# It's Time to Train Officers Not to Kill Dogs



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

Great article. It's mind-blowing to know the numbers of dogs cops are killing across the country. It must stop. (I'm sorry the copy/paste didn't properly space the paragraphs. You might click on the link at the bottom for easier reading). 
A cop shot a dog the other day. Again.
Maybe you’ve seen the video — it was all over the Internet, complete with the dog’s grisly death spasms.

Hawthorne, Calif., resident Leon Rosby was using his cellphone to record a standoff between police officers and armed robbers. At the end of the standoff, officers headed Rosby’s way. He put his dog, a Rottweiler named Max, in his car, then placed his arms behind his back to be cuffed. (He’d had run-ins with the law before.)
As the officers began taking Rosby into custody, Max jumped out the car window and approached. At first he sniffed the ground and paced, agitated but not threatening. When an officer made a move toward Max, he jumped and snapped.
So the officer killed him.
This was just a few days after police officers in the Chicago suburb of South Holland went to the house of Randy Green to investigate a report of an unleashed dog. While the Green family slept inside, the officers watched their dog, Grady, rest on the front porch.
After 20 minutes, according to the Greens’ lawsuit, “Grady approached Officer (Chad) Barden,” at which point Barden — who, the lawsuit contends, had a dog pole in his vehicle — shot him.
That incident followed by just a few days another one, also caught on video, in which two El Monte, Calif., officers entered — without notice — the fenced yard of Chi Nguyen and shot one of the family dogs when it approached.
The San Gabriel Valley Tribune reports “there were four children present at the home when the shooting occurred, and a children’s pool party was taking place in a front yard across the street, according to the family and the video.” El Monte police spokesman Dan Buehler said the officer “followed policy.”
That’s precisely the problem.
Across the country, both state laws and departmental policies seem to let police officers use deadly force as a first resort against family pets that often present little or no threat. In one infamous 2010 case from Missouri, an officer shot and killed a dog that had been subdued and held on a catch-pole. In another, an officer shot D.C. resident Marietta Robinson’s 13-year-old dog, Wrinkles, after Robinson had confined the dog to her bathroom.
Last year, police officers chasing two suspects in Lake Charles, La., shot a dog named Monkey that barked at them. In Henrico County last July, police officers went to the home of a homicide victim to notify the family of the slaying. When the family dog ran toward them, the officers shot and killed it. In Danville four years ago, a police officer shot and killed a 12-pound miniature dachshund. For growling at him.
Danville’s chief says the officer followed policy.
Police officers receive extensive training about the use of force when it is applied against humans. But how many departments provide training on dealing with pets? Very few, says the Humane Society. This despite the fact that, according to a Justice Department paper (“The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters”), 39 percent of U.S. homes have dogs.
More than half of dog owners “consider their dogs family members,” it continues, “and another 45.1 percent view them as companions or pets.” Less than 1.5 percent view them as property.
Do we really need systematic training to combat a few isolated incidents, however unfortunate? The question rests on a false premise. Civil liberties writer Radley Balko notes that over a nine-year period, Milwaukee officers killed 434 dogs — about one every eight days. And that’s just one city. Across the country, according to Justice, “the majority of (police) shooting incidents involve animals, most frequently dogs.”
But surely those shootings occur because the animals themselves pose a serious threat, right? Nope. The Justice Department says not only that “dogs are seldom dangerous” but that even when they are, “the overwhelming majority of dog bites are minor, causing either no injury at all or injuries so minor that no medical care is required.”
As Balko writes, “If dangerous dogs are so common, one would expect to find frequent reports of vicious attacks on meter readers, postal workers, firemen and delivery workers. But according to a spokesman from the United States Postal Service, serious dog attacks on mail carriers are vanishingly rare.”
Yet serious — deadly — attacks against dogs are all too common. They shouldn’t be. And the solutions are obvious: Departmental policies, backed by state law, should require police officers to use lethal force against companion animals only as a last resort.
Officers should receive training in safe and non-lethal methods of animal control — and in dog behavior: “An approaching dog is almost always friendly,” according to the Justice Department; “a dog who feels threatened will usually try to keep his distance.”
Finally, lawmakers should require an investigation of every dog shooting, to avoid what the public too often gets now: a knee-jerk defense of the officer involved and a callous dismissal of the family’s suffering.
After all, if a child ran at a policeman with a knife the officer might fire in self-defense — yet nobody would just let it go at that. Animals don’t occupy the same moral station as children, but family pets are more than just property. A badge and a gun should not be a license to shoot them at whim. 

// [email protected]

*Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/ 08/its_time_for_police_to_stop_killing_dogs.html* at July 08, 2013 - 02:12:33 PM CDT


----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

Patrick Murray said:


> Great article. It's mind-blowing to know the numbers of dogs cops are killing across the country. It must stop. (I'm sorry the copy/paste didn't properly space the paragraphs. You might click on the link at the bottom for easier reading).
> A cop shot a dog the other day. Again.
> Maybe you’ve seen the video — it was all over the Internet, complete with the dog’s grisly death spasms.
> 
> ...


Okay, no offense here but I am sure that you are going to take offense at this anyways..

Why do people keep posting topics and articles like this on the forum? Seriously? We needed another topic on dog shooting? Really? 

Enough already! This is a damn working dog forum! Can we not keep the topics about the working dogs instead of things like this that could have been prevented to begin with!

I am getting MIGHTY sick of all the topics that fire and rile up people on this forum.

Can we please CEASE the posting of these topics? 

Thank you ](*,)

(Yes I am pissed off, blame the ****ing topics posted!)


----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

Hey Alice. Did you read the article? Here's another question. If you don't like the topic then don't read it. Why do you want to regulate what can be discussed here? It is that you know what's best for everyone else and that only you can determine what can be discussed? This isn't North Korea.


----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)




----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

Next the other thought-police Nazi will be here to tell me not to post these types of articles because his boyfriend works in LE, etc. The last I checked, this is a DISCUSSION forum yet, we have some holier-than-thou folks here who want to DICTATE what can be discussed. Here's a simple solution. DON'T CLICK ON THE THREAD if it doesn't appeal to you. It's that simple. If you're too stupid or too much of a FASCIST to go along with FREE SPEECH then you've got bigger problems than anything I've posted here.


----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

Patrick Murray said:


> Hey Alice. Did you read the article? Here's another question. If you don't like the topic then don't read it. Why do you want to regulate what can be discussed here? It is that you know what's best for everyone else and that only you can determine what can be discussed? This isn't North Korea.


Grow up, Patrick! I stopped reading the second I read your comment on COPS KILLING DOGS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. 

You have your opinion, you want to bash...your choice...

I have my opinion... I will voice it, don't like it, don't read it...

And what the **** does North Korea has to do with this? ](*,)


----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

Patrick Murray said:


> Next the other thought-police Nazi will be here to tell me not to post these types of articles because his boyfriend works in LE, etc. The last I checked, this is a DISCUSSION forum yet, we have some holier-than-thou folks here who want to DICTATE what can be discussed. Here's a simple solution. DON'T CLICK ON THE THREAD if it doesn't appeal to you. It's that simple. If you're too stupid or too much of a FASCIST to go along with FREE SPEECH then you've got bigger problems than anything I've posted here.



Nazi's, North Korea, Facist, stupid.... Who's an eloquent boy then! :-({|=


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

What the heck? Within three posts we are already calling each other Nazis and stupid Fascists? :-o

Where does a thread like that end up?


----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

Connie Sutherland said:


> What the heck? Within three posts we are already calling each other Nazis and stupid Fascists? :-o
> 
> Where does a thread like that end up?


I'm going to go with "To hell in a very nice little handbasket with all the trimings" O


----------



## Meg O'Donovan (Aug 20, 2012)

Alice Bezemer said:


> Okay, no offense here but I am sure that you are going to take offense at this anyways..
> 
> Why do people keep posting topics and articles like this on the forum? Seriously? We needed another topic on dog shooting? Really?
> 
> ...


+1
I'm more interested in reading about people's training re: setting/solving interesting problems/challenges.
My time for reading is limited, my life is finite, so I want to spend it on doing/making rather than reacting/restating.


----------



## Charles Corbitt (Oct 24, 2012)

Hate to bring this up but, I don't buy books that I don't enjoy reading. This was posted in the "Non Working Dog Discussion" Section, why open it if you didn't want to read it?
Just asking, because I don't understand the problem!


----------



## Mark Sheplak (Oct 28, 2011)

I don't understand the crazy reaction to posting this stuff.

Don't click on the topic if you don't want to read it. 

The thread is located in...

*Working Dog Forum » General Conversation » Non-Working Dog Discussion *

This isn't exactly where one would find a discussion about training techniques. 

The editorial itself isn't about firing people up, rather it is about a solution to avoid such problems (when preventable...sometimes the owners are just plain stupid)

This stuff happens and always isn't preventable by the owner. Sometimes, LEOs overreact to a non-threatening situation and a dog dies.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Charles Corbitt said:


> This was posted in the "Non Working Dog Discussion" Section ...





Mark Sheplak said:


> The thread is located in...
> 
> *Working Dog Forum » General Conversation » Non-Working Dog Discussion *
> 
> This isn't exactly where one would find a discussion about training techniques.


We moved it here.


----------



## lannie dulin (Sep 4, 2012)

I don't see one person that is trash talking the post that has read the article that was linked. It offers support for the statement of police killing dogs across the country. I agree, an officer should not dispatch someone's dog so easily. Dog's are property and an officer should have to defend and explain why it was necessary to destroy someone's constitutionally protected property. You don't want to go the "dogs are more than property" route of argument. That leads to you being sued on your dog's behalf for not exercising or feeding him enough. I think the constitution provides enough protection to require officers to have to justify why destroying someone's property was unavoidable. No police policy or procedure should be a good enough answer. 

If you read the article you would have noted the story "In Henrico County last July, police officers went to the home of a homicide victim to notify the family of the slaying. When the family dog ran toward them, the officers shot and killed it." How the hell was that okay?! "Your Dad was murdered today, maybe he should have had that dog we just shot with him and he might have lived. Anyway, have a good one. (not an actual quote)" *cop shoots the dog again on the way out for good measure and high five each other*. 

Spend less time trying to tell ppl what they can post and more time reading the post. Or, don't click on the thread at all, like I do 70% of the threads I see on this site. Your not a Nazi, your just a hypocrite because you believe you should speak your mind and others should not. If your okay with your hypocrisy being so glaringly obvious and asinine then I guess it's fine to continue as are. 

I for one did not know the info in the article and am glad I read it. I plan to give my dog a gun so he can properly defend himself


----------



## Kevin Cyr (Dec 28, 2012)

Connie Sutherland said:


> What the heck? Within three posts we are already calling each other Nazis and stupid Fascists? :-o
> 
> Where does a thread like that end up?


Hopefully locked


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Patrick Murray said:


>


Bullshyt they do Hippie..


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Expressing one's opinion of a topic is not hypocritical, IMO.

That's MY opinion. And I don't have a boyfriend in LE.

This one had "stupid fascist Nazi" within three or four posts. Why? Because a responder said _"Okay, no offense here but I am sure that you are going to take offense at this anyways .. Enough already! This is a damn working dog forum! Can we not keep the topics about the working dogs instead of things like this that could have been prevented to begin with! ... I am getting MIGHTY sick of all the topics that fire and rile up people on this forum. ... Can we please CEASE the posting of these topics?"_

Stupid fascist Nazi?

That opinion is no less valid than the O.P.'s opinion. 

And BTW, this thread was posted under Working Dog Discussion. We should have said we moved it, I guess, but we didn't anticipate two posts defending its new location.

All JMO.


----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> Bullshyt they do Hippie..


That's right, Jobie. Just because one forum member doesn't like to read this article shouldn't preclude me from being able to post it. Right? Or should it be that, if her feelings are offended, I must be prohibited from sharing it, such as the example with the hippie chick above? It's people like her that preach about "tolerance" until someone voices an opinion that differs from her own. Then, that opinion must be squelched! I thought this forum was a place where people could freely share information and perspectives. I see there is a George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin thread. I haven't read it as I have no interest in it. But I don't begrudge anyone else who wants to post in that thread. Why would I? I'm a live-and-let-live kind of guy. It's ok with me if others here want to discuss that, even though it has less to do with dogs than my thread here. Why can't we all share that attitude? I've posted here many times but one would NEVER find a post from me where I'm telling someone what they should or shouldn't post. So why do others? The solution is pretty freaking simple. If you're not interested in the subject THEN DON'T CLICK ON IT! Right? Or should certain "enlightened" posters here be appointed to approve all information and opinions before they can be shared? Yes, that could be described as fascism.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Regardless of where its posted, the forum allows such content. Its easy to ignore if you're not interested, rather than make a call for censorship. 


T


----------



## lannie dulin (Sep 4, 2012)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Expressing one's opinion of a topic is not hypocritical, IMO.
> 
> That's MY opinion. And I don't have a boyfriend in LE.
> 
> ...


When one is expressing one's opinion freely, saying that others should not (as she was at that moment) that is hypocritical. Your opinion doesn't matter in regard to if it was hypocritical, "hypocritical" has a definition that is not up for discussion, it has already been defined and that meets the definition. I didn't say that her opinion was less valid, I said it was hypocritical and asinine (that perhaps is up for opinion because it is subjective by nature).

I also commented on the subject of the OP. Why do you not take the time to address the actual content included in my post rather than just the argument about someone trying to shut down a discussion she did not have to enter in the first place (nor was asked to)?


----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

Charles Corbitt said:


> Hate to bring this up but, I don't buy books that I don't enjoy reading. This was posted in the "Non Working Dog Discussion" Section, why open it if you didn't want to read it?
> Just asking, because I don't understand the problem!


It seems there are some posters here who believe that you should only be able to read posts for which _they_ approve.


----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

Meg O'Donovan said:


> +1
> I'm more interested in reading about people's training re: setting/solving interesting problems/challenges.
> My time for reading is limited, my life is finite, so I want to spend it on doing/making rather than reacting/restating.


Why are you investing your time in reading these posts on a topic for which you have no interest and then taking the time to state as much when you simply could have ignored all of it to begin with? Here's another question. Since you're not interested in it should others be precluded from reading about the topic and participating in discussion? Or, should they be prohibited from doing so because you personally aren't interested in the topic? And since the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin thread doesn't pertain to working dogs, I can only surmise that you shared your above-mentioned point of view there too, correct?


----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

Kevin Cyr said:


> Hopefully locked


Why, Kevin?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

"It's time for journalists to report the facts and the whole story, not just sensastionalize a story to their own agenda" "Its time for pet owners to take responsibility for their dogs and their own actions"

I think if you combined the original title with these two, we'd all be in better shape. 

I agree with Alice about this not needing to be on this forum, except it may remind someone on here not to be a dumbass with their dog. Inflammatory or not, Alice, you have to remember who we're dealing with here on the WDF as much as cops have to realize who they are dealing with. This is a cross section of society, and there are just as many idiots here as there are on the streets. This is a good reminder for those of us who aren't, just who WE are dealing with discussing anything here.


----------



## Austin Porter (Oct 14, 2011)

Dave Colborn said:


> "It's time for journalists to report the facts and the whole story, not just sensastionalize a story to their own agenda" "Its time for pet owners to take responsibility for their dogs and their own actions"
> 
> I think if you combined the original title with these two, we'd all be in better shape.
> 
> I agree with Alice about this not needing to be on this forum, except it may remind someone on here not to be a dumbass with their dog. Inflammatory or not, Alice, you have to remember who we're dealing with here on the WDF as much as cops have to realize who they are dealing with. This is a cross section of society, and there are just as many idiots here as there are on the streets. This is a good reminder for those of us who aren't, just who WE are dealing with discussing anything here.


+ 1 Well said Dave


----------



## Tonya Beam (Jun 18, 2013)

I personally don't understand why this isn't a take what you need and leave the rest policy. 

I had no idea that so many dogs were being shot by LE officers. These threads have opened my eyes to the protection I need to offer my dogs.


----------



## Meg O'Donovan (Aug 20, 2012)

Patrick Murray said:


> Why are you investing your time in reading these posts on a topic for which you have no interest and then taking the time to state as much when you simply could have ignored all of it to begin with? Here's another question. Since you're not interested in it should others be precluded from reading about the topic and participating in discussion? Or, should they be prohibited from doing so because you personally aren't interested in the topic? And since the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin thread doesn't pertain to working dogs, I can only surmise that you shared your above-mentioned point of view there too, correct?


Please keep in mind that this is an international forum, and not everyone who reads it lives in the United States. So we have other interests. No, I didn't read the Zimmerman thread.

I tend to just use the "Click here to view latest posts", so I don't really read under the "content headings".
I do agree that you enjoy the freedom of speech to note what you will. My point was that I find other content, related to training or breeding, more interesting. 

My point is also that if the forum becomes mostly a venue for drama, breastbeating or browbeating, those who have real contributions to offer in terms of years of training experience and wisdom may go elsewhere. I hope they don't because there is a lot to learn from them.


----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

lannie dulin said:


> I don't see one person that is trash talking the post that has read the article that was linked. It offers support for the statement of police killing dogs across the country. I agree, an officer should not dispatch someone's dog so easily. Dog's are property and an officer should have to defend and explain why it was necessary to destroy someone's constitutionally protected property. You don't want to go the "dogs are more than property" route of argument. That leads to you being sued on your dog's behalf for not exercising or feeding him enough. I think the constitution provides enough protection to require officers to have to justify why destroying someone's property was unavoidable. No police policy or procedure should be a good enough answer.
> 
> If you read the article you would have noted the story "In Henrico County last July, police officers went to the home of a homicide victim to notify the family of the slaying. When the family dog ran toward them, the officers shot and killed it." How the hell was that okay?! "Your Dad was murdered today, maybe he should have had that dog we just shot with him and he might have lived. Anyway, have a good one. (not an actual quote)" *cop shoots the dog again on the way out for good measure and high five each other*.
> 
> ...


I am not a hypocrite at all, I stand behind my words and do not change them to suit others as many will do or have done on this forum. 

You need to learn to read. I said it needed to stop, not that it was not allowed to post, just that it needed to stop... i know full well that posts like this will be posted and there is no way or need to stop that from happening but sometimes people need to think about what they post and WHY... Most of the times these type of posts are not made to inform people but to rile them up, to enflame, to create discord and after seing one thread locked and this one pop up I have to seriously question the posters motivation. The way he backed up his topic was by using words like facist and nazi... there was not even communication available to discus the pro's and con's of this topic! I agree, I do not have to click the links posted but when all I see on my working dog forum is topics about dog shooting and trial's about a guy named zimmerman I am seriously starting to doubt the information that can be gained on this forum!

Let me throw another log on the fire here... It's so easy for everyone to have and voice an opinion, to point fingers and lay blame at feet of others when one has never walked a mile in their shoes... For me, as a foreigner the entire dog shooting thing it is funny to read. How all jump up and scream blue murder for a dog getting shot and immediately pointing fingers at people in order to allocate blame somewhere. People get all riled up and upset becauze a pooch got it from the bad policeman! How about putting yourself in their shoes for a change? You are all so damn opinionated about everything but never once think to yourselves, what if that had been me! What if you had been forced into a position that meant you were uncertain or for whatever reason had to shoot a dog? How would you all feel standing there in the limelight that society flashes onto you to scrutinize every movement you have made and then in most cases they still get it wrong! It's so easy to blame people when you havent walked a mile in their shoes... But I guess that public opinion demands it right? Hey one cop shot a dog without reason, now lets all hangs the entire policeforce out to dry! Lets nail the bastards to the ****ing wall and show them their place! God forbid we actually for once made an effort to see the other side of the story...

Oh, btw? This offends you? My point of view offends you? Use your own advice, do not read it. 

Regards, 

The Hypocrite!


----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

Patrick Murray said:


>


Come up with an adult arguement, Patrick. Posting pathetic pictures should be beneath you. It shows your true age. Throw away the little bucket and shovel and climb out of the sandbox and start a real conversation instead of reverting back to party tricks. A hippie? Really? Sorry, but that was probably your era, not mine. :lol:


----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

Patrick Murray said:


> That's right, Jobie. Just because one forum member doesn't like to read this article shouldn't preclude me from being able to post it. Right? Or should it be that, if her feelings are offended, I must be prohibited from sharing it, such as the example with the hippie chick above? It's people like her that preach about "tolerance" until someone voices an opinion that differs from her own. Then, that opinion must be squelched! I thought this forum was a place where people could freely share information and perspectives. I see there is a George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin thread. I haven't read it as I have no interest in it. But I don't begrudge anyone else who wants to post in that thread. Why would I? I'm a live-and-let-live kind of guy. It's ok with me if others here want to discuss that, even though it has less to do with dogs than my thread here. Why can't we all share that attitude? I've posted here many times but one would NEVER find a post from me where I'm telling someone what they should or shouldn't post. So why do others? The solution is pretty freaking simple. If you're not interested in the subject THEN DON'T CLICK ON IT! Right? Or should certain "enlightened" posters here be appointed to approve all information and opinions before they can be shared? Yes, that could be described as fascism.



People like HER.... :lol: :lol:

You have no idea who I am or what I stand for, Patrick. Let me make your day.

"Bless this topic and all who post on it, may they get all what they desire out of it.!" O

Carry on... HER has spoken.


----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> "It's time for journalists to report the facts and the whole story, not just sensastionalize a story to their own agenda" "Its time for pet owners to take responsibility for their dogs and their own actions"
> 
> I think if you combined the original title with these two, we'd all be in better shape.
> 
> I agree with Alice about this not needing to be on this forum, except it may remind someone on here not to be a dumbass with their dog. Inflammatory or not, Alice, you have to remember who we're dealing with here on the WDF as much as cops have to realize who they are dealing with. This is a cross section of society, and there are just as many idiots here as there are on the streets. This is a good reminder for those of us who aren't, just who WE are dealing with discussing anything here.


Good point! I tend to forget that every so often and expect people to be reasonable and use good common sense.... Thanks for reminding me.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

first, unlike other similar vids, there was plenty to see in that video...a series of events leading up to what ended up being a dog shooting...i feel there are lessons to be learned from both sides of the law and that makes it worthy of a little more evaluation. if you don't feel that way, don't bother reading the rest of the post

second :
i think there are two main reasons dogs get shot by LEO's :
1. LE is too busy doing what is required on scene and a loose dog becomes a secondary or much lesser priority, so if it interferes with the operation in progress, it gets shot. perfectly legitimate reason for shooting a dog, imo
2. they are annoyed at a dog who is bothering them, and maybe scared of it, which may or may not make them feel threatened, so they shoot it because they are armed ... and can

as far as the dog shot in the video, i certainly don't think number one applies. the two officers were not busy. they were standing by, and when their services were not needed at the main primary scene so they turned to deal with an asshole who left his car boombox blaring, and had a dog with him who was clearly annoying them by hanging around and filming them

even tho the dog was not INITIALLY displaying aggression, the dog was clearly not an ankle biter and had potential to do them, or any civilians near the scene, harm. that should have been obvious. just because the idiot didn't have any common sense does not men the LEOs didn't need any either. they should be able to assess the scene with a clear head and a LOT more common sense than the idiot scumbags they deal with on a daily basis. they are the professionals. so, imo they made their first mistake by not getting the dog properly secured FIRST before apprehending the asshole. they allowed the suspect to put his dog in a car that they had no idea of whether it could get out even tho they COULD see that the window closest to them was not closed. that was probably mistake two
- when the dog got out and they were unable to handle it, they shot it, and THEY are accountable for using their weapons, NOT the asshole who brought the dog and didn't secure it properly. the LEOs shot the dog and the LEOs are accountable at that point ... their accountability does not go out the window just because an idiot brought a dog on the scene

again, i will repeat : the dog was killed because they shot it, not because it was there and not secured. 
- whether it was about to attack a LEO and endanger their life is COMPLETE speculation and cannot be verified. regardless of that, i feel it the shooting could have been easily prevented so i will suggest one scenario of how that might have been done :

* disclaimer : these "instructions" are based on a belief that a large dog with the potential to bite needs to be separated and secured away from the owner prior to apprehension, and the steps apply specifically to the situation clearly visible in the video posted. it is NOT a one size fits all plan

** fairly simple way for two officers to safely apprehend/arrest someone who has a big assed dog with them and their car is fortunately parked a few feet away with music blaring :
1. halt the suspect with the dog from a safe distance. call for back up if needed and draw weapon if needed
2. one officer goes to the "gun locker", and looks inside. if said locker appears empty, shut off music, roll up windows and remove keys while leaving doors unlocked
3. return to other officer 
4. order suspect to place dog in rear seat from passenger door and require them to close the door when thor is inside, and "remind" them to not try and make any move to enter the vehicle. 
5. proceed with apprehension and arrest
PIECE OF CAKE - EASY DAY

anyone disagree that this could NOT have been done in this situation based on what the video clip showed ? ? 
* of course there are multiple ways to modify this as the situation might have dictated
* and even if the suspect had decided to put the dog in the car before being asked, the car should still be checked to ensure all windows were closed and the dog would stay there .... meaning step one thru five should still be done

now you have eliminated the potential threat of a dog attack towards ANYONE on scene AND shut the annoying sound off that was obstructing the attention of other LEO's in the immediate area, with the added benny that the dog will most likely NOT be shot.
...and if it was your lucky day, you might have looted a gun locker and padded your arrest evidence and tken a dangerous weapon off the street

- about dog bite prevention education for LE ... if not already done it should be and will probably take about 15 minutes since it mostly involves a common sense approach rather than a time consuming study of analyzing aggressive canine behaviors. of course it will not be effective for some, since students with a real problem of dog phobias will probably not speak up in a LE class anyway for fear of ridicule by their fellow trainees, and i suspect they will be much more likely to shoot any loose dog that might approach them regardless of size or breed

* note : BEFORE you play the "hindsight is 20/20" card .... of COURSE it usually is ... because that is one way to learn from the mistakes of others, and do things better the next time ... imo

but stating that the idiot DESERVED to have his dog shot is arrogance
i expect more from LEOs than "if you are dumb enuff to bring your dog near me, don't be surprised if i shoot it"
to me THAT is a BS attitude and ANYTHING but professional

if anyone has another way this could have been handled, please step up and provide the ways
if anyone feels the LEOs did the best they could prior to shooting it, please make your case

HELL no, i don't like to see these vids and i REALLY don't like to see people trying to stir the pot for the sake of stirring because they have a personal agenda.

more importantly, i'm NOT defending or ridiculing anyone ... simply saying i saw a fairly decent dog that probably didn't need to be killed and providing my simple rationale on how it might have been prevented ... because this is a DOG forum, and i only think dogs should be killed when it is absolutely necessary. 

off the soapbox


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Alice, 
Thank Rick for clarifying what I was talking about by being a poster child for what I described in my first post. Rick can't even tell we are discussing an article in the first post. How is he supposed to glean any information from the article if he doesn't even know to read the article Patrick posted. Written word, not video. Don't be that guy that is thinking of what to say and taking a breath to talk, when someone talking is only half into their first sentence. This can be the result....




rick smith said:


> first, unlike other similar vids, there was plenty to see in that video...a series of events leading up to what ended up being a dog shooting...i feel there are lessons to be learned from both sides of the law and that makes it worthy of a little more evaluation. if you don't feel that way, don't bother reading the rest of the post
> 
> second :
> i think there are two main reasons dogs get shot by LEO's :
> ...


----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> Alice,
> Alice,
> Thank Rick for clarifying what I was talking about by being a poster child for what I described in my first post. Rick can't even tell we are discussing an article in the first post. How is he supposed to glean any information from the article if he doesn't even know to read the article Patrick posted. Written word, not video. Don't be that guy that is thinking of what to say and taking a breath to talk, when someone talking is only half into their first sentence. This can be the result....


Thank you, Rick! 

:lol:


----------



## mel boschwitz (Apr 23, 2010)

As a LEO and dog lover, I am not very thrilled with some of the videos I see. Theres an amazing lack of common sense with some cops-and dog owners. But lets not take as gospel all these sob stories by the owners. "My dog wasnt doing anything". People lie folks, on both sides of course. But the "innocent owner" will probably get some money and get a cop fired. Win/Win for some of them. 

I have been charged by many a dog that looked like it might bite. Especially to someone who doesnt know how to read the little things in a dogs body language. Now add to this the stress of an unknown situation and a cop with basic dog knowledge and you have a shooting in the making. Expecting a cop to be able to read minute body language after a few hour course is ludicrous. I am NOT defending their behavior, just think that we need to stop casting stones, especially people who have never been in situations that LEOs find themselves in daily.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Patrick Murray said:


> That's right, Jobie. Just because one forum member doesn't like to read this article shouldn't preclude me from being able to post it. Right? Or should it be that, if her feelings are offended, I must be prohibited from sharing it, such as the example with the hippie chick above? It's people like her that preach about "tolerance" until someone voices an opinion that differs from her own. Then, that opinion must be squelched! I thought this forum was a place where people could freely share information and perspectives. I see there is a George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin thread. I haven't read it as I have no interest in it. But I don't begrudge anyone else who wants to post in that thread. Why would I? I'm a live-and-let-live kind of guy. It's ok with me if others here want to discuss that, even though it has less to do with dogs than my thread here. Why can't we all share that attitude? I've posted here many times but one would NEVER find a post from me where I'm telling someone what they should or shouldn't post. So why do others? The solution is pretty freaking simple. If you're not interested in the subject THEN DON'T CLICK ON IT! Right? Or should certain "enlightened" posters here be appointed to approve all information and opinions before they can be shared? Yes, that could be described as fascism.


I think people post what they want to post..

then others have the option to do whatever they want with it.

Mods can lock threads or remove inappropriate stuff, warnings can be given, people can be banned. This can happen immediately or if posts take certain turns in direction, that they feel is inappropriate accrording to the loose guidelines and rules, and their interpretations of them.

Readers can object or complain to Mods to take action, or just read, or not read..

Other potential posters have options as well, they can decide not to read it, they can decide not to post on it at all. They can decide to write pretty much whatever they want to, support the thread in theory, or justification of posting it, or oppose it in theory and oppose it being posted. They can debate anything in said thread, and agree or diagree with anything in it for whatever reasons they like to...

Then the OP and whoever posted in thread have the option to argue a point, agree with someone, clarify, or give more info and ask questions...or just make a post and not post further on the topic..

I acutally thought you posted that picture as if to say that people cannot express there dissappointment that this thread was started.

I think you are within your rights to post this, and others are within their rights to question the reasoning for posting it, and also to give their opinions on the fact that it was posted, or anything else. 

Tolerance is an often not realized ideal. 

Tolerance to me also does not mean that people have to agree with something being posted at all or its content.

I think people are voicing their opinions, and by posting this here, you open the topic up for opinions given by members, good or bad... No one censored your post, or deleted the thread, so lets not start crying facism here.

My opinion on the topic is that in many of these cases, the bottom line is that the dog owners are at fault, the root cause in many cases is that the owner failed to properly contain or control their dogs, and put them at risk..

The bulldog video on the pole, being shot, sure it outraged even me. But the bottom line was that the dog was not contained it was allowed to roam around out in the public, and therefore the owner bears some of the blame for the incident.

This is not a perfect world, there are people that are scared of dogs, there are also people that do not like dogs period.

Ii have known quite a few people who have had their dogs killed or injured while loose out in public, by various means, mostly automobiles hitting them, along with dogs getting shot, and also killed or injured by other dogs, or being hit or kicked.

Of the people who's dog has died from the above, very few poeple place blame on themselves, it is the guy driving the cars fault, it is the guy with the other dogs fault, it is the guy that was scared and shot their dogs fault, it is the guy that kicked or struck their dogs fault.....

Ultimately, it is not everyone elses responsibility to protect our dogs, or look out for them, it is ours.

That Rottwiler attempted to bite that officers hand, could have caused a career ending injury, it is very possible. 

That guy could have easily closed his window, he could have easily slammed his leash in the door. He failed to protect his dog.

when I left dogs in my backyard loose, which was not often, I had a padlock on the gates. I try to always keep the house locked as well, to attempt to prevent any incidents concerning my dogs and people or whatever else.

and yes I have had certain dogs escape my yard, or kennels, or even my control over my lifetime.

Luckily my dogs were never injured or hurt, but if they were, I would be blaming myself.

Yes there are cases that in my opinion where dogs are killed where the owner does not bare much blame in the situation if any...

People are killed, injured and shot as well. 

Hell I even had a dog bite a Police K9 before...I was mortified, although it was not my fault as I was walking the dog onleash, I thought for sure my dog was going to get shot that day..in that case I would have not blamed myself, but also would keep in mind that the handler also cared about his dog deelpy, and that he was probably pretty pissed off, even though he is the one that did not control his dog. The police did NOT shooy my dog that day, even after it grabbed the GSD K9 by the head, for running up to him, if the dog was shot, I would surely not blame myself too much, but also would certainly understand why he was shot.

The world is imperfect.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

So...If my right to free speech hurts your feelings, then that right ends?? 

Ironic considering this whole thread.

I think you made fun of yourself with that picture and didn't even get your own joke...a picture IS worth a thousand words.



Patrick Murray said:


>


----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> So...If my right to free speech hurts your feelings, then that right ends??
> 
> Ironic considering this whole thread.


I posted an article regarding training police to stop the indiscriminate killing of dogs. You and others expressed your outrage that I had shared the article. In response, I posted the picture of the hippie-girl with the message that once one's feelings are offended, others cannot express their views. 

You and others here are offended that I had shared information that you, apparently, find offensive. It seems that you and others want to censor what other members here can post. I don't believe that is conducive to the idea of sharing information and perspectives. Based on your response and, other responses here, I can certainly understand why prospective posters might be intimidated from participating here. 

Years ago, I helped Mike start this forum because there was another forum, full of cliques, where the freedom of expression was suppressed and posters were frequently attacked. It seems that this forum has, clearly, devolved to that level. Perhaps you and others should form a politburo to determine all of the topics that cannot be discussed here so as not to upset you further.


----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

Patrick Murray said:


> I posted an article regarding training police to stop the indiscriminate killing of dogs. You and others expressed your outrage that I had shared the article. In response, I posted the picture of the hippie-girl with the message that once one's feelings are offended, others cannot express their views.
> 
> You and others here are offended that I had shared information that you, apparently, find offensive. It seems that you and others want to censor what other members here can post. I don't believe that is conducive to the idea of sharing information and perspectives. Based on your response and, other responses here, I can certainly understand why prospective posters might be intimidated from participating here.
> 
> Years ago, I helped Mike start this forum because there was another forum, full of cliques, where the freedom of expression was suppressed and posters were frequently attacked. It seems that this forum has, clearly, devolved to that level. Perhaps you and others should form a politburo to determine all of the topics that cannot be discussed here so as not to upset you further.


To be quite honest here, I am the one that spoke up about your posting of the topic. I was the one that voiced my dislike at this incesant need to bash a dead horse on a working dog forum. Your response to that was to take the adult route, post silly pictures like a 12 year old and to start throwing words like Facism and Nazi around, then reverting to downright name calling by calling me stupid. This is the extent of your commitment to your post. You do not stand up for it with actual ideas or thoughts, you do not come up with adult conversation, you just fling mud and stomp your feet in anger. No one is trying to censor anything, I am not trying to censor anything, I do however have serious questions as to why you post this kind of material and your reasons behind it and the way you have responded up until now only confirms my thoughts. 

It seems to me that what ever does not conform to YOUR point of view is in for a sound bashing and name calling from your side. Just in case you didn't notice this, Patrick, the only attacking being doing on this topic was the attacking that you did.. Now maybe I am out of line here but maybe you should take a good long and hard look at my signature....

Regards, 

The head administrator for the newly to be formed WDF Politburo.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

You put yourself in a category of not being able to read and comprehend well, if that's what you got out of my post. Me thinking something doesn't belong is a far sight from me trying to suppress your freedom of speech. I am exercising my freedom of speech.

I found the upside in that article, as you can see, if you are an English reader. It can prevent dumbasses from being dumbasses if they see the consequences of others actions as dumbasses. Unfortunately, they are dumbasses and they won't make the connection nearly as frequently or as accurately as they probably should, to prevent their dog from being killed. 

The article also re-affirms for me that media rarely prints news, and the real viable candidates for having a complaint heard about having their dog killed are marred by the rest of the people for whom the sky is falling. Thus, the article actually pushes us further from a solution. We all know, if you aren't part of the solution...you are part of the problem.

FYI, I'd like a good solution to our national debt, preventing the shooting dogs by LE for NO reason, and how to become a millionaire for a $39.99 investment (as seen on TV). The thing is, I haven't seen a solution for any of that stuff yet and this article only separates people into the two groups of critical thinking and bandwagon followers.

You being disturbed by other peoples opinions of the posting of a badly written, fact-short/less article, seems to put you exactly in a chair next to your hippie girl. Crying because my freedom of speech is hurting your feelings and sensibilities.. Sort of ironic. 

*Post a viable solution for the cessation of shooting dogs that puts responsibility on the owner, LE and the general public that may have to step up and shoot a dog as well. * Post factual information about how all these bites occur. Not the fluff crap that this article is rife with. Poorly written is a better description than offensive, for how I received this article. Although I do take offense at poorly written "news".





Patrick Murray said:


> I posted an article regarding training police to stop the indiscriminate killing of dogs. You and others expressed your outrage that I had shared the article. In response, I posted the picture of the hippie-girl with the message that once one's feelings are offended, others cannot express their views.
> 
> You and others here are offended that I had shared information that you, apparently, find offensive. It seems that you and others want to censor what other members here can post. I don't believe that is conducive to the idea of sharing information and perspectives. Based on your response and, other responses here, I can certainly understand why prospective posters might be intimidated from participating here.
> 
> Years ago, I helped Mike start this forum because there was another forum, full of cliques, where the freedom of expression was suppressed and posters were frequently attacked. It seems that this forum has, clearly, devolved to that level. Perhaps you and others should form a politburo to determine all of the topics that cannot be discussed here so as not to upset you further.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Alice Bezemer said:


> The head administrator for the newly to be formed WDF Politburo.


I am defecting.. or at least getting a new identity


----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

Joby Becker said:


> I am defecting.. or at least getting a new identity



Awe, come one, Joby! I was planning to make you my Secretary! :lol:


----------



## Ted Summers (May 14, 2012)

man...... some people had some butt-hurt kool-aid.


What I don't understand is why the guy didn't taze the dog instead of shooting it. Sure it could have bitten him. I've seen cops enough to know that dog was way less of a threat than a dude all jacked up on PCP or Meth or bath salts. Police use K9 as a non lethal means for suspect apprehension. If a K9 unit is not lethal an average dog off the street isn't either. I say the use of force was a bit excessive and a tazer would've done the trick. When, a suspect is appended by a K9 and fights the dog causing injury or death, they get charged with assault on an officer (at least here they do). It's obvious that LEOs and prosecutors value K9 units and dogs as partners or pets. 

I'm by no means minimizing the roll LEOs plays in our communities nor the dangers they put themselves into everyday.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Ted,

This thread isn't about that video. It's about the sensational story written in the first post. 



Ted Summers said:


> man...... some people had some butt-hurt kool-aid.
> 
> 
> What I don't understand is why the guy didn't taze the dog instead of shooting it. Sure it could have bitten him. I've seen cops enough to know that dog was way less of a threat than a dude all jacked up on PCP or Meth or bath salts. Police use K9 as a non lethal means for suspect apprehension. If a K9 unit is not lethal an average dog off the street isn't either. I say the use of force was a bit excessive and a tazer would've done the trick. When, a suspect is appended by a K9 and fights the dog causing injury or death, they get charged with assault on an officer (at least here they do). It's obvious that LEOs and prosecutors value K9 units and dogs as partners or pets.
> ...


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> I am defecting.. or at least getting a new identity


Go with the second one first. It's the newest +1 type of trend these days. Instead of keeping up with the Joneses you can shoot for keeping up with the +1ers. The greatest thing about that approach is you can do both (defecting or staying the same and get a new identity) at the same time. Then no choice has to be made, honesty is out the window, and you don't have to be accountable for the actions of your new "+1" identity that you've created. \\/


----------



## Ted Summers (May 14, 2012)

Dave Colborn said:


> Ted,
> 
> This thread isn't about that video. It's about the sensational story written in the first post.


whops.... #-o


----------



## Meg O'Donovan (Aug 20, 2012)

Nicole Stark said:


> Go with the second one first. It's the newest +1 type of trend these days. Instead of keeping up with the Joneses you can shoot for keeping up with the +1ers. The greatest thing about that approach is you can do both (defecting or staying the same and get a new identity) at the same time. Then no choice has to be made, honesty is out the window, and you don't have to be accountable for the actions of your new "+1" identity that you've created.


The hard part is remembering your various personas, and staying consistently in role for each.\\/


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

To be honest Patrick I think people need to concentrate on training police officers to stop raiding the wrong houses and shooting innocent unarmed people in their beds before you worry about them shooting dogs. :wink:


----------



## Brett Bowen (May 2, 2011)

As LEO, I try to stay away from these threads as they go no where fast. Some people think that the police are always wrong even when we are right. Sure mistakes are made, everyone in every profession makes them. We are human after all not robots. That being said, I don't think LEO does a good job of educating people. 

Patrick, I take issue with your "indiscriminate" killing of dogs. Really? You make it seem that we are out finding loose dogs to kill for sport. If you really want to inject change, have a well thought out, intelligent, argument. Not words that are intended to incite images that are far from true. 

Now here's the thing. When I go to a call I keep 3 things in my head. 1. This could be my last call. If you are not mentally prepared for a fight of your life on every call you have already lost. 2. The other LEO on that call with me are counting on me to be there for him should someone we are dealing with tries to make it their last call. 3. People call us because they are not having a good day. They asked for my help. 

That being said, here's where the dog issue comes in. I know dogs are less lethal tools. Deaths from dogs are a rare occurrence. Your typical injuries from a dog bite are relatively minor injuries meaning a trip to the ER and some stitches is your "normal". Some are worse, some are better, just depends. I feel I know dogs decent enough to know when they are for real or bluffing. Or at least be able to tip them over the edge to avoidance. BUT, with those three above things in mind, my fear is if I'm tangled up dealing with a dog what is going to happen while I am distracted. Or is my partner going into a violent situation by himself and I'm not there because I've been taken out of the fight by a dog. I'm sorry but he and his family our counting on me to help keep him safe. I could not live with myself if something happened because I didn't want to shoot a dog. What if some civilian looses their life in that situation. The same posters asking for dogs not to be killed would be in a huge uproar that we let a citizen die. I'm sorry, I choose a human life, any human life, over a dogs life, any dogs life including my own, EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

Rant over, you can continue with your regularly scheduled law enforcement bashing.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Ted Summers said:


> man...... some people had some butt-hurt kool-aid.
> 
> 
> What I don't understand is why the guy didn't taze the dog instead of shooting it. Sure it could have bitten him. I've seen cops enough to know that dog was way less of a threat than a dude all jacked up on PCP or Meth or bath salts. Police use K9 as a non lethal means for suspect apprehension. If a K9 unit is not lethal an average dog off the street isn't either. I say the use of force was a bit excessive and a tazer would've done the trick. When, a suspect is appended by a K9 and fights the dog causing injury or death, they get charged with assault on an officer (at least here they do). It's obvious that LEOs and prosecutors value K9 units and dogs as partners or pets.
> ...



Ted use of force models, in my mind applies to people not to dogs, although I do not know this for a fact in relation to Police work. I very well could be 100% wrong.

Either way in the instance of the Rottweiler, the intention of the officers was not to use ANY type of force on the dog, in my opinion.

It is not like they shot it when it came out of the car. The officer attempted to grab the dogs leash, to gain control of the dog, and the dog attempted to attack him.

The dog was nervous, confused, and agitated. It attempted to bite, period. 

I agree that the dog was not going to KILL the officer, and probably did not pose a threat of killing an officer, but he certainly posed a threat to what could amount to a serious injury. Therefore the use of force was justified, in my mind, regardless of if there even are use of force rules that apply to dogs.

At the point of the dog deciding to bite the person, a tazer was a non-option in my mind.

On top of that, it is not as easy to hit a dog with a tazer as everyone thinks it is, this I know from talking to officers that have attempted to do so. The probes from the tazer spread out vertically, so unless at close range, and the tazer is held sideways, it is fairly difficult to hit a dog with both probes. 

There have been several cases of dogs attempting to be shot with tazers where it has proved ineffective, either from complete misses, or only 1 probe making contact, which will more than likely only cause pain and not incapacitate a dog, a large dog in an aggressive state of mind that has pain put upon it, that does not render it incapacitated is actually much more dangerous, as it can easily put a dog into more fearful mode, and quite possible even a Rage state of mind..

To even try to argue that an officer should put him self at risk of possibly severe injury, in order to possibly avoid shooting a dog is a losing argument in my mind.

Dogs cannot reason like a human can, they do not comply with orders like a human, and they do not think when they act, msot of the time anyhow... That guy could have told his dog to lay down, and it could have listened, even if the guy was a total idiot for not securing it in the first place...

angry rottweilers are certainly capable of causing more than a superficial injury, especially to the hands...


----------



## Rick Cadez Jr. (Dec 1, 2009)

Rick, the rott was clearly in attack mode. Thats not speculation thats very clear after watching the video. I agree with everything Joby just stated.


----------



## Lisa Brazeau (May 6, 2010)

Taser+ athletic ability = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgddAhelNmA


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Lisa Brazeau said:


> Taser+ athletic ability = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgddAhelNmA


that was great, but to expect everyone else to, or require anyone else to attempt to do that is ludicrous, every situation is unique.

sure an officer is not required to shoot a dog, that is his choice to do so.

the officer would have been justified in shooting this dog as well, good on him for using the taser, especially with the kids around.

But still another crystal clear example of morons owning dogs. that dog ran off, to possibly attempt to bite someone else.


----------



## Lisa Brazeau (May 6, 2010)

Joby Becker said:


> that was great, but to expect everyone else to, or require anyone else to attempt to do that is ludicrous, every situation is unique.
> 
> sure an officer is not required to shoot a dog, that is his choice to do so.
> 
> ...


Agreed! In this case, that dog was attacking, no question. And the police were able to control the situation through non-lethal means, even though they were in the right to shoot that dog.

Just FYI, the dog was caught and returned to the owner.](*,)


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Lisa Brazeau said:


> Agreed! In this case, that dog was attacking, no question. And the police were able to control the situation through non-lethal means, even though they were in the right to shoot that dog.
> 
> Just FYI, the dog was caught and returned to the owner.](*,)


doesnt surprise me..

I just finally had to call the cops on a guy on the next block..this is the 2nd time his super stocked blue pitubll was in my yard, this time he lunged and growled at me when I went out there with a hotdog and a leash and tossed a piece of hotdog at him from my proch baby talking him.... he hightailed back home, on his porch with no tie out. but not before stopping to give the neighbor and his small kids a real scare... I have went there 2 times before to talk to them about him being loose, has shown aggression to people in every case, when they have tried to shoo him off, or catch him. great looker..75 lbs or so solid muscle...but not friendly towards adult male humans for sure...


----------

