officer shoots dog a different prospective - Page 5

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Sunsilver

by Sunsilver on 26 May 2007 - 12:05

The officer knocked on three different doors. What watchdog worth its dog chow wouldn't have been barking up a storm after that?? Come on, this officer DELIBERATELY put himself in harm's way!!


by Blitzen on 26 May 2007 - 13:05

If I were approaching another's home with the intent of gaining entry, I would surely not go to the door that was being guarded by a tethered GSD. Who would be so foolish? It sounds like this officer took it as a challenge and perhaps as an opportunity to teach yet another dog a lesson - the gun is more powerful than any dog. Of course, he deliberately put himself in harm's way. There were other entries to that house, why would he chose this one? It's not as if he was tracking down an escaped Charlie Manson for god sake, he was attempting serving a bench warrant to a dead beat dad who did not even live there. Where was his back up if this was such a potentially dangerous situation? Is that entire police force incompetent or just this officer?

Defend this all you want, but would you want this guy serving on the police force that serves your community?

Where's Tony Soprano when you need him?


by seriously on 26 May 2007 - 13:05

PSP,

You're an idiot.

You hear one side of a story and you're ready to jump to conclusions and act as if you know shit what you're talking about and that anyone cares. Have you spoke to the officer? How do you know he knew he was there? Because she told you? And how many homes are in this "residential area" you preach about? Have you been there? I'm sure it's a fine place to live, from the people wanted on warrants and the backhoes in the front yard with bed sheet propaganda on them about how the guv'ment is in our bidness. And he's a psycho for shooting a dog that bit him? This whole barely scratched him thing, okay maybe that is because the officer recognized the dog coming at him and was skillful enough to stop the threat in time before being mauled. By their own admittances, the dog did connect with him. Do we have to let the dog do a minimum amount of tissue damage before we can defend ourselves during our official duties bringing in trash on warrants before we're covered from housewives and backyard showshitter breeders telling us what we SHOULD have done?

 


by funk man on 26 May 2007 - 13:05

The key point here is that this deputy knew he potentially had the wrong address. (was told the subject didnt live there). With that in mind, it was his duty to employ common sense.  When he saw the dog he had 2 choices to make.  1.) Enter the dogs reach and challenge it, potentially having to shoot it.  2.) Not enter his area of reach, avoiding the potentiality of shooting the dog.

He chose option 1. It would have been prudent if the situation called for it. Such as rushing into a domestic disturbance where someone was being harmed. As I said before, everything is relative.

In this case, NOTHING required the deputy to get past that dog, period.

He made a poor judgement call given the circumstances.


by seriously on 26 May 2007 - 13:05

FM,

Have you spoke to this officer, and gotten his side of the events, or are you just forgetting the blue line and helping arm the people to sue him and try to get him fired?

Your statements against another LEO without his input or chance to defend himself is very concerning to me.


by funk man on 26 May 2007 - 13:05

As are the deputys failure to use prudent judgement.


by EchoMeadows on 26 May 2007 - 13:05

The deputy told the reporters that he had in fact acknowledged Max,  There fore knew the dog was there had known the dog on a previous visit when a stolen car had been dumped in a pond behind the property and easy access was through the property owned by Mattia Family.  HE is the one who said he acknowledged the dog...

That being said,  HE the deputy had choices !!!!!!!!!!!   He did not extend that courtesy to the dog,  went into the dogs range of area, chose to engage the dog,  and SHOT the dog all without....

first verifying correct address for the individual on the warrant...

regard to this family's home, Property

regard to the proximity of the home to other homes nearby

CLEARLY POOR CHOICES ALL THE WAY AROUND BY THE DEPUTY !!!!

Seriously how can you dispute the above ????????????????????


BabyEagle4U

by BabyEagle4U on 26 May 2007 - 13:05

7 shots and the dog is tied? WTF. Where's PETA on this one?

Vom Brunhaus

by Vom Brunhaus on 26 May 2007 - 13:05

Funky, As in your other post your comments make very good sense. Any GSD will bark when someone enters their grounds and property,thats the signal. This Deputy could have called for Animal Control as well as backup and took a wait position. He did not do this as his past indicates hes used to shooting dogs, even restrained ones.

Hundguy

by Hundguy on 26 May 2007 - 14:05

Kyle wrote,

"" Would it have been okay for the dog to bite the mailman or Johvah's Witness?""

 

Nope but they would have used PepperSpray not seven bullets!!!!!!

 A good spray to the face any dog will back off. We had an officer who deployed his dog after they sprayed the guy and sent the dog into the mist of spray and he came back out...And this was a crazy over the top dog!! Ton's of work to get his head right after that...

 

Seriously Wrote,

"Have you spoke to this officer, and gotten his side of the events, or are you just forgetting the blue line and helping arm the people to sue him and try to get him fired?"""

 

Have you spoken with him seriously? it is very concerning that you get so angry in your trying to protect the officer when you have not even spoken to him!!!! Someone has to keep LE in check.... Why not the citizens they work for?? Or are you above that?

 

Best Regards,
Dennis Johnson
www.johnsonhaus.com

 






 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top