Posted on 02/04/2014 5:16:16 AM PST by Ken H
Chief promises full investigation after Chesapeake Bay Retriever is shot twice in front yard
An Anne Arundel County police officer shot and killed a family's dog Saturday while investigating a burglary, officials said.
Police said the officer — a one-year veteran of the force who was not identified — was canvassing a neighborhood looking for witnesses around 4 p.m. Saturday.
When the officer went to a home in 900 block of Lombardee Circle in Glen Burnie the dog — a male Chesapeake Bay Retriever named Vern — "confronted" the officer in the front yard, police said. The officer then fired his weapon twice, killing the dog, police said.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.baltimoresun.com ...
So, dumb question for you.
Let’s say the dog was behind the fence, but not chained. The officer enters the property and the dog runs up to him and “confronts” him. Officer shoots and kills dog..still justified because the dog was “loose?”
Why is that so different in your mind?
The officer did one thing to “provoke” the alleged confrontation...he was walking across the front yard, not the sidewalk.
1. Leash laws only apply off of your property.
2. Leash laws generally state "on a lead or restrained", since the dog was on its own property, it was by definition restrained. The cop wasn't even on a public sidewalk.
If your or I shot that dog under the exact same circumstances, that same cop would have arrested us for it. The dog's owner has zero liability in this case, as the dog was on the owner's property, and frankly acting precisely as you would expect a dog to act.
This is consistent with the militarization of police and the use of SWAT teams to serve arrest warrants on non-violent/non-drug suspects. An officer or two has been shot and killed in a wrong-house SWAT invasion.
One of these days someone will defend his dog with deadly force. He’ll probably face murder-2 but maybe that’s what it will take to get law enforcement to reconsider the increasingly violent tactics.
In your hypothetical case, the cop would absolutely not be justified in shooting the dog.
What you ignored was that I said fenced OR on a chain, not fenced AND on a chain.
Sheesh.
It’s done to step up the fear of the state. Cops are just too stupid to know it. They just know it’s fun and in Ninja cop school 101 classes.
LOL! The dog owned the property? What is your definition of "restrained"?
Militarization of police forces - what could possible go wrong?
Where’s that picture of militarized cops storming neighborhoods up in MA after the Boston Marathon thing? That was d**n near open warfare on the citizenry.
That is unless you are talking about a different type of "payment"? I'm over 50, kids are almost done schools, my dog (Red Heeler) is the most loyal true companion I've had for the past 15 years. She will still tear into anyone who even hints being a threat to me. I will do the same for her should it be required. She never leaves my side. Ever.
Not applicable in this case, as it occurred in the ‘Freak State’ of Maryland as opposed to soviet Red Hampshire. Just pointing out that definitions of ‘leash laws’ vary wildly from town to town, and don’t always involve a physical leash.
‘What is it with these da*% cops and dogs?’
Its the run up to shooting people for no reason.
Look at all the innocent people being 'swatted' in this country by 'pranksters' or neighbors with an ax to grind.
And that takes this discussion right back to ...
So, why would the cop not be justified in shooting the dog?
You correct. That family should file a civil lawsuit agains’t the cop.
I didn’t ignore what you wrote.
My clients have invisible fences and their dogs run loose all over the property. Are they restrained by your definition? Can a cop shoot them because there is not visible restraint?
Or is the truth here... the cop was walking across front yards?
The dog was on its owners property. That is where the dog was supposed to be. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? You do not have the right to walk onto someone else’s property and shoot their animals. And neither do the cops.
And in other news,about 600,000 cops across the nation did NOT kill a dog.
.
Today, but one can hope? Each new day brings fresh paws.
A Maryland and WOOF ping.. never did that before!
It's winter...they'll get more opportunities as the weather warms up.
You want to play semantics now? Yes the dog was on IT'S property. The property that it's owners had given it. Much like a child of the family or guest of the family would be considered to be on "his or her property" despite not legally having title in their name. Are you happy with that issue now, or do you want to push that silliness further?
The definition of "restrained" is to be "under control". As the dog was exactly where it was supposed to be and hadn't even bitten the trespasser, the issue of restraint is clearly in favor of the family.
I can't count the number of times that I've seen a family dog run around it's property and bark at people walking past. That is the nature and function of dogs. It is the norm, not the oddity. As long as they stay on the property where they belong, they are by simple definition restrained.
The cop in this case is a sissy that shot a dog that by simply barking, frightened him.
If you came on my property and were frightened by my dog, I would expect you to retreat back off of my property. If you shot my dog, because you were frightened by the barking, you would end up in jail or the hospital.
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.