Officer shoots dog during foot chase thru dog's backyard. Right or wrong? - Page 16

Daryl,
I'm only speaking about the case mentioned by the OP.  I did address training several times and can really only speak for what my PD does.  What training could have made a difference in THIS situation?  What would you have suggested to the officer to do?  What would you recommend that I change in my training program to address confronting a dangerous criminal and a potentially dangerous dog simultaneously?  We have had days now to review this and I haven't come up with any better ideas to avert this tragedy. 

Perhaps this is our issue; I am focusing on the event that the OP was about.  I am not looking at other events or other incidents, I was staying on this topic.  I agree training is vital to reducing the number of pets shot by LEO's.  I have also stated I do not see this very often in my area and we go to great lengths to avoid shooting dogs.  

Thanks for not stooping to my level to make your point.

Jim
     

If I remember right Daryl had/has all the LE buds.

Daryl, I keep hearing you but no closer understanding you. Here's a stupid analogy. How come every pro football team isn't a great one? Every team has the same players, same coaches, same workouts, some have more money than others. Why aren't these teams as good as these teams? Why is this player not as good as this player?

Your losing me. It's almost like we as Americans cover the whole US of A. Now why do these people in this region do things differently from the people in this region? Why do they speak differently? Why are they smarter here then over there? Why do they act differently? What are you trying to say? Every LEO can't think, act, speak the exact same way. Or the way that somehow you are envisioning. The problem I see in these times is that the majority of LE Agencies want a recruit candidate with a minimum of 60 college credits. That's EVEN before they are CONSIDERED! In my eyes that is wrong and hurts Law Enforcement and the future of Law Enforcement. Not in each and every case but in the majority of cases. Now you have someone that is "book smart" but not "street smart" Do you honestly think the majority of the RiF Raf on the streets are book smart? It's a cat and mouse game out there. No more no less! And you have bad criminals, good criminals, bad cops and good cops. And the true test is when a good cop is going against a good criminal. Then you really earn your pay! 

Daryl--even though we disagree I actually respect how vigorously you argue your points, and the  interesting info. contained in some of the links.  You do make some valid points regarding training for officers (I realize not all departments everywhere are at the caliber of Jim's department).  I guess the man question is:  Would any of this training resulted in a different outcome?  We'd really have to see a video of the incident to find out.   --Scott

 

I think only the officer involved could fairly answer that one, better even than eyewitnesses or an independant investigation.  And even then, could only fairly answer that question to himself AFTER he has attained a certain level of training, as to whether or not what he has learned could have made a difference or not.  There are two kinds of dynamics that can be of focus in these incidents, one is training/education and the other is intent.  I have refused to question the intent of the LEO involved.  The amount of adequate training received is somewhat inversely proportional to amount of suspicion drawn toward intent or motive.  More and better training leads to fewer similar incidents occuring overall, reinforcing the public's perception that law enforcement is a wanted presence in their communities.

Alboe, I'm sorry I can't comprehend what you're saying.  Football analogies don't work well for me, I don't follow sports.  (so unAmerican of me)

Well see that was one of my points. If it's so UNAMERICAN of you how are you feeling so strongly towards AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT? 

I'm not.  You must be confusing what I've said with some read-between-the-lines-delusional-accusation a few pages back.  I DO however feel strongly about unnecessary dog killings.

You must be confusing what I've said with some read-between-the-lines-delusional-accusation a few pages back

Did I make the delusional read between the lines accusation?  If I did please point it out to me.


Jim


My question remains: with the information we have what could the officer have done differently? 
 

Your definition of unnecessary is my definition of accidental. And if you are talking of other cases being killings then I can't comment on them. I would like to stay focused on the OP entry and hopefully  we, for now, as a forum could come to a civilized understanding of constitutional law, criminal law and rules, regulations, policies and procedures and the day in the life and times of a Sworn LEO. But I don't see that happening soon.

Alright, should we change the subject and talk about Catholic Priests and children? Or ................  

My question remains: with the information we have what could the officer have done differently?

Since so few facts are know what actually took place, you CAN'T KNOW what would BE different.  He most likely did everything to the best of his ability for that time and for those circumstances.  Might even be more experienced than YOU with dogs.  I said early on, that training was part of the big picture here.  We don't know this LEO's level of competence.

Your definition of unnecessary is my definition of accidental.

 

I would hope that a LEO knows better than to discharge his firearm accidentally.  Vent your frustrations, get it all out.

Let's get a few things straight D, When I stated that you play with words..... but you denied it. You just did it! I would think you can understamd the english language. I at first questioned if you were/are an American by certain topics, comments, and I believe you were hesitant tio divulge information that would have no bearing on your personal safety.

We for the most part attempt to have a legite conversation but how do you explain laws, codes, standards and the true legal definition of "Probable Cause" to individuals that were never in the same classroom? So to clarify to the mentality that you are starting to exhibit;

No where do you see, did you see or did you hear I state "accidental shooting". So did you hear me now? I'm trying to figure now why you would resort to that type of tactic? I belive Jim, PAK9 and myself have either explained or attempted to explain but at times it doesn't matter if we give you real life examples, the truth, even though you don't want to hear it or accept it and even legal aspects of situations or as some are "tossing out there" scenarios or "what isf'

Frustrations...............................................hmnnn?