Do you agree with this Police shooting of the Dog?

[Intercooler]

[Intercooler]

 It helps to read the story first. I tend to think he heard barking after knocking (story reads different). Us normal folks wouldn't have had the same option and would have taken at least the first bite... then went from there.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cowardly-cop-murders-family-dog-front-door-daughter-watches-horror/#QQFoKFAAy5TWfRCk.01

[tommac919]

Yes...I won't play Monday afternoon qb.
He must have felt endangered.

[Captain O]

I will not let a dog rush at me teeth bared, gnashing and threatening to take a chunk from my body. If I feel as if my life and/or safety is sufficiently threatened, the dog is history.

End of story.

[Intercooler]

On your own property I agree, but someone elses?

[Intercooler]

Interesting that they're treated as property:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2014/06/if-police-shoot-your-dog-can-you-sue.html

[Captain O]

On your own property I agree, but someone elses?

Had it been me, a private citizen, knocking at the door, I likely would have backed up and drawn my weapon at the sound of a vicious dog slavering and gnashing it's teeth. If it had lunged at me, the dog would be gone. Double tap and await to see if the attack continued. If so double tap until the threat had been neutralized.

Let's see... It is either:

a) a $2.00 expenditure of ammunition, or,

b) a great deal of pain, hundreds of dollars in hospitalization and lost time from my personal life.

Gee... the former seems the soundest of the two! 

[tommac919]

On your own property I agree, but someone elses?

I would assume he had 'right and privilege' to be on private property

[sqlbullet]

Here is my problem.  This video illustrates it perfectly.

The job of the police, as I see it, is to secure my rights.  When I was young I held them in high esteem because they were heroes who would ensure my rights were protected, even if it meant giving up their own lives.

Then I went to the police academy and worked in law enforcement for two years.  And found out that first on the list is not citizens rights, but officer safety.

And videos like this illustrate that too many of the police officers we have today have NO consideration for the very rights there are hired to secure.  Rights to life, liberty and property.  As IC points out, a dog is property and is on the list of things law enforcement is paid to ensure my right to enjoy.  But modern departmental policies will allow this officer a pass on shooting a law abiding families dog in their front yard because they left their car door open.

To those that think the officer had no option, I can't agree.  I grew up in rural Indiana.  My dad was a feed salesman.  We went into plenty of yards with dogs that were none to happy about us being there.  Some were downright vicious.  Never bitten.  You can usually make a dog stop his advance just by yelling at it like a mad man.  If they dont stop, get outta their territory.  They often won't pursue you beyond they yard. Never underestimate the value of a solid kick, and edged weapons defensive tactics work well for avoiding teeth.

I am all for officer safety, but not at the expense of their first function:  citizens rights.  If officers don't like that, get a different job.

[Intercooler]

I went on a walk last weekend and had a Great Dane come up to the fence nasty! If it jumped the fence and got me, the owner can't say a thing for me popping it. I can't go on their property though and kill it charging at me.

[redbaron007]

So does the Police officer have no option for potential self-defense?

Time was of the essence when the dog exited the house; a mere 5 feet or less to react to a charging dog. Based upon the expediency and disposition of creature, there wasn't time to play all the alternatives. I hate to see a dog shot, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. Tetanus shots, Rabies shots....not pleasant.

Animals are considered personal property, just like a coat/sock/shoe/video etc. However, most insurance policies exclude these; i.e Animals/Birds/Fish for any personal property coverage. Although, liability is different.

Disclosure:
Having been cornered while out cycling on trails on two different occasions, I have had the unfortunate opportunity to defend myself from dogs; so my disposition of an attacking dog may be different than someone who has never encountered the onslaught of an attack; rather the nagging barking incident.

[Intercooler]

Yea, don't go on people's property.

The average citizen doesn't carry a firearm up to an unknowns house.

[tommac919]

"I am all for officer safety, but not at the expense of their first function:  citizens rights.  If officers don't like that, get a different job."

Well life being what it is , even the courts have ruled the cops don't have to protect citizens over their own safety. And do the citizens have more rights than the cops? Seems to me it should be equal.

Was an LEO for 32 yrs, and I liked going home with all the parts I went to work with! ( and did see a junk yard dog rip a good chunk of another guys calf out... he never came back to work ).

[sqlbullet]

Well life being what it is , even the courts have ruled the cops don't have to protect citizens over their own safety.

I get that this is they way it is, and that this is how the courts have ruled.  I just don't agree that it is the way it should be.

They get police powers, and they are, IMHO under burden by their oath to place my rights ahead of their own.  No one is forcing them to be there.

Without audio it is not possible to tell what the officer heard, and that may sway my feelings in this case.  But the statement of the owners is that the dog was neither growling or barking, just curious.  Based on that statement and what I saw, I think this is over the line.

And, yeah, in general, I find what is allowable under current case law and department policy to be a huge encroachment on citizens rights.  I would love for it to go back to equal.

[redbaron007]

Well life being what it is , even the courts have ruled the cops don't have to protect citizens over their own safety.

I get that this is they way it is, and that this is how the courts have ruled.  I just don't agree that it is the way it should be.

They get police powers, and they are, IMHO under burden by their oath to place my rights ahead of their own.  No one is forcing them to be there.

Without audio it is not possible to tell what the officer heard, and that may sway my feelings in this case.  But the statement of the owners is that the dog was neither growling or barking, just curious. Based on that statement and what I saw, I think this is over the line.

And, yeah, in general, I find what is allowable under current case law and department policy to be a huge encroachment on citizens rights.  I would love for it to go back to equal.

Oftentimes, the attacking dog does not alert it's victim through growling/barking. These, barking and/or growling, are generally tendencies to encourage the intruder to depart. On the other hand, when in full attack mode, very seldom do they make loud discouraging noises.