LAw Enforcement Today article- don't shoot family dogs

[Marty65]

Really?

Yep

 

[NorCalBusa]

Another opinion;

A. Barton Hinkle has a column on the tragic prevalence of police shooting dogs for little or no cause:

Across the country, both state laws and departmental policies seem to let police officers use deadly force as a first resort against family pets that often present little or no threat. In one infamous 2010 case from Missouri, an officer shot and killed a dog that had been subdued and held on a catch-pole. In another, an officer shot D.C. resident Marietta Robinson’s 13-year-old dog, Wrinkles, after Robinson had confined the dog to her bathroom.

Last year police officers chasing two suspects in Lake Charles,Louisiana, shot a dog named Monkey that barked at them. In Henrico,Va., last July, police officers went to the home of a homicide victim to notify the family of the slaying. When the family dog ran toward them, the officers shot and killed it. In Danville four years ago, a police officer shot and killed a 12-pound miniature dachshund. For growling at him.

Danville’s chief says the officer followed policy.

Police officers receive extensive training about the use of force when it is applied against humans. But how many departments provide training on dealing with pets? Very few, says the Humane Society. This despite the fact that, according to a Justice Department paper (“The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters”), 39 percent of U.S. homes have dogs. More than half of dog owners “consider their dogs family members,” it continues, “and another 45.1 percent view them as companions or pets....”

Do we really need systematic training to combat a few isolated incidents, however unfortunate? The question rests on a false premise. Civil-liberties writer Radley Balko notes that over a nine-year period Milwaukee officers killed 434 dogs – about one every eight days. And that’s just one city. Across the country, according to Justice, “the majority of [police] shooting incidents involve animals, most frequently dogs.”

But surely those shootings occur because the animals themselves pose a serious threat, right? Nope. The Justice Department says not only that “dogs are seldom dangerous” but that even when they are, “the overwhelming majority of dog bites are minor, causing either no injury at all or injuries so minor that no medical care is required.” As Balko writes, “If dangerous dogs are so common, one would expect to find frequent reports of vicious attacks on meter readers, postal workers, firemen, and delivery workers. But according to a spokesman from the United States Postal Service, serious dog attacks on mail carriers are vanishingly rare.”

Yet serious – deadly – attacks against dogs are all too common. They shouldn’t be. And the solutions are obvious: Departmental policies, backed by state law, should require police officers to use lethal force against companion animals only as a last resort. Officers should receive training in safe and non-lethal methods of animal control – and in dog behavior: “An approaching dog is almost always friendly,” according to the Justice Department; “a dog who feels threatened will usually try to keep his distance.”

Radley Balko documents this problem in greater detail in his important new book, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces
. As he points out, dog shootings are part of a broader pattern of police using increasingly aggressive military-style tactics against people as well as pets, even when the circumstances don’t even come close to justifying it. He also notes that many police departments never punish officers who wrongfully shoot dogs even in the most egregious cases, such as this one.

Balko and Hinkle recommend improved training for police, similar to that which postal workers get. As Balko points out, US Postal Service employees often encounter dogs, but virtually always avoid injuries without resorting to violence against the animals. Such training should be coupled with serious sanctions for officers who shoot dogs without good cause. Ideally, they should be subject to criminal and civil penalties comparable to those imposed on civilians who shoot pets without justification. After all, it is reasonable to expect trained police officers to exercise better judgment and self-control than ordinary citizens when it comes to the use of force. People who can’t even live up to the same standards expected of civilians probably should not be police officers in the first place.

In Virginia, for example, the law states that any person who “cruelly or unnecessarily beats, maims, mutilates, or kills any animal, whether belonging to himself or another” is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year of imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $2500. A second offense within five years of the first qualifies as a class 6 felony, punishable by a term of 1 to 5 years in prison. In addition, the owners of the slain dog can file a civil suit to get restitution from the shooter. People can reasonably disagree about whether Virginia’s penalties for such crimes are exactly right. But they strike me as at least roughly in the right ballpark for people who kill others’ beloved pets without cause.

Even if parity with the punishments imposed on civilians is not politically feasible, there should at least be some serious consequences for offending officers. These might include substantial suspensions without pay, dismissal from the force for repeat offenders, and payment of restitution to the pets’ owners (preferably without indemnification of the officer by the public fisc).

UPDATE: Many people, myself included, often feel greater visceral outrage when police use unnecessary force against dogs than against people, even though the latter is surely objectively worse. We cannot help the emotions we feel, but we should be aware of this bias. As I said in the post, unjustified police violence against dogs is part of a broader pattern of overly aggressive, military-style police tactics documented in Radley Balko’s book. In a future post, I will do a review of the book as a whole, and try to put the problem in broader perspective. At the same time, unjustified violence against dogs is a serious wrong in its own right and Balko, Hinkle, and others perform a valuable service in calling attention to this widespread problem.

http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/10/police-should-stop-shooting-so-many-dogs/

 

[NorCalBusa]

And the view from Business Insider;

A horrific video of police shooting a Rottweiler named Max after arresting his owner over the weekend is all too familiar.

Without doing anything to try to calm the dog, a Hawthorne, Calif. police officer shot him dead after he started barking at the officers. The dog writhed and yelped in the street.

The striking brutality of the video is reminiscent of a video taken last summer of NYPD officers shooting a homeless man's pit bull in the face. (Unlike Max, the pit bull named Star lived.)

Roughly half of all firearms discharges by police officers involve shooting a canine, according to an ASPCA review of public records. There is an entire Facebook page devoted to sad stories of people whose dogs were killed by police.

One was a labrador retriever shot by a police officer after a pit bull began trying to fight with it. In Colorado this summer, police shot a pit bull named Sara after it got out of its owners house and apparently tried to bite a 10-year-old.

And a pair of roommates in Concord, Calif. say police shot their 13-year-old cocker spaniel in the shoulder when it barked at them as they looked for a suspicious person in the neighborhood.

Some of the dogs on the "Dogs shot by police" Facebook page have reputations for being aggressive — mainly, pit bulls — so it's understandable why cops might freak out and fear for their safety.

But the Justice Department issued guidelines about how police should handle dogs that say "lethal force is a last resort and rarely necessary." When responding to aggressive dogs, cops should first try using tranquilizer guns, chemical repellents, and batons. Police might even try scaring dogs with a fast-opening umbrella.

It's clear that police don't always use lethal force as a last resort, though. Many police departments give cops broad authority to shoot dogs if they think they're in "imminent danger," according to the ASPCA.

In the case of Max, Hawthorne police issued a statement saying they feared the "attacking Rottweiler would imminently attack the officer." But cops rarely get any real training on how to quickly assess how dangerous a dog is, according to the ASPCA.

"Although they may encounter truly dangerous dogs in some situations," the ASPCA says on its website, "the majority of dogs they are likely to meet are well-behaved family pets that are legitimately protecting their homes and families from intruders."

http://www.businessinsider.com/police-are-shooting-dogs-2013-7

 

[SyndicatedDeath]

As far as that last article, I think the only real viable option is Tranq gun. Thing is, I know officers don't want to carry anymore than they already do.

Baton would still cause people to rage. Umbrella would be seen as just plain silly I'm sure. I've heard of dogs being more aggressive with chem or tazer.

RolnCode3... You've seen a side I know exists. But, I was speaking strictly about animals I've seen shot that I know could have been avoided. Obviously there are times where there is no ability to avoid it.

Think of animals like you would a person. Even when they are freaking out, you make it your job to remain calm. It helps both parties. Then again I'm not afraid to be bitten. So, it just may be easy for me to say.

 

[danate]

I think the answer, like many things, is training. I'm pretty sure most officers have a good idea of how to deal with dogs and keep an eye out for signs saying "Beware of dog" etc before running into the back yard. There are also those out there who are probably clueless or even have an irrational fear of dogs. In the end, dogs can be dangerous creatures, so if you like the company of your large intimidating dog, put up signs and do all you can because if he charges a cop, it isn't unreasonable to shoot it.

I think times when it becomes an issue would be during a chase where it's difficult to notice they're entering a dog's yard. Also in this situation it would be prudent to reach for the pepper spray instead of your gun if a dog is facing off with you. I've watched the mailman on my street calmly pull out his pepper spray as a big dog was running straight at him and one shot to the face disoriented the dog and sent it packing.

Either way, the key is more training and trying to make sure all officers add that to their banks of considerations while assessing a scene.

 

[OldFatGuy]

And a pair of roommates in Concord, Calif. say police shot their 13-year-old cocker spaniel in the shoulder when it barked at them as they looked for a suspicious person in the neighborhood.

This is the one I'm most familiar with because it's close to me. In this case, the Police were searching for a burglar that they thought might be in the dog owner's yard. The officer entered the yard without permission and shot their geriatric Cocker Spaniel because he felt threatened.

I am in no way anti-cop and I appreciate the work the police do, but how can this possibly be ok?

 

[bojangle]

I don't see this as being a huge problem, other than isolated incidents where it might have been uncalled for. I don't trust the objectivity of any of the posted articles. I saw the video of the recent Hawthorn dog shooting. The dog was doing far more than barking. It charged the officers and then snapped at an officer who tried to gain control of it's leash. Then the officer shot it.

 

[Marty65]

I don't see this as being a huge problem, other than isolated incidents where it might have been uncalled for. I don't trust the objectivity of any of the posted articles. I saw the video of the recent Hawthorn dog shooting. The dog was doing far more than barking. It charged the officers and then snapped at an officer who tried to gain control of it's leash. Then the officer shot it.

This video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h3NLnRIwvE

Now that's just totally fucked up. The initial civilian engagement leading to the owners arrest is another fucked up deal.

 

[bojangle]

This video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h3NLnRIwvE

Now that's just totally fucked up. The initial civilian engagement leading to the owners arrest is another fucked up deal.

Yeah, that video. There was also another video, put out by Hawthorne PD, showing a different cell phone video from a different angle and closer. In that video you can see how close the owner was bringing his dog to the police, who were working on capturing barricaded armed robbers in that house. You can also hear just how loud his music was from the car, to the point of interfering with police communications over a bullhorn. The dog owner had also sued the police before in civil court. It's fucked up because he was there looking for shit and he found it. And unfortunately he put his dog in harms way.

My point was that the biased media story that used this incident, among others, to paint a skewed image of police shooting dogs, claimed they shot the dog because it was barking. That clearly wasn't the case.

But I'm not quite sure why you think it's totally fucked up....or which part is totally fucked up..

 

[1085One]

I think the answer, like many things, is training. I'm pretty sure most officers have a good idea of how to deal with dogs and keep an eye out for signs saying "Beware of dog" etc before running into the back yard. There are also those out there who are probably clueless or even have an irrational fear of dogs. In the end, dogs can be dangerous creatures, so if you like the company of your large intimidating dog, put up signs and do all you can because if he charges a cop, it isn't unreasonable to shoot it.

I think times when it becomes an issue would be during a chase where it's difficult to notice they're entering a dog's yard. Also in this situation it would be prudent to reach for the pepper spray instead of your gun if a dog is facing off with you. I've watched the mailman on my street calmly pull out his pepper spray as a big dog was running straight at him and one shot to the face disoriented the dog and sent it packing.

Either way, the key is more training and trying to make sure all officers add that to their banks of considerations while assessing a scene.

I've never recieved any training on how to deal with dogs. We are not animal control.

 

[ebRider]

Yeah, that video. There was also another video, put out by Hawthorne PD, showing a different cell phone video from a different angle and closer. In that video you can see how close the owner was bringing his dog to the police, who were working on capturing barricaded armed robbers in that house. You can also hear just how loud his music was from the car, to the point of interfering with police communications over a bullhorn. The dog owner had also sued the police before in civil court. It's fucked up because he was there looking for shit and he found it. And unfortunately he put his dog in harms way.

My point was that the biased media story that used this incident, among others, to paint a skewed image of police shooting dogs, claimed they shot the dog because it was barking. That clearly wasn't the case.

But I'm not quite sure why you think it's totally fucked up....or which part is totally fucked up..

I can't claim to know anything about your job, but is the dude being arrested wasn't exactly resisting. Is there not an option 3 to "allow the arestee to secure their animal"?

The part thats fucked up, from the civilian perspective, is the murder of a family member when the arestee could have been given 2 minutes, with 5 officers already pointing guns at him so he aint going anywhere and would be shot dead for trying anything stupid, to secure his dog within the vehicle.

Maybe thats completely impossible from a police perspective, you have to understand as civilians we have none of your training. We only know what we would do in a situation with an agressive dog, and its never "shoot it". More than anything this is the crux of the matter, most people have at one time or another in their life dealt with an aggressive dog and we did it without killing anything. Certainly most police interaction with pets ends the same way.

Just to play devils advocate what do the police do in other countries where they don't carry guns? Certainly the answer isnt "let the officers get mauled", there must be effective methods in use around the world.

 

[Marty65]

Yeah, that video. There was also another video, put out by Hawthorne PD, showing a different cell phone video from a different angle and closer. In that video you can see how close the owner was bringing his dog to the police, who were working on capturing barricaded armed robbers in that house. You can also hear just how loud his music was from the car, to the point of interfering with police communications over a bullhorn. The dog owner had also sued the police before in civil court. It's fucked up because he was there looking for shit and he found it. And unfortunately he put his dog in harms way.

My point was that the biased media story that used this incident, among others, to paint a skewed image of police shooting dogs, claimed they shot the dog because it was barking. That clearly wasn't the case.

But I'm not quite sure why you think it's totally fucked up....or which part is totally fucked up..

The officer who shot the dog used poor judgment in containing the dog "threat". You can clearly see he provoked the dogs attack by walking towards it and putting his hand out and who knows what he was saying to the dog.

What are the details of the events leading to the detention/arrest?, was he actually hauled off to jail and charged with a crime?

From what I see in the video, the officers stood around for a while and discussed what they wanted to do about the guy video taping (assumptive). The guy didn't seem to be a threat to them based on their manner of approach and detention. Just on those visible facts, the officers had alternative options in dealing with the animal "threat". This event was unfortunate and avoidable.

Fortunately there are officers out there who employ common sense when dealing with potential animal "threats".
I've had three encounters with officers where my dogs were involved.

- Rottweiler laying in my garage while an officer pulled up to ask a question about an illegally parked car. He started to walk up the driveway when dog and officer made notice of each other. Officer stops in his tracks and backs up onto the sidewalk where he stood and asked me about the car.

- Patrol unit pulls ahead of me and stops while I'm walking my dog in the neighborhood. Asks if I could secure the dog by tying the leash around a nearby tree. He was investigating a suspicious person call and asked me a few questions and for my ID. I didn't have my ID and he started to get pissy with me about why I didn't have ID. Fortunately my friend pulls up in another unit and all is good. This officer handled the potential dog "threat" perfectly, however his interpersonal skills about the ID needs some fine tuning.

- Target shooting on private unincorporated land a deputy rolls up and starts to get out of his car and approach me. My dog gets up and starts to trot towards the deputy where he retreats back to his unit. Over the PA asks if I could secure the dog. He was investigating a neighbors complaint of shots fired.

Someone else mentioned about how other nations' officers deal with animal "threats". In Japan, they don't enter private property without owner permission. Common courtesy and respect is expected by the public and enforced by police policy. Their defense against potential animal "threats" is through the use of mace, common sense and good judgment.

BTW - don't postal workers carry mace?

This thread is an excellent point of discussion about the subject

 

[Entoptic]

I agree. Which is why my dogs will never be in a situation where they might make an officer feel concerned for his/her safety.

Until one day the cops kick in your door, throw a flash bang, shoot your dog and hold guns to your head and your beloved ones. What happens if you just forget one time to close the gate and the dog gets out. It happens more often then you may think.

If dogs are so dangerous why don't dog catchers have guns?

 

[silversvs]

Yeah, that's going to happen.

 

[ThumperX]

This seems like a good thread to bring this up.
My big black shepherd is very protective. My greatest fear is being pulled over and having the dog go into protective mode when the officer approaches the car.
Is there a way to inform the officer that the dog is safe? As long as a stranger is invading my perceived safety zone the dog is going to appear menacing.

 

[Dr. Evil]

While I definitely think that there needs to be a MASSIVE revamp of police department policy towards strange dogs, this...

use their brains to think to fire a single shot towards a leg, aiming only to injure but not kill? Or what about firing a shot into the sky, which might be loud enough to frighten the dog off?

What the fuck? What the ACTUAL fuck? And my favorite part...

And why is there such blatant disregard for anything else that might be injured? Many bullets are through-and-through, or ricochet, leaving the possibility that others can be killed in their reckless gun shows of cowardice.

Didn't this guy JUST say to fire at the dog's foot or into the sky or something?

Who is this jackass?

 

[bojangle]

While I definitely think that there needs to be a MASSIVE revamp of police department policy towards strange dogs, this...



What the fuck? What the ACTUAL fuck? And my favorite part...



Didn't this guy JUST say to fire at the dog's foot or into the sky or something?

Who is this jackass?

He's some kind of LEO or retired LEO from New York, apparently. That's why I wrote that is was hard to believe he is/was a LEO. He certainly doesn't write like he is anyone with LE experience.

 

[Shaggy]

BTW - don't postal workers carry mace?

Would you trust a postal worker with a firearm?

Secondly, delivering mail is a bit different since postal workers have an option to of deliver mail or back off. No one is going to die if they dont receive their Capital One statement... There may be situations where officers are required to take some sort of action and a person's pet is in the way of accomplishing that task.

Case in point, two days ago we were dispatched to a female allegedly held captive by her boyfriend and raped repeatedly throughout the course of the day. She escaped and ran next door to call the police. We have previous contacts with him and he is a known meth addict who has a history of domestic violence and violence against law enforcement, both with and without weapons. We arrive on scene and he comes out of the house and is detained in handcuffs without incident.

Now we have to conduct a security sweep of the residence and make sure there are no other suspects or victims inside, but he has two huge and aggressive pitbulls in the yard.

This isn't a scenario where time is on our side and we can wait for animal control to respond from 45 minutes away (if they are even available). We damn sure aren't going to unhandcuff the suspected rapist/cop assaulter and risk attack or escape. Luckily we were able to get the dog to back off and secure them to accomplish our task.

I'm an animal lover. I have three dogs. The last thing I want to have to do is kill a dog. But if it attacks, I'm going to do what I need to in order to ensure my safety and the safety of my coworkers. Period. If that means killing a dog, then so be it.

It's easy to sit behind a computer screen and say cops should do this or that. That's not reality though.

 

[Shaggy]

This seems like a good thread to bring this up.
My big black shepherd is very protective. My greatest fear is being pulled over and having the dog go into protective mode when the officer approaches the car.
Is there a way to inform the officer that the dog is safe? As long as a stranger is invading my perceived safety zone the dog is going to appear menacing.

Keep the dog secured so it cannot attack the officer be that the back seat, truck bed, camper shell, etc....

Officers should be trained well enough to perceive unfamiliar dogs as a safety risk

 

[ThumperX]

Thanks Nick.