Cop Shoots Dog, Outrage Ensues

[siead_lietrathua]

But again, that's not a charge. If the dog was charging he'd have been on that cop chewing right out of the gate. Its a combination of a lack of situational awareness, lack of training and making the mistake of choosing lethal force as the first tool. Hence why the SPCA is offering this department training in how to read an animal's body language and how to handle them without having to use lethal force.

yes, but the cops that are trained to handle animal-based situations would probably not be involved in a human-based raid where noone was expecting a bigass dog. and not all cops carry less-lethal options on them when there is a group that large. i personally am waiting to hear from the police station if the cop in question even had a less-lethal option on his body to use. (the cops restraining the owner might have been the ones with the taser, we can't be sure, and their hands were full of dumbass)

A human would have already been tazed/maced, taken down and cuffed. Especially with multiple officers present. Also, again, that's not what an aggressive/enraged dog looks like. That's what an excited/nervous dog looks like. The cop gets snapped at because the cop puts his hands in the dog's face twice trying to get the leash. That's a recipe to get snapped at by ANY dog if the dog doesn't know you.

i get the dog was not in a full on attack mode, but it was still biting at the officers, and i know myself that if a dog was trying to bite me, regardless of stance, the dog is now an issue. i agree that a human would have been taken down before getting as close as that dog did, lethal force or otherwise. a cop can shoot you if you approach him with a blade once you get within so many feet, no second chances. the dog he at least tried to restrain first.

And yes, that guy is a complete shithead. But sadly, just being a shithead by itself isn't illegal. -.-

but there ARE laws against interfering with cops while they are trying to work, and on a raid scene, those rules are enforced like hell. they would have no way of knowing if the big dude with the big dog was called there by the people they were raiding, and once he made himself an issue, that's when things escalated.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Human safety trumps dog safety. If the use of deadly force was in fact justified, then the use of both the gun and the number of shots is justified.

As much of a Wiccan and as much of an animal lover as I am...I still have to agree. Given the choice between a human life and the life of an animal...the human is always going to win out.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Specifically, they said the best option would have been to let the suspect handle the dog as that would have easily defused the situation. But even failing that there were still several possible tools on the table before a firearm.

I tend to disagree on that. First of all, in this case...maybe letting the suspect handle the situation but what about a suspect that is a flight risk or is willing to assault the officers. It's not a good idea to let him/her our of the handcuffs to let them put the dog away.

Secondly there are problems with a tazer and the slim chance for doing serious harm to a 180 pound plus human. This is why the developers of Tazers and other such devices do not like them being called "non-lethal" and instead prefer to call them "Less than Lethal".

An 80-100 pound dog is more likely to have something bad happen to them as a result. In which case PETA and the SPCA would be all over that as animal cruelty.

And the pepper spray is not a good idea either. With the tazer at least it's a disruption to the voluntary muscles. Pepper spray is a pain-inducement. And as we all know, an animal in pain is that much more dangerous. Which means if the animal still manages to harm another, the police would be considered at fault for causing the animal the distress.

No matter how you slice it, it's a bad situation for the police officers. They're damned no matter what they do.

[Gravekeeper]

yes, but the cops that are trained to handle animal-based situations would probably not be involved in a human-based raid where noone was expecting a bigass dog.

Cops encounter dogs all the time during routine calls. Its not a matter of having to be an animal control officer. The SPCA offers training to all police officers and many departments receive said training from the SPCA and/or have internal training on how to handle an animal. Hence why the LA SPCA reached out, because they HAVE trained police departments in the basics of how to read and control common family pets.

They even have a police training DVD they offer to police departments. They developed it specifically because they were concerned at the alarming rate at which officers had been blowing away family pets in the US.

In fact its become mandatory training for all officers in Colorado specifically because of this sort of thing.

Heck there was even an incident in Ohio where a pair of officers wasted a 5lb chihuahua. Because it was "aggressive". Though in fairness they tazed it first. =p

and not all cops carry less-lethal options on them when there is a group that large.

The Hawthorne police department carries tazers and spray. Its mentioned in one of the articles. So that wasn't the problem here.

get the dog was not in a full on attack mode, but it was still biting at the officers, and i know myself that if a dog was trying to bite me, regardless of stance, the dog is now an issue.

It wasn't biting. Again, it not snap at an officer until after the officer put his hand in the dogs face twice while trying to get the leash.

they would have no way of knowing if the big dude with the big dog was called there by the people they were raiding, and once he made himself an issue, that's when things escalated.

As mentioned already, they knew who he was, as he was a local crank. Also there's no way whomever was being raided decided to call up a moron with an iPhone to bail them out.

I tend to disagree on that. First of all, in this case...maybe letting the suspect handle the situation but what about a suspect that is a flight risk or is willing to assault the officers. It's not a good idea to let him/her our of the handcuffs to let them put the dog away.

He wasn't a flight risk and he was not violent. Even if he was a flight risk, there are 3 officers present. As mentioned, the police already knew who he was and where he lived. They wouldn't even need to let him out of the handcuffs, just give him a chance to calm the dog down. If the dog could see its master was fine and dandy, would much easier to get him by the leash.

Secondly there are problems with a tazer and the slim chance for doing serious harm to a 180 pound plus human. This is why the developers of Tazers and other such devices do not like them being called "non-lethal" and instead prefer to call them "Less than Lethal".

I'm sorry, but your entire argument from this point on is moot because the other option is death. It doesn't matter what you argue when the alternative is death. Lethal force should not be the first resort, it should be the last resort.

Also, spray would work just fine. Thats why they make it for bears. Pepper spray IS an involuntary sensory overload. That's the whole point. Its disabling. Its not that it just causes pain. It blinds and overwhelms the respiratory system.

[Andara Bledin]

It wasn't biting. Again, it not snap at an officer until after the officer put his hand in the dogs face twice while trying to get the leash.

Either it was or it wasn't. And whether it did before or after the officer attempted to get control of it is irrelevant once it got past the point of doing so.

As mentioned already, they knew who he was, as he was a local crank. Also there's no way whomever was being raided decided to call up a moron with an iPhone to bail them out.

You have absolutely no way of knowing this. He was known to 'the police' as a body, yes. But to state that these particular officers knew this guy on sight is a huge assumption.

[lordlundar]

GK, a lot of what you're saying and a lot of what the outcry is about that the dog was killed and the use of lethal force was unjustified.

I don't buy that.

I have little doubt that had the officer used a less lethal option the outcry would be no less and the blame would still be placed on the officer, especially if something occurred that caused the dog to die anyways. It's not about the dog being killed by the officer, but it's about the dog being fought against by the officer.

Yes, I know I'm talking hypothetical here but there's been a lot of mistrust toward police, much of it driven by media. Too many people are just itching for another excuse to say "all cops are evil and should be openly fought against." and then something like this pops up and it fuels the flames.

[Nekojin]

Too many people are just itching for another excuse to say "all cops are evil and should be openly fought against." and then something like this pops up and it fuels the flames.

Andara's brother is one of these. Any time police enter the picture, he automatically believes - not just assumes, but believes that they're at fault, abusing their authority, and just generally being the villains. They're bad guys unless/until one of them does something noble, then that one is an exception, not disproof of the general position in his eyes.

This isn't the only area he's irrational about, but this one especially stands out.

[Duelist925]

GK, a lot of what you're saying and a lot of what the outcry is about that the dog was killed and the use of lethal force was unjustified.

I don't buy that.

I have little doubt that had the officer used a less lethal option the outcry would be no less and the blame would still be placed on the officer, especially if something occurred that caused the dog to die anyways. It's not about the dog being killed by the officer, but it's about the dog being fought against by the officer.

Yes, I know I'm talking hypothetical here but there's been a lot of mistrust toward police, much of it driven by media. Too many people are just itching for another excuse to say "all cops are evil and should be openly fought against." and then something like this pops up and it fuels the flames.

There would be far less outcry actually, had the dog been tazed and not killed. Had the cop even tried a less lethal approach, there would at least be a defense that would pacify SOME people.

"I didn't want to kill it, I tried a non lethal approach and it didn't work" is a hell of a better defense than any they might have now.

Because at least they could point to that and say "He tried". I wouldn't be as ticked as I am if that were the case.

[Gravekeeper]

Either it was or it wasn't. And whether it did before or after the officer attempted to get control of it is irrelevant once it got past the point of doing so.

And? The problem is what happened prior to that point. Not past it. Prior to that point the situation could have been handled without lethal force. That's why everyone is pissed off.

You have absolutely no way of knowing this. He was known to 'the police' as a body, yes. But to state that these particular officers knew this guy on sight is a huge assumption.

Even if you assume that these three officers were not aware of the guy that was trying to sue the ass off their department, was known to police and lived 1 block from the location of the shooting; He was still compliant and non-violent when being arrested.

I have little doubt that had the officer used a less lethal option the outcry would be no less and the blame would still be placed on the officer, especially if something occurred that caused the dog to die anyways. It's not about the dog being killed by the officer, but it's about the dog being fought against by the officer.

Again, when the alternative is death any argument along the lines of "well people would be mad anyway" is moot. Even if the dog ends up dying from a tazer ( and if a 5lb chihuahua can take at taze, I'm sure a Rottweiler can ) at least they tried non-lethal control methods before resorting to lethal force.

I don't recall seeing any major protests over a dog being tazed / pepper sprayed. Conversely, there are an alarming number of stories about dogs being shot. Officers seem to blow away family pets at a startling rate. Many of them under dubious circumstances where the dog did nothing. Some even AFTER the dog had been subdued or controlled through other means. And these aren't all big dogs either. Chihuahua's, dachshunds, you name it an officer somewhere in the US has put a bullet in it.

In Milwaukee for example, police shoot on average one dog every 8 days.

So something is fucked up here. Actual aggressive, vicious dogs are rare. Yet police officers are shooting "aggressive" dogs left right and center. If there was really as many vicious dogs out there as are seemingly being shot, there would be dog attack reports constantly.

Even postal workers, the classic dog attack victim, get attacked very rarely. Only 1.8% of mail carriers were attacked by a dog last year and that's only if you assume the same carrier never got nipped twice. Plus that includes family pets and strays/feral dogs.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Is 1.8% per year really that rare? Extrapolating probabilities on that, if events were normally distributed, a mail carrier working for 30 years can expect he's got about a 40% chance of being attacked once and mail carriers are non-threatening.

You're playing in the same 1-5% range with other such rare occurrences as strep throat per year, the number of rapes per person per year, and above such ignored issues as Breast Cancer cases per year .06% and heart attacks per person per year .02%. Obviously these are more severe, I just don't find 1.8% to be rare as far as rare things go.

It seems more like a predictable number of dogs are agressive. Add to that, 1 dog every 8 days would be around 46 animals which bumped up against the population I found on Wikianswers (which I don't totally trust but is inline with other cities of a similar size) is about 290,000. Well, that's .01% of the dog population per year being put down by cops.

Long story short, I think if there's a philisophical issue with Cops being ill trained, the argument is probably better spent there than looking at the statistics and probabilities. Agressive dogs are out there and cops have jobs to do. A dog is not going to win that matchup.

[Nekojin]

...and mail carriers are non-threatening.

I don't know that I'd go quite that far.

There's an ongoing issue with regard to dogs and mail carriers, and I'm really not sure that I understand all of it. However, there seems to be a doggie-social issue where dogs respond to other dogs' threatening barks. So a new, well-adjusted dog moves into a neighborhood, and sees all the other dogs absolutely losing their shit every time this dude in the hat and big bag goes by, so they assume that he's a threat, something that needs to be warned off and/or attacked.

I've seen it happen in person. Andara's brother's dogs aren't exactly the most well-trained of dogs, but they were pretty chill until they moved in to our place. And for the most part, they were still pretty chill - except with regard to three things. Other dogs near our fence (with or without owner), because it's a territorial thing; Kids on skateboards and scooters, because they're moving fast enough to trigger "hunter chase" instincts; and mailmen.

Our local mail dude is pretty cool about it. He's upset that the eldest dog jumps at him (and I mean, he really jumps - if he knew pole vaulting techniques, he could be over the fence) and snaps at him. We've had to adjust the location of the mail box so that it was less of a threat to the mail guy.

And then, after that, it's easy to see how some mail carriers could come to hate dogs, when they get that sort of reaction everywhere they went. And some of those people could very well start getting antagonistic toward dogs, which makes the dogs more aggressive toward mail carriers... and the whole vicious cycle starts all over again.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

and mail carriers are non-threatening

Let me drill into that a little further. I was meaning that compared to a Cop that absolutely may very well be invading the home and causing visible distress to the owner, a mail carrier is non-threatening.

As in, you could see the territorial behavior being an issue, but you couldn't really make the case that the mail carrier is even in the same vicinity in terms of aggressive behavior that a cop may very well be if he's on your property.

[Andara Bledin]

Let me drill into that a little further. I was meaning that compared to a Cop that absolutely may very well be invading the home and causing visible distress to the owner, a mail carrier is non-threatening.

That depends highly on both the placement of your mailbox (there are still places that have slots in their doors, after all) and whether or not there's anything that needs to be signed for.

Plus, there's also a distinct possibility that many dogs see police as similar enough to mail carriers that they will react in the same manner regardless of which is approaching your door.

It might be interesting to see a study on pet dog reactions to different types of official visitors and how it differs between uniform, gender, and purpose.

[Gravekeeper]

Is 1.8% per year really that rare? Extrapolating probabilities on that, if events were normally distributed, a mail carrier working for 30 years can expect he's got about a 40% chance of being attacked once and mail carriers are non-threatening.

Unfortunately, the 1.8% is the best estimate I can find based on how many mail carriers are in the US. The US Postal Service also doesn't make a distinction between an "aggressive" dog and actually getting bitten/chewed on in their statistics. There were about 5900 dog attacks on postal workers last year in the entire country. My estimate was based on there being around 316,000 or so mail carriers as the only figure I could find.

But let's see if we can't math this up. -.-

Dog bites occur in the US at a rate of about 129.3 per capita ( 100,000 people ) per year according to the CDC. The majority ( 2/3rds ) of the victims are children with the peak being age 5-9 ( more likely to be antagonizing or misunderstanding a dog and be closer to the dog's face ) and the majority out of that are boys ( ....even more likely to be stupid around a dog >.> ). The rate of dog bites drops off significantly with age ( It literally halves after the age of 14 ).

4.5% of all dog attacks were work related and occurred on the job ( Mail carriers, cops, animal shelter workers, veterinarians, etc ) at a rate of 5.8 per capita. So the rate of actual dog attacks on cops is pretty small. Likely in the neighborhood of 1-2 per capita per year of all dog attacks in the country.

Now if you look at the rate of cops shooting dogs in Milwaukee. Assuming a national rate of 36% or so dog ownership. ( Per 2012 U.S. Pet Ownership & Demographics Sourcebook ) we can crudely estimate Milkwaukee has around 200,000 dog owners give or take. Out of those dog owners, they have a rate of having their dog shot of 22.8 per capita per year by the Milwaukee police.

Even if you factor in officers shooting strays or feral dogs or include the entire population of Milwaukee ( around 7.6 per capita then ), its still disproportionate.

In a nutshell its pretty obvious American police officers have a major gap in their training in most states. With only Colorado and some individual cities having made animal encounter training mandatory. When you further consider that according to the SPCA the majority of officers that end up shooting a dog did not grow up in a home with dogs. It makes the situation even more clear.

Officers, such as the one in the op, are not trained for this and are likely afraid/panicking and reaching for lethal force because procedure lets them. Instead of going for non-lethal force which they would likely go for first if they were not panicking or otherwise under duress in an unfamiliar situation.

This one is just getting the most shit because it was caught on video this time.

[Gravekeeper]

Plus, there's also a distinct possibility that many dogs see police as similar enough to mail carriers that they will react in the same manner regardless of which is approaching your door.

It might be interesting to see a study on pet dog reactions to different types of official visitors and how it differs between uniform, gender, and purpose.

I'm going to guess dogs see mail carriers and police as fairly similar. Except that a police officer may have to enter the home and may have to yell commands ( Making them a full on invader/threat to the dog ). Officers may also have to physically restrain or fight with someone in the home. Making a dog perceive them even more as a threat to the family.

I would say it probably has a lot more to do with how you act and what your body language is rather than what uniform you have on. Hence children get bitten far far far more often than adults. Because children are smaller and more likely to be putting their face in the dog's face. Which can be seen as a challenge/threat by a dog.

If you really know shit and all about dogs, never grew up with them or even interacted with them at any point. Then you likely don't know much about dog body language or what not to do with a dog. As is the case in the OP when the officer reached for the leash. Rather than defusing the situation, putting his hands in the dog's face agitated the dog further.