Cops shoot dog, leave note

[Kamakazie Sith]

This is insane.

We have two scenarios.

The cop entered the yard and an 11 year old golden labrador that is unusually amicable in temperment is in the yard. This dog is cleared to work with preschoolers, which require a dog to be well behaved above and beyond what a normal dog would be, because preschoolers are notorious for grabbing dogs in sensitive spots (ears, tails, genitals) and yanking. Somehow, against all breed standards and the fact that this particular dog must literally have no violent bones in its body due to the work it does, the dog acts violently towards the cops, justifying it being shot in self-defense.

I don't know if violently is the correct word as the article describes it as growling, barking, and advancing. In other words threatening behavior.

Still waiting on that evidence that this cop is a liar, or makes poor decisions. If you had that then along with your evidence then I'd be willing to take the side of the "cop is wrong" crowd. Until then. My position is that there isn't enough evidence to punish the police officer.

The cop entered the yard and an 11 year old golden labrador that is unusually amicable in temperment is in the yard. The cop misinterprets the dogs behavior or is an asshole or for whatever reason shoots the dog for reasons other than self-defense. The cop then either lies about it or reports his misconception that the dog was aggressive.

Misinterpreting the dogs behavior is a reasonable possibility. However, what do you think the law says in regards to the use of deadly force against animals or people?

In most states it says something like "you may use deadly force if you reasonably believe that it is necesssary to protect yourself or another from serious bodily harm or injury." The reasonable standard is derived by what a reasonable person would do under the same situation. Now, all we have is the officers testimony that the dog approached him in a threatening manner. So, would you shoot a dog that approached you in a threatening manner?

The reason why this conversation is impossible is that SVPD and Kamikaze Sith are so biased in opinion that they won't even acknowledge that it is extremely unlikely that the dog that was described could possibly ever become aggressive and attack someone, even though this is a dog that has tolerated hordes of four and five year olds almost certainly grabbing its sensitive bits for years without the dog so much as snarling, even to the point that they are informing an animal biologist who specialized in behavior (an thus has an excellent idea what it takes to get a particular animal to attack) that HE is wrong here. That takes some serious balls.

No, the reason why it is impossible is because you and others apparently have a very bias understanding of how the law works. Police officers have the same rights as you and I when it comes to being accused of a crime. Your evidence is interesting, but it is only one part of the story. Like I said before, I'm assuming this officer is one with integrity. So, until you can show that he is lying then a reasonable doubt exists.

The fact that the burden of proof is on the cop to demonstrate that shooting the dog was somewhow justified slips by as does the fact it is EXTREMELY unlikely that this particular dog would act in the way they insist it must have is irrelevant. Cops have done something, so they must always be right, always.

Wrong. The burden of proof is on you. It is always on the prosecution which is who you are in this discussion.

Kamikaze Sith, you often have complained that people just don't seem to trust cops and won't give cops the benefit of the doubt. This is why. Not just the news article, but yours and SVPDs response. How can ANYONE trust someone given broad authority over their other citizens when they won't even concede the POSSIBILITY that that authority can and has been abused?

People don't trust police for a multitude of reasons, and yes I agree this is one of them. Except, from my point of view you don't trust police because you are simply bias of how the justice system works.

Here, you are so much in Blue Wall mode that you won't even concede the POSSIBILITY that the cop was lying or did something wrong, but rather are being so bold to claim that an elderly lab that is so even tempered that it is safe to work with small children must have just spontaneously went psycho one day in the face of all past behavior and its very biology. You are the answer to your own complaint, many people don't trust the police because they believe the police are more loyal to each other than the truth and any cop will cover anothers ass rather than see him punished for wrong doing and here you and SVPD, pushing forward an extremely unlikely scenario SOLELY on the basis that it protects the cop without even so much as admitting the possibility that the cop could have been wrong.

You keep saying it "went psycho" I don't think it went psycho. If it went psycho then I'm sure the officer would have said something more than "Barking, growling, and began to advance".

From my point of view people don't trust the police because they have a distorted view of what standards police should be held up to. You basically want to lower it from a beyond a reasonable doubt to undefined probabilities.

Again, I say that had this dog been a person armed with a knife then this wouldn't even be a story. Instead we get a story because it involves a emotional button for many people. Man's best friend.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I mean cops are jumpy people, they always assume violence is goiNg to happen. I once had a cop yell at me and reach for his gun when I tried to pull my drivers license out when his partner asked for it. He then yelled whats in my brown bag that was clearly potato chips and why I had potato chips. Cops think everyone is just one violent act from attacking them, it's not unreasonable to believe they're paranoid enough to use violence when not needed.

I just love broad generalisations fueled by anecdotal evidence. They're clearly the height of reason. Your argument is unassailable, good sir, and totally flawless.

In this situation, I personally believe the officer in question was responsible, but I find it more likely that he misinterpreted the dogs intent than it being some intentionally malicious act. I've had dogs charge at me, barking and growling, and was certainly terrified on those occasions, because you can't be certain if a dog will attack or not in those situations unless you're very familiar with dogs or the dog in question. It is important to remember that people can make mistakes, yes, even police officers.

Still, the way the whole situation was handled doesn't sit well with me at all.

I think the note was likely unavoidable because if their department is anything like mine each officer is critical to ensuring we answer calls for service in a timely manner, and do it safely. However, I do think they made a mistake by not having the responsible officer speak with the father, mother, or both and offer condolences.

[lance]

Just because it has arthritis doesn't mean that it couldn't have posed a threat. Just that backing away slowly would have lessened that threat.

My German Shepard had arthritis, bad hips and stomach cancer and I had to forcibly separate him from our 2-3 year old Newfoundland when he grabbed it by the throat, swung him to the ground.

[Enigma]

Yeah, my lab is 12, has hip problems and arthritis and guess what? When he wants too, he can still haul ass over the backyard with no problem. My dog limps sometimes too. Just because the dog limped normally doesn't mean it would limp when it was going to see who was coming into it's backyard.

Except for the dog in question, the owners stated that the dog had problems walking. You really think that means it could haul ass?

[Alphawolf55]

So Kamikaze, what would be needed to prove to you or even make you suspect something weird is going on? Unless there's actual witnesses or a videotape. What does it take to convince you that when a cop said "It got violent or it threatened me" the cop is either lying or that it wasn't reasonable for the cop to assume his life was in danger.

Also Kamikaze, evidence that he had poor judgment. He shot a 11 year old dog, with a hip problem that limps, that works with children and has no history of violence.

Seriously, why can't you just admit it's far more likely that the cop made a bad call and shot the dog unneedingly then that the dog got violent or started threatening him. What other then the cop's word makes you think that the dog went against all prior decribed behavior and became legitimately threatening?

[Kamakazie Sith]

So Kamikaze, what would be needed to prove to you or even make you suspect something weird is going on? Unless there's actual witnesses or a videotape. What does it take to convince you that when a cop said "It got violent or it threatened me" the cop is either lying or that it wasn't reasonable for the cop to assume his life was in danger.

Evidence on scene. A bullet in the back of the dog for example...

[Alphawolf55]

That's it? It has to be in the back of the dog? So as long as a dog is shot from the front you won't question it?

[Kamakazie Sith]

That's it? It has to be in the back of the dog? So as long as a dog is shot from the front you won't question it?

What you want a complete fucking list? You asked for an example and I gave you one. Which is more than I can say than for you and others who have yet to provided an example where a cop in this EXACT same situation could justify his decision.

[Alphawolf55]

Except in the last thread I provided an example of my dog a boxer with barelyany teeth and a limp in his leg getting shot by a cop. You were like 'Well of course that would be suspcious" now that it's actually happen you seem to have changed your mind completely.

And again I've told you that if a dog is actually threatening a cop, the cop can defend himself. Again, the problem isn't of cops defending themselves against legitimtae threats it's we question that it's a legitimate threat. A big pit bull with a history of violence? That's a legitimate threat. A german shepard that's noted by the owner to be aggressive? That's a legitimate threat.

But this isn't just a normal dog. With a normal dog, I could see how you'dgo with the cops judgment since we have would have no real history of the dog. But in this case we know it's history, it's a history that suggest it being threatening is completely against it's nature.

It's a fucking 12 year old dog with a hip problem that's specifically around children constantly? I'm sorry but justifies doubting the cop's judgment when he claims it advanced threateningly.

Also in reference to the news. What does advanced threateningly mean? Are they saying the dog had his teeth out and walked slowly towards the cop?

[Enigma]

That's it? It has to be in the back of the dog? So as long as a dog is shot from the front you won't question it?

What you want a complete fucking list? You asked for an example and I gave you one. Which is more than I can say than for you and others who have yet to provided an example where a cop in this EXACT same situation could justify his decision.

Easy. Back away or at least try to diffuse the tension. What is more important? A possible theft of possessions or the life of a dog?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Except in the last thread I provided an example of my dog a boxer with barelyany teeth and a limp in his leg getting shot by a cop. You were like 'Well of course that would be suspcious" now that it's actually happen you seem to have changed your mind completely.

I'm sorry where have we determined that this dog was limping and had no teeth at the time it approached the officer?

And again I've told you that if a dog is actually threatening a cop, the cop can defend himself. Again, the problem isn't of cops defending themselves against legitimtae threats it's we question that it's a legitimate threat. A big pit bull with a history of violence? That's a legitimate threat. A german shepard that's noted by the owner to be aggressive? That's a legitimate threat.

Ok, so at least you agree that if this dog was actually threatening the officer that he could defend himself. Now you need to show that the officer is lying in this situation.

But this isn't just a normal dog. With a normal dog, I could see how you'dgo with the cops judgment since we have would have no real history of the dog. But in this case we know it's history, it's a history that suggest it being threatening is completely against it's nature.

I get it. You view this dog as a saint, and the officer as a liar/socipath. The thing is if you could demonstrate BOTH to me then I'd gladly take your side in this issue.

It's a fucking 12 year old dog with a hip problem that's specifically around children constantly? I'm sorry but justifies doubting the cop's judgment when he claims it advanced threateningly.

Also in reference to the news. What does advanced threateningly mean? Are they saying the dog had his teeth out and walked slowly towards the cop?

I imagine you'd have to read the report to get more detailed information.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That's it? It has to be in the back of the dog? So as long as a dog is shot from the front you won't question it?

What you want a complete fucking list? You asked for an example and I gave you one. Which is more than I can say than for you and others who have yet to provided an example where a cop in this EXACT same situation could justify his decision.

Easy. Back away or at least try to diffuse the tension. What is more important? A possible theft of possessions or the life of a dog?

Easy. The life of an animal. However, that doesn't answer my question because in the end you still have the officers word that he backed away and the dog continued to advance.

[aerius]

I think you're all missing something important here. The dog is normally very well-tempered, but that's when the owner is with it. But in this case it was left alone in the house, which puts in "guard my territory" mode. Then you have a stranger violating that territory, chances are it's not going to be as friendly towards the stranger as it is towards the kids.

[Alphawolf55]

It says right in the article posted above that the dog has a limp,and even then I bet if it didn't have teeth, you'd argue that the cop had no reason to know that.

The point is most of us aren't saying the cop was lying. What we're claiming is that the cop made a bad call. That he mistook "I'm happy to see you" with "I'm trying to kill you" and to cover his own ass exagerrates the threat to himself. But the thing is even if the cop thought his life was threatened, what I'm trying to say is, based on what has been told there's no reason to believe that he should've reasonably believed this.

[aerius]

So it has a limp, big deal. My friend has a dog around the same age that limps around most of the time, but when it has to or wants to it can still sprint across a yard fast enough to take a chunk out of your leg before you can blink.

But the thing is even if the cop thought his life was threatened, what I'm trying to say is, based on what has been told there's no reason to believe that he should've reasonably believed this.

None of which the police officer knew at the time. We have the benefit of hindsight, we know the full background on the dog. The cop didn't have this info at his disposal, he was responding to a call and was confronted by an allegedly hostile & threatening dog, and shot it. Without video evidence we can't definitively state that he made the wrong choice. We have suspicions and circumstancial evidence, but we can't prove it.

[Alphawolf55]

Except it suggest that when the cop said "it advanced threateningly" it means the dog came near him and barked or the dog ran up to him. Behavior that anyone with a dog would know doesn't mean anything threatening but someone completely unfamiliar with dogs would mistake as menacing behavior.

[Enigma]

Easy. The life of an animal. However, that doesn't answer my question because in the end you still have the officers word that he backed away and the dog continued to advance.

And you still don't get it that the dog had arthritis and had problems walking. The officer could have easily backed away until he was on the other side of the gate and call animal control. There were two officers at the scene at least. I am assuming one was at the front of the premises since it looks like only one was at the rear. The officer could easily just be on the other side of the fence and let animal control take care once it is clear to do so.

If getting to the other side of the fence is out of the question, with the dog's mobility issues, couldn't the officer at least used pepper spray? It is not like he did not have time to holster the gun and take out the pepper spray.

When there are two conflicting accounts as to the dog's temperament, I go with the owner. A Yellow Lab, almost twelve years old, arthritic hips, problems walking, mild tempered and has been accustomed to a lot of children and is described as a gentle giant as opposed to an officer who just shoots the dog because it looked at the officer funny. Again, how can one perceive an elderly dog with mobility problems to be advancing menacingly?

[Enigma]

Except it suggest that when the cop said "it advanced threateningly" it means the dog came near him and barked or the dog ran up to him. Behavior that anyone with a dog would know doesn't mean anything threatening but someone completely unfamiliar with dogs would mistake as menacing behavior.

Except the dog could not "run up to him". Arthritic hips and mobility issues would prevent the dog from running. The officer could have easily backed away and take out his pepper spray and spray the dog.

[Questor]

Alphawolf, you know what I picture when I hear, "The dog advanced aggressively?" I see a dog, teeth out, ears back, muscles tense, possibly growling, gradually moving towards me. How much time would I have to react if a fully healthy dog moved from threatening to defensive? In most of the backyards I've had that's going to be a matter of a second or two at most.

This is a deplorable situation, and I feel for the owners of the dog.

Just to throw some more anecdotes in here, I'm writing this as I look at the scar left on my arm from when I had to defend myself against my own 15 year old golden retriever with arthritis. He had just fifteen minutes before been playing with my cockatiel. He went outside, whined, and by the time I got to him he attacked me. Turns out he had a grand mal seizure.

He was tended to before the arm, before any of you accuse me of being a crazed dog killer out to kill my own dog.

[loomer]

Yeah, continuing this line of things - my little dog had arthritis pretty bad. Some mornings it meant he could barely stand up unsupported (ever have to help a dog stand because he keeps crumpling back down and whining? It's heartbreaking), but once he was up and standing he could race down the hallway faster than my goddamn cat if the mood ever took him, even though it'd hurt like hell to do it. If he thought there was an intruder, he'd do that.

I personally still feel the officer in question should be disciplined, but 'dog had arthritis' =/= 'dog is incapable of aggression and speed'. Actually, it makes it more likely he was aggressive - put a dog in pain and it tends to get a little crabby.

[Sela]

I'll repeat what I said earlier - which I don't think you understood.

The officer *should* have used non-lethal force, he did not. If this was because he didn't want to then he should be punished for recklessly damaging someone's property.

If this was an accident since he didn't have time to switch weapons, it was an accident precipitated by him not knowing there was a dog in the house. A decent lawyer should be able to make a strong case for NEGLIGENCE here! Unless you mean to imply that in searching the house there was no sign they had a dog. Or that before going to check the rear perimeter he might have looked and seen . . .what? The dog? The doghouse? The dog's food bowl? I don't own a dog - but I feel like one might reasonably guess whether a household has one or not before going into their backyard and being surprised by its sudden appearance.

Finally, even if there is no negligence, there is clearly a case of damages. Whom exactly do you propose should pay for this? Who gets pain and suffering? If this was a 100% accident that occurred as part of the officer routinely performing his duties - as the Police Department has confirmed it was - then this sets a pretty rotten precedent in my mind. I'd say the department ought to reimburse the family for pain and suffering.

[Sela]

As an interesting aside - note the MASSIVE contradiction between the two articles reporting this story (p1 and p3). Did you catch it? The first one describes this as being a single officer . . . the second describes 'officers' feeling there was a threat and 'officers' leaving a note.

This honestly really strengthens the likelihood in my mind of the police having it right. I mean, one guy might lie to cover his ass, but three? Less likely. Further, while you can say that a dog has never shown a sign of aggressive behavior before, you can never say that they won't show a sign of aggerssive behavior in the future. . .

[Questor]

The officer *should* have used non-lethal force, he did not. If this was because he didn't want to then he should be punished for recklessly damaging someone's property.

What non-lethal force? A taser - from the way they were explained in the last thread that devolved this way - won't work on a dog. Can't pepper spray be fatal if the dosage is wrong? (I'd assume a dose that will bring me down will do a lot worse to a 50-80lb dog. Like I said, I feel for the family, but I'm not sure what else could be done.

Afterward could be a different story. The part of me that empathizes with the family thinks that an officer should have stayed around. (I wouldn't expect THAT officer to stay around, unlike some in this thread, because I would imagine he might need counseling or to do interviews or something. I know I'd feel guilty if I had to shoot a dog (or a cat, or a bird, or a lizard, or really anything)). But then the part of me that pays taxes and recognizes that there aren't enough officers to go around would want that same officer out doing his job.

If this was an accident since he didn't have time to switch weapons, it was an accident precipitated by him not knowing there was a dog in the house. A decent lawyer should be able to make a strong case for NEGLIGENCE here! Unless you mean to imply that in searching the house there was no sign they had a dog.

I'm not a cop, but I'm guessing that on a burglary alarm check you check the outside of the house for signs of a break in before you do something like beating the door in.

Or that before going to check the rear perimeter he might have looked and seen . . .what? The dog? The doghouse? The dog's food bowl? I don't own a dog - but I feel like one might reasonably guess whether a household has one or not before going into their backyard and being surprised by its sudden appearance.

It will depend on the exact situation. Some dogs are primarily inside dogs, and only go into the backyard to "use the facilities." If you went into my parent's old backyard after they'd picked up poop, there'd probably not be a lot of clues that you'd notice over a fence while looking for a burglar. In that case I'm almost sure that the first sign you'd get would be the 50 pound english bulldog running at you, unless the 12 year old arthritic, territorial, grumpy with strangers and puppies, chocolate lab gets there first (and she can if she notices you, being nearly deaf and almost blind).

Finally, even if there is no negligence, there is clearly a case of damages. Whom exactly do you propose should pay for this? Who gets pain and suffering? If this was a 100% accident that occurred as part of the officer routinely performing his duties - as the Police Department has confirmed it was - then this sets a pretty rotten precedent in my mind. I'd say the department ought to reimburse the family for pain and suffering.

No idea, not a cop, not a lawyer.

[Edi]

I think you're all missing something important here. The dog is normally very well-tempered, but that's when the owner is with it. But in this case it was left alone in the house, which puts in "guard my territory" mode. Then you have a stranger violating that territory, chances are it's not going to be as friendly towards the stranger as it is towards the kids.

So it has a limp, big deal. My friend has a dog around the same age that limps around most of the time, but when it has to or wants to it can still sprint across a yard fast enough to take a chunk out of your leg before you can blink.

But the thing is even if the cop thought his life was threatened, what I'm trying to say is, based on what has been told there's no reason to believe that he should've reasonably believed this.

None of which the police officer knew at the time. We have the benefit of hindsight, we know the full background on the dog. The cop didn't have this info at his disposal, he was responding to a call and was confronted by an allegedly hostile & threatening dog, and shot it. Without video evidence we can't definitively state that he made the wrong choice. We have suspicions and circumstancial evidence, but we can't prove it.

Quoted for truth.

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!

And anecdotes is what all the bullshit about golden retrievers and labradors being universally gentle and nonviolent is. Aerius is absolutely correct in that dogs behave differently when the owner or other pack member with higher status is not around. Sometimes these breeds can be aggressive even when the owner is around, such as the dog my former neighbors used to have. 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.

When you move to breeds other than labs/golden retrievers, it can get hairy really fast.

My friend's dog, now several years dead, was docile and nice and friendly as you could imagine. Among its pack, that is. If strangers had tried to enter the house while the dog was there alone, it would have ripped them to pieces. This dog happened to be a Belgian Shepherd, which are used as guard dogs, police dogs and other similar tasks, so it has a natural guarding instinct as well and coupled with the fact that it was very insecure and covered that up with aggressive behavior made it a very dangerous dog for strangers. Unsurprisingly, it was always kept on a very tight leash and under control whenever there were any strangers around and if it was in the yard, it was chained to a tree so it had a limited range.

SVPD made the point about police equipment and uniforms possibly giving off smells that provide a sensory stimulus to the dog to trigger some sort of activities.

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.

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. Having had some training in small arms while in the military, I have some idea and having seen how fast dogs can move, in the tactical situation where a dog is coming at you within the confines of a yard/backyard, you can either shoot or not shoot, but that's it. You can't back up fast enough if an unrestrained dog is coming at you and if you don't shoot and it's actually attacking, you're going to get injured. Badly. Possibly even killed. So I can certainly see why the officer made the call he did and why.

Then there's the little bit about dogs being able to change from passive to aggressive in what amounts to an eye-blink. There's a guy I know who had a fairly large dog, a Central Asian herd dog that was unpredictable. One day he was coming home from work, the dog was in his yard wagging its tail and welcoming him and the next moment it went from friendly to berserk with no warning and literally tore his arm half-off. The guy wouldn't have a right arm today if he hadn't worn a thick leather jacket (which was a total loss) and he quite possibly wouldn't be alive. That dog was but down. With a shotgun, wolf shot (8.5 mm) at three meters or thereabouts, because the vet did not dare go close enough to administer a lethal injection.

So yes, in this thread's OP, it was unfortunate that the dog was killed. Could things have gone the other way? Possibly, if certain things had been different, but the article itself does not have enough information. Was the dog restrained in any way (e.g. chained to something like a tree)? Were there other factors involved? 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.

It's fucking disgraceful.

[Starglider]

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.