Skip to comments.Cleveland Police: Officer Fatally Shoots Dog After Attack
Posted on 07/18/2011 6:56:36 PM PDT by Immerito
CLEVELAND A Cleveland police officer fatally shot a dog Thursday after the animal allegedly attacked him, Fox 8 News reports.
According to Stephen Loomis, President of the Cleveland Patromen's Association, it happened just before 5 p.m. in the 1400 block of West 48th Street.
Officers responded to a residence in that area for a domestic violence incident. While searching for the suspect, two officers entered the backyard through a fence -- unaware that two dogs were on the property.
"The dogs were sleeping when [the officers] went into the yard, and [the dogs] woke up when [the officers] were several feet into yard," Loomis said.
(Excerpt) Read more at fox8.com ...
Interesting, not "walked up to the front door to talk to the homeowner", but "entered the backyard through a fence"--the actions of someone who doesn't want their presence on private property to be known.
If I was searching in that area of my old hometown, I’d likely do it in an M-1 Abrams.
They might have been trying to surround the house to prevent the suspected perp from taking off through the back yard . . . There was, apparently, more than one cop on the scene. The cops have a right to protect themselves from man and beast.
Why were they sneaking around in the backyard in the first place?
“The cops have a right to protect themselves from man and beast. “
And they were protected from the beasts. That’s what the fence was for, to keep the dogs on the property, and as a physical reminder for uninvited people to keep off the property.
Do you suppose that the dogs would have kept napping if the suspect was in their yard? No, they would have been barking and carrying on to tell the whole neighborhood that their yard had been intruded. The fact that the dogs were napping, and woke up when the cops entered would clue in any thinking person that “nope, the suspect isn’t here”.
Is it usual in a domestic dispute (run) to approach from the rear?
They don't have the right to trespass on private property without a warrant. These cops are a**holes. There would have been no "need to protect themselves" if they hadn't sneaked into someone's yard and woke up the dogs. The dogs were doing their job, protecting their owners yard, the cops are totally in the wrong here and I would say from most of the dog shooting articles I've read that most of the cops involved in the dog shootings are in the wrong.
Gee, times must really be tough. From Fleetwood Mac to a reporter in Cleveland?
Apologies, you are quick on the draw today. :-) Sorry for the extraneous ping. :-)
Actually they do under exigent circumstances (which in this case apparently came from being chased by dogs - the second cop has a right to enter anyone's neighboring yard while in flight from a menacing dog.)
Another dogtapper strikes.
When times got Tusk, Lindsey chose to Go His Own Way.
>> The cops have a right to protect themselves from man and beast. <<
Man forms intent and can be told to cease.
Beast responds to instinct and ignores all but its master. It can’t form (legal) intent.
If a cop goes into the backyard of someone without a warrant and not in pursuit of the dog’s master, said cop can’t hold it against a dog for protecting the dog’s territory, much less mete out lethal punishment.
I support cops but if a cop killed my dog when my dog was in the backyard doing what I want it (my dog) to do — protect my property — I would sue everyone in sight.
What, the dog was supposed to see a uniform and a badge and back off?
Ahhh, so the same officers who shot a dog in its own yard are absolved because they rescued a puppy from a hot car?
Oh, wait, nevermind. The dog-shooting officers aren’t the same officers as those who removed a puppy from a hot car.
Your implicit argument: “Well, these officers did the right thing, so how DARE you mention THOSE officers which did the wrong thing?”
Remember, officers who follow Robert Peel’s principles will find that they have better relations with man and beast.
Observing the actions of the police in the article, can you truthfully say that none of these nine principles were ignored or violated?
1) The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2) The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3) Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4) The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5) Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6) Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7) Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8) Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9) The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
“Why were they sneaking around in the backyard in the first place?”
Clearly, it wasn’t in pursuit of the suspect.
Of course this is the same department with cops who ignored a naked dead black woman by the side of a heavily travelled highway during rush hour one morning because they "thought it was a dead deer."
BTW, the Cleveland police department does not have a meaningful psychological screening program for its applicants.
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.