the suspect. He fell to the ground, I continued my loud clear commands and the suspect refused to follow them. I covered the suspect until back up arrived." is different than "he spat in my face and I shot him."

Seems reasonable, and the stair steps is a good illustration. Thanks for the instruction. The initial way I took it was entirely different than how you explained it.

It's amazing isn't it? ....letter carriers, deliverymen, repairmen, meter readers, all manage to routinely enter property where there are dogs, and they never shoot them --basically, because you can't run a business and get away with shooting people's dogs. The police shoot dogs for one reason....they can....there are no consequences, so they get away with it. If, for example, the city, or whatever government agency, had to cough up a cool million to animal rescue groups every time they killed a dog like this --due to their own negligence-- these kinds of dog killings would cease over night. Or take a chunk of change right out of the budget of the offending department.....the incentive of the police is shoot a dog rather than accept any risk of attack, however small, because it costs them nothing when they make a mistake.

The service men you mentioned enter property for different reasons than police. I bet your next paycheck that if you took a service man and had him enter a yard under normal pretense, (during the day, homeowner gone) he would get a completely different response than if he entered yelling at the home owner in a commanding voice much like the officer did.

And therein is the problem: someone entering private property and yelling at the home owner in a commanding voice. If the homeowner was breaking the law and this happened, my view would be different. He wasn't. He was innocent of any wrongdoing. If ANYONE else but a LEO or government official did ANYTHING like this they would be accountable for their actions. If, for example, a contractor demolished part of the wrong house he THOUGHT he was supposed to renovate, he'd have to pay for it. When the police kill a dog, due to their own NEGLIGENCE, there are NO CONSEQUENCES.

[nyj]

Officer has been taken off of patrol duty. Probably for his own safety.

[sjfcontrol]

Officer has been taken off of patrol duty. Probably for his own safety.

Perhaps he could hide out at the same location where Zimmerman was...

[talltex]

...I’m just saying….I believe (these days) officers have it drummed into their heads that THEIR safety is the only thing that matters and that a certain “warrior” spirit is the only thing that will get them home each day (sigh…….).

The job can be dangerous…no doubt, but if you are unwilling to accept that (and a few bruises and bumps along the way) then maybe Law Enforcement isn’t really the best profession for some folks.

It is undeniable…. the growing divide of the “US vs. THEM” between the public and the police. Why is that?

Thank you, this is the point I was trying to make. You did it better than I (at least, at the end there ;) )

It's pretty obvious from this thread, that there is somewhat of an "US vs. THEM" mindset in place. It's as if any non-LEO questioning an officer's behavior is tantamount to "bashing" them, because "we" don't know what his "perception" of the situation was. Years ago, I worked for the Sheriff's Dept. in a Texas college town, and I'm sorry, but this idea that EVERY officer is facing life or death situations EVERY day they go to work, is fantasy land. Certainly they know there is a possibility they MAY face such a situation on any given day, but 99% of the time it's pretty much routine stuff. Perception plays a big part in the outcome of every situation, because perception is reality, to that person. If you go into every encounter with your primary thought being "I may have to kill or be killed", that colors your perception of events, and you are MUCH more likely to overreact and possibly wind up firing your weapon, because mentally, you are already visualizing yourself in a worst case scenario.

Of course an officer is entitled to DEFEND himself against aggressive behavior...but only AFTER that aggressive behavior has actually occurred. That does not give them the right to act preemptively. It is not acceptable for an officer to punch some one first, just because he thinks they MAY take a swing at him. Nobody has said on officer should "take a beating now and then", but they shouldn't be so afraid of any physical confrontation that their first thought is to pull a gun or taser before a punch has been thrown.

[C-dub]

The reason the water, electric, or phone people don't get bit much is because they generally don't go in your yard if there is a dog running loose in it. If they need access they will knock on your door and ask you to put your animals away. If you're not there they will contact you some how and ask you to leave you animals in or secure them so they may gain entry on a known day. The electric company tried to enter my fenced backyard one day without notifying me. My two GSDs prevented them from doing so even after being sprayed. I received a phone call that night telling me that I could receive a citation for failure to allow them access to their property in the easement. I dared them because they are supposed to notify someone first and failed to follow their own procedures and the laws regarding them gaining access to the easement. I did not deny them access. I didn't even know they wanted in. Try reasoning with a couple of trained GSDs. I also told them that if they ever pepper sprayed my dogs again I would have them charged with assault. I don't really know if I could do that, but that and me knowing that they must notify someone before gaining access sure got them to back down and apologize pretty quick.

Just because a dog has a greater sense of smell than a human does not mean they are more sensitive to pepper spray. It works differently on them and the spray used for people is actually much less effective on dogs if it works at all. There is a different formula or concentration for dogs, like there is for bear spray.

[speedsix]

Officer has been taken off of patrol duty. Probably for his own safety.

Perhaps he could hide out at the same location where Zimmerman was...

...he'd prolly do real great at the bicycle impound...

...from what I read, dogs can't cry so being sprayed causes them pain longer...this story reads like the dog looked like a nail and he had his hammer in his hand...all his anguished jabbering afterwards and running the homeowner for wants/warrants was a weak attempt to coverup his screwup...totally irrelevant to the call he was supposed to be on...that 21 mins of audio is pathetic...and I'm not cop bashing...I worked the streets for 8 years and trained at least 8 good rookies personally...I've earned the right to complain when a cop doesn't do it right...calling this one out isn't not loving the police...it's hating it when one's poor performance makes it tougher on the majority...

[matriculated]

It's pretty obvious from this thread, that there is somewhat of an "US vs. THEM" mindset in place. It's as if any non-LEO questioning an officer's behavior is tantamount to "bashing" them, because "we" don't know what his "perception" of the situation was.

Be careful, someone might misinterpret that as LEO bashing.

I'm serious though.

[VMI77]

...I’m just saying….I believe (these days) officers have it drummed into their heads that THEIR safety is the only thing that matters and that a certain “warrior” spirit is the only thing that will get them home each day (sigh…….).

The job can be dangerous…no doubt, but if you are unwilling to accept that (and a few bruises and bumps along the way) then maybe Law Enforcement isn’t really the best profession for some folks.

It is undeniable…. the growing divide of the “US vs. THEM” between the public and the police. Why is that?

Thank you, this is the point I was trying to make. You did it better than I (at least, at the end there ;) )

It's pretty obvious from this thread, that there is somewhat of an "US vs. THEM" mindset in place. It's as if any non-LEO questioning an officer's behavior is tantamount to "bashing" them, because "we" don't know what his "perception" of the situation was. Years ago, I worked for the Sheriff's Dept. in a Texas college town, and I'm sorry, but this idea that EVERY officer is facing life or death situations EVERY day they go to work, is fantasy land. Certainly they know there is a possibility they MAY face such a situation on any given day, but 99% of the time it's pretty much routine stuff. Perception plays a big part in the outcome of every situation, because perception is reality, to that person. If you go into every encounter with your primary thought being "I may have to kill or be killed", that colors your perception of events, and you are MUCH more likely to overreact and possibly wind up firing your weapon, because mentally, you are already visualizing yourself in a worst case scenario.

Of course an officer is entitled to DEFEND himself against aggressive behavior...but only AFTER that aggressive behavior has actually occurred. That does not give them the right to act preemptively. It is not acceptable for an officer to punch some one first, just because he thinks they MAY take a swing at him. Nobody has said on officer should "take a beating now and then", but they shouldn't be so afraid of any physical confrontation that their first thought is to pull a gun or taser before a punch has been thrown.

Here's a list of the most dangerous jobs in America: http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/03/01 ... rous-jobs/

LEO's don't even make the top 10.

And to put that in further perspective: http://www.mcrkba.org/LEOsKIA.pdf

Police death rates from intentional and
accidental firearm injury generally have
been decreasing since a peak of 7.3 in
1973 and the 2009 rate of 1.6 is near
the all time 2008 low (1.35) for the past
109 years as you can see from Figure 1.
Since 1940 more officers typically die in
vehicle accidents or assaults than are
killed with firearm accidents or assaults.

Refuse collectors, fisherman, roofers, and truck drivers all have more dangerous jobs than LEO's.

[philip964]

Wow it has made Drudge Report.