Cop Shoots Dog, Outrage Ensues

[Gravekeeper]

Could the officer have used less lethal force? Sure. But as it appears to me, while watching the video, the dog gave a couple warning feints, and on the final one seemed to be a legit attack attempt as it was a clear lunge to get at the officer. Deadly force wasn't unjustified in such an incident. It sucks, it's horrible, and it could have gone a lot better. But we also could have ended up with a mutilated human being which is NEVER acceptable.

The officer draws his gun immediately upon seeing the dog. But the dog gives him plenty of time to assess the situation and switch to a tazer or spray. The dog is excited and nervous, trying to get to its owner. I don't know what you're on about with "warning feints". Have you never been around an excited/nervous dog before?

Yes, the officer reaches for the leash, that's the trigger for for being snapped at. The first time the cop reaches the dog looks up, sees his hand and becomes alarmed that some stranger is reaching for him. The second time he reaches he reaches right into the dogs face and gets snapped at. The officer basically fires wildly in a panic. Which is bad form for a police officer regardless.

On top of that, even if lethal force was justified, the first shot was entirely sufficient in stopping the dog. The additional 3 were straight up executing the poor thing.

Its poor judgement and poor situational awareness from the officer. A lethal outcome could have been completely avoided at several intervals. This was not even a violent arrest and they could have easily had the suspect assist with calming the dog down if it was really a problem.

There was no reason for this to escalate to the use of lethal force aside from a series of bad decisions from the officer in question. Never mind discharging a weapon into cement near a crowd.

Plus were they not in a stand off with an armed suspect? Is it really wise to be squeezing off rounds outside if its entirely avoidable?

[Andara Bledin]

Plus were they not in a stand off with an armed suspect? Is it really wise to be squeezing off rounds outside if its entirely avoidable?

No. They weren't. The police had entered the house at the beginning of the first video and from what I understand, the people involved were already removed from the premises and detained on the left-hand sidewalk, which is why the two officers who confronted the owner were over there for most of the first half of the video.

I got the impression from one or another of the reports I read that the volume of his radio was actually interfering with their ability to hear what was being said, thus prompting their action against the man, but I could be misinterpreting what was reported.

[Gravekeeper]

I got the impression from one or another of the reports I read that the volume of his radio was actually interfering with their ability to hear what was being said, thus prompting their action against the man, but I could be misinterpreting what was reported.

Hrm, I thought the fact they were in a stand off was the whole reason they arrested him for obstruction because it was interfering with a tense situation. If that's not the case, that makes the obstruction charge even more flimsy.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

The problem with the situation can be summed up pretty simply. A lot of people do not like the police and a situation like this gives them something to bitch about.

"See! See! They shot a dog! They're evil mother fuckers!"

Animal shootings happen all the time. There are three cases where I live this year alone. One of them was questionable as the police shot an aggressive dog at the wrong house (the suspect was across the street), one of them was the owner actually ordering his dog to attack the police, the other was a dog that had gotten loose and was terrorizing the neighborhood (had already bitten a child and the parent that pulled the child away).

In the first case was it questionable whether or not the officer should have shot the animal. In the other two it was a case of self-defense and a case of defending the public safety. Yet in all three cases the police departments were painted as brutal, vicious killers of animals.

So no matter how we look at it, no matter what we personally think...ALL police have another black mark against them because of the actions of one officer, justified or not.

[Panacea]

I haven't had time to watch the video, but I do have a few quick thoughts in regards to questions as if tazers should have been used.

First of all, not all police departments use them. Tazers are controversial and some departments have gotten rid of them. Some departments can't afford them.

Secondly, even if they do have tazers, not all officers are trained in their use, usually because there aren't enough to go around. They require special training.

Thirdly, police are typically trained to handle vicious animals with their firearms if force is to be used. Maybe that needs to be changed, but you have to start at the policy level, not the street level.

Fourthly, when you fire your sidearm, you are typically trained to fire more than one shot in case your first one misses or is ineffective, even if you are not the only one firing (because you can't be sure the other guy hits). That's why with multiple officers firing types of cases we see so much fire power being used.

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.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

A lot of people do not like the police and a situation like this gives them something to bitch about.

Honestly, I've been in this camp for a while. I wish I could be more sympathetic, but some people get so dead set on complaining about cops that it gets hard to take them seriously after a while. Many issues are systemic which makes Cops the most visible part of that system, but it does not make Cops the problem. Cops today often come off like the Veterans of the Vietnam, they go and do their job in potentially deadly situations and get spit on by the public.

"The police just can't go about their day exercising their power without people checking that power" is what the guy in the LA Times article said. Then what's the point of cops in the first place? They have power in excess of the citizenry in order to do their civic function. If your distrust is that severe of the organization, reform it. Officers can't stop you from doing that either since it's a municipal function.

Blaring your radio and coming up right on officers in the middle of them performing their duty with your potentially dangerous animal (from their perspective), not really the ideal response.

[Gravekeeper]

I haven't had time to watch the video, but I do have a few quick thoughts in regards to questions as if tazers should have been used

I would watch the video before weighing in. Also, these officers do have tazers and spray. So that point is moot. The SPCA is weighing in now ( and offering the Hawthrone police free training in how to handle dogs ). Their opinion basically sums up as the dog was just doing what any dog would do in that situation. While the officer regrettably went to the lethal option first when other non-lethal options were still on the table and may have worked.

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.

The whole situation was primed for tragedy the moment the officer drew his gun and advanced on the dog. Because he has the gun in one hand while he keeps reaching for the leash and into the dog's face with the other. So obviously he's going to get snapped at, and if he already has the gun in the other hand chances are he's going to fire if he panics. Which he did.

The officers inadvertently set this entire situation up. Although, that being said I don't see why people are equally upset with all three officers when its only officer #3 at the heart of the matter. Officer 1 and 2, while kind of being dicks with an obstruction charge, we're just holding on to the suspect. It's #3 that walks over and immediately pulls his gun.

[Gravekeeper]

Honestly, I've been in this camp for a while. I wish I could be more sympathetic, but some people get so dead set on complaining about cops that it gets hard to take them seriously after a while.

In fairness, it doesn't help when they charge someone with obstruction of justice because of his car stereo. No matter how you try to spin that one, it sounds dubious. Because it sounds like they were annoyed with him but couldn't figure out what to slap him with because he wasn't specifically breaking any law.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Is it? They were in the street communicating or dealing with an altercation in a house. The presence of loud stereo equipment and the man with is dog was occurring in closer proximity to them while the people they were supposed to be dealing with were in the house. If the sound was too loud, how was that communication with the perpetrators in the house supposed to occur? Obstruction tends to be interference with police, so I'm not sure it holds up in court but it's probably debatable there.

I remember we had an older story about "annoying a cop" being a turned into a law. I think this is a prime example why. You have this grey area where I don't think anyone would argue the man with the dog was not trying to get the attention of the cops. Yet the cops are dealing with a deadly situation on the other side.

You have cops having to turn their back on a potentially deadly scene behind them to deal with it. Is it obstruction? I dunno, but it's very much legal "I'm not touching you" behavior.

[Andara Bledin]

The officers inadvertently set this entire situation up.

I was with you until this part.

The officers are not the architects of this situation; the dog's owner was the one ultimately responsible for starting this chain of events. Although I will allow that they did inadvertently add to the build-up.

While I do believe the cops could have handled it better, I am also willing to concede that some of what I think they should have done may not have been feasible or even possible because I can't possibly know what the situation was beyond what is seen in the videos, and that's not a whole hell of a lot. The way some of the comments (here and elsewhere) read, it's as though the writers have some crystal ball that tells them a lot more facts than can be gleaned from what has been presented.

And, as I mentioned in an earlier response, the reason for the obstruction charge is because his stereo appeared to be interfering with their ability to deal with the individuals they had removed from the house, and it definitely interfered with their ability to even communicate with him, forcing them to shout their instructions to him more than once while approaching.

The guy was acting like a douchebag and looked like he was expecting to get himself detained, if not outright arrested. My first impression on seeing him become the focus of the video is that he's strutting up and down like a peacock, playing for the cameras he knows are running behind him.

When they having him turn to cuff him, he's moving immediately as if he was prepared for that. He only starts having issues when he realizes that he completely failed to make any arrangement to deal with his own dog. At that point, it's too late to let him deal with the dog, however, as he's already cuffed and the police have to actually worry about both him and the dog.

And, last but not least, this appears to have been a domestic dispute. They have no way to know if he's an interested party or not. They have to be wary because not doing so could get them or a bystander hurt.

[Gravekeeper]

I was with you until this part.

The officers are not the architects of this situation; the dog's owner was the one ultimately responsible for starting this chain of events. Although I will allow that they did inadvertently add to the build-up.

I don't mean this is all the cop's fault in that this guy wasn't a complete dumbass. I mean that they inadvertently created the scenario. Yes, the owner is the catalyst, but it's the officers actions that put the unfortunate chain of events in motion. The dog was not secure, they riled the dog up and then shot the dog as a first resort rather than last resort. Again, it's a lack of situational awareness at the heart of the issue.

It would be forgivable if this was a violent arrest where they had to act quickly to subdue a suspect. But this is some dumbass that complied with all of their orders when arrested. They could have easily at any point had dumbass secure the dog or calm the dog down as suggested by the SPCA.

The way some of the comments (here and elsewhere) read, it's as though the writers have some crystal ball that tells them a lot more facts than can be gleaned from what has been presented.

Yes, the initial articles about this were really piss poor. Its only been the second round of articles with the SPCA involved this morning that gave a better idea of what was going on.

And, as I mentioned in an earlier response, the reason for the obstruction charge is because his stereo appeared to be interfering with their ability to deal with the individuals they had removed from the house, and it definitely interfered with their ability to even communicate with him, forcing them to shout their instructions to him more than once while approaching.

I don't see them repeatedly shouting instructions. In fact it doesn't even look like both cops are on the same page about arresting him to begin with. They mainly ignore him to start with. Then one cop starts to make a move toward the guy but the other cop calls him back. Then they ignore him for a moment again, I guess discussing what, if anything they can do about the guy. Then they approach.

That's one part that's been making me scratch my head about the video. Some of the articles say the police asked him to turn it down, then arrested him after he refused. But I don't see any contact between him and the officers at any point in either video before they walk over and arrest him outright.

The guy was acting like a douchebag and looked like he was expecting to get himself detained, if not outright arrested.

Definitely, because this guy has a long history with the local police department and visa versa. It's not mentioned in most of the articles, but he's currently suing them for false arrest / excessive force after they beat the shit out of him over a domestic disturbance call.

Basically, he got in a argument with his wife ( no physical component ). She called police because she wanted him to leave. But they managed to smooth over whatever it was and she told the police it was alright now. The police showed up and basically smacked him around ( apparently they showed up with a police chopper too of all things ) and broke his ribs / gave him a concussion.

They tried to charge him with resisting arrest but the DA threw it out after discovering that the reports from the officer's on scene were full of inconsistencies.

Prior to that he complained about racial profiling to the department. So the department knew him before they showed up at his house and they certainly knew him even more so before arresting him here. It's safe to say that he knows the cops, they know him, and neither side likes the other.

So on one hand, the guy's a crank. But on the other, he has at least a few valid points against this police department.

[Andara Bledin]

That's one part that's been making me scratch my head about the video. Some of the articles say the police asked him to turn it down, then arrested him after he refused. But I don't see any contact between him and the officers at any point in either video before they walk over and arrest him outright.

From what I can recall (can't watch it right now) the cops actually shouted things at him earlier in the video shortly before he moved the dog to the car. And thinking back on it, the way he jerked at the leash makes me think the dog was already agitated by the excitement and the owner should have known better than to just dump him in a car with the windows rolled down.

The fact that he has a history with the local cops just makes me even more pissed off at him for pulling this shit. He got his dog killed. Full stop. So he could get himself a viral video while trying to provoke the authorities into doing something else he could sue them for.

Honestly, I also feel sorry for the cop that ended up doing the shooting. He was forced into a situation he obviously didn't have the skills to deal with and was forced to make a choice that he is likely going to have to deal with the rest of his life. Meanwhile, the asshole owner owner and the torches and pitchforks crowd get to blame the cops for everything while ignoring his role.

[Gravekeeper]

Honestly, I also feel sorry for the cop that ended up doing the shooting. He was forced into a situation he obviously didn't have the skills to deal with and was forced to make a choice that he is likely going to have to deal with the rest of his life. Meanwhile, the asshole owner owner and the torches and pitchforks crowd get to blame the cops for everything while ignoring his role.

Yes, its obvious from his reaction he doesn't know what to do there. Opening fire was basically a jump scare / panic reaction.

Oh, and yeah, shithead already added this to his existing lawsuit.

I'm finding it hard to have any sympathy for anyone involved anymore except the dog at this point.

[siead_lietrathua]

i watched the video once (and shut it off the second the dog fell *shudder* but at that quick view, it looked like the guy was walking right along, the perimeter of the scene, and inside of it right before he turned to put the dog in the car. at least, usually cops use their cars like that to mark out a quick "do not cross dumbass" line. i also saw the officer did not shoot until the dog has already charged at the cops once, and was shot after it almost bit the cop that went to grab it's leash.

it sucks for the dog, but i can understand the cop's reaction. if a human was that close and attacking a cop, the human would be shot. a dog that big and aggressive (and i'm not breed-bashing) is as dangerous to a cop as a human wielding a knife or similar would be, and gets treated the same way.

some jackasses should not own dogs.

edit: found a second video of it. the guy was taunting the cops. "i'm just watching" "you gonna taze me?" etc. and riling his own dog up by jerking it around. video edits to cut just as the gun pops.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=256_1373408203

JACKASSES should NOT own dogs!

[Gravekeeper]

i also saw the officer did not shoot until the dog has already charged at the cops once, and was shot after it almost bit the cop that went to grab it's leash.

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.

it sucks for the dog, but i can understand the cop's reaction. if a human was that close and attacking a cop, the human would be shot. a dog that big and aggressive (and i'm not breed-bashing) is as dangerous to a cop as a human wielding a knife or similar would be, and gets treated the same way.

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.

edit: found a second video of it. the guy was taunting the cops. "i'm just watching" "you gonna taze me?" etc. and riling his own dog up by jerking it around. video edits to cut just as the gun pops.

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