This is a placeholder text
Group text
by ggturner on 04 June 2011 - 15:06
Here's yet another sad story about a police officer shooting a family's gsd in the head. Do you think this shooting was justified? I don't. Here's the article:
http://www.examiner.com/german-shepherd-in-national/police-shoot-family-dog
http://www.examiner.com/german-shepherd-in-national/police-shoot-family-dog
by 4pack on 04 June 2011 - 16:06
Yeah it would have been too much to ask to stay in the car or get back in it when the dog frightened him. What a douche, but then again the owners should have already had their dogs put up if they knew the police were on their way.
by Mindhunt on 04 June 2011 - 17:06
Sad story. I wonder how far away from his car the deputy was? Also, how much time passed between the owner's attemtps to recall their dog (no mention of this in the article) and the deputy making the choice to shoot him. Lots of questions on my part and very few answers. Sad for everyone, especially the poor dog.
by lovejags on 04 June 2011 - 20:06
NO NO NO !!! I DO NOT THINK IT WAS JUSTIFIED! EVEN THE AUTOPSY OF THE DOG SAID THE DOG WAS NOT IN A POSITION OF ''ATTACK MODE'' JUDGING FROM WHERE THE BULLET WENT IN. THIS GUY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CARRY A WEAPON, LET ALONE BE ON THE POLICE FORCE. IN MY OPINION HE JUST PLAIN PANICKED AND SHOT THE DOG! POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD KNOW HOW GSD'S REACT AND WHAT THAT REACTION MEANS. HE HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO GET BACK IN HIS CAR UNTIL THE DOG WAS CONFINED! THIS WAS UNJUSTIFIED, I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE SAYS! MY FEELINGS OF SADNESS GO OUT TO THE OWNERS OF THIS WONDERFUL FAMILY COMPANION!
by SitasMom on 04 June 2011 - 20:06
Its always sad that dogs have to loose when owners to not keep them controlled.
The dogs were not kept either inside their property or on a leash...they were harrasing the neighbors enough for them to call for help.
Yes the owners of this GSD are so very sad, but its their own darn fault and to blame a police officer is just showing their lack of personal responsibility.
by eichenluft on 04 June 2011 - 21:06
This same scenario is played out far too many times. Not only with GSDs or other "aggressive-type" dogs, but also with small dogs, golden retriever dogs, labradors, elderly dogs, even dogs hiding or trying to get away from the police "intruder" on their own property, on their own porch, or in their own yard. It is INEXCUSABLE. The police officers are carrying a gun, they do not need to use the gun unless it's a life or death situation. Certainly not because the "officer panicked and reacted". And officer that panicks and reacts with deadly force, especially to an unarmed person or animal that is not a real threat - should not be a police officer. Period.
molly
molly
by Mindhunt on 05 June 2011 - 00:06
Not that I am in any way condoning what occurred, but it is easy to say what one will or will not do here, unless you have been in that exact situation, you can't say with certianty what you would do. We know GSDs and their body language, this officer may not have. I have met officers who are not familiar with GSDs or other working breeds and some of them have admitted the big dogs make them uneasy if not downright nervous. Some have come out to see us work our dogs and get to know them and this has gone a long way toward making them more comfortable and able to read the dogs. This may have been a perfect storm, the officer was nervous about dogs, the owners did not secure their dog (they knew it was not in protection mode), sounds like he was a young, relatively new officer, and we have no idea of what experiences he has previously had with dogs. Again, I am not condoning what happened, but we are responsible for our dogs' well being and should never expect strangers to be able to read our dogs' intentions the way we do, especially in an emotionally charged situation. Tragic for the poor dog.
by eichenluft on 05 June 2011 - 01:06
The officer had choices. He could have stayed in his car. He could have returned to his car and gotten back into it until the dog was contained. He could have told the owner to control the dog or he would have to shoot (before he pulled the gun out). He could have stood still and let the dog do his thing - unless the dog was actually charging there was no actual danger at that time - he could have used the taser, baton, or pepper spray. Non-lethal methods that police officers are trained to use.
molly
molly
by Mindhunt on 05 June 2011 - 02:06
Having been badly bitten by a dog, I for one would not choose to stand still and "let the dog do his thing". Getting bitten put me out of work for a few days. We don't know how far he was away from his car or if he did in fact tell the owners to secure their dog. There are a lot of questions I have in this case. As for pepper spray or taser, have you ever had a large dog charging and have to shoot it with pepper spray, not as easy as it sounds, nor is hitting it with a taser, there is a different way of holding the taser so the spikes spread horizontal rather than vertical and I have seen more than one dog run off with taser spikes imbedded after being tased. I have also seen dogs that have been whacked hard enough to make me wince and not stop in their charge. One dog was stopped only after his back was injured with a baton hit. Again, I am not condoning what this officer did, he may have overreacted and been quick with the gun, too many unanswered questions. Bottom line is the owners are responsible for securing their dog.
by alboe2009 on 05 June 2011 - 03:06
I'll comment once or twice on this thread. Last one was too exhausting. My opinions, my thoughts. Partially due to knowledge, experience and training. Partially to being around dogs all my life and some of those being GSDs.
First, objectively, everyone has had/taken more time to read that article then the deputy has had time to take into account the situation let alone time to react. Just try and take a few seconds to think about that.
"Unfortunately, when Deputy Michael Buenting arrived there was some miscommunication." Even though it is the job of a reporter to report. You have to try and understand their use of "power words" and the way they tell the news. If we have miscommunication and different views of the situation then how can one tell the story? Let alone to "The Court of Public Opinion"?
I'll comment on a few "points" That I read, (the same points that everyone read also); MISCOMMUNICATION: We all know what that is, doesn't matter what job or profession, doesn't matter if it's because of the transmitter OR the receiver. We know what it is and the problem(s) it can/will cause. "The Holsts contend that they gave a signal to the deputy to wait in his car -but he did not wait..... PLEASE, PLEASE tell me what the universal "signal", without saying one word, is? For you to wait in a car? Without saying ONE word? The Holsts are the "Original Complainants" The ones calling the police for assistance!
(I'm the Holsts making the phone call.....) "I have one, ten or twenty German Shepherds, please have the responding Deputy or Deputies stay in their cruisers till I come for them, I want to put my dogs away" See how simple that was? Now my thoughts are that is clear and concise communication? Not " According to the Holst family the dogs were being put away so they would not be present while the deputy was at the property to discuss the problem,"
Obviously, that didn't happen. Now we have two different accounts of the critical moment. Through the Deputy's eyes and the owner's eyes. I am not condoning the Deputy's action, I was not present. Just as some should not be jumping on the owner's bandwagon because they were not present.
I know this will be another "HOT" thread but I hope that some have learned something they didn't know or realize because/from the first one.
With the facts I know here would be my course of actions, (now understand I have had time to think but I can say I'm pretty sure the results would be the same); Upon responding I would have requested a "history" on the address I'm responding to, to give me a better picture of anything that has happened in the past at that address. Any dog issues, if documented. Any AC problems if documented. I would tell Dispatch to keep the complainant on the phone and upon arrival have the complainant advise if the "problem" dog(s) are still on property. IF, and we have no idea if the Deputy had a visual on dog(s) upon arrival or if the dog was out of sight now running towards same? But, IF I could see the GSD I would ask Dispatch if the dog I have a visual on is the complainants'. And then the response situation would unfold.
I know allot of emotional responses will be responded to this thread and yes, it is another tragedy and a loss for the Holsts and everyone that has gone or will go through this situation. But, try not to judge so fast, without being in the individual's shoes. Being a LEO does not mean/prove that Office
First, objectively, everyone has had/taken more time to read that article then the deputy has had time to take into account the situation let alone time to react. Just try and take a few seconds to think about that.
"Unfortunately, when Deputy Michael Buenting arrived there was some miscommunication." Even though it is the job of a reporter to report. You have to try and understand their use of "power words" and the way they tell the news. If we have miscommunication and different views of the situation then how can one tell the story? Let alone to "The Court of Public Opinion"?
I'll comment on a few "points" That I read, (the same points that everyone read also); MISCOMMUNICATION: We all know what that is, doesn't matter what job or profession, doesn't matter if it's because of the transmitter OR the receiver. We know what it is and the problem(s) it can/will cause. "The Holsts contend that they gave a signal to the deputy to wait in his car -but he did not wait..... PLEASE, PLEASE tell me what the universal "signal", without saying one word, is? For you to wait in a car? Without saying ONE word? The Holsts are the "Original Complainants" The ones calling the police for assistance!
(I'm the Holsts making the phone call.....) "I have one, ten or twenty German Shepherds, please have the responding Deputy or Deputies stay in their cruisers till I come for them, I want to put my dogs away" See how simple that was? Now my thoughts are that is clear and concise communication? Not " According to the Holst family the dogs were being put away so they would not be present while the deputy was at the property to discuss the problem,"
Obviously, that didn't happen. Now we have two different accounts of the critical moment. Through the Deputy's eyes and the owner's eyes. I am not condoning the Deputy's action, I was not present. Just as some should not be jumping on the owner's bandwagon because they were not present.
I know this will be another "HOT" thread but I hope that some have learned something they didn't know or realize because/from the first one.
With the facts I know here would be my course of actions, (now understand I have had time to think but I can say I'm pretty sure the results would be the same); Upon responding I would have requested a "history" on the address I'm responding to, to give me a better picture of anything that has happened in the past at that address. Any dog issues, if documented. Any AC problems if documented. I would tell Dispatch to keep the complainant on the phone and upon arrival have the complainant advise if the "problem" dog(s) are still on property. IF, and we have no idea if the Deputy had a visual on dog(s) upon arrival or if the dog was out of sight now running towards same? But, IF I could see the GSD I would ask Dispatch if the dog I have a visual on is the complainants'. And then the response situation would unfold.
I know allot of emotional responses will be responded to this thread and yes, it is another tragedy and a loss for the Holsts and everyone that has gone or will go through this situation. But, try not to judge so fast, without being in the individual's shoes. Being a LEO does not mean/prove that Office
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top