officer shoots dog a different prospective - Page 4

Animules,

You could be right, but I still consider it likely that it WAS a revolver. Most semi-autos will scatter shells as you shoot unless you are shooting from a benchrest. Best Wishes, Jonah

never heard of a revolver that carried 7 rounds...

I understand he may have reloaded,  ok how long does it take to reload a revolver ??  My guess is around 6 to 10 seconds and your damn good if you can do it in that.  (jmo on that)  But lets consider he reloaded,  it took him only 3 to 5 seconds to reload,  well in that 3 to 5 if the dog was still "attacking"  don't you think he'd a gotten bit,  but instead he takes the time to reload and then put just one more in the dog,  one more horrifically placed shot,  if it was gonna be just one more,  I would make sure I hit my mark.

just a thought.

I have to post to this thread as I have been through this a couple of times.  During my career as a Police Officer (now a retired Lieutenant), I worked a two person car for eight years before making Detective, in the "big city" and had the following experiences and observations.

I was working with an officer named Rich and we were in foot pursuit of a car thief, through city back yards, over fences and such, and I heard a shot ring out.  I rounded the corner of a house going towards the shot and found that my parter, Rich, had shot a medium sized dog (named Bear).  Bear was some kind of mixed breed dog that looked like his name should have been "Fluffy" instead of "Bear".  A non-scary dog (at least to me).  Bear was in a fenced in yard and had "come at or towards" Rich and Rich shot him twice (our academy teaches Tac-Tac shooting which means that everytime you shoot, you shoot twice, real quick).  And as in Karate, when you constantly practice that way, when the "sh t hits the fan", that is what you will do, without thinking about it.  Anyway, we found the car thief hiding on the porch roof of that house.  I felt sorry for Bear, but he died.  A funny part to this is that the spanish owner of Bear (the owner spoke little english), stated on the TV news that night "Police ain't allowed to shoot persons, dogs are persons".  I thought that part was funny :).

I personally blamed Rich, my partner, for being quick to shoot.  Don't get me wrong.  I would have died for my partner and I do understand why he shot.  Who wants to be bitten.  I am just a dog lover and I am willing to take a bite or two, to avoid killing a dog.  I would shoot at the ground near the animal in order to scare it with the sound.  That would work unless the dog is gun trained.  But most officers and people don't think like that, so I do not hold it against Rich, that much.

The conclusions and guesticulations are quite interesting.  A few facts about law enforcement officers.  Many never handled a weapon prior to going to the police academy.  Most only fire their weapons at the range during qualification (semi annually in the northeast). Investigations into many live fire shooting senarios where an officer draws their weapon in a surprise senario, finds the officer starts pulling the trigger prior to obtaining a sight picture (aiming at target). Meaning two or more rounds are fired as the officer is raising his weapon to sight in the target.  This is a very common reaction.  There was a case in NJ where the FBI fired over 100 rounds in close quarters at a suspect.  The suspect was hit less than 20 times.

If the dog was able to make contact with the officer.  The officer was justified in defending himself.  If the Officer was only scratched he was lucky.  Since when does the officers injuries justify use of force.  Officers are allowed to elivate the use of force used upon them.

This is a situation where if you have not been there, you don't know what you would have done.  I guess some believe the officer should have recieved a a full mouth grip on his arm or leg before taking action.

Now the argument of threat level and warrant service is crap.  You have no idea what a person is capable of in order to stay out of jail.  People risk life and limb everyday to avoid being arrested for driving with a suspended drivers license.  Everytime you serve a warrant you are using the same technique  if it is for child support or homicide.

If this officer is known or found to shoot dogs for sport he should be held accountable.  Contrary to popular belief cops are not super men.  Outside of TV I have yet to come across a situation where an officer shot a weapon out of a suspects hand.  Shooting at and hitting a moving target in a lethal area is much harder than television makes it appear. 

I feel for the family that lost their dog in this very violent manner.  An officer would have a lot of explaining to do if they shot one of my dogs in its 6 point enclosure.

Kyle

"I think that since the officer saw the dog & saw that it was tied up he should have simply taken a step back.  How is that unreasonable?"

I was not there and I don't think you were either.  How do we know at what point the officer knew the dog was tied? How do we know that the officer was not bitten while attempting to leave?  How do we know the officer was not in a position to flee (ie. on the porch or standing in a doorway)?  Would it have been okay for the dog to bite the mailman or Johvah's Witness?

I could be wrong but you make it sound as if the officer knowingly walked in the path of the dog to promote an attack.  Thus shooting the dog for no reason other than having the opportunity.  As I said before, if this officer does this sort of thing as a matter of course then he should be dealt with accordingly.  But I doubt he did this on purpose and give him the benefit of a doubt, unless other information to the contrary is available.

Kyle

I didn't read all the posts, but here's my take.  True I know none of the "real" facts, I wasn't there.  BUT if this officer has been involved in at least 3 other shooting deaths of dogs, its either a freak coincidence or this guy has poor judgement.  Even though he may have had legal rights to be on the property, I won't contest that, I think he did, he was able to walk around freely to multiple doors and windows free from any harm from the dog. 

He knew the dog was chained, he knew the safe area from the dog, no matter how it was acting, the dog, i'm betting Max didn't even need to be a part of this story at all.  you can say his wounds don't matter, that if a man pulled a knife and all you got was a small scratch but shot and killed him, i'd say you were justified, change the story to the man is in a cage or restrained in a way that he can't freely attack you, then your life would no longer be in danger and deadly force would not be acceptable. 

Sure there are other circumstances that could change that story, maybe some facts will come out of this one that will change the way I feel.  The simple fact that confrontation with the dog could have been avoided, and seemingly was while he checked out different sides and areas of the property, tells me he could do his job without involving the dog.  Couple that with the fact that he's done this on 3 or so previous occasions, becomes  a little more telling of this guys mindset.