Police kill dog while stopping at wrong house on alarm call

Milwaukee Sentinel Journal ^ | April 30, 2004 | REID J. EPSTEIN

[johnfrink]

"at what point is a policeman allowed to fire upon a dog?"

Based on what I've heard from friends who are cops, they are allowed to fire their weapon when they believe their lives to be in danger. I think that's the general standard, and the subjective side of that makes it very tough. What one cop perceives to be an attacking dog might be viewed by another as a friendly dog.

[johnfrink]

I agree with your post. The problem is that all the people you hear protesting the cops are people on the far left who basically want the cops to let them get away with blocking traffic in their latest protest, let them get away with cooking meth out of their Winnebago, or generally let them get away with whatever they want.

Unfortunately there are too few voices from the right making the point that there is a difference between "soft on crime" and "police oversight." You can have oversight of the cops without curtailing their ability to catch the bad guys. Too often conservatives think that you just have to accept whatever the police do, and I think this keeps them from making a lot of critiques that could help things along.

[midcop402]

I see that most of you have already judged the officer in this case. While they went to the wrong address, this does not automatically make them guilty of 'murder'. It is obvious most of you have never dealt with other people's dogs. I have only been bitten by dogs that "don't bite". I have caught people walking out a door, walking around a house, etc. while on alarm calls. The owner, who saw the perp leave the neighbors house, should be held to some account.
Until you walk in the officer's shoes and deal with other peoples dogs, don't judge until you know all the facts. If the officer felt the dog was on attack, and bounding can be easily interpreted as such, then he was justified in shooting the animal. What is left out is the distance, any verbal commands to the owner, etc. Absence this information, placing fault automatically is a sign of mis placed judgement. By the way, shooting a dog charging you is one of the hardest things to do. Test yourself: take a 2 liter pop bottle, tie a 50-60 foot string to it. Have a person stand behind you and run rapidly away from you so that the bottle comes directly at you. Try to hit the bottle.
Too much information has been left out of this article to justify the accusations and statements made. Give me a break folks, this is a conservative list. This is not a list where you are the only ones allowed to make mistakes.

[BooBoo1000]

Don't you think the homeowner, should have had a collar on the dog to try to control him. I don't like big dogs of that make up, running and jumping on me.

[CommerceComet]

Before everyone gets too carried away here, remember we are only hearing one side of the story. As a wise man once said, "The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him." (Proverbs 18:17)

The fact that three shots were fired suggests that the dog wasn't cowering in the corner. If the dog were acting aggressively, I'm certain that we wouldn't hear that from the owner who is trying hard for sympathy.

I'm not necessarily siding with the police officers but I am withholding judgment until I hear both sides.

[Rocky Mountain High]

B.S.! These Barney Fifes were at the WRONG house, accosted the WRONG man and shot the WRONG dog. They're every bit at fault.
What if they came to your house and did the same thing?

[LibWhacker]

"It's under investigation," he said.

Yeah, right, what a joke. We know how that'll come out.

If I had an unquenchable blood lust (but no police record), there is nothing I'd like more than being a cop -- because I would know lots of my brothers in blue would cover for me no matter what.

A significant number of cops fall into that bloodlust category. Not all. Not most. But a significant number. Time to weed them out. These stories are all too common.

[coloradan]

"It's under investigation," he said.

By whom? The police department, which investigates all police shootings? Conflict of interest - every time.

[Heyworth]

Just because you don't like dogs doing that doesn't mean you can go to your neighbor's house and shoot his dog when it runs up and wants to lick your face. It doesn't matter if the dog wasn't under the man's control at every second. The story makes it clear the dog was in the house and ran past the man to greet the visitor, who killed it. The dog probably did have a collar on, but the whole thing happened so fast that the owner had no time to grab it before Barney Fife started blasting in all directions.

[freeeee]

It is obvious most of you have never dealt with other people's dogs.

I have extensive experience with all sorts of dogs.

Socialized dogs frequently behave as they do in a pack. When a new "member" appears, they will move to make acquaintance - this should not be mistaken for aggressiveness. My golden retriever will even hug people he just met.

There are many visual cues given by dogs that tell of their mindset (Is the dog's tail wagging? Are his ears lying back? Is he smiling or bearing teeth?). It doesn't take much to recognize them, and people trusted with the use of lethal force who can expect to encounter dogs should be trained to recognize them.

There are charts of dog "language" Here is a small example of one even though the print may be too small to read here:

[Ken H]

The owner, who saw the perp leave the neighbors house, should be held to some account.

"I saw the guy leave while the cops were interrogating me," he said. "I just assumed it was another police officer."

What kind of account should he be held to?

By the way, shooting a dog charging you is one of the hardest things to do. Test yourself: take a 2 liter pop bottle, tie a 50-60 foot string to it. Have a person stand behind you and run rapidly away from you so that the bottle comes directly at you. Try to hit the bottle.

"The first bullet hit the ground close to me. The second shot hit the driveway. Then he shot and killed my dog right in front of me."

Do you agree he put the homeowner and possibly the other officers in danger?

[CSM]

Funny post. The cop shows up at the wrong house (either by direction or because of an address reading problem), the cops have their weapons drawn and then they knock on the door. Inconsistency at its best. If they truly feared for their lives, why knock on the door?

The legal residents of the house open the door and the legal dog runs to greet the "visitor". The actions of this dog are consistent with the actions of any dog. While the cops are shooting this dog, the owner sees a stranger leave his neighbors house. Now he is at fault for not pointing it out to these cops.....Interesting take. While the cops aren't to blame, the legal resident getting his dog blown away should be smart enough to realize the stranger could be the perp that set off an alarm, which must have been silent because the cops nor the neighbor could hear it, and he is at fault because he didn't do the cops job for them.

Interesting that the police not being smart enough to read an address, or smart enough to identify the behaviour of the dog, are participating in appropriate behaviour. While the civilian should have been smart enough to recognize the criminal exiting the correct house, while experiencing his dog being shot and while nearly being hit with ricocheted rounds.......

Nice attitude, copper!

[Trinity_Tx]

It would be easier to withhold judgement if this weren't happening so often in cases where, even after both sides are heard, or videos of event reviewed, the police were indeed shown to have been trigger-happy and unjustified in their killing of the pet.

I see nothing about the three shots fired that suggests it was justified. No one claims the dog was "cowering in a corner", and firing a gun is unlikely to calm a dog.

I understand your point, and it is wise, as this could be one of the off-times when there was something else going on. But as I and others have said, one would expect the officers to educate themselves more on the subject. It's just happening too often.

[theDentist]

I'd be angry. But, if my dog came running from another room at the cop I'd be surprised if he didn't shoot. And knowing that dogs protect, I'd do what I did when I lived with my folks, close the dog in a back room or basement before opening the door.


It's not unusual for even a friendly dog to attack someone who comes into his home (territory) despite the owners best efforts. And even criminals have dogs, you know. Sometimes big, mean dogs.


Let's look at it another way: Same circumstances. You are the cop. For whatever reason, you are at the wrong house, gun already drawn. The door opens, and from behind the person answering the door you see a medium to large dog running from another room and coming at you, fast. Your suspect may be armed (you don't know yet) and he's moving and suddenly yelling. You have a second or two at most with all this commotion to decide if this dog is going to jump up to bite at your throat or jump up to lick your face.
Whatcha gonna do?

Policy is common sense here, I bet. Defend your life against a potential threat.

[CSM]

Let me also add, a 100 lb. dog is significantly bigger than 2-ltr. bottle. Training should be provided to hit moving targets.

[decimon]

Police training can make all the difference. Despite all the stuff that makes the headlines, the NYPD is usually a professional outfit.

Several years ago I took advantage of a Memorial Day to catch an afternoon nap in my NYC apartment. Didn't last long as there came a pounding on my door. I groggily went to the door and called, "Who's there?" "Police!" was the answer. Dubious, I cracked the door to see two young officers (both black if that matters). They had a report of a woman screaming in my apartment. I'd have right them welcolmed a woman in my apartment but there was none as was confirmed by my neighbor who stuck his head out to see what was going on. That settled the matter.

The cops were professional. They spoke to me normally. They positioned themselves apart to protect themselves as best the layout allowed. They had their hands rested atop their guns, ready to draw if necessary but not threatening or begging accident.

If the call they'd responded to hadn't been a hoax then they'd have faced one of the diciest situations cops do face. But they handled things professionally and did not themselves become the problem. Leastways, that's how I see it.

[CSM]

"Whatcha gonna do?"

If I think I am at a home that is currently being robbed, I am not going to knock on the door and allow the "perp" to get the jump on me. But then, I guess that in this case knocking meant he didn't feel threatened after all.

[Oztrich Boy]

Your suspect may be armed (you don't know yet)

Right. They knock on the door. They do not announce "Police. Open up". Which means they are expecting the legal homeowner, not the burglar, to be on a position to answer the door.

But that doesn't matter. Like everybody not wearing the uniform, he's "the suspect".

[Don Joe]

Hey, I've said it for years: People who want to be cops tend to be the last people I want doing the job.

No, it's not that simple.

For the longest time, there were two categories of people who made up the bulk of the police recruits. One was the schoolyard bully type, with a pathological drive to shove people around, who gravitated towards the job so that he could enjoy himself with impunity, under color of law.

The other type was, for lack of a better term, the idealistic do-gooder, who sincerely wanted to help keep the world civilized, wanted to help his fellow man, and was motivated primarily by conscience. The genuine "officer friendly" type.

Lately, though, there's been a third type, and it seems to be prevailing. It's the "professional military" type (not in the "traditional sense" either), and the result is that police departments are morphing into paramilitary outfits.

Cold, impersonal, "you WILL obey, or ELSE" types. No "feeling", and damn little thinking, for that matter. Officer Friendly has been displaced by Robocop.

This does not bode well for society.

[Don Joe]

I see that most of you have already judged the officer in this case. While they went to the wrong address, this does not automatically make them guilty of 'murder'. It is obvious most of you have never dealt with other people's dogs.

Funny you'd mention that.

A while back, I was in my backyard, minding my own business, when I turned around, and what should I see, but a big Akita slowly moving in on me.

I tried to avoid "any sudden moves" as I drew my .45 and aimed it at him. He continued approaching me, and then lowered his head, wagged his tail, and skittered under the swingly lawn chair, and looked up at me with doleful eyes.

I ended up bringing him indoors, and we tried to find out who owned him. He had busted a big chain attached to his collar (he was ne strong dog!) and was obviously lost, and scared. We ended up hoping no one would claim him. He was a great dog. Then, when the weekend was over, the county shelter called to let us know that the owner was frantic.

My wife cried for days after we returned him.

If I was a "new breed" cop, the story would have had a much shorter ending, eh?

If the dog had turned out to be as agressive as he appeared to be at first blush (strange dog, big, aggressive breed, on my property, out of the blue, moving in on me), I would have been able to drop him in an instant.

The difference is, I waited to see if that instant was gonna happen before I "made it happen."

If you're standing there with a weapon aimed at a dog, you're in a pretty good position to deal with the situation should it turn ugly. You're also in a good position to not kill the dog "just in case" it might turn ugly.

These guys are trained to have the "shot first, ask questions later" mindset.

This is NOT good for society. Not in the least.

Give me a break folks, this is a conservative list. This is not a list where you are the only ones allowed to make mistakes.

As a rule, when civilians "make mistakes", people (and their pets) don't tend to die.

If they did, there'd be hell to pay. We, you see, are not above the law.

And statistically, in "armed encounters", civilians have a dramatically better track record of not shooting the wrong guy.

(Yes, yes, I know that "the police are civilians too", but more and more they don't recognize that fact. The militarization of the police is a frightening thing to watch happen.)

Test yourself: take a 2 liter pop bottle, tie a 50-60 foot string to it. Have a person stand behind you and run rapidly away from you so that the bottle comes directly at you. Try to hit the bottle.

In that case, I'd suggest more range time.

BTW, is that bottle trained to not be gun-shy? Do you assume that most dogs are trained to be broken of that inherent quality? If so, why?

My Rottie hears the hammer click on my .45 and he cowers and scoots away, real low, real fast. Why? Because, once, a couple of years ago, he heard me fire the weapon when he was standing about ten feet away. He's never forgotten that, and he knows the click preceeds the boom.

I kinda doubt that most scumbag perps have trained their dogs to stand fast when they hear firearms discharge. A shot at an approaching dog, even if it misses, is likely to deter any attack, IMO.