Police shoot dog (again), executing house warrant....

Ok, so I see these threads every once and a while on here and it always prompts me to wonder. Aside from the law enforcement issue, at what point is a dog worth suffering a dog bite?

My parents' otherwise very nice neighborhood used to be full of loose dogs. Thank goodness animal control finally stepped up and started holding people accountable. But before that happened I would visit and walk or go jogging and about every ten minutes I'd have to deal with some fido charging for my ankles. Is he going to bite? Who knows? Sometimes a kick under the chin was effective. I almost got in a fight once when the owner witnessed me sending his terrier/whatever mix sailing into the bushes. A larger dog? I wouldn't trust my rusty karate aim. And yes I was armed.

Fear? No. Been a dog owner off and on all my life. Justifiable concern? I think so.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Ok, so I see these threads every once and a while on here and it always prompts me to wonder. Aside from the law enforcement issue, at what point is a dog worth suffering a dog bite?

My parents' otherwise very nice neighborhood used to be full of loose dogs. Thank goodness animal control finally stepped up and started holding people accountable. But before that happened I would visit and walk or go jogging and about every ten minutes I'd have to deal with some fido charging for my ankles. Is he going to bite? Who knows? Sometimes a kick under the chin was effective. I almost got in a fight once when the owner witnessed me sending his terrier/whatever mix sailing into the bushes. A larger dog? I wouldn't trust my rusty karate aim. And yes I was armed.

Fear? No. Been a dog owner off and on all my life. Justifiable concern? I think so.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%.

But what you're talking about is not what's become pandemic to society. Cop runs into an unsecured dog in public that looks mean and is aggressive? Dispatch it, and you'll never hear a peep out of me.

Where I have a problem is when a police officer enters someone's property, finds a dog that was responsibly secured and kills it without giving any notice to the owner to subdue the dog or secure it. Additionally, police officers that kill dogs that are kenneled in a house, or on the side of a road, killing a dog that is wagging its tail and slowly walking up to the police officer.

So the question: How can an officer tell if a dog is being friendly and wanting to play, or if it intends to attack?

The answer: Either stay out of those situations, or give the dog a chance. 9 times out of 10, a dog will jump up on someone, lick them (or hump them), and then move on. To a police officer, 9 times out of 10, that dog is going to jump up and rip their throat out. They're essentially treating dogs the same way they treat us: You're out to get me until I can prove otherwise.

What makes me mad more than anything else is seeing situations where a police officer enters someone's property and then acts like he had some right to be there, and the dog was trying to take that right away. Adding to that, the fact that not one police officer has ever been held accountable for the loss of a pet at their gun. edit: except the lady officer that chased the terrier around the house shooting at it. I think she resigned.
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
I agree 100%.

But what you're talking about is not what's become pandemic to society. Cop runs into an unsecured dog in public that looks mean and is aggressive? Dispatch it, and you'll never hear a peep out of me.

Where I have a problem is when a police officer enters someone's property, finds a dog that was responsibly secured and kills it without giving any notice to the owner to subdue the dog or secure it. Additionally, police officers that kill dogs that are kenneled in a house, or on the side of a road, killing a dog that is wagging its tail and slowly walking up to the police officer.

So the question: How can an officer tell if a dog is being friendly and wanting to play, or if it intends to attack?

The answer: Either stay out of those situations, or give the dog a chance. 9 times out of 10, a dog will jump up on someone, lick them (or hump them), and then move on. To a police officer, 9 times out of 10, that dog is going to jump up and rip their throat out. They're essentially treating dogs the same way they treat us: You're out to get me until I can prove otherwise.

What makes me mad more than anything else is seeing situations where a police officer enters someone's property and then acts like he had some right to be there, and the dog was trying to take that right away. Adding to that, the fact that not one police officer has ever been held accountable for the loss of a pet at their gun. edit: except the lady officer that chased the terrier around the house shooting at it. I think she resigned.
Click to expand...

How do we know that any of this is what happened?
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
How do we know that any of this is what happened?
Click to expand...

Videos. There's a LOT of them around, showing dogs being killed for approaching officers, and sometimes just because they're in the same room and not approaching.

A good rule of thumb with dogs: If they're not growling or snarling, they're not attacking. Even if they're barking, but not growling, they're not attacking.

Note - my old dog Piper would bark (but not growl) when he saw a gun, but he always stayed away from them. I honestly feel that had a police officer entered my house without reason, Piper would have been shot.
 
SkyHog said:
Videos. There's a LOT of them around, showing dogs being killed for approaching officers.

A good rule of thumb with dogs: If they're not growling or snarling, they're not attacking. Even if they're barking, but not growling, they're not attacking.
Click to expand...

If all a video shows is a dog being shot for approaching police officers, you're in no position to be able to say it was right or wrong. There is a lot more information that's needed.
 
in the current incident the dog was shot out of sight. I've never seen a dog that wouldn't run up to the door at the advent of such noise. Hence I conclude that it was secured in some way.

I say the Police State Cometh because, to my knowledge, these sorts of tactics have not yet been used to harass political candidates or activists. Yet.

It is horrid that they are used on the poor, and even more horrid that nobody cares. The War on Drugs just isn't worth it.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
If all a video shows is a dog being shot for approaching police officers, you're in no position to be able to say it was right or wrong. There is a lot more information that's needed.
Click to expand...

Good example of one:

Man gets pulled over, is taken out of his car. He requests permission to close the door to keep his dog from running out into traffic, and is denied. Dog exits car, walks away from cop and man, then turns, and slowly, with tail wagging walks toward the officer.

Officer dispatches dog. Dog never showed any aggression.

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-01-09/...m-size-brown-dog-officers-patrol-car?_s=PM:US

I can't find the video right now, but its out there.

Or how about the raid on a "drug dealer" who wound up not actually having anything in his house except a small amount of marijuana. Police raid, shoot 2 dogs, one of which was kenneled.


It only takes a small amount of intelligence to know when a dog is attacking. I know, I've been attacked once and so has my wife. Both times, the dog gives ample warning before attacking.

Regardless, if the police hadn't screwed up these two cases in the first place, there'd be no reason for them to have killed friendly, non-attacking dogs.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
If all a video shows is a dog being shot for approaching police officers, you're in no position to be able to say it was right or wrong. There is a lot more information that's needed.
Click to expand...

There is no more information needed. An attacking dog will growl, it will enter a defensive stance, and it will make it very well known that it is about to attack. The back legs spread for easy pouncing, the front legs are fully erect, and the dog is cocked back ready to lunge. He will bare his teeth and he will growl. If he is not doing any of these things, he is not going to attack.

Also note - the tail NEVER wags, its usually cocked in a curve upward.

I call the stance the "You're gonna get bit if you don't move now" stance. It looks like this:
attachment.php


Or this:
blitzatt.jpg

Or this:
repel-dog-attack-800x800.jpg


So yeah, I think I can speak to a video showing a dog approaching an officer not being a near attack.
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
I agree 100%.

But what you're talking about is not what's become pandemic to society. Cop runs into an unsecured dog in public that looks mean and is aggressive? Dispatch it, and you'll never hear a peep out of me.

Where I have a problem is when a police officer enters someone's property, finds a dog that was responsibly secured and kills it without giving any notice to the owner to subdue the dog or secure it. Additionally, police officers that kill dogs that are kenneled in a house, or on the side of a road, killing a dog that is wagging its tail and slowly walking up to the police officer.

So the question: How can an officer tell if a dog is being friendly and wanting to play, or if it intends to attack?

The answer: Either stay out of those situations, or give the dog a chance. 9 times out of 10, a dog will jump up on someone, lick them (or hump them), and then move on. To a police officer, 9 times out of 10, that dog is going to jump up and rip their throat out. They're essentially treating dogs the same way they treat us: You're out to get me until I can prove otherwise.

What makes me mad more than anything else is seeing situations where a police officer enters someone's property and then acts like he had some right to be there, and the dog was trying to take that right away. Adding to that, the fact that not one police officer has ever been held accountable for the loss of a pet at their gun. edit: except the lady officer that chased the terrier around the house shooting at it. I think she resigned.
Click to expand...

Society views pets as chattel, no different than the door that was destroyed when it was broken down. Write a check and move on. Of course owners feel differently, as I would if I currently owned one.

The real question is whether the officer had a right to be there, which is a different one than what I was talking about.

It is unreasonable to say "stay out of those situations." it is also rather ridiculous to complain that police officers "acts like he had some right to be there" when of course in the vast, vast majority of these cases, they do. Furthermore if there is 1 out of 10 chance you will be bitten (using your figuring) I do not agree that it is always reasonable to expect someone to roll the dice. Dogs are property.

Anyone can use the exception to argue with the rule :rolleyes2:

Besides you won't let police wear any protective equipment beyond what was contemplated before the Great Depression :nono: :rofl:
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
There is no more information needed.

....
Click to expand...

This sentence explains the entirety of the point I'm making.

If you're not willing to consider the complete circumstances surrounding an issue, along with the stories of everyone involved, I'm simply not going to discuss the issue with you.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
Society views pets as chattel, no different than the door that was destroyed when it was broken down. Write a check and move on. Of course owners feel differently, as I would if I currently owned one.

Ther real question is whether the officer had a right to be there, which is a different one than what I was talking about.
Click to expand...

But furry K-9 officers are not. Cop shoots dog. Oh well. But shoot a dog "in uniform" and you get charged. Double standard much?
 
EdFred said:
But furry K-9 officers are not. Cop shoots dog. Oh well. But shoot a dog "in uniform" and you get charged. Double standard much?
Click to expand...

Being charged for shooting a police dog would depend on *why* you shot it.

I know we all like to do it, but there aren't any blanket rules that can be applied in any of these circumstances.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Being charged for shooting a police dog would depend on *why* you shot it.

I know we all like to do it, but there aren't any blanket rules that can be applied in any of these circumstances.
Click to expand...

Why, because it was attacking me from inside it's kennel of course. It was self defense!
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
This sentence explains the entirety of the point I'm making.

If you're not willing to consider the complete circumstances surrounding an issue, along with the stories of everyone involved, I'm simply not going to discuss the issue with you.
Click to expand...

Read the whole post, man. It explains why there is enough information to make a statement like "If a police officer is not being attacked, he should not resort to violence against the dog."

Its not difficult to tell when a dog is attacking. It just takes a little more erring on the side of "Probably not" than a lot of cops would want to admit to.

Its certainly not as simple as grabbing your voicebox and screaming "Merrr...its coming right for us!"
 
alaskaflyer said:
Society views pets as chattel, no different than the door that was destroyed when it was broken down. Write a check and move on. Of course owners feel differently, as I would if I currently owned one.

The real question is whether the officer had a right to be there, which is a different one than what I was talking about.

It is unreasonable to say "stay out of those situations." it is also rather ridiculous to complain that police officers "acts like he had some right to be there" when of course in the vast, vast majority of these cases, they do. Furthermore if there is 1 out of 10 chance you will be bitten (using your figuring) I do not agree that it is always reasonable to expect someone to roll the dice. Dogs are property.

Anyone can use the exception to argue with the rule :rolleyes2:

Besides you won't let police wear any protective equipment beyond what was contemplated before the Great Depression :nono: :rofl:
Click to expand...

Even in cases where they do have a "right" to be in the situation they're in, don't police officers have an obligation not to destroy "property" unless necessary? Moreover, what about the ramifications associated with the potential that a mistake was made?

As for the protective gear...that just makes it worse. We've got an officer dressed in gear that would sustain a bazooka blast at point blank range, but they're afraid of a potential dog bite?
 
SkyHog said:
Read the whole post, man. It explains why there is enough information to make a statement like "If a police officer is not being attacked, he should not resort to violence against the dog."

Its not difficult to tell when a dog is attacking. It just takes a little more erring on the side of "Probably not" than a lot of cops would want to admit to.

Its certainly not as simple as grabbing your voicebox and screaming "Merrr...its coming right for us!"
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, but you're also saying you're not willing to consider anything other than what confirms your point of view.

I'm not saying that the police were right. Nor am I saying that they were wrong. I'm also not saying that we shouldn't take any/all of these incidents seriously. All I'm saying is that you have to consider the totality of the situation if you hope to reach an accurate conclusion about what happened.
 
SkyHog said:
Read the whole post, man. It explains why there is enough information to make a statement like "If a police officer is not being attacked, he should not resort to violence against the dog."

Its not difficult to tell when a dog is attacking. It just takes a little more erring on the side of "Probably not" than a lot of cops would want to admit to.

Its certainly not as simple as grabbing your voicebox and screaming "Merrr...its coming right for us!"
Click to expand...

Sorry Nick but I have to disagree here. While you may find it easy to tell if a dog is attacking or not the same is not true for those who are not around dogs a good deal. I own a dog and have for the last 20 years and there are times I'm not sure. It's rather easy for me to deal with it, I simply back away and leave if I think the dog is dangerous but for cops it's not so easy. They are there for a reason and don't have the luxury of just leaving because they are unsure. Now are there cases where the cop was wrong? Of that I have no doubt but it's not so clear cut as to say cops should alway treat the dog as friendly until proven otherwise. There is a whole lot of grey here to deal with.
 
Two kinds of dogs: Those that have bitten you and those which will.

Since we are painting with a broad brush here...
 
When a stranger comes to my house the dog will bark, it's part of his job description. If somebody barges in and makes a threatening move he might even bite although he has not yet done this. I do not believe that police should be able to execute animals indiscriminately and should be able to distinguish a real threat from a household pet. Shooting a restrained or caged animal should result in animal cruelty charges. However, my biggest concern is the overuse of SWAT teams to arrest those who pose little threat like gambling optometrists and student loan deadbeats.
 
When their biggest fear is the evidence might be flushed down the porcelain goddess, they shouldn't be shooting anything. They shouldn't be in any kind of hurry. Hell, they shouldn't even be allowed to bust in.

One the narcotics are down the toilet, they can't be used by anyone. That is the idea, if I'm not mistaken.
 
At least here in America there is a chance a person can command in the dog's language (English). Even if it doesn't work it is worth a try. According to the letter of the law, sure, all pets are property, but tell that to the owners. Also, expect a case in situations like the raid in MO where the owners lost a member of their family (dog), children were traumatised (potentially PTSD) and all in the name of....a tiny bit of pot. If I was on the jury, I'd find favor to the plaintiffs in this one. Especially after seeing that video.
I've had experiance overseas where virtually all of the dogs are strays, and are practically in their "natural" environment (i.e. scavengers, not pets) and not once did any ever attempt to attack me or my fellow grunts. They barked...a LOT, which gave away our presence, (annoying/potentially bad) but never attacked. Some even became friends. We were wearing body armor, just like cops and SWAT do, and we were similarly armed as well. I don't know about anyone else, but I think theres more potential for a dog attack when it's a ferral dog, not a pet, and furthermore, in the case of an attack theres more potential for doggie diseases strays don't get inocculated for.
Any entry team trains together, to be able to work seemlessly. Number one rule is to take care of each other. One dog can only attack one person at a time; theres more than just a few on an entry team, they can spare one if need-be to neutralise the dog...but flat out killing it is inhumane and inexcusable barring a significant threat...i.e. "Back off or I'm going to bite you" stance or an actual attack. And considering the team enters at low/high ready (weapons) there is no wasted time in drawing, presenting, aiming, firing...the first two are already done, and any well-trained operator can do the last two VERY quickly, especially point blank (close quarters). I have no pity for the cops in the video, from a former professional standpoint, they acted like cowards/hotshots.
 
Gary F said:
Don't film a cop shooting your dog or anybody else in Illinois. I understand the need for wiretapping laws but you should be able to record police who are on duty.

Recording an on-duty police officer in Illinois is a Class 1 felony, the same class of crimes as rape.
Click to expand...

Jee bus, they're turning swatting flies out of season into felonies these days!

One of the reasons I moved out west. Damn 3rd world banana republic with a decent symphony and the rest of it is cornfields turned into megaburbs. Got tired of living at the whim of Daley and his merry band of thieves. :nonod:

Unfortunately, even flyover country is heading down the same monkey hole.
[The F-word that they dare not speak it's name.]

See ya'll in Gitmo, bros. :rolleyes2:
 
pilot_dude said:
Good grief.
Click to expand...

I literally just took a look at the law in question.

This is a case of a prosecutor being overzealous. If you read the law, it's very obvious what it's intended to apply to. Basically, me calling you up, and recording the call without you being aware of it.

I'll put it like this - it's like charging your neighborhood burglar as a "terrorist" under an immediately-post-9/11 law because burglary scares people.

This is a result of not stopping for a second and thinking, "really, is this really what this law is meant for?"

At the same time, don't expect a court to step in. The law says what it says; unless you want a judge that just does what he wants all the time, he/she is bound to follow it.
 
Gary F said:
Don't film a cop shooting your dog or anybody else in Illinois. I understand the need for wiretapping laws but you should be able to record police who are on duty.

Recording an on-duty police officer in Illinois is a Class 1 felony, the same class of crimes as rape.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/08/chicago-district-attorney-recording-bad-cops_n_872921.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2|69598
Click to expand...
Hmmm.... And people question the need for the ACLU? LEOs aren't all good, and they aren't all bad. But when we eliminate accountability, we're in trouble.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I literally just took a look at the law in question.

This is a case of a prosecutor being overzealous. If you read the law, it's very obvious what it's intended to apply to. Basically, me calling you up, and recording the call without you being aware of it.

I'll put it like this - it's like charging your neighborhood burglar as a "terrorist" under an immediately-post-9/11 law because burglary scares people.

This is a result of not stopping for a second and thinking, "really, is this really what this law is meant for?"

At the same time, don't expect a court to step in. The law says what it says; unless you want a judge that just does what he wants all the time, he/she is bound to follow it.
Click to expand...
Overzealous? I think you are being charitable. This prosecution is likely to discourage anybody from reporting and certainly from documenting police misconduct. Who is the prosecutor working for?
 
Gary F said:
... Who is the prosecutor working for?
Click to expand...

This is a question that ultimately depends on where you are. More particularly, it depends on who you've got in charge of the office, as that sets the tone. But, even then, it's ultimately whoever is handling your case.

I've seen good, I've seen bad. I'm not going to try to pigeonhole everyone into one category.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
This is a question that ultimately depends on where you are. More particularly, it depends on who you've got in charge of the office, as that sets the tone. But, even then, it's ultimately whoever is handling your case.

I've seen good, I've seen bad. I'm not going to try to pigeonhole everyone into one category.
Click to expand...
This appears to be a huge travesty of justice. Why am I not surprised that this is taking place in Illinois? The law should be changed. Hopefully the Governor will intercede but I doubt that he would want to offend the members of a government employee union.
 
Gary F said:
This appears to be a huge travesty of justice. Why am I not surprised that this is taking place in Illinois? The law should be changed. Hopefully the Governor will intercede but I doubt that he would want to offend the members of a government employee union.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe they don't want people recording the police in Illinois. I certainly don't think there's any constitutional prohibition against such a law; I suppose it could be argued, but as I sit here thinking about it, I'm not even convincing myself. But, if that's the law they want, that's what they've got; if it's not what they want, there need to be efforts to change it.

Keep in mind that efforts to change it don't include complaining about it for a few days until something else gets into the headlines. People need to treat it as more than the issue du jour if they're serious about it.

Of course, that's a big part of the problem. We all tend to forget about things that don't immediately impact us. I'm as guilty of that as anyone.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Well, maybe they don't want people recording the police in Illinois. I certainly don't think there's any constitutional prohibition against such a law; I suppose it could be argued, but as I sit here thinking about it, I'm not even convincing myself. But, if that's the law they want, that's what they've got; if it's not what they want, there need to be efforts to change it.

Keep in mind that efforts to change it don't include complaining about it for a few days until something else gets into the headlines. People need to treat it as more than the issue du jour if they're serious about it.

Of course, that's a big part of the problem. We all tend to forget about things that don't immediately impact us. I'm as guilty of that as anyone.
Click to expand...
Another option is to avoid Illinois or any other state that protects the interests of public service employees over those of the average citizen schmuck.
 
Missed this one. Video:

Story:
http://www.hannibal.net/news/x1600620381/LaGrange-dog-owner-vows-to-fight-for-law-changes

Basically, you've got a dog that was chained, police are coming to check out complaints that the dog growled at a neighbor's child. The police come and unchain the dog and restrain with the hook and pole. Dog is running around in circles, but remains restrained at all times (both before and after the police arrive).

Then they shoot it in the head. At the moment the officer shoots the dog, it has stopped resisting and is standing in place, wagging its tail.

The owner was a POS, that I'd agree with, but why shoot the dog in this situation?
 
Gary F said:
Another option is to avoid Illinois or any other state that protects the interests of public service employees over those of the average citizen schmuck.
Click to expand...


True, Illinois is one of the worst for the rights of average citizens, especially 2A rights. :(
 
Years ago A cop pointed a gun at me, a shotgun to be exact. I was dropping a co worker off after returning from a meeting in Los Angeles. Apparently a murder had occurred a few doors down from his house. We were waved through and allowed to drive to his home. We both walked up to the house to ask his wife what all the action was about.

Anyway, He and his wife went inside and I walked back to my car, a little 240Z. As I approached the drivers side, a cop came around the other side of the car and simply pointed this shotgun at me. He was by himself, he was shaking like a leaf, he did not say one word. I'm on the drivers side of the car, he is on the other side just standing and aiming directly at my chest.

I tried to communicate with him, I explained I had just dropped a co worker off at this house after a meeting in LA, nothing, the guy did not respond in any way whatsoever other than pointing his shaking shotgun at me.

After what seemed like ten or so minutes of this standoff, it was probably just two or three in reality, I said, look, I am going to slowly get in my car, I want to go home, I'm tired. So I did just that. I saw him in my rear view mirror still standing there aiming his weapon at that back of my car.

The next day at work, Joe told me he had seen the whole thing but did not want to go out there until more cops showed up, they did right after I left. He said I came very close to being killed that night. He said the cop was still shaking when the other cops showed up. They took the shotgun from him then Joe and his wife came out to find out what was going on.

It had not occurred to me that that cop was terrified until after I was on my way home, and that I had indeed made a foolish decision to get in my car and leave.

Then as a read these stories from time to time about cops getting all dressed up like little storm troopers, kicking in doors, yelling a screaming at whoever might be behind that door, and just over reacting in general, that they are simply doing all that to suppress their own fear. It is like gang mentality, courage comes in numbers and lots of noise.

They are scared witless, so they sometimes engage in the inappropriate behavior of the fearful, like shooting family pets, screaming at senior citizens to get face down on the floor, when there is obviously no threat to themselves present.

Myself, I do not believe city police should be dressing up like storm troopers at all. They should be in their proper police uniforms so that they can be easily recognized as police. If they are afraid of any particular action, they can always wear body armor under their uniforms.

Someday they are going to kick in the wrong door and their fears will be realized by someone simply defending their home against a home invasion because they didn't look like police at all, if it hasn't already happened.

In most cities, their salaries are high enough that a little courage is expected. Perhaps it's their training, or perhaps they are hiring the wrong type of people, but whatever it is, it is not what most would expect from their police. It's more what they would expect from a low paid Army conscript.

John
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top