Main > Keeping Your Dog Safe from Law Enforcement (303 replies)
by OGBS on 02 May 2012 - 19:14
I just read this article and this is what I now know.
All men in Brooklyn named George are cop-killers.
It is just astonishing how people can read something and turn it in to what some have on this thread.
Don't spend too much time looking for intelligent conversation here. You'll rarely find it, and like you said, this could have been a good discussion where people could have learned something, and, shudder the thought, pass it on to others who are less informed.
Oh well, another day on PDB!
I hope you and Boomer are well!!!
by BabyEagle4U on 02 May 2012 - 19:28
by Gigante on 02 May 2012 - 19:34
You persist in attacking me and yet once again you are unable to attack any argument I have made. Throwing rocks at my intelligence or lack there of from your seat, is not an effective communication tool.
In between your personal attack's, you are in fact proving my and other poster's points better then we are, training and experience is the best thing to throw at this. Im very glad that you run the classes you do. People and pets are safer in your community from law enforcement, because of those classes. We are on the same page, even with my intelligence level, amazing.
by Slamdunc on 02 May 2012 - 19:52
Boomer is doing great, thanks for asking.
I have addressed your argument; you and others have failed to answer any of my questions. You have made statements as if you have first hand knowledge which you obviously do not. I'm not here to prove your points or to argue with you, I am just providing some accurate information based on my experience. I have no idea what your point is and we are definitely not on the same page. We are very far apart in our way of thinking and our view points, let's not confuse that.
Obviously, academy and on going training coupled with experience are the appropriate steps to take for any number of potentially dangerous situations. You have helped to dramatize this thread, along with BE (who is just way out there on these things). If you had left the hearsay, incorrect assumptions and "locker room" talk out of this I might have taken you seriously. I find many of your statements offensive as I am sure you can tell.
by BabyEagle4U on 02 May 2012 - 21:19
|Jim, why did you just say I'm way out there ? Do you mean (that in America) private property is now lumped into the same catagory as unicorns and the tooth fairy ?|
Seriously Jim, when a thread title like "Keeping Your Dog Safe from Law Enforcement " is on a dog forum and ends up with high fiving back patting police - AHH that is "way out there" if you care to know what I think.
Why is it so hard for you police to speak out against this behavior ? Are you that conditioned and polarized that you have no self awareness ?
Why don't you take that tin foil hat and badge off for a minute and realize we all are in this together. Badge or no badge (pretend your a Doctor or Sawmill worker), do you really want someone (anyone) jumping into your yard or RAIDin your property by accident and shooting your dog dead while chasing someone with a pack of rolling papers ? kill your dog with 100% immunity ?
I can't believe I even have to explain my self. This is sad. So very sad in America.
by darylehret on 02 May 2012 - 21:21
You don't know what his viewpoint is, you just know it's wrong. No confusion is right, that's unmistakably a slamdunc statement.
by Gigante on 02 May 2012 - 22:28
Fair enough Jim, I did not address any of your question, you had a ton so Ill pick the ones that might offer a better understanding of my opinion.
Q) Exactly how many unfortunate instances are there with friendly pets and Police? I would love to see the real numbers. Exactly how many friendly dogs in their yard are shot by Police each year?
R) The exact number or any real number is impossible to get to. There is no registry for these types of instance's. I have been searching around for months to find that answer. I would bet the house with a short time, due to some of the recent shootings that will change. There are facebook pages that are attempting to track each occurrence. These are subject to personal opinion and emotion and are obviously going to be shot down as biased. Right now, I would rather spend money on traveling you and your class around rather then on keeping track. Just me. Eventually both are best.
Q) Compared to the number of dogs that are allowed to roam free each day and get hit by cars by neglectful owners?
R) Allowing your dog to roam freely around the community and creating a chance for you or yours to have to make a crap design and shoot an animal? I propose YOU answer the call collect the animal with your training and the rest of us in the forum hold the owner down while you run their toes over forwards and backwards with your squad car. Note: Dogs are going to get loose, allowing and neglectful are key words.
Q) Then provide the stats for the number of dogs shot by hunters, farmers and citizens? It is a widely accepted practice by hunters to shoot dogs running at large in the woods and farmers will do it in a heart beat. But, that is ok? Couldn't the hunters be trained to use other methods to catch or stop the dogs? If the hunter was an off duty cop then it becomes an issue?
R) A hunter a farmer and a citizen are not being payed to protect me and my property. They are not given great leeway on perception threat like I offer you. If I shoot a neighbors 5 pound Chihuahua 3 time's with 9mm hollow points, Im fairly confident, Im a guest in your backseat. (Boy thats a good argument right there for not carrying a 9mm) Sorry tried to resist, I lost.
There are alot of things that stupid people do, that I prefer you not engage in. Shooting an animal without damn good cause, with or without a badge, should be treated the same.
Q) Please let me know how big of a problem this really is, how often does this occur? Factually, not just another sensationalized event.
The COPS Office understands the importance of dog-related incidents and encounters for the public, law enforcement, and dog owners alike. With the number of dog fatalities by law enforcement on the increase, as well as concerns for officer safety, law enforcement officers must advance beyond automatically using their weapons when encountered by a dog. There are many other ways to ensure public and officer safety through diffusing dog encounters.
Enough neg today, out to play with puppies and get some puppy breath. .99 a shot if anyones interested, a fair price!
by darylehret on 02 May 2012 - 22:32
|I think what I'll develop is a bluetooth for the germanshepherd forum, so you can remain hands free while on duty.|
by Blitzen on 02 May 2012 - 23:05
I didn't take photos of your kid and I don't have a website, Babyeagle. Best have proof if you say that here again.
by Slamdunc on 02 May 2012 - 23:10
A much better response at least you put thought into it.
Here is how you started this thread:
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...
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.
What is tardo bathroom policy anyway? I personally do not like to hold conversations in bathrooms.
by darylehret on 03 May 2012 - 04:55
Jim, who says my viewpoint is any different than yours? The only thing I even stated was that training should be relevant to the job situation. If you find cause to disagree with that, then maybe you should be taken even LESS seriously.
It's probably with equally RARE occurance that you shoot a person, but I don't advocate sending you to the streets without firearms and firearms training, either. Maybe not in the case of shooting someone, but a situation can still be RARE, yet LIKELY to eventually occur.
Maybe on one of your RARE days off that will LIKELY occur eventually, you can volunteer to organize some sort of class. It would certainly be more productive than trying to belittle everyone on the internet who doesn't subscribe to your line of thought.
by Slamdunc on 03 May 2012 - 06:09
I was explaining why I do not share the same view point as gigante. I can see I really have to spell things out for you. I didn't say anything about your view point. Please go back and read my posts, I went into detail on the academy training and ongoing training that I do for Officers in my Dept. But, you must have missed that. I don't belittle every one on the internet, I do call some people out on some of their outlandish statements. It seems you feel as if you often fall into that category. I really would prefer to just ignore you. Believe me I have only said a fraction of what I've been thinking; I delete or don't bother the vast majority of the time.
by darylehret on 03 May 2012 - 12:45
|Then, if it's not too outlandinsh, show some leadership and inform the folks here what can be done to spread the interest of other departments to conduct training on the level that yours does. Become a more positive influence, if possible, rather than defensive and condescending.|
by Slamdunc on 03 May 2012 - 13:49
|I thought I had done that. Would you like me to publish my PowerPoint here? I'm sure many PD's do similar training. My dept is not that unique.|
by alboe2009 on 03 May 2012 - 16:17
|Allot of back and forth. No problem to a point. I'm not speaking for others but a couple of things; A poster will comment with a good length of words: a few paragraphs or so. And we don't have comments in an order then a poster will pop in with a one or two sentence comment, (JAB), and not really direct the comment to an individual. Possibly if you're making a comment/jab say who you are directing it to so that person can rebut??|
Not speaking for Slam but on our seldom free days off LEOs do have a life and on the seldom days off need to unwind by not taking the job home, (Per Se). Some work a DAY shift for a week, two weeks or even a month. Can't take care of "Business Matters" or daily chores. Let alone if your Department is in 12 hr shifts. So when that rare day off does happen it's like CRAM everything that needs to get done into that day off. To any Public Safety individual, nurses and such these people are aware and understand the schedules involved.
I swear I stated this before; Go down to your local P.D./S.O. and sign up for a "Ride-a-long", not just one.......a few. And don't take a day shift, take a Mid/weekend or a late Swing shift or if a shift is designated a crime/overlapping shift. That way you can get a good side of how we live.
In one year I put in 900 hrs of overtime, trained dogs, and attempted to have a life! We are human just like the rest of the world. Our jobs are stressful, (I did not say the Most stressful or more stressful than any others) but our jobs are stressful due to MANY factors so when our seldom days off do roll around we might not ALWAYS set the example or want to set the example for the rest of the world. We have lives and personal and other responsibilities that take precedent.
For the most part when we get on one of these topics/threads some do a lot of talking with little or no facts. I, for one don't mind debating. Arguing to an extent is okay also. But, in my eyes if you're going to debate or escalate to and argument have some facts, hopefully some experience to back it up. What I see here is a lot of "generalization". Unfortunately certain professions don't generalize. LEO being one of them. I would think the average LEO/Public Safety individual would be able to back up their comments; favorable or unfavorable.
I'm amazed to see that some think that they have the right to speak out and put it here yet when one or two or more rebut those comments, let alone rebut with some facts or experiences that some are offended and ?? cry out ?? to be heard, I don't know?
I'm the type of person that if it was me I would've had posted some pictures and if any reports or articles attached. I would have read them, if any and when posting I would've had said something to the effect of possibly "Appears to be an increase of family pets being shot or killed by LEOs while they are performing their duties. I don't have all the facts but I'm putting a few articles out for readers to read and maybe you could give me some or your thoughts? If you have experience good or bad on this situation hopefully you would post?" IMO, that would have set the tone a little nicer than the way some came across? But, that is just me.
by ciara1 on 03 May 2012 - 18:05
|Wow, just wow..!|
by Gigante on 03 May 2012 - 18:48
Some interesting Facts:
With the number of dog fatalities by law enforcement on the increase, as well as concerns for officer safety, law enforcement officers must advance beyond automatically using their weapons when encountered by a dog.
In most police departments, the majority of shooting incidents involve animals, most frequently dogs.
While there are plenty of documented cases that officers have killed dogs there is, is no documented case of a police or peace officer dying as the result of a dog-bite-related injury. The overwhelming majority of dog bites are minor, causing either no injury at all or injuries so minor that no medical care is required. Fewer than 2 percent of the individuals visiting an emergency room complaining of a dog bite require hospitalization.
(This in my opinion throws a wrench in the common practice of using disproportionate force, Kill dogs when there is no other choice.)
According to Janis Bradley, author of “Dogs Bite, but Balloons and Slippers Are More Dangerous,” more people are killed by lightning each year than by dogs.
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interaction has strongly cautioned against using statistics to target particular breeds as more likely to bite: “Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite.”
Officers encounter dogs in the course of almost every kind of police interaction with the public, from making traffic stops and serving warrants to interviewing suspects and witnesses, and even pursuing suspects. The most times officers fire their weapons, it is at animals and at dogs mostly. Like another poster stated "we should allow seals that are afraid of water?"
There are approximately 77.5 million owned dogs in the United States.1 Indeed, dogs are likely to be encountered in 39 percent of residential locations. A recent poll revealed that approximately 53.5 percent of owners consider their dogs family members, another 45.1 percent view them as companions or pets, and less than 1.5 percent consider them mere property. (Shooting family members and companions without real cause is why I believe, your playing with PR dynamite. Even though the state law says property, you know the firestorms that are created in unjustified shootings, perceived or otherwise.)
From the police perspective, the most obvious harm that can result from a dog-related incident is the injury to an officer when a dog bites. If a responding officer shoots at a dog, however, other harms can result, including bystanders and other officers being shot by friendly fire. When an officer kills or injures a dog that is not a serious threat, other significant harms can result. Such incidents often do serious damage to community trust in the department and profession. Controversy particularly arises when an officer’s assessment of “imminent danger” is challenged by witnesses, the dog’s owner, or a video record of the incident.
The killing or injuring of a dog also opens the officer and the department to lawsuits and other legal actions, including 42 USC 1983 claims (deprivation of property without due process) and internal-affairs investigations.
Pets, most commonly dogs, are defined as personal property under state law so it is important to research the applicable local laws. State statutes will be the governing law in this area as federal statutes are silent as to the definition of pets as personal property.
United States v. Place, 469 U.S. 696, 701 (1983). Further, the Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that a seizure of personal property occurs when “there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.”
While the issues involved in the decision to bring a cause of action for the shooting of a pet may seem complex, they are not by any means insurmountable. There are two general steps to follow to make the determination of whether or not a cause of action exists:
1) Review the state statutes to determine if the pet is considered property subject to seizure. In addition, review any other state statutes relating to animals that may be applicable; and
2) Determine whether immunity can be defeated by addressing the policies of the municipality and the actions of the officer(s) involved.
If the pet is personal property subject to a seizure, no other state statutes defeat or authorize that seizure, and an entity or the officer involved can be held liable by defeating their immunity, a cause of action can be stated and potentially maintained successfully on behalf of the pet owner.
by Slamdunc on 03 May 2012 - 21:18
The population is on the rise, dog ownership and the sheer number of dogs in this country is on the rise. Crime is on the rise, especially violent crime. Felonies are on the rise, from shoplifting, larcenies, drug use, distribution of drugs, burglaries, robberies and malicious wounding. Homicide rates are on the rise, crimes committed with firearms are on the rise. Assaults and homicide of Law Enforcement Officers and K-9's is on the rise. Police involved shootings with suspects are on the rise. This is based on crime statistics in my city, voted one of the safest in the country for it's size at one time..... Statistics are really fascinating, but the world is becoming a very dangerous place.
by Gigante on 04 May 2012 - 00:42
|Crime rates in US decline: Numbers for 2011 still being compiled.|
56 law enforcement were fel iously killed in the line of duty last year; 72 died in accidents while performing their duties; and 53,469 were assaulted in the line of duty. The 2010 editi of Law Enforcement . Killed and Assaulted
Zero where killed by dogs.
by Slamdunc on 04 May 2012 - 01:43
|The 56 felonious deaths occurred in 22 states and Puerto Rico. The number of officers feloniously killed in 2010 increased by eight compared with the 2009 figure (48 officers). The five- and 10-year comparisons show an increase of eight felonious deaths compared with the 2006 figure (48 officers), and a decrease of 14 deaths compared with data from 2001 (70 officers).|