Agree with you that not allowing the dog to be scanned is weird. I just wanted to cover the before part of the story.
So many don’t click on the link, trying to encourage the link click.
Not just “weird”, but inexplicable if the police officer and his wife were being truthful about the circumstances surrounding their acquisition of the pug.
I would say that’s not “weird” behavior; that’s behavior typical of people who *knew* the dog belonged to someone else and, moreover, typical behavior of people who *knew* who that someone else was.
Honest people, upon learning that information, would have returned the dog to the owners. Yet, the dog remained with the officer and his wife for nearly two years before the dog was removed from their home.
“I just wanted to cover the before part of the story.”
The “before” part of the story is an unsubstantiated claim by a sole commenter that the police officers made a good faith effort to locate the dog’s owner—an unlikely claim. A trip to a vet would have determined that the dog, indeed, had a microchip, and upon discovery of the chip, the dog’s owner could be identified and the dog returned to its owner.
As another commenter points out, as a police officer, he would have known to have the dog checked for a chip, and of his legal and moral responsibility to return the dog to his owner.
He didn’t.
You cherry picked the one poster’s comment blaming the owner. Make the criminal the victim, and the victim the criminal. Then you admit that you tried to sway opinions on this forum after Immerito called you on it.
So, I did read the article, and the cop is guilty and probably could have been charged with some more serious offense involving obstruction of justice.