Investigation complete for deputy that shot family dog

WDRB (Fox 41) ^ | July 11, 2011 | Tamara Evans

[Immerito]

The investigation is complete in regards to a Shelby County Sheriff's Deputy who shot a family dog while responding to a burglary call.

That report says the deputy made the right decision to use a gun rather than a taser or pepper spray due to the dangerous threat.

The dog's family says they didn't even know the deputy had been cleared, until we contacted them today.

For the past two weeks, Renee Lewis says complete strangers have been reaching out to her family, after the death of their dog Daisy.

There's plenty of photos of the Labrador retriever that the family is holding onto, and they've even taken in a baby chocolate Labrador, but what happened to Daisy on June 18th is not something they can forget.

[Immerito]

Yes, I remember that scene.

Here’s the clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnGpwNmF430

[Immerito]

Unfortunately, the wrong sort of people are becoming cops-—and being rewarded when they do this sort of thing.

[JLLH]

This is beyond belief. Citizens need to FORCE the police Dept. (bad publicity can do wonders sometimes!) to train officers in dog body language (and the trainers need to be outside the dept. and well acquainted with dogs). My dog greets us at the door with a genuine toothy grin. He shows his teeth but they aren’t “bared” and he’s not growling. Some dogs do this, tail wagging the whole time. If someone is just looking at his mouth they might mistake it for a threatening posture. It’s not, which is obvious when looking at his body posture — which is why that type of training needs to be required for every officer carrying a gun.

This has gotten completely out of hand. I have a very very difficult time believing this shooting was in any way justified. The family needs to do more than “hope” cops will handle these issues differently in future. They need to make SURE they do. Pressure, pressure, pressure — never let up.

[mware]

Another furious dog who might lunge at any minute.

[Joe 6-pack]

There was a time when 'shooting first and asking questions later' was a phrase applied to describe actions displaying little self-discipline or emotional control.

Now it seems to be departmental policy around the nation.

[Immerito]

It looks like that pup is a potential perpetrator of sphericide and herbicide to me. :-)

[Immerito]

As another Freeper (I don’t remember whom) noted, people don’t wear identity obscuring masks when they are doing honest work.

[osagebowman]

Excellent! Well done.

[Immerito]

Sadly, that’s probably accurate.

There was a time when dispatching dogs without qualification was a plot relegated to science fiction movies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a08-UWD-zyA

(Terminator 2 clip: “What’s Wrong With Wolfie?” )

Warning to those not familiar with the movie: contains objectionable language and violent content.

[OldPossum]

Thanks for the comment. As I tried to indicate, the cops would be forewarned about the danger of killing my dogs. It would not be a smart move.

I particularly noted this: “I personally have no use whatsoever for cops. Dated one once - egotistical bas**rd.” There is something about the personality of cops that screams egotistical and how do you say it? A built-in propensity for enjoying bossing other people around. I imagine that that is a psychological requirement for being hired.

[SkyDancer]

Yea, like they’re A++ personalities.

[Immerito]

It sounds like, "I just met you, and I LOVE YOU!" was her motto. :-)

[Immerito]

Unfortunately a lawsuit would empty the purses of taxpayers, unless the laws in Kentucky allow individual officers to be sued.

If officers were personally sued and their own pensions were on the line for these crimes, we’d see a lot less of them.

[Westbrook]

> Unfortunately a lawsuit would empty the purses of
> taxpayers, unless the laws in Kentucky allow individual
> officers to be sued.

If the municipality or state signing the officer’s paycheck say that he committed this act as a part of his official duty, then, yes, the governing entity’s insurance company will have to pay, and their insurance premiums will be increased accordingly.

If, on the other hand, they say that the officer acted outside of the prescribed set of actions for the situation, then the officer’s insurance will have to pay. If the officer has no insurance, everything he has that can be liquidated is on the line.

[Ken H]

My understanding was that even if the police act outside their official duties, the municipality or state government is still on the hook.

They are responsible for hiring and supervising the police, so it should be on their shoulders when one goes rogue, IMO.

As for the taxpayers, they can a) swallow the tax increase and loss of services; b) move; or c) exercise proper oversight on their government so police don't go rogue.

[Shadowstrike]

Agreed.

[LongElegantLegs]

These civilians better hope their alarm doesn’t “go off accidentally” in the future or we’ll be there to protect and serve.

Bwahahahaha!!

[Westbrook]

> the municipality or state government is still on the hook.
>
> They are responsible for hiring and supervising the police,
> so it should be on their shoulders when one goes rogue, IMO.

Good point! My company is on the hook for anything I do as their employee. This point is made to us in our ethics training every year.

> As for the taxpayers, they can
> a) swallow the tax increase and loss of services;

Unacceptable.

> b) move;

Also unacceptable.

> c) exercise proper oversight on their government so
> police don’t go rogue.

THIS is the proper response. Sadly, the majority in this country does not seem to be as astute as you are. They keep electing control freaks and bumbling idiots.