Cop shoots litter of kittens in front of screaming children

[dendawg]

Those poor children...they're going to be traumatized for life.

[Kelmon]

Well, on the humane side you can certainly argue, that for an animal, a quick shot to the head "on site" might be more humane and less stressful than first getting caught, being transported in a car, spend some time in a cage and then getting an injection.

(Disregarding that for a litter of kittens, this only holds for the first one, which will be extremely frightened after that, i guess. And that you could also give an injection on-site).

My problem with this ist really that he did it without warning on someones property.

[HYHYBT]

Even were there no other reasons, they'd be smart to make a very public policy change to prevent this happening again. After hearing, not just that this happened at all, but that it got official blessing as the right and proper way to handle things, how many people are going to be willing to call animal control themselves?

(Separately: while clicking the window closed, I noticed something in the sidebar along the lines of Plan B being a blessing for pedophiles. Which suggests, if the headline weren't proof enough, that the site is more interested in riling people up than reporting news, or even giving reasoned opinion. But since other sites are showing the same thing (and why would you *want* video of someone shooting kittens, anyway?) it must be real.)

[Aethian]

I've had three feral cats in my life. Two turned out to be great cuddlers after we trusted each other enough to be on the same couch at the same time. The third only trusted me enough to give him flea meds which stopped the inscent pain he had to be going through because of the number of fleas. He even "let" me catch him to bring him in for shots and to get his missing eye socket checked, past that he didn't like me and had nothing to do to me. So these cats could have been saved.

As for discharging a weapon on someones property without their position he should be punished. If the owner thought he was going to cage and take the cats away then why did he even draw his weapon? For another thing, if one of the felines was quick enough to run, would he have fired wildly trying to still kill the cat?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

The fact that he chose to shoot them on the property is the problem. I'd have to wonder why he would possibly think that doing so would be acceptable to the homeowner?

The question is still going to be that does the homeowner have the ability to call animal control and dictate how they deal with it? If not and those directives come from animal control, what can the animal control officer do about the parents wanting to lie to their children about the ultimate fate of these animals?

[Sarah Valentine]

That guy is an asshole, he knew what he was going to do and just didn't care. Was there even any proof that the shelters were full, or was he just lying so he could do things his way?

[Andara Bledin]

The question is still going to be that does the homeowner have the ability to call animal control and dictate how they deal with it? If not and those directives come from animal control, what can the animal control officer do about the parents wanting to lie to their children about the ultimate fate of these animals?

What on earth is it you're trying to say?

Are you suggesting that because the homeowner called animal control, that it's then a-ok for animal control to do whatever on earth they please, including discharging a firearm within 50 feet of the house, itself?

This has nothing to do with what the woman did or did not tell their children. It has to do with an incredible lack of communication (that even the home office admits to), a callous disregard for public opinion (most people dislike animal control already, no need to give them more reason to do so), and the lack of judgment that would lead to a man shooting feral kittens in the backyard of a person's home as opposed to capturing them and disposing of them somewhere less public, messy, and violent.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

That is certainly your argument and I respect it.

But from animal control's perspective it's very simple: what was this person empowered to do, did this person fall within the guidelines, and if yes then what are the next steps?

I would certainly find it odd..., but then I don't know what the laws and regulations of this place are. Someone already said that the discharge was legal.

There seems to be an undercurrent in a lot of these articles where the public responsible for setting the guidelines (animal control is a municipal service generally) doesn't bother, something happens they don't like, and then they yell at the lowest level person when the culpability really starts with the law, then the person crafting the regulations, and then finally the person who may have incompatible goals such as "do not add animals to the pound" and "be sensitive" and "btw we have another call you need to deal with now." Obviously I added the last one, but in case anyone says "move the cats to a different place and kill them", we don't know how far he'd have to go and I can see the logic of taking care of it at the time.

Sometimes one person gets to be the scapegoat. I don't have a problem someone talking to the officer about being talked to about better communication. But it seems like from the article the homeowner was fine with every stage of this up until the point the officer was discharging the firearm to carry out what she had already authorized.

I think people flipping their top because #1 Kittens (puppies are interchangable here) and #2 Children. I just don't think the officer's duty changes however due to #2. It also sounds like the area has an issue with feral cats which is absolutely the fault of that local community. Those people who are now angry are the same people who created the conditions of a full shelter, ferel cats, and a lack of options.

The internet's outrage is predictable though. Kitten+Kid=outrage. Regardless if we'd added "radioactive" to the word kitten and "psychotic" to the word kid, the public reacts fairly consistently to stories in which children are perceived as being victimized. I think those kids just obviously never grew up on a farm (said by someone who never grew up on a farm.)

[Andara Bledin]

But it seems like from the article the homeowner was fine with every stage of this up until the point the officer was discharging the firearm to carry out what she had already authorized.

The homeowner was going on the assumption that the animals would be removed and dealt with at a remote location, because that is what usually happens, and what the vast majority of everybody expects to happen.

That he chose to deviate so wildly from common expectation and failed to communicate what he was going to do in any way is the problem.

I think people flipping their top because #1 Kittens (puppies are interchangable here) and #2 Children. I just don't think the officer's duty changes however due to #2.

Actually, I suspect that a lot of the outrage is #3 OMG Guns.

And, while I'm normally not part of that crowd, his decision to discharge a firearm in a neighborhood without telling a single other person that he planned to do so was irresponsible, at best. The fact that he was shooting kittens and that he was within sight of children just piles on the rage factor and serves to make one question his judgement. Not to the point where he needs more than, say, a counseling session on interacting with the public, since that is part of his job: He's a customer-facing individual, so he needs to successfully interact with the community, which he utterly failed to do in this instance.

Also, the home office's response wasn't handled the best, either. Their line appears to be, "Well, he was totally legit in everything he did, but we'll talk to him about his communication skills." You'd think their spokespeople would be better at not further alienating people to their mission and activities. Their statement should have been more along the lines of, "Well, while he was totally within SOP, this is not how we prefer to handle such situations, so we'll have a chat with him about this and go ahead and put a memo through the ranks so there isn't a repeat if we can avoid it, and we're sorry for the distress this caused." (note: I'm not going back to re-read their statement, so this is based on the impression I got on a first read-through, which is likely more in-depth than most of the public will ever get, but it's possible that I misread something or am misremembering)

[Hyena Dandy]

Actually, I suspect that a lot of the outrage is #3 OMG Guns.

I really don't think so, in this case. I can't think that there is another way to kill kittens in front of children that people will be like "Oh, okay."

Aside from euthenizing with a needle, I guess, and then only 'cause the kids couldn't tell.

I think that if he swung at them with an ax, or a baseball bat, or he jumped on them, we'd see the same reaction.

[Andara Bledin]

I really don't think so, in this case. I can't think that there is another way to kill kittens in front of children that people will be like "Oh, okay."

One of the articles I found (not sure if it was the one I linked or another) had a statement from the woman who had called animal control for the kittens that when he returned from his truck with the firearm that she assumed it was a dart gun of some sort. At that point, she was still ok with what he was doing despite the fact that it was going to look like he was shooting the kittens.

While I agree that other obviously less humane methods would have given rise to the same sort of outrage (and resulted in the officer's termination), it wasn't the killing that was at issue, but the manner used. I can't really think of a single scenario aside from rabies that would require such a course of action.

It might be worth noting that the city in question doesn't appear to have a full animal control department. They employ two part time Humane Officers, and when neither are available, they send out someone form the Patrol Bureau. It might also be worth noting that the truck that the officer drives has cages and traps in the back (warning: auto-play video ad at the top before the news video segment heading the text article).

[Gravekeeper]

But from animal control's perspective it's very simple: what was this person empowered to do, did this person fall within the guidelines, and if yes then what are the next steps?

You're arguing against common sense. Common sense would dictate you don't discharge a firearm 15 feet from a residence without warning the residents. Common sense would dictate that its inhumane to just shoot a bunch of young animals and to do so where there are children to witness it.

It doesn't matter what the guidelines are or are not here. What he did was inhumane and shows a severe lack of judgement. These are not qualities you want in a person that holds both a community oriented position and a firearm.

While kittens makes it more rage worthy, there would still be a problem had it been an older animal. No one in their right mind would expect a humane officer to blow away an animal on their property unless that animal was rabid/dangerous.

You would expect them to trap or tranquilize the animal. Because that's what they're normally suppose to do. Thats what they do where I'm from and judging by the reaction to this, that's why they normally do down there as well. That's what the SPCA recommends they do. Seeing as the SPCA is demanding this guys job and charges of animal abuse.

Those people who are now angry are the same people who created the conditions of a full shelter, ferel cats, and a lack of options.

That's a terrible argument. Note that the town only has two part time animal control officers and that this officer did not shoot nor make any attempt to trap the mother cat. So he didn't do jack or shit to curb the very problem you're trying to pin on the people upset with him.

A feral cat population would only need a couple of lost/stray cats to start. Combine that with part time animal control that seems content to just mop up the result rather than try to fix the problem. Then yeah, you're going to have a feral cat problem.

I think those kids just obviously never grew up on a farm (said by someone who never grew up on a farm.)

Did this occur on a farm? No? Well then what does that have to do with anything?

[Hyena Dandy]

One of the articles I found (not sure if it was the one I linked or another) had a statement from the woman who had called animal control for the kittens that when he returned from his truck with the firearm that she assumed it was a dart gun of some sort. At that point, she was still ok with what he was doing despite the fact that it was going to look like he was shooting the kittens.

I don't think that supports your idea that it's "OMG Guns" as much as you seem to. I assume the reason she was okay with it then is she didn't want the kids to see animals dying, and she figured it was a gun with tranquilizers, so that the kittens could be taken off-site and taken care of.

She was upset it was a regular gun, because that means that the animal control officer wasn't going to try to find a home for them, like she had expected, and was just going to shoot them then and there, without even TRYING to find a home.

There's nothing in that statement that makes me think she was upset that it was guns, but would have been less upset if he'd smashed them with a baseball bat.

[protege]

You're arguing against common sense. Common sense would dictate you don't discharge a firearm 15 feet from a residence without warning the residents. Common sense would dictate that its inhumane to just shoot a bunch of young animals and to do so where there are children to witness it.

I was thinking along the lines of possible bullet ricochet. I don't know about you, but I'd hate for a bullet to suddenly come flying in my kitchen window! That's why rural areas have safety zones. You don't expect someone to start firing so close to someone's home or business.

Oh, and I did grow up on a farm. Never saw any of the animals killed for food though. Nor did I see any strays get killed. Those usually got run off with the broom. But, I did see my grandfather blast some raccoons and groundhogs because they had rabies! Big difference with what my grandfather did and what the asshole in the article did.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Gravedigger, if it were me I wouldn't shoot the kittens. But that's not what this topic is about. Your version of common sense is very dependent on where your from (it's also an irrelevant appeal, but ...) Officers of the peace discharge firearms near homes all the time. Most animal control officers have the ability to euthanize with firearms to the point that most have guidelines for it because adequate veterinary facilities may not be nearby. The children I'll grant you, but again that's highly dependent on where you're from. There's a Louis CK routine about the amount of privilege we have when it comes to how we get to "choose" when our kids get exposed to things and there are places where kids see this stuff.

Long story short, I get the outrage as it can be attested to how much of an animal lover I actually am.

But, But, But, the disagreement you're getting from me is a procedural one. Regardless of what the SPCA thinks, these were the guidlines established which the officer followed. They would be firing him from following the rules.

Here's a response from the mayor. What I'm not a big fan of is lack of community accountability which is what this smacks of. You need not agree with me. But these are the communities rules for dealing with a problem the community is responsible for creating. And the internet is attacking the officer, not the community.