Cops shoot dog, leave note

[Kamakazie Sith]

Appropriate response in the UK would probably be an investigation and revokation of firearms officer status if it was found that the officer was trigger happy. If they shoot a dog that realistically poses zero threat, that's a strong indication that they would shoot a criminal without sufficient cause. Of course that can't be done in the US as apparently it is impossible to police without carrying a firearm.

Yes, it is impossible and by impossible I assume you mean unreasonably dangerous. Even security guards in certain patrols carry firearms because of the possibility of running into armed criminals.

Anyway, in the US if you discharged your firearm without cause to destroy an animal or whatever then you'd likely be fired, and that would likely be the least of your problems.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The behavior of many people in this thread, particularly (but certainly not limited to them) Alyrium, Schatten and AlphawolfNUMBERS, is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

Repeat after me: The plural of Anecdote is NOT data!

Gee, good thing that is not what I am doing. I have not relayed a single anecdote here. I have relayed breed characteristics, and then applied them to the known behavior of a specific dog. Anecdotes about an individual applied to that individual are perfectly valid. It is when you apply anecdotes to the population that you have a problem.

And anecdotes is what all the bullshit about golden retrievers and labradors being universally gentle and nonviolent is.

No. It is not. They are breed characters. It is the equivalent of me talking about behavioral syndromes in fiddler crabs, or defensive behavior in snakes. Those dogs are bred to be friendly. Are there exceptions? Of course. You can abuse a dog and make it mean. The dog can be in constant pain, and become aggressive. It happens. It is entirely possible that a dog with arthritis might become aggressive. However, we have ONLY the officers word against a dog's lifetime of behavior, and when you are talking about an individual's behavior and the central tendency in the behavior, anecdotes about that behavior are valid evidence. Unless you want to collect statistics on every individual.

For whatever reason, their lab did not like me at all and I had no business going near if the dog was around, such as if we happened to meet in the stairwell. I've seen and met other labs that you had to be careful around at first if you wanted to make sure you stayed in one piece.

Yes. Is there variance around the central tendency? Yes. Is there a central tendency in the dogs behavior? Yes. It happens to be on one side of the central tendency of the mean. This means that the probability that its behavior will shift suddenly to the other side is low. Possible? Yes. Likely, no.

Then, the most astonishing thing in this thread by far: We are dealing with a burglary alarm in the US. Where criminals tend to be well supplied with these things known as firearms, due to widespread availability and little respect for any possible restrictive laws. More likely than not, the possible criminal is armed, so the police officer needs to go with a weapon out, as our resident officers have repeatedly stated.

Which is perfectly acceptable. The issue is when they pull the trigger by accident. If this was a teenager who had come out to investigate and the cop pulled the trigger and it turned out to be a family friend who accidentally flipped the burglar alarm and the cop claimed to have shot him in self defense, we would not be having this argument. The cop would not be taken at his word, and the members of this board would be screaming for blood.

They have also made the point about the tactical situation and what you can and can't do there, how long switching weapons would take etc.

Yes. And again, if he saw the dog, did not want to risk being chomped, and then later said "Look, I had to make the call in a split second and may have shot a non-aggressive dog" we would not be having this argument.

The issue is not that he shot the dog. Reacting out of instinct and training is not shameful. It is that we only have his word that it was unambiguously aggressive, and that the dogs past behavior counter-indicates that aggression. And yes, referencing the behavior of an individual to predict future behavior is perfectly valid. If this is the case, and the police officer did act instinctively, that is fine, but he needs to take responsibility for it rather than claiming the dog attacked him.

Also: I love how you bitch about use of anecdotes, and your post is smothered in them.

None of that is apparent. Yet a lot of people here have been making pretty sweeping statements of fact of how it must have been based on what amounts to nothing but ignorance and the benefit of hindsight.

No. It is based on the dog's prior behavior. What is more likely? That the dog became aggressive? Or that the cop acted on muscle memory to a fast moving dog with his gun drawn. In other words, made a mistake, and is then either rationalizing his behavior, or lying about it? The answer is obvious. The later is more likely. Not definite, but more likely, and I have stressed that my argument is probabilistic.

[Edi]

The behavior of many people in this thread, particularly (but certainly not limited to them) Alyrium, Schatten and AlphawolfNUMBERS, is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

Repeat after me: The plural of Anecdote is NOT data!

Gee, good thing that is not what I am doing. I have not relayed a single anecdote here. I have relayed breed characteristics, and then applied them to the known behavior of a specific dog. Anecdotes about an individual applied to that individual are perfectly valid. It is when you apply anecdotes to the population that you have a problem.

All of the anecdotes you have applied have been anecdotes about the dog's behavior while the owner is present, which obviously was not the case here. This renders their applicability to this situation of uncertain value at best.

And anecdotes is what all the bullshit about golden retrievers and labradors being universally gentle and nonviolent is.

No. It is not. They are breed characters. It is the equivalent of me talking about behavioral syndromes in fiddler crabs, or defensive behavior in snakes. Those dogs are bred to be friendly. Are there exceptions? Of course. You can abuse a dog and make it mean. The dog can be in constant pain, and become aggressive. It happens. It is entirely possible that a dog with arthritis might become aggressive. However, we have ONLY the officers word against a dog's lifetime of behavior, and when you are talking about an individual's behavior and the central tendency in the behavior, anecdotes about that behavior are valid evidence. Unless you want to collect statistics on every individual.

See above about the situation and applicability of your anecdotes versus teh points aerius raised earlier and that I touched on. You are far from the clean sweep you imagine.

For whatever reason, their lab did not like me at all and I had no business going near if the dog was around, such as if we happened to meet in the stairwell. I've seen and met other labs that you had to be careful around at first if you wanted to make sure you stayed in one piece.

Yes. Is there variance around the central tendency? Yes. Is there a central tendency in the dogs behavior? Yes. It happens to be on one side of the central tendency of the mean. This means that the probability that its behavior will shift suddenly to the other side is low. Possible? Yes. Likely, no.

You are at best dealing with a complete unknown here, since there is no information at all on the dog's behavior in a situation where there are strangers present and the owner is absent.

Then, the most astonishing thing in this thread by far: We are dealing with a burglary alarm in the US. Where criminals tend to be well supplied with these things known as firearms, due to widespread availability and little respect for any possible restrictive laws. More likely than not, the possible criminal is armed, so the police officer needs to go with a weapon out, as our resident officers have repeatedly stated.

Which is perfectly acceptable. The issue is when they pull the trigger by accident. If this was a teenager who had come out to investigate and the cop pulled the trigger and it turned out to be a family friend who accidentally flipped the burglar alarm and the cop claimed to have shot him in self defense, we would not be having this argument.

Indeed. We would be having a very different argument.

The cop would not be taken at his word, and the members of this board would be screaming for blood.

Yes, they would be, which has been amply demonstrated in past threads about possible police misconduct. In that hypothetical situation, there would have to be a full-blown investigation into the incident with a completely different order of magnitude of resources, time and thoroughness. I'd probably be telling most of the crowd here to sit down and shut up unless they had enough information to make educated guesses, because there is a significant contingent here that makes its decisions based on incomplete information, gut feelings and emotional outrage and damn the facts of the situation.

You happen to be one of that crowd for the most part.

They have also made the point about the tactical situation and what you can and can't do there, how long switching weapons would take etc.

Yes. And again, if he saw the dog, did not want to risk being chomped, and then later said "Look, I had to make the call in a split second and may have shot a non-aggressive dog" we would not be having this argument.

The officer said he shot an aggressive dog. The argument we're having is whether the dog was aggressive or not, but there is no information to make that decision. Even if it was not, the officer may have misjudged or was not able to gather enough information in that split second to read all the nuances and erred on the side of his own safety. He perceived an aggressive animal, acted according to that and then reported the incident as such. We also do not have the text of the police report, which would tell us what the officer reported instead of what the press says happened.

The issue is not that he shot the dog. Reacting out of instinct and training is not shameful. It is that we only have his word that it was unambiguously aggressive, and that the dogs past behavior counter-indicates that aggression. And yes, referencing the behavior of an individual to predict future behavior is perfectly valid. If this is the case, and the police officer did act instinctively, that is fine, but he needs to take responsibility for it rather than claiming the dog attacked him.

See above again about the applicability of the past behavior predictions. As well, if he perceived an attacking dog due to misjudgment or whatever reason and acted according to that, what the hell is he supposed to say? We'd need to reference the police report itself instead of just media stories.

Also: I love how you bitch about use of anecdotes, and your post is smothered in them.

I did not claim those anecdotes were data. They illustrate precisely why using anecdotes is dangerous and can be easily negated by counter-anecdotes. In all those cases I was talking about specific dogs and as far as generalizing goes, they indicated that such behavior in dogs is possible. I made no claim on whether or not those behaviors were present in this situation or even likely with this particular dog.

Remember, though, that the officer did not have information on this particular dog and any information he did have would have been of general nature with all of the possible unknowns in play.

None of that is apparent. Yet a lot of people here have been making pretty sweeping statements of fact of how it must have been based on what amounts to nothing but ignorance and the benefit of hindsight.

No. It is based on the dog's prior behavior. What is more likely? That the dog became aggressive? Or that the cop acted on muscle memory to a fast moving dog with his gun drawn. In other words, made a mistake, and is then either rationalizing his behavior, or lying about it? The answer is obvious. The later is more likely. Not definite, but more likely, and I have stressed that my argument is probabilistic.

Your argument may be probabilistic, but it's riddled with so many unknowns and so much incomplete information it's virtually worthless. Yet you have presented your argument more as a statement of fact than anything else. That's the way it comes across and I read through the entire bloody thread up until my own post in one go.

[aieeegrunt]

I have to agree with the comment made earlier that the blue apologist behaviour I am seeing in this thread is a classic example of the reason why so many people I know have absolutely zero trust in the police, myself included.

Seriously, a fucking 11 year old Golden Lab with hip problems that is trusted with preschoolers? And we're going to just automatically take the cop's word that it Cujo'd at him, and not even entertain the notion that he's lying? Yep, wouldn't trust you guys as far as I could throw you.

The family in the news article, well they're much better people than me, there is no way I'd be as polite as them. I would almost certainly be up on assault charges assuming I survived being shot 3000000000000000000 times after screaming myself hoarse at the police station.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I have to agree with the comment made earlier that the blue apologist behaviour I am seeing in this thread is a classic example of the reason why so many people I know have absolutely zero trust in the police, myself included.

And I have to restate my previous comment that the only reason you have this feeling is because you fail to understand the justice system. Police are people just like you and I and are entitled to the same rights that you and I are.

Seriously, a fucking 11 year old Golden Lab with hip problems that is trusted with preschoolers? And we're going to just automatically take the cop's word that it Cujo'd at him, and not even entertain the notion that he's lying? Yep, wouldn't trust you guys as far as I could throw you.

Why would you entertain a notion that you have zero evidence for? Right now we basically have two stories, but the dogs behavior in one set of variables is not a for sure indicator of its behavior in a completely different situation.

Also, as I asked before and people have failed to provide a reasonable answer. How would a police officer in this situation, equipped with the standard equipment, prove to you that this dog was aggressive?

Also, I need to remind you that had this been a person with knives (dogs teeth) then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The family in the news article, well they're much better people than me, there is no way I'd be as polite as them. I would almost certainly be up on assault charges assuming I survived being shot 3000000000000000000 times after screaming myself hoarse at the police station.

Ok, Hi-Speed. I'm pretty sure you'd just be arrested for disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct. Why you think you'd be shot is hilarious and speaks volumes of your preception of police which seems to have been obtained from watching too many episodes of "The Shield".

[Kamakazie Sith]

Which is perfectly acceptable. The issue is when they pull the trigger by accident. If this was a teenager who had come out to investigate and the cop pulled the trigger and it turned out to be a family friend who accidentally flipped the burglar alarm and the cop claimed to have shot him in self defense, we would not be having this argument. The cop would not be taken at his word, and the members of this board would be screaming for blood.

These counter examples you, and others, keep bringing up are not even remotely the same. If an unarmed teenage came outside and was shot by an officer. Yeah, the prosecution would be able to easily prove that the officer wasn't in danger unless the officer was 90lbs and the teenage was a 300lb star linebacker for his high school. Now, that same teenage comes outside with a knife and beings whatever equivalent of barking and growling and begins to advance then it would be much more difficult to prove that the officer was not in fear of his life. The extra curricular activities do not take priority over the evidence gathered at the scene.

Like I said before. If you can show that the dog was shot in the side, back, or something else that indicates that the dog wasn't actually advancing that would be worth infinitely more than how the dog behaves in X situation.

[Aaron]

I have to agree with the comment made earlier that the blue apologist behaviour I am seeing in this thread is a classic example of the reason why so many people I know have absolutely zero trust in the police, myself included.

Seriously, a fucking 11 year old Golden Lab with hip problems that is trusted with preschoolers? And we're going to just automatically take the cop's word that it Cujo'd at him, and not even entertain the notion that he's lying? Yep, wouldn't trust you guys as far as I could throw you.

The family in the news article, well they're much better people than me, there is no way I'd be as polite as them. I would almost certainly be up on assault charges assuming I survived being shot 3000000000000000000 times after screaming myself hoarse at the police station.

If anything, this thread has reinforced my belief that civvies are whiny, hysterical babies. Sith and SVPD were cool, calm and collected (for the most part) in this thread while trying to explain to a dogpile why they may not be correct. In effect they were doing the same thing that their opponents where doing, just more politely and with the benefit of the experience granted by their careers.

I have to give these two credit, as a Canadian I often see your police as quite heavy handed but they actually restore my confidence.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

If anything, this thread has reinforced my belief that civvies are whiny, hysterical babies. Sith and SVPD were cool, calm and collected (for the most part) in this thread while trying to explain to a dogpile why they may not be correct. In effect they were doing the same thing that their opponents where doing, just more politely and with the benefit of the experience granted by their careers.

"If anything, this thread has reinforced my belief that cops are hyper-aggressive, trigger-happy thugs. AD and Alphawolf55 were cool, calm and collected (for the most part) in this thread while trying to explain to the pigs why the officer in question may be wrong. In effect they were doing the same thing that their opponents were doing, just more politely and with the benefit of the experience granted by their long familiarity with this breed and its general behavioural characteristics."

See, I can make broad, unevidenced generalizations too!

But for fuck's sake people, back off for just a second, alright? We've had a total of one person in this thread make the usual 'Cops are dangerous' claim and he was shut down way back on page 2. DA hasn't even poked his head into this thread yet. Aside from the one outlier who was shut down, *no one* was claiming the cop in question is a trigger-happy thug who gets off on shooting family pets. In fact AD, the most vocal person in this thread, has stated these are the two most likely scenarios:

1) The cop in question genuinely thought the dog was being aggressive and shot it, then covered his ass. This shows that there needs to be more training to familiarize police, at least in this area, with the things they are most likely to run into on duty, and how to best avoid shooting them under mistaken pretenses and killing someone's family member.

2) The cop in question didn't have time to come to any rational conclusion on the scenario and shot the dog without thinking. AD even admitted that while this sucks for the owner, and while the cop should definitely be reprimanded for it, it's an understandable occurence. His ire is with the fact that the cops are so goddamn unwilling to admit even the vaguest possibility of error on their part.

What is not going on here is the typical DA screed on how evil all those cops are. The 'hysterical civvies' have been anything but, and have been presenting quite a reasonable case that the cop just plain fucked up and should out and admit it rather than continue to cling to a story which all available evidence points to as being highly implausible. SVPD and KS, on the other hand, are the ones demanding everyone else prove a negative (prove beyond any doubt that the dog wasn't aggressive or we're siding with the cop!)

My own view on the matter? If I were in the cop's position, yeah, I might have reacted the same way. I'm on a burglary call, I realize there's a possibility I could get attacked by someone or something, a dog suddenly appears, comes towards me, possibly barking, I might instinctively react and pull the trigger myself. What I would HOPE I would do afterward is have the fucking integrity to admit to myself and others that I had reacted in the heat of the moment, the dog was probably not actually aggressive enough to warrant the reaction, and take whatever disciplinary measures come with my bad reaction.

[Aaron]

You know, even if the cop was a hundred percent correct and the dog was aggressive, there isn't any particular reason why the department (or city or whatever) can't offer some compensation or free counselling.

[Alphawolf55]

I have to agree with the comment made earlier that the blue apologist behaviour I am seeing in this thread is a classic example of the reason why so many people I know have absolutely zero trust in the police, myself included.

Seriously, a fucking 11 year old Golden Lab with hip problems that is trusted with preschoolers? And we're going to just automatically take the cop's word that it Cujo'd at him, and not even entertain the notion that he's lying? Yep, wouldn't trust you guys as far as I could throw you.

The family in the news article, well they're much better people than me, there is no way I'd be as polite as them. I would almost certainly be up on assault charges assuming I survived being shot 3000000000000000000 times after screaming myself hoarse at the police station.

If anything, this thread has reinforced my belief that civvies are whiny, hysterical babies. Sith and SVPD were cool, calm and collected (for the most part) in this thread while trying to explain to a dogpile why they may not be correct. In effect they were doing the same thing that their opponents where doing, just more politely and with the benefit of the experience granted by their careers.

I have to give these two credit, as a Canadian I often see your police as quite heavy handed but they actually restore my confidence.

How the hell was SVPD being civil and nice? Sith yeah he's generally cool and polite. But pretty much SVPD first comment in this thread was telling someone to fuck off because they suggested spending a day or two teaching cops how to recognize dog behavior.

Now I pretty much stand with Oni. I don't like that a dog got shot, but I recognize it happens. The problem I hate is that it seems no one the police side will admit any wrong doing and just own up. But to be honest, I don't blamethe individual officer for rationalizing for even straight up lying. To be honest, the police departments don't encourage telling the truth. Think of it like this,you go on patrol, you're a little jumpy and you make a mistake shooting a dog. There's no witnesses. Now you can cause a big load of trouble for yourself by admitting wrong doing, or you could merely claim the dog was aggressive and be off the hook. I mean it's not like you being honest is going to bring the dog back? So why tell the truth? Honestly most people in this situation given an easy out would go with it, even if it involved being dishonest.

[aerius]

Anyone got a copy of the police report? Anyone have eyewitness reports? No? Then how are you going to determine "wrong doing"? The dog was killed before it drew blood?

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Anyone got a copy of the police report? Anyone have eyewitness reports? No? Then how are you going to determine "wrong doing"? The dog was killed before it drew blood?

So the burden of proof no longer applies to the party that has been evidenced to have taken lethal action?

[Kamakazie Sith]

How the hell was SVPD being civil and nice? Sith yeah he's generally cool and polite. But pretty much SVPD first comment in this thread was telling someone to fuck off because they suggested spending a day or two teaching cops how to recognize dog behavior.

Uh no he didn't. SVPD never told someone to fuck off. I said "Fuck you" to AD when he suggested that being bit was one way the officer would be able to prove that he was actually in danger, and thus far hasn't provided a more reasonable method. You on the other hand did tell SVPD "fuck you".

Anyway, that's part of the board culture, but you should really read more carefully.

Now I pretty much stand with Oni. I don't like that a dog got shot, but I recognize it happens. The problem I hate is that it seems no one the police side will admit any wrong doing and just own up. But to be honest, I don't blamethe individual officer for rationalizing for even straight up lying. To be honest, the police departments don't encourage telling the truth. Think of it like this,you go on patrol, you're a little jumpy and you make a mistake shooting a dog. There's no witnesses. Now you can cause a big load of trouble for yourself by admitting wrong doing, or you could merely claim the dog was aggressive and be off the hook. I mean it's not like you being honest is going to bring the dog back? So why tell the truth? Honestly most people in this situation given an easy out would go with it, even if it involved being dishonest.

In several threads where there was direct evidence of wrong doing on the officers part I have taken the side against the officer. However, I won't do so when the evidence does not satisfy me. Would you?

You, and others, try and play it off as some sort of blue wall thing, but that's not the case at all. The fact is if this would have been a civilian in the same situation I would still be on that civilians side, but perhaps with some more questions because a civilian would have a bit more explaining to do regarding why they were in another persons backyard.

As for your take on police not being encouraged to tell the truth. You do not know what the fuck you are talking about. I would love to hear where you got that impression? Because day one in the police academy we're told that lif you're caught lying it will be the end of your career. No, reprimands. No, warnings. Your career is over because any criminal case you investigate the defense will have a reasonable doubt regarding the facts because you are a liar.

This simple fact was repeated hundreds of times throughout the academy and continues to be repeated during squad training. So, Alphawolf, I would like you to explain in detail where you came to that conclusion.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Anyone got a copy of the police report? Anyone have eyewitness reports? No? Then how are you going to determine "wrong doing"? The dog was killed before it drew blood?

So the burden of proof no longer applies to the party that has been evidenced to have taken lethal action?

I've covered this in the thread already. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution. The officer is stating he was defending himself from a dog he preceived as dangerous. He is innocent until proven guilty. Just as a person who shot another person be persumed innocent until proven guilty. The difference and an unfortunate disadvantage for dogs is that they are usually armed with sharp teeth which the best human equivalent would be knives.

[aerius]

There is no proof one way or the other for either side. That is the point. But damn near everyone pretends that they have they key to prove wrong doing, pin the blame, or whatever. Maybe the cop shot the dog because he's a cat person and he's just covering shit up. Maybe the dog was a split second away from taking a chunk out of his throat. We don't fucking know and we won't know until more info is made available. But who cares about facts when we can talk trigger happy cops and dog shootings, since for whatever reason dog shootings seem to be the in thing recently.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Anyone got a copy of the police report? Anyone have eyewitness reports? No? Then how are you going to determine "wrong doing"? The dog was killed before it drew blood?

So the burden of proof no longer applies to the party that has been evidenced to have taken lethal action?

I've covered this in the thread already. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution. The officer is stating he was defending himself from a dog he preceived as dangerous. He is innocent until proven guilty. Just as a person who shot another person be persumed innocent until proven guilty. The difference and an unfortunate disadvantage for dogs is that they are usually armed with sharp teeth which the best human equivalent would be knives.

Except that in this case the cop is effectively the prosecution (and judge, jury and executioner, but I fully understand this is necessary in the line of duty), the cop is the one who shot the dog. This evidence is not in question. But the cop is also the one asserting that the dog was behaving in such a manner that shooting it was the only reasonable way out of the situation. His assertion, his responsibility to provide evidence for it.

Since we have no other eyewitnesses, all we have to go on are the cop's word and the dog's history. The cop's word is that the dog was acting in a manner that was dangerous. The dog's history? It's old, debilitated, is certified and trusted around children (who are notorious for bringing out any aggressive side animals may have due to their innately inquisitive nature), has over a decade of experience dealing with strangers, and as far as we know, does not have a single instance of recorded aggressive/dangerous behaviour.

These two accounts do not match. Since one side has over a decade of experience with this very dog, and the other has a total of, what, five seconds before he shot it? I'm going to go with the former's account based on available evidence.

But who cares about facts when we can talk trigger happy cops and dog shootings, since for whatever reason dog shootings seem to be the in thing recently.

Who in this thread has accused the cops of being trigger-happy? Who's stated that cops love nothing more than slaughtering dogs left and right? Oh right, no one who wasn't shut down within the first two pages. Not only is your post a moot point, but it's highly ironic as your knee-jerk accusations that everyone else is claiming the cops are trigger-happy is kind of a trigger-happy reaction in and of itself.

[aerius]

See there it is again. Assume that the dog is debilitated and imply that it could not possibly be a threat because it's old, has arthritis, and is trusted around children. Then imply that the cop is not trustworthy because you can't see the dog being a threat.

[Alphawolf55]

"As for your take on police not being encouraged to tell the truth. You do not know what the fuck you are talking about. I would love to hear where you got that impression? Because day one in the police academy we're told that lif you're caught lying it will be the end of your career. No, reprimands. No, warnings. Your career is over because any criminal case you investigate the defense will have a reasonable doubt regarding the facts because you are a liar.

This simple fact was repeated hundreds of times throughout the academy and continues to be repeated during squad training. So, Alphawolf, I would like you to explain in detail where you came to that conclusion."

If that's true, and a cop gets no warning and no reprimands. Why when it's found that a cop has filed a false report is there not an automatic firing?? Like in that Maryland beating case, they had absolute proof right away that the cop at least lied a little bit, why not fire them right away instead of suspending them and continue investigating if it's such a no tolerance policy? I dont doubt that they specifically say don't lie, all jobs do and I don't deny that there are real punishments for being proven to lie about big things. But can you point to actual cops being kicked off the force automatically for small lies in a case?

Also I came to that conclusion because it's human nature to choose the easy way out. Without witnesses, it's practically impossible to prove that the dog wasn't dangerous, and it's pretty much shown that the police will trust the cops judgment and word. Most people when presented with the scenario of a lie that's almost impossible to be caught on, and telling the truth when it doesn't actually fix the situation in any real way (the dog can't be brought back). Will choose to lie and justify it to themselves.

Be honest, unless the cop made a total fuck up like shoot the dog from behind, what evidence could honestly be brought up against him in this case? Perhaps there is real evidence that could be brought against him in which case I apologize, but you haven't pointed to many kinds of evidene that could reasonably be brought up against the cop. You did bring up shooting it in the back, but that's not much.

[Alyrium Denryle]

See there it is again. Assume that the dog is debilitated and imply that it could not possibly be a threat because it's old, has arthritis, and is trusted around children. Then imply that the cop is not trustworthy because you can't see the dog being a threat.

Or, if you are done committing strawmen:

The dog, while possibly threatening, is not likely to be threatening because the central tendency in both breed characteristics, and this dog, is not to be.

And

The police officer, while possibly telling the truth, is more likely to be rationalizing or lying about an honest mistake. Why? Because the central tendency in human behavior is to lie about or rationalize honest mistakes. Dont believe me? Check the sum total of the psych literature. I dont doubt that the officer really does feel like shit, but what the hell is he to do?

Now, I will address the argument that the dog's behavior toward children when the owner is present does not predict the dog's behavior when said owner is not present:

The two are not independent events. Flat out. That is because the physiological pathway that leads to aggression is the same in both cases, and behavior in one instance is highly predictive of the other.

In biology, this is called a behavioral syndrome. When an animal (and in fact people) have the same mechanisms by which a set of behaviors is mediated, there is a very strong correlation between those sets of behaviors. In the case of a dog (and just about anything really), aggression is mediated by serotonin and a bunch of androgens and other steroid hormones. Many of these are actually the same things that mediate physical maturity. This is important for another point I made earlier that Kamikazie Sith completely failed to grasp when he said something to the effect of "labs are cute is not an argument".

It actually is, because cuteness and aggression are mediated by the same steroid hormones. Retrievers have been selectively bred to be fairly docile, to under-express the genes that make testosterone and the other steroid hormones that mediate aggression. This same comparative under-expression also leads to the dog being cute. It does not go through a full puberty basically, and maintains it puppy-like physical features. A comparatively short snout, large eyes, big floppy ears, and sloping forehead. The same characteristics that to a large extent makes human infants and small children "cute". They are basically neotenic, like certain salamanders. Big, sexually mature juveniles. Other breeds, such as those bred for guarding or hunting (GSDs and many terriers come to mind) do not have these features because they were bred to not have their aggressive tendencies completely curtailed. Some breeds may of course have a mixed phenotype, depending on their breeding. If rigorous enough, it [breeding] can partially decouple this mechanism. Rottweilers are a good example of this.

A well socialized retriever, one that has for example been trained to not be aggressive toward screaming children, will under-express these genes even further. Any behavior that is reinforced does this (up or down regulate the genes coding for the hormones and neurotransmitters mediating the behavior in question). The genes that create testosterone and other links important in the mediation of aggression get down regulated in some way either through a regulatory protein binding to the promoter or some other up or downstream regulatory element, or the histone upon which the locus sits gets methylated. I am not sure of the specific regulation of testosterone.

Unless the dog is specifically trained or bred to be aggressive in one instance and docile in another, that regulation will be fairly generalized. Chances are, the training and experience of this dog have been very generalized (and I know the breeding was). The sheer fact that it was a family dog living in a residential neighborhood indicates this. It was 11 years old. It has dealt with strangers coming into the yard, utility workers, kids who knock a ball over the fence etc.

Therefore, the correlation coefficient between behaviors gets very very close to 1

There is absolutely no reason to think this dog was behaving in an aggressive manner.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Note: It is POSSIBLE, for the behavioral sets to be decoupled through poor socialization or specific training. I will reiterate this. There is also some variation among lines of retrievers. This accounts for the variation in central tendency. However this dog would have snapped at someone in its 11 year life if this was the case.

Even in the instances brought up in this thread where a lab was consistently not liking a person or strangers, that is a fairly consistent set of behaviors yes? Nice, predictable. In this case, the dog getting a bug up its ass about the cop is pretty much the only thing that could account for any aggressive behavior. Given however what we know, the probability of this is very low. Of the probably thousands of people that this dog has been in contact with, what are the realistic chances that it decided it just Hated that one individual cop? Pretty low right?

As evidence in favor of the police officer, we have his word. That is it. His word. It may be true or not. We have to weight the probabilities here. He went into the yard with his gun drawn. He was already "primed" to use said weapon because he was potentially in danger, and knew it. HIS fight or flight response was active and ready to go, and biased toward Fight. He sees a dog barking and moving toward him, he is likely not to weigh his options and shoot first, asking questions only later. It is a perfectly natural response. Is that more likely? Or is the dog being aggressive toward him more likely?

That is the question here.

As far as burden if proof, he already copped (pun intended) to shooting the dog. Self defense is an affirmative defense in the US (Neubauer, David W. (2005). America's Courts and the Criminal Justice System. Wadsworth. pp. 320). This means that the accused must provide positive evidence that he/she was acting in self defense. Legally the burden of proof IS on the officer in this case, and were this a person that is how this would be handled. Effectively, he is the one making the accusation.

Logically, he is also the one making the positive claim. Namely that the dog performed a specific action. The burden of proof is on HIM. Or, in the thread, on those claiming that the officer was actually justified in the shoot because the dog was dangerous.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

See there it is again. Assume that the dog is debilitated and imply that it could not possibly be a threat because it's old, has arthritis, and is trusted around children. Then imply that the cop is not trustworthy because you can't see the dog being a threat.

Would you care to actually address the points rather than creating a strawman?

I never said the dog cannot possibly be a threat. I never said I can't see the dog as being a threat. I said there is no evidence the dog has been a threat to anyone in its eleven year history, at least some of which was in a position of great trust around small children and other strangers, and no evidence to imply that the dog would have sufficient cause to suddenly and drastically change this in the space of a few seconds.

Yeah, I could see the dog being a threat given sufficient incentive. Anything can be a threat given sufficient incentive. With this dog, it would likely be something along the lines of beating the shit out of it, getting it infected with rabies or some disease which causes similar mental degeneration and deep psychological changes, and other drastic things like that. A stranger coming into the back yard doesn't fall under this umbrella, doubly so with a dog that has a known history of productive association with strangers.

I only bring up the debilitation because it is worth mentioning. I've been around dogs my whole life, many of which have been quite old. When dogs get arthritis around their hindquarters (relatively common with age and larger dogs), it is quite obvious in their actions. They walk with an obvious limp, their back legs constantly look on the verge of buckling, and if you apply the lightest pressure to their lower backs, they have no choice but to sit. I'm not saying this is definitely the case here, but in all likelihood, this dog's debilitation would be very obvious to anyone who looked at it move.

As far as the cop not being trustworthy? Yes, of course I see him as not being trustworthy. His story, that the dog was acting threatening towards him, does not match the accounts of the dog's behaviour given by the owners, accounts which can easily be corroborated by the neighbors, and by people at the school the dog is apparently a regular visitor at. I find the cop's story untrustworthy because, if these other peoples' accounts are true, then his account just doesn't jive with reality.

I once again (though I sometimes feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here) want to state that I don't think the cop's actions were spurred by malice. In the heat of the moment, it's entirely understandable that someone already on hyper-alert could mistake a dog's friendly/inquisitive advances for aggression, and if the person was already worried about being attacked by a home-intruder, could squeeze off a shot or three at the dog before they had time to even think about what they're doing. My issue is with a simple unwillingness for the cop to admit that, hey, they fucked up. The simple unwillingness to admit any blame on their part whatsoever in the matter. It's so fucking... political.

Something else that I feel needs addressing: The claim that somehow this dog's behaviour is going to change drastically when the owners are gone. I'm sorry, but this doesn't jive with reality either. Dogs are pack animals, instinctively having the urge to protect their families, whether this family is other dogs, or their human owners. Untrained, a dog is far more likely to be aggressive in the presence of their 'pack' than on their own for a number of reasons. The main one is a need to protect their 'pack' from perceived threats, behind this are a social need to prove themselves in the pecking order, or to establish themselves as dominant over an interloper. A dog on its own has only itself to worry about, and is far more likely to be more cautious than aggressive, if it's the type to attack at all. After all, it has nothing to prove to others, and no one to protect other than itself.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Untrained, a dog is far more likely to be aggressive in the presence of their 'pack' than on their own for a number of reasons. The main one is a need to protect their 'pack' from perceived threats, behind this are a social need to prove themselves in the pecking order, or to establish themselves as dominant over an interloper. A dog on its own has only itself to worry about, and is far more likely to be more cautious than aggressive, if it's the type to attack at all. After all, it has nothing to prove to others, and no one to protect other than itself.

This is an important point that I failed to bring up. A dog, or any territorial animal not on its home turf is going to actually be more aggressive because it is stressed. A dog in a school, or at the vets office etc is going to be more likely to exhibit defensive behaviors than it would in familiar surroundings. Unless they are specifically trained to guard their territories aggressively of course.

A dog that is protective of its owner is more likely to be protective outside. Illustrative example, not to be confused with data: When I was growing up I had a shar pei, sweetest most affectionate dog in the world... when at home.

Shar Peis were originally bred as guard dogs for personell. Very specific breeding. Strangers are fine, so long as they do not threaten the person or people they bond with. We never did any training on her other than the basic commands. Sit, stay, housebreaking etc.

So long as someone had the OK from us to be in the house (a greeting or something), or when we were not home, someone coming in was fine so long as they did not make an aggressive move toward us. No problems with a repairman getting attacked. Nothing. If that happened, they would get a rather prohibitive growl, followed by an attack if the aggressive move persisted. She could easily distinguish between playfullness and violence too. My little cousins would play with me, and were just fine. Same with my older brother's friends and their messing with me in friendly fashion. Anyone she knew was always perfectly safe and would get slobbered all over.

We take her out though, and it is another story. Someone would approach, and unless we signaled her (not intentionally, but she could tell) to let them past, she would not permit it at all. She snapped at the vet once because she came up to mom without the proper introductions.

Occassionally, she would follow our other dog on his little adventures (he was smart enough to open doors and windows, and sometimes went out to mark various landmarks). No one ever got bitten by her, even when they stopped to pick her up and bring her back home (they were known in the neighborhood by reputation for their escape ability... very smart dogs). They always remarked that she was a little sweetheart.

Other dogs I have had have been the same way. For some reason my family has a tendency toward getting dogs bred for personnel guarding. No attack training or anything, that is just how they are.

This is of course confounded by the fact that this breed is a guard dog by nature. A dog bred for docility though... Not much of a chance of them attacking anyone. It is actually common for vets to recommend retrievers be microchipped, specifically because they will go to and follow anyone who calls them. They are one of the easiest dogs to steal, and one of the dogs that is easiest to find on the street, capture, and keep, because they LOVE everyone so very very much.

[Serafina]

I've covered this in the thread already. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution. The officer is stating he was defending himself from a dog he preceived as dangerous. He is innocent until proven guilty. Just as a person who shot another person be persumed innocent until proven guilty. The difference and an unfortunate disadvantage for dogs is that they are usually armed with sharp teeth which the best human equivalent would be knives.

If we would apply your standards to a case where a cop shot a human, it would be impossible to show that the cop was doing something wrong - you could write off everything as self-defense.

We already know that the cop shot the dog. We also know that this dog was unlikely to be aggressive (not impossible, just unlikely).
That's the evidence a prosecution would collect. Now they would look for evidence for self-defence - if none is to be found, then we can not assume it was self-defense. What you want is proof of a negative - that the dog could not have been aggressive under any possible circumstances. That's impossible to proove and you know it - you are just looking for something to justify your a-priori assumption that it was self-defense.


Now i don't believe that the cop just killed the dog just because he felt like it. I have said it earlier, others have said it as well: I think the cop mistook a peaceful dog for an agressive one and thus "defended himself". Depending on the exact circumstances, that's everything from a mistake anyone would make to one due to insufficient training. I am NOT accusing the cop of any conscious misdeed. I am NOT saying that he should have put the dogs life above his own once he thought to be attacked.
What i AM saying is that general police policies are apparently handling these situations wrongc and that those cops have apparently insufficient training with dogs.

Also, they handled the dog was dead pretty badly, which is my main grief with this situation. If you make a mistake, at least you can try to make amends for it - apparently, no one did that. That's not going to inspire any trust.

[JCady]

The bottom line is that American police officers are extensively trained in appropriate use of force procedures, but those procedures are entirely focused on human aggressors. They don't have any training in determining whether or not an advancing, barking dog is being aggressive or just being friendly, and they are going to err on the side of protecting their own asses. Especially since many of those officers have seen just how incredibly fast and deadly an dog can be when it actually attacks someone.

[SVPD]

As far as burden if proof, he already copped (pun intended) to shooting the dog. Self defense is an affirmative defense in the US (Neubauer, David W. (2005). America's Courts and the Criminal Justice System. Wadsworth. pp. 320). This means that the accused must provide positive evidence that he/she was acting in self defense. Legally the burden of proof IS on the officer in this case, and were this a person that is how this would be handled. Effectively, he is the one making the accusation.

Logically, he is also the one making the positive claim. Namely that the dog performed a specific action. The burden of proof is on HIM. Or, in the thread, on those claiming that the officer was actually justified in the shoot because the dog was dangerous.

No, the burden of proof is not on him. The burden of proof is on the positive claim that he shot the dog maliciously. You must prove this beyond a reasonable doubt before he can be required to make any affirmative defense, and citations of the dog's behavioral history are not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your argument is no different than claiming that a woman must have consented to sex because she has a history of sexual promiscuity.

Even if it were a person, the legal burden of proof would not be on the officer. As soon as you shoot a person that does not automatically mean that the crime of murder is proven and only b proving an affirmative defense can you avoid conviction. The presence of affirmative defense does not in any way shift the prosecutions' burden to the defense.

More importantly, how it would be handled if it were a person is irrelevant. Animals are not entitled to all the legal protections people are, and regardless of how that may offend your personal sense of morality, we don't suddenly change the rules of the legal system to satisfy your emotional needs.