Posted on 07/07/2011 11:28:16 AM PDT by Immerito
UPDATE 7:47 p.m. Sept. 13: The Washington Post has obtained the police report on the incident. It describes the dog as appearing "to be out of control" and says the dog "charged" at the officer before it was fatally shot.
10:16 p.m. Updated with a statement from Third District police that conflicts with the dog handler's spokesman's statement, and an e-mailed statement from the handler himself.
There's never a shortage of police officers at Adams Morgan Day, just in case someone gets out of hand. Today, that someone was a dog.
An officer with the D.C. police department shot and killed a dog — possibly a rottweiler or pit bull — outside The Brass Knob antique store at 2311 18th St. NW. The shooting followed an intense, two-minute scuffle between the dog and what witnesses describe as a "smaller" white dog.
In dispute of the what the dog's handler has said, police tonight released a statement saying the dog was out of control and also bit the handler. Here's the entire e-mail from Third District Capt. Aubrey P. Mongal:
Earlier this afternoon, during the Adams Morgan Day events, an MPD officer encountered a dog in the crowded pedestrian area that got out of the control of it’s handler. The dog attacked another dog and also bit it handler. The officer, after making several attempts to subdue the dog by training tactics, had to finally shoot one time to stop the dog.
On the contrary, says the handler, who only wants to be identified as Aaron. In an e-mail to TBD, Aaron said the apparent foster dog, Parrot, didn't bite anyone.
In my recollection and as the eyewitness accounts will coroborate, the dog was completely under my control when the k9 officer removed me. Parrot bit no human, the only blood he drew was when i thrust my hand into his mouth to get him off the other dog. The k9 officer's injury, which he showed me at the station after, was nothing more than a rope burn from Parrot's leash, suffered when the officer was throwing my dog down a flight of stairs.
D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier, in an earlier response to an e-mail from advisory neighborhood commissioner and candidate for the Ward 1 D.C. Council seat Bryan Weaver, said three people, including a K9 officer, were bitten by the dog. Here's an excerpt of the e-mail:
I don't know all of the facts at this point so it is very difficult for me to comment beyond the facts that I have been given. All I know is that there is one dog who was attacked by the pit bull and 3 people, including a K9 officer, that were bitten by the pit bull.
Police sources had earlier told ABC 7 the officer who shot the dog was a canine handler who was experienced with dogs. He was trying to separate the dogs, and attempted to choke hold the larger dog. While he was trying that, the dog attempted to bite him or did bite him, and he threw him down the stairwell in an attempt to injure the dog. The dog charged the officer and the officer opened fire, the sources said.
An unidentified spokesperson for the dog's handler said the cop didn't try hard enough to subdue the dog.
In an e-mail to TBD, Weaver said the dog had seemed friendly at his booth at the festival just 15 minutes before the incident:
"Aaron is a good guy, he said he had the dog under control and the cop grabbed it from him and threw him down the well at [Marie] Reed and shot him. Dog was playing with kids at my booth 15 min earlier. Aaron is really shaken."
One witness, 46-year-old Harriet Winslow, said that at first, she saw the two dogs — the white-sandy pitbull-looking dog and a cute white fluffy lap dog — barking and fighting.
"Everybody glanced over and the owners of these dogs were frantically trying to pull them apart. We're all looking concerned. Suddenly, the owner of the pitbull was down on the ground trying to subdue his dog. He was really trying hard — I have to give him credit. He was on the ground wrapping his arms around the dog. I could see him down on the ground. I mean he was really trying."
After the two dogs were pulled apart, Winslow says she could see that the smaller dog was fine. But the dogs were still barking at each other.
Then a cop appeared.
"I glanced over again and I saw a very able bodied police officer fully a stride the dog — the cop straddling dog. The pitbull was still animated, still trying to get up. But this cop — I thought 'Wow this guy is good at this, he subdued a really angry dog.' Then I thought 'Good, this is now over.' Then I walk just five or 10 feet away and I hear a gun shot."
Before she heard the shot, she said she thought "the cop was totally in control. ... It's not something I would want to do. He really was on top of this dog."
Noah Siegel, who works at nearby Spaghetti Garden restaurant, says he saw "two or three cops" surrounding the dog. One of the officers, says Siegel, had the dog on a leash and attempted to drag it away from the commotion.
The dog began "trying to attack the cop," says Siegel. "Next thing I knew, they had it down there in the corner and I heard a shot and that was it," says Siegel, who was interviewed by ABC 7's Brianne Carter.
An onlooker who attempted to intervene in the dogfight sustained a scrape or two. "He's fine," reports ABC 7's Carter.
“, and according to the only witness was on the ground wrestling with the dog.”
According to the only witness? How can you have one *sole* witness in a “crowded pedestrian area”?
“In this case, bringing a dog one is not capable of controlling and endangering other people’s safety and property, I’d say selfish and shortsighted are better adjectives, but I agree. “
You accused the owner of the shot dog of endangering other people’s safety and property.
If, however, the poodle started the fight, then it is the poodle’s owner who brought a dog who endangered other people’s safety and property.
The owner of the dog which was shot was calming his dog when the officer ensured by his actions that the dog would become more agitated—by forcibly taking the dog away from him.
Do you approve of officers forcibly removing your property from your possession before destroying it?
Apparently those who run the festival would rather not turn away/offend customers who bring their animals/bikes, etc.
DC’s animal control and protection laws:
http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusdc8_1801_13.htm
(4) The term “Mayor” means the Mayor of the District of Columbia or his designee.
5) The term “owner” means a person in the District of Columbia who purchases or keeps an animal in temporary or permanent custody except as provided in § 8-1804.
1. The Mayor is the determiner if an animal is considered dangerous or potentially dangerous
2. animals are only considered dangerous based on unprovoked situations
3. dogs proven to be dangerous or potentially dangerous and pose a public threat, upon given notice to the owner, must first be impounded.
4. the Mayor may HUMANELY DESTROY a dog if: the owner fails to register the dog, pay the animal control fees if impoundment was required, or the owner forfeits the dog to HUMANE DESTRUCTION
5. if a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog, as deemed by the Mayor, causes serious injury or kills a human being or domestic animal without provocation, then the owner will be FINED $10,000.
****
(d) Except where the animal is an undomesticated and dangerous animal such as rats, bats, and snakes, and there is a reasonable apprehension of an imminent attack by such animal on that person or another, whoever commits any of the acts or omissions set forth in subsection (a) of this section with the intent to commit serious bodily injury or death to an animal, or whoever, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to animal life, commits any of the acts or omissions set forth in subsection (a) of this section which results in serious bodily injury or death to the animal, shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding 5 years, or by a fine not exceeding $25,000, or both.
CREDIT(S)
(Aug. 23, 1871, Leg. Assem., p. 135, ch. 106, § 1; Aug. 20, 1994, D.C. Law 10-151, § 102(a), 41 DCR 2608; June 8, 2001, D.C. Law 13-303, § 2(a), 47 DCR 7307; Dec. 5, 2008, D.C. Law 17-281, § 108(a), 55 DCR 9186.)
****
The officer who shot Parrot did not follow the law.
By the way, for the information of any D.C. Freepers:
from: http://hrla.doh.dc.gov/hrla/cwp/view,A,1384,Q,574045.asp
If Your Dog Bites:
Secure and control your dog. The victim may be afraid of your dog and your dog may be excited.
Provide your name and phone number for the victim. You may be asked for proof of your dog’s vaccinations. You can get this from your dog’s veterinarian.
Report the incident. Call animal control to report all animal bites. (202) 576-6664
****
And, if you’re really interested in viewing the police’s lawyer’s version of events:
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/09/20/gay-cop-says-dog-shooting-was-necessary/
Otherwise, you may find that the comment left by DCNative61 sufficient:
“It doles out unsubstantiated claims and other crap that is contradicted by the police report. Bad journalism, unfortunately.
Looks like the officer is using The Blade and the gay angle to prep for litigation.
HERE WAS MY REPLY:
Lou, Lou, Lou … I’m not accustomed to the Blade being used as a tool to affect the public narrative. Most of the mass of this article is someone’s lawyer – SURPRISE! – laying out some very lawyerly talking points to see who bites. I read the title of article and expected completely different content. This is not news; this is pre-litigation preparation of the battlefield.
I’ve known Dale for more than a decade. He’s doing what any good lawyer would do … and you fell for it.
Just because Officer Fike is a dog lover doesn’t intrinsically make him qualified to break up and subdue a dog spat on the street. Also, just because he knows how to handle a police dog that is trained to be aggressive, again, doesn’t necessarily qualify him to handle this situation better than the owner or foster parent. This is all unrelated pap that Dale is throwing out there because it affects the appearance of the narrative. Did you notice how few FACTS Dale threw in there?
C’mon, Lou!! An officer used lethal force in a crowd, where the witness accounts vary widely. Even the police report says that Parrot “apparerad [sic]to be out of control” … APPEARED. Even Officer Fike wasn’t as sure as Dale seems to be!! Further, the report also CLEARLY states that the smaller dog’s owner “was standing to the side holding a white poodle.” What that means, Lou, is that the dogs were APART during the narrative described by the police report. So, Dale’s decription of people who “rushed to the scene tried to free the poodle from Parrot’s mouth” is meant only to provide evocative justification for Officer Fike’s actions. Unfortunately, Dale’s input does not comport with the official police report.
This still smells like a bad shoot. So, I’ll look forward to hearing from the police union or Fike’s grandmother for more ‘facts’.
You can do better than this.”
Rabid people.
Bet that changes in the future. There is no need for either within the confines of the event, and this episode should seal the deal. It is so mobbed, losing a few patrons here and there would make little to no difference.
Yep. My daughter has the scars to prove it.
Amazing the anger and pontificating that goes on about DOGS and their “rights”. rolling eyes here!
“What do you penis infatuated butt packers say when a woman owns the dog?”
That was uncalled for. [Subsequent comments redacted]
FYI - I’ve never seen a woman walking around with a dog in that context.
If those organizing the festival have not made those changes by now, they probably will not do so.
Since most festival organizers are intrinsically motivated to attract as many attendees as possible, they may be loathe to adopt the signage you desire.
I am sorry that your daughter was bitten. However, no dog can “lock” its jaws—it’s a biological impossibility; a myth perpetuated by those ignorant of canine anatomy.
“It is not an environment for pittbulls and/or rottweilers.”
Some guys just can’t get by without their four-legged penis extensions.
******
A man’s decision to own “pittbulls” (sic; not a dog breed) or rottweilers does not automatically indicate his need for a “penis extension”.
Some men like rottweilers; some women prefer them. Some men like American Staffordshire terriers, some women prefer them. Good owners select a dog that fits into their lifestyle, time commitment, available space, etc.
That you attribute a man’s personal canine preference to a “compensation” need suggests more about you than it does about them.
Even if a man *is* compensating, why should that matter to you? That’s his business alone. Why bring it up?
My daughter was mauled.
Dead dog.
It sounds like in your case, it was justified. I hope your daughter made a full recovery.
The poodle didn't want it but by God she was not going to give it to my dog. Fight ensued, much growling and such, I yelled at both of them to get in their kennels, and they immediately broke up and slunk to their own kennel (doggie prison) Had to stay in for an hour...
Told my daughter to teach her dog to eat a french fry when offered...but no, her dog gets only dog food....outside of the french fry fiasco, they get along fine....
Blue is a standard poodle and a real sweetheart, so is the lab....
If I had my dog down and under control, no way would I let a cop take over trying to control it....If I am straddling my dog and she is on the ground, she will give it up after the struggle.....cop not necessary unless the dog is running loose.
How about this comment:
“This Cop is totally full of *hit. I knew that dog and it would have never hurt a sole. Somebody take his gun away before he points it at you or me. PS Aaron is not gay. PPS, DC cops should live in DC not MD. PPPS this is the second dog this go has shot in 18 months. Sounds like a big animal lover to me.”
Supposedly the second dog shot by this cop. If true, not a good sign.
“Even if a man *is* compensating, why should that matter to you? That’s his business alone. Why bring it up?”
I don’t care what a guy’s penis extension (dog, car) does as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone outside of their own family. Just keep it on a leash under control.
I found a DOJ study online a while back (its no longer available) that was focused on the use of force by law enforcement. It found that when LEO use force it is excessive in the majority of cases (around 70% if I recall correctly).
They also found that 57% of LEOs admitted to covering up illegal behavior of fellow officers. Thats admitted, not actual cases.
I’m sure the reason you stated is part of it. A culture of acceptance and ego are probably also part of it. They do it because they know they can get away with it.
Actually there was no assumption on my part. You’ll notice the word ‘hopefully’. Now go lick some boots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.