Two city police officers are being sued on a claim that they shot a family dog in front of its 12-year-old owner after entering the backyard of her Enfield Street residence without a warrant.

Police claimed that a snarling St. Bernard charged at them when they went into the yard to investigate a report that guns were stashed in a vehicle there.

Calls to O'Hare, Pia and other police staff were not returned. The lawyer representing the officers, Thomas R. Gerarde, also could not be reached.

According to court documents, the Harris family had two St. Bernards that were "good-tempered and obedient" and "never bit anyone."

The 12-year-old, a girl identified only as "K.H." in court documents, had developed a special relationship with one of the dogs, named Seven.

"She felt she could talk to him and that he would listen, understand, and comfort her in a way that no one else could," a court memorandum states.

On Dec. 20, 2006, according to the memorandum, O'Hare and Pia walked into the Harris' backyard at 297 Enfield St. without a warrant. As they rounded the back corner of the house, they saw a St. Bernard, Seven, begin to move toward them. They turned and ran back the way they came, along the north side of the house, toward the front yard, the document states.

The girl ran around the other side of the house "in an effort to head off Seven's path through the front yard," it states. The girl heard two shots before she got to the front yard.

When she arrived, she saw O'Hare standing over Seven, who had fallen to the ground. The dog was breathing heavily and his tail was wagging weakly, the document states. She screamed, "Don't shoot my dog."

According to the document, "O'Hare looked at K.H., then back to the dog, and shot the dog in the head." The girl ran to the dog, screaming and crying, after which O'Hare told her, "Sorry, miss, but your dog isn't going to make it," it states.

The third bullet caused the dog's death, the memorandum states. The document states that the girl had suicidal thoughts after the shooting and was hospitalized.

The suit accuses the officers of conducting an "illegal search," calling their presence a "warrantless invasion." With the exception of the driveway, the entire property is enclosed by fences or gates, and there were three "Beware of Dog" signs posted on the property, it states.

But according to a nine-page incident report filed by police, O'Hare and Pia had received a tip from a reliable source that two handguns were stashed in an abandoned vehicle in the backyard of 297 Enfield St. They went into the yard about 3:20 p.m., and a large, full-grown St. Bernard "immediately began to bark and snarl," the report states.

Both officers ran toward the front of the house with the dog in pursuit. Pia was able to get to a sidewalk on the other side of a fence, but O'Hare ended up in the front yard "with the dog running directly at him," it states.

O'Hare was unable to elude the dog, the report states, which was "showing its teeth." He pointed his gun at it and yelled for it to get back, but the dog only hesitated momentarily before advancing again, it states.

The dog lunged at O'Hare, who fired three times, hitting it in the head and chest from 3 feet away, the report states.

Pia said the dog was trying to bite O'Hare's legs as he was running.

The report says nothing about a pause between the second and third shots or the girl witnessing the shooting — a point the defendants are expected to contest in court.

The suit claims that O'Hare's actions were "so extreme, callous and outrageous that they fell outside the scope of acceptable police behavior," in violation of the due-process clause of the Constitution.

It also claims that they entered the property illegally and that O'Hare intentionally inflicted emotional distress.

The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as legal fees.

A senior assistant corporation counsel for the city, Nathalie Feola-Guerrieri, said, "The city is confident that the officers will be found to have acted justifiably under the circumstances."

Bernard K. Melekian was announced as the Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) by Attorney General Eric Holder on October 5, 2009. As Director of the COPS Office, Melekian leads an organization responsible for working closely with the nation’s state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to enhance the safety of communities by advancing community policing.  Director Melekian is committed to using COPS Office programs and resources to help law enforcement build relationships and solve problems, which he views as the cornerstone of effective community policing.

Mr. Melekian was the Police Chief for the City of Pasadena, California for more than 13 years before assuming leadership of the COPS Office. He also served with the Santa Monica Police Department for 23 years where he was awarded the Medal of Valor in 1978 and the Medal of Courage in 1980.

Director Melekian has been the recipient of numerous awards, and is recognized as a leader whose commitment to the advancement of community policing is built on years of patrol experience and a strong record of incorporating the needs of the community into police operations.  In April, 2010 he was awarded the prestigious National Public Service Award by the American Society for Public Administration and the National Academy of Public Administration.

Melekian has served as the acting Fire Chief and Interim City Manager for the City of Pasadena.  He was Chairman of the California Attorney General’s Blue Ribbon Committee on SWAT Policy, and is the former President of the 2009 Los Angeles County and California Police Chiefs Associations.  Mr. Melekian has also served on the National Board of Directors of the Police Executive Research Forum.

Director Melekian holds a Bachelor’s degree in American History and a Master’s degree in Public Administration, both from California State University at Northridge.  He is currently a doctoral candidate in Public Policy at the University of Southern California, and a graduate of the FBI National Academy and the California Command College.

Director Melekian served in the United States Army from 1967 to 1970.  As a member of the United States Coast Guard Reserve, he was called to active duty in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm and served in Saudi Arabia. Melekian served a second tour of active duty in 2003.  He retired from the Coast Guard Reserves in 2009, after 28 years of service.

CHEIF OF POLICE

Charles "Chuck" Harmon

"In response to the outcry following the shooting of a 12-year-old golden retriever named Boomer, St. Petersburg Chief of Police Charles Harmon announced changes in the Florida department’s policy on responding to animal calls and use of deadly force on animals" .



Chief Harmon joined the city's Police Department in 1982, and was named police chief in 2001. He oversees all police operations for Florida's fourth largest city, a department with 805 sworn and non-sworn positions in three bureaus: Investigative Services, Uniform Services, and Administrative Services. In 2003, he oversaw the departments fourth national reaccreditation and first state accreditation. 

He holds associate's degrees in general studies and criminal justice from Brevard Community College, a bachelor's degree in criminology from Florida State University and a master's degree in public administration from Troy State University. He is a graduate of Leadership St. Pete. 

Chief Harmon is honorary executive director of the St. Petersburg Athletic League and is on the boards of the Enterprise Zone Development Agency and the Tampa Bay Area Police Chiefs Association. He serves on the Southeastern Public Safety Institute Advisory Committee and volunteers with the Urban League Crime Run, American Heart Association and community paint projects.

Its been stated plenty of times that although many on this forum find dogs to be replaceable property, that is not the norm with most owners. I stated earlier that for a straight PR reason and the need for community respect that changes should be made, from a police standpoint. Policing a community that has low/no respect for those policing is a much much harder job.

This article I believe proves my point to the nature of the relationship between dogs and humans, for the majority of people. Further, I believe it also shows how quickly incidents like those posted can turn on the policing department. 

My point here is even if dogs are property in a policing mind it should be on the mind of those policing how quickly your community support and respect can change on dime with these types of incidents. 

Recently thousands of central texans lined streets in an unprecedented show of support during the funeral procession of senior patrol officer Jaime Padron, who was fatally shot while answering a call about an intoxicated person.

Just a few days later with most texans still rallying behind this fallen officer, Cisco was shot in his own home in error. Now the police chief has this to say.

Police Chief Art Acevedo was critical Wednesday of what he called a "mob mentality" response to the incident: "People are calling us and directing profanity-laced insults and threats toward our employees in writing and on telephone calls."

Texas state government has never in my opinion been thinned skinned. It is still my bet though that I will also be posting this police chiefs resume to the list of informational hypochondriacs soon. 

Its simply not worth the damage from a departments standpoint, that can be caused in a blink of an eye, to continue with willy nilly. 

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/backlash-over-officers-shooting-of-dog-prompts-policy-2313588.html

It never really stops, per se. Just little interest in talking or doing anything about it, here in this forum at least. But if the story below turns out to be accurate, now a sleeping dog has been shot, and as I stated earlier that was one of the only state of being, left. Chained, caged, fenced, noosed, crated, leashed, running away and now sleeping, so we are now complete. 

But who cares, move along nothing to see here. I received a PM earlier in this thread stating no interest in this topic on this forum because it would/could endanger peoples income. Thats the american way now a days.

"Individually focused yet collectively adrift" America 

 

Things a normal, mentally healthy person
would find to be offensive.

Pine Bluff Police Investigate if Officer Slit Dog's Throat

Pets as Property?

Source: Joanne Mariner - Find Law.com

If you sue the murderer of your beloved pooch, you can typically expect to receive the dog's replacement cost in damages. A recent survey found that two out of three people say that they wouldn't trade their pets for $1 million. Yet the legally-recognized value of domestic animals does not take into account these deep emotional bonds. In the eyes of the law, in most localities, a dog is more like a plate than a pal.

This rule may be changing, however. A quiet revolution is underway, one that would reform the legal relationship between people and pets, and adjust legal norms to better accord with moral principles and emotional realities. Rather than conceiving of pets as material goods, a new set of laws would recognize them as sentient beings: companions, not property.

The Traditional Rule: Pets as Personal Property

Although a few courts have permitted pet owners to recover for the loss of their pet's companionship when the pet has been killed or injured, this is not the usual rule. More commonly, in suits for the negligent or purposeful infliction of harm to the animal, courts hold that it is the market value of the animal that counts.

Under this view, the "sentimental attachment" of an owner to his or her pet has no place in the computation of damages for the animal's death or injury. Even the most beloved mutt or tabby is deemed virtually worthless: rescued from an animal shelter for a nominal fee, they can be "replaced" at the same expense.

In reaching such conclusions, courts have repeatedly emphasized that the law categorizes domestic animals as personal property. Whatever additional value they may have as companions, from this perspective, is beyond the purview of the law to address.

At least one court has expressed discomfort with this legal characterization, even as it barred the owner of a dog that was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer from obtaining damages for her emotional distress. "Labeling a dog 'property,'" the Wisconsin Supreme Court acknowledged in its 2001 opinion, "fails to describe the value human beings place upon the companionship that they enjoy with a dog." (Indeed, as the court might have noted, four out of five pet owners refer to themselves as the animal's "mom" or "dad.")

While classifying dogs as property, however reluctantly, the court seemed eager to distinguish them from mere objects. "A companion dog is not a fungible item," said the court, "equivalent to other items of personal property. A companion dog is not a living room sofa."

Recent Legal Changes: Pets as "Companions" and Owners as "Guardians"

The effort to establish a legally meaningful distinction between pets and living room sofas has recently gained momentum. Draft legislation was just introduced in Colorado to change the legal status of dogs and cats from property to companion animals.

The pending bill would allow Colorado residents to seek damages for "loss of companionship" in suits against intentional animal abusers and negligent veterinarians. It is the latest initiative in a national campaign to reshape pets' legal status.

Several cities have already passed measures that characterize pet owners as "guardians," rather than mere property owners. In San Francisco, for example, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance in January that amended city and county laws so that they speak of the "owner or guardian" of animals, as opposed to simply the "owner." (For good measure, the ordinance also eliminated the adjective "dumb" from its definition of animal, which previously referred to "any bird, mammal, reptile, or other dumb creature.")

In passing the ordinance, San Francisco became the seventh city in the country to codify animal guardian language. Boulder, Colorado, was the first city to pass such a measure, in July 2000; later came Berkeley and West Hollywood, in California, followed by Sherwood, Arkansas, Amherst, Massachusetts, and Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin. In July 2001, Rhode Island became the first state to include the term "guardian" in its pet-related legislation.

What These Laws Mean: Not Just Better Remedies When Animals Suffer Harm

The practical impact of such changes is to encourage stronger legal remedies in cases of animal abuse and neglect. But the use of the terms "guardian" and "companion," as opposed to "owner" and "property," has deep moral and philosophical underpinnings.

In Defense of Animals (IDA), the organization spearheading the guardianship campaign, explains that the terminology change reflects a conceptual shift: "Being a guardian of an animal companion signifies a higher level of responsibility, respect and care for our animal friends. Animals need to be regarded as more than the material property of an owner. Replacing the term 'owner' with 'guardian" is a conceptual move toward recognizing the importance and needs of animals."

The IDA abjures the term "pet," preferring the more egalitarian "animal companion" or "animal friend." And its literature argues that people should not conceive of themselves as "buying" animals, but should instead as "adopting" them (making an implicit analogy to children) or even "rescuing" them (as with fugitive slaves).

The IDA's stated reasoning differs meaningfully from that set forth in the pending Colorado legislation. The draft law, echoing the reasoning of the 2001 Wisconsin court decision, focuses on the emotional bond that owners feel toward their pets. As one of its provisions explains, "the death of a companion dog or cat is psychologically and emotionally significant and often devastating to the owner."

The real focus of the law's concern is, in other words, the owner, not the animal. The law simply seeks to put legal muscle behind the idea that the loss of the animal may cause emotional distress to the owner.

But the Colorado law's rationale sweeps rather too broadly. There are many items of personal property whose loss causes emotional distress that far outweighs their market value. Consider a family heirloom that has been passed down through generations, or a watch that belonged to a dead parent. (At the top of my personal list would be a 1968 Volkswagen bug of which I'm inordinately fond.) In the end, such protections need to find their basis in something intrinsic to the animals themselves.

The Backlash: Anger Against Animal Rights

The notion that animals have rights, or should be deemed to have rights, is far from accepted. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the move to redefine pets as companions has drawn fierce opposition from a number of national pet-owner associations, including the American Kennel Club. These groups portray the recent legal changes as part of a dangerous trend toward humanizing animals and annulling the rights of their owners.

In an editorial siding with this position, USA Today warned that if society were to recognize that pet are not property, and that animals have rights, "it would arguably be impossible to spay or neuter a pet without its permission." Calling owners "guardians" and pets "wards" might seem to be "amusing legal concessions to emotional attachment," the paper stated, but those who favor such terms ignore their deeply worrisome ramifications.

Such concerns seem wildly overblown. To recognize that animals have a claim to rights does not, in itself, indicate how those rights should be defined or how they might be limited. And already, in the criminal law, society has implicitly recognized the qualitative difference between animals and property by enacting animal cruelty laws.

These laws prohibit the torture of domestic animals, even if the victimized animal belongs to the torturer. You may rip apart your sofa, if you like, but you are not allowed to do the same to your dog.

Animals are sentient beings. They feel pain and, as any pet owner or guardian can attest, they are capable of emotional attachments. In these ways, they are profoundly different from property, and similar to humans.

If the ramifications of recognizing that animals are something more than property are radical, so be it. Pets of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your leashes.

A court case in Denver has set a precedence. Woman awarded $65,000 in death of dog.

The Myth of the Taser Proof Dog

Source: Anthony Barnett - Game Dog Guardian w/ illustrations

We’ve all heard the myths:  Pit bulls have locking jaws, pit bulls don’t feel pain, pit bulls bite with a force of 2000 psi.    In the modern age when police are equipped with “less-lethal” weapons, the latest myth is the “taser-proof” pit bull. 

In Topeka, KS in 2009, two dogs that were originally described as “115 lb pit bulls”attacked and bit 2 cross country runners.  (Obviously they were not pit bulls and were later identified as American Bulldogs.  This story hasn’t even bothered to make that correction.  For more info on the breed ID confusion of this case see this post by KC Dog Blog) One of the responders to the scene was a good friend of mine and he described to me how in the course of the effort, one dog “took two taser hits and just kept going." 

After coming across this myth several times over the last year, I decided to look into it.

I do not advocate or approve of needless violence of any kind against anything.  But there are times when people (often police officers) need to defend themselves against danger.  Whenever possible I support the deployment of “less lethal” self defense options that protect the person in danger and leave the source of danger alive.  I do not condone pointless or excessive use of such measures, and I certainly do not condone violent bullies who give good police officers a bad reputation.

To get a grasp on how to properly deploy a taser against a dog, and to understand where the myth of the “taser-proof” pit bull comes from, I talked to Overland Park, KS Animal Control Officer Eric Thompson. 

“Most officers are trained to think about the human aspect, but animals react totally different to [a taser].”

Deploying a taser against an animal is complex, and is different than deploying it against a human.  It’s not a simple case of point-and-shoot and then go home.  The information that Officer Thompson shared with me will eventually be offered in a class he is developing for law enforcement and civilians alike.

Eric Thompson is a graduate of Kansas University and of the Kansas Law Enforcement Training Center.  He was a police officer in Westwood, KS and Mission, KS and then was an animal control officer in Olathe, KS.  Currently he is employed by the Overland Park, KS police department as the Animal Control Supervisor.  He is also an instructor for the Kansas Animal Control Association teaching such things as chemical immobilization, search and seizure tactics, officer safety, handling dangerous and exotic animals, large animal rescue, animal first aid, and is currently developing a cock-fighting awareness class and a course on ice rescue.  Thompson is the Midwest Regional Team Leader, the Operations Manager for the Emergency Equine Response Unit and his team is the national first-responders to animal rescues in water disasters for Code 3 Associates.  He is also training local Community Animal Response Teams (CARTs).

With a complex scenario such as deploying a taser against a dog, there is always a chance for failure, but those chances lay with the person holding the taser, not the dog and not the breed of dog. According to Thompson, there is a specific way to deploy a taser against a dog.  Not following that procedure will increase the chances the taser will fail. 

The first difference is how the taser is held.  The taser is designed to hit a standing person center-mass.  Since people stand upright, the taser is designed to deploy in a vertical spread. 

So to shoot a taser at a person, you hold the taser just like a gun, vertically, and pull the trigger.

Most of a dog’s body mass is horizontal, or parallel to the ground.  So shooting a taser from a vertical position in the hand will cause the taser to spread perpendicular to the body mass of a dog rather than parallel to it.

To properly use the taser on a dog it needs to be held sideways or “gangster” style so that when fired the probes spread horizontally in line with the body mass of the dog.

The next consideration is the rate of spread of the probes after firing.  The older model taser probes have a 12 degree spread from firing giving them about a 15 ft effective range against a person.  The newer models have an 8 degree spread from firing giving them about a 20 ft effective range for people.  On a person there is anywhere from about 4 feet to over 6 feet of vertical area for the probes to make contact.  With a dog there is somewhere along the lines of 1-3 ft of horizontal area for the probes to make contact.  If a taser is fired at a dog from effective “people” ranges, even if deployed horizontally, it is likely that only one of the probes could make contact as a matter of simple geometry.  By the time they get to the dog they are simply too far apart for both to make contact.

With the smaller area of mass for a dog, the effective range of the taser is greatly reduced.  With the newer models, they could technically be effective from 12-15 ft  against a rather large dogs, but a more practical maximum range would be 10-12 ft, preferably less than 10. So in addition to firing the taser from a sideways, or horizontal position, the person firing the taser must be closer to a dog than to a person.

These first two steps are important because both probes making contact is essential to the way a taser works.  Without two probe contacts, a taser can be largely ineffective against its target, especially against an animal.

“When both probes connect, what happens is an involuntary scrambling of the nervous system.  The dog can’t fight it off, no matter how tough it is.  The nerves and muscles are just over-loaded and won’t work.  The dog is incapacitated."  (Regardless of breed.)

“But if only one of the probes connects, it is what I call ‘pain compliance.’  It doesn’t have nearly the same effect.  All it does is hurt the dog.  Then you’ve got a scared, hurt dog that is in fight-or-flight mode.  He is either going to come at you to stop you from doing that again or more likely it will just get up and run away.”

Incidentally, pain compliance is also how stun guns and stun batons work.  They don’t have the incapacitating effect that a taser has when deployed properly.  A taser only “tases” when both probes make contact.

Once the taser is properly deployed from within a reasonable distance and both probes made contact, the officer must be mindful of the probes and the connecting copper wires.  The officer must make sure the wires are not severed during a struggle or a fall, the officer must stay within close proximity, and be mindful of the condition of the dog to assure the filaments remain undamaged.  If the filaments are broken, effectiveness of the taser is neutralized.

 “I’ve had officers think they can hit a running dog.  One probe might make contact in this case, and a lot of the time when the dog falls down, if the officer doesn’t step forward – if he is trying to shoot and retreat at the same time – the motion of the dog and officer together breaks the lead.”

The final step is to have a plan before the taser is deployed if possible.  The taser is only a temporary reprieve for the parties in danger.  A taser has a “cycle,” meaning the incapacitating electric charge only lasts for a set amount of time.  According to Thompson, there is a difference in “cycle” time between law enforcement and tasers and taser models offered to civilians for self protection.  Law enforcement models have a 5 second cycle, so the officer can temporarily incapacitate a suspect and then apprehend him.  The civilian model has a 30 second cycle.  “This is basically so a civilian can deploy the taser, set it on the ground and run away while the target is down.” 

A taser is only meant to temporarily incapacitate.  It is meant to stop an attack or to prevent eminent harm momentarily.  It is not a containment system.  A taser is deployed so that a method of containment can be implemented, such as using a net, leash or catch pole.  A taser can be re-cycled, meaning if the trigger is pulled again it will re-send the incapacitating current to the dog and allow for more time for the dog to be contained.

Having an immediate plan will minimize the stress on the dog and will minimize the chances of the copper connectors being damaged.  If the taser had to be deployed quickly in the case of an emergency, then the officer must continue to cycle the taser until a plan for containment can be formulated.

 “With a person, there is a sense of confusion and disorientation for a few seconds after a taser finishes its cycle.  With animals, that confusion isn’t there.  It’s fight-or-flight and 99% of the time it’s flight.  They don’t know what just happened and they just want to get out of there.”

So to properly deploy the taser, the officer must: 

1) Hold it sideways or horizontally 

2) Be much closer to the dog than a person (10-12 ft max) 

3)  Protect the copper probe wires 

4) Have a plan in place to contain the dog or continue to cycle the taser until a plan can be executed. 

If a taser is properly deployed against a dog, the dog will be involuntarily (and temporarily) incapacitated no matter how “crazed,” vicious or determined it is and regardless of the breed.  A hit from a taser is not something the dog can “tough out.”