Officer shoots dog during foot chase thru dog's backyard. Right or wrong? - Page 5

 Right.  I’d have to give the Officer the ‘benefit of doubt’ on this one.  Sounds like a tough situation though.  Even if the Officer was a trained k9 handler it’s the unpredictability of the suspect that can’t be forgotten.  This could have easily been a story about a dead Officer and a dead dog.

Sorry for the owners loss though.  Sounds like Rocco was a badass ‘Dobe’ that died bravely in the line of duty.

the report says the police shot the dog to protect suspect also? the dog jumped on the suspect at first ? kinda sick and sad and upsetting that they shot it, it didnt even BITE ANYONE! maybe if it bit the officer that would be diff but the damn dog didnt bite crap.

Some people speak as if all cops have white hats and are good guys that do no wrong.
I know some good LEOs personally.
I heard on the radio yesterday - a story about a cop that molested multiple women.
A few months or so ago there was a news story about an off duty officer that took his small dog to a dog park and shot a larger dog for running towards it. 
There was another story recently about a guy that got arrested for barking at a police dog.
Only police dogs have rights?

Yes some people do speak that way, Lee,  though I don't think anyone on this thread has.  Sort of like how some people automatically want to jump to the conclusion that all cops must be assholes, hopefully no one on this thread feels that way, either.

All I'm saying is that it's an awful tragedy,  but if an officer is being attacked by a dog, he may have no other recourse but to shoot the dog, when in pursuit of someone who is suspected of having just committed a very violent crime. 

daryl and troublx have the best posts on this thread that make the most sense

I find it funny how some of the people say "oh well that is part of the officers job he had to do it" id like to see them raise a puppy from six weeks that never bit anyone only to have a rapist jump in their yard and have a cop "SHOot" your dog in the face to get it off the rapist lol then lets hear you say "oh well the cop just doing his job lets go bury our dog!" lol

The dog didnt bite anyone. he didnt bite the suspect nor did he bite the officer nor has the dog ever bitten anyone i bet. As you can see its owner said the dog would not have bitten.

Not one person has said it wasn't a horrible tragedy.  I would like to hear some sort of a viable and practical alternative, because I hate the idea of someone's dog being shot,  but so far, no one has come up with anything, save for condemnation.

I saw a couple people suggest the officer should have used non-lethal force to deal with the dog.  Not sure how this could be accomplished before the dog bites.  You do understand that would mean the officer would have to stop running, holster his gun, get out the pepper spray/tazer, aim and shoot, right?  ALL before being bit?  Plus that would mean taking the gun off the suspect, but that's okay?  Some have suggested the officer should have allowed himself to be bitten prior to shooting the dog.  That's not  a very realistic or fair expectation. 

Cops do put themselves on the line for the safety of the public, but they cannot be expected to put themselves in danger and at risk for the property of the public, and that's what a dog is, that's the cold hard facts, whether I, or anyone else likes it or not, dogs are considered to be property.

So when I read stories like this, I try to think what can I do to lessen the risk to my dog, if god forbid, it happens to me, because as a matter of fact, one of my dogs would be more than happy to bite anyone who comes unannounced into my yard, and that is a liability, but it's my liability, not the job of some cop to get bit and ask questions later.    I would truly like to know what else a cop can be expected to do. 

As Jim and I both suggested, nonlethal means could be resorted to first.  Tazer, pepperspray, rubber bullets, ultrasonic blast, T-bone, whatever...  The only difference is, I think TRAINING is invaluable in preparing for ways to react under stress.  Appearantly, he disagrees because of it's infrequent liklihood of occurance.  There are plenty of reports (and suppressed ones, which would skew the truth) that I don't need to make a chart (wiseguy).  Jim and I at least seem to also agree that the dog owner is owed fair compensation for the bungled affair.  For me, compensation would include the assurance of TRAINING for preventative measures against repeated incidents.

Darryl, I think it sounds great, but it doesn't sound like it's a really feasible idea.  Think about it:  Cop is running after a suspect in the dark, hears a dog coming after him, he is supposed to stop, holster his gun (taking it off the suspect), grab the pepper spray or tazer, aim and tazer the dog - BEFORE the dog reaches him AND not allowing the suspect to get away?  Come on now buddy, I know our dogs would have no problem reaching him first!

We don't have a clear idea how the incident occured, but if you want to speculate, I'd say since the dog supposedly attacked the suspect first, wouldn't the suspect be in the line of fire while the dog was being shot?

If you want to get imaginative, an directional ultrasonic sound blaster could be attached to the muzzle of a gun as part of their flashlight attachment, or a 360 degree device turned on prior to jumping blindly into someone's back yard in pursuit.

If "they cannot be expected to put themselves in danger", then they wouldn't be trespassing after suspects in unknown territory, especially if they don't have the environmental soundness to deal with the unknown, or the willingness to train for the improbable.  The unliklihood of terrorist attacks don't prevent TSA for training for them, the unliklihood of invasion by foreign nations doesn't prevent our military from training against the possibilities.

Darryl when I was thinking about how something like this could be prevented,  I was thinking in general, and not specifically about this particular incident, I don't know the paticulars about this incident, either.   

I Like your 2nd paragraph.

Not sure what you are talking about with regards to your 3rd paragraph, are you referring to when I said something to the effect of (ie what I meant to say) "police are expected to put their lives in danger to protect people, but they can't be expected to put themselves at risk for people's personal property"?