Search forum
Back to Main
Liked top 20
ForumsMain > Keeping Your Dog Safe from Law Enforcement (303 replies)
Keeping Your Dog Safe from Law Enforcement by ggturner on 26 April 2012 - 23:09 |
| http://www.examiner.com/article/a-police-officer-offers-insight-on-keeping-your-dog-safe-from-law-enforcement?CID=obinsite |
ggturner by Rik on 27 April 2012 - 00:33 |
| case a couple of weeks (which I will have to try to find link) LEO raided the wrong address, guy is outside washing car, they shoot his Aussie right off the bat. I know they are sometimes in tough situations, but some of this stuff is insanity. |
by SitasMom on 27 April 2012 - 02:07 |
| Austin TX, cops went to wrong address and killed a man's Austrailian Cattle dog. Very sad. |
by ladywolf45169 on 27 April 2012 - 03:20 |
I can't imagine what they must be going through!  A while back, I had fallen in my apartment. I instruct my GSD, Brijett, to "go get my phone", which she did. I called my daughter to see if she was close (only lives 10 min from me) and could come get me to take me to ER. She wasn't and promptly had my other daughter call 911 while on the phone with me. I pleaded with them not to because of the dog. When the dispatcher called me, I informed her over and over again that I had the dog. Asked if they could send a K-9 officer out to enter first and help me secure my dog because I could not move. I was in tears, pleading with her, to NOT have them shot my dog!!! They did send a K-9 officer out, he was the first to enter, spoke to her in German (which is what she's trained in), I kept telling her it's ok..he's a friend, she barked at him a few times while standing over me, then went right up to him, sniffed him and the tail started wagging.....I told him her Kennel was in my room at the end of the hall, gave her the command to go, and she followed him down the hall. I'm very thankful, because I know this could of been a very different situations had I gotten someone who did not understand this breed or know what he was doing. While I understand LE's need to protect themselves...they also need to understand our needs to do the same! :) Chrissy |
ladywolf45169 by darylehret on 27 April 2012 - 11:24 |
| According to our forum resident LEO's, it's such a rare occurance that it hardly merits attention. |
darylehret by Gigante on 27 April 2012 - 14:56 |
What might be the definition of rare? Dogs are property, they are not life. Its policy to just shoot and claim a life threat. With that as pervasive policy, hardly is just not accurate. Lets not brush stuff under the rug because its uncomfortable. There is a problem, and theres no easy solution. |
by momosgarage on 27 April 2012 - 15:36 |
| I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately. It seems to me that a couple of things are at play here. I think many young folks under 35 today simply didn't have ANY experience with dogs in thier childhood and naturaly this large pool of people eventually starts to show up in many parts of society in large numbers. Its my personal opinion that fear of dogs or lack of experience with dogs, should instantly disqualify someone from becoming a LEO. LEO's are going to encounter dogs, period, its almost like a short stint in animal control right after graduating the academy should be required for any LEO to get his badge. The second issue is that I truly believe some departments are telling LEO's "off the record" to shoot dogs in certain situations. I can't prove it, but its happening so frequently as of late that "lack of experience with dogs" can't soley explain this increasing phenomenon. I do wonder if anyone has compiled data from departments all over the country. I'd bet my house that officers shooting dogs is the highest its ever been. |
by Gigante on 27 April 2012 - 16:24 | |
I stand corrected, that is an easy start to a better situation for our pets.
Animal control runs into alot more terrifying Australian Shepherds with less instance of shots fired. Over simplfied, I admit. Im sure this might get poo-pooed, but your right on target here. Animal control gets a helping hand for a brief stint, and the boots on the ground get a chance to make another decision when appropriate, besides killing a piece of property.
If we had stats I believe canine officers would have a much lower instance of shooting pets.
As LadyWolf noted above it does get done right often. That was a good example of service work. One we will never read in a newspaper. Dispatch & Officer does excellent job, wont sell like officer shoots.
| |
by beetree on 27 April 2012 - 18:02 |
| I don't think it is a great idea. Not everyone is an animal person and to force them into "Animal Control" as the proper instruction on how to deal with a possible dog threat makes no sense to me, and shouldn't be a pre-requisite for all LEO's. And while momosgarage is certainly entitled to her opinion, I feel it is chock full of wild speculation. |
beetree by BabyEagle4U on 27 April 2012 - 18:06 |
IMO The more we fight it, and I do .. the worse it becomes. It's going to happen and it's going to get way worse. You need to protect yourself and property NOW before it happens to one of us and our family pets. It's only a matter of time if these jack booted thugs can run the streets hop into yards and kill on site anything they damn well choose claiming clear and present dangers.
In other words, there is no claim or immunity that exists other than your own. |
BabyEagle4U by darylehret on 27 April 2012 - 18:20 |
| "Knowledge and experience." I WHOLEheartedly agree. I would love to see training and experience mandated, at least for everyone in the field. Deskjockeys and labrats I suppose wouldn't matter. |
by momosgarage on 27 April 2012 - 18:33 |
| "Not everyone is an animal person" Which goes back to why I said, "fear of dogs or lack of experience with dogs, should instantly disqualify someone from becoming a LEO" Imagine if dealing with a barking, but not aggressive dog in close quarters was a part of the screening process for hiring LEO's? If someone can't deal with that, how are they going to handle REAL life threatening stressors? "no animal/dog experience, no badge" beetree, I gave a way for LEO's to meet the above standard, can you think of some other way? I think its clear today that many LEO's need that experience, otherwise they are putting the public at risk due to thier ignorance. In the cases I've been seeing on the news, the officers FEAR is causing these animals deaths. Its not acceptable and local governments need to come up with some solutions. |
by beetree on 27 April 2012 - 18:58 |
| I have to continue to disagree. We are talking about the personalities and the innate traits of individual people, and to deny someone that is capable in every way of the profession of LEO because they never really mesh with animals, is so single-mindedly absurd, IMO. K9 LEO's are specialty, I would say. Seems obvious to me. You got it backwards, and I think that is what the OP is addressing, that it is the public at large that needs to remove their ignorance. Turns out the story on the page before, the person ended up doing the right thing...they got the K9 officer to respond, and all ended well. JMHO |
by BabyEagle4U on 27 April 2012 - 19:47 |
| I think the public at large should protect themselves and their property. Forget about training the Police, they are supposed to be Police, they follow orders. But when it get's outta hand like now where they disregard life, family and property ... you need to PROTECT YOURSELF and your PROPERTY. Nomore pets and children getting made examples of .. we need to prepare to take on the system if (and I hope it never does) it ever hits us, our family or our pets. They kill or cripple my dog or child at home - you best believe I'm going to make the example. I'll sell every damn thing I own, believe it. This is post Nixon days (War on everything)... we need to fight power with power. Ane believe it or not we have us a Bill of Rights - OWN IT. And if you got it (money) you best invest and insure in yourself, your family and your property NOW for safe keeping. Christ they are groppin crippled 4 year olds at airports and making grannies remove depends now adays .. they WILL shoot your dog given the chance !! |
by darylehret on 27 April 2012 - 20:29 |
| It's not absurd when coming into contact with the animals goes with the territory of the job. Would it be absurd to deny a navy seal who has fear of the water? |
by Gigante on 27 April 2012 - 20:34 |
beetree, whats single mindedly upsurd about training an officer how to deal with something without shooting it, something he/she is going to run into often on the job. Go find another job if you have a problem with animals and prefer to shoot them rather then be trained.
I wish this only happened to people who care far much less for there animals, then normal people. Unfortutley it doesn't. |
by beetree on 27 April 2012 - 20:41 |
| That's not what I said....learning the how's to deal with animals in a seminar would be brilliant. Making A/C a pre-requisite to all LEO's because some pets end up sadly as collateral damage, is really just a knee jerk reaction to do something. Let's do something, I agree, but let's make it the right thing. And please don't make this into I care more about my animals than you do... because that isn't the point at all, and it certainly can't be proved. |
by Gigante on 27 April 2012 - 20:55 |
Its exactly what you said. You knee jerked a reaction to a very good idea. Shoot it down if you can. I have seen and heard a crap load of ideas, and thats the best so far.
Although its not the point and all things unproved are not false, thats the argument thats always touted collateral damage & so sad move on. I don't want to move on. Don't kill peoples pets because your an ignoramus and choose to fire first and ask questions later.
Kill peoples pet's when there is no other choice, kill peoples pets when a human life is at risk, kill peoples pets because you made a split second choice and it was wrong choice, but split second.
Please don't kill peoples pet's because your an idiot and your bosses said in the bathroom that it was ok...
OK |
by beetree on 27 April 2012 - 21:19 |
| You make it sound like every pet encountered ends up shot and dead, come on. You need realistic expectations, not pie in the sky hopes. There are good and bad people doing either good or bad, everywhere. We can't keep adding specialty limits, I mean what comes after, from a mandatory assessement of being determinded, what... "being good with dogs"... (what will that mean any way?) What would be next? RN training mandatory for encountering diabetics going into coma's? Special Education shadowing for the autistic? Where would it end? There will always be death's that can be avoided, no one denies that, but thinking we can control the police selection with everything for a zero possibility, is the madness. |
by Gigante on 27 April 2012 - 22:31 | |
beetree, I inferred nothing like that. Jumping to ridiculous is not an argument. One reason why more instances dont end up with a dead dog is many officers are simply unwilling to shoot peoples pets wily nilly. No matter what was disscussed in the bathroom.
| |
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!