Posted on 01/08/2003 11:35:54 PM PST by JohnHuang2
That is a load of BS!
Under the Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act, which went into effect in 2000, anyone convicted of purposely assaulting, maiming, or killing federal law enforcement animals such as police dogs and horses could be fined at least $1,000 and spend up to 10 years in prison. Prior to this police canines were considered official property, and as such, resulted in relatively little punishment for harming or destroying them.
A few questions I have are the following:
1. Since all dogs are potential threats, why were the car doors left open thereby allowing an avenue for the dog to attack?
2. The cops knew a dog was in the car. Why did they not make an assessment as to the size and breed, both by asking the Smoaks and by sight? Big difference between a Chihuahua and a Rottweiler as to threat potential.
3. Is it SOP to have just one video camera recording with several units on the scene?
4. Was Officer Hall aware of the video camera's field of vision? He had just stepped outside of it's field when he shot the dog.
Everyone involved needs to be cross examined under oath to get these and other points clarified.
This story has captured the national spotlight and the internet will help keep it there over the coming weeks and months.
Not that it really matters, but I thought I saw that there was a total of four officers present.
At this point one would think the situation defused, now all that is left is to secure the two dogs. Instead they let one jump onto the highway and promptly shoot it within three seconds. Betcha they shut the effing door so the other one didn't get out.
I agree, someone could easy have shut the door... should have shut it. From the video, it looks to me that the Hall was in the least likely position to be able to shut the door (what he says in the TV interview sort of confirms that). What I see in the video is that one of the THP troopers (probably the Lt. in command) could have easily shut the door - he was just wondering around holding a flashlight. As I said before, IMO the Lt. probably failed to retain control of the scene.
Phoenix police hope to stem dog shootings with more training
By Christina Leonard The Arizona Republic Nov. 27, 2002
Police say they're trained to stop threats. And they don't necessarily distinguish between humans and animals.
But as the number of officer shootings of dogs rise, Maricopa County officials say they want to help stop it.
Phoenix police have teamed up with the county's Animal Care & Control to develop new training for police officers on how to deal with aggressive dogs. The Phoenix Police Academy, which trains officers from across the state, is still working out the details with animal control.
"Quite frankly, a lot of the time they panic," animal control spokeswoman Julie Bank said. "It becomes instinctual to shoot a dog. We're not expecting them to become animal control officers, but we want them to understand when it's appropriate to do that."
In 1999 and 2000, Phoenix police reported eight fatal dog shootings each year. That number jumped to 13 in 2001, and police have recorded 12 so far this year. Other shootings have occurred with other departments.
"No police officer looks forward to killing a dog," Phoenix police Sgt. Randy Force said. "Most officers I know own dogs themselves. Officers being attacked by a dog are in a tough situation. All the training we receive and all the equipment we are issued are designed to help us deal with human threats, not canine threats."
Lisa Hardesty, whose dog was killed by Phoenix police this summer, said the training is long overdue.
"We have an awful lot of excessive force that's being used," she said. "Why do utility people, who are not armed, seem to go in and out of the same yard with no problems?"
"There's got to be a way short of taking out your gun and start shooting."
At the time her dog was shot, police and Hardesty's 10-year-old daughter, Phoebe Quigg, who witnessed the shooting, gave differing accounts of the incident.
However, it is clear that Officer Christopher Kawa shot Pete the Dog, a mixed breed, twice in the head outside Hardesty's central Phoenix home. The officer had knocked on the door, and Pete the Dog and a second dog came from the back yard and approached the officer.
Police said one dog stopped, but Pete the Dog was barking and "exposing its teeth in a threatening fashion." Hardesty said the dog just wanted to play.
Six days after the incident, Kawa was involved in another fatal dog shooting while investigating a drug case in central Phoenix.
This time, Kawa told investigators that he heard a growl from a dog about a dozen feet away.
"Officer Kawa turned to his left and saw what he believed was an 80-pound dog immediately leap to its feet from (a) resting position and advance quickly toward him while barking and snarling," according to a police report. "Officer Kawa, who was too far away from any vehicle to jump on top for safety, drew his weapon and pointed it at the dog while attempting to see if the dog was chained to any object."
The dog wasn't. And Kawa fired two rounds at the dog, believing the dog was going to attack, the report said.
Kawa has been involved in three dog shootings since 1999. Police found the shootings were found within policy. Police attribute the high number to the officer's involvement in drug-enforcement cases in which suspects often use dogs to guard their homes.
Force says police are happy to learn tactics to deal with dogs, since officers routinely encounter them. And most of the time, officers will reach for their firearm if attacked, he said.
"Our officers don't get paid to get bitten by dogs," Force said. "Dogs are what they are. They're protective of their people. They're protective of their homes."
Force said that police are often the first to respond to vicious dog calls, which they consider an emergency. He added that animal control is often slow to respond to a call. Bank said animal control's contract with Phoenix does not guarantee response times.
During another vicious dog call in September, an animal control officer and police officer suffered minor injuries after police shot a pit bull in a Phoenix neighborhood.
Two pit bulls were loose, but were corralled into the back yard. As the male dog tried to escape, police officers surrounded him with their guns drawn and two officers fired, Bank said.
"We have had quite a few incidents like this . . . when safety has been at risk," Bank said. "So we're excited about the training because the training will allow the officers to understand when they need to worry and when they don't.
"Our animal control officers haven't had to shoot a dog in the past 10 years. The training is going to be a really positive, wonderful thing."
And in the turn-about is fair play column...
Dog shoots owner
Friday, October 25, 2002 Posted: 12:01 PM EDT (1601 GMT)
BROOKLYN PARK, Minnesota (AP) -- Pheasant season took an ugly turn for Michael Murray when he was shot by Sonny, his year-old English setter pup.
The puppy knew something was very wrong when Murray dropped to the ground with blood spurting from his ankle. "Sonny just laid by my side," Murray said. "He knew something was bad."
Murray, 42, was hunting in western South Dakota on the first day of the season last Saturday. He said he was lining up a photo of the seven birds his hunting party shot in the first hour.
A loaded 12-gauge shotgun lay on the ground near the frisky dog.
"He stepped on the gun and it went off," Murray said. "At first I didn't know what happened. I got that blinding flash of pain and I sat down. Blood was pumping out of my ankle."
His brother-in-law, Chuck Knutson of Woodbury, quickly tied a tourniquet above Murray's right boot. The third member of the hunting party was Murray's father, also Michael, of New Richmond, Wisconsin.
"My dad's 75," Murray said, "He was white as a ghost."
The three men climbed into their truck and drove to a relative's house. A half-hour later, an ambulance took Murray to a nearby hospital.
After 15 stitches and a night in the hospital, Murray is on course for a complete recovery. "It was the most bizarre thing that has ever happened to me," he said.
Murray admits there is a certain amount of notoriety that goes along with getting shot by your dog. "That's the hard part, talking to people, because you feel like such a fool," he said.
Mulder wrote: I wish the bootlicking brigades would get the hell out of my country, and go somewhere that their attitudes are welcome like China or Russia.
I wish the JBT-wackos would actually get involved in making the constructive changes needed in their communities instead of pursuing this ignorant rant.
I remember discussion on legislation that was talked about that would charge someone of Murder if they killed a K9 dog in the commission of a crime. It msut have been just that, Talk.
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931
750.50c Police dog or police horse; definitions; violation as felony or misdemeanor; penalty; other violations. Sec. 50c.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) “Dog handler” means a peace officer who has successfully completed training in the handling of a police dog pursuant to a policy of the law enforcement agency that employs that peace officer.
(b) “Physical harm” means any injury to a dog's or horse's physical condition.
(c) “Police dog” means a dog used by a law enforcement agency of this state or of a local unit of government of this state that is trained for law enforcement work and subject to the control of a dog handler.
(d) “Police horse” means a horse used by a law enforcement agency of this state or of a local unit of government of this state for law enforcement work.
(e) “Serious physical harm” means any injury to a dog's or horse's physical condition or welfare that is not necessarily permanent but that constitutes substantial body disfigurement, or that seriously impairs the function of a body organ or limb.
(2) A person shall not intentionally kill or cause serious physical harm to a police dog or police horse.
(3) A person shall not intentionally cause physical harm to a police dog or police horse.
(4) A person shall not intentionally harass or interfere with a police dog or police horse lawfully performing its duties.
(5) A person who violates subsection (2) is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $2,500.00, or both.
(6) Except as provided in subsection (7), a person who violates subsection (3) or (4) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.
(7) A person who violates subsection (3) or (4) while committing a crime is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both.
(8) This section does not prohibit an individual from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law committed by that individual while violating this section.
History: Add. 1994, Act 336, Eff. Apr. 1, 1995 .
© 2003 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
This I know: Officer Hall is lying through his crooked teeth about what happened. The other Cookesville officer's statement was similiar to Hall's. The THP officers were busy with the Smoaks and probably didn't see very much. Three seconds is not very long, after all.
I hope the Smoaks' lawyer gets better video analysts than the media's. The press claims Hall was backing up because the dog approached him, but the video shows Hall moving sideways and back the instant the dog left the car. The dog wasn't approaching Hall when Hall moved backward; the dog was running straight ahead. He is lying. Everything Hall says the dog was doing to him was what Hall himself was doing to the dog.
I do hope you're right about the spotlight. I'd like to know what eventually pans out. I'd also like to know the circumstances of Hall's other dog killings, but don't have time to dig out the facts.
When the dog left the car Hall is backing up while the dog is not headed towards him like you said. Then they both go out of view. When they come back in view Hall is backing up and the dog is moving quickly towards him. Then he shoots point blank as he is backing up and the dog is headed straight at him. He is not lying about that.
You have summed up the whole problem here. "A new threat..." presumes that there was an old threat. There was never a threat in this instance except that posed by law enforcement officers acting without getting sufficient information. Part of this is the fault of the dispatcher, some the fault of the individual officers, all combined to point out a law enforcement problem.
The discussion should be what to do about these officers and how to prevent these abuses in the future. Unfortunately some posters confuse the issue by entering these discussions blindly defending any police action. At least you and I are discussing the issues.
Yes, and I'm convinced that even though Officer Eric Hall shot the dog he's not the one to blame.
Has anyone else watched the video clip that includes the interview of Eric Hall? It's the first video link under Hall's picture at the newschannel5 webstie. If so what do you think about him?
Why didn't they ascertain whether they were dealing with a Pitbull?
Having failed to do that, why did they leave themselves open for a possible Pitbull attack by not closing the car doors as the family had repeatedly asked?
IMO, Officer Hall played the Pitbull card to cover himself.
I'd like to see him cross examined under oath to answer these and other questions, such as the ones in my post #609.
Yes.
Then they both go out of view. When they come back in view Hall is backing up and the dog is moving quickly towards him.
Hall's positioning itself would make that impossible. What you're saying is Hall backed out of view and then "backed" back into view?? Have you read the internal investigation report? Which direction is Hall headed in the instant the dog leaves the car?
I am not going to argue the facts of this clip. That's for lawyers if this gets that far. I see from the clip Hall moving into view of the camera from his right the instant the dog leaves the car. (More sideways than backward.) I then see him step forward with his gun leveled on the approaching dog. The dog falls.
Short story: one....two....boom.
Yes, just watched it again, he backed into view. I never said he backed out of view, it's not very clear. It is pretty plain that he is backing up as he shoots the dog. You can't seriously argue otherwise.
He was using the shotgun as it is intended to be used in a felony stop. Every police cruiser is equipped with a shotgun. They are very efficient man stoppers and are more effective than handguns. In addition a shotgun is an intimidating weapon whose mere presence may prevent escalation to violence.
Was he intending on blasting off someone's head?
Yes, if it was necessary to protect himself or his fellow officers. However, police are trained to shoot at the trunk of the body, not the head.
Is it routine for a policeman to point a 12-gauge shotgun around at people at no more than a 10-foot distance when they have been pulled over on the highway?
Yes, if the stop is a "felony stop".
Does that answer your question?
Please provide a citation of the law that says this and any evidence such an absurdity is true.
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.