K9 killed in line of duty in PA - Page 1

I read an article in yesterdays paper that really bothered me and thought it would raise some good discussion.

Officers responded to a call of shots fired; long story short they asked the suspect to show his hands, he did so and brandished a gun, they made several requests for him to drop the weapon and when he did not do so they sent the dog to subdue him.  In the meantime the suspect began firing shots at the dog killing him dead and his handler opened fire on the suspect fatally wounding him.  The family of the suspect made a statement to the paper they felt the officer killed their son, then killed his own dog and planted a weapon on the suspect to coroborate their story.  How ridiculous does that sound??lol  Then they proceed to state "Is a dogs life worth more than human life?"  This is when I started to get a little upset because that dog lost his own life in order for his handler to keep his; he did what he was told to do, with courage and loyalty.  Although I feel for a family's loss of a child regardless of the circumstances I can't begin to imagine the way that handler feels today having to goto work without his partner/friend and reliving the day he had to see him get shot down giving his life for him.  Considering the suspect was no stranger to criminal history, which by the way was previously convicted of a weapons charge; the family tries to paint him out to be this upstanding law abiding, minding his own business type of guy.

Then another article was written interviewing the President of the PA Police K9 Assoc. where he contradicts himself by stating if he knew the guy had a gun he would not deploy the dog, but then says he'd of probably did what the officer did given the same situation. He states he was trained that if the guy is armed not to deploy the dog and goes to say "what you're basically doing is selling the dog out".  Why I ask would it be "selling him out"?  This isn't a game you set up to guarantee the dog a win every time, this is the real deal where your "win" is you get to go home with your partner ALIVE.

I wondered what other people's thoughts are on this?  I was always under the understanding a police k9 gets deployed just before deadly force has been used.  In this situation wouldn't a suspect brandishing a gun, refusing to comply with officers requests fall under that same criteria?  How much more "before deadly force" would have been needed??

The article also quotes stating police k9's are "expendable" to their handlers; something happens to the dog they just go get another to replace it.  Is that REALLY how it is??  Maybe I'm too much of a "softie" but comments like that really blow me away as I have such a deep bond with my dogs I can't imagine ever considering them "expendable".

The K9 will have a special place at the rainbow bridge for doing his job with courage.  I feel so sorry for the handler, he lost a partner and a friend.

A person with the history of the "suspect" is not a child and I hate it when the media portrays them as such.   It almost has the feel of suicide by cop.

It makes me want to vomit when I hear again and again what supposed 'angels' these gun-toting teenagers are!

In a similar case posted awhile back on the PDB, involving a youth that was high on drugs, I believe the dog was killed by 'friendly fire'. It looked like the police officers opened fire BEFORE the young man went for his gun. Then one of the posters on the board who was a LEO or former LEO said the sound on the video had been deliberately done out of synch, to make it look like the police were at fault for prematurely opening fire, when in actual fact, they waited until the perp went for his gun. .

At the end of the video, you can hear the dog's handler being very, very upset over the loss of his dog.

We have had this sort of discussion before on the board, and if I remember correctly, those familiar with K9 training said a dog is far too valuable a resource to be put at risk needlessly. In other words, you don't have your dog go charging at a drawn gun, unless it's necessary to save the lives of the police officers. 

If I were an LEO I personally would have a difficult time sending my dog into that situation (gunman in waiting).  Unless the perp's attention was in another direction and there was a good chance for a surprise dog hit. 

But as I've been told when I've questioned this exact situation before, we weren't there involved in the situation, so it would be unfair to critisize the K9 handler's split descision in the midst of chaos.  He has suffered greatly because of it and I'm sure dwells on the incident and descision he made.

Hearing what the family said really pisses me off.  They should be GREATFUL they officers gave him the opportunity to be apprehended by a non lethal force (K9) instead of just shooting him dead on the spot (which it sounds to me like they would have been justified doing).

I think the OP should have posted the whole story ...

Gimme a break. Old enough to illegally carry a gun? Old enough to die by one. Ths country is going to sh!t. The criminals have more rights than the victims.

i think when someone is holding a gun and planning to shoot you,is a right time not to send yourself and your kids or your dog,does not matter how much trainig you have.it is very very sad that this officer lost his partner.and Blitzen i am with you on this one.thanx.

Yeah the country is going to shit, as well as the rest of the world.   I dont care who, or how old, or why, once you hold the weapon you enter a world with rules as old as time.   Someone else will sort it out after its done.

Here's the article from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08128/879705-85.stm

The denial in this world also amazes me.  Not my kid!