Police K9 GSD killed in Hemet, CA - Page 1

In Hemet, Ca, a GSD K9 was sent into a small window into a crawl space under a house where a creep was hiding.  No matter how he aimed his gun, he was going to hit the dog in the face and/or chest.  The dog's death warrant was signed on that command telling the big dog to fill up the tiny window!!!

Where was the tear gas or smoke bombs???  The creep could not go any place!!!

The cops could even have waited until they had a ton of tear gas then threw it in and set a solid board across the small window and it would not be long before he'd be begging to get out.

No they had to prove what big guys they are by signing the death warrant for the innocient obedient dog.  They were going to have fun with the dog chewing on the creep and instead they showed how bad they were!!

Then they got more fun by shooting the guy as he would struggle trying to get out of the tiny window!

They should be charged with TWO deaths: first the dog and second the creep's death!!!

Just my humble opinion.

Yes, it seems they used tear gas afterwards. Too late for Sultan... http://www.myvalleynews.com/story/83166/

The article doesn't say whether or not the handler knew the suspect was armed.  If he did, I agree with you that the dog should not have been sent in on him.

If they didn't know whether or not he was armed, why'd they sacrifice the dog? There were other more effective means of extraction that can be used...if that was not true, there would be a k9 turn over to every encounter with criminals. If they didn't think he was armed why didn't they go in and get him instead of hiding behind the dog?

I'm a firm believer that the dogs should be put up when the guns come out but if you're never going to send a dog on someone because you don't know whether or not he is armed, you might just as well not train them for use in apprehending suspects at all.

Always sad to hear that WE lost a K9.  Just not fair...

Nobody said never....that was a close space, easier to gas him out, than send a dog where the dog has no room to move.

So we shouldn't use them for building searches; is that it?

OK, I'll play for a couple minutes. First, who's WE? Next, there is a large difference between sending a k9 by himself into a crawl space, and a building search with a handler. A crawl space is not a building search. They knew the guy was in there. I'm all done here, maybe someone else will play.

Keith, given the scenario as it's described in the news reports, the guy was in a crawl space, with a single entrance/exit option; why the rush to send the dog, I have to wonder... It wasn't as if the suspect was going to find a way to tunnel up through the floorboards of the building to create a new route of escape, at least not without anyone being aware of what he was trying to accomplish. Why not just toss a tear gas canister into the crawl, barricade the entry, and wait for the gas to do it's job, instead of sending any officer, two legged or four, into the opening of the crawl?

I'll grant that it's always easier to sit back and debate the wisdom of such decisions after the event, when the thought processes aren't clouded by adreneline, fear, uncertainty and competing interests [safety of the public in the immediate area versus waiting the suspect out, that sort of thing], but I don't think it's unfair to expect that this very type of scenario would be one of many that LE have considered, examined, and plotted out a basic game plan for that everyone was familiar enough with to execute it practically on auto-pilot.  Serious review and renewed training of what to do in such instances needs doing before the taxpayers of that community pony up additional monies to acquire a replacement dog for Sultan, lest his death be made a mockery of.