Deputy shoots dog twice

[Bderick67]

Brian, would you mind toning your posts down and stop being rude?

Sorry for being rude.

The cops did not change their story. As erroneously posted. Same story both links.

This is the problem with todays world people read one thing then escalate it to prove their point.

 

[sidneymysnake]

Sorry for being rude.

The cops did not change their story. As erroneously posted. Same story both links.

This is the problem with todays world people read one thing then escalate it to prove their point.

I'm also going by what I have heard directly from the owner and the founder of the animal rescue that is helping the owner. I am just trying to get the word out to help these two ladies. Bottom line is there is a dog that has been hurt, scared, and confused these past few days. I just want him to make it home and not have to hear a similar story again any time soon.

 

[08trdoffroad]

it happens twice maybe three times a year in country where almost every house hold has a dog... lets be realistic people. Its a sad story but the amount of emotion coming from some of you is over the top.

Amen!!!!

I'm also going by what I have heard directly from the owner and the founder of the animal rescue that is helping the owner. I am just trying to get the word out to help these two ladies. Bottom line is there is a dog that has been hurt, scared, and confused these past few days. I just want him to make it home and not have to hear a similar story again any time soon.

An angry, distraught, biased owner that is even more emotional over the situation than the rest of the over the top people in this thread....

 

[CLDarnell]

The owner has the right to be angry, distraught and emotional...

 

[08trdoffroad]

Maybe your right, and I'm sorry if I went that far.. Or If I offend anyone.maybe I'm Just bias because all the times that I need them they never came through or I just got harassed too many times growing up that I pretty much lost respect for alot of them. But I still believe that there's no need to shoot the dog twice. In my book, thats coward crap !!! Specially from a trained shooter . Like I said JMO....

Exactly.....a trained shooter. Standard police training teaches that when you draw and fire your weapon, you fire the standard response of two rounds to the center of presented body mass. If those two rounds are ineffective, you fire one round to the head. Police officers are not trained to shoot to kill. We are trained to shoot to stop. That officer followed his training protocol to the T and even dotted his i's!!!!! It has nothing to do with him being a coward.

yes, we base our position solely on the description, that is right, of course.

And based on that, I maintain what I said. Not being the house where a crime was perpetrated, the officers should have used more discretion.

Most probably, had they ignored the dog, and not been afraid, because that is what they were, they would have gone right past...

No petting, no running away, and surely, no kicking.

The least the PD should do is apologize, explain the cause for the accident and compensate the woman.

Apologize for what exactly.... Doing their job... They have done nothing wrong, they were well with in their legal rights to enter the yard, they were well with in their legal rights to shoot the dog....period! They have no finacial liablility/obligation to the owner!

 

[08trdoffroad]

The owner has the right to be angry, distraught and emotional...

All I am saying is that when people are emotional....especially that emotional, they tend to embellish/skew/slant/twist the truth.

Regardless, the owner did not witness the attack or shooting first hand either, so regardless of what she claims the temperment of the dog to be...it is irrelevant! She WAS NOT there!!!!

 

[CLDarnell]

Apologize for what exactly.... Doing their job... They have done nothing wrong, they were well with in their legal rights to enter the yard, they were well with in their legal rights to shoot the dog....period!

Sir, first off, I respect your line of work and your service to the community.

But in this case, the Officers were not in pursuit of a suspect, they were not investigating a violent crime and they had no clear knowledge the run-away might be in the back yard. Wouldn't proper procedure to be to knock on the home-owner's door and inform them of their intent to look in the back yard? Or at least, I would consider this to be the courteous thing to do.

Or (not meaning to sound sarcastic), do Officers actually have the right to enter private property with no explanation needed?

 

[Miguel]

You are, I sense, a police officer, right?

If so, I respect you and your attempt to defend your colleagues.

What you call legal right to enter ( do we have the justification for that ? ) I call abuse of power.

It happens. It happens to a Mod in a fish site, where the powers to be abused lie solely on the right to infract and delete and close. How could it not happen to a guy, most surely with little background education, who perhaps wanted to be a baker and ended up having - the need to provide for his family so big and present -to go around policing with a gun in his belt and the right to enter 3rd partie's premises?

With power comes responsibility. They were entitled to enter? Ok. They were entitled to shoot the mut? Ok. So now man up, recognize that it was not warranted, that it was an excessive use of force and means and correct the situation.

Oh, and...period.

 

[08trdoffroad]

Sir, first off, I respect your line of work and your service to the community.

But in this case, the Officers were not in pursuit of a suspect, they were not investigating a violent crime and they had no clear knowledge the run-away might be in the back yard. Wouldn't proper procedure to be to knock on the home-owner's door and inform them of their intent to look in the back yard? Or at least, I would consider this to be the courteous thing to do.

Or (not meaning to sound sarcastic), do Officers actually have the right to enter private property with no explanation needed?

First off, the officer's did attempt to make contact with the property owner at the door...she never answered. Secondly, they were investigating a violent crime (domestic dispute/violence) and were either looking for the suspect or the victim in the case that had run off. Under those circumstances they had every right to enter the yard, they were just attempting to contact the property owner as a courtesy and as a safety precaution if they were indeed looking for the suspect.

An officer has the right to enter if they have reason to believe that crime has been/might be/or is currently being commited or when they have reason to believe that someone's safety is in jeopardy. And then you can get in to hot pursuit statutes which would give them the right. Regardless as to whether they were looking for a victim or suspect it would have fallen under one of these categories.

 

[08trdoffroad]

You are, I sense, a police officer, right?

If so, I respect you and your attempt to defend your colleagues.

What you call legal right to enter ( do we have the justification for that ? ) I call abuse of power.

It happens. It happens to a Mod in a fish site, where the powers to be abused lie solely on the right to infract and delete and close. How could it not happen to a guy, most surely with little background education, who perhaps wanted to be a baker and ended up having - the need to provide for his family so big and present -to go around policing with a gun in his belt and the right to enter 3rd partie's premises?

With power comes responsibility. They were entitled to enter? Ok. They were entitled to shoot the mut? Ok. So now man up, recognize that it was not warranted, that it was an excessive use of force and means and correct the situation.

Oh, and...period.

You made some very broad (and borderline offensive) generalizations in your statement. Why do you assume that a police officer has very little education? An officer goes through as much as nine months to a year of rigorous training before being allowed to enter the community on their own. On top of that, most departments now days require a minimum of a two year college degree in a related field. Is that what you consider "little background education"?

Why, if they were legal justified in their actions (they were) would it be considered not warranted (because all their actions were justified) and an excessive use of force? And why would the situation require any correcting?