Officer shoots dog during foot chase thru dog's backyard. Right or wrong? - Page 14

Hank,
Where did anyone say anything about holding your gun while going over fences???????  No, my gun is holstered while going over fences.  There are tactical ways to go over fences to avoid the potential ambush on the other side.  I'm not going to dsicuss that here. 

Jim

* "I wouldn't shoot all of the neighbors dogs for chasing my chickens.  I would call animal control and handle it differently.  I wouldn't execute any ones dogs to make a point, just because it was legal or I could.  I'm an animal lover." *

-- Jim, do you have any idea how fast one dog can kill a dozen chickens ? Especially if each free range chicken runs into the hen house as a last resort for safety. If a dog even grabs a chicken near it's gut, the belly rips open almost like an explosion. Then you have a chicken running around with guts draggin suffering the whole time while the dog continues till there's no more chickens running around.

A couple times I came home and every chicken was mauled, dead or dieing all had guts ripped open. Hen house all bloody walls and all, but no birds in the hen house. I can only assume each individual chicken for a last resort ran into the hen house and that was it. And I have alot more than a dozen chicken at one time.

A hemmed up dog doesn't stop mauling and killing till NOTHING MOVES. Wild animals don't even do this, Jim. Wild animals kill and take ONE for food at a time and there's never any sign of blood, they don't maul and kill an entire flock.

Since I've invested in owning better dogs myself over the years I have no problems now with the strays above though. Knock on wood.

Soo, you still think animal control would get there in time huh ? 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* "As for the muzzle? My service dog must wear a muzzle when going to the vets, Company policy. So here I am sitting with Ginno, wearing a muzzle and the first person who walks in says "Oh, we have a mean one, huh? One that bites?" My response is "No, he doesn't bite". And then the second one that comes in says "my oh my, someone has been bad I see!" So here we have a combination of ignorance and perception. Both being very wrong........ " *

-- And this comment above. Humm ignorance and perception ? I'm not trying to be the smartarse here but .. you having your dog in a muzzle and other people commenting what they said is nothing short of observation via the senses. In this case sight. YOU and the Company Policy, by having a muzzle on your dog established the educated comment of conclusions you got from those people. How can those people be concidered stupid with a combination of ignorance and/or perception ? What is the purpose of a muzzle again ?

That's like someone growing a veggy garden in the front yard, and then people stop to comment how good your veggies look all the while your really growing the veggies for compost and calling those comments a combination of ignorance and perception. Combination of ignorance and perception ? I don't think so.

Jim,
One of the posters gave the scenario of having to holster the gun ,then get the mace or pepper spray. And I could not see that happening as I would not be jumping fences with a gun in my hand. My first thought on this subject is this, in the past and still would be furious. But since I have a sister, brother in law, and just recently a grandson all in law enforcement and seeing them in the same situation I can see it happening and my thought would be there safety. Just hope it never happens.
Hank

BE,
The muzzle comment was not from me, that was Alboe.  Let's not confuse the issue any further.  You may want to work on your analogies a little.  As far as the chickens go, I got the impression that the origianl poster bought them to set the dogs up to be shot. 

Some of the questions asked here are addressed at this link  http://www.animallaw.info/articles/dduspoliceshootingpets.htm along with a half dozen case examples of law enforcement officia

Here's a couple exerpts....

Generally speaking, destruction of property that is not necessary to a law official’s duties is considered an unreasonable seizure of property under the Fourth Amendment.  The courts, based on the individual facts of the case, will determine whether the destruction of the property was reasonable.  Although the courts will decide the reasonableness of a seizure on a case by case basis, the person considering filing a lawsuit for a pet’s death must have a general idea of whether the officer’s conduct in their particular case was unreasonable.  Addressing the issues relating to immunity can accomplish this.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Unfortunately, there are currently no cases relating to the shooting of pets where municipality immunity has been successfully defeated.  Although the issue of improper training has been raised in several cases involving pet shootings, under Canton only when “failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact” can immunity be defeated.  Canton, 489 U.S. at 388.  Deliberate indifference means that the municipality must make a deliberate or conscious choice to ignore people’s constitutional rights.  Errors or intentional behaviors on the part of an officer do not elevate to the deliberate indifference threshold for the municipality to have its immunity defeated.

It should be noted that while a municipality will probably have immunity for liability in the case of a pet shooting, it does not automatically follow that the individual officer(s) involved in the shooting will also have immunity.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
 

A hemmed up dog doesn't stop mauling and killing till NOTHING MOVES. Wild animals don't even do this, Jim. Wild animals kill and take ONE for food at a time and there's never any sign of blood, they don't maul and kill an entire flock.

 

As an exception, wolves are known to do the same.

Hank,
The comment about holstering was not while going over fences but being in the yard with the suspect during the apprehension.  The point was that the Officer may not have the opportunity to holster his weapon, draw OC Spray, a baton or taser if so equipped to engage the dog then reengage the suspect.  Oc spray is really not always effective, the baton could increase aggression and cause a worse reaction from the dog.  The vast majority of Officers do not have tasers.  Any of these may have been a viable alternative and certainly the preferred option to try if the violent, home invasion suspect was not in the same yard and close proximity to the officer. 

If the suspect had made it through the yard and the Officer was alone in the yard with the dog I would be more critical.  I have said it before and I will say it again:  I feel horrible for the dog and the family, it truly is a shame.  Most people do not go to work each day thinking that some one is planning on killing them.  That is a reality for LEO's.  We currently have a very viable report that the "Bloods" gang is doing membership initiations in our city and one option is to kill a Police Officer.  The threat is very detailed, down to where the Officers park their cars while patrolling a certain Apartment complex.  Based on the information provided I do not see too many options for the Officer to safely apprehend the suspect.   

Daryl,
You are doing it again;  Pulling certain excerpts to aid your case.  I can go through that article and pull excerpts that completely prove what I am saying as well.  Training is great and all LEO's need to be trained.  I mentioned our training, training that I do for our PD.  I am also a firearms and defensive tactics instructor.  I would be remiss and negligent if I trained an Officer to holster their weapon and try to switch to an alternative use of force to deter the dog while faced with a violent felon.  That is not going to happen.  I'll say it again and again:  If the Officer was alone in the yard with the dog then by all means,....But when confronting a violent felon in the same yard with the dog Officer safety is paramount and has to be.  That is my whole point, which is just not getting through. 

Jim

Daryl,
If you had read further you would have seen this paragraph:

Another issue that commonly makes its way into defense arguments in cases involving pet shootings is the issue of the animal's behavior at the time of the shooting.  Many cases involving animal shootings will involve an officer who claims to have reasonably believed that the animal was a danger or a threat.  If the circumstances do show that the animal was a threat or that under reasonable circumstances could have been perceived as a threat, the courts will genially allow the immunity to stand.  Constitutional actions are not automatically rendered as unconstitutional simply because force has been used by the officers involved.  See e.g. Brandon v. Village of Maywood, 157 F. Supp.2d 917 (N.D. Ill. 2001)(immunity upheld since an officers’ split-second decision emanated from their desire to avoid being injured by a dog with an unknown propensity for violence) and U.S. v. Gregory, 933 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1991)(shooting, though regrettable was done excusably by an officer who reacted quickly to a perceived attack by an animal reasonably believed to be an attack dog).  


These are not even as serious as confronting a violent felon when the dog charged.  I have experience with aggressive dogs and am not afraid of being bitten usually.  I have volunteered during Search Warrant entries to deal with the loose dogs in drug dealers houses to save the dogs from being shot.  However, alone in a backyard with a violent felon I can't say that I wouldn't not have been concerned that the dog may give the suspect the upper hand and reasonably fear for my safety if the dog knocked me down or bit me.  I would try yelling at the dog if that didn't work my options may be exhausted at that point.  I can't divert my attention and focus on the dog while losing sight or attention on the suspect for very long safely. 

Jim      
 I am I I can't divert my attention a

Wow, go away a couple of days and you think the thread would die down a little, (just a little) Jim, I'll take the next shift with a little of the brunt..........

Can't remember ALL the posts from the last 5 pages but I'll try. Off hand, first I remember is Keith;

Keith, in my eyes you used the wrong words, "second guessing" I was an S.P., NCO (same as M.P. but AF) We would never use the words second guessing! Critique, evaluate but never second guessing. One would never second guess what they know to be right, that would take away one's confidence etc.

BE, In my eyes certain individuals are just a tad more than passionate..... more like emotional. And that is understandable!  But then some of the things that are said or stated are either off base or just plain wrong due to that emotion. As LEOs, yes we are human but for the majority of the situations we are trained to not be so emotional as to not to cloud our interpretations. If I arrive to a "situation" without knowing WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING someone could get hurt and that someone could be me. Say upon arrival, there are ten subjects. People screaming, people crying, people yelling. Blood on the ground but I don't see anyone bleeding or blood on a persons' body. I have to put the situation together in a second and then determine what actions are needed and the list goes on. What individuals are FORGETTING here is that THEY are talking about something they have no experience in or never had experienced. Understand or at least make an honest attempt to understand that we have seen numerous people lie directly to our faces that we can pretty much read when a person is lieing to us! We see NUMEROUS individuals on a daily basis now add weeks, months, and years. Not all of those people are NICE! So we do not just talk the talk..... we have been there.

To BE and others. You are forgetting the basic foundation of our actions! LAWS! We are BOUND to act, now yes, there are some that are there just for a paycheck but we are bound by law to act or take action. And there are different laws in different places; local ordinances, Town, City, County, State and Federal. Some here are not seeing the BIG picture. This Department might not have "High Speed Pursuits once hitting City Limits. This Department might have "High Speed Pursuits" extended 50 miles outside City Limits but turn chase over to that jurisdiction but provide back up. 

This thread started out with attempting to interpret the video, nothing more. Then everything snowballed with different people throwing in "other situations" and then everything escalated to where we are now. I responded once tp a post and stated that individuals need to go on a "Ride-a- long" with their local LE Agency and see what really happens out there!

What some people are forgetting is the perp; He/she just didn't wake up this morning and said "I'm going to steal that car tonight" That perp has been stealing for some time now. Started out small and escalated to this. And he might be so good that he just can't stop. It doesn't matter the crime! It doesn't matter the criminal!

What is frustrating for us, at least for me, IS at times some things are not so simple!!! John Q. Public thinking that just because he THINKS he deserves an explanation or answer that he will get one. It doesn't work that way. John Q. Public is only RESPONSIBLE for his property/his curtilage! And what individuals fail to realize is that whatever some people may think cops are........ some people really don't have a clue. So when I say curtilage I know any LEO will know what I am saying. But only a few citizens will understand. So when a poster states JQP can do