Skip to comments.Woman wants answers after sheriff's deputy shot, killed her dog
Posted on 08/05/2012 6:25:11 PM PDT by FunkyZero
CLEVELAND COUNTY, Okla.
A Cleveland County woman says she called a sheriff's deputy for help, but when he arrived at her home, he shot and killed her dog without provocation.
(Excerpt) Read more at koco.com ...
And it will be a closed-casket service. The round count from the donut-munchers will be be in the triple digits.
The investigation will cover-up the fact that they didn’t have a warrant.
Also don't take up with violent boyfriends who inspire 911 calls when you have children and pets in the home.
Family pet? Maybe you ought to send that hundred to Zimmerman. He shot a family pet.
When the “good” cops tolerate the bad cops, there are no good cops.
This is just one of my guns I use and it is nearly invisable in your pocket.
Since when did you expect State power to be benevolent?
Sarcasm aside, we assuredly have the government we deserve. But look on the bright side. We’re proactively protected from hate chicken and rogue slurpees.
I have to say that it’s always disturbing to hear the incendiary vocabulary of the radical left used on a conservative site.
Like virtually all of these stories, very short on details and told from the position of making the public angry at the cops. It may well be that he’s an idiot who shot the dog for no reason. OR it could be that something happened (ACDs can be quite sharp and snappy, and especially one with puppies and lots of scary things going on in her house, I imagine the domestic disturbance was “disturbing” to her also).
And of course the owner is distraught, regardless of exactly what happened and her story is going to be, “the cop shot my dog for no reason and needs to pay/be fired/killed/sent to hell on the express train”. That’s natural.
Personally I would always like all of the information before passing judgement.
But I agree with your first sentence. And your last one.
Very well said.
The 98% of bad cops give the other 2% a bad name.
“Well lets not brand and lump all police officers into the hated dog killers column. Some police are excellent people and others are scum of the earth.”
Yeah, so when you call them, how do you discern the “excellent” ones from the “scum?” In large measure, they are union thugs who have been given guns and they have an attitude that no matter what, they are going to “go home!” We have had two calls to 911 for medical problems that we subsequently cancelled. In each instance, the cops showed up and refused to leave. Eff them all. They are not good people and cannot be trusted with your safety!
Dogs are shot in bathrooms, in owner’s bedrooms or other rooms in the house.
“Put your dogs up” assumes that the LEO will give you the benefit of the doubt if it learns that your dog is contained in your bathroom/laundry room/bedroom, etc, and not shoot it upon opening the door.
She was not “forced” to call 911 unless someone at that residence was holding a gun to her head at the time.
I doubt that was the case.
I would say that she ought to be personally armed to defend herself against said boyfriend (and dump the jerk).
Of course, Captian it’s never the fault of an officer who shoots first and asks questions later. It’s the fault of the victim that the criminal assaulted them, not the fault of the criminal.
We get it; it bothers you that we don’t worship the police.
There is no logical reason for him to shoot the dog before giving her opportunity to put the dog in another room.
Since he did so, his version of the story has less credence than hers.
How is it that her mailman, utility repairmen, meter readers and the like all managed to perform their duties without shooting her dog, hmm?
I have no details on what occurred. I know only what the woman involved said. I simply don’t know what happened. As to your last sentence, it has nothing to do with this. I have not said the cops actions were correct. I have said that we don’t know what happened. That is all. Unless you have access to more info that’s what I have to go with.
Of course we have indpeendent verification of some of the details.
We know there is a dead dog.
We know who shot the dog.
We know the individual belongs to an occupation which has, in recent years, been documented shooting and killing numerous dogs.
In light of these facts, the more reliable witness, of the two, in this situation, is the non-police officer.
I have said I wasn’t there and so I don’t know. As far as I know you weren’t there, but you do know. You are determined to be right. I’m done discussing this with you.
Very, very few of us know WTF “SCE” is.
I don’t worship cops. Not by a long shot. I also don’t worship abusive boyfriends or have them living in my house along with my kids my mother and my pets. That way I don’t have to entertain trigger happy cops in my house and put my loved ones in harms way.
Arm yourself and prepare to take care of yourself.
What has “gone wrong” is that DHS has named Americans as domestic terrorists and declared “war on terror.”
Police have been placed into a mentality of military occupiers. The population being invaded has no rights. The occupiers are into indimidation for total control of the enmey.
Yet, you’re still blaming the victim, not the officer who shot the dog, for the death of her dog.
Yes, what happened is known.
The officer shot and killed the dog.
I daresay the “official story” of the officer will differ from the story of the law-abiding citizen.
The party whom did not shoot and kill the dog is therefore more reliable than the party who did shoot and kill the dog as to the circumstances surrounding the killing of said dog.
I'm not letting her off scott free though you may choose to do so.
As ever, the soul of reason. No hot-head, you. :-)
One of the most frustrating things about these stories is we rarely hear the rest of the story. The press is in the business of stirring things up and people are more than willing to be stirred up. And I agree that the police (like all groups, btw) will close ranks and protect each other. And people do damn fool things sometimes. And every one of us would be very angry if our dog was shot, even if we did something stupid that led to it or if the dog was menacing someone (or appeared to be).
I always feel sorry for the dog. And I sometimes feel sorry for the people. ;)
I find it most unfortunate that you refuse to condemn the police officer for entering a bad situation and choosing to make it worse by shooting the dog.
I remind you of Obama’s goal: “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the military].”
What has happened during his administration? Police departments have increasingly received federal funds, making them hunger for *more* federal funding.
Declaring the need for an American Gestapo + Funding a future Gestapo = Americans should not be surprised when the police view them, and not The State, as The Enemy.
How do you threaten a citizen? Shoot his dog today, knowing the implication is that you will shoot him with no more compunction another day.
Consider that, before you come back and blame the victim.
I said the cops were trigger happy. That’s not enough for you?
The rest of you post veered off Non Sequitur Ave.
The rest of my post observed a very plausible reason for this current trend of dog-shooting by police officers.
Twenty years ago, I can’t recall hearing about one such shooting.
Only in the past couple of years has this phenomenon exploded. That’s a serious trend and a serious problem requiring major addressing.
And no, blaming the victim won’t make that trend go away. One of the most heinous ways some abusers keep abused women with them is convincing them that they-—the victim—will be despised and looked down upon by others in society; that others will tear down the victim.
With such twisted arguments, the abused woman increasingly viewers her abuser as the “safest” person in a dangerous world.
Sorry, this woman had no way of knowing the officer would shoot her dog. And given other cases in the past, even if she had put her dog in a bathroom or other room, it still may have been shot. It has happened before:
Police shoot, kill grandmother’s dog after raiding wrong house (13 year-old pug named “Wrinkles”)
“An officer entered the bathroom over the 62-year-old womans protests and shot the dog, named Wrinkles. As many as eight shots may have been fired, Robinson said.”
So long as we pretend that the problem was what the victim did *not* do rather than what the assailant *did* do, these killings will continue.
This kind of thing started before the DHS was formed. Blame the drug war for blazing the trail.
And what happens when the officer opens the door to the room where she’s keeping the dog and shoots it?
It’s happened before. ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2541284/posts )
The proper impetus is on an officer to *not* shoot a dog needlessly or unlawfully, not on the law-abiding private citizen to try to think of places to *hide* his/her dog and pray that law enforcement won’t shoot it anyway.
The latter expectation trains the citizen to fear the reaction of a government employee.
The police should be frightened of angering the law-abiding private citizen, not the other way around.
Put your dog away when the cops come. It’s not rocket science.
I’m going to paraphrase CaptainK shortly above.
“Sounds like an overreaction to me.....it does sound like the cop flipped and went trigger-happy.”
That’s not enough for you?
“Twenty years ago, I cant recall hearing about one such shooting.”
Good God. 20 years ago, there was no Internet (in practicality). You didn’t get fed this stuff from all over the country constantly - local stories like that wouldn’t make national news. You THINK it’s more prevalent, but you have no proof - go do statistics on dog-shootings then and now. I have little doubt it’s mostly PERCEPTION because you have more information sources flooding you.
I’ll reiterate what I said in post 48.
Mr Honest Citizen most likely will never call the cops for a domestic dispute and leave Rover unleashed when strangers come a knocking.
There have been dozens of stories posted here about cops who’ve shot family pets while on or near property they hadn’t been called to. Recently one Mr Citizen killed the cop who went into his backyard uninvited and without any lawful authority to shoot his dog.
Yep, I cheered.
You folks need to learn that you work for us. If that means a few of you catch bullets or get sued into bankruptcy, so be it. I’ve had it with the Thin Blue Line and Law Enforcement mentality.
Smart and honest cops would realize that.
That's how Ruby Ridge started.
I was only responding to this story where the woman called the cops regarding a domestic dispute and failed to lock up her dog.
I’ll have a different response for a story where a cop shows up at the house of an unsuspecting citizen and shots their dog.
There is no law that a law abiding citizen *must* lock up her dog simply because a government employee is in route.
The dog was on it’s property where it was supposed to be.
The criminal shot the dog because it chose to shoot the dog. As demonstrated, he would have shot the dog even in another bedroom because the *desire* to shoot the dog is still *present*.
The problem is the unlawful desire to shoot the dogs of law abiding citizens *NOT* the ‘failure’ of the citizen to fearfully anticipate what the thug will do.
Don’t shoot the dog of a law-abiding citizen just because you have a government badge. It’s not rocket science.
It’s not the job of the law abiding citizen to live in fear of a government thug.
It’s the job of a government thug to question whether he REALLY WANTS to anger the private citizen.
It’s not merely the lack of Internet accessibility. There’s been a fundamental change in the attitude of LEOs.
Comparing “dog shootings” to “unlawful, unwarranted shootings of housedogs by LEOs” is akin to comparing “fruit” with “Texas Grapefruit”.
You compare like with like, not broad category to specific parameters.
If you can demonstrate, factually, that unlawful, unwarranted dog shootings of housedogs by LEOs has NOT majorly jumped in the past 20 years, I will apologize on Free Republic and retract my statement.
Not buying that excuse. Don’t know why you keep selling it in this thread.
There is no law that says one must have one’s dog shut up in another room for a police officer to enter a residence.
The problem is not the dog. The problem is the officer who thinks it is acceptable to shoot a housedog.
There is no law that says a cop called on a 911 call can’t shot an unconstrained dog if they fear the dog will attack them.
A dog inside a home is lawfully contained.
A fear that one will be attacked is a fear, not an example of rationality. You are attempting to justify a government employee’s irrational behavior.
Why are you attempting to justify a government employee’s irrational behavior?