# Police Officer Shoots Chined Pet Without Justification



## Davarm (Oct 22, 2011)

Here is another example of out of control Law Enforcement Officers, a officer answers a Domestic Disturbance call at the wrong address and shoots someones chained pet because he felt threatened. The officer apparently was not disciplined and was back on the the next day.

Cop Shoots Dog 'in Cold Blood' Responding to 911 Call At Wrong Address | Video | TheBlaze.com

Is this example of "Shoot First, Ask Questions Later" an indication of the general attitudes of LEO's nation wide?

Maybe some LEO's can ring in on this.


----------



## gypsysue (Mar 27, 2010)

??? Whatever possesses someone to shoot a dog that is restrained by a chain??? What a moron, and he's out there every day with a gun??? It looked like a pretty good chain in the picture on the article, not a flimsy chain that could make the cop believe the dog could break the chain. 

I have a lot of respect for law enforcement but there seems to be a few that shouldn't be in the field. 

(I'm not an LEO but I used to be a Dispatcher)


----------



## *Andi (Nov 8, 2009)

The only thing that came to my mind was the "beware of dog" sign ... as a firefighter (not a cop) that was a "key" for me ... 

I'm not backing the cop (which I do more times than not) but I was not there, I didn't see what he saw. 

He was at the wrong address ... his problem or dispatch is up for grabs, what is the area like? All of that comes into play ... 

I need more info ... sorry ...


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

Pepper spray wouldn't have worked??? I have to wonder at a cop going to a domestic disturbance call and shooting a dog. Wouldn't that inflame an already tense situation? (Assuming that he had been at the correct address in the first place!)

There are different levels of threat and most cops I know are trained to respond at appropriate levels. It would be interesting to hear his side of it.


----------



## OldCootHillbilly (Jul 9, 2010)

Mighty big chain. I don't see any threat ta the officer from what I've seen here. Good excuse comes ta mind. 

I'd say there's going ta be a large lawsuit in the near future. Law enforcement has a responsibility to be sure they are correct before takin action. A chained dog is little threat.

As fer the "beware of dog" sign, thats standard liability information. It lets you know the dog is there an to take caution. Doesn't automatically state the dog be vicious.

I'd say the officer an department gonna be in a world a hurt fer shootin the dog an respondin ta the wrong address. Imagine if he'd of shot the husband who was concerned fer his dog? Officer needs more trainin I think.


----------



## NaeKid (Oct 17, 2008)

OldCootHillbilly said:


> Mighty big chain. I don't see any threat ta the officer from what I've seen here. Good excuse comes ta mind.
> 
> I'd say there's going ta be a large lawsuit in the near future. Law enforcement has a responsibility to be sure they are correct before takin action. A chained dog is little threat.
> 
> ...


I have a friend who has a sign that states "Beware of Cat" - not because the cat is dangerous, but, because they don't want people wandering into the house who are allergic to cats, also, it is there so that when people come to visit, they close the door quickly behind them so that the cat does not escape into the great outdoors.

Another friend has the friendiest little dog and there is a "Beware of Dog" sign on the gate - it is there so that people do not open the gate allowing the dog to roam freely ...

There are many reasons for "Beware of .... " signs, not always because of danger.

I also agree, that officer should pay restitution and I think that officer should go back to school so that they can be taught how to read house numbers .... IDIOT!!!


----------



## lotsoflead (Jul 25, 2010)

we've got to get the guns out of the hands of the LEO and back into the publics hands so we will be safe.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*I'm a former LEO*



OldCootHillbilly said:


> Mighty big chain. I don't see any threat ta the officer from what I've seen here. Good excuse comes ta mind.
> 
> I'd say there's going ta be a large lawsuit in the near future. Law enforcement has a responsibility to be sure they are correct before takin action. A chained dog is little threat.
> 
> ...


I made a lot of 911 calls and I shot a dog once on a drug raid .

So here goe's.

I am pretty sure the officer thought he was at the correct address.

He was not , it was across the street but that is a mistake.

He was responding to a domestic dispute and those are the most dangerous type of calls for police officers, therefor he likely had his weapon in his hand at his side when he approached the front door.

The dog was chained in such a way that he could either reach the door or almost reach the front door.

The officer was suprised in the dark by a large dog immediatly at his flank and reacted with the weapon in his hand.

He then moved away from the door and the threat and looked in the window to see if someone was waiting behind the door.

All this was unfortunate and was caused by the officer mistaking the address.

As for a large law suit, the city of Alantia will have to replace the dog or pay for it. Courts do not allow for emotional distress in consideration for an animals death, just the value of the animal.

The owners will recieve an apoligy from the officer.

I pepper sprayed a lot of dogs to keep them from biteing me or destracting me and getting me shot by the owner.

The Pit bull i shot was attacking . It was a drug raid and I had a shotgun in my hand and that is what I had to use. there was no time to use anything else.

LEO's face enormous dangers every day and night on the job. You call them when you are in danger. They have limited information when they arrive but they show up when no one else will so lets cut them a little slack !


----------



## jjwilson72000 (Oct 7, 2010)

BillM said:


> I am pretty sure the officer thought he was at the correct address.
> 
> He was not , it was across the street but that is a mistake.
> 
> ...


Exactly what I was thinking. The chain looks like it is long enough to reach the door. If I was rushing up to the door of what I thought was a domestic and Rover came out of the darkness I would of shot him too.

When I was a military police officer I pepper sprayed an aggressive rottweiler and he went from aggressive to I'm-totally-pissed-and-am-going-to-kill-someone. My supervisor told me that If I thought I needed to use force on a dog to shoot it. (we didnt have tasers then).

I do feel sorry for the dog and owners but it sounds like a simple mistake, not negligence or lack of training or anything else.


----------



## Davarm (Oct 22, 2011)

jjwilson72000 said:


> I do feel sorry for the dog and owners but it sounds like a simple mistake, not negligence or lack of training or anything else.


When you have the power of life and death and the authority to use it, you don't have the luxury of making simple mistakes. Death is permanent, it was the unjustified killing of a family pet this time, next time it could be your child, spouse or yourself. Then would it just be a simple mistake.

Some people should and must be held to a higher standard than that of the general public. If a person is not capable of meeting that standard, they are in the wrong profession. When an LEO acts outside of the authority of his job and makes a "simple mistake", he must be responsible for his actions just as the rest of us would be if we made the same "mistake".

Where do you draw the line at mistakes? Do you give every LEO a "free one", and if so how many LEO's are there in this country, 10's of thousands? What would the outcry be if each one of those "freebies" resulted in the death of someones child.

No, it was not just a simple mistake.


----------



## goshengirl (Dec 18, 2010)

The link only takes me to one side of the story. There is not sufficient information here to judge.


----------



## *Andi (Nov 8, 2009)

Hmmm ... well, alright then ...

Theodore Roosevelt ~ The only man who makes no mistakes is the man who never does anything ...

As a firefighter I didn't make a 100 percent on my firefighter II test. (95 but not 100) So by your rules should I skip the next fire... I mean, I made a mistake ... (Where do we draw that line.)

A perfect world with people that "never" made mistakes ... sounds grand but we are no where near that. (sorry)


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Dog*



Davarm said:


> When you have the power of life and death and the authority to use it, you don't have the luxury of making simple mistakes. Death is permanent, it was the unjustified killing of a family pet this time, next time it could be your child, spouse or yourself. Then would it just be a simple mistake.
> 
> Some people should and must be held to a higher standard than that of the general public. If a person is not capable of meeting that standard, they are in the wrong profession. When an LEO acts outside of the authority of his job and makes a "simple mistake", he must be responsible for his actions just as the rest of us would be if we made the same "mistake".
> 
> ...


It wasn't a child it was a dog.

It could have been a child that walked up to the door to ring the bell.

I guess because there was a "Beware of the dog" sign it would be ok if the dog bit a child?

The policeman had every right to go to the door , even if he was at the wrong address with out getting attacked by a dog that the owner already knew would bite.

His killing of the dog in self defence was both legal and within his department policy.

Anyone who knocks on your door has the right to defend themselves, even cops !


----------



## OldCootHillbilly (Jul 9, 2010)

BillM said:


> It wasn't a child it was a dog.
> 
> It could have been a child that walked up to the door to ring the bell.
> 
> ...


Your assumin the dog is vicous, no where has it said that in tha article. Just because a bewar dog sign is posted doesn't mean the dog is mean.

The owners heard nothin outside till the gunshot an then the husband was held at bay by the officer when he wen't to see what had happened to his dog.

Leo's are indeed held to a higher standard an like ever other position there are some less then desirable people employed. We know fer a fact that the people and dog at this address were innocent, so the officer in his lack a judgement was judge, jury an executioner, not what he was hired for.

Do I expect them to be perfect? No that be unresonable, but nearly so. They hold the power a life in death in there hands an there meistakes can lead to a death. This time a animal, next time, who knows.

As fer callin em, round here, ya take care of it yerself cause if yer waitin on law enforcement ta deal with it, yer in trouble. They've gone ta the wrong bank when it was robbed an many other problems. So I'll let that go at that.

In my opinion, this officer needs more trainin because next time his mistake my cost an innocent civilian there life an then it won't be legal.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

A certain level of competency is expected of professionals. A cop "mistakenly" shooting ANYTHING brings questions of his competence. If he can't handle a tense situation he shouldn't be a cop. 

Mistakes, guns, and dead are a pretty poor combination ... especially when a cop is the one pulling the trigger.

Just curious, I don't watch videos and didn't note in the article where it said the dog, while on the chain, was able to reach the officer. Did I miss something or is that conjecture?


----------



## Davarm (Oct 22, 2011)

BillM said:


> It wasn't a child it was a dog.
> 
> It could have been a child that walked up to the door to ring the bell.
> 
> ...


In this incident, no one was bitten, no one did anything wrong, except the Police Officer, and the people ACROSS THE STREET. The killing of the dog in "self defense", is pushing it a little beyond the facts presented in the story, if the dog was viscous, seems to me that he would have been barking and yapping its head off when he detected someone approaching his territory. As far as someone coming on to your property, disregarding the warning of a 'Beware of Dog" sign, then killing your pet, claiming self defense? The next thing you are going to say is that a robber can break into your house and claim self defense when kills your family members because they were trying to shoot him.

Its true that only one side of the story was presented and we probably will never hear the other side of it, but the bottom line is that a LEO went to the wrong address, killed a family pet, and apparently was not even put on leave which tells me that no investigation was started or that it was not considered significant enough to be taken seriously by his department.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*We'll agree*



Davarm said:


> In this incident, no one was bitten, no one did anything wrong, except the Police Officer, and the people ACROSS THE STREET. The killing of the dog in "self defense", is pushing it a little beyond the facts presented in the story, if the dog was viscous, seems to me that he would have been barking and yapping its head off when he detected someone approaching his territory. As far as someone coming on to your property, disregarding the warning of a 'Beware of Dog" sign, then killing your pet, claiming self defense? The next thing you are going to say is that a robber can break into your house and claim self defense when kills your family members because they were trying to shoot him.
> 
> Its true that only one side of the story was presented and we probably will never hear the other side of it, but the bottom line is that a LEO went to the wrong address, killed a family pet, and apparently was not even put on leave which tells me that no investigation was started or that it was not considered significant enough to be taken seriously by his department.


We will just have to agree to disagree on this one . :kiss:


----------



## Davarm (Oct 22, 2011)

BillM said:


> We will just have to agree to disagree on this one . :kiss:


I kin do that, wont hold it against ya!


----------



## *Andi (Nov 8, 2009)

Yes ...

Let us put it all on the officer (without knowing all the facts) ... the people ACROSS THE STREET called the cop ... no wait ... they called 911 ~ dispatch, who then called the units in the area ... etc ...

I'm with BillM ... We will agree to disagree.

I'm done here.


----------



## DVCguns (Jan 23, 2012)

Two things... The cop should not be at a domestic without backup. Having a gun in hand while approaching a quite house that the domestic is at ALONE is about as dumb as it gets. If his SOP is to do so, the department is putting everyone at risk with such a poor SOP.

I know this... If I used the same "I felt threatened" excuse and shot a chained up dog, I wouldn't be at work the next day.


----------



## jjwilson72000 (Oct 7, 2010)

DVCguns said:


> Two things... The cop should not be at a domestic without backup. Having a gun in hand while approaching a quite house that the domestic is at ALONE is about as dumb as it gets. If his SOP is to do so, the department is putting everyone at risk with such a poor SOP.
> 
> I know this... If I used the same "I felt threatened" excuse and shot a chained up dog, I wouldn't be at work the next day.


Totally correct! A domestic is a two officer call, he shouldnt of approached any house without a backup. He also should not have approached the scene with a drawn firearm.

In regards to the location the article is very vague on why he was at the wrong house. I am a 9-11 dispatcher and can tell you a good amount of our calls come in as "ALI-Tracker" locations. What this means is that if you call 9-11 from a cellphone the cell towers will triangulate your location and it put it on a map. It is not very accurate. If you don't tell us your address on your phone we only get the general area from the triangulation and send officers to that area. This happens alot with domestics where one party calls 9-11 and then the other one grabs the phone, knocks it out of there hand, etc. We can hear the domestic but we don't have an address so we have to send officers to the general area.

Let me clarify my opinion when I said I thought it was a simple mistake. The only mistake part is the address. And as I just said that might have been beyond anyones control.

_Any cop is within his rights and sop's to shoot a dog that rushes him._
Police Departments these days are almost over the top with following policy and the law. Because our country is so sue-happy, they go out of there way to be on the level. Where I work a crack-head can file complaint against an officer for taking there crack away and Internal Affaris HAS to follow up and interview the officer, review the call, etc. The fact that this officers department did not discipline the officer is more an indication that he did nothing wrong than they don't care or are incompetent or anything else.


----------

