Owner explains the situation.
This is a discussion on Police shoot dog, owner arrested: Good or bad? within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; ...
Due to lack of details I can't entirely agree the man should have been detained. Apparently he was driving down the street and got out to video tape what was going on (home invasion/possible hostage from what I've read) and had his music blaring from his car. The police asked him to turn it down because it was interfering with their ability to communicate with the suspect in the home. The man declined to turn down his stereo.
As far as shooting the dog. He didn't have it properly secured and it appears to have tried to bite the officer trying to grab it.
Also, I'm not sure this will fly as a relevant topic/story on this site.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
The dog was not secured. The dog became a threat, the threat was dealt with. It was sad, but a threat is a threat....
Don"t let stupid be your skill set....
And Shepards we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee,
Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, So that our feet may swiftly carry out thy command,
And we shall flow a river forth to Thee, And teeming with souls shall it ever be,
Well, the video shows the dog being aggressive.....
I don't like it and I believe 'other' actions could've been taken, but common sense on both the police AND the 'suspect' should've led to a different outcome.
"Just getting a concealed carry permit means you haven't commited a crime yet. CCP holders commit crimes." Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, quoted on Fox & Friends, 8 Jul, 2008
"Sometimes, when you're making gumbo, people just show up.", Leah Chase
What a shame, right or wrong, this was not handled properly by the LEO's, 6 or so officers and not one recommended that the dog be restrained by the owner and the one officer should be charged with cruelty to an animal, endangerment and also questioned as to his poor marksmanship.
US Army 1953-1977
We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.
The dog did what he was supposed to do.....protect his owner...........Cops.....NG.
This was no felon, murderer or robber.....they could have had the guy get the dog under control.......and no pics cause law suits follow.
The owner owns this one. The shooting of the dog was an easily foreseen outcome of his actions.
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
All I can say is I feel bad for the dog.
If there was an ongoing violent situation over yonder that was effectively being interfered with by a nearby citizen refusing to stop with the loud music (if indeed is was loud to the point of risking those who couldn't hear what was going on), then I can see the position of LE. If he'd been commanded to temporarily erase the music until the situation was over, and failed to do so, I can see them taking the steps (arrest, or at least leading away and erasing the music for duration of the encounter) they did.
As for the dog ... Well, an inbound 130lb+ dog isn't something to dismiss. I cannot clearly determine the dog's specific demeanor and manifest intent at the moment the officer let loose. The dog lunged toward a couple of the officers (near the citizen) a couple of times, but whether that was with clear signs of malice or violence or any other demeanor besides mere proximity is hard to tell (for me). Had it been a 30lb dog that was looking sheepish and fearful, that's one thing. But if was a 130lb dog acting angry and put-out that his guy was being toted away by strangers, that's something else. Did it warrant killing? IMO, that's a situation perfect for pepper spray. And in a gaggle of 4 officers, I think it's safe to say that at least one of them had spray. Can't imagine that wouldn't have worked as a first step in the force levels applicable in that situation. It's not as though they didn't have the citizen under control, and it's not as though four officers were having that rough a time escorting the guy to the car.
My take, given what I saw in that vid: the arrest/removal from scene and erasure of the music was warranted, in an active robbery/violence situation nearby; and that pepper spraying the dog was absolutely warranted; but that shooting it (if spray was easily available) doesn't appear to have been warranted, though I cannot claim to have seen clearly justified indications of dangerous/aggressive behavior on the part of the dog beyond proximity (which is coloring my perspective in this respect).
But, take the situation as any of us would experience it, more or less, as a citizen walking along in which a dog comes up, has close-quarters proximity, appears to lunge a couple of times, and one clearly views the dog's facial features, eyes, demeanor, tenseness, aggressiveness and all the rest. At what point would a person be able to articulate and justify reasonably keeping that dog at bay, to avoid 130lb of Rott teeth marks (or worse)? That's what it comes down to for the LEO's in that vid, as well, basically.
BTW, anyone who hasn't experienced a highly aggressive 100lb+ Rottweiler between the legs simply hasn't lived, yet. BTDT. It's no fun.
I'm good here. I do feel badly for the dog.
We already have a thread running about this. And I certainly don't need to see the video again. Linking to this with a warning is far more appropriate than posting it.
That said, the facts are the same. The officer had no need to shoot the dog. He should have had OC spray on his belt, and that was the proper tool to use in this situation, not a firearm. I hope the officer loses the lawsuit and that charges of animal cruelty are brought against him.
"The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
- Lt. Col. Oliver North
Officers were man-handling a citizen for filming them, not because music was too loud. It wasn't too loud to hear the people filming the situation making comments. It wouldn't have been too loud way down the street where the situation was taking place. He put his dog in the car. He had no reason to expect he'd be grabbed and cuffed for nothing. Maybe he should have put the windows up, but if he'd done that these officers probably would have shot him instead by saying he was trying to flee. Obviously the officer felt threatened but that doesn't justify his fear and reaction. Just because he's afraid, doesn't mean his actions are warranted. This whole incident was over the top. That dog wasn't going after the officer. A Rottie that wanted to go for him would have had his throat before he knew the dog was out of the car. Filming an incident in an area with no obvious police cordon established is not illegal. This video made me sick for the dog's pain and for our erosion of rights in this country. JMHO.
And I'm sure the cop is posting links to the video on his face book, and telling war stories of his "kill shot" at shift change back at the station.
My greatest fear of any LEO interaction is when I have my dogs with me (laid back friendly yellow labs) as I know that 1 in 10 cops will shoot them without cause, and do so with impunity.
Uh, I don't think so. LEOs have to account for every shot fired, whether at man or beast. I don't know of any willing to hands on with a Rottie. The owner had the opportunity to secure the dog and failed to do so properly. The results are on his shoulders.
Retired USAF E-8. Official forum curmudgeon.
Lighten up and enjoy life because:
Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth