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.
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!
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.
