Officer shoots citizen's dog in his own back yard. Reprehensible!

[Dittohead not!]

and it's not the first time I've heard of such a thing.

 

[radcen]

and it's not the first time I've heard of such a thing.

It's kind of bass-ackwards, but it's the continual shooting of people's pets that will be the negative PR that will lead to reining in over-aggressiveness by the police... and they're apparently too dumb to know this. All the police see is the immediate intimidation factor. People get more upset over pet shootings than they do over other people getting treated unjustly.

 

[ttwtt78640]

A dog inside a fenced yard is supposed to "show aggression" and be able to "possibly bite" an intruder, that is the nature of the beast. If officers have free reign to search "anywhere" that a missing person (a three year old in this case) might be and can shoot any animal (or person?) that they feel poses a "possible threat" then we have created a complete police state.

Why was it considered "likely" that the missing person was in that particular fenced back yard? That question was not asked or answered in any story on this matter that I have found.

 

[americanwoman]

A dog inside a fenced yard is supposed to "show aggression" and be able to "possibly bite" an intruder, that is the nature of the beast. If officers have free reign to search "anywhere" that a missing person (a three year old in this case) might be and can shoot any animal (or person?) that they feel poses a "possible threat" then we have created a complete police state.

Why was it considered "likely" that the missing person was in that particular fenced back yard? That question was not asked or answered in any story on this matter that I have found.

I had the same questions. Especially considering a three year old would most likely not be able to open the gate and would have been terrified to enter a backyard with a dog. What was the officer doing back there then? I just feel really bad for the owner, this was totally uncalled for.

 

[notquiteright]

It's kind of bass-ackwards, but it's the continual shooting of people's pets that will be the negative PR that will lead to reining in over-aggressiveness by the police... and they're apparently too dumb to know this. All the police see is the immediate intimidation factor. People get more upset over pet shootings than they do over other people getting treated unjustly.

Not sure the people you are referring to.... Ain't ever heard of a riot over the shooting of a dog.

 

[Dittohead not!]

A dog inside a fenced yard is supposed to "show aggression" and be able to "possibly bite" an intruder, that is the nature of the beast. If officers have free reign to search "anywhere" that a missing person (a three year old in this case) might be and can shoot any animal (or person?) that they feel poses a "possible threat" then we have created a complete police state.

Why was it considered "likely" that the missing person was in that particular fenced back yard? That question was not asked or answered in any story on this matter that I have found.

Yes, or person. If the officer thinks a human being presents a threat, then he can shoot them too. It's just easier to get away with shooting a dog, whether or not the dog actually poses a credible threat.

 

[shrubnose]

This is, as Dittohead said, unfortunately a fairly common occurrence.

I find it hard to believe that this situation couldn't have been handled in a way that didn't include shooting a dog that was in its own yard.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

That whole story was quite disturbing.

 

[What if...?]

Woe be unto the cop who shoots my dog for no good reason. He will pay. Maybe a permanent limp. Im not domesticated enough to put up with that ****.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm going to go ahead and give a different perspective on this.

I think much credit has to go to the officers in the video. They were incredibly patient, even as someone was screaming at them for something they didn't do. They tried to be helpful in every way they could. They didn't leave, they didn't get upset nor did they threaten the dog owner (at least not in the first five minutes, I quit watching after the camera was on the porch).

I don't know what happened between the officer and the dog, but I think the officers in this video ought to be commended for being very nice people. They didn't shoot the dog, but they took all of the owner's anger without an angry word in response. They gave names and badge numbers immediately when it was requested.

I don't know what happened between the dog and the officer who shot the dog, but I think this video does show there are good police officers in the world.

 

[AJiveMan]

Definitely weird. Cops came to my apartment once looking for someone, my dog got out/loose in the parking lot, ran up to them wagging his tail, jumped on one for petting, one just reached down, petted him, and held him by the collar so he wouldn't run off. Must be how officers are trained in different communities or something. Our cops aren't the least bit afraid of people's dogs. They seem to be calm, cool and collected in thought and actions.

 

[Ockham]

My hope here is that a suit will be filed against the police department first for a large sum of money and that a lawyer looks into why a police officer has the right to search a closed, fenced in area without a warrant and without the homeowner available? I would look to charge the officer with trespass, illegal search, as well as whatever laws pertain to the illegal dispatch of a dog as part of this. The dog is supposed to be protective of that area it's his and his owners. It's a dogs natural inclination to be aggressive in their own area that's one of the reasons people keep dogs!

As a result of raking this police department over the coals for this illegal action, I would also want new procedures added to the police department as well as training, on how to act professionally in such a situation in the future. If such new procedures would be implemented it might actually be worth the hurt and aggravation.

 

[roguenuke]

I think this is all going to be dependent on the circumstances. Is it reasonable to believe that the 3 year old could have gotten into the yard? I can't tell anything about what the yard or the fence being used containing the dog. Was it open? Did it have a simple hook/latch that a 3 year old could reach? Did it allow for a 3 year old to open it and it latch back (so it wouldn't open from inside, only out, easily)? Then there is what happened after. If it was easy for a person, such as a child, to enter the yard and the dog would have actually was aggressive enough to attack anyone who entered the yard, then I don't think it could be considered wrong for the police officer to have shot the dog to protect himself.

Plus, as for "backing up", we do not know how far inside the officer had gotten prior to the alleged attack, and neither does the owner. All we know is he was in the yard. We also don't know what exactly happened inside that fence between the officer and the dog. And with a dog in the yard and a presumed missing 3 year old, this means that the circumstances could most certainly be considered "exigent" if the yard could have been accessible to the child.

I think the man should definitely be compensated by the police department and/or officer for his dog, but I don't know if the officer deserves to be fired or not. We simply don't have enough information. If it comes out that it would be unreasonable to assume that a child would have gotten through the fence, then I think firing could very well be justified here.

 

[radcen]

My hope here is that a suit will be filed against the police department first for a large sum of money and that a lawyer looks into why a police officer has the right to search a closed, fenced in area without a warrant and without the homeowner available? I would look to charge the officer with trespass, illegal search, as well as whatever laws pertain to the illegal dispatch of a dog as part of this. The dog is supposed to be protective of that area it's his and his owners. It's a dogs natural inclination to be aggressive in their own area that's one of the reasons people keep dogs!

As a result of raking this police department over the coals for this illegal action, I would also want new procedures added to the police department as well as training, on how to act professionally in such a situation in the future. If such new procedures would be implemented it might actually be worth the hurt and aggravation.

Such a lawsuit would fail, IMO. Actively looking for a small kid would be deemed necessary, though I forget the specific legal category that would be defined by.

Not saying it's right (or wrong), just saying that's how I believe it would be ruled.

 

[roguenuke]

My hope here is that a suit will be filed against the police department first for a large sum of money and that a lawyer looks into why a police officer has the right to search a closed, fenced in area without a warrant and without the homeowner available? I would look to charge the officer with trespass, illegal search, as well as whatever laws pertain to the illegal dispatch of a dog as part of this. The dog is supposed to be protective of that area it's his and his owners. It's a dogs natural inclination to be aggressive in their own area that's one of the reasons people keep dogs!

As a result of raking this police department over the coals for this illegal action, I would also want new procedures added to the police department as well as training, on how to act professionally in such a situation in the future. If such new procedures would be implemented it might actually be worth the hurt and aggravation.

Exigent circumstances could definitely come into play here if the yard could be deemed "accessible" by the 3 year old they were searching for, particularly with the dog in the yard.

Exigent circumstance in United States law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If there is a reasonable belief that a 3 year old could be in a person's fenced in yard, the owner isn't home, and there is a dog inside that yard, then that would constitute exigent circumstances. It would depend completely on how reasonable it would be to expect to find a 3 year old in the yard, how accessible the yard might have been to a 3 year old, but it is still possible for it to be completely covered under exigent circumstances.

 

[Ockham]

Such a lawsuit would fail, IMO. Actively looking for a small kid would be deemed necessary, though I forget the specific legal category that would be defined by.

They didn't have a warrant. It was illegal from the start and I'd suggest even a mediocre lawyer would have a field day with it.

Not saying it's right (or wrong), just saying that's how I believe it would be ruled.

Obviously I disagree.

 

[roguenuke]

Definitely weird. Cops came to my apartment once looking for someone, my dog got out/loose in the parking lot, ran up to them wagging his tail, jumped on one for petting, one just reached down, petted him, and held him by the collar so he wouldn't run off. Must be how officers are trained in different communities or something. Our cops aren't the least bit afraid of people's dogs. They seem to be calm, cool and collected in thought and actions.

It probably depends more on the actions and/or aggressiveness of the animal. Although it is possible that the police officer was just overly afraid of dogs. That could be a consideration to be made for this case and the appropriate actions against the officer.

 

[AJiveMan]

It probably depends more on the actions and/or aggressiveness of the animal. Although it is possible that the police officer was just overly afraid of dogs. That could be a consideration to be made for this case and the appropriate actions against the officer.

We also don't know the breed of dog that the cop shot either. I think some people are inherently afraid of certain breeds.

 

[radcen]

They didn't have a warrant. It was illegal from the start and I'd suggest even a mediocre lawyer would have a field day with it.

Obviously I disagree.

Regardless what we like to think, warrants aren't the "be all and end all" of police activity. Police can cross onto private property if they are actively pursuing a suspect, for example. I believe the same rationale would apply here when looking for a missing small kid. The age of the kid would factor in, too. A 17 yr old? Probably not. A 3 yr old? You bet.

 

[shrubnose]

It probably depends more on the actions and/or aggressiveness of the animal

. Although it is possible that the police officer was just overly afraid of dogs. That could be a consideration to be made for this case and the appropriate actions against the officer.

I believe that all police officers should be trained and equipped to deal with dogs, without shooting every dog that gets in their way.

This isn't rocket science.




That would stop incidents like this from happening.

 

[roguenuke]

We also don't know the breed of dog that the cop shot either. I think some people are inherently afraid of certain breeds.

It was a Weimaraner.

 

[roguenuke]

I believe that all police officers should be trained and equipped to deal with dogs, without shooting every dog that gets in their way.

This isn't rocket science.

That would stop incidents like this from happening.

This would still not prevent these things from happening. Level of force is dependent upon individual circumstances. The circumstances could still call for shooting an aggressive animal/dog even with proper training.

Cops are in a no-win situation for many of these cases because their level of force used is always going to be questioned.

 

[Dezaad]

I'm going to go ahead and give a different perspective on this.

I think much credit has to go to the officers in the video. They were incredibly patient, even as someone was screaming at them for something they didn't do. They tried to be helpful in every way they could. They didn't leave, they didn't get upset nor did they threaten the dog owner (at least not in the first five minutes, I quit watching after the camera was on the porch).

I don't know what happened between the officer and the dog, but I think the officers in this video ought to be commended for being very nice people. They didn't shoot the dog, but they took all of the owner's anger without an angry word in response. They gave names and badge numbers immediately when it was requested.

I don't know what happened between the dog and the officer who shot the dog, but I think this video does show there are good police officers in the world.

I think it is good to point out that the officers have some good qualities. We are all human (and canine, as the case may be).

Nevertheless, there does seem to be a callous attitude (in some respects) systemic to the police departments. As someone pointed out, there are meter people and others who have to deal with canines, and they don't carry guns at all. Police entering a back yard on a 'search for missing 3 year old' should nevertheless not be assuming they have the right to be there over the right of the dog to protect that property. Measures should be circumspect, cautious and less than lethal regarding canines (who, again, have a right to be there protecting the property deriving from the owner's property rights).

In articles I have read, I find the chief's response disingenuous and emotionally manipulative. He basically says they must to 'everything' to locate a missing toddler. I disagree. There is a balance to everything, and a toddler normally does outweigh a canine all things else being equal. But, not all things are equal here: The property rights and human-canine relationship of the owner of the canine outweigh the 'missing' but probably ok toddler with regard to that owners land. This shifts the balance. The fact that the police don't apparently think so is mistaken. I think the public needs to make this clear.

 

[shrubnose]

If enough cops have to pay a heavy price for unjustified use of deadly force, incidents like this would stop.

 

[radcen]

This would still not prevent these things from happening. Level of force is dependent upon individual circumstances. The circumstances could still call for shooting an aggressive animal/dog even with proper training.

Cops are in a no-win situation for many of these cases because their level of force used is always going to be questioned.

Yes, but... much of this no-win situation is their own doing. There are many documented cases where the dog was clearly no threat whatsoever and they still shot it anyway.