Officer shoots dog during foot chase thru dog's backyard. Right or wrong? - Page 19

* "BabyEagle? Who stated "shoot the suspect in the back"? " *

-- If a suspect is running away .. ahhh he'd be shot in the back. Or did I miss understand when darylehret said "might be fewer problems in the end, if police just start shooting fleeing suspects to begin with".

Shooting a fleeing suspect means shot in the back, no ?

 

Two days ago, Talbot County, MD. The weather was so bad that at 1513 hrs. it looked like night time.

Here's an arial photo after the incident.  The shadows longer, but still fairly bright enough to know what you have your weapon sighted on.  In addition, according to this article, there were actually two officers in the back yard during the time of shooting.  That means more eyes on dog and suspect both, and more manpower to overcome either if truly threatened.  I'd have to presume at this point that neither officer had much experience with dogs, and it being standard LMPD policy to shoot domestic animals if threatened, that was probably a convenient excuse for the ridding of the nuissance dog while one officer was attempting to wrestle the 24 year old to the ground.  If the dog was going to bite, it would have already bitten one if not two people before it was shot.



The suspect was identified three blocks away in a similar looking neighborhood to the one above, but ran through this drugstore parkinglot along the way.  What a beautiful takedown spot (with a tranqulizer gun, of course) and the only training costs involved might be switching the face targets at the practice range to ones showing the back of the head!  (that's sarcasm, Jim)

 

Daryl

Something you should keep in mind is a small little detail in the story that hasn't been taken into consideration yet; the Officer had to shoot the dog twice.  Now think about that for a moment and ask yourself what conditions would require the Officer to shoot the dog twice?

My thinking is the dog must have been advancing towards the Officer in an agressive manner when he made his decision to shoot the first time.  And more than likely, had to shoot him a second time to halt the advancement.  The dog must have posed some kind of threat for him to have to shoot twice.  Doesn't sound to me a mere one shot in the leg was stopping Rocco from doing his normal job.

Is it your position this Officer just shot the dog twice for no reason while the other Officer was trying to apprehend the suspect at the same time?

Maywood, thats getting back into the gray area of maybe.

Here are some quotes by Lt. Joe Manning from Daryl's Rocco article  -> Police shoot, kill family dog while apprehending suspect

(Manning) "A dog attacked the suspect and the officers."   
(my comment) Did the dog attack or not? bite wounds?

(Manning)"The dog started focusing on the officers in order to defend themselves, one officer fired two shots, unfortunately striking the dog," said Lt. Joe Manning."
(my comment) Now it seems the dog only started to focus on the officers and one officer fired two shots - the key words used by Manning are focusing and unfortunately, was it unfortunte in Mannings opinion that the other officer shot the dog or that he hit the dog?   So it also could be easy to say those statements by Manning conflict with each other. Did the dog attack or just focus?

(article)"Police did catch Barlow, but Manning says having to shoot Rocco was  unforeseen and  unfortunate for the officers."
(my comment) unfortunate pops up again - it was very unfortunate for Rocco.

(Manning) "You can't take a chance. The dog attacks you. Keeps attacking you, it can cause you serious injury. The suspect could come back at you. You just don't know. You have to take care of the situation and protect yourself and others," added Manning.

(my comment) This part is probably the truth whether it is right or wrong - They didn't want to take a chance.
And the dog in this statement probably refers to any dog in this type of situation. (not just Rocco)

Lee

 To be honest Lee, I thought Officer Manning used a poor choice of words when he used the word 'unfortunate' in his description as well.  I honestly don't believe he described it properly since it doesn't sound like he was even there.  He is just speculating as well.  Sure wish they would interview the actual Officer that did the shooting.  Until then it is all speculation on both sides.  Daryl's description is just as grey as mine.

the Officer had to shoot the dog twice.  Now think about that for a moment and ask yourself what conditions would require the Officer to shoot the dog twice?
 

That is the reflexive training, a double-tap in most cases, or for some even a triple-tap on the trigger.  To shoot once IS to shoot twice.  HOWEVER, you could be correct if the grouping was not good.  I think in one of the news accounts, it stated that only the second round struck the intended target.  I don't remember for certain.

 Sorry for answering so quickly but I just happen to be online so I apologize if I'm posting too much.  But I was thinking of that too.  One of the bystanders said they heard a pop-pop.  But when the adrenaline is pumping and shots are being fired all of that is in slow motion from the Officers point of view from what I've heard.  They are in a different zone then the average bystander and are fully aware of where those bullets are intended to go and exactly how many have been fired.  At least this is how a few of my Officer buddies have described it.

Remember back to those legal links, where if you read them there was a distinction between the officer's actions and the municipality as far as liability for those actions go?  NO municipality has ever lost a case in a domestic animal shooting by a LEO.  The LMPD has a blanket policy of allowing the shooting of domestic animals if "feeling threatened".

Now feeling threatened to one guy might be a little yapper running circles around your heels, and another guy might take a whole lot more.  The big difference being, feeling threatened is NOT the same as being bitten.  So, basically if a LEO in Louisville wants, it's open season on all pets he "feels threatened" by, and there's NOTHING the owner can do, except sue the municipality and win for the first time in history.  If people in Louisville don't like that policy, they can either change it, or move somewhere else.

Daryl, I have a friend, Mitch Cumstein, that went through a LE Academy. In his class, there were three women. Mitch Cumstein told me, like you said, when you feel threatened you can react accordingly. Now these three women are probably going to feel more easily threatened, so they can justify in a court why they pulled their gun to deal with a 180 lb man getting physical. "You people" see things through your own eyes and you have a long time to think about it. My friend, Mitch Cumstein, told me he was the only one in his whole class that had any experience with dogs. Don't just assume that every cop is knowledgable like the fine folk on here.

You're mistaken, because I actually assume that most cops aren't knowledgable of dogs to the level that many on this forum are.  Precisely why I've emphasized how training and education can help reduce overall incidents like this.  As long as the officer felt truly threatened, given his level of training, and the circumstances at hand, I don't find fault with that.  In this case, I think the policy of the department is flawed, and could easily be abused whether the officer feels threatened or not.  Whether anything morally right or wrong occured can probably only be known by the officer(s) involved, but he would be free of legal responsibility for sure.  That only leaves the municipality at possible fault, and good luck to the owner if that's the case they want to make.