Deputy shoots dog twice

[CLDarnell]

First off, the officer's did attempt to make contact with the property owner at the door...

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 attempting to contact the property owner as a courtesy.

You're right, I apologize. I re-read the original story and today's update. They did attempt to contact the owner...and in re-reading, I did notice the original call was domestic disturbance. Truly a violent crime.

But, I did notice that the Officer's claim they hit the dog on the head with their hands a couple of times. In every instance in dealing with an aggressive dog, I can assure you that it would be impossible to hit an alert, aggressive dog even once on the head without pulling back a ripped up hand! If they were able to hit it on the head, then there is no way the dog could be considered aggressive enough to warrant shooting!

I am all for the protection of an Officer when dealing with an animal, but I can't seem to grasp the necessity of a shooting in this case.

 

[Miguel]

even if legally justified ( I have my doubts- am a lawyer in another jurisdiction ), that will only reach so far as the right to enter and the right ( highly arguable, in terms of actual need ) to shoot the dog.

Legal does not entail the right to destroy another person's property ( and peace of mind ) without adequate compensation.

My main point of controversy with this episode is the posttion that they were entitled to do what they did, and, therefore, the owner just has to pick up the leftovers and carry on.

That is not correct.

And even from my far away jurisdiction, in relation to another point you mentioned, I believe that the right of hot pursuit ( admitting a domestic distrurbance could justify the exercise of such right ) does not extend to the pursuit of victims ( they tend not to run away from the police, at least from the police that were POLICE ).

 

[Lepisosteus platyrhincus]

even if legally justified ( I have my doubts- am a lawyer in another jurisdiction ), that will only reach so far as the right to enter and the right ( highly arguable, in terms of actual need ) to shoot the dog.

Legal does not entail the right to destroy another person's property ( and peace of mind ) without adequate compensation.

My main point of controversy with this episode is the posttion that they were entitled to do what they did, and, therefore, the owner just has to pick up the leftovers and carry on.

That is not correct.

And even from my far away jurisdiction, in relation to another point you mentioned, I believe that the right of hot pursuit ( admitting a domestic distrurbance could justify the exercise of such right ) does not extend to the pursuit of victims ( they tend not to run away from the police, at least from the police that were POLICE ).

 

[08trdoffroad]

even if legally justified ( I have my doubts- am a lawyer in another jurisdiction ), that will only reach so far as the right to enter and the right ( highly arguable, in terms of actual need ) to shoot the dog.

Legal does not entail the right to destroy another person's property ( and peace of mind ) without adequate compensation.

My main point of controversy with this episode is the posttion that they were entitled to do what they did, and, therefore, the owner just has to pick up the leftovers and carry on.

That is not correct.

And even from my far away jurisdiction, in relation to another point you mentioned, I believe that the right of hot pursuit ( admitting a domestic distrurbance could justify the exercise of such right ) does not extend to the pursuit of victims ( they tend not to run away from the police, at least from the police that were POLICE ).

Then the owner can take the city to small claims court and try to argue the point, at which point it becomes a civil matter in terms of damages and pain and suffering. I don't think she would win...but that is MO, I am not a lawyer.

But with the officer's being legal justified in their actions it releases them from any liability. Thus the opinions of ultimate job loss and physical harm to the officers for their action, which some have made in this thread are warrantless.

Like you mentioned about hot pursuit, I am well aware that this statute would not extend to the victim, which leads me to believe their active search for the "girl that ran off" was actually the suspect in the case. Unless they had received information that the victim was seriously injured and then it would extend the exigent circumstances statute. They would have had reason to believe that by not entering the yard to search the victim would be in danger.

 

[Miguel]

You made some very broad (and borderline offensive)

Thank God it is only "borderline", so you don't feel justified to come into my yard , though, surely, my dogs would be a workload....

Let us not start to feel like the criticism is personal, okay? This is a debate, a conversation, different opinions back and forth...

Your back ground and education was not at stake here, allright?

 

[08trdoffroad]

Thank God it is only "borderline", so you don't feel justified to come into my yard , though, surely, my dogs would be a workload....

Let us not start to feel like the criticism is personal, okay? This is a debate, a conversation, different opinions back and forth...

Your back ground and education was not at stake here, allright?

Believe me, I am not taking it personal...I just simply asked you to defend your statements....which were part of this conversation, debate, different opinions back and forth. Which is exactly what you have asked me to do, and which I have done.

 

[Miguel]

This is getting to be a discussion between you and me, thereby loosing its appeal to the remaining multitude.

Let me finish my contribution to this thread by stating that what I take from here is you standing by your fellow officers, and that counts a lot in my book.

I do not agree with your reasoning, I do not agree with the PD's position ( if it is what is conveyed ), but you stand firm for what you believe.

And do not give up....

And that is enough for me.

 

[CLDarnell]

The only problem with debating this topic is there are very few facts to discuss. If we go buy published "facts" alone, then the Officer's actions don't appear to be justified.

1. The Officers was notified there was a dog in the back yard.
2. The Officers entered a gated, fenced yard. Common sense would tell you there is a possibility you may encounter a dog.
3. The dog growled and barked.
4. At least one Officer was able to hit the dog "a couple of times".
5. One can assume the dog was not in the process of attacking the second Officer at the time (I don't think an Officer would have shot if the dog was that close to his partner/back up).
6. The dog was shot twice, once in the mouth/leg and once in the back.

I am not suggesting the Officers aren't telling the truth and I'm not saying the neighbor isn't exagerating either. But based solely on published data, the incident COULD have been avoided, therefore, the shooting was entirely uncalled for.

Until more facts are known, that is how I see it.

 

[08trdoffroad]

The only problem with debating this topic is there are very few facts to discuss. If we go buy published "facts" alone, then the Officer's actions don't appear to be justified.

1. The Officers was notified there was a dog in the back yard.
2. The Officers entered a gated, fenced yard. Common sense would tell you there is a possibility you may encounter a dog.
3. The dog growled and barked.
4. At least one Officer was able to hit the dog "a couple of times".
5. One can assume the dog was not in the process of attacking the second Officer at the time (I don't think an Officer would have shot if the dog was that close to his partner/back up).
6. The dog was shot twice, once in the mouth/leg and once in the back.

I am not suggesting the Officers aren't telling the truth and I'm not saying the neighbor isn't exagerating either. But based solely on published data, the incident COULD have been avoided, therefore, the shooting was entirely uncalled for.

Until more facts are known, that is how I see it.

The whole situation could have been avoided if the owner would have answered her door too, but I am not sitting here saying it is the owners fault for not.....

It was an unfortunate situation, the officers acted in the manner they felt necessary to protect themselves. The dog behaved in the manner it felt necessary...crap happens. It is not anyones place to play an armchair quarterback because no one was in the situation. No one observed the encounter. No one has all the facts. I formed my opinion for the facts that I had presented to me. I believe the shooting to be justified, I believe the officers had every right to be in that yard, and I believe they should face zero reprocussions for their actions.

 

[krzr3000]

If the dog was threatening and was indeed a legitimate threat, why was it not attacking/pursuing the suspect that was possibly in the yard?