# Dog shot to death at dog park



## GSDBESTK9

This is just CRAZY!!! 

Dog shot to death at dog park - Paw Print Post: A community for Dog, Cat, and Pet Owners - USATODAY.com


----------



## Lucy Dog

wow just wow. That tops all of the dog park stories i've ever heard. I hope this guy gets the book thrown at him... officer or not.


----------



## LaRen616

Oh wow!

I cant believe it! What is going on with cops these days? Are they rebeling or something? 

How horrible and I cannot believe that he is not getting charged with anything!


----------



## Samba

It is crazy.

I don't go to dog parks and every few days I am reminded of why that is so.


----------



## Lucy Dog

LaRen616 said:


> Oh wow!
> 
> How horrible and I cannot believe that he is not getting charged with anything!


I missed that last paragraph... i cant believe he's not being charged. 

How can someone who pulled out a gun in a public place and shoot someones pet not be charged with anything? I know he's a cop, but am i missing something here?


----------



## GSDBESTK9

I would never take any of my dogs to a Dog Park either, just too many things/accidents waiting to happen. :nono:


----------



## Meka09

Wow - what is happening to this world? I took Meka to a dog park once - we both hated it!


----------



## DnP

Before anyone gets completely bent out of shape and start LEO bashing, I hope you re-read the article. I see a lot of missing information. We DON'T know the whole story, just a small amount spoon fed to us by the reporter. I'd want to know the full story before I jump on any kind of bandwagon.

If the dog was shot w/o provocation (of which, we don't know since so little information was provided) then the federal officer was completely in the wrong.

I cannot imagine the Anne Arundel County PD not filing charges if there was no just cause for the Fed to fire his weapon. Would it be my first choice of what to do during an altercation between two dogs..heck no. I wouldn't want to take the chance of shooting my own dog, or an innocent bystander. Looks like the county is going to get involved and is asking for an investigation.

http://http://www.wbaltv.com/news/24513015/detail.html

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...00803_1_dog-park-bear-australian-shepherd-mix


----------



## dOg

Crazy pretty much sums it up. 

why was his gsd on leash in an off leash park?

remove flight, there is only fight left....duh!


----------



## BlackPuppy

How about charging him with destroying property? There must be something he can be charged with.


----------



## Caledon

Didn't someone here threaten to do this at a dog park? 

This could have happened anywhere and not necessarily at at dog park.

A rather extreme reaction I'd say.


----------



## Stosh

I know a cop in Anne Arundel County- I'll see if he knows anything about it


----------



## DharmasMom

That is ridiculous!! Most counties have laws about discharging a firearm in a public place. If nothing else he should be charged with that. They are going easy on him because he is a cop. 

Also German Shepherds can be just as rough and tumble as a Husky. I know Dharma really likes to wrestle and play with other dogs until they are both worn out on the ground. 

There was no cause to shoot the dog, he shouldn't have even had his gun at the dog park! He needs to be charged with something!


----------



## GSDBESTK9

OMG, I teared up when the owner said her dog did nothing after being shot, just laid there bleeding.


----------



## ken k

hes a Federal officer he wont be charged with anything, its a shame, there should atleast me a $10,000 fine, maybe he`ll think twice before he does it again, at the very least he should have his fanny kicked, there was a shooting around here at a dog park couple years ago, another reason i dont go to dog parks, a cop was jogging at a dog park, and claimed the dog WAS going to attack him


----------



## AbbyK9

I have to agree with DnP that there is a lot of information missing from the story and that we can't immediately jump to conclusions about what happened until we have all of the facts. A lot of people whose comments I've read on some of the blogs and sites this has been posted on immediately jumped to, "OMG if he was off-duty, he should not have been carrying his gun" and making comments about law enforcement in general. 

As far as I'm concerned, I'm withholding judgment until I have more facts.

I believe - and someone please correct me if I am wrong - that this just happened last night. If that's the case, then I am not surprised that there is no statement from law enforcement or that the officer's name has not been released, since it's most likely just started to be reviewed and looked into to see what happened and whether anyone will be charged with anything. 

As far as I am concerned, the only facts we have so far are that the officer fired his pistol and killed the dog. I don't know what the circumstances were or whether it was justified, and I don't know what led up to it or what happened after.

The following is a quote from the article -



> the officer and his wife arrived with a German Shepherd, who was kept on a leash. When the dogs began to play roughly — the federal officer asked Bear-Bear's guardian, his owner's brother, to call off the dog


This tells us a couple of things but doesn't tell us a lot of other things. As far as I can tell from looking at the "street view" on Google, the Quail Run dog park is a small, fenced area in a residential neighborhood. I wouldn't call it a "big" park by any stretch of the imagination.

The article does tell us that the officer and his wife arrived with their dog and that their dog was leashed, but it doesn't tell us whether they had just entered the fenced area (and whether that is why the dog was leashed), or whether they'd been there a while or why. For all we know, they could have just entered the park and have been rushed by other dogs. So we don't know.

The article also tells us that the person supervising the Husky was not his owner, but his owner's brother. We don't know whether the Husky listens to that person or whether that person knows a lot about dogs and dog behavior. What may have appeared to be play to one person could have been aggression, or vice versa. We do know, however, that the officer asked him to "call his dog off" before the shooting happened. 

Was there anyone else in the park or area who saw what happened?

I don't know, but I don't like to leap to conclusions without having a lot of facts, and it's hard to really find facts beyond "officer pulled gun and shot dogs" in the article since neither the officer nor his wife were interviewed by the reporter, nor has there been any conclusion to an investigation (if there is one) nor a statement by police on what happened. So I would like more information before going "OMG what is wrong with police!"

As for comments like, 



> he shouldn't have even had his gun at the dog park


It is perfectly legal for a police officer to carry his sidearm off-duty, even in Maryland. Most officers do. On a side note, since the poster who said that resides in VA - In Virginia, a lot of civilians carry their pistols, too - Virginia allows open carry without a permit and concealed carry with a concealed carry permit. Including at dog parks.) 

You may not agree with the idea of a police officer carrying his firearm off duty, but bear in mind that many police officers live in the county in which they work (in some places, they are required to), and are at risk, both on duty AND off-duty. Many a criminal who's been put in jail swears revenge on officers and/or their families and it's not unheard of for officers to receive death threats. Carrying their firearms off-duty is one way they have of protecting themselves.


----------



## BadLieutenant

your right on the money AbbyK.


----------



## DharmasMom

AbbyK9 said:


> It is perfectly legal for a police officer to carry his sidearm off-duty, even in Maryland. Most officers do. On a side note, since the poster who said that resides in VA - In Virginia, a lot of civilians carry their pistols, too - Virginia allows open carry without a permit and concealed carry with a concealed carry permit. Including at dog parks.)
> 
> You may not agree with the idea of a police officer carrying his firearm off duty, but bear in mind that many police officers live in the county in which they work (in some places, they are required to), and are at risk, both on duty AND off-duty. Many a criminal who's been put in jail swears revenge on officers and/or their families and it's not unheard of for officers to receive death threats. Carrying their firearms off-duty is one way they have of protecting themselves.




My father was a cop for 32 years. I have dated several cops and have many more as friends. NONE of them carry their weapon around casually. My dad would always take his when we went on vacation and I know a couple of guys that keep theirs in their vehicle but they don't carry into public places. And there is no need to have a gun at a dog park, it only ensures that something like this will happen. We have a police officer that brings his collie to the dog park Dharma and I frequent. Again, he doesn't bring his gun inside. Just because you can doesn't mean you should and most intelligent officers know this.

As for VA laws, VA unfortunately has some of the most lax gun laws in the country. It is now legal here to carry your gun into a bar...as long as you are not drinking. This is NOT a good idea either.


----------



## Syaoransbear

Funny that the option to shoot the dog came before the option to just leave the dog park. So far, there's nothing that says there was a dog fight. Just one dog displaying inappropriate behaviors to a person of power's dog. That's no reason to shoot it.


----------



## chicagojosh

i'd be in jail for killing the cop (or trying to since he has a gun, lol). the zion police just shot my friends dog too. then there was the post on here earlier with the idiotic cops shooting the dog on the restraint pole.

on my next dog walk i will worry more about cops than gangbangers...jesus!


----------



## DnP

Chris, as usual, you did a great job at breaking this down.

Many LEOs (fed/state/local) are required to carry 24/7. Some carry for self protection, just like the reason Chris has given. There are many reasons LEOs carry off duty. But, I can tell you that if the federal officer discharged his duty weapon, off duty, he will have some explaining to do to his agency. Discharging a duty weapon carries some serious repurcussions if done so without cause and in a reckless manner. WHICH, we do not know if it was done without cause because the information in the article is lacking.

From the articles I've read, it appears this happened Monday night. One of the comments on the articles stated that the dog park was NOT a public dog park, but a private one. Either way, there were other people around the incident, I'm guessing and little was done by the reporter to follow-up on any eye witness accounts. 

Like Chris, I'm not ready to pass judgement until all the facts are known (which may never happen).


----------



## BadLieutenant

DharmasMom said:


> My father was a cop for 32 years. I have dated several cops and have many more as friends. NONE of them carry their weapon around casually. My dad would always take his when we went on vacation and I know a couple of guys that keep theirs in their vehicle but they don't carry into public places. And there is no need to have a gun at a dog park, it only ensures that something like this will happen. We have a police officer that brings his collie to the dog park Dharma and I frequent. Again, he doesn't bring his gun inside. Just because you can doesn't mean you should and most intelligent officers know this.
> 
> As for VA laws, VA unfortunately has some of the most lax gun laws in the country. It is now legal here to carry your gun into a bar...as long as you are not drinking. This is NOT a good idea either.


Wow...Most intelligent Officers know this?????  Most departments encourage officers to carry off duty. What good does keeping your weapon in your car do? Actually, this is frowned upon by most departments. Better educate your LEO friends unless they work in "Mayberry" USA


----------



## Chicagocanine

From the article's information it does not sound like the officer even really gave the owner enough time to catch the dog before he shot it. If that's correct I can't see any justifiable reason for shooting the dog. Actually unless the officer was being physically attacked by the dog I see no reason it would be justified at all to shoot a dog in a dog park! 
There are a lot of questions I am wondering about, but I can't think of any answers that would lead to it being ok to shoot a dog in a dog park.


----------



## BlackPuppy

There was no reason to shot a dog unless a life was threatened. I doubt this was the case at a Dog Park!


----------



## Dainerra

Many depts REQUIRE officers to carry guns, even when off-duty. Employed and retired police officers also have universal conceal carry due to a federal law passed a few years ago.

I agree that the article is a little slim on facts.


----------



## DharmasMom

BadLieutenant said:


> Wow...Most intelligent Officers know this?????  Most departments encourage officers to carry off duty. What good does keeping your weapon in your car do? Actually, this is frowned upon by most departments. Better educate your LEO friends unless they work in "Mayberry" USA




Actually, I wouldn't call Richmond "Mayberry". It may not be as big as some of our northern neighbors but the murder rate used to be the highest in the nation. And no, not all departments "require" their officers to carry off duty. The officer certainly is allowed to but that doesn't make it "required". And it doesn't make it a good idea. Most, yes intelligent officers, can critically think for themselves whether or not they need to take their gun some place with them.

I just spoke to my dad about this and he said he can't speak for Feds but non of the departments in our area "require" or even "encourage" them to carry off duty. He did get into with an FBI agent one time at an event he was covering because the agent insisted he had to have his gun on him at all times. My dad said "Fine, then you will wait in the car with the gun because it is not coming in". You know what, the agent left his gun in the car.

Like the poster said before if you discharge that firearm then there is a whole lot of 'splaining to do.


----------



## AbbyK9

> NONE of them carry their weapon around casually. My dad would always take his when we went on vacation and I know a couple of guys that keep theirs in their vehicle but they don't carry into public places. (...) Again, he doesn't bring his gun inside. Just because you can doesn't mean you should and most intelligent officers know this.


Maybe this holds true with the number of people you know, however, like both DnP and BadLieutenant pointed out, many agencies now require their officers to carry off-duty as well as on-duty, even if they are in civilian clothes and in public places. It is a matter of safety for many officers.

I also think it's quite a stretch to suggest that 



> there is no need to have a gun at a dog park, it only ensures that something like this will happen


I was actually just talking about this with a co-worker this morning. When I lived in Virginia, I had a concealed carry permit and more times than not, I carried excepting in places that don't permit carry, such as near schools and at malls and, at the time, establishments that served primarily alcohol.

Carrying your firearm does not "ensure something like this will happen." For most people who carry, either because they are police officers or because they have a carry permit, having a firearm on their person makes them LESS likely to engage in any kind of argument and altercation, because they do carry and that comes with another level of responsibility. That has been MY experience with people who carry over the years, both law enforcement and civilian.

Virginia, on a complete side note, does not have "some of the most lax gun laws in the country." Only 7 states restrict carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol.


----------



## Mrs.K

What the **** is going on with people shooting pets these days. 

They more I read about stuff like that, they more I'd like to keep my dogs in Germany. It sounds like pet owners have to worry about their pets as soon as they leave their house. There is no justification for shooting a pet if you are not attacked by it, and how the **** can they get away with it by shooting a living being and somebody elses property?

Isn't that considered pet cruelty?


----------



## AbbyK9

> Employed and retired police officers also have universal conceal carry due to a federal law passed a few years ago.


I thought I would mention that this is not, in fact, universally true. New York State requires officers to obtain a pistol permit to own and carry pistols, both employed and retired. My next-door-neighbor who now has a sheep farm is a retired New York State Trooper and had to go through the permit process to be allowed to own and carry a pistol in the state of New York.


----------



## AbbyK9

FYI - the article DnP posted a link to - County Executive Wants Probe Of Fatal Dog Shooting - Baltimore, Maryland News Story - WBAL Baltimore - has additional information from the police department and the officer's statements.



> The federal officer, whose name hasn't been released, told Anne Arundel County investigators that he and his wife were at the park with a leashed German Shepherd when the husky, who wasn't leashed, jumped on his dog. The man told another man to come get the dog, named Bear-Bear, off of his dog. The officer told Anne Arundel police that he tried to get Bear-Bear off of his dog and that the husky tried to bite him.
> http://www.wbal.com/absolutenm/articlefiles/56017-Teare.mp3
> According to a statement from Anne Arundel County police, "the off-duty officer stated that he feared for the safety of himself, his wife and their dog and subsequently shot the husky with a handgun he had in his possession."


One thing I am wondering about is whether this happened inside the fenced dog run area, or whether it happened on the property of the park where the dog run is located? I don't think either article has properly addressed that, and from what I can see looking at the Google maps street view, the fenced-in dog run is a part of a larger community park area.

If the husky was running loose outside the fenced-in dog run, that certainly would make this a different situation.


----------



## APBTLove

What wounds does the GSD/and owners have?

Regardless, there are better ways to break up a scuffle between two dogs than killing one  If it was a real fight...


----------



## Jax's Mom

If the Husky was really endangering the GSD, it would have been all over the GSD... Why risk shooting your own dog?
I'm always disappointed when officers use their guns/tasers no matter what the situation unless someone is in danger, not just disobeying... Usually it's 3 officers that taser a person that's been drinking listerine all day... If they can't control that person, perhaps they would be better suited for a desk job.


----------



## APBTLove

I was going to say that.. If it was a FIGHT, you wouldn't have many clear shots... Lordy.


----------



## Stosh

My AA County cop friend says that the guy works for the Dept of Defense and all the witnesses say the dogs were just playing- but he says he feared for his life and the life of his dog so he shot the husky. Maybe alcohol was involved, it doesn't make any sense for a guy trained with a weapon, a gsd on a leash, dogs playing and he makes the decision to shoot the husky. I hope the owners pursue civil action to recover the loss at least. I'm no attorney but that must be the least they can ask for.


----------



## bunchoberrys

I'm sure if the officer just shot off a round or two in the air, it more than likely would have startled and scared off the huskey. Truly sad.


----------



## Rusty_212

Syaoransbear said:


> Funny that the option to shoot the dog came before the option to just leave the dog park. So far, there's nothing that says there was a dog fight. Just one dog displaying inappropriate behaviors to a person of power's dog. That's no reason to shoot it.


 RIGHT ON! This "cop" or whatever he is, needs to go back to rookie classes. That is totally BS to shoot the dog. Wish i could have a few minutes with him in the park. This really P*sses me off!
What a stupid retarded dope!


----------



## Stosh

Wait...a grown man, trained in the Defense Dept certainly should be able to handle a dog fight without pulling a gun and shooting. What about all the people in close proximity, not to mention his dog- but again, ALL the witnesses and the owner of the husky said they were just playing. I'm just saying...


----------



## Dainerra

AbbyK9 said:


> I thought I would mention that this is not, in fact, universally true. New York State requires officers to obtain a pistol permit to own and carry pistols, both employed and retired. My next-door-neighbor who now has a sheep farm is a retired New York State Trooper and had to go through the permit process to be allowed to own and carry a pistol in the state of New York.


The law enforcement safety act (HR 218) allows any current or retired LEO to carry. The only caveat for retired officers is that they must supply paperwork that they have qualified with the chosen weapon in the last 12 months. This law went into effect in 2004. 

H.R. 218 Final Text


----------



## DFrost

Typical responses, I'm not a bit surprised. The officer's dog was "ON" leash. the other dog was "OFF" leash. The dog that was shot, approached, play got rough, the owner was told to get the dog, bang the dog is dead. Automatically it's the officers fault. One of the reasons why I avoid dog parks totally. I can control my dog/s others can't or won't. Did he overreact, I don't know wasn't there. Just because a dog gets shot doesn't always mean the shooter is wrong. 

DFrost


----------



## selzer

What the TV does is give us a lot of false impressions. 

Bullets that go up, come down. People should not go around firing off rounds in the air to scare dogs into submission, not good at all.

It never fails that SOME people will defend LEOs to the ends of the earth. 

And people will blame the gun or the fact that he had a gun. 

Why don't these LEOs think for 1/2 a second: "what would an ordinary civilian do in this circumstance?" 

You can bet your bottom dollar that if I had a conceal carry permit, that would flash through my brain way before whipping out my gun. Nuts. This guy should not be an LEO. Not every one in society is a thug or should be treated like a thug. His quickness in using his gun to solve his problem is a big red flag in my opinion. He should be fired. He abused his power. I don't care if the dog WAS being aggressive toward his dog. The rest of us would have gone up and grabbed the back legs or pulled on the lead and broke it up. None of us here would have shot that dog.

There WAS someone on here talking big about shooting a dog at a dog park. In my opinion, it is very irresponsible for us to ever condone or encourage that kind of loud pistol waving. I believe people should have the right to carry firearms, but people need to be responsible and not whip them out whenever they think there might be a reason. Owning dogs, and carry guns are both privledges. The guns are at least somewhat protected by the consititution, and see how there are laws and laws and laws about them. 

I do not believe that police officer was on the net reading our responses and decided to shoot this dog because of it, unless it was our member, but I kind of hope that our conversations and ideas on here are not limited to an internet board. When we talk about dogs to friends and family and neighbors and in general, we should definitely never encourage that kind of crap. 

This has really, really ticked me off. 

I am ashamed and embarrassed that the shooter was a GSD owner. What a total zero. What in God's creation was he doing with his dog in a dog park if he does not know the first thing about dogs. 

Can somone please write a rap song about this? And submit it over the internet U-tube? 

hide your dogs, hide your puppies, hide your dogs, 
Cops are shooting dogs now, yeah,
Cops will kill your dog

Shootin' dogs in parks, in dog parks, shootin' dogs
Cops are shootin dogs

Hide your dogs, hide your puppies, hide your dogs....


And will the yayhoo talking about shooting/killing the LEO, please stop that, cut it out, it is SO not helpful to people who want to fight gun legislation everywhere.


----------



## GSDolch

DFrost said:


> Typical responses, I'm not a bit surprised. The officer's dog was "ON" leash. the other dog was "OFF" leash. The dog that was shot, approached, play got rough, the owner was told to get the dog, bang the dog is dead. Automatically it's the officers fault. One of the reasons why I avoid dog parks totally. I can control my dog/s others can't or won't. Did he overreact, I don't know wasn't there. Just because a dog gets shot doesn't always mean the shooter is wrong.
> 
> DFrost



This.

With so little information, it amazes me how people can "know" how it went when they werent there. Lots of psychics I tell ya!

I want more _proof_ of what happened before I make up my mind on it. It may amaze some of how people will jump to defend a cop, but the opposite holds true, there are plenty of people willing to throw the cop under the bus for the simple fact hes a cop.


----------



## Mrs.K

GSDolch said:


> This.
> 
> With so little information, it amazes me how people can "know" how it went when they werent there. Lots of psychics I tell ya!
> 
> I want more _proof_ of what happened before I make up my mind on it. It may amaze some of how people will jump to defend a cop, but the opposite holds true, there are plenty of people willing to throw the cop under the bus for the simple fact hes a cop.



Are you surprised? With all thats been in the news lately I am not surprised at all.


----------



## GSDolch

Yes, actually it does. The amount of stories doesn't compare to the number of LEO's who don't do anything wrong. It's easy to come by the stories in droves with the way information can be instantly sent somewhere now. A few bad apples makes the world thinks cops are now out to get them.

Common sense has gone out the window. Guilty until proven innocent for people we don't like. Thats how it is now. Sad


----------



## Rusty_212

GSDolch said:


> This.
> 
> With so little information, it amazes me how people can "know" how it went when they werent there. Lots of psychics I tell ya!
> 
> I want more _proof_ of what happened before I make up my mind on it. It may amaze some of how people will jump to defend a cop, but the opposite holds true, there are plenty of people willing to throw the cop under the bus for the simple fact hes a cop.


I don't need to be psychic to know the dog should not have been shot. A dog running off leash in a dog park, was not a vicious animal, I'm sure. Unless the idiot was being bitten himself, he had no right to kill the dog. On top of it all he's a fed for our government, lol. Just another waste of space in DC.


----------



## selzer

Na, cops have always been out to get us. 

If you have not gone to a convenience store at 3:00AM and seen the cop in there sizing you up to see if you are drunk, high, or up to no good..... 

If you have never walked down the street at night and been stopped for no reason at all.....

If you have never been out with your dog at night and been stopped, just checking you out.... Yep, happened last night --- doing nothing at all. I have not had a drink this year, so I certainly wasn't drunk or high. Just after dark, got to check people out, even if they are obviously just walking or training their dog. 

If you have never been out on a bicycle and stopped for doing nothing at all, and have the cop tell you that he likes to give kids a break---- a break? for what? The cop was maybe 20, I was about 36..... Whatever. 


I live in a county of small towns and small town-think. Mostly, we just laugh and shake our heads, and be thankful that the cops do not have anything better to do. 
But shooting people's dogs -- that is disgusting. This guy is a dog owner. That is even more disgusting for a dog owner to shoot someone's dog, because they should KNOW how people feel about their dogs. 

People who do not care about their dogs do not go to dog parks. 

Everyone in dog parks may not be perfect owners, may not read body language good, may not have well-socialized dogs, may not have good control over their dogs, but they CARE about their dogs or they would not bother to go. 

I say, throw the book at this jerk. Fire him, charge him with cruelty to animals, charge him with destruction of property, charge him with discharging a firearm, charge him with being a total [censored myself]. Send him to JAIL. Prison. Let him be with those people he was so much better than and got locked up. Because that is where he belongs.

He will NOT go to jail over this. He may get fired. He may get a misdemeaner destruction of property and have to pay the replacement cost of the dog. He may be admonished by the judge. There will not be justice in this case. That is why it is infuriating.


----------



## Rusty_212

Naa, I would be surprised if they charge him with anything. He's a Defense Dept. employee. Least they should do is charge him with stupidity and being an ignorant A-Hole.
And it's sad he's a dog owner, he shouldn't be.


----------



## selzer

Right. 

Any one who can kill someone's beloved pet like this has NO concept what dog onwership really is.


----------



## selzer

I am going to take a break now. I am getting madder and madder over this.


----------



## sagelfn

Why can't anyone give someone who works for the Department of Defense the benefit of doubt? This is not some moron with a badge. His statement is that he feared for the safety of his family and himself so he shot the dog. Thats all it takes to be justified. Who's to say the people at the dog park are not just friends and lying that the dogs were playing.

My local dog park is in an uproar because a new guy came to the park and started hitting dogs with a leash and kicking them yelling at people to get their dogs away. He feared for himself and his dog. Come to find out, as soon as the man and his dog entered the gate they were crowded by dogs and a few that played rough. He yelled to the owners to get the dogs away but was told oh they like to say hi they are just playing. Guy was getting worried by the rough "play" and tried to get the dogs away by swinging his leash, a dog that played rough snapped at him so he kicked it away. Then he had a whole pack of dogs "playing" rough. Everyone at the park called this guy a moron and called the cops on him because they were all friends and knew the dogs and thought this guy was just out to hurt them. No, not a smart move by the guy but just because he's a dog owner doesn't make him an expert on dog behavior and the other owners were idiots too.

If this agent fired his weapon to kill this dog I'm sure he felt justified. I'm putting myself in his shoes. Trying to imagine holding my dog back, keeping my wife behind me while fighting off a dog that is acting IMO aggressive. I would like to say I would sustain a few dog bites and somehow get ahold of the dog until the owner came but who knows. Things happen fast.


----------



## codmaster

Lucy Dog said:


> I missed that last paragraph... i cant believe he's not being charged.
> 
> How can someone who pulled out a gun in a public place and shoot someones pet not be charged with anything? I know he's a cop, but am i missing something here?


Before we all get too riled up, it would be nice to hear what really happened.

It does sound like the cop has a screw or three loose and should face some type of charge BUT what if the other dog had just grabbed his dog by the throat? (now I am not saying it did but just what if - then I think he was justified in shooting the attacking dog).

I know that if I were out with my dog and another big dog had grabbed him I would use whatever weapon that I had to fight him - wouldn't you? To save your dog!

We really need to hear more details about the incident.


----------



## DFrost

sagelfn said:


> Why can't anyone give someone who works for the Department of Defense the benefit of doubt? This is not some moron with a badge. His statement is that he feared for the safety of his family and himself so he shot the dog. Thats all it takes to be justified. Who's to say the people at the dog park are not just friends and lying that the dogs were playing.
> 
> .


It's not fair to use logic and fact in a pathos filled argument. The cop is assumed guilty, so be it. Please don't mess up this discussion with fact and logic. It's the old: don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up. ha ha. 

I find it funny because I don't try to defend the cop, I just try to give a different perspective. Perhaps that's because my career has depended on fact, not emotion. A cop in a convienence store in the early morning hours. Probably has nothing to do with the fact they call them "stop and robs", that's it is one of the most dangerous positions in the US, not the cop, the cashier. ha ha. He was there because the store owners complain there isn't enough police presence, the SGT says, you better show yourself more, and of course the free coffee. Darn that police man. He should be in a alley, hidden away taking a nap while he's on mids. ha ha

DFrost


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> Right.
> 
> Any one who can kill someone's beloved pet like this has NO concept what dog onwership really is.


But doesn't it sound like he was protecting his own dog from an aggressive (I assume this) attack from another big dog?


----------



## codmaster

ken k said:


> hes a Federal officer he wont be charged with anything, its a shame, there should atleast me a $10,000 fine, maybe he`ll think twice before he does it again, at the very least he should have his fanny kicked, there was a shooting around here at a dog park couple years ago, another reason i dont go to dog parks, a cop was jogging at a dog park, and *claimed the dog WAS going to attack him*


Maybe he was?


----------



## codmaster

BlackPuppy said:


> There was no reason to shot a dog unless a life was threatened. I doubt this was the case at a Dog Park!


 
Dog's life might have been, maybe?


----------



## codmaster

Jax's Mom said:


> If the Husky was really endangering the GSD, it would have been all over the GSD... Why risk shooting your own dog?
> I'm always disappointed when officers use their guns/tasers no matter what the situation unless someone is in danger, not just disobeying... Usually it's 3 officers that taser a person that's been drinking listerine all day... If they can't control that person, perhaps they would be better suited for a desk job.


I am not a cop, but have you ever been in a fight for your life? Ever try to control a drunk? If not, isn't it awfully easy to judge someone for the use of force.


----------



## Mrs.K

codmaster said:


> But doesn't it sound like he was protecting his own dog from an aggressive (I assume this) attack from another big dog?


Would you shoot? Is that really the answer? Is anything that seems to be "rough" justification enough to shoot?

Why was the dog on the leash in an off leash dog park?

Why didn't he just turn around and leave once he saw that it was getting rough, usually there is enough time to leave. 

WHAT is considered a threat to the family and how can it be justification to actually shoot a dog in the dog park. Honestly, I've encountered a couple of situations myself. 

Like two underage girls that had no business to go to the dog park and their super-aggressive dog that attacked Zenzy really bad. I would have never shot that dog, instead I grabbed him and pulled him off somehow and literally got the two girls out of the way because they wanted to grab him. I was screaming at them to get the **** out of the way if they don't want to be bit. 

Mind you, the dog park policy says that teenagers under 16 years of age have to be supervised, these kids were not older than 12 and they went in there without any supervision at all. I should have called the MP's... first off every dog bite has to be reported and the parents should have gotten into trouble for letting their kids outside with a big dog unsupervised. 

That dog almost bit those girls when he was fighting with Zenzy. 

And stuff like that makes me leave whenever somebody else is coming in, however there wouldn't have been any justification to shoot that dog. I just can't see how you can feel that threatened to shoot a dog in a dog park. 

If you have issues with rough play than you shouldn't go there. 

I just have to take a good look at my dogs. Some people think they are fighting while they are just playing and we all know how rough Shepherd-Play can be. IF ANYONE would ever shoot one of my dogs, because he felt threatened by their rough play, I'd kill that guy personally, right there and then!


----------



## codmaster

Rusty_212 said:


> I don't need to be psychic to know the dog should not have been shot. A dog running off leash in a dog park, was not a vicious animal, I'm sure *How are you sure?* . Unless the idiot was being bitten himself, he had no right to kill the dog. *How about to protect his dog and himself? *On top of it all he's a fed for our government, lol. Just another waste of space in DC.


Him being a fed employee is totally irrelevant!


----------



## AbbyK9

> I'm sure if the officer just shot off a round or two in the air, it more than likely would have startled and scared off the huskey


Spoken like someone who does not know the first thing about firearms.

When you fire a round at any target, you not only have to know what target you are aiming at, but also what lies beyond - in case you miss and in case the bullet goes through your target. Rounds fired that miss continue to travel until, eventually, they are stopped by something or someone.

That round fired into the air is going somewhere. If it goes up it will come back down somewhere else. That may be five blocks down the road, killing dad as he is grilling burgers for his kids on the patio.



> a grown man, trained in the Defense Dept certainly should be able to handle a dog fight without pulling a gun and shooting.


I don't know why everyone believes that law enforcement officers should be "able to handle a dog fight". Many people don't own dogs, and many people who do own dogs don't know how to prevent or break up a dog fight. Officers are not taught how to break up a dog fight, it isn't part of their training.



> Before we all get too riled up, it would be nice to hear what really happened.


That. This was my original point above and I still don't see more details about the incidents except what has been in the article by the Husky's owner that's posted everywhere and the little bit extra that told some of the officer's story on the one news page.


----------



## codmaster

Mrs.K said:


> Would you shoot? *I might if I feared for my dog, wife or self! We really don't know what actually happened there.* Is that really the answer? Is anything that seems to be "rough" justification enough to shoot?
> 
> Why was the dog on the leash in an off leash dog park? *Irrelevant unless the rules prohibited it.*
> 
> Why didn't he just turn around and leave once he saw that it was getting rough, usually there is enough time to leave. *Don't know the timing or what actually happened, do we?*
> 
> WHAT is considered a threat to the family and how can it be justification to actually shoot a dog in the dog park. Honestly, I've encountered a couple of situations myself.
> 
> Like two underage girls that had no business to go to the dog park and their super-aggressive dog that attacked Zenzy really bad. I would have never shot that dog, instead I grabbed him and pulled him off somehow and literally got the two girls out of the way because they wanted to grab him. I was screaming at them to get the **** out of the way if they don't want to be bit. *Good for you, but how would you feel if that dog had ripped you or someone else up - better he gets stopped than an innocent person gets hurt badly or possibly killed.*
> 
> Mind you, the dog park policy says that teenagers under 16 years of age have to be supervised, these kids were not older than 12 *(not teenagers)* and they went in there without any supervision at all. I should have called the MP's... first off every dog bite has to be reported and the parents should have gotten into trouble for letting their kids outside with a big dog unsupervised.
> 
> That dog almost bit those girls when he was fighting with Zenzy.
> 
> And stuff like that makes me leave whenever somebody else is coming in, however there wouldn't have been any justification to shoot that dog. I just can't see how you can feel that threatened to shoot a dog in a dog park.
> 
> If you have issues with rough play than you shouldn't go there. *"Play" is not an attack. But why is submitting to rough play a requirement to going to a dog park. Is that a rule in the parks you go to or did you just make it up?*
> 
> I just have to take a good look at my dogs. Some people think they are fighting while they are just playing and we all know how rough Shepherd-Play can be. IF ANYONE would ever shoot one of my dogs, because he felt threatened by their rough play, I'd kill that guy personally, right there and then! *How about if he just threatened to shoot one of them, would you feel like defending your dogs by killing him? Or what if he just wounded one - would you still kill him?*


BTW, how would you kill him - gun, knife, rock, poison, fists, ????


----------



## codmaster

AbbyK9 said:


> Spoken like someone who does not know the first thing about firearms.
> 
> When you fire a round at any target, you not only have to know what target you are aiming at, but also what lies beyond - in case you miss and in case the bullet goes through your target. Rounds fired that miss continue to travel until, eventually, they are stopped by something or someone.
> 
> That round fired into the air is going somewhere. If it goes up it will come back down somewhere else. That may be five blocks down the road, killing dad as he is grilling burgers for his kids on the patio.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why everyone believes that law enforcement officers should be "able to handle a dog fight". Many people don't own dogs, and many people who do own dogs don't know how to prevent or break up a dog fight. Officers are not taught how to break up a dog fight, it isn't part of their training.
> 
> 
> 
> That. This was my original point above and I still don't see more details about the incidents except what has been in the article by the Husky's owner that's posted everywhere and the little bit extra that told some of the officer's story on the one news page.


Well said!


----------



## IllinoisNative

Maybe I'm missing something but why would a police officer take a LEASHED dog to an OFF LEASH dog park? That alone can cause problems. That's just a stupid thing to do and he should have known better. Can we charge him with stupidity?:smirk:

As if his dog being leashed was a good thing at an off leash park. Idiot. I'm not one to jump on the fact that someone shot a dog if it's to protect themselves or others...but it sounds like he may have contributed to the problem by his own behavior. And now a dog is dead.


----------



## codmaster

IllinoisNative said:


> Maybe I'm missing something but why would a police officer take a LEASHED dog to an OFF LEASH dog park? That alone can cause problems. That's just a stupid thing to do and he should have known better. Can we charge him with stupidity?:smirk:
> 
> As if his dog being leashed was a good thing at an off leash park. Idiot. I'm not one to jump on the fact that someone shot a dog if it's to protect themselves or others...but it sounds like he may have contributed to the problem by his own behavior. And now a dog is dead.


Maybe it wasn't the smartest thing to do BUT it is also no reason for his dog to be attacked.


----------



## Mrs.K

codmaster said:


> Maybe it wasn't the smartest thing to do BUT it is also no reason for his dog to be attacked.



Do you know if he was attacked?

Who knows if it was rough play and the guy simply judged the wrong way or if the dog was really attacked by the husky?

I just hate the fact that it's so easy for somebody to pull a gun and shoot. 

I am not used to that. We don't have these kind of things happening over here. People don't run around with guns and pull them whenever they feel "threatened".


----------



## sagelfn

Maybe he had just entered the park or was trying to enter the park. Not enough info in the article.


----------



## GSDolch

Do you know if he wasn't attacked?

Its also NOT known if he was in the area for dogs or not. The dog park is a smaller fenced in area in a larger park according to a post earlier. Again, something we do NOT know.


----------



## Mrs.K

Has this one been posted yet?

Probe Sought After Dog Fatally Shot At Park - Baltimore, Maryland News Story - WBAL Baltimore

It's not over yet, I guess there is more to come. 



> "You've just taken away something that we can never get back," said Ryan Rettaliata, Bear-Bear's owner.Neighbors who know Bear-Bear said the dog was not mean or aggressive, and they are upset about the shooting."Honestly, I just think it was a guy with a gun who thought he had the power, and he just did a really stupid thing. Stupid," said Tarnna Hernandez, a neighbor. @import url(/css/21106410/style.css); "You've just taken away something that we can never get back."
> - Ryan Rettaliata, Bear-Bear's owner​ Late Wednesday afternoon, Anne Arundel County Executive John Leopold and the county's police chief said the investigation continues."I want this case investigated thoroughly to find out all the facts of this case to determine exactly what happened, and if charges are warranted, and if they are warranted, we're going to prosecute to the full extent of the law," Leopold said.Leopold added, "I have great concern regarding the shooting incident (Monday) night at the Quail Run dog park. It is concerning whenever a firearm is discharged at a public facility, let alone a facility that close to homes and children playing. All aspects of this incident merit a thorough and complete investigation.


----------



## DFrost

Why investigate. He's already been convicted by the court of public sentiment. there were a couple of comments about why he had his dog on leash in an off leash dog park. Where in the article did it state that it was an "OFF Leash" dog park. I believe I said in my fist post, it would be investigated further because there was a weapon's discharge. That's standard policy. If I didn't say that I surely meant too. At any rate, it appears it will be investigated further. I just hope they can get objective witnesses willing to tell the truth. 

DFrost


----------



## Chicagocanine

DFrost said:


> Typical responses, I'm not a bit surprised. The officer's dog was "ON" leash. the other dog was "OFF" leash. The dog that was shot, approached, play got rough, the owner was told to get the dog, bang the dog is dead.


If this was an off-leash area, the fact that the dog was ON leash might have been part of the problem. On leash dogs don't belong in a dog park.


----------



## DFrost

I promise this is my last post on the subject. I just wanted to point out how telling it is when a different perspective is given and right away the judgement is - cop defending cop. Maybe it has to do with the fact that most police have learned there are usually three sides to a story. His side, her side and the truth. ha ha.

DFrost


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> Maybe it wasn't the smartest thing to do BUT it is also no reason for his dog to be attacked.


It wasn't just not smart, it was dangerous. And we don't know his dog was attacked. That kind of stupid behavior can LEAD to aggression. Who takes a leashed dog to an off-leash park? You ought to take a test before going into a dog park, IMO. Apparently, common sense isn't all that common.

If the officer misinterpreted the other dog's behavior (which given his lack of dog knowledge in taking a leashed dog to an off-leash park isn't that off the mark), he can cause leash aggression in his own dog which can fuel the fight between the dogs. Chances are darn good that he tensed up on leash (since we know his dog was on leash) with his dog causing his dog to assume the other dog was a threat.

Doesn't mean that's the way it played out, but there is a good chance it did. I'm assuming this was the officer's first time at a dog park or he would have known not to have his dog on leash.


----------



## IllinoisNative

DFrost said:


> I promise this is my last post on the subject.


I've said that myself but always find myself getting dragged back in...lol.



> I just wanted to point out how telling it is when a different perspective is given and right away the judgment is - cop defending cop. Maybe it has to do with the fact that most police have learned there are usually three sides to a story. His side, her side and the truth. ha ha.


As someone who works at a hospital and deals with cops (and has a few friends who are cops), they have admitted to covering for other cops. I've seen it first hand. They've also admitted that they don't give lawyers tickets, etc. So some people are above the law, apparently.

But I think it's pretty well known that the worst thing you can do is be a rat in the police department. Just because people assume that cops cover for other cops doesn't mean it's not true, either.

I will say that you're right about there usually being three sides. And I have enormous respect for what they do and the danger they put themselves in to protect us. One of my friends, who is a cop, got shot three times by dealing with someone messed up on drugs trying to protect someone else. I don't envy what they have to go through.

I'm not taking issue with the fact that the guy who shot him is a cop (other than the leniency issue if there is one), I'm just not sure his behavior is totally innocent...cop or no cop.

Thanks for giving me your perspective. I really appreciate hearing the other side.

*ETA - this is just based on the "assumption" that it was an off-leash park. If not, I retract my outrage...LMAO. Unless of course he ends up being guilty. Then my outrage stands. Heh.*

*ETA 2 - apparently it did happen at a dog park. So I'm resuming my outrage.*


----------



## Chicagocanine

When someone brings a dog on a leash into the dog park, I put Bianca in a stay until the person either takes the leash off or leaves. If they don't do either of those things I leave that section of the park (if it's big) or leave the dog park completely. Although with the stories I've been hearing lately I'm not sure if we'll be going any more, between dogs getting shot, dogs getting stolen, and so on... 
Bianca likes to wrestle with other dogs, she uses her paws and mouth to play and some people do not understand that this is play behavior, and think they're fighting (yes, dogs growl and flash teeth when playing sometimes!) She usually won't play with another dog unless they initiate it and the other dog is playing back, but some owners just don't understand that the dogs are playing. If the other dog's owner complains, I call her back. Now I wonder if I should just not let her play with other dogs because some people don't understand what play behavior looks like, and could be armed!


----------



## IllinoisNative

Chicagocanine said:


> When someone brings a dog on a leash into the dog park, I put Bianca in a stay until the person either takes the leash off or leaves. If they don't do either of those things I leave that section of the park (if it's big) or leave the dog park completely!


I do the same thing. I've told this story before but I was at the dog park once and a young woman brought in a LEASHED Akita. She assumed, because it was a "dog" park, that every dog was welcome whether it was on leash or not. She got VERY upset over other unleashed dogs approaching her dog as he was not good with other dogs. Then she began kicking the other dogs to get them away from hers. It was a mess. It's also how I know common sense isn't common.

That's why I curtailed my visits. It helped that they started charging per dog when it used to be free. And, even after that, I would go on off-peak hours with the known regulars whom I knew very well. 

Leashed dogs are a HUGE issue at dog parks. It creates a needlessly dangerous situation. If the guy tensed up on his leash (and he would have if he felt his dog was being attacked), then that dog gets aggressive and the other dog responds in kind. Then it really does turn into that situation.

I'm more alarmed at people going to the dog park when they don't know dog behavior. And I'm guessing this officer didn't judging from the fact that his dog was on leash at a dog park. That strikes me as not very dog savvy. So I would question his ability to discern whether the dog was aggressive or not. And it may well have turned into aggression AFTER his on leash dog got reactive. So the bystanders saying it was aggression would be right. That's exactly what it turned into.

You know, if I'm right.


----------



## sagelfn

Sage is on leash when we enter a park. Its the rules. Once we are in and the gate is closed behind us the leash comes off. 9 times out of 10 if there is another dog there it will rush to us as we enter. A lot of problems could be avoided if owners didn't allow their dogs to crowd people coming in. I've seen nowhere in the article that the DOD agent was out in the park with a dog on leash.


----------



## Syaoransbear

Even if his dog was being attacked, that's no excuse to open fire in a public place. Also, in many places if a dog attacks or kills another dog it is not a death sentence to the dog. If it were me, my gun would have never fired. You run the chance of shooting your own dog, other dogs, shooting the owner who was trying to get their dog, shooting children, and other people who may have come to help. Shooting a human isn't worth saving your own dog if this was truly a dog fight, and so far there are no reports about the cop's dog sustaining any damage whatsoever.

My own suspicions are that the cop has very little experience with how dogs play, and this husky was a rough player and the cop mistook it for aggressiveness. The "I feared for my family's safety" bit just reminds me of that south park episode where Uncle Jimbo and Ned take the kids hunting and they tell the kids to yell, "IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!" before they kill it so that it's legal and they could claim self defense.


----------



## IllinoisNative

Syaoransbear said:


> My own suspicions are that the cop has very little experience with how dogs play, and this husky was a rough player and the cop mistook it for aggressiveness.


That's exactly my take. Huskies are very rough players. I grew up with them.



> The "I feared for my family's safety" bit just reminds me of that south park episode where Uncle Jimbo and Ned take the kids hunting and they tell the kids to yell, "IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!" before they kill it so that it's legal and they could claim self defense.


LOL! That's hysterical.


----------



## codmaster

Mrs.K said:


> Do you know if he was attacked? *Nope! As I have previously said we really don't know what actually happened, do we. But he MAY have been attacked, don't you think?*
> 
> Who knows if it was rough play and the guy simply judged the wrong way or if the dog was really attacked by the husky? *No one but the husky and GSD! But don't you agree that the owner of the other dog should not have to put up with rough play should he?*
> 
> I just hate the fact that it's so easy for somebody to pull a gun and shoot.
> 
> I am not used to that. We don't have these kind of things happening over here. People don't run around with guns and pull them whenever they feel "threatened".


*Wow, that must be very nice - not one murder or assault with a gun! A whole different place that is for sure. *

*Is that in the entire country or just in the city that you live in that no one runs around with a gun? I assume that you are not including the cops - do they carry guns in Germany?*


----------



## sagelfn

IllinoisNative said:


> As someone who works at a hospital and deals with cops (and has a few friends who are cops), they have admitted to covering for other cops. I've seen it first hand. They've also admitted that they don't give lawyers tickets, etc. So some people are above the law, apparently.
> 
> But I think it's pretty well known that the worst thing you can do is be a rat in the police department. Just because people assume that cops cover for other cops doesn't mean it's not true, either.


I'm going to point out to you that we live in IL, one of the most corrupt states in the US. Just because you know cops that do it doesn't mean all do it or that its okay. Tv and movies say the worst thing you can be is a rat. Good cops hate dirty cops.


----------



## codmaster

Syaoransbear said:


> Even if his dog was being attacked, that's no excuse to open fire in a public place. *Yes it might be!* Also, in many places if a dog attacks or kills another dog it is not a death sentence to the dog. If it were me, my gun would have never fired.
> *Would you have let the other dog grab and bite etc. your dog? What if you couldn't get the other dog let go? I.E. ever see a pit bull fight?*
> 
> You run the chance of shooting your own dog, other dogs, shooting the owner who was trying to get their dog, shooting children, and other people who may have come to help. Shooting a human isn't worth saving your own dog if this was truly a dog fight, and so far there are no reports about the cop's dog sustaining any damage whatsoever. *Maybe because the cop saved him by shooting the other dog?*
> 
> *I didn't think that he did "shoot a human". I thought that the cop just shot the attacking dog?*
> *That would be a whole different thing as it would be if he shot the wrong dog.*
> ..............


Hard to judge the man without being there to see the entire situation, or at least having been in a similar situation with you thinking that dog is under attack and you and your wife might be next.

Esp. for you folks who have never seen a full out dog fight between big aggressive dogs!


----------



## IllinoisNative

sagelfn said:


> I'm going to point out to you that we live in IL, one of the most corrupt states in the US. Just because you know cops that do it doesn't mean all do it or that its okay. Tv and movies say the worst thing you can be is a rat. Good cops hate dirty cops.


Where did I say all? Nowhere did I say all cops do it nor did I say it was okay. Good Lord! And there are plenty of other corrupt states out there. It's not like only corrupt cops apply for jobs in IL. 

I never said all cops. In fact, if you bothered to notice, I said I had cop friends. The one who was shot, in particular, wasn't corrupt. In fact, he resigned from the police force AFTER that shooting due to corruption. And this wasn't even Chicago...lol.

But it's not just the movies who say that a rat is the worst thing. I've seen examples of this in jobs other than law enforcement. It permeates our society. As someone else said, the cops are out of the same people pool as the rest of society and nobody likes a snitch. They can make your job ****. And this comes from people who DID tell and suffered the consequence for it. I can give you a list of non-fiction books to read about whistle blowers and the repercussions that were felt.

It does a disservice to the argument to make it about IL or the fact that "all cops" are dirty when that was NEVER my point. My only point was that cops do cover for other cops.

In fact, I was pulled over for a seat belt ticket when I was wearing seat belt. The seat belt was gray and my shirt was grey. One P.O. was the spotter and he radioed ahead to the P.O who pulled me over. He said I was pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. I informed him that it was news to me since I was wearing one when he pulled me over. He told me he wouldn't be in court to back up that claim that he saw me wearing one. In other words, I might as well plead guilty because he won't be testifying for me against his partner. And that just happened over Memorial Day.

But then I have great cop friends who aren't like that. They teach me self-defence moves and give me advice. But, it's ludicrious, IMO, to assume there isn't a "brotherhood" of sorts among cops. It does exist. And it should to an extent. But that doesn't mean it's all for power of good. It's scary when someone has all that power and you're helpless. But that in no way means all cops are bad or that they don't do one heck of a job protecting us, either.


----------



## AbbyK9

> Has this one been posted yet?
> 
> Probe Sought After Dog Fatally Shot At Park - Baltimore, Maryland News Story - WBAL Baltimore


It was posted further up in the thread but I am not sure whether a lot of people read it or not. The original link to it that DnP posted didn't work. I reposted it in one of my posts, though - it's the one where I quote from the article re: what the officer said happened.

Like posters said before, I don't know and they don't know whether the dogs were actually inside the off-leash dog run. If you look at the place on Google, you can get a street view of it. There's a larger park and then there's a fenced-in dog run area inside that. 

If the officer was walking TO the fenced area or had just entered the fenced area and the other dog ran at him and started going at his dog, IMHO that's a different situation than if he walked into the dog park with his dog leashed and didn't appreciate the playing.

In a lot of places, the dog park rules require that your dog is leashed when you enter the park and that you unleash it after entering. A lot of parks don't have double gates where you'd enter the first gate leashed, then unleash, then enter the second gate with your dog. The dog park we have on base here doesn't, for example, it only has one gate. So you are forced to enter leashed.

Not relevant to the subject at hand, but ... I have to admit that I have little patience for people who let their dogs rush other dogs entering the park. That really gets on my nerves. We only really go when there's nobody else at the park or only a couple of other dogs, but I always call mine away from the gate if another dog comes in and make them down/stay or sit/stay until that dog is in, off-leash, and starting to explore.



> I am not used to that. We don't have these kind of things happening over here. People don't run around with guns and pull them whenever they feel "threatened".


People don't do that here, either - at least not people who legitimately own guns. Legitimate gun owners with carry permits pull a gun when their life is in danger. Simple as that. ACTUAL danger. (Otherwise it's considered "brandishing" and that is illegal, carry permit or not.)



> I'm more alarmed at people going to the dog park when they don't know dog behavior.


That's something that alarms me as well. More alarming is the fact that the MAJORITY of people I've seen at dog parks don't know the first thing about dog behavior or even safety (ahem... people who leave choke chains or Haltis on their dogs when turning them loose to play). Which is exactly why we don't go to the dog park unless there aren't any other / few other dogs in the park and why we leave once a "trouble maker" comes in.



> If the other dog's owner complains, I call her back.


In the case of the officer shooting the dog, the one thing all articles seem to agree on is that the officer did ask the person with the Husky (who was not his owner, but his owner's brother) to get his dog off the Shepherd. 

The guy with the Husky said he wasn't given time to get the dog off. The officer said the dog wouldn't get off and he was trying to get him off and it tried to bite him.

Just some thoughts. Like I said before, not enough information either way to say what actually happened. 

Someone mentioned "all the witnesses" - what witnesses? None of the articles I've read talk about there being any witnesses beyond the person with the Husky (owner's brother) and the officer and his wife.


----------



## Chicagocanine

IllinoisNative said:


> Leashed dogs are a HUGE issue at dog parks. It creates a needlessly dangerous situation. If the guy tensed up on his leash (and he would have if he felt his dog was being attacked), then that dog gets aggressive and the other dog responds in kind. Then it really does turn into that situation.


That can definitely be an issue, especially as you said if the owner tenses up on the leash. If we are approached by an off-leash dog on a walk, I always loosen up the leash first thing so my dog does not feel trapped. However a lot of people will automatically tighten the leash. 




sagelfn said:


> Sage is on leash when we enter a park. Its the rules. Once we are in and the gate is closed behind us the leash comes off. 9 times out of 10 if there is another dog there it will rush to us as we enter. A lot of problems could be avoided if owners didn't allow their dogs to crowd people coming in.


That is true, I guess I am thinking of the way all the dog parks I've ever seen are... They all have a double gate, like an "airlock", with a small area between the two gates where you can take your dog's leash off before they actually enter the dog park proper. I guess not all dog parks have that... If they don't have that, I can see it being more of a problem with dogs coming in the park on leash and being rushed near the gate. 
I agree that dogs rushing the gate is a problem, a lot of dogs do that... I always called Bianca to me when I saw another dog was about to enter the park because usually the dogs rushing the gate get too excited and riled up.



codmaster said:


> *Is that in the entire country or just in the city that you live in that no one runs around with a gun? I assume that you are not including the cops - do they carry guns in Germany?*


Well, I live in a place where it's pretty much illegal to even own a gun (there are strict requirements which make it very difficult at the least) and _definitely_ illegal to carry one outside your own home (unless you're a cop.)





codmaster said:


> Hard to judge the man without being there to see the entire situation, or at least having been in a similar situation with you thinking that dog is under attack and you and your wife might be next.
> 
> Esp. for you folks who have never seen a full out dog fight between big aggressive dogs!


I have seen one, and I can't imagine it would be a good idea to try to shoot a dog while they were in the middle of a full out dog fight with you dog. It would be very difficult to get a clear shot into the center of a dog fight, and there would be a high risk of hitting your own dog.


----------



## IllinoisNative

AbbyK9 said:


> Like posters said before, I don't know and they don't know whether the dogs were actually inside the off-leash dog run. If you look at the place on Google, you can get a street view of it. There's a larger park and then there's a fenced-in dog run area inside that.


That's a fair point. Another reason why I love this board is that people google the area to glean more information.



> That's something that alarms me as well. More alarming is the fact that the MAJORITY of people I've seen at dog parks don't know the first thing about dog behavior or even safety (ahem... people who leave choke chains or Haltis on their dogs when turning them loose to play). Which is exactly why we don't go to the dog park unless there aren't any other / few other dogs in the park and why we leave once a "trouble maker" comes in.


I totally agree. It's also why I rarely go except occasionally on off hours. I've been twice this summer. That's it. And it's been on a work day. Heh.



> Someone mentioned "all the witnesses" - what witnesses? None of the articles I've read talk about there being any witnesses beyond the person with the Husky (owner's brother) and the officer and his wife.


Someone upthread mentioned witnessess which is why I commented on the fact that they may have actually seen real aggression which could have been attributed to the other dog being on leash...not just that the other dog was aggressive. But with the owner's brother and P.O.'s wife as the only witnessess, they are each going to take the side of their family. 

(Sort of how a P.O. would take the side of a cop. See, it's not just about cops doing it.) It happens everywhere.

I agree that it could go either way. The only thing that struck me as odd was the mention of the dog being on-leash at an off-leash park...which does trigger aggression. But, as you said, if it happened coming or going, that's a different story.


----------



## BadLieutenant

After reading all these Cop bashing posts its just another reason I cant wait to retire. I am tempted never to log on this site again, especially after reading some posts from fellow Ohioans. Remember, well over 100 Officers are killed in the line of duty every year.


----------



## AbbyK9

> Well, I live in a place where it's pretty much illegal to even own a gun (there are strict requirements which make it very difficult at the least) and _definitely_ illegal to carry one outside your own home (unless you're a cop.)


I think you may have just made codmaster's point for him. 

Simply because it is illegal for law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm in their town doesn't mean that it is any safer or free from gun crime. Germany, where Mrs. K is from and what she was commenting on, has extremely, extremely strict gun laws and still has gun-related crime, even school shootings. Just because the law-abiding can't carry doesn't mean it prevents criminals from doing so. Neither in Germany nor in Chicago. It also doesn't mean no guns = no crime.



> That's a fair point. Another reason why I love this board is that people google the area to glean more information.


I Googled it because I used to live in Maryland (way back when) and was wondering whether it was the park I was thinking of or not. It wasn't, but the design looks very similar with the type of fence, and small fenced area inside a larger area, etc.


----------



## Rusty_212

My posts weren't meant to bash Officers of the law, i have great respect for the job they do. I just can't understand why he couln't have pulled his dog away, or just kicked the Husky. IMO, he over-reacted, but i wasn't there, guess we'll have to wait until the investigation is concluded.
I guess Husky's must be as dangerous as Pit Bulls.
I come across all types of dogs in my work, i have been bitten once, by a little poodle. I didn't feel i needed to shoot it. I would find it hard to believe that i could not defend myself from a 65lb. Husky, by just using my feet and fists. But, i still think he's an A-Hole.


----------



## BadLieutenant

selzer said:


> Na, cops have always been out to get us.
> 
> If you have not gone to a convenience store at 3:00AM and seen the cop in there sizing you up to see if you are drunk, high, or up to no good.....
> 
> If you have never walked down the street at night and been stopped for no reason at all.....
> 
> If you have never been out with your dog at night and been stopped, just checking you out.... Yep, happened last night --- doing nothing at all. I have not had a drink this year, so I certainly wasn't drunk or high. Just after dark, got to check people out, even if they are obviously just walking or training their dog.
> 
> If you have never been out on a bicycle and stopped for doing nothing at all, and have the cop tell you that he likes to give kids a break---- a break? for what? The cop was maybe 20, I was about 36..... Whatever.
> 
> 
> I live in a county of small towns and small town-think. Mostly, we just laugh and shake our heads, and be thankful that the cops do not have anything better to do.
> But shooting people's dogs -- that is disgusting. This guy is a dog owner. That is even more disgusting for a dog owner to shoot someone's dog, because they should KNOW how people feel about their dogs.
> 
> People who do not care about their dogs do not go to dog parks.
> 
> Everyone in dog parks may not be perfect owners, may not read body language good, may not have well-socialized dogs, may not have good control over their dogs, but they CARE about their dogs or they would not bother to go.
> 
> I say, throw the book at this jerk. Fire him, charge him with cruelty to animals, charge him with destruction of property, charge him with discharging a firearm, charge him with being a total [censored myself]. Send him to JAIL. Prison. Let him be with those people he was so much better than and got locked up. Because that is where he belongs.
> 
> He will NOT go to jail over this. He may get fired. He may get a misdemeaner destruction of property and have to pay the replacement cost of the dog. He may be admonished by the judge. There will not be justice in this case. That is why it is infuriating.


 
its statements like this that confirm that 8000 posts mean nothing.


----------



## Chicagocanine

I am not sure who here is bashing officers. I don't care if the person was an officer or not, either way I think that unless there is a long story we are not getting (say the officer or his wife was being seriously attacked/injured by the Husky) I just don't see where they were justified in shooting the dog. 




AbbyK9 said:


> Simply because it is illegal for law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm in their town doesn't mean that it is any safer or free from gun crime. Germany, where Mrs. K is from and what she was commenting on, has extremely, extremely strict gun laws and still has gun-related crime, even school shootings. Just because the law-abiding can't carry doesn't mean it prevents criminals from doing so. Neither in Germany nor in Chicago. It also doesn't mean no guns = no crime.


Oh, I totally agree with that.


----------



## IllinoisNative

Rusty_212 said:


> My posts weren't meant to bash Officers of the law, i have great respect for the job they do.


Same here. My great-grandfather was Chief of Police and my great uncle was head of the Fire Department. I don't think it's bashing to say they do stick up for each other or cover for each other. Heck, we do that at my job.



> I just can't understand why he couln't have pulled his dog away, or just kicked the Husky.


That's my issue as well. The only reason that his job factored in was because he had a gun he was able to use. But even without his job, I'm struck by his actions.

Let's leave the job out of it for a minute...it looks like an overreaction regardless of what he does for a living. I think that is the main complaint with letting people carry guns in general. It's too easy for people to use them in any situation that they deem fit. For the record, I'm not anti-gun. Far from it.

That's not to say the P.O. was wrong. Given what we know (which isn't much), it just sounds like an inexperienced owner who misinterpreted the situation. 

JMO.


----------



## sagelfn

IllinoisNative said:


> Where did I say all? Nowhere did I say all cops do it nor did I say it was okay. Good Lord! And there are plenty of other corrupt states out there. It's not like only corrupt cops apply for jobs in IL.
> 
> I never said all cops. In fact, if you bothered to notice, I said I had cop friends. The one who was shot, in particular, wasn't corrupt. In fact, he resigned from the police force AFTER that shooting due to corruption. And this wasn't even Chicago...lol.
> 
> But it's not just the movies who say that a rat is the worst thing. I've seen examples of this in jobs other than law enforcement. It permeates our society. As someone else said, the cops are out of the same people pool as the rest of society and nobody likes a snitch. They can make your job ****. And this comes from people who DID tell and suffered the consequence for it. I can give you a list of non-fiction books to read about whistle blowers and the repercussions that were felt.
> 
> It does a disservice to the argument to make it about IL or the fact that "all cops" are dirty when that was NEVER my point. My only point was that cops do cover for other cops.
> 
> In fact, I was pulled over for a seat belt ticket when I was wearing seat belt. The seat belt was gray and my shirt was grey. One P.O. was the spotter and he radioed ahead to the P.O who pulled me over. He said I was pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. I informed him that it was news to me since I was wearing one when he pulled me over. He told me he wouldn't be in court to back up that claim that he saw me wearing one. In other words, I might as well plead guilty because he won't be testifying for me against his partner. And that just happened over Memorial Day.
> 
> But then I have great cop friends who aren't like that. They teach me self-defence moves and give me advice. But, it's ludicrious, IMO, to assume there isn't a "brotherhood" of sorts among cops. It does exist. And it should to an extent. But that doesn't mean it's all for power of good. It's scary when someone has all that power and you're helpless. But that in no way means all cops are bad or that they don't do one heck of a job protecting us, either.


Sorry, to me your post was implying that since you knew cops that acted that way that was how cops acted. For me when people say "cops" they are saying cops in general not the officers in question. I work in LEO in IL I've seen the corruption. No not everyone is corrupt but there is a lot of it. I get defensive when people or I think people are lumping me in with them. Cops do stick up for each other sure but I hate when people assume its a blind thing. 

Lets get back on topic. You can PM me if we need to talk about IL or IL cops anymore.


----------



## middleofnowhere

sagelfn said:


> Why can't anyone give someone who works for the Department of Defense the benefit of doubt? ....


Lots of people in this thread to the point of the post from which I am quoting have certainly given the guy the "benefit of doubt" --

On the surface, shooting the husky sounds pretty indefensible. 

Now, I am not on the jury, I will not hear everything -- going by what I have heard, I am angry. I don't care what his employment is/was. That should be irrelevant. What if he was an unemployeed person? A homeless person? Would that be any different? Some people would see it as different and that, too, would make me angry.

Another post mentioned stupidity. BTW stupidity is not illegal. We'd all be in serious trouble if it were. Back to reading the rest of the thread.


----------



## Zoeys mom

I just think the whole thing is really really sad This article was definitely written with some biases as it is The Dog Print Post, but at the same time if it were me I would have taken the bite to keep my dog safe and not pulled a weapon- that just seems extreme especially because his GSD was not injured from what the article sited. Had his dog been mauled and repeated attempts were made to separate them I would condone the shooting to save his dog, but I'm not getting the impression his dogs life was in any serious danger. I could be wrong there are always two sides to every story and then the truth,lol. Being no charges were filed I have to feel we're missing something here since Maryland has some pretty strict laws on gun owners, but in the end one family is left missing a very important member and I wonder if something else could have been done.


----------



## Syaoransbear

I don't think people care that it's a cop. If it was just some guy with a gun in a dog park in a place where it was legal to carry firearms, the posts would be pretty much the same.


----------



## codmaster

IllinoisNative said:


> It wasn't just not smart, it was dangerous. And we don't know his dog was attacked. That kind of stupid behavior can LEAD to aggression. Who takes a leashed dog to an off-leash park? You ought to take a test before going into a dog park, IMO. Apparently, common sense isn't all that common.
> 
> If the officer misinterpreted the other dog's behavior (which given his lack of dog knowledge in taking a leashed dog to an off-leash park isn't that off the mark), he can cause leash aggression in his own dog which can fuel the fight between the dogs. Chances are darn good that he tensed up on leash (since we know his dog was on leash) with his dog causing his dog to assume the other dog was a threat.
> 
> Doesn't mean that's the way it played out, but there is a good chance it did. I'm assuming this was the officer's first time at a dog park or he would have known not to have his dog on leash.


Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions! 

In order to judge somebody, it would be really nice to actually know what happened. maybe he had his dog on leash coming thru the gate and the other dog ran up to them immediately? maybe since we don't really know what happened.


----------



## codmaster

Syaoransbear said:


> I don't think people care that it's a cop. If it was just some guy with a gun in a dog park in a place where it was legal to carry firearms, the posts would be pretty much the same.


You have a lot more faith in human beings that I do - i think a lot of the comments here would not have been made or at least not so strong if it were not a cop.


----------



## codmaster

IllinoisNative said:


> It wasn't just not smart, it was dangerous. And we don't know his dog was attacked. That kind of stupid behavior can LEAD to aggression. Who takes a leashed dog to an off-leash park? You ought to take a test before going into a dog park, IMO. Apparently, common sense isn't all that common.
> 
> ...................


We also don't know that the dog wasn't attacked, do we. And if the guy thought his dog was attacked then he would react as any sensible person would react if they thought they were being attacked.


----------



## Rusty_212

codmaster said:


> We also don't know that the dog wasn't attacked, do we. And if the guy thought his dog was attacked then he would react as any sensible person would react if they thought they were being attacked.


Oh yes. I always pull out my gun when being attacked.:wild:


----------



## Syaoransbear

codmaster said:


> You have a lot more faith in human beings that I do - i think a lot of the comments here would not have been made or at least not so strong if it were not a cop.


I think it's the opposite. If it was just some guy, I don't think there'd be a single person here saying "Well maybe it was justified." It's because he's a cop that people are defending him by reasoning that he would have better judgment than the rest of us to not commit such an error.

We tend to believe our cops are super human fairy tale cops that are incapable of error, and it scares us when reality hits and we have to realize that they are human and they make human decisions, which aren't always the correct ones. With the evidence we have right now, I believe this cop made a very human mistake.


----------



## GSDolch

Cop or no cop, my view would still be the same as it has been before in the past when there is not alot of information to go on.

Honestly I don't see so many people "defending" him as I do see people who want more details and proof of what really happened.


----------



## Chicagocanine

I found some links to (audio) interview with the Husky's owner. 
According to the articles it seems she wasn't actually there, so this is a second hand account (may not be accurate.) However she does say that it happened in an off leash dog park. She also says there was no blood drawn, that Animal Control inspected the dogs on the scene and would not file a report as neither dog had any bite/scratch injuries so it was not considered a fight.

Links:
http://www.wbal.com/absolutenm/articlefiles/56017-Rettaliata2.mp3
and
http://www.wbal.com/absolutenm/articlefiles/56017-Rettaliata1.mp3


This article talks about other witnesses:
Police launch investigation into federal officer who shot animal at dog park in Severn


----------



## sagelfn

Can we stop calling this guy a cop, he's not a cop he works for the Department of Defense. There is a big difference.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

Sad. Just sad. No matter what the guy's profession was, the whole story is sad. An innocent life was taken, because someone though they were macho man and decided to shoot the dog for whatever reason. 

Hopefully soon someone will post the whole story which includes the reason why the dog was shot. But for now with the what information presented it seems the guy though it was ok to shoot a dog. This guy could have hurt someone else's dog, or a human.


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions!


I agree which is why I stated in most of my posts that "if it's the way it turns out." I'm going by the evidence presented here. If that changes, I'll amend my position. But, so far, every thing coming out suggests the guy was inexperienced.

But given that neither dog was injured, how vicious could the fight have been? The guy was probably inexperienced in reading dog language...because if the dogs wanted to do harm to each other...they would have. Apparently, they didn't. Who shoots a dog upon entering a dog park even if the dog was rushed which happens pretty routinely at a dog park.



> In order to judge somebody, it would be really nice to actually know what happened. maybe he had his dog on leash coming thru the gate and the other dog ran up to them immediately?


Hence his inexperience (which is what I was stating) if that is what happened.


----------



## arycrest

DFrost said:


> Typical responses, I'm not a bit surprised. The officer's dog was "ON" leash. the other dog was "OFF" leash. The dog that was shot, approached, play got rough, the owner was told to get the dog, bang the dog is dead. Automatically it's the officers fault. One of the reasons why I avoid dog parks totally. I can control my dog/s others can't or won't. Did he overreact, I don't know wasn't there. Just because a dog gets shot doesn't always mean the shooter is wrong.
> 
> DFrost


With all due respect, it also doesn't mean the shooter was right! 

If the roles had been reversed and a civilian had shot a police officer's dog would you be as equally defensive of the shooter's right to use leathel force to stop two dogs from playing rough? If this line of thought becomes popular, it will soon be like the wild west in dog parks with people firing guns at everyone's dogs who they perceive are engaged in rough play. BANG! BANG!

For the record, I would never set foot in a dog park with any of the Hooligans.


----------



## codmaster

Rusty_212 said:


> Oh yes. I always pull out my gun when being attacked.:wild:


*Could we then assume then you have been attacked a lot?*

*And that you carry a gun at all times?*

*Or maybe you are the type who would stand there while your dog was being attacked by another dog? Maybe let out a scream or two that your dog was being attacked?*


----------



## codmaster

arycrest said:


> With all due respect, it also doesn't mean the shooter was right!
> 
> If the roles had been reversed and a civilian had shot a police officer's dog would you be as equally defensive of the shooter's right to use leathel force to stop two dogs from playing rough?
> 
> *Nope! No difference to in the fact that one guy was a cop (except that he was probably more skilled in the use of the gun)*
> 
> If this line of thought becomes popular, it will soon be like the wild west in dog parks with people firing guns at everyone's dogs who they perceive are engaged in rough play. *Or more likely what they see as attacking their dogs. * BANG! BANG!
> 
> For the record, I would never set foot in a dog park with any of the Hooligans.


*Me either, because of the many idiots who bring an aggressive dog to them and I happen to have a dog who will not back down from any dog (at least that we have seen so far)*

*Nobody so far (or I haven't seen it anyway) has said anything about where the owner of the "attacking" dog was while his dog was running up on the GSD - why not a quick recall as soon as he saw him approaching the leashed dog. If he was a very dog knowlegable person (as many have blamed the cop for not being), he should have anticipated trouble with a leashed and an unleashed dog getting together.*

*Call his dog = instant recall and no shots fired.*


----------



## codmaster

Jessiewessie99 said:


> Sad. Just sad. No matter what the guy's profession was, the whole story is sad. An innocent life was taken, because someone though they were macho man and decided to shoot the dog for whatever reason.
> 
> Hopefully soon someone will post the whole story which includes the reason why the dog was shot.
> *That is easy - the guy thought at least that it was attacking his dog and might attack him or his wife!* But for now with the what information presented it seems the guy though it was ok to shoot a dog. *It was, in his mind because of the above thought.*
> This guy could have hurt someone else's dog, or a human. *And don't forget two things - he didn't and the other dog could have killed his dog*.


Jessie - that is probably the most true statment posted here - very, very sad that this tragic event happened!


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> Jessie - that is probably the most true statment posted here - very, very sad that this tragic event happened!


The full story not bits and pieces from other articles. Even if he did, bringing a firearm in a public area is dangerous!


----------



## arycrest

I just found this news release from the AA County Executive, John R. Leopold, asking the county police department for an investigation into the shooting at the dog park.

"Like many other citizens in our County, I have great concern regarding the shooting incident last night at the Quail Run dog park. It is concerning whenever a firearm is discharged at a public facility, let alone a facility that close to homes and children playing. All aspects of this incident merit a thorough and complete investigation.

We have wonderful resources for dog owners in Anne Arundel County. I want to ensure our citizens that these facilities are a safe and enjoyable place to let your dog exercise."


----------



## selzer

Bringing a firearm in isn't dangerous, using it is. 

No one would be defending this guy if he was an ordinary citizen pulling out his gun and shooting a dog in a dog park -- especially with no marks on either dog.

I have broken up fights all alone between 75 pound bitches, and 80 pound dogs. Bitches were worse, blood, and all. I was not trained for this either. I did not use a gun. 

This guy had the other dog's person, himself, and his wife. This dog did not need to be shot.


----------



## Chicagocanine

According to the dog's owner (in the audio interview I posted the link to) the officer asked if the Husky was friendly and the Husky's owner asked if the Shepherd was friendly, and both said yes. Then the Husky's owner let their dog approach the other dog. Saying their dog was friendly seems like they're saying it is ok for the dog to approach. 

As I said I would not let my dog approach an on-leash dog in a dog park. Yes there is more potential for an issue to occur, but even if the dogs did start to fight, is shooting the other dog really the proper reaction?
When I've been in a dog park and an on leash dog is brought in, I am the only one who holds their dog back so apparently it's not common to do this.


----------



## Mrs.K

Maybe we should come up with a Dog Park Etiquette and stress, stress, stress it and stress it some more, make it a sticky and have it out there. If just one person reads it and talks to others about it, and starts using common sense, maybe it can make a difference.


----------



## Rusty_212

codmaster said:


> *Could we then assume then you have been attacked a lot?*
> 
> *And that you carry a gun at all times?*
> 
> *Or maybe you are the type who would stand there while your dog was being attacked by another dog? Maybe let out a scream or two that your dog was being attacked?*


I'll try and ignore your posts. To me their just gibberish.


----------



## G-burg

It's just a bad, unfortuate situation all the way around..

I wonder if this was the first time the person that was watching the husky had taken the dog to the park..


----------



## ba1614

It sure sounds like an extreme over-reaction by this fella, and I'm relieved to read that there is going to be further investigation.

I agree though that we need to wait for all the evidence to be presented, and there's a lot of holes in the currently available information.


----------



## LaRen616

chicagojosh said:


> i'd be in jail for killing the cop (or trying to since he has a gun, lol). *the zion police just shot my friends dog too*. then there was the post on here earlier with the idiotic cops shooting the dog on the restraint pole.
> 
> on my next dog walk i will worry more about cops than gangbangers...jesus!


When did that happen? I live in Zion and I haven't heard anything. What breed was it?


----------



## AbbyK9

> Can we stop calling this guy a cop, he's not a cop he works for the Department of Defense. There is a big difference.


You do realize, of course, that the Department of Defense does have law enforcement officers, both military AND civilian, such as the civilian police officers who patrol military bases. They're still cops, last I checked.


----------



## ILGHAUS

I didn't read all but did any of the articles or interviews mention exactly what type of job this Federal Officer had? Law Enforcement, Security, Management, Staff, other? I don't know on the Fed. level but I know on the county level there are people called Officer of XXX and they are not part of law enforcement.

If he was Fed. Law Enforcement then his dept. or other Fed. level would be in charge of investigating him - correct? If some other then the local PD (jurisdiction) would be investigating him - correct? Maybe his job had nothing to do with him carrying a gun and that he was carrying it just because he was allowed to as a civilian with a concealed gun permit.

I was just wondering since so many were calling him a cop.

OK, as I was posting so was Chris with part of my answer.


----------



## codmaster

Does it really make any difference if he was a cop?

BTW, there are a lot of people in DOD who are allowed to carry guns who are not cops as we usually think of them.


----------



## AbbyK9

> Maybe his job had nothing to do with him carrying a gun and that he was carrying it just because he was allowed to as a civilian with a concealed gun permit.


The chances of obtaining a carry permit in Maryland are pretty slim. It's a "may issue" state, but in reality it's more of a "snowball's chance in heck you'll get a permit" kinda state. (Like New York.)


----------



## Lilie

AbbyK9 said:


> The chances of obtaining a carry permit in Maryland are pretty slim. It's a "may issue" state, but in reality it's more of a "snowball's chance in heck you'll get a permit" kinda state. (Like New York.)


 
In the great state of Texas just about anybody can qualify for a permit to carry. Having a weapon in a dog park wouldn't suprise me at all, and would hold no bearing on my feelings on this particular event.


----------



## Chicagocanine

ILGHAUS said:


> I didn't read all but did any of the articles or interviews mention exactly what type of job this Federal Officer had? Law Enforcement, Security, Management, Staff, other? I don't know on the Fed. level but I know on the county level there are people called Officer of XXX and they are not part of law enforcement.


The audio interview with the Husky's owner did mention something about it. She said she was told that the man was a "civilian police officer" who works at Ft. Myer (not sure what they meant by 'civilian'.) She also said he was carrying his own personal weapon, not a service revolver. Whether or not that is accurate, I don't know but that's the only info I saw about it.


----------



## AbbyK9

> She said she was told that the man was a "civilian police officer" who works at Ft. Myer (not sure what they meant by 'civilian'.) She also said he was carrying his own personal weapon, not a service revolver.


Assuming that what she was told is accurate and/or that she is remembering it correct, he could be a civilian police officer on base. Military bases have both military police (MPs) and civilian police officers, and very commonly they patrol together with one civilian and one military in the same car, but not always. 

They also have civilian gate guards, but I am not 100% if they are in the same category as the civilian police officers on base or not. I think it's a different category altogether, but they are also armed.

Neither the gate guards nor the civilian (or military) police officers on base carry "service revolvers", by the way. They carry semi-automatic pistols, usually M9s but not always.


----------



## AbbyK9

Civilian police officers at Fort Drum. As an example.


----------



## sagelfn

AbbyK9 said:


> You do realize, of course, that the Department of Defense does have law enforcement officers, both military AND civilian, such as the civilian police officers who patrol military bases. They're still cops, last I checked.


 good point, but the article said he was a federal agent meaning he has much more training than a typical cop. That was my point. Not really important but with all the cop bashing I wanted to point out that this person was most likely more intelligent and trained than your typical street cop.


----------



## AbbyK9

The original article I read said he was a "federal law enforcement officer", which doesn't really narrow it down a whole lot. When another article mentioned the DoD, I figured he's probably an officer on a military base, which is different from being a federal agent.


----------



## Stosh

Just talked to my Anne Arundel Co. cop friend, who happens to live near this dog park. He said that three charges are pending, discharging a firearm near people and homes, excessive force and something like unlawful use of a firearm. Seems the man's superiors are not happy about this at all. My friend says this is all over the police blog, no surprise.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

Stosh said:


> Just talked to my Anne Arundel Co. cop friend, who happens to live near this dog park. He said that three charges are pending, *discharging a firearm near people and homes, excessive force and something like unlawful use of a firearm.* Seems the man's superiors are not happy about this at all. My friend says this is all over the police blog, no surprise.


I don't mind people having guns, but if you do use them properly. This guy probably needs to brush up on his dog language because he didn't seem to notice it was just the dogs rough housing.


----------



## Stosh

I forgot to say that when the man shot the dog there wasn't any blood and he reportedly said something like "I think he's going to be ok since he's not bleeding", so a witness asked if he used a taser and he said no, he used his gun. Anyway, I think this man's career is about to be over, a dog lost his life, his owner is traumatized, all over a bad decision. Very sad all the way around.


----------



## Rusty_212

sagelfn said:


> good point, but the article said he was a federal agent meaning he has much more training than a typical cop. That was my point. Not really important but with all the cop bashing I wanted to point out that this person was most likely more intelligent and trained than your typical street cop.


IMO, his intelligence is very limited.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

Stosh said:


> I forgot to say that when the man shot the dog there wasn't any blood and he reportedly said something like "I think he's going to be ok since he's not bleeding", so a witness asked if he used a taser and he said no, he used his gun. Anyway, I think this man's career is about to be over, a dog lost his life, his owner is traumatized, all over a bad decision. Very sad all the way around.


Karma is a PIA.


----------



## Stosh

Oh yeah


----------



## selzer

Many, many, many police officers own and love dogs. Many, many have to deal with stray and even dangerous dogs. It is no surprise this is all over the police blogs. 

I think it DOES make a difference that this guy is into some type of law enforcement. We count on these people making good decisions in bad situations. We count on these people acting professionally. We count on these people not abusing their power. 

Everyone knows that doctors do not like to testify against doctors, and police officers do not like to testify against other police officers. I am sure other occupations are similar. To many of us, if the police will not investigate, that is our tough luck. If police are involved in something there is really no way to make it right. Even if the husky owner was to sue the shooter for killing her dog, if the local authorities would not investigate, there is an idea that would indicate that the shooter was not at fault. 

So it really does matter. 

The fact that the early reports said they are not going to investigate screams prejudice. Because no way would an ordinary person pulling a gun out and shooting a dog in a dog park NOT be investigated.

As it will be investigated, we can now sit back and wait for them to come up to some conclusions, before storming the federal building.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> Many, many, many police officers own and love dogs. Many, many have to deal with stray and even dangerous dogs. It is no surprise this is all over the police blogs.
> 
> I think it DOES make a difference that this guy is into some type of law enforcement. We count on these people making good decisions in bad situations. We count on these people acting professionally. We count on these people not abusing their power.
> 
> Everyone knows that doctors do not like to testify against doctors, and police officers do not like to testify against other police officers. I am sure other occupations are similar. To many of us, if the police will not investigate, that is our tough luck. If police are involved in something there is really no way to make it right. Even if the husky owner was to sue the shooter for killing her dog, if the local authorities would not investigate, there is an idea that would indicate that the shooter was not at fault.So it really does matter. The fact that the early reports said they are not going to investigate screams prejudice. Because no way would an ordinary person pulling a gun out and shooting a dog in a dog park NOT be investigated.As it will be investigated, we can now sit back and wait for them to come up to some conclusions, before storming the federal building.


Does anyone know what type of position in LE that the guy whose dog was attacked really holds? It would seem that this fact is very important to a lot of responders here so maybe it would be nice to know that before all the speculation is done. Do we actually know for a fact that he is in some law enforcement position?

Wonder how many of the folks complaining about "the cops" would like to see one come when they call them due to some lowlife attacking them or when they have a serious car accident? Just wondering?


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

Was the dog actually "attacked"? Doesn't sound there's any evidence of that yet so why make what could be an incorrect assumption?


----------



## codmaster

Cassidy's Mom said:


> Was the dog actually "attacked"? Doesn't sound there's any evidence of that yet so why make what could be an incorrect assumption?


 
*Would you make the assumption that he wasn't attacked?*

If one says anything about the incident, either for or against the guy who owned the GSD, it would seem that everyone must make an assumption one way or another.


----------



## selzer

codmaster said:


> Wonder how many of the folks complaining about "the cops" would like to see one come when they call them due to some lowlife attacking them or when they have a serious car accident? Just wondering?


Ok, I will bite. 

I called the cops once in my 42 years. I told them an incident of a man taking liberties while I was in a grocery store and continuing to bother me. 

They asked his name. 

I told them he was a stranger. 

They said there was nothing they could do with out a name and an address. 

I was incredulous, I told them I could describe him, his clothes, his three days stubble, his smell, his brown pick up truck, where he does his grocery shopping. (Remember, this is a SMALL town.)

They said they can do nothing without a name and address. 

My father and I did a little investigating and found his name and his address and gave it to the cops. 

I did not want to involve my father in this, but it was necessary. 

The police officer said, yeah, that sounds like him. They went out and talked with him and I have never been bothered by him again, BUT... Why in the world would they not even take a report without a name and address??? 

So if someone robs me, I can call the cops for the insurance, but unless I have a name and address of the robber, I can kiss my stuff good bye because they are not going to try and find out. 

This is not the reason for my distrust of police, but it certainly did not help my opinion of them in general.


----------



## G-burg

> The fact that the early reports said they are not going to investigate screams prejudice. Because no way would an ordinary person pulling a gun out and shooting a dog in a dog park NOT be investigated


I do believe they are going to do a full investigation.. Or at least that's what they reported on the local news today..


----------



## selzer

I thought I read somewhere that neither dog had any marks on them, well save for the husky's gun shot wound.


----------



## selzer

I know my post did say that we can wait now before storming the federal building....


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

The story in today's Baltimore Sun calls him an off-duty federal police officer. He works at Ft. Myer, in Virginia. It also states that neither the officer nor his wife reported any injuries to "Asia" - the German Shepherd. According to the article, Bear-Bear was playing off-leash in the fenced in area of the park. Asia was on leash. Of course the accounts of what happened differ between the officer and Bear-Bear's handler.

On TV, last night, they showed the park. It is in a residential area. From what I could tell, the park is very close to homes. Aside from the dog being shot, the big concern was for the safety of people in the area - that a gun would be discharged where it could hit a child, etc. The county police are now questioning if the officer was legally allowed to carry a firearm, whether the gun was discharged in an appropriate and lawful manner and why the weapon was used at all. Ft. Myer is also conducting an administrative investigation.

Of course the Baltimore Sun stinks, so I don't know how much they got right. But - it's the only paper in town and I have two guinea pigs and a rabbit. Need my newspaper.


----------



## BlackPuppy

Stosh said:


> Just talked to my Anne Arundel Co. cop friend, who happens to live near this dog park. He said that three charges are pending, discharging a firearm near people and homes, excessive force and something like unlawful use of a firearm. Seems the man's superiors are not happy about this at all. My friend says this is all over the police blog, no surprise.


Well, at least that's something. 

This keeps reminding me of the Blue Ash, Ohio, police officers that fired 15 rounds into a 10 pound dog because it was biting the one officer's hand and wouldn't let go. The little dog was chased all over the dog's yard by the officers and even tazed. My office is 5 houses away from where this happened. 

When are police officers going to get training on reading and handling dogs? It's shoot on sight, even when they are running away. (Other stories that are coming to mind.)


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> Ok, I will bite.
> 
> I called the cops once in my 42 years. I told them an incident of a man taking liberties while I was in a grocery store and continuing to bother me.
> They asked his name. I told them he was a stranger. They said there was nothing they could do with out a name and an address. I was incredulous, I told them I could describe him, his clothes, his three days stubble, his smell, his brown pick up truck, where he does his grocery shopping. (Remember, this is a SMALL town.)They said they can do nothing without a name and address.
> My father and I did a little investigating and found his name and his address and gave it to the cops.
> I did not want to involve my father in this, but it was necessary. The police officer said, yeah, that sounds like him. They went out and talked with him and I have never been bothered by him again, BUT... Why in the world would they not even take a report without a name and address???
> So if someone robs me, I can call the cops for the insurance, but unless I have a name and address of the robber, I can kiss my stuff good bye because they are not going to try and find out. This is not the reason for my distrust of police, but it certainly did not help my opinion of them in general.


"Taking liberties" is not clear to me what you mean he was doing.

Maybe just a bad cop, or maybe they also didn't know what you meant either. But it does seem like they handled it and you weren't bothered anymore, were you?

Or maybe it was just Ohio - I lived in a small town in Ohio a few years ago! Heh! Heh!


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

codmaster said:


> *Would you make the assumption that he wasn't attacked?*


I'd prefer not to make an assumption either way. But if you look at the few facts that are available so far, there were no reported injuries to the man, his wife, or his dog. So at this point, the facts do not support an attack, nor do they seem to justify lethal force or risking public safety by discharging a firearm at a park in a residential neighborhood around innocent bystanders, including children.


----------



## BlackPuppy

Justice for Bear-Bear | Facebook

Facebook page, Justice for Bear Bear. The shooters name is Keith Shepherd.


----------



## codmaster

Cassidy's Mom said:


> I'd prefer not to make an assumption either way. But if you look at the few facts that are available so far, there were no reported injuries to the man, his wife, or his dog. So at this point, the facts do not support an attack, nor do they seem to justify lethal force or risking public safety by discharging a firearm at a park in a residential neighborhood around innocent bystanders, including children.


The fact is that we don't know what happened. If you make any decision about anyones behavior, the fact is that you are making assumptions because what actually happened is unknown.

BUT, just for the heck of it - are you saying (implying?) that the man should have to wait until his dog or his wife or himself is injured before he can defend himself?

Or maybe he should have just yelled at the other dog or at the owner (where was he anyway during this?) and waited till the dog latched on to something?

I have seen a dog attack one of my friends GSD's in a park parking lot - just after i had loaded my dog into my car. It was a LOT faster than most people who have never seen a real attack could ever imagine. If you have never seen an all out dog attack you have no business commenting on what anyone should have done during it. It is scarey as **** when you think that you, your wife or your dog are under attack!

This was definetly a real sad tragedy but I would like to hear where the owner of the husky was during this incident.


----------



## Zoeys mom

We do know the officer, his wife, and dog were not injured and we do know discharging a weapon in public in broad day light especially in a residential neighborhood is dangerous. Say the husky latched on to the officer or his wife. Would they have died? Probably not. Now say that bullet had went through the dog or plain missed him and a person was struck. Would they have died? Quite possibly

I have had a dog injured at a dog park in a fight with another aggressive dog- yes it happens fast and it is scary. I received over 30 stitches in my hands separating a rotti pit mix from my Doberman but I am alive and so was my late Doberman after the attack. I guess what irks me the most is this husky is dead when I don't believe he imposed deadly force on anyone or anything. The officer surely has been trained to fend off attacks with other non lethal means not involving firearms?


----------



## selzer

I can comment because I have been in dog fights than? No way should a dog be shot to death if it never even got close to you or your dog. 

Huskies and dogs in general MOVE a whole lot faster than we humans do. The owner of the husky was not at the park, the brother was. According to him the officer told him to call his dog off but before he could do anything, he shot the dog. 

Now I do not know about you, but even on that little partial acre excuse for a dog park in mentor, no way could I get to the dog to stop it from making contact. An off lead park has dogs off-lead. The shooter should have known that before he ever came in. And yes, he should have waited until the dog was a threat before shooting it. 

What would be the difference of him staying on the other side of the fence, shooting the dogs and then going in with his dog? That would ensure that no dog would come close to his. 

We have people believing the dog was attacking because the officer said he did.
We have people believing the dog was playing because people at the park commented on how he was good with dogs and kids and was a frequenter of the park.
We have people who need more information, whether this is because there truly is not enough info in the reports and news and witnesses, or if it is because they really do not want to believe an officer would act like this without a good reason, I do not know. 

I find the shooter's story much less believable than the person with the Husky. 

Here in Ohio, you cannot shoot a dog for trying to attack your dog, only your person, or your people. Even a dog with no owner anywhere in sight. If you are a farmer and it goes after your livestock you can shoot it. If you are a breeder and it goes after your dogs you cannot. (This information was gained from the sherriff's department in my county.)

So, in Ohio, if you shoot a dog that comes onto your property after your dog, you had better say that you thought it was coming for you. This Shooter knew that and certainly said it. His story does not hold water in my opinion.

If you are a hunter, and there is a dog going after deer, the rule is SSS, shoot, shovel, shut up.


----------



## codmaster

Zoeys mom said:


> We do know the officer, his wife, and dog were not injured* (what we don't know and never will is if they are ok because the guy defended them)* and we do know discharging a weapon in public in broad day light especially in a residential neighborhood is dangerous. *(Nothing else happened though did it? other than the sad fact of the husky being shot. We could say that if the custodian of that dog had called his dog back, he would have been unharmed though)* Say the husky latched on to the officer or his wife. Would they have died? Probably not. *(They might have, though and personally I would shoot a dog who had real designs on latching on to me or my family!)* Now say that bullet had went through the dog or plain missed him and a person was struck. Would they have died? Quite possibly
> 
> *BTW, vast majority of people who are shot don't die. Were you aware of that - sort of like most people who get a dog bite don't die either!*
> 
> I have had a dog injured at a dog park in a fight with another aggressive dog- yes it happens fast and it is scary. I received over 30 stitches in my hands separating a rotti pit mix from my Doberman but I am alive and so was my late Doberman after the attack. *Where was the other owner?* *How would you feel if you had suffered permanent damage to your hands by the dog? Or suppose it had been your kid who was bitten? (if you had one of course). Are you saying that you would not have used lethal force, if you had it, to protect yourself and your family? Be serious!*
> 
> I guess what irks me the most is this husky is dead when I don't believe he imposed deadly force on anyone or anything. The officer surely has been trained to fend off attacks with other non lethal means not involving firearms?


*Do you really believe that the federal govt. trains its LEO's in breaking up dog fights? Or that they should do so?*

*Again do you place any of the responsibilty for this tragedy on the custodian of the dog who came running up to the leashed dog?*


----------



## selzer

codmaster said:


> *Do you really believe that the federal govt. trains its LEO's in breaking up dog fights? Or that they should do so?*
> 
> *Again do you place any of the responsibilty for this tragedy on the custodian of the dog who came running up to the leashed dog?*


You do not NEED a course in how to break up dog fights to do it. The vast majority of people going to dog parks go without toting guns. I cannot remember the last time a human was killed at a dog park by a dog. 

I think the custodian of the husky was in an off lead park playing off lead with his sister's dog. Maybe he should have grabbed a hold of the dog's collar when the new dog came in. But make the punishment fit the crime, and do not shoot the dog for it.

Maybe the shooter should have said before entering, "hey, we are new to this, could you guys hold your dogs until we are through the gate and see how this goes."

I think the guy with the husky did not believe his dog would attack. 
I think the guy with the gun did not think there would be any problem when he entered with his dog.

Once inside the gate, 
I think the guy with the gun did believe the dog would attack, and shot him before the dog had a chance to do so. 

But it sounds like he probably misread the dog, and even if he did not, they could have managed it without fatally wounding the dog. 

No I would not shoot a dog for attacking me, my dogs, or my family, because I do not carry a gun. I guess I am probably living lucky. 

Big hero guys have to use guns where weak women manage without any weapons, amazing.


----------



## Chicagocanine

codmaster said:


> *Again do you place any of the responsibilty for this tragedy on the custodian of the dog who came running up to the leashed dog?*


According to the audio interview, the two owners talked before the Husky approached the other dog, and both said their dogs were friendly.




selzer said:


> I thought I read somewhere that neither dog had any marks on them, well save for the husky's gun shot wound.


Again according to the audio interview, animal control came out and determined that the dogs had no marks on either dog (except for the gunshot) that would indicate a dog fight had occurred, and so wouldn't take a report.


I have been attacked by a (large) dog and there is no way I would have used deadly force to stop the dog, even while the dog had hold of me.
Actually, I was more upset over the fact that the dog might be euthanized for biting me (it was a stray) than I was about the 9 puncture wounds perforating both sides of my hand, or having to go to the emergency room for stitches.


----------



## rjvamp

It is why I don't go to dog parks.....people should always have their dogs under control. I would like to see what the investigation finds out. I've been on a jury recently where what was reported in the news ( I checked AFTER The trial WAS OVER! ) was completely out of whack with the evidence.


----------



## Zoeys mom

Actually I do believe police officers are trained to break up fights dog related or not. I also believe if my dog were leashed and a dog approached aggressively I would be able to remove myself and dog from the situation without killing another dog because thats what your average person does when they believe a fight will ensue. I also don't believe you can even try to compare a dog bite to a gun shot- nice try but no bueno there! More people die a year from gun shots than dog bites. I also do not believe using the excuse no one else was injured when a weapon was discharged in the middle of the park flies. People drive drunk all the time and don't always get into accidents so with your reasoning I guess thats okay- no harm no foul?

I don't want to be injured in any permanent way by a dog, nor would I want my children injured either, but I still wouldn't unload a bullet in a dog coming my way. The dog DID NOT BITE ANYONE plain and simple. There were multiple people around if a fight ensued to help contain the dog, the cop could have handed his LEASHED dog off to his wife while he stood in between them, or he could have restrained the dog allowing the brother to leash him. Either way I feel the chances of a stray bullet injuring or killing an innocent person was greater than a husky injuring or killing this man, his dog, or wife. You don't have to agree with me by any means opinions are well......opinions take mine with the grain of salt you think it's worth


----------



## selzer

What Zoey's mom said, there were people around, he could have handed his dog off to his wife while he tried to gain a little bit of control. 

Some of us have to handle much bigger dogs with serious I am going to eat you attitudes alone and with no gun. 

Whether this guy just made a bad decision or if he panicked, you have to wonder whether he should be asked by the government to carry a gun while performing whatever job he does.


----------



## Zoeys mom

I infrequently now will still go to actual dog parks after my incident and I bring a muzzle...not for my dogs though


----------



## arycrest

While Codmaster has every right to defend the officer's use of lethel force in stopping a dog from playing rough with his dog, I feel this is an unreasonable approach to resolving a dog park problem, especially since it took place with other park users in the vicinity and the fact that the park is in a residential neighborhood. 

Is the next step to allow a father to shoot a small child because his kid got pushed down in the sand box? Where will it end?

IMHO using lethal force to resolve a problem that is not life and death in nature should be the last thing to consider, not the first. If Officer Shepherd can't distinguish between a life and death situation and rough play between two dogs, maybe he should consider another line of work.


----------



## codmaster

Chicagocanine said:


> According to the audio interview, the two owners talked before the Husky approached the other dog, and both said their dogs were friendly.
> 
> *That is indeed more information about the event.* *Unfortunately could be that at least one of them were wrong - like a lot of people with "friendly" dogs.*
> 
> 
> Again according to the audio interview, animal control came out and determined that the dogs had no marks on either dog (except for the gunshot) that would indicate a dog fight had occurred, and so wouldn't take a report.
> 
> 
> I have been attacked by a (large) dog and there is no way I would have used deadly force to stop the dog, even while the dog had hold of me.
> 
> *Better you than me in that case - I would not hesitate if I thought that I or someone (or dog) close to me was in real danger. Dogs can kill.*
> 
> Actually, I was more upset over the fact that the dog might be euthanized for biting me (it was a stray) than I was about the 9 puncture wounds perforating both sides of my hand, or having to go to the emergency room for stitches.


Maybe next time it might be someone who could not defend them as well as you obviously could - a child or small woman for example.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> You do not NEED a course in how to break up dog fights to do it. *Some people might or they could get bitten very badly.*
> The vast majority of people going to dog parks go without toting guns. I cannot remember the last time a human was killed at a dog park by a dog.
> *How about a dog in the dog park - any of them ever get killed by another dog? *
> I think the custodian of the husky was in an off lead park playing off lead with his sister's dog. Maybe he should have grabbed a hold of the dog's collar when the new dog came in. But make the punishment fit the crime, and do not shoot the dog for it.
> 
> Maybe the shooter should have said before entering, "hey, we are new to this, could you guys hold your dogs until we are through the gate and see how this goes." *That is true of course, and maybe the owners of the dogs could have stopped their dogs from rushing the newcomer (if they did which I have not heard)*
> 
> I think the guy with the husky did not believe his dog would attack.
> I think the guy with the gun did not think there would be any problem when he entered with his dog. *Also true in both cases leading to the tragedy.*
> 
> Once inside the gate,
> I think the guy with the gun did believe the dog would attack, and shot him before the dog had a chance to do so.
> 
> But it sounds like he probably misread the dog, and even if he did not, they could have managed it without fatally wounding the dog.
> 
> No I would not shoot a dog for attacking me, my dogs, or my family, because I do not carry a gun. I guess I am probably living lucky.
> 
> Big hero guys have to use guns where weak women manage without any weapons, amazing.


 
*Little extra sarcastic, do you think? Not all guys are big and not all women are weak!*


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

Chicagocanine said:


> Again according to the audio interview, animal control came out and determined that the dogs had no marks on either dog (except for the gunshot) that would indicate a dog fight had occurred, and so wouldn't take a report.


Exactly. All this talk of dog attacks and breaking up dog fights is moot - _there was no evidence of an attack. There was no evidence that there was a dog fight_. That's purely speculation. So what anyone would or should do in the face of a dog attack or how they would or should break up a fight is irrelevant.

Maybe more facts will come out later, maybe witnesses will come forward, and they'll say the husky DID attack and yet somehow managed to miraculously not inflict or receive any injuries in the process. But that hasn't happened yet.


----------



## selzer

codmaster said:


> *Little extra sarcastic, do you think? Not all guys are big and not all women are weak!*


Look I am a middle aged woman who isn't all that athletic, and I can stop all by myself two big dogs from killing each other or me without a gun. 

It boggles my mind that a big bad police man with people around needed a gun to fend off a husky that was playing nicely in a dog park that he often frequented, playing nicely with dogs and children. 

Oh, but that was just in the newspaper accounts by people who frequented the dog park who may have been friends with the violent vicious husky's owner. 

[Forgive me if I am wrong, but most people who have violent, viscious dogs do not have a whole lot of friends at dog parks.]

Or maybe it is so we-against-them that people who Hated the husky and its people are saying bold faced lies to get this poor police man in the dog house. 

Whatever.


----------



## Rusty_212

codmaster said:


> *Little extra sarcastic, do you think? Not all guys are big and not all women are weak!*


It truly amazes me how many excuses you come up with.


----------



## Rusty_212

BlackPuppy said:


> Justice for Bear-Bear | Facebook
> 
> Facebook page, Justice for Bear Bear. The shooters name is Keith Shepherd.


Lmao if that's his real name.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> Look I am a middle aged woman who isn't all that athletic, and I can stop all by myself two big dogs from killing each other or me without a gun.
> 
> *That would be very interesting to see - have you done this breaking up a real dog fight between two BIG dogs often? How did you manage to control two dogs with only two hands? Maybe you would be willing to give everyone here some pointers. Every serious fight that I have ever seen required at least two people to stop two dogs.*
> 
> It boggles my mind that a big bad police man with people around needed a gun to fend off a husky that was playing nicely in a dog park that he often frequented, playing nicely with dogs and children.
> 
> *If he believed that he or his were in real danger, (regardless of whether they were or not); then perhaps he wanted to end the threat as quickly and safely (for him) as possible.*
> 
> Oh, but that was just in the newspaper accounts by people who frequented the dog park who may have been friends with the violent vicious husky's owner.
> 
> [Forgive me if I am wrong, but most people who have violent, viscious dogs do not have a whole lot of friends at dog parks.]
> 
> Or maybe it is so we-against-them that people who Hated the husky and its people are saying bold faced lies to get this poor police man in the dog house.
> 
> Whatever.


Thanks for clearing everything up for everyone and doinf so without even being there.

I would guess that maybe you might be one of those people that believe that a cop faced with a person with a gun threatening someone should only shoot him in the hand (like in the movies) to make him drop the gun, right? And that way not use "deadly force"?

If the cop acted inappropriately, then I would hope and expect that the investigation would be able to determine that and then his superiors would act accordingly.


----------



## Chicagocanine

Zoeys mom said:


> I don't want to be injured in any permanent way by a dog, nor would I want my children injured either, but I still wouldn't unload a bullet in a dog coming my way. The dog DID NOT BITE ANYONE plain and simple. There were multiple people around if a fight ensued to help contain the dog, the cop could have handed his LEASHED dog off to his wife while he stood in between them, or he could have restrained the dog allowing the brother to leash him.


According to what I've read so far, the wife WAS holding the dog's leash the whole time.




codmaster said:


> Maybe next time it might be someone who could not defend them as well as you obviously could - a child or small woman for example.


Actually it was... I am a small woman, and I was only 16 at the time so I was even smaller when it happened.


----------



## codmaster

Chicagocanine said:


> ................
> Actually it was... I am a small woman, and I was only 16 at the time so I was even smaller when it happened.


*Congrats then are in order - my guess would be either you were very good or very lucky or both OR it wasn't an all out fight between two warrior dogs bent on killing each other! Either way congrats to you.*

*Doubtful if many 16 yo girls could have accomplished what you did! *


----------



## Syaoransbear

codmaster said:


> Thanks for clearing everything up for everyone and doinf so without even being there.


How can you continuously repeat to everyone that "you weren't there, you don't know what happened" while you are the one making the bold statement that the officer's dog was *attacked* when there's no proof?


----------



## codmaster

Syaoransbear said:


> How can you continuously repeat to everyone that "you weren't there, you don't know what happened" while you are the one making the bold statement that the officer's dog was *attacked* when there's no proof?


Well, I *really* wasn't there which is why I said that I wasn't there, and thus I do not know what really happened. Do you know what really happened? 

If you read what I did say, you will realize that I also said that if anyone wanted to give an opinion on the people involved actions then one needed to "MAKE AN ASSUMPTION" or two. 

My own assumption, which I thought was clear; but from your confusion I was wrong, was that the cop shot the dog because he thought it was *attacking* his dog and proabably a danger to him and to his wife.

Hopefully this will clear up any confusion that you might have about what I said!


----------



## bshof

I think Jericho and I will skip the dog park and save ourselves the drama. No winners in this ugly situation. I'm willing to bet the shooter regrets pulling that trigger. I'm all for people legally carrying guns, but its an awesome responsibility and one slight misjudgment can ruin a life. My thoughts go out to both parties.


----------



## Chicagocanine

codmaster said:


> *Congrats then are in order - my guess would be either you were very good or very lucky or both OR it wasn't an all out fight between two warrior dogs bent on killing each other! Either way congrats to you.*
> 
> *Doubtful if many 16 yo girls could have accomplished what you did! *


I didn't say it was a fight, I said I was attacked by a large dog. 
I was both luck and I guess "good' in that I made the right moves/decisions and was able to walk away without worse injuries.
Although I have broken up dog fights, some when I was younger than 16. I walked dogs and did pet-sitting from a young age so I learned quickly how to work with dogs including breaking up fights. One of the people I walked dogs/petsat for a lot was a police officer who rescued dogs, some of which were former fighting dogs, 'junkyard dogs' (taken from used car lots and things like that) etc...


----------



## G-burg

It is possible that the dogs did actually fight, just because there was not marks, doesn't mean it didn't happen.. Not every dog fight ends in injury.. And there could be puncture wounds once you really start going over the dog.. I've had that happen.. The dogs coats are so thick that I didn't notice/feel anything until a couple days later when it scabed up..

Clearly this guy was not in the right frame of mind, which is kinda scary..


----------



## BlackPuppy

Rusty_212 said:


> Lmao if that's his real name.


Why do you think this is funny?

Officers name released.
WJLA Releases Officer’s Name In Shooting | Eye On Annapolis

Now he has a lawyer that says he acted in self defense.
Officer in dog park shooting of Bear-Bear acted in self-defense, lawyer says - baltimoresun.com


----------



## Dainerra

How many times have we heard the statement "Dog aggression does NOT equal human aggression"?? yet the people who are defending the officer are saying "his dog was being attacked, he thought his wife and child were in danger"

The only people I've known to be bitten in a dog fight were actually bitten by their own dog, while trying to break it up. Or after the dogs were separated and the dog was still over-amped in fight mode. 
As for no injuries, most dog fights are just a lot of noise and shoving/posturing. Injuries tend to be minor. But the shooter is stating it was self-defense, that the fight was so severe he feared for people's lives. Don't you think there should be some injuries?
The officers account makes it sound like it was rough play to me. The dogs played nicely, separated and then when they came together again, it was rougher. Huskys and GSDs both play fight, grabbing each other around the neck and making enough noise to frighten anyone who doesn't know. 
I still don't see any reason to shoot the dog, the officer could have had his family exit the gate, took his dog and left.


----------



## LaRen616

Dainerra said:


> How many times have we heard the statement "Dog aggression does NOT equal human aggression"?? yet the people who are defending the officer are saying "his dog was being attacked, he thought his wife and child were in danger"
> 
> The only people I've known to be bitten in a dog fight were actually bitten by their own dog, while trying to break it up. Or after the dogs were separated and the dog was still over-amped in fight mode.
> As for no injuries, most dog fights are just a lot of noise and shoving/posturing. Injuries tend to be minor. But the shooter is stating it was self-defense, that the fight was so severe he feared for people's lives. Don't you think there should be some injuries?
> The officers account makes it sound like it was rough play to me. The dogs played nicely, separated and then when they came together again, it was rougher. Huskys and GSDs both play fight, grabbing each other around the neck and making enough noise to frighten anyone who doesn't know.
> *I still don't see any reason to shoot the dog, the officer could have had his family exit the gate, took his dog and left*.


I completely agree with this. 

This story really pisses me off. The GSD should not have been on a leash in an off leash park. That was his first mistake. The second mistake is not giving the other guy enough time to help get the Husky off of his dog. The third mistake is clearly shooting the dog when that could have been avoided had he tried to break them apart. 

Regardless, the shooting of the dog was ridiculous, dangerous and uncalled for.


----------



## DnP

Ok, I have tried to keep my Federal LEO (law enforcement officer) hat off during this whole thing, but personally, I am sick and tired of all the bashing/assumptions that are being flung around. 

Federal LEOs *ARE NOT *trained on how to defend against dogs or deal with dog fights. To make that assumption is rather perposterous. Agents receive 12 weeks of training but none of it pertains to dealing with dogs. Threats, yes, dogs specifically, no. 

As *a Federal LEO, I would NOT have pulled my weapon out for a dog fight.* But then again, I've been a dog owner for just as long as I've been an LEO. What many folks fail to remember is that NO two people will react to the same situation in the same way. Good for you folks who are willing to wade into the middle of a dog fight to break it up. Not everyone is comfortable doing that. Many of you fail to recognize that as in issue. Does that make the individual a bad dog owner. Heck no. It just makes them uncomfortable breaking up a dog fight, for whatever reason.

I don't hear any witness accounts of other dog owners at the dog park getting between the two dogs or if there was an attack, trying to break up the dogs. Why didn't someone else intervene before the situation escalated? We can all Monday morning quarterback this event to death and find everyone at fault whether they were or weren't. 

I am annoyed to heck the statements that the federal police officer (completely different than a federal agent) abused his power. BS, pure and simple. Until I hear information that this individual was throwing around that he was a federal LEO then I am willing to assume (and I HATE assuming) that no one knew he was a Federal LEO until AFTER the incident.

As LEOs, yes, we are held to a higher standard than "joe civilian". Are there folks in law enforcement who do not belong there? Oh yes. In my 19 year career, I've seen them come and go. Not everyone who becomes an LEO is truly cut out for the job. EVERY class, whether it be in HS, college, the police academy or the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center has a bottom portion of the class that graduates. And just because you graduated at the top of an LEO class b/c that individual got 100% on all of his/her tests, doesn't mean he is gonna be good on the street. You don't know how you will do until you are put in a street situation.

What the article won't tell you is how long has this individual been on the job. There are many police forces where officers get minimal "formal" training and most is on the job training. Kind of like thowing them into the fire and see how they do... Classroom training is NO subsitute for what happens on the street. PERIOD. 

What I will NOT do, is defend what this gentleman did. I do not know all of the facts. NONE of us know all of the facts. What I can say is that if it is found that this individual fired his non-duty weapon in a reckless manner and is charged with criminal charges, he will be on adm leave until this issue is resolved. If he is found guilty or pleads to any charges regarding the discharge of his weapon, his career in federal law enforcement is over. Personally, if I were his supervisor, he'd be in deep poop. He pulled a weapon out and discharged it in an unsafe manner. I do not know how many people were present, but any LEO knows, if you pull your weapon out, it is to use it. You use it to stop a threat. BUT, you also know your surrroundings. ONLY use leathal force when you feel there is a threat to human life. According to the individual, he used those exact words. *I was not there*, so I do not know how he felt threatened. I am not going to assume that as a "BIG BAD COP" he should not have felt threatened or that he should not have felt that his wife's life was threatened. 

AS A DOG OWNER, you have a different view. You want to protect your dog. I have read on this forum on numerous occasions where folks talked about how they'd shoot another dog if it attacked their dog. No if ands or buts. They talk about how they carry sidearms with them or have conceal carry permits and exercise their right to carrry. 

Selzer, I am sorry that you live in an area that has lazy LEOs. They give the rest of the hardworking LEOs out there a bad name. ****, I've run into lazy LEOs both at the federal, state and local levels. Like any other job/career, these folks are everywhere, not just in law enforcement. However these folks have no business being in law enforcement. Sounds like it's a systemic problem in your area...I know it's not all of Ohio. Some of the best LEOs I know work in Ohio and I've trained with them.

I am proud of being a LEO. However, I am NOT going to defend an LEO who abuses his/her power, is lazy or incompetent. BUT, you also have to remember that LEOs are NOT superhuman. We are humans too. We make mistakes, but our mistakes are usually splashed all over the news, whether it be on duty or off duty. We can not be perfect 100% of the time. I know I am going to get bashed by someone saying our mistakes can result in the loss of life or great bodily injury. Yes, I already know that. That's why MOST of us don't take this job lightly or carrying a weapon lightly. (and to those LEOs that leave their weapons in vehicles should leave their weapons at home. Those things are just as useless in their car as it is in their home when they are out. It is the lazy LEO who leaves it in their car, which I know will piss off the LEOs who do this) 

I will agree with codmaster and others who have stated that the media is notorious to provide as little information as possible and to skew a story to fit their agenda. And if you think the media is unbiased, then you really need to come back to earth. The media likes to incite folks cause it sells papers...or generate income for them. I have found the media to be quite self serving. Misinformation makes the front page above the fold...the truth usually hits page 5 or 6 a few days later.

I for one, am glad that they reopened the investigation. I did not like how in less than 24 hours that it was stated that the investigation had been completed and no charges were going to be filed. (if the media can be believed) I can tell you that this individuals agency is conduting their own investigation into this situation. I hope the truth does come out and is reported in an unbiased manner.


----------



## Dainerra

Putzi said his client served about two years in the Army and is a sergeant in the Army Reserves who has completed two tours in Iraq totaling 26 months, and has worked for about three years as police officer. - from the second article posted by blackpuppy

I agree completely that his being an officer doesn't affect how he would handle his dog. Even some K9 officers I've met know less about dog behavior than the people on this board.

The same article says that only the husky and the GSD were at the park at the time. But that the husky is a daily visitor with the owner's brother. 

The fact that he was a LEO doesn't mean he should know how to handle dogs. But I do expect him to have very stringent judgment over firing his weapon. A park in a residential neighborhood? I can understand wanting to protect your dog, I would mine. But I also know that using deadly force to do it will get me in deep poo. Even if the dog was attacking ME, I would be looking at a very thorough investigation because of where it happened. The guy says he feared for his family, why not have them take the dog and leave the park immediately? Instead, by his own claims through his attorney, he shot the husky.

I agree completely with the media bias. I really hate the fact that 99% of reporters don't get the basic facts straight before broadcasting the story. I will say that, based on his statements of innocence through his attorney, that I think the guy acted recklessly. I understand his thinking and that he might have been afraid, but he had an open avenue to leave the park. His wife had his dog on-leash and could have walked out.


----------



## DnP

Thanks Dainerra, I had failed to read the second article, only had read the first.

I find it interesting that one article stated it had no problem finding a witness to the event, and this article, Mr. Shepherd stated he and the individual w/ the husky were the only ones at the dog park. Hmmmm. Might be one of the reasons the investigation was closed so quickly...

If there were only two people who were there, and both were not capable of seperating the dogs...it was not a good situation. I think a lot of us know when rough play can escalate and while it looks bad, the dogs really aren't doing damage to each other. These two individuals may not be so sauve. We don't know how long it took the individual with the husky to react until Mr. Shepherd felt it was necessary to pull the weapon. Seconds can seem like an eternity.

As far as the husky being friendly...my Phoenix is very dog friendly. However, his rough play has pissed off another friendly dog and the two got into it....his one and only "fight". There was no physical damage to either dog, but sheesh it looked like the two were going to kill each other. it was broken up before it could have escalated to that point. If neither individual knew their dogs like I knew Phoenix and the dog he scuffled with...they may have assumed it was a full on fight.

Mr. Shepherd's background does give me reason to pause. We do not know what his duty was while he did his two tours in Iraq. Was he in an actual combat position or a "clerk" who road desk duty. Three years as a civilian PO is not much time on the job.

Personally, I do not like that he chose to use his weapon, even if there were no other people at the park...There was another individual, the person w/ the husky, at the park. It could have ended in a bigger tragedy if the other individual had tried to get to the husky as Mr. Shepherd fired his weapon.


----------



## Lilie

Diana - ( I know a little off topic ) - Thank you for what you do for a living!


----------



## Snugglebug

*New information: investigation re-opened*

They've re-opened this case, thankfully, and I hope this cowardly & abusive excuse for an officer is punished (surely, this wasn't the 1st time and bet he's gotten away w/more)... I hope he gets what he deserves GRRR  see this article for update Probe Continues After Dog Fatally Shot At Park - Baltimore, Maryland News Story - WBAL Baltimore WBALtv dot com news/24513015/detail


----------



## Dainerra

that article has a bit of old infor. Ft Myer has since placed the officer on Administrative Leave until the investigation is complete. 

Originally, police ruled it as justified without any investigation. Since the public outcry, they have re-opened and are talking to witnesses. There are so many news articles and they seem to have many conflicting statements. A very big downside of "instant news" if you ask me. The pressure is put on getting the story out first, who cares if it is accurate.


----------



## Chicagocanine

Dainerra said:


> The officers account makes it sound like it was rough play to me. The dogs played nicely, separated and then when they came together again, it was rougher. Huskys and GSDs both play fight, grabbing each other around the neck and making enough noise to frighten anyone who doesn't know.
> I still don't see any reason to shoot the dog, the officer could have had his family exit the gate, took his dog and left.


I am wondering about that as well... The dog Bianca plays with the most is a Husky mix and they play VERY rough. Calvin often grabs Bianca by the neck/head and sometimes pulls on her neck, often along with a lot of growling and barking.


----------



## Rusty_212

BlackPuppy said:


> Why do you think this is funny?
> 
> Officers name released.
> WJLA Releases Officer’s Name In Shooting | Eye On Annapolis
> 
> Now he has a lawyer that says he acted in self defense.
> Officer in dog park shooting of Bear-Bear acted in self-defense, lawyer says - baltimoresun.com


Sorry, it's not funny, it's ironic that his last name is Shephard and he owns a Shepherd.

Glad to hear some kind of action is being taken against him.


----------



## lcht2

the sad thing about it is the officer will have ZERO consequences...keep your dogs on leash when other dogs/people are around, people.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

lcht2 said:


> the sad thing about it is the officer will have ZERO consequences...keep your dogs on leash when other dogs/people are around, people.


This is from somone who has no understanding of what really goes on and listens to the biased media. There are LEOs all over this country that are losing thier jobs do to the media missing the facts. The " victims" will always say they were a good kid or the police overreacted. The higher upstrend to fold to this bs public pressure and people lose thier jobs even when the officer was in the right. Almost all of them have no understanding of why officers do the things they do. Reason being is the bad guys do not need to know the tactics were taught. I am not condoning what this officer did, but I'm sure as he'll positive that his life as an LEO is over. I am disapointed in this board now. Especially after seeing a lot of the people here scream police are nothing but corrupt. If you people understood what the officers go through you would understand why they stick together. You have to.


----------



## Mrs.K

Honestly, a GSD Owner should be able to decide rough play from a fight. So either that guy is a fool or there is more to it.

On the other side, people feel scared to go to the dog park. If you have to fear that your dog will be shot by a triggerhappy dog-owner just because your dogs are rough playing...


----------



## Eva von Selah

Caledon said:


> Didn't someone here threaten to do this at a dog park?
> 
> This could have happened anywhere and not necessarily at at dog park.
> 
> A rather extreme reaction I'd say.


There is/was a member from Florida who said he would/wanted to shoot a dog at a private park owned by his vet, the next time it got near his dog.


----------



## Fuse

Eva von Selah said:


> There is/was a member from Florida who said he would/wanted to shoot a dog at a private park owned by his vet, the next time it got near his dog.


Relayer I think. I've been thinknig about that as I was reading through this too. Havent seen him in this thread... 

I think this shooter live in VA though.


----------



## IllinoisNative

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> There are LEOs all over this country that are losing their jobs do to the media missing the facts. The " victims" will always say they were a good kid or the police overreacted.


I don't think anyone is discounting that. We know people who do wrong will aways say that the police are to blame. But I don't think that is the issue here. Whether he was a LEO or not, I have an issue with his actions. Even before I paid attention to who he was, I was appalled by his behavior. The only reason his job is an issue is a) he had a gun on him b) the consequences he may nor may not receive as a result of this.



> I am disappointed in this board now. Especially after seeing a lot of the people here scream police are nothing but corrupt.


Who said the police are nothing but corrupt? I haven't seen one post that said that. But being police offices ALSO doesn't mean they above reproach or that they can't and don't make mistakes. 

His job shouldn't factor into this at all. Just on what we know, this is a what the frak situation. Who shoots a "rude" dog at a PUBLIC dog park? The only reason his job comes into play is because he had a gun.



> If you people understood what the officers go through you would understand why they stick together. You have to.


The problem isn't them sticking up for each other. It's when they do it at the public's expense to get their "friends" off. And that's not even the case in this situation yet.

No matter what his job, I don't get his actions. And he shouldn't get preferential treatment because of what he does for a living, IMNSHO.


----------



## codmaster

IllinoisNative said:


> ..................
> No matter what his job, I don't get his actions. And he shouldn't get preferential treatment because of what he does for a living, IMNSHO.


Absolutely true that he should not "get a break" or preferential treatment because he is a cop, BUT he should also not get rougher treatment because of his job either. His job is absolutely irrelevant to this situation.


----------



## Syaoransbear

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> I am disapointed in this board now. Especially after seeing a lot of the people here scream police are nothing but corrupt. If you people understood what the officers go through you would understand why they stick together. You have to.


Please don't judge an entire board based on the opinion of a few people. I'm sure most people don't think that, and the ones that do you could find them anywhere you go.


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> Absolutely true that he should not "get a break" or preferential treatment because he is a cop, BUT he should also not get rougher treatment because of his job either. His job is absolutely irrelevant to this situation.


I think the issue is how QUICKLY they resolved the matter which some speculated was because of his job. Only the public outcry caused them to reopen it. His job became relevant because of the lack of investigation. Otherwise, I don't think it would be a big issue. But the initial lack of consequences and how quickly they resolved things without an investigation made his job relevant. 

They only launched an investigation because the public demanded it. That's not about rougher treatment. And given what we know...no injuries to people/animal, discharging a firearm in a public place, etc, there darn well should have been an investigation!!! From that standpoint, it worked in his favor UNTIL the public outcry.

Either way, it's not rougher treatment to reprimand him for how/where he used his gun. He was a LEO, they should be held to a higher standard when using their firearm. Period. If this was just a Joe Schmo who did this, you're darn tootin there would have been an investigation right from the beginning.

And,* my own personal opinion*, this guy didn't fear for his life during a dog fight. I believe he said that knowing it was the only instance he could discharge his weapon. After all, he had to know that for his job. It was a DOG fight, if anything. But that's just my opinion...lol. Something doesn't sound right in this story...especially since nobody was hurt. There was no blood, etc.

And his own dog was on leash (while not criminal, was indeed stupid). If another dog was being rude, take the darn leash and MOVE THE DOG.


----------



## selzer

I agree with IllinoisNative. Excellent post.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> This is from somone who has no understanding of what really goes on and listens to the biased media. There are LEOs all over this country that are losing thier jobs do to the media missing the facts. The " victims" will always say they were a good kid or the police overreacted. The higher upstrend to fold to this bs public pressure and people lose thier jobs even when the officer was in the right. Almost all of them have no understanding of why officers do the things they do. Reason being is the bad guys do not need to know the tactics were taught. I am not condoning what this officer did, but I'm sure as he'll positive that his life as an LEO is over.* I am disapointed in this board now. Especially after seeing a lot of the people here scream police are nothing but corrupt. If you people understood what the officers go through you would understand why they stick together. You have to.*


I don't think anyone here said that, or thinks that. 

The guy pulled out a gun and fired it whre he wasn't supposed too, and it ended tragically because of his careless actions and thoughts.He should be punished just like anyone else who would do this.


----------



## codmaster

IllinoisNative said:


> I think the issue is how QUICKLY they resolved the matter which some speculated was because of his job. Only the public outcry caused them to reopen it. *And you know this as fact how?*
> His job became relevant because of the lack of investigation. Otherwise, I don't think it would be a big issue.* Sounds like it was for you from the very beginning of the relating of the incident.* But the initial lack of consequences and how quickly they resolved things without an investigation made his job relevant.
> 
> They only launched an investigation because the public demanded it. That's not about rougher treatment. And given what we know...no injuries to people/animal, discharging a firearm in a public place, etc, there darn well should have been an investigation!!! From that standpoint, it worked in his favor UNTIL the public outcry. *And you don't think that the initial newspaper story was unbiased?*
> 
> Either way, it's not rougher treatment to reprimand him for how/where he used his gun. He was a LEO, they should be held to a higher standard when using their firearm. Period. *That surely sounds like you are all for equal treatment, doesn't it? Other than having been trained in the use of firearms (note that only his target was hit, no innocents like some folks have been lamenting about here); the fact that he was a federal LEO has absolutely no relevance in this situation.* If this was just a Joe Schmo who did this, you're darn tootin there would have been an investigation right from the beginning.
> 
> And,* my own personal opinion*, this guy didn't fear for his life during a dog fight. *Did you just admit that there was a dog fight? Interesting also that you can come to such a firm conclusion without having been there or actually interviewed anybody who was there. Good to see that you, like a lot of folks, do not let the facts get in the way of your quickly developed conclusions. Just maybe the bias against cops. *
> I believe he said that knowing it was the *only instance *he could discharge his weapon. *Are you sure of this? I think that maybe he could also discharge his weapon in his job duties too, don't you think? * After all, he had to know that for his job. It was a DOG fight, if anything. But that's just my opinion...lol. Something doesn't sound right in this story...especially since nobody was hurt. There was no blood, etc.
> 
> And his own dog was on leash (while not criminal, was indeed stupid). If another dog was being rude, take the darn leash and MOVE THE DOG.


*Could be he was trying to take the leash off when the other dog came up to them, maybe? Was this a park where you brought the dog in on lead and then took it off or can you take the leash off outside or in a double gate? Or do you really know what was the normal/required procedure/ or do you really care what the facts are?*

*Sounds like you have already convicted him of something (anything?).*

*"Innocent till proven guilty?" *

*Ever hear of this kind of neat sounding approach?*


----------



## codmaster

Jessiewessie99 said:


> I don't think anyone here said that, or thinks that.
> 
> The guy pulled out a gun and fired it whre he wasn't supposed too, and it ended tragically because of his careless actions and thoughts.He should be punished just like anyone else who would do this.


*What would you suggest for punishment?*

*I am assuming that you would agree that he would first have to be found guiltyof something first of course.*


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> *What would you suggest for punishment?*
> 
> *I am assuming that you would agree that he would first have to be found guiltyof something first of course.*


Whatever the punishment for this crime is. Of course he would have to be found guilty.


----------



## Syaoransbear

I'd love to hear the wife's side of the story.


----------



## Mrs.K

> Other than having been trained in the use of firearms (note that only his target was hit, no innocents like some folks have been lamenting about here); the fact that he was a federal LEO has absolutely no relevance in this situation.


Actually it has. 

I am glad they revealed the information that he served tours in Iraq and is now an LEO.

If that man suffers from PTSD and he got triggered and that is the reason for him shooting the dog than it's a whole new and different story. 

A tragic story indeed because than you have two victims, not just one. 

If there is anything like that going on with that man, if he suffers from PTSD than he should have no access to any weapons whatsoever. He should be treated for it and not being punished by the law.

Now that is just speculation.

However, if he has it and didn't get treatment because he was too proud than he should be punished for being too proud and endangering not only himself but others. 

If he went for help and the military didn't take it seriously enough which happens quite often (hence the suicidal rate) than the military should be held responsible for failing yet another one of their own man. 

Now that is only an IF scenario.


----------



## Dainerra

How do we know that public outcry is what made them re-open the case? Because the officers said so, maybe? The original investigation (that by all accounts lasted long enough for the cops to show up and see that all that was shot was a dog) was closed the same day as the shooting. Concerned public contacted the media and the Humane Society. After that, the case was reopened and is now being "thoroughly investigated" and the shooter is on administrative leave until it is complete. 

I think that any time ANYONE fires their weapon, it should be given more than a cursory glance by law enforcement.


----------



## JazzNScout

Growing up in Maryland, I remember the AA County Police force had the absolute worst reputation of any police force around. Apparently, they haven't changed in all these years.


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> *Could be he was trying to take the leash off when the other dog came up to them, maybe? Was this a park where you brought the dog in on lead and then took it off or can you take the leash off outside or in a double gate? Or do you really know what was the normal/required procedure/ or do you really care what the facts are?*
> 
> *Sounds like you have already convicted him of something (anything?).*
> 
> *"Innocent till proven guilty?" *
> 
> *Ever hear of this kind of neat sounding approach?*


Let me preface this by asking do you know how to quote? Because you are doing it incorrectly and it makes it VERY hard to respond to you point by point. If you did it correctly, you wouldn't have to make your points in blue and I could respond to all you points without jumping through hoops.

The owner of the other dog said he asked him if his dog was friendly and that is when his dog approached. So I don't think it's an issue of coming in the gate. He was already in. And if he shot the dog, chances are he didn't know normal dog behavior or that you don't have a LEASHED dog in an unleashed dog park. That reeks of inexperience at the very least.

Yes, it's innocent until proven guilty but it doesn't mean that we can't have opinions based on the facts presented to us. Again, if the facts change, I'll rethink my position. Until that time, I'm going by what I know. 

And as stated above, we know they reopened it because of public outcry because, as stated upthead, the officers said so.

And, sweet mother of toto, his job is relevant (AS I PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED) due to how quickly the case was closed. You don't think that's even a little bit odd? Seriously?


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

As I said before I do not condone his actions whatsoever. I am upset with the fact that there has been more than 1 comment on this thread that was direct and more that were not direct in saying because he is a police officer that he will get away with it. It is unlikley because a lot of LEOs are being thrown under the bus for much less. No one should take a lot of the media seriously especially initial accounts, and from a blog at that. So many on here jumped to an opinion without having all the facts. 

It is disturbing to see celebreties get off with pretty much murder, but we crucify the men and women who protect us everyday if they use the slightest bit of force. I encourage some of you all to visit sites for police officers. Please take a look from the other side. 

Police and Law Enforcement - PoliceOne.com is a great site for information. 

I do not agree with the ones who cover stuff up to save thier friends, especially if they did somthing extremely wrong. Have you ever thought about why they stick together though?


----------



## BlackPuppy

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> I am upset with the fact that there has been more than 1 comment on this thread that was direct and more that were not direct in saying because he is a police officer that he will get away with it.


I think he'll absolutly get away with it. I hope the owners of Bear Bear get a good civil lawyer and take him to court. 

I think police are trained with a "shoot dogs on sight" mentality. Maybe not formal training, but on-the-job training. 

It's so prevalent it has a name: Police Canicide

Let's look back at some I remember. This is the SHORT list.

Blue Ash, Ohio - Police shoots chihuahua mix dog for biting during inept attempt at capture. They tazed it first. Bullock family's pet dog Tasered, shot dead by police in Cincinnati | News.com.au

Maryland Mayor - Swat team picks wrong house and shoots scared dogs running away. Mayor wants federal probe after SWAT raids house, kills dogs - CNN.com

Police stops car for traffic violation and shoots dog.
CNN.com - Video shows police killing dog - Jan. 9, 2003

Police shoot chained dog in Missouri. Opposing Views: Dashcam Video: LaGrange, Missouri Police Shoot Dog

Las Vegas - Cops chasing DUI suspect on foot through people's yards. Shots the dog that lives there. BACKYARD INCIDENT: Family's pet 'Coco' killed by police - News - ReviewJournal.com

Washington DC - Police serving warrant shoots grandma's dog. 
BACKYARD INCIDENT: Family's pet 'Coco' killed by police - News - ReviewJournal.com

THE COPS ALWAYS SHOOT THE DOG.
They Always Shoot the Dog | The Agitator 

Let's not forget about all the dogs in New Orleans who had to be left behind during Katrina.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Even your long list can't stand up against the fact that millions of officers everyday encounter dogs without issue. Yes they are told bit never trained to shoot the animals if they could injure the officer or another person. It's a fact of life being a police officer. Have to be safe than be sorry. 

BTW his career as a LEO is over.


----------



## IllinoisNative

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> As I said before I do not condone his actions whatsoever. I am upset with the fact that there has been more than 1 comment on this thread that was direct and more that were not direct in saying because he is a police officer that he will get away with it.


I hear what you are saying and I agree. I think the only reason that was suspected is that he did get away with it until the public got outraged...if, indeed, he was at fault.

Only now are they doing an investigation. If they did the investigation from the get go, I don't even think this would be an issue.



> It is disturbing to see celebreties get off with pretty much murder, but we crucify the men and women who protect us everyday if they use the slightest bit of force. I encourage some of you all to visit sites for police officers. Please take a look from the other side.


I totally agree with the celebrity thing. But, in this case, shooting the dog was not the right course of action. I don't think celebrities getting off means the office was in the right. I think there needs to be consequences for everyone. I'm not even saying that the officer needs to lose his job. I just think there needs to be "something" for shooting a dog at a dog park in a public venue when his own actions (dog on leash, inexperience in reading dog language) may be to blame. 

I don't think he needs to be crucified because he's a LEO but I also don't think it means he should get away without even an investigation...which is what happened before the public outcry.



> Have you ever thought about why they stick together though?


I don't think anybody is saying they shouldn't stick together. I get why they do because of what they go through. But when they do it in a way that makes them above the law, I think that is when people get angry.

*BTW - thanks for the link. I will check it out.*


----------



## codmaster

IllinoisNative said:


> Let me preface this by asking do you know how to quote? Because you are doing it incorrectly and it makes it VERY hard to respond to you point by point. If you did it correctly, you wouldn't have to make your points in blue and I could respond to all *you* points without jumping through hoops.
> 
> The owner of the other dog said he asked him if his dog was friendly and that is when his dog approached. *Wonder why didn't he just call his dog back to him when he saw the other owner was upset at his dogs actions? (sorry - couldn't resist this one small response)*
> 
> So I don't think it's an issue of coming in the gate. He was already in. And if he shot the dog, chances are he didn't know normal dog behavior or that you don't have a LEASHED dog in an unleashed dog park. That reeks of inexperience at the very least.
> 
> Yes, it's innocent until proven guilty but it doesn't mean that we can't have opinions based on the facts presented to us. Again, if the facts change, I'll rethink my position. Until that time, I'm going by what I know.
> 
> And as stated above, we know they reopened it because of public outcry because, as stated *upthead*, the officers said so.
> 
> And, sweet mother of toto, his job is relevant (AS I PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED) due to how quickly the case was closed. You don't think that's even a little bit odd? Seriously?


I guess I owe you an apology for my making it so hard for you to respond to me. I sure wouldn't want to make it hard for you.

And of course you should make up your mind as soon as you can based on your own opinions and bias and not let the as yet unknown facts cloud your "judgement".

After all, that is what is nice about America - anyone can have their own opinion and not be bothered by the actual events in a case. We just hope that a jury/judge don't make up their mind like some uninformed people. 

PS - maybe you could use copy and paste if that might help you respond to my messages without too much trouble.


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> I guess I owe you an apology for my making it so hard for you to respond to me. I sure wouldn't want to make it hard for you.


It's called being courteous and posting correctly.



> And of course you should make up your mind as soon as you can based on your own opinions and bias and not let the as yet unknown facts cloud your "judgement".


Did I not just tell you that I'm making a judgment based on the facts at hand? And that I would take into account new evidence if presented? This isn't a hard concept.



> After all, that is what is nice about America - anyone can have their own opinion and not be bothered by the actual events in a case. We just hope that a jury/judge don't make up their mind like some uninformed people.


Oh, for Pete's sake. Give me a break. This is a discussion board where we discuss things. And you're being a little hypocritical. You seem to assume that he's not at fault no matter what we know now since you're taking the other position. So, you are making a judgment by your continued argument in his favor.



> PS - maybe you could use copy and paste if that might help you respond to my messages without too much trouble.


I wouldn't have to if you posted correctly.


----------



## Dainerra

according to him, he wasn't given time to call back the dog. The guy said get your dog and in the next breath "bang" dog had been shot.
There weren't any witnesses, so it's his word against the shooters.


----------



## codmaster

Illinoisnative - try reading and try understanding my posts.

I am not assuming anything about the guilt or innocence of the GSD owner. What I have said was that we (I and a few others) do not have enough information about what actually happened that day in the dog park to make any judgement about it. Other than it was a true tragedy for two families.

A few folks here seem to have already convicted the guy of something and that was not right.

"Did I not just tell you that I'm making a judgment based on the facts at hand? And that I would take into account new evidence if presented? This isn't a hard concept."

Please be sure to let us all know on this forum if you do understand any more facts, and change your mind about the situation.


And thank you for letting me know that this is a discussion board and you have a nice day.


----------



## Caledon

They guy took a loaded gun into a dog park and used it. Why did he not leave it a home for this visit to a dog park? Was he required to carry a gun while off duty? I have no knowledge of the details of LEO codes, or what people do when they have a licence for a concealed weapon.

As a LEO I would have thought that he would think out his actions very carefully before he reacts as he knows that he will be under review from his employer, the law and from the public. He had a lot to risk. Just like a politician must always be aware of what they do in private will impact their professional lives. If he acted appropriately, fine, but if he was wrong and over-reacted he has bigger consequences than most.

From what I have read, it appears that the two dogs were playing and he reacted with extreme force to break up rough play. There were other options besides taking out his gun, taking two steps back and killing the dog. If this is proven to be the case then his LEO career coming to an end is a good thing. If you act inappropriately in this situation what other situations would he react inappropriately to. 

Very sad for all involved.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

INative: you are welcome for the link. 

I wasn't saying you wanted to crucify him, but the general public is. There are so many articles about it now the incident that it is impossible to get a clear picture of what may have happened. I doubt that the investigation ever really closed. IA would be up his rear for awhile AND any discharge of a firearm by an officer is automatic Admin leave until an investigation is concluded and this typically takes a week or more. 

FEI: some agencies require off duty carry while most recomend it. This is for thier own and thier familys saftey. With the way criminals are allowed are released so easily in today's system that who knows what that guy you put behind bars and is now out may do. There are many accounts of officers having to move to keep thier family safe.


----------



## arycrest

This thread is so long I'm not sure if this has been posted or not ... I went back 3 or 4 pages and didn't see it.

Here's a link to a copy of the original AA County police report on the shooting. IMHO it's hard to read but I don't have my glasses on so maybe you all might be able to see it better.
Baltimore Crime Beat: Arundel police release report in dog shooting - Baltimore crime news: Police, courts and police stories in the city and central Maryland - baltimoresun.com


----------



## Caledon

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> FEI: some agencies require off duty carry while most recomend it. This is for thier own and thier familys saftey. With the way criminals are allowed are released so easily in today's system that who knows what that guy you put behind bars and is now out may do. There are many accounts of officers having to move to keep thier family safe.


 
That makes sense to me. This would explain why he had a gun in the dog park.


----------



## Rusty_212

After reading that report, I don't have much faith in the AA county States Attorney's office. 

I have no problem with carrying his gun off-duty. He just doesn't know how to use it in some situations.


----------



## IllinoisNative

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> I wasn't saying you wanted to crucify him, but the general public is. There are so many articles about it now the incident that it is impossible to get a clear picture of what may have happened. I doubt that the investigation ever really closed. IA would be up his rear for awhile AND any discharge of a firearm by an officer is automatic Admin leave until an investigation is concluded and this typically takes a week or more.


Thanks for explaining that. I was just wondering why the case even had to be reopened if that was the case. Why didn't the police just say it was an ongoing investigation? Instead, they said the investigation had to be reopened. If IA was handling it, why not just say that so we wouldn't think nothing was being done? That's the part I didn't get. I think that's why some people made an assumption based on his job. His job didn't factor into the actual events for me except for how quickly it seemed to be resolved. 



> There are many accounts of officers having to move to keep thier family safe.


And that makes me sad. It's not fair that they are penalized for keeping us safe.



Caledon said:


> They guy took a loaded gun into a dog park and used it. Why did he not leave it a home for this visit to a dog park?


Like was said upthread, sometimes it's required. I guess I'm more upset at how quickly he chose to use the gun instead of alternative methods. What would he have done had the gun not been readily available?



> From what I have read, it appears that the two dogs were playing and he reacted with extreme force to break up rough play.


That's what I think based on the evidence available...no blood, no injuries, dog on leash, owner of husky not getting a chance to get his dog. I mean, if the LEO allowed the owner of the husky to get the dog, this wouldn't have happened. I suppose the owner of the husky could be lying, but wouldn't there be injuries if it was THAT bad? Wouldn't there be injuries if the LEO allowed the owner to get the husky first if it took that much time? I just don't get it. Something does not add up here.

If there were injuries, I could see the LEO's point. If both dogs were off leash, I could see the LEO's point. If the LEO's first response wasn't to shoot, I could see the LEO's point.



codmaster said:


> I am not assuming anything about the guilt or innocence of the GSD owner. What I have said was that we (I and a few others) do not have enough information about what actually happened that day in the dog park to make any judgement about it.


You're points are strictly on one side. So how is that different than people who take the other position? You're not questioning the facts that we know. YOU'RE countering other people's issues with what transpired. We are making judgments based on the information available. People are allowed to do that. We all do that every day just living life...LOL. But we are allowed to question things that don't make sense...such as no injuries, dog being on leash, guy discharging weapon in public area.



> A few folks here seem to have already convicted the guy of something and that was not right.


We're saying something doesn't make sense. Given the information available, that's only logical. I mean, why even bring up the article if people aren't supposed to have opinions? 

Look at murder cases (ie, Drew Peterson). We speculate all the time...why did his second wife go missing? He has a history of domestic abuse, etc. Does it mean he murdered his wife? No. But we are judging the situation based on the information available.


----------



## Chicagocanine

codmaster said:


> I am not assuming anything about the guilt or innocence of the GSD owner. What I have said was that we (I and a few others) do not have enough information about what actually happened that day in the dog park to make any judgement about it. Other than it was a true tragedy for two families.


What I said was I could not think of a scenario (that includes the basic facts already given) that would justify shooting and killing this dog in a dog park.
The basic facts I am referring to here are that the officer and wife were in an offleash park, their dog was on leash, the Husky's owner was already in the dog park with his dog, and there were no bites or hospital visits reported. 
Once you add in the other information the articles provide it seems even less likely that there would be a valid reason for shooting the dog-- such as, if the Husky was a regular at the dog park, it's unlikely he was so aggressive; the Husky's owner said that animal control found no marks on either dog; etc...

As far as people condemning them without all the facts, we can only work with the information we have, this is a discussion board so we are discussing the topic and give our opinions. If everyone just said "Oh look a news story, well I'm not going to talk about it because we don't have enough information" this would probably not be a discussion board.
I do not think anyone is saying to throw the guy in jail without an investigation.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

arycrest said:


> This thread is so long I'm not sure if this has been posted or not ... I went back 3 or 4 pages and didn't see it.
> 
> Here's a link to a copy of the original AA County police report on the shooting. IMHO it's hard to read but I don't have my glasses on so maybe you all might be able to see it better.
> Baltimore Crime Beat: Arundel police release report in dog shooting - Baltimore crime news: Police, courts and police stories in the city and central Maryland - baltimoresun.com


This explains a lot. From the report it shows self defense especially of the dog had attempted to bite to off duty officer. The investigation was closed from thier point of view. Then a secondary investigation was conducted, which is what some in here were calling re-opened. Sounds like normal practice and the reason it's being scrutinized more is because of the media. It appears they are trying to find somthing on this guy to charge him with because they want to look good in the publics eye.


----------



## Syaoransbear

The report is pretty much an exact description of rough play between dogs imo :/


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

I still don't condone the actions of the officer. IA will be all over this for awhile.


----------



## Chicagocanine

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> I wasn't saying you wanted to crucify him, but the general public is. There are so many articles about it now the incident that it is impossible to get a clear picture of what may have happened. I doubt that the investigation ever really closed. IA would be up his rear for awhile AND any discharge of a firearm by an officer is automatic Admin leave until an investigation is concluded and this typically takes a week or more.


That's not what the official they quoted said.
Here is a quote from this article on the incident:

" Maryann Hodges, a spokeswoman for Fort Myer in Arlington, Va., released a statement, saying, "Anne Arundel County police is handling the investigation. The individual (involved) has been cleared of all charges through Anne Arundel County. He was off-duty on annual leave. He will report to work tomorrow (Thursday)." "




R3C0NWARR10R said:


> FEI: some agencies require off duty carry while most recomend it. This is for thier own and thier familys saftey. With the way criminals are allowed are released so easily in today's system that who knows what that guy you put behind bars and is now out may do. There are many accounts of officers having to move to keep thier family safe.


I thought the man was doing security for Ft Myer. Does that involve a lot of violent criminals being put behind bars?
According to the information given, he was carrying his own personal weapon.




> This explains a lot. From the report it shows self defense especially of the dog had attempted to bite to off duty officer.


From the descriptions given of the incident (including in that police report) it still sounds like the dogs could have been playing and the man misinterpreted. I've seen people think that a dog was trying to bite them when the dog was actually just panting and turned their head. The Husky also could have been mouthy or perhaps thought the officer wanted to play, or thought the officer's hand was the other dog and was play-biting.
I've seen Huskies and GSDs play very roughly including biting each other on the neck. If the Husky was actually trying to kill the GSD I would expect injuries to the neck. From that report I can't see how the officer or his wife's lives were in danger from this dog.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Syaoransbear said:


> The report is pretty much an exact description of rough play between dogs imo :/


It does at first, but he said that the dog bit at him and snarled. It had passed rough play at that point in his eyes.


----------



## GSD07

According to the report, the husky dog attacked the officer's dog and himself, his wife was trying to keep the shepherd back, the owner of the Husky stood there as a pole doing nothing and enjoying the scene. I think the force was justified. 

You say the husky was playing rough? It doesn't seem so since the wife was having the shepherd on the leash, which means that the officer used both of his hands in attempts to take the husky off his dog, and did not succeed. He has to protect his pack, and he did. I would do the same in these circumstances.

ETA I know how huskies and GSDs play, I used to go to the dog parks, I know what panting is, and what play bites and growls are, and I can differenciate between play and aggression. Let's don't assume the officer was a clueless idiot. If the fight broke and the husky was bitten take a guess which dog would be blamed for the entire ordeal.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

C.Canine you have taken what I said past what it meant. The general public was crucifying him before ANY other reports came out. It's is stupid to do so. 

He is a Federal LEO. This was aparent from the beginning. You would be suprised who may retaliate at you for whatever reason. It doesn't have to be a previously convicted violent criminal. 

Not everyone knows what rough play looks like. He didn't take the dogs actions as such. He reacted in the manner he deemed neccisary. Not how I personally or many others on here would have reacted. I personally would have to be being bot or another person being bit before I would shoot. 

The weapon be used has no bearing. As I said most are encouraged to carry. This does not mean carry thier duty weapons. The weapon he was carrying isn't exactly the easiest to conceal unless your a pretty big person.


----------



## IllinoisNative

Here's what I don't get. The husky has been to the park before. The husky never had a problem. He was there before the guy got there with no problem. And only now he snarls at a dog who happens to be ON LEASH? On leash dogs usually react first and the other dog responds. So it's entirely possible the on leash dog displayed the first act of aggression and the husky responded.

I have a dog that is leash reactive (he was attacked on leash twice). When I tense up, he reacts and the other dog responds. It doesn't make the other dog aggressive. That dog is responding to the posturing of MY dog. My dog is to blame. Actually, I'm to blame for tensing up.

I just find it strange that a husky goes up to a dog on leash and instigates aggression. It's probably rough play that led to aggression because the other dog had no where to go (being on leash and all). If you take away flight...

There were no injuries so chances are it was just posturing (although it doesn't make it less scary). And, to the novice person, they might not have been able to tell the difference. Dog parks are littered with novice people. Sigh.

Most of us have dogs. Most of us have had dogs for years. There is a good chance most of us have had to break up a fight or have witnessed dog aggression. I'm not sure how many of us would have reached for a gun and shot a dog.

I've worked in dog kennels. I've been involved in rescue work. I've fostered the dogs that nobody wants...pits, chows, rotties. I've seen my fair share of fights and have broken them up.

Never once did I think of using a gun. Never once did a dog die. Never once did I get hurt. I'm not saying those things can't happen. I just don't think shooting the dog was the right course of action in a public park.

There is a lot of inappropriate behavior at a dog park. Dogs don't deserve to die for it.


----------



## GSD07

If a person is bitten that it's very often a death sentence for the dog that bit the person. And a lawsuit for the owner. 

It's interesting that we on this board know better if it was the aggression or play then the person who actually was there and had to deal with it. Please point me to the fact that the shepherd owner had zero experience or less experience than us with the dog play, dog training etc.


----------



## Chicagocanine

GSD07 said:


> According to the report, the husky dog attacked the officer's dog and himself, his wife was trying to keep the shepherd back, the owner of the Husky stood there as a pole doing nothing and enjoying the scene. I think the force was justified.


That is the Shepherd owner's story. The Husky's owner tells it differently.




GSD07 said:


> If a person is bitten that it's very often a death sentence for the dog that bit the person. And a lawsuit for the owner.


I don't know that a dog in a dog park biting a person on the hand would be a death sentence. Even if it was, it still does not mean the person should shoot the dog because they might be bitten.


----------



## IllinoisNative

GSD07 said:


> Please point me to the fact that the shepherd owner had zero experience or less experience than us with the dog play, dog training etc.


The fact that he went to an off leash park and had his dog ON LEASH! That reeks of inexperience. And the fact that he shot a dog to break up a fight...LOL.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Chicagocanine said:


> That is the Shepherd owner's story. The Husky's owner tells it differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that a dog in a dog park biting a person on the hand would be a death sentence. Even if it was, it still does not mean the person should shoot the dog because they might be bitten.


"the husky owner tells it differently" this is the same as when an idividual kills someone and thier parents say oh they were such a great kid. Knowing thier son was a pos.


----------



## IllinoisNative

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> "the husky owner tells it differently" this is the same as when an individual kills someone and their parents say oh they were such a great kid. Knowing their son was a pos.


Yes, but wouldn't that be the same as someone who automatically takes the word of a LEO just because of his job? The fact is that we have two people who were there and each has their own version. The report contained the LEO's version. Why is his version more valid?

What we do know is that one of the dogs was on a leash and the other dog is dead.

What would he have done had he not have a gun? I highly doubt that he would have died. 

Maybe no matter what your job is, guns shouldn't be allowed at a dog park. It's too easy to reach for it. And the outcome usually can't be reversed. Better to have another deterrent on hand whether it's a stick or whatever. I just find it hard to believe that the only way to stop the fight, especially when one dog was on leash, was to shoot the other dog.


----------



## AbbyK9

> Here's a link to a copy of the original AA County police report on the shooting. IMHO it's hard to read but I don't have my glasses on so maybe you all might be able to see it better.
> Baltimore Crime Beat: Arundel police release report in dog shooting - Baltimore crime news: Police, courts and police stories in the city and central Maryland - baltimoresun.com


I was reading the article and I find it interesting that there seem to be two full sentences struck out from the text. I realize they removed the names of people, as well as the serial number of the weapon, but I'm a little confused by the fact that two sentences were completely blacked out of the text?



> The fact that he went to an off leash park and had his dog ON LEASH! That reeks of inexperience.


Reading the report, it sounds to me like he had JUST walked into the park when the Husky ran at them. Apparently, he yelled to the person with the Husky to ask if the dog was friendly (since it seems to have rushed at them as they walked in) and he didn't get a chance to turn his dog loose before the dogs started wrestling. 



> That is the Shepherd owner's story. The Husky's owner tells it differently.


I hate to state the obvious, but the Husky's owner was NOT present at the park. 

The Husky was at the park with his owner's BROTHER. The owner (well, the owner's husband) did not come to the scene after the responding police officers asked the brother to call the owner. Once the owner arrived, he immediately went off on the officers who'd responded to the call.


----------



## GSD07

I would shoot a dog to break up a fight if no one would be there to help me to handle the situation. Sorry, mine, my dog's and my family's life and wellbeing is more important for me than someone else's aggressive out of control dog supported by irresponsible ownership. 

You can call the officer a clueless owner but to me it's just the opposite because his dog is alive, but the knowledgable owner's husky is dead. C'est la vie.

ETA Here's a link for those who think that breaking a dog fight is a piece of cake http://leerburg.com/dogfight.htm . There are some good pics there, too.


----------



## AbbyK9

> According to the information given, he was carrying his own personal weapon.


Where did it say he was carrying his personal weapon? 

The police report said that the weapon was a Glock 17, which is a pistol that is very commonly issued by law enforcement agencies, as far as I am aware. However, a lot of agencies also allow officers to buy their own weapons if they are a common caliber, if I'm not mistaken.



> I thought the man was doing security for Ft Myer. Does that involve a lot of violent criminals being put behind bars?


As far as I am aware, the officer is a Federal Law Enforcement officer on Fort Myer, which is very different from "doing security" or being a gate guard. This is an armed, civilian, law enforcement officer. He just happens to work on a military base, rather than in a civilian community.

And yes, you do see a lot of the same crimes ON military bases that you see OFF military bases - drug dealing, rape, murder, etc. along with lots of things like theft, domestic assault, and so on.


----------



## Chicagocanine

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> "the husky owner tells it differently" this is the same as when an idividual kills someone and thier parents say oh they were such a great kid. Knowing thier son was a pos.


No it's not the same, that is a totally different situation.

In this case, two people who were present at the incident are saying the situation played out in two different ways. The man who was with the Husky says the Husky was friendly, was playing with the Shepherd, and that the Shepherd's owner told him to get his dog but did not give him time to do so before shooting the Husky. 
The Shepherd's owner is saying the Husky was attacking his dog, that the Husky's owner refused to come and get his dog and so he had to shoot the dog because he was afraid for his and his wife's lives.

I don't see how that is at all akin to someone whose son kills someone saying 'they were a good kid'.  This is more akin to someone attacking another person and saying the other person started it.

ETA: Even if the dogs were fighting, I still don't think killing the dog was justified. Even if the dogs were fighting and the officer stuck his hand in to try to stop them and the Husky snapped at him, I still don't think it was justified. Yes, dogs in a fight may try to bite you if you stick your hand in the middle. That does not mean they're going to stop fighting and instead come after you looking to kill.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Yes I went with a more extreme version but it is the same in the basic form. Yes I will believe a police officer over a civilian any day of the week, since they must be held to a higher standard. If he lied then by all means he should pay dearly for being reckless. 

As I said I do not agree with shooting in that specific instance, but if he truly felt for his and his familys life then it is a justified shooting.


----------



## Chicagocanine

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> Yes I went with a more extreme version but it is the same in the basic form. .


Please explain to me how that is the same? I don't see any similarities.


----------



## Rusty_212

Well, the ppl. on here that think the officer was justified, have convinced me that every time a dog snarls or barks at me, i will shoot it. That seems like the only recourse.


----------



## Rusty_212

Chicagocanine said:


> No it's not the same, that is a totally different situation.
> 
> 
> The Shepherd's owner is saying the Husky was attacking his dog, that the Husky's owner refused to come and get his dog and so he had to shoot the dog because he was afraid for his and his wife's lives.
> 
> .


 Yep, that's just so he can cover his A$$. for shooting the dog.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

In response to Chris' inquiry about the gun....Today's Baltimore Sunpaper described the gun as a Glock 9mm loaded with hydroshock bullets. It was the officer's personal weapon. Police are now saying that his authority to carry a firearm is questionable. I don't know anything about guns. Maybe someone could enlighten me.

Jan


----------



## Jessiewessie99

I would never shoot a dog because they are rough playing, well I wouldn't shoot a dog in PUBLIC DOG PARK where there are other people, and near a residential neighborhood, and where there are children present.


----------



## Caledon

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> Yes I went with a more extreme version but it is the same in the basic form. Yes I will believe a police officer over a civilian any day of the week, since they must be held to a higher standard. If he lied then by all means he should pay dearly for being reckless.
> 
> As I said I do not agree with shooting in that specific instance, but if he truly felt for his and his familys life then it is a justified shooting.


I used to agree with you about believing a police officer over a civilian, until I've had a personal experience with the exact opposite. Many do stick together and many do proctect each other. This was a very minor incident but it was very impactful to opening my eyes. Too bad a cell phone was not turned on to record the conversation that was overheard. Will they make up stories to cover themslevles, Yup, I've witnessed it.

Was this the case here? I really don't know. I'm still thinking that the guy that did the shooting over-reacted and his gun was too handy. I think the fact that he was LEO has clouded the investigation too much. Some want to believe him just because he was a LEO and other don't want to belive him just because he was a LEO and abused his position.

I feel for both parties, but I don't think the LEO life of his dog or himself or wife was in danger.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Chicagocanine said:


> Please explain to me how that is the same? I don't see any similarities.


Simple one persons word versus another.


----------



## Cluemanti

This makes zero sense. Whatever kind of law enforcement agency he works for anytime you draw your gun there is an escalation of force. IMO the other dog pretty much would have had to draw blood to back up his story. I'm sure there were witnesses that backed up these stories. Surprising there isn't more facts in the article.


----------



## G-burg

> BTW his career as a LEO is over.


Good and it should be.. A dog fight does not justify a shooting or putting the general public in danger.. 

sorry :shrug:


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Caledon:

I am sorry you had a bad experience with a couple of idiots who do not deserve to wear a badge. But please do not wrap the millions of officers into that group. I doubt the others covered him. The report looks to be good. 

I do believe he overreacted and could have handled it much better.


----------



## selzer

I read the police report. 

I still think there was no reason for a shooting. 

The vast majority of dog owners walk their dogs without a gun. Many of them have encountered dogs in their journeys without leashes or owners present. The vast majority of them come away unscathed as well as their dog, but those that do have to break up a fight, might be bitten, their dog might be bitten, both dogs might be bitten, but at the end of the day there are all alive and none were shot.

The shooter is not contesting that he shot the dog, therefore, in my opinion he is guilty of shooting the dog. There are few situations that really warrant shooting a dog. If the dog has bitten people and cannot be separated from the victim without shooting, then an officer needs to do what he has to do particularly if the dog's owner is not present or able to manage the dog. 

Was the husky's owner's brother unable to manage the dog? This is the weak point in the husky side. I would like to know how often the brother in law took the dog out. I mean if he lives with his brother and took the dog to the park regularly, well that would be a lot different than if the brother offered to take the dog for a walk and stopped at the dog park. He litterally could have been stunned at what was happening. Or he could have simply not been given time to get to the dog. The shooter suggests that he was spaced out. Not sure I believe that. But I for one would never allow anyone to take my dogs to a dog park, unless they knew the dogs very, very well. We do not know anything about that. 

I just do not thing it is ok to kill a dog because you are afraid it might bite a person. 

I think that if you are going to go to a dog park, you should be prepared that there may be a situation. The answer of which is not to reach for a gun. 

Many people have mentioned a child in this equation. I have seen the shooter's wife mentioned but no child. 

If someone saw a dog rushing toward their child in what they perceive as an aggressive manner, I would not have a hissy if they shot the dog prior to any bites taken place. 

The fault here is not the gun. It is the quickness to resort to using the gun. This police report reads -- the shooter's report reads that the guy pulled his dog away, grabbed at the husky, was snarled and bit at (baloney -- if the husky wanted to bite him he would have bitten him) and then got his gun and shot the dog. 

Dog fights happen very quickly. When they are seriously going at it, there are literally seconds before someone is bleeding. Oh, there may be posturing and such, but when they are going in with teeth, there is no time at all. 

When you are trying to break it up, your hands are full, you do not have time to reach into your pocket, pull out the gun, switch the safety off, and fire. Your hands are on some part of the dog trying to pull it away from the other dog. 

I find the other dude's story more believeable.

And I have no problem with the owner going off when he heard that his dog had been shot. How incredibly awful. I am glad he got to his senses and apologized and asked for the department that the guy worked for. 

I hope he can get together dozens of his dog's dog park buddies' owners together and get depositions from them and at least go to civil court and show that this dog was not the menace that required shooting. They should be compensated for this dog's life.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Selzer: 

Not going to argue with your post as you are one of the few that have not concentrated on his profession.

I just want to point out that a glocks external saftey is on the actual trigger and when the gun is in condition 1 the weapon is point and click. Taking away some of that time that could save a life.


----------



## Chicagocanine

selzer said:


> Was the husky's owner's brother unable to manage the dog? This is the weak point in the husky side. I would like to know how often the brother in law took the dog out. I mean if he lives with his brother and took the dog to the park regularly, well that would be a lot different than if the brother offered to take the dog for a walk and stopped at the dog park.


Several of the reports/articles said that the Husky owner's brother regularly took the dog to the dog park.

For example in this interview with the owners:
"Stephen Kurinij, brother to Rachel, was at the park with Bear-Bear at the time of the shooting. Stephen regularly brought Bear-Bear to the park and was a regular at the nightly 6:30pm gathering of dog owners. "


----------



## codmaster

One thought that comes to mind, esp. if someone thinks that the guy shot too quick because there was no blood or damage to the dog or him or his wife and that is this:

In a serious fight there are usually two kinds of participants - "the Quick and the dead".

In explanation for those who have never had to be in a serious fight, perhaps for their lives; should you have to wait till you or yours are injured before you fight back seriously? 

Someone mentioned above that in a serious dog fight blood is usually seen in seconds (or minutes anyway). Are we to hold the guy to not firing until he saw blood somewhere? maybe there was no blood *because* he fired so quick?

From the description perhaps we can conclude that he fired too quick, but if he really thought that he, his wife or dog was in serious risk of severe injury I would have to conclude that he did not commit a crime. A real tragedy it was certainly, but not a crime.

Without being there i would conclude that I will never really know what happened and am glad that I am not on the jury that would have to judge his actions!


----------



## Myles

That is the worst thing ive ever heard. Even the article says "plays rough" Oh heavens no NOT ROUGH PLAY! Dogs get into a tussle now and again what that man did is insanity. And no consequences???? Jee i wonder why.


----------



## codmaster

Myles said:


> That is the worst thing ive ever heard. Even the article says "plays rough" Oh heavens no NOT ROUGH PLAY! Dogs get into a tussle now and again what that man did is insanity. And no consequences???? Jee i wonder why.


What consequences do you think would be appropriate?


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> One thought that comes to mind, esp. if someone thinks that the guy shot too quick because there was no blood or damage to the dog or him or his wife and that is this:


I find it odd that a husky, that was brought to the park often, tried to go after the LEO or his wife.



> In a serious fight there are usually two kinds of participants - "the Quick and the dead".


Um, how serious could it have been if there were no injuries? NOBODY was hurt until a dog was shot. Dogs verbalize a lot as a sign of posturing. If the man was that threatened and feared for his life, wouldn't the evidence back that up with more than just a dead dog from a bullet?



> In explanation for those who have never had to be in a serious fight, perhaps for their lives; should you have to wait till you or yours are injured before you fight back seriously?


You have to be joking. Most dogs don't fight to the death. The husky had enough social manners to be okay at the dog park on several previous visits. And you want me to believe he went after the LEO and his wife?



> Someone mentioned above that in a serious dog fight blood is usually seen in seconds (or minutes anyway). Are we to hold the guy to not firing until he saw blood somewhere? maybe there was no blood *because* he fired so quick?


So if he fired so quickly, how the holy heck could he have gauged how bad the fight was? His first instinct was to grab his gun. Seriously?



> From the description perhaps we can conclude that he fired too quick, but if he really thought that he, his wife or dog was in serious risk of severe injury I would have to conclude that he did not commit a crime. A real tragedy it was certainly, but not a crime.


I've been at the dog park when fights have broken out. Never once did I fear for my life. I was there when a lab attacked a pit bull...lol. I just don't understand how shooting the dog was the only option for the LEO. I don't get it. And there being no blood/injuries just shows that the fight may not have been as "serious" as the LEO claimed or thought. Most posturing isn't.

Listen, I'm not for tar and feathering the guy. He clearly, IMO, over-reacted. I just think it needs to be taken seriously...first, for firing a weapon in a public place, and secondly, shooting a dog because of a dog fight. You know, other people don't have that option. Why should a dog be dead because a LEO was allowed to carry a gun into the park? If it was just another regular Joe, the dog would be alive. It's dead because a LEO took a gun into the park.

It makes me think that officers shouldn't carry weapons off-duty at public places if this is going to be the outcome when they do.


----------



## codmaster

IllinoisNative said:


> I find it odd that a husky, that was brought to the park often, tried to go after the LEO or his wife.
> Um, how serious could it have been if there were no injuries? NOBODY was hurt until a dog was shot. Dogs verbalize a lot as a sign of posturing. If the man was that threatened and feared for his life, wouldn't the evidence back that up with more than just a dead dog from a bullet?
> You have to be joking. Most dogs don't fight to the death. The husky had enough social manners to be okay at the dog park on several previous visits. And you want me to believe he went after the LEO and his wife?
> So if he fired so quickly, how the holy heck could he have gauged how bad the fight was? His first instinct was to grab his gun. Seriously?
> I've been at the dog park when fights have broken out. Never once did I fear for my life. I was there when a lab attacked a pit bull...lol. I just don't understand how shooting the dog was the only option for the LEO. I don't get it. And there being no blood/injuries just shows that the fight may not have been as "serious" as the LEO claimed or thought. Most posturing isn't.
> 
> Listen, I'm not for tar and feathering the guy. He clearly, IMO, over-reacted. I just think it needs to be taken seriously...first, for firing a weapon in a public place, and secondly, shooting a dog because of a dog fight. You know, other people don't have that option. Why should a dog be dead because a LEO was allowed to carry a gun into the park? If it was just another regular Joe, the dog would be alive. It's dead because a LEO took a gun into the park.
> It makes me think that officers shouldn't carry weapons off-duty at public places if this is going to be the outcome when they do.


They also occasionally save peoples lives because they are armed when stuff happens!

Nice thing about the USA. Everyone can have their own opinion.

Don't have time to refute each of your points above as it is clear that you are not grtting what I said above.

But for example, it seems obvious to me that you have never been in a fight where you thought (right or wrong) that your life was in danger (or a loved one perhaps). Nothing wrong with that - actually it is quite better that way actually!

But think of it this way - assuming that the guy thought that way and if he is not experienced around big dogs fighting (or "playing rough" as some call it); he could easily have really thought that. If he did, should he wait till there is blood before defending his dog as best he could? Would you wait? I would not! 

Could he have been mistaked - of course. It appears that he was not very experienced in dogs (my guess) although he may have been in the use of firearms.

I don't know the husky of course but just because the husky was seemingly nice on other occasions at the park doesn't mean that he was on this occasion, and it doesn't mean that he wasn't just that he could have attacked the GSD - don't know - wasn't there!

Likewise - SOME dogs do fight to the death - esp. if both are equally determined and do you think that the GSD would not also have added reason to fight if he thought that his owner and wife were in danger. I know my dog would act accordingly as he has in the past.

At any rate this thread has about run it's course, I hope, at least till we find out what happens next.


----------



## Mrs.K

Well, there is a pattern of cops shooting dogs. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080606146.html


> A Prince George's County sheriff's deputy serving an eviction notice at a Forest Heights house Friday fatally shot a Rottweiler that charged at him, officials said.
> The sister of the dog's owner said the deputy should have waited for animal-control officers to arrive. The shooting comes two years after the sheriff's department came under criticism when members of a sheriff's SWAT unit stormed the home of the Berwyn Heights mayor and fatally shot two chocolate Labradors.
> The sheriff's department said in a statement that the deputies called county animal-control officials to restrain the dog. The deputies had been told by the landlord that the dog was in a crate in the basement. Before entering the home, deputies knocked on the front and back doors and made a commotion, as they are trained to do before entering a home with animals, the statement said.
> As deputies went through the home, the Rottweiler charged them "from an unknown location. Due to being in a confined space, with no place to retreat, the deputy discharged his firearm to protect himself and his partner from serious bodily harm," the statement said.
> The sheriff's department's explanation did not satisfy Tamara Yeldell, the sister of Donya Williams, who along with her four children were being evicted.
> "Why did they have to shoot an innocent dog? They're trigger-happy. They should have waited for animal control. The deputies have a job to do, and so do the animal-control officers. They should have let animal control do its job," Yeldell said.
> Williams, 38, lived in the home in the unit block of Seneca Drive. The Rottweiler, Kato, was gentle with the children but would have been aggressive toward intruders, Yeldell said.
> Neither Williams nor her children, 8 to 17 years old, were home when the incident occurred about 1 p.m., Yeldell said. After being called to the home, Williams experienced chest pains when she saw her belongings in the front yard and was told her dog had been killed, Yeldell said.
> Cheye Calvo, the Berwyn Heights mayor whose dogs were killed, went to the Williams home and spoke with Yeldell.
> Calvo, who is suing Sheriff Michael A. Jackson, alleging his deputies engaged in excessive force when they killed his dogs, said deputies have shown a disturbing propensity to kill family pets.
> "This is part of a pattern," Calvo said. From 2005 to 2008, deputies shot at least nine dogs in eight incidents, according to sheriff's department records.
> An internal investigation by the sheriff's department found no wrongdoing by the deputies who killed Calvo's dogs. Jackson, who is running in the Democratic primary for county executive, did not respond to a request for comment.


----------



## Syaoransbear

codmaster said:


> If he did, should he wait till there is blood before defending his dog as best he could? Would you wait? I would not!


I would wait, for sure. And even then I still wouldn't use lethal force since many dog fights don't end up with any fatalities. It's so common for dogs to get into a few second scuffle where they make a lot of noise and nothing happens, and then that's it. No bites, just noise, and all is well between them. You don't rush into shooting dogs just because of a scuffle.

My dog got into a fight and made the most horrible noises I've ever heard a dog make. The dogs broke off the fight on their own accord, and mine was left with a pretty little scar on his nose that's healed up already. Should I have shot that dog for what ultimately came down to just a scratch? No, that dog is a real sweetie pie. He just hates my dog. That's no reason to die.

What's worse is that apparently the officer and responding police officers would not allow anyone to aid the dog for 20 minutes while it laid there bleeding. Perhaps it wouldn't have died during surgery if it had those precious minutes.


----------



## Mrs.K

syaoransbear said:


> i would wait, for sure. And even then i still wouldn't use lethal force since many dog fights don't end up with any fatalities. It's so common for dogs to get into a few second scuffle where they make a lot of noise and nothing happens, and then that's it. No bites, just noise, and all is well between them. You don't rush into shooting dogs just because of a scuffle.
> 
> My dog got into a fight and made the most horrible noises i've ever heard a dog make. The dogs broke off the fight on their own accord, and mine was left with a pretty little scar on his nose that's healed up already. Should i have shot that dog for what ultimately came down to just a scratch? No, that dog is a real sweetie pie. He just hates my dog. That's no reason to die.
> 
> What's worse is that apparently the officer and responding police officers would not allow anyone to aid the dog for 20 minutes while it laid there bleeding. Perhaps it wouldn't have died during surgery if it had those precious minutes.



agreed!


----------



## Mrs.K

By the way. The most serious fight I ever witnessed was between Gildo and his son Olko. Holy shemoly... they fought for over ten minutes and it was bad, really really bad. None of them were severely injured either. I think it was a split ear and some bitemarks here and there but no serious injuries. Bitches are much worse though. 

Yukon and Zenzy have a scuffle every once in a while. It's not like humans never get into fights. We yell, throw things and whatnot and it's the same with dogs, they have an argument every once in a while and sometimes you just have to let it go and let them take it out. 

I do want to have control over most of the things but sometimes, just sometimes it's not the worst when one dog tells another "STOP! YOU CROSSED A LINE!" because that is how they set boundaries.


----------



## BlackPuppy

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> Yes I will believe a police officer over a civilian any day of the week, since they must be held to a higher standard.


I will not believe the police officer has any higher moral position than the average citizen. I was on a jury in a case between 2 officers in a squad, and 2 teens, and their encounter late at night. They all lied, but the truth was apparent. 

As with any case, the truth lies between the 2 stores. I don't believe the dogs were fighting, but to somebody not versed in dog language, I'm sure it looked that way. 

Been to dog parks many times and seen too much.


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> They also occasionally save peoples lives because they are armed when stuff happens!


And then there are occasions like this.



> Don't have time to refute each of your points above as it is clear that you are not grtting what I said above.


Oh, I get it. I just don't agree.



> But for example, it seems obvious to me that you have never been in a fight where you thought (right or wrong) that your life was in danger (or a loved one perhaps). Nothing wrong with that - actually it is quite better that way actually!


And I doubt this situation was like you just described above...LOL. The guys life was NOT in danger.



> But think of it this way - assuming that the guy thought that way and if he is not experienced around big dogs fighting (or "playing rough" as some call it); *he could easily have really thought that*. If he did, should he wait till there is blood before defending his dog as best he could? Would you wait? I would not!


The point being, he made a mistake and there should be consequences. Even if he misread the situation, he's still partly to blame. And now the other guys dog is dead. 



> I don't know the husky of course but just because the husky was seemingly nice on other occasions at the park doesn't mean that he was on this occasion, and it doesn't mean that he wasn't just that he could have attacked the GSD - don't know - wasn't there!


So this dog was nice on all other occasions and only now tried to attack a human? I have NEVER, in all my years at the dog park, seen a dog try to attack a human when it was experienced going to the dog park. It was a dog fight if anything. No human was in danger. If he feared for his life, it's because he lacked experience.



> Likewise - SOME dogs do fight to the death - esp. if both are equally determined and do you think that the GSD would not also have added reason to fight if he thought that his owner and wife were in danger. I know my dog would act accordingly as he has in the past.


I highly doubt this was the situation between a dog who frequented the dog park. And most dogs don't fight because there owner is in danger. They fight to protect themselves. And, if the dog thought that, there is a GOOD chance he thought that because he was ON LEASH!!!! But it was between two dogs...and the LEO shouldn't have used lethal force.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Mrs. K that is not a pattern. In the artlcal you gave the officers followed the SOP. From the artical I would have reacted the exact same way. I would not wait to see if the dog bit me first. Especially in a confined space with a large dog likley to attack. That is a very justified shooting.


----------



## Mrs.K

And why didn't they wait for animal control?


----------



## codmaster

And why wasn't the dog under control?


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

The dog was shut in his own home - ALONE. He reacted as any guard breed would do, when strangers entered his territory. He charged. The officers knew there was a rottweiler in the house. The landlord was incorrect in saying the dog was crated in the basement. The officers should have waited for animal control. 

In the case of the mayor's labs - not only did the swat team execute the family pets - shooting one as it was running away, the family was innocent of any wrong-doing. Just my opinion, but shooting dogs in their own homes is wrong.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

As for Bear-Bear - the truth may never be known. Does either party know the truth, or does each only see from his own perspective? Maybe it was rough play. Maybe it was a fight. All I can look at are the facts I know...

The rescue that had Bear-Bear, his foster, his owners, people who frequented the dog park - none of these people ever reported having a problem with Bear-Bear. Does that mean Bear-Bear couldn't have gone off the deep-end? Of course not. He is a dog. Things happen. Still, it seems odd to me that the one time Bear-Bear unleashes on another dog, or persons, it happens to be someone who has a gun who shoots him to death. Lack of wounds on the GSD or her people are also a big red flag to me.

There has been a lot of talk about the shooter being a LEO, whether he was in danger, wasn't in danger. The bottom line is, most of us aren't armed, so shooting a dog would not be an option. For most of us, we wouldn't choose that option, even if we had a gun. I have a huge problem with this guy firing his gun where he did. No matter his profession, or whether he was or wasn't authorized to carry a gun. Bullets don't always go where they are intended. Bullets can ricochet. They can go through a door, window, or car and hit someone inside. Happens all the time here in Baltimore. Last data I have for Baltimore murders is 124 so far this year. I know that is wrong, because there were three more murders just this weekend. Over a hundred of those were from gunshots. In 2007, Baltimore had 282 murders. 233 were caused by shootings. Sure, some gunshot victims survive. Look at little Raven Wyatt, 5 years old, caught a stray bullet from a gunfight on a Baltimore City street. She was shot in the head and was on life support. She spent 6 months in the hospital. She is still recovering and having therapy.

A dog park in a residential neighborhood is not the wild west. Surrounding people and their pets should feel safe and not expect flying bullets. The whole thing is a tragedy. It saddens me greatly that Bear-Bear lost his life. Even so, the potential for a much more tragic outcome existed. In my opinion, the shooter exercised very poor judgement.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

Syaoransbear said:


> I would wait, for sure. And even then I still wouldn't use lethal force since many dog fights don't end up with any fatalities. It's so common for dogs to get into a few second scuffle where they make a lot of noise and nothing happens, and then that's it. No bites, just noise, and all is well between them. You don't rush into shooting dogs just because of a scuffle.
> 
> My dog got into a fight and made the most horrible noises I've ever heard a dog make. The dogs broke off the fight on their own accord, and mine was left with a pretty little scar on his nose that's healed up already. Should I have shot that dog for what ultimately came down to just a scratch? No, that dog is a real sweetie pie. He just hates my dog. That's no reason to die.
> 
> What's worse is that apparently the officer and responding police officers would not allow anyone to aid the dog for 20 minutes while it laid there bleeding. Perhaps it wouldn't have died during surgery if it had those precious minutes.


I agree. My dogs rough house all the time and sometimes they scratch or bite each other and skin is open. But I guess I should shoot them too since they are fighting....NOT.

If you don't the difference between dogs rough housing/playing and a dog fight, then you should not be handling dogs.


----------



## Mrs.K

This is from my brother in law who is a cop in Washington. 


> I've encountered a few loose dogs, they weren't aggressive, but hungry and a little scared. I didn't shoot them, instead I fed them my lunch, put em in back of the caged police car and to the local shelter.. animal control takes too long.
> it depends on how much the officer knows about dogs... most don't know too much, and if a dog seems aggressive, it might be more scared and officers don't know the difference


----------



## codmaster

Jessiewessie99 said:


> I agree. My dogs rough house all the time and sometimes they scratch or bite each other and skin is open. But I guess I should shoot them too since they are fighting....NOT.
> 
> If you don't the difference between dogs rough housing/playing and a dog fight, then you should not be handling dogs.


And just like with people fights, there are dog fights and then there are DOG FIGHTS, where it is to the death.
Most people fights are usually not to the death either, but some are, and those are a whole different ball game so to speak and if you realize that then the participants usually conduct themselves differently. 

Not saying this one was one type or the other as I didn't see it, but unless you have been involved in one of the serious ones or seen your dog fighting for his/her life in a dog version, it is very easy to make a pronouncement about what someone would do in one.
Just my opinion, of course.


----------



## Remo

Mrs. K made a good point! 

I have broken up way too many dog fights over the years, and usually with the males it is like a couple of drunk guys at a bar - it is very noisy and dramatic, but not a lot of damage occurrs.

However, everytime I have had to go to the hospital to have something sewn back together on me, it has been the result of breaking up a bitch fight. Those girls mean business.

I am a lot smarter about breaking up fights these days than I used to be!


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Mrs.K said:


> And why didn't they wait for animal control?


The intelligence they had said that the dog was crated. It was just incorrect. With the information they had it should have been safe for them to enter.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Mrs.K said:


> This is from my brother in law who is a cop in Washington.


Not that I disagree with him, BUT the most dangerous dog is one that has been alone and is scared. They may not bite and hold but a large dog can do some VERY serious damage with a reaction bite. In some situations you can get away with feeding them, or whatever is done to deal with the dog, however in that specific situation if the dog is charging and is in the situation it was the officers were justified in shooting.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Jessiewessie99 said:


> I agree. My dogs rough house all the time and sometimes they scratch or bite each other and skin is open. But I guess I should shoot them too since they are fighting....NOT.
> 
> If you don't the difference between dogs rough housing/playing and a dog fight, then you should not be handling dogs.


MOST people only have a very general knowledge of the animal. What if it is a brand new owner who is just learning? Not everyone has been around dogs all of their life like I and others on this forum have. 

I do not agree with shooting in this particular instance, but every situation is different.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Stevenzachsmom said:


> The dog was shut in his own home - ALONE. He reacted as any guard breed would do, when strangers entered his territory. He charged. The officers knew there was a rottweiler in the house. The landlord was incorrect in saying the dog was crated in the basement. The officers should have waited for animal control.
> 
> In the case of the mayor's labs - not only did the swat team execute the family pets - shooting one as it was running away, the family was innocent of any wrong-doing. Just my opinion, but shooting dogs in their own homes is wrong.


I said previously that the worst kind of dog to deal with is one in that particular situation. The officers responded with the intelligence and information they had, all be it, incorrect. The officers did nothing wrong in that situation. 

The mayors story is a different situation. 

Though when SWAT serves a search warrent and encounters dogs most of the time these dogs have been trained to or abused to the point of attacking somone coming into thier territory. IF they create a danger for the officers then shooting is justified.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Shooting a dog running away from you is justified? The mayor and his mother-in-law were at home. The dogs were shot anyway. The local police were not notified of the swat teams intentions. Apparently, the swat team was not even aware that they were at the mayor's house. The town's police chief stated that he could have easily knocked on the door of the mayor's house without a swat team or having to shoot the family pets. A law suit is pending.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Stevenzachsmom said:


> Shooting a dog running away from you is justified? The mayor and his mother-in-law were at home. The dogs were shot anyway. The local police were not notified of the swat teams intentions. Apparently, the swat team was not even aware that they were at the mayor's house. The town's police chief stated that he could have easily knocked on the door of the mayor's house without a swat team or having to shoot the family pets. A law suit is pending.


You misunderstood what I said. Sorry I did not make it clear. The reason I left that sentance by itself was that I was saying that case was a different situation. I have NO idea what those guys were thinking when they shot. The part of being at the wrong house though is not thier fault. That is the fault of thier leadership.

The 3rd part of my statment was explaining what would happen in a normal situation.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

They were at the house they intended. They expected to do a drug bust. Drug dealers had been having packages of drugs delivered to unsuspecting people's addresses. They would then strive to retrieve the drugs, before they were taken in by the home owner. The drugs had been followed from Arizona to Maryland. The package had been left on the front porch. It was addressed to the mayor's wife. When the mayor came home from walking his dogs, he tossed the package inside and went upstairs to change his clothes. His mother-in-law screamed and he heard the gun shots that killed his dogs. For several hours he had to sit in his socks and underwear, surrounded by the blood of his dead pets. It seems to me that the people in charge of this operation could have gotten more information about this family and any possible drug connections, before sending in a swat team.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Stevenzachsmom said:


> They were at the house they intended. They expected to do a drug bust. Drug dealers had been having packages of drugs delivered to unsuspecting people's addresses. They would then strive to retrieve the drugs, before they were taken in by the home owner. The drugs had been followed from Arizona to Maryland. The package had been left on the front porch. It was addressed to the mayor's wife. When the mayor came home from walking his dogs, he tossed the package inside and went upstairs to change his clothes. His mother-in-law screamed and he heard the gun shots that killed his dogs. For several hours he had to sit in his socks and underwear, surrounded by the blood of his dead pets. It seems to me that the people in charge of this operation could have gotten more information about this family and any possible drug connections, before sending in a swat team.


I never disagreed with you. I simply stated that the officers go where they are told. They do not make those decisions, but even once in the house made very bad decisions.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

I understand. I was just trying to clarify the story. It happened 2 years ago and it still makes me mad. I live in this state. So much violence for such a small place - man and beast alike. SIGH!

Jan


----------



## selzer

The fights I was in were Bitch Fights. And if I did not separate the bitches, one would have been dead. Three years later if those bitches got wind of each other it would have resumed. These were real fights. 

But even so, you think that you should jump the gun to prevent any harm from happening? So if a teenager reaches into his pocket, you should just go ahead and shoot him because he COULD have a gun and shoot you. If a child points a gun toward your car, you should go ahead and shoot because it MIGHT not be a toy. 

I am all for being alive at the end of the day. But let as look at the cold hard facts about how many people DIE each year due to dogs. I would like a number of how many dog-related deaths there are each year. 

Yes, there are bites, and some need to go to the ER. Shooting a dog because it might bite you, well, that pretty much gives anyone a license to kill any dog anywhere. 

When you are walking your dog down the street on lead, and someone is coming in the other direction, he does not like the way your dog is looking at him, he pulls out a gun and shoots the dog. That is ok, it was that or get bit in that man's mind. So we should just call it a tragedy and chalk it up to the media scaring people into believing that they will be eaten by dogs if they get too close.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> MOST people only have a very general knowledge of the animal. What if it is a brand new owner who is just learning? Not everyone has been around dogs all of their life like I and others on this forum have.
> 
> I do not agree with shooting in this particular instance, but every situation is different.


Thats why you read about those things before you get a dog, or when you first get the dog and especially before you take your dog to be with other dogs. Before you take your dog anywhere with people or other dogs, people should learn some basic dog language to know the signs of aggression.

But shooting any dog especially at a public dog park where other people are present and in a residential neighborhood.


----------



## codmaster

Stevenzachsmom said:


> Shooting a dog running away from you is justified? The mayor and his mother-in-law were at home. The dogs were shot anyway. The local police were not notified of the swat teams intentions. Apparently, the swat team was not even aware that they were at the mayor's house. The town's police chief stated that he could have easily knocked on the door of the mayor's house without a swat team or having to shoot the family pets. A law suit is pending.


Are you saying that the team should have known it was the mayor's house? And then did something different BECAUSE it was his house?

Wouldn't that have been special treatment because of who he was? - the very thing that seemingly outraged a few people here because the guy was a LEO?

It was obviously a poor operation on the cops part regardless of whose house it was - lets not make it worse by special treatment because it was the mayor.

Could be the SWAT team did not want to risk a leak somewhere by telling the local police about the raid. Can't say I blame them for that much, at least.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> ....... So if a teenager reaches into his pocket, you should just go ahead and shoot him because he COULD have a gun and shoot you. ............ I am all for being alive at the end of the day. But let as look at the cold hard facts about how many people DIE each year due to dogs. I would like a number of how many dog-related deaths there are each year. Yes, there are bites, and some need to go to the ER. Shooting a dog because it might bite you, well, that pretty much gives anyone a license to kill any dog anywhere. When you are walking your dog down the street on lead, and someone is coming in the other direction, he does not like the way your dog is looking at him, he pulls out a gun and shoots the dog. That is ok, it was that or get bit in that man's mind. So we should just call it a tragedy and chalk it up to the media scaring people into believing that they will be eaten by dogs if they get too close.


Got to chill a little.

"So if a teenager reaches into his pocket, you should just go ahead and shoot him because he COULD have a gun and shoot you." 
How about a cop who stops a car late at night on a deserted road and is walking up to the car when the teenager jumps out of the car and THEN reaches into his pocket? I guess if it were you, you would not have drawn your gun and would not even reach for it until the person had pulled his hand back out, right???? Because after all, the kid had not done anything yet, and certainly had not harmed you yet so don't react at all. Wait till he starts shooting before reaching for your own gun?

What a joke!

BTW - very easy to find all kind of statistics on dog bite deaths - or for that matter serious injuries from dog bites as well - try a Google search on the internet and you get many responses.

Wikipedia is just one example - "In the 1980s and 1990s the US averaged 17 *fatalities per year*, while in the 2000s this has increased to 26" 

*One last question* - if you were being attacked by a big dog and you had a gun in hand and you believed that you were in danger, are you saying that you would NOT fire at the dog to save yourself? 

If you did not have a gun and you had a club, would you use *it* against the dog?

How about if your child were the one under attack? Would you fire then?


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Really??? 17 deaths by dog attack per year in the entire US? Now up to 26?

How about 872 murders in Baltimore City since 2007 - the majority from shootings. Seems I'm safer from the dogs.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Jessiewessie99 said:


> Thats why you read about those things before you get a dog, or when you first get the dog and especially before you take your dog to be with other dogs. Before you take your dog anywhere with people or other dogs, people should learn some basic dog language to know the signs of aggression.
> 
> But shooting any dog especially at a public dog park where other people are present and in a residential neighborhood.


In this particular situation no it wasnt worth it. If I or somone else were being attacked by a dog yes I would pull out my weapon and discharge it. In those type of situations you can not make a choice because of what may happen. You must make your decision because of what is happening.


----------



## selzer

1/2 death per year per state -- WOWZA!!!! 

I think carrying that gun around with you puts you at a way higher risk of getting struck by lightning than getting killed by a dog. (my first grade teacher's husband had a camera around his neck when he was struck and she brought in his clothes to show us how the camera made a huge burn mark around his heart.) 

The pit mix next door was large like a Rhodesian ridgeback. It charged me and my dogs ALL THE TIME. The Sherriff's department TOLD me to shoot it if it was going for me. They refused to condone it for going after my dogs though. I did not shoot the dog. 

The idea that a dog was that aggressive in a dog park, maybe the shooter should have given the dog the benefit of the doubt that you are giving him??? Then maybe this dog would be alive right now. 

The chances of getting yourself killed by a teenager are WAY higher than getting yourself killed by a dog, maybe you should just shoot them on sight.

This thread disgusts me. That husky was smaller than a GSD. This guy was afraid for himself and his wife, baloney!!!

If he is that much of a coward, then maybe he should not be any type of officer. It takes a pretty big man to shoot and kill a dog in a dog park.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Stevenzachsmom said:


> Really??? 17 deaths by dog attack per year in the entire US? Now up to 26?
> 
> How about 872 murders in Baltimore City since 2007 - the majority from shootings. Seems I'm safer from the dogs.


The only problem is MOST of those deaths by shootings were not officer involved shootings. Most of them are commited by criminals who never cared about the law in the first place. It is not the law abiding citizen that caused the deaths. It is also not he weapon that caused those deaths. it is criminals who used a weapon (likley obtained illegally) to kill somone. Somthing needs to be done about the crime period regardless of what tool was used to commit the crime.


----------



## selzer

That is not the point.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

selzer said:


> That is not the point.


The point is, is that in certain situations shooting a dog or any animal for that matter is an acceptable and neccisary evil.


----------



## selzer

And this one was as far from necessary as you can get.


----------



## codmaster

Stevenzachsmom said:


> Really??? 17 deaths by dog attack per year in the entire US? Now up to 26?How about 872 murders in Baltimore City since 2007 - the majority from shootings. Seems I'm safer from the dogs.


Glad that that statistic makes you feel so good! That is truly great to hear.
I am glad that that quick, easy look at Google and the Internet made you so happy.

Do you live in Baltimore City - if so, it really does sound like you should get yourself a gun! So how many of the 872 were from guns? - I did notice that you didn't say how many were from guns. 

How about the number of dog bites that were reported in Baltimore City? - Any idea of that number or maybe you would rather not say how many? maybe also the numbner of dogs that were put down because they bit a human or other dog? Any idea of how many of those? if you like numbers then you should look at some other numbers.


----------



## codmaster

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> In this particular situation no it wasnt worth it. If I or somone else were being attacked by a dog yes I would pull out my weapon and discharge it. In those type of situations you can not make a choice because of what may happen. You must make your decision because of what is happening.


Amen! Exactly!


----------



## codmaster

Stevenzachsmom,

Just in case you missed it how would you answer the question below?

*One last question* - if you were being attacked by a big dog and you had a gun in hand and you believed that you were in danger, are you saying that you would NOT fire at the dog to save yourself? If you did not have a gun and you had a club, would you use *it* against the dog?
How about if your child were the one under attack? Would you fire then? 

*In other words do you think that deadly force is EVER justified?*


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

selzer said:


> And this one was as far from necessary as you can get.


This is what most people who have any experience with dogs feels. We were not there in his place to see what he saw to cause him to make the decision he did. Rather we agree with his decision is of personal opinion. The facts from the reports show that he acted in the manner he felt necessary for thier defense during the situation. 

To me far from necessary is the officers who shot the restrained/caged dog. That I truly do not understand.

He may have truly felt threatend enough to justify the actions he took. Though I personally am perplexed as to the speed of the actions. 

We were not there and will never truly know the facts.


----------



## selzer

Who runs around with a gun waiting for dogs to look threatening???

Most of us make it through life without carrying around guns -- what are we supposed to do when these viscious killer dogs come to eat us????

Of the 1/2 deaths per state per year, how many of these were infants? 

How many adults are killed by dogs each year who are not extremely fragile, ie elderly? 

No one wants to get bit by a dog. It is not fun. It is generally avoidable. Only 1 in five bites are serious enough to be treated by a medical professional. 

You people who are going to whip out your guns and fire away at dogs, I hope you don't go boating, ride motorcycles, bicycles, skateboards, lift objects at work or at home, fix your roof, go swimming, go hunting, or the bajillion other ways to reach the ER on any fine afternoon.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> ................
> Most of us make it through life without carrying around guns -- what are we supposed to do when these viscious killer dogs come to eat us????
> ................


Wait for a cop with a gun to rescue you!!!!!!


----------



## selzer

R3Con.

I am white and live in an area that has very few people who are not just like me. If I go into a black neighborhood in the city, and a black man starts to walk over to me. I may feel threatened. I may feel that the only way I could protect myself would be to pull my gun out and fire. 

If I did this, I would be charged with murder and probably some type of hate crime. 

Just because this guy FELT he was threatened, does not mean that he WAS in danger. And he should not have shot and killed a dog in a dog park for acting like a dog. 

Sorry. The man had no business going to a dog park if he is that uneducated and afraid of dogs.


----------



## selzer

codmaster said:


> Wait for a cop with a gun to rescue you!!!!!!


Oh, I am dead then. 

Since the sales tax increase was voted down in May -- well since before that when we would not allow it to be raised without a vote, our county, largest in the state has supposedly had one deputy patroling. I am surprised that half of the residents have not been eaten by killer dogs since then. 

No way could they get out to wherever I might be to shoot the dog for me. 

Guess I better just plan on dying then.

ETA: Judge Mackey told us all to get guns. With all those guns everywhere, you would think we would be seeing a dog-shooting a day. Guess what? It ain't happening.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> Oh, I am dead then.
> 
> Since the sales tax increase was voted down in May -- well since before that when we would not allow it to be raised without a vote, our county, largest in the state has supposedly had one deputy patroling. I am surprised that half of the residents have not been eaten by killer dogs since then.
> 
> No way could they get out to wherever I might be to shoot the dog for me.
> 
> Guess I better just plan on dying then.
> 
> ETA: Judge Mackey told us all to get guns. With all those guns everywhere, you would think we would be seeing a dog-shooting a day. Guess what? It ain't happening.


Guess you have to move then!

*BTW - would you shoot or use deadly force against a dog or person if you were under attack and you feared for your life? How about if your child were under attack?*


----------



## selzer

Why should I move??? I like it here. We see a deputy on my road maybe once every three or four months. Not a problem. Everyone has guns. I have one. And there are very few problems all in all. Since I moved out there ten years ago, I have had no problems, save the dog next door -- and animal control and the sherriff did not bother to show up for that. 

I have a gun. It is mostly to dispatch a wild critter if it is injured or sick around my place. I do not know that it would be much use in a threatening situation. I heard shots one morning, loaded it and went out back, and my neighbor was dispatching squirrels.

If my dogs give me a business bark I will load it and bring it out. I will shoot a person if they are trying to kill me, yes. 

What does children have to do with this topic. There are no children involved in it. 

As for a dog, if I think a dog is stray and sick and viscious then yes I will shoot it, if I think I can do it without more danger.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

A dog and a human are 2 different things. Don't put them on the same level like that. Sorry but I am not about to go around carrying a gun everytime I am out with friends and family or walking my dogs incase a dog charges at me so I can shoot it. To me that is not right.

Use your guns for robbers, murderers, rapists or hunting. Not in dog parks where there are other people present, children are present and in a residential neighborhood. 

This guy in this case clearly had no right to bring a gun into a dog park and shoot an innocent dog when the dogs were clearly playing.


----------



## codmaster

Jessiewessie99 said:


> A dog and a human are 2 different things. Don't put them on the same level like that. Sorry but I am not about to go around carrying a gun everytime I am out with friends and family or walking my dogs incase a dog charges at me so I can shoot it. To me that is not right.Use your guns for robbers, murderers, rapists or hunting. Not in dog parks where there are other people present, children are present and in a residential neighborhood.
> This guy in this case clearly had no right to bring a gun into a dog park and shoot an innocent dog when the dogs were clearly playing.


*Jessie - you mean that you would shoot a person who is only going to steal a possession or maybe money from you; but not a dog who attacks you or your dog and might rip you open and send you to the hospital?*

BTW, who told you to carry a gun whenever you go for a walk with your dog? I must have missed that.

Actually from the article I believe that he did have the right to carry the gun into the dog park.

And how are you sure that the dogs were "only playing" - were you there to see it or are you just choosing to believe one side of the story?

*Besides* have you ever gotten bitten by a dog whose owner calls out to you "He is friendly!"? I have on a couple of occasions - don't believe them anymore!


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> *Jessie - you mean that you would shoot a person who is only going to steal a possession or maybe money from you; but not a dog who attacks you or your dog and might rip you open and send you to the hospital?*
> 
> BTW, who told you to carry a gun whenever you go for a walk with your dog? I must have missed that.
> 
> Actually from the article I believe that he did have the right to carry the gun into the dog park.
> 
> And how are you sure that the dogs were "only playing" - were you there to see it or are you just choosing to believe one side of the story?
> 
> *Besides* have you ever gotten bitten by a dog whose owner calls out to you "He is friendly!"? I have on a couple of occasions - don't believe them anymore!


I have been charged by a dog and deal with aggressive dogs at a shelter. I would much rather shoot a person than a dog. I would be hurt inside if I hurt an animal like that. No he did not have a right to carry a weapon into a PUBLIC dog park where there were other people and dogs present. I am not believing one side of the story, from the articles presented it is obvious this man was not very educated when it came to dog behavior and that the dogs were just rough housing, because there was no blood or any proof of a dog attack.

In many cases I trust dogs alot more than humans.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> Why should I move??? I like it here. We see a deputy on my road maybe once every three or four months. Not a problem. Everyone has guns. I have one. And there are very few problems all in all. Since I moved out there ten years ago, I have had no problems, save the dog next door -- and animal control and the sherriff did not bother to show up for that.
> 
> I have a gun. It is mostly to dispatch a wild critter if it is injured or sick around my place. I do not know that it would be much use in a threatening situation. I heard shots one morning, loaded it and went out back, and my neighbor was dispatching squirrels.
> 
> If my dogs give me a business bark I will load it and bring it out. I will shoot a person if they are trying to kill me, yes. *What would it take for you to determine this - obviously not just a threat that you saw - maybe if he/she shot first or wounded you with a knife but only if they actually cut you and not just a threat that you percieved, from what you said about the LEO in the dog park, right?*
> 
> What does children have to do with this topic. There are no children involved in it. *Just asking because I was curious but you did answer anyway - thanks!*
> 
> As for a dog, if I think a dog is stray and sick and viscious then yes I will shoot it, if I think I can do it without more danger.


So it is ok for you to have a gun - but not a LEO?

How do you determine a dog is "viscious" or is this something that you would just know? Why does the dog have to also be sick to shoot him/her? Oh yea, how would you determine that the dog is also sick as well as viscious? That seems to me to be hard to do while the dog is charging (running) at you and then aiming and firing accurately. You must really be a true expert with your gun!

Little bit of a double standard it would appear?

BTW - why would think it is ok to shoot and kill a wild animal just because it is sick? Isn't that against the law in MD - depending on the animal wouldn't it have to be open season?


----------



## codmaster

Jessiewessie99 said:


> I have been charged by a dog and deal with aggressive dogs at a shelter. I would much rather shoot a person than a dog. I would be hurt inside if I hurt an animal like that. No he did not have a right to carry a weapon into a PUBLIC dog park where there were other people and dogs present. I am not believing one side of the story, from the articles presented it is obvious this man was not very educated when it came to dog behavior and that the dogs were just rough housing, because there was no blood or any proof of a dog attack.
> 
> *In many cases I trust dogs alot more than humans*.


That much I agree with you, as it is very obvious. Keep the faith.

I do believe that some LEO's can carry a weapon into public places. Not sure about the dog park location laws but don't let the law interfere with what you want to believe about this case. 

No blood = no fight or attack? You really belive that?


----------



## StarryNite

I most definitely won't be visiting the dog park again after reading this. People are just going more and more crazy in my opinion and it's getting worse and worse. I walk with not only Lou but my daughter at the dog park (when I went). My daughter likes to run around and pretend she is a dog, which I constantly try to get her to NOT do, but the fact that some crazy, insane man who hides behind his gun and sees himself as a public servant can just pull out a gun and shoot it in a public place with dogs and kids and lots of people just because he feels it is justified?!?! I didn't see any report that his dog was injured in the least. Bullets can travel further than their target and that could have been my daughter it hit. I cannot believe no charges are being filed on this MADMAN!


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> That much I agree with you, as it is very obvious. Keep the faith.
> 
> I do believe that some LEO's can carry a weapon into public places. Not sure about the dog park location laws but don't let the law interfere with what you want to believe about this case.
> 
> No blood = no fight or attack? You really belive that?


Just it does not seem like a dog fight. Why didn't other people who were at dog park say anything?Obviously someone would have said something if there was a dog fight.


----------



## Rusty_212

You got a fed officer and his wife against the owner of the murdered dog. Supposedly no other witnesses. Who do you think the authorities will side with? We are fighting a losing battle. He's gonna get away with it with a slap on his hand.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Selzer: in a court of law all you have to do is prove you were in fear for your life. Even the size of the person comes into factor when considering the use of deadly force. I believe all responsible people should carry a gun or at least a can of OC. 

Jessie: in this instance I am not agreeing with it, but if a dog was likley to attack me I would shoot it. I am not going to let that dog possibly severely injure me or another person.


----------



## Chicagocanine

There were at least 3 people, all adults, standing very close by while this occurred- including the person responsible for the Husky (who probably also had a leash they could have used to catch the dog if given time.) 
It does not seem likely that if he hadn't had a gun this Husky would have seriously injured one of those 3 people without the other two stopping the dog. I doubt they would have just stood by while the Husky killed one of the people if none of them had a weapon.


----------



## codmaster

StarryNite said:


> I most definitely won't be visiting the dog park again after reading this. People are just going more and more crazy in my opinion and it's getting worse and worse. I walk with not only Lou but my daughter at the dog park (when I went). My daughter likes to run around and pretend she is a dog, which I constantly try to get her to NOT do, but the fact that some crazy, insane man who hides behind his gun and sees himself as a public servant can just pull out a gun and shoot it in a public place with dogs and kids and lots of people just because he feels it is justified?!?! I didn't see any report that his dog was injured in the least. Bullets can travel further than their target and that could have been my daughter it hit. I cannot believe no charges are being filed on this MADMAN!


Lot of people on this forum would say you were crazy for letting your child run around in a dog park and actually blame you if a dog ran into your child and hurt her. 

And it could have been your child that a dog attacked in the park - ok for someone then to shoot the dog before it actually bit your little girl?


----------



## codmaster

Chicagocanine said:


> There were at least 3 people, all adults, standing very close by while this occurred- including the person responsible for the Husky (who probably also had a leash they could have used to catch the dog if given time.)
> It does not seem likely that if he hadn't had a gun this Husky would have seriously injured one of those 3 people without the other two stopping the dog. I doubt they would have just stood by while the Husky killed one of the people if none of them had a weapon.


Would they have stood by if the husky attacked the other dog?

How much time would it have taken for the handler of the husky to get him do you think? And I guess the handler did not have control of the husky - would you say?


----------



## VitaBene

*Preparedness*



Jessiewessie99 said:


> I have been charged by a dog and deal with aggressive dogs at a shelter. I would much rather shoot a person than a dog. I would be hurt inside if I hurt an animal like that. No he did not have a right to carry a weapon into a PUBLIC dog park where there were other people and dogs present. I am not believing one side of the story, from the articles presented it is obvious this man was not very educated when it came to dog behavior and that the dogs were just rough housing, because there was no blood or any proof of a dog attack.
> 
> In many cases I trust dogs alot more than humans.



I will start by saying that I am not condoning this Federal officer's actions, more investigation will be required.

However, a LEO cannot have his or her weapon magically appear when trouble starts, they need to be prepared for trouble regardless of where it starts (church, schools, dog parks). He had every right to be carrying and should exercise that right so that they can defend you. 

I carry frequently when walking my dog- I walk the snowmobile trails of NH where bears and packs of coyotes reside. If it is me, my dog or them, they are going down.

Frankly, the fact that you stated that you would rather shoot a person than a dog sent chills up my spine. It is obvious that you have never had to look down the barrel of a weapon with a live anything at the other end of it.


----------



## selzer

codmaster said:


> So it is ok for you to have a gun - but not a LEO?
> 
> How do you determine a dog is "viscious" or is this something that you would just know? Why does the dog have to also be sick to shoot him/her? Oh yea, how would you determine that the dog is also sick as well as viscious? That seems to me to be hard to do while the dog is charging (running) at you and then aiming and firing accurately. You must really be a true expert with your gun!
> 
> Little bit of a double standard it would appear?
> 
> BTW - why would think it is ok to shoot and kill a wild animal just because it is sick? Isn't that against the law in MD - depending on the animal wouldn't it have to be open season?



What IS your dog in this fight???

You like police officers and idolize them and believe they cannot possibly over-react or do something stupid. OK, we get that.

But when did I EVER say the gun was at fault, the fact that this man had a gun was a problem, that this guy should not have a gun?

I take offense at that, because I NEVER suggested it. I do not blame guns for people's stupidity.

My gun is a single shot 12 gauge shot gun. I am not going to run around the streets hauling that AND my dog. Sorry, by the time I hefted it in the air, the dogs would be turning all over each other, and there would be no way to defend mine. So it does not make sense. 

I would shoot, or rather I think that I would be able to shoot a person who broke through my door to do whatever. Taking the gun outside with me, just says, hey get the heck out of here I am armed. Yes, they would have to be shooting at me for me to fire the gun outside. Because you cannot shoot a person for a perceived threat outside. Inside your home, it is a bit of a different story. 

There is no way you can convince me this guy should have shot this dog at the park. Sorry. Not if the dog was in the process of fighting with his dog. If there was so much time for the other guy to come and get his dog, then why didn't the shooter's wife take the dog out of the gate. 

The gate -- yes, this is how I singlehandedly stopped a couple of fights, you get one on one side of the gate and the other on the other and then you use the gate to separate the dogs. Believe it or not, it works. Even with big strong 75 pound bitches. You can get the dogs in between by 

Another time I was in a field with no fences around. I shoved my hand in to grab a collar and got seriously bitten. So I walked off to my Explorer, got in, pointed it at the dogs and drove it over there. When I stopped, the dogs were looking at me, one went under the car and lickety split, I had the other in the dog carrier in the back. I then got the other in a carrier and I was the only casualty in that fight -- my fault I might add.

Nobody taught me how to break up a dog fight. I would not do it with a gun, that is rediculous.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> What IS your dog in this fight???
> 
> You like police officers and idolize them and believe they cannot possibly over-react or do something stupid. OK, we get that.
> 
> But when did I EVER say the gun was at fault, the fact that this man had a gun was a problem, that this guy should not have a gun?
> 
> I take offense at that, because I NEVER suggested it. I do not blame guns for people's stupidity.
> 
> My gun is a single shot 12 gauge shot gun. I am not going to run around the streets hauling that AND my dog. Sorry, by the time I hefted it in the air, the dogs would be turning all over each other, and there would be no way to defend mine. So it does not make sense.
> 
> I would shoot, or rather I think that I would be able to shoot a person who broke through my door to do whatever. Taking the gun outside with me, just says, hey get the heck out of here I am armed. Yes, they would have to be shooting at me for me to fire the gun outside. Because you cannot shoot a person for a perceived threat outside. Inside your home, it is a bit of a different story.
> 
> There is no way you can convince me this guy should have shot this dog at the park. Sorry. Not if the dog was in the process of fighting with his dog. If there was so much time for the other guy to come and get his dog, then why didn't the shooter's wife take the dog out of the gate.
> 
> The gate -- yes, this is how I singlehandedly stopped a couple of fights, you get one on one side of the gate and the other on the other and then you use the gate to separate the dogs. Believe it or not, it works. Even with big strong 75 pound bitches. You can get the dogs in between by
> 
> Another time I was in a field with no fences around. I shoved my hand in to grab a collar and got seriously bitten. So I walked off to my Explorer, got in, pointed it at the dogs and drove it over there. When I stopped, the dogs were looking at me, one went under the car and lickety split, I had the other in the dog carrier in the back. I then got the other in a carrier and I was the only casualty in that fight -- my fault I might add.
> 
> Nobody taught me how to break up a dog fight. I would not do it with a gun, that is rediculous.


Selzer,

Guess I missed how would you determine a dog is either sick or vicisious? 

These are the ones you said that you would shoot in an earlier post.

BTW, don't be sorry if this is how you really feel!

I guess that a 75 lb dog is a big one for you.


----------



## codmaster

BTW2, I really don't idolize cops as i grew up in a low income part of the city and certainly have seen a number of bad cops as well as some very good ones. I just hate to see a cop or anybody get prejudged for something without knowing all of the facts. this guy has been treated very unfairly by people judging him and his actions without us knowing what really happened. the fact that he is a LEO is irrelevant to judging how he acted other than he was (probably as I am assuming this) allowed to be carrying a weapon. 
One thing to consider for a few - how is anyone to gain experience in dog stuff, and does everyone who goes to a dog park have to pass a test of dog knowledge before they are allowed to get in?


----------



## selzer

You do not gain experience with dogs by shooting them.

If a dog is walking around and around in a circular pattern, strange, not acting normally, etc., any neurological signs, if it has serious physical signs, and no owner about, if it looks like it is seriously suffering or could make other dogs sick, if the dog charged at me and tried to get to me and I felt that it was indeed not right, then I would have to shoot it. 

I have yet to witness any such dog. 

There is no animal control out here. There is a dog warden, but he covers the whole county and he might make it there on Friday if you call him Tuesday. He told my brother when he called for a viscious dog, that my brother should have taken care of the problem -- shot the dog. 

Most of the time stray dogs are standoffish, they do not generally automatically trust people. They may go up if you talk to them or if you get low and offer something. But a stray dog charging up to you you is not normal. If you have a dog with you, that is an entirely different story. A stray dog charging up to you and your dog is not abnormal. We do not like it, but you can expect it to happen. And that has happened many times with me. 

Normally you can yell at the dog and they back off long enough to get your dog in the car, if not you can kick at the dog, there are many things you can do that do not involve shooting.

The dogs I separated were 79 and 80 pounds -- much bigger than the husky. But THEY were easy, they were dogs. The bitches were 75 pounds. I think I would rather mess with 90 to 100 pound dogs than a couple of 75 pound bitches.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> ......
> There is no animal control out here. There is a dog warden, but he covers the whole county and he might make it there on Friday if you call him Tuesday. ......................
> Most of the time stray dogs are standoffish, they do not generally automatically trust people. They may go up if you talk to them or if you get low and offer something. But a stray dog charging up to you you is not normal. If you have a dog with you, that is an entirely different story. A stray dog charging up to you and your dog is not abnormal. We do not like it, but you can expect it to happen. And that has happened many times with me.
> 
> Normally you can yell at the dog and they back off long enough to get your dog in the car, if not you can kick at the dog, there are many things you can do that do not involve shooting.
> 
> The dogs I separated were 79 and 80 pounds -- much bigger than the husky. But THEY were easy, they were dogs. The bitches were 75 pounds. I think I would rather mess with 90 to 100 pound dogs than a couple of 75 pound bitches.


You sound sort of like a member of our obedience club who once told me when i asked her what she did when a dog charged at her and her dog (a "fierce' 50 lb Poodle) - she said that she jumped in front of her dog and yelled at it and then she told me she had never met a dog that she couldn't back down! I told her that she just hadn't met the wrong dog yet! BTW she also told me that she would do it to any pit bull that she met.

Most of the time i am sure that that would work and most dogs will not continue but some will!

I asked her if she wanted to try it with my then 2+ yo GSD male, as we were at an obedience club meeting with our dogs there. Strangely enough she told me that she had to run as she had to get home for some reason.

Anyway, good luck to you.


----------



## selzer

Codmaster, I am not afraid of your 2+ year old dog. Have you trained him in schutzhund/PPT. Well maybe he will not back down if you have trained him not to. Mostly problems are NOT from trained dogs. If you are suggesting that schutzhund/PPT dogs are not going to back down if they are on their own for some reason, than I would hope that you would be that much more careful to ensure the situation does not arise. 

If you want to bring your tough guy to Ohio, we can go to a park and you can let him loose around me, and I will not shoot him.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> Codmaster, I am not afraid of your 2+ year old dog. Have you trained him in schutzhund/PPT. Well maybe he will not back down if you have trained him not to. Mostly problems are NOT from trained dogs. If you are suggesting that schutzhund/PPT dogs are not going to back down if they are on their own for some reason, than I would hope that you would be that much more careful to ensure the situation does not arise. If you want to bring your tough guy to Ohio, we can go to a park and you can let him loose around me, and I will not shoot him.


Good that you are not afraid of a dog that is about 2,000 miles from you. just used the other person as an example of people who are equally stupid in how they act around dogs. just like those who are afraid of all dogs or who can't read dogs at all.

Nor should you be afraid of my obedience but not protection trained dog - just used him as an example of a dog who will not back down if you yell at him - one of a few that I have met.

Most Sch trained dogs are very good natured and also more trustworthy than the average dog (including GSD's).

You don't really need to insult my dog ("tough guy"?) from afar - what did he ever do to you?

As far as coming to Ohio - no thanks! Been there, done that - lived in Ohio for a couple of years a while ago and see really no need whatsoever to return.

However, if you are ever in CA, please let me know and you can come and visit him in his home. heh! heh! He actually generally likes strangers.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

VitaBene said:


> I will start by saying that I am not condoning this Federal officer's actions, more investigation will be required.
> 
> *However, a LEO cannot have his or her weapon magically appear when trouble starts, they need to be prepared for trouble regardless of where it starts (church, schools, dog parks). He had every right to be carrying and should exercise that right so that they can defend you.
> *
> *I carry frequently when walking my dog- I walk the snowmobile trails of NH where bears and packs of coyotes reside. If it is me, my dog or them, they are going down.*
> 
> *Frankly, the fact that you stated that you would rather shoot a person than a dog sent chills up my spine. It is obvious that you have never had to look down the barrel of a weapon with a live anything at the other end of it.*


He was off duty, and in a public area, where other people were present and possibly children nearby who witnessed this attack. There is no proof of a dog fight.And according to you it is perfectly safe FOR ANYONE to carry a concealed weapon in a public area where children, people are present? Last time I checked it wasn't ok for ANYONE to carry a concealed weapon into public areas. This man was off duty, so no he really didn't need to be carrying his gun with him. 

Did I say it would have to magically appear?No. He should not have brought a gun into a public area where other people and dogs are present especially since he was OFF duty.

You are out in the wilderness, this incident was at a PUBLIC dog park that was in a residential neighborhood. The man could have hurt his dog or someone else's dog.

How would you know that? I have in deed held gun, but not shoot it, actually I don't have a guns license , I can only have a rifle since I am not of legal age to have a hangun. I much rather shoot a person than a dog, this man seemed like a trigger happy guy who was abusing his power. If I were a LEO or any kind of officer of the law I would not be carrying around my gun while off duty it is a weapon and can hurt someone.

No one said that since he is a LEO he shouldn't have a gun. ANYONE who has a gun should use it responsibly. Remember its not the gun, its the person BEHIND THE GUN.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> Selzer: in a court of law all you have to do is prove you were in fear for your life. Even the size of the person comes into factor when considering the use of deadly force. I believe all responsible people should carry a gun or at least a can of OC.
> 
> *Jessie: in this instance I am not agreeing with it, but if a dog was likley to attack me I would shoot it. I am not going to let that dog possibly severely injure me or another person.*


I don't think many places will let your carry a weapon in public are where people and children are present.


----------



## Dainerra

Jessie, many depts now require officers to carry 24/7, even off-duty. Concealed carry is allowed everywhere that isn't clearly marked for carry - IE bars and any private building that clearly posts the required signs. Getting a concealed carry permit in many states is as easy as taking a short class and passing a background check. Lots of states will also accept another state's permit as valid for people who are visiting the area.

You live in CA, so I'm not sure how hard it is to get a permit there, but here in AR, I would not be surprised if a good majority of people I see every day are carrying a gun. In WV, I can guarantee that most everyone I saw on a daily basis at least had one in the car, if not on their person. OH actually has "open carry" and anyone can carry a weapon (except in posted establishments) as long as the weapon is fully visible.


----------



## Zoeys mom

Just because you can legally carry a gun does not make it appropriate in all settings nor does it make it appropriate to fire it. Carrying a gun does not entail shooting at will. I don't care that this man was a cop- he was a fellow dog owner at a public dog park located in a residential neighborhood. He chooses to carry a gun off duty something I could care less about, but he chose to shoot the gun without provocation. There was NO dog fight, no injury to his dog, nor injury to himself- therefore no reason to shoot a firearm. I don't get why people really find it okay to shoot anyone or anything unless it poses an immediate deadly threat. This husky was not a deadly threat!


----------



## Jessiewessie99

Dainerra said:


> Jessie, many depts now require officers to carry 24/7, even off-duty. Concealed carry is allowed everywhere that isn't clearly marked for carry - IE bars and any private building that clearly posts the required signs. Getting a concealed carry permit in many states is as easy as taking a short class and passing a background check. Lots of states will also accept another state's permit as valid for people who are visiting the area.
> 
> You live in CA, so I'm not sure how hard it is to get a permit there, but here in AR, I would not be surprised if a good majority of people I see every day are carrying a gun. In WV, I can guarantee that most everyone I saw on a daily basis at least had one in the car, if not on their person. OH actually has "open carry" and anyone can carry a weapon (except in posted establishments) as long as the weapon is fully visible.



I heard about that in many states. But if you carry a gun, you should be doing it responsibly. My ROP teacher told me it isn't something you go around bragging about.

Don't think I am anit-guns, I think they are cool and don't mind people owning one, but I think anyone who shoots of a gun is held responsible and be responsible a gun owner.


----------



## tonkatuff81

I've had to break up several "dog park" fights (not involving my dog). It's pretty easy as long as one person grabs each dog by their thighs and drags them backwards. 

Once I was bitten through my thumb by a frightened Huskie; The Huskie was not the agressor but it was scared witless. At no time did it dawn on me to hurt that dog. I chalked it up to "life at the dog park".

Finally, please...take your dog off of it's lead when you go to an off leash dog park. "The pack" does not know how to process the leash in that circumstance. And if you want to carry your dog around the park, don't !!

Many people make their otherwise sound tempered dogs nervous by their own neurotic behavior. Dogs are mouthy in their play. As long as you do not hear a yelp, things are generally O.K. no matter how rough it appears. (some judgement is involved) If the other dog's owner is nervous, it is best to divert your dogs attention elswhere.

Kids should enjoy their visits to the park but they should be advised that it is playtime for the dogs. Excessive running, screaming, and horseplay can make the dogs nervous, and don't forget that the pack mentality can be unpredictable. Herding breeds may try to abate that behavior by nipping and high prey drive breeds might see the child as a prey animal. Any misunderstood animal behavior can lead to a tragic reaction by an owner / observer.

But please, leave your Glock holstered unless there is an imminent threat of GREAT HARM to someone or a pet, and you are otherwise out of ideas.


----------



## VitaBene

One last point, the rationale is that a LEO is always on duty or can be recognized as a LEO by a past "customer". They need to be prepared at all times (remember I am not saying that this LEO had any business pulling his weapon out, it sounds like he overreacted).

The *Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act* (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer" -- to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of any state or local law to the contrary, with certain exceptions. (from a Wiki) As laong as they are a valid sworn lEO they v=can concealed carry. The problem is that not every LEO should be an LEO.


----------



## selzer

codmaster said:


> Good that you are not afraid of a dog that is about 2,000 miles from you. just used the other person as an example of people who are equally stupid in how they act around dogs. just like those who are afraid of all dogs or who can't read dogs at all.
> 
> Nor should you be afraid of my obedience but not protection trained dog - just used him as an example of a dog who will not back down if you yell at him - one of a few that I have met.
> 
> Most Sch trained dogs are very good natured and also more trustworthy than the average dog (including GSD's).
> 
> You don't really need to insult my dog ("tough guy"?) from afar - what did he ever do to you?
> 
> As far as coming to Ohio - no thanks! Been there, done that - lived in Ohio for a couple of years a while ago and see really no need whatsoever to return.
> 
> However, if you are ever in CA, please let me know and you can come and visit him in his home. heh! heh! He actually generally likes strangers.


How is what I said about your dog an insult? You brought it up that a lady in YOUR obedience class would not take you up on it when you were shooting off your mouth. So you are saying your guy is a tough guy. A man who has to run around packing a gun and a tough GSD who isn't going to back down. I am not saying it YOU are. 

Did my post not say that trained dogs are rarely a problem. That is why I am not worried about your dog. It has undergone some training. 

It is people thinking that they are not going to get out of it without 230 stitches or alive that have me shaking my head, and have this coward with the gun blasting away. 

Most of the people hear who have had dogs come toward them and their dogs have been able to difuse the situation with no training and no gun. It is a broken record at this point. 

There are probably people out there that have brought dogs scared out of their minds to dog parks and had those dogs react badly. Not everyone at dog parks have been trained to break up fights and read doggy body language. The answer is to separate the dogs, not shoot them. If this was not the case, than dogs would be shot at dog parks all the time.


----------



## selzer

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> Selzer: in a court of law all you have to do is prove you were in fear for your life. Even the size of the person comes into factor when considering the use of deadly force. I believe all responsible people should carry a gun or at least a can of OC.


So if I am deathly afraid of men, I can just blast away whenever I see one?

Maybe that is why there are so many gang shootings. They are afraid for their lives of other gang members so they can shoot them on sight.

If this shooter was afraid for his life, he needs to be under a psychiatrists care and some medication. There are people out there that are scared to death of German Shepherds too. It is called a phobia. It does not make it alright for them to shoot them whenever they see them.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

VitaBene said:


> One last point, the rational is that a LEO is always on duty or can be recognized as a LEO by a past "customer". They need to be prepared at all times (remember I am not saying that this LEO had any business pulling his weapon out, it sounds like he overreacted).
> 
> The *Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act* (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer" -- to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of any state or local law to the contrary, with certain exceptions. (from a Wiki) As laong as they are a valid sworn lEO they v=can concealed carry. The problem is that not every LEO should be an LEO.


I never said they couldn't carry them at all. But they shouldn't really be carrying it in public areas, and that can vary depending on the state and not bragging about it either.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

I forgot to add, that if the officer is in a public area where guns are allowed to be carried they need to be extra extra careful.


----------



## selzer

This thread is making me much more afraid of armed people than dogs. I am a big supporter of being allowed to have and carry firearms, but also the responsibility that it requires. 

Having some places where it is not allowed makes me feel less safe rather than more safe. What are the ccp people doing in these instances? Leaving them locked in their cars? That seems a lot less safe than if they had them on their person. 

But the attitude that too many people on these threads have about how quickly they would shoot at a dog really makes me cringe. I know much of it is just talk, or at least prior to this shooting I thought much of it was just talk. How many trigger happy people are running around looking for things to shoot at? 

I love the little signs all over Ohio that says that firearms are not permitted within. This broadcasts to the criminals that all the law abiding people do not have guns on them, they are, in fact, sheep within. The criminals continue to flout the law, and feel much safer. Some of them probably break into cars in these locations hoping to pick up firearms that people should be carrying. 

I have no problem with ccp, but when people use their personal weapons for any reason, they should be able to have a very good reason to do so. This situation, no way. It does not matter who has the gun, private citizen, officer, not ok to shoot. The lack of initial investigation spurs the distrust and anger toward law enforcement.


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> No blood = no fight or attack? You really belive that?


Not enough of an attack to warrant shooting the other dog. And it wasn't just no blood. There were no injuries at all. Which means it was two dogs posturing and being vocal. That happens a lot while dogs work out rank, etc. And an experienced person would have known that.

When dogs get into fights/squabbles, should everyone reach for their gun to shoot the other dog? There would be a lot of dead dogs at the dog park...and in homes. LOL

The fact that there was no blood/injuries, doesn't mean the dogs weren't fighting. It just means it wasn't serious and it sure as heck didn't need to be resolved by SHOOTING THE OTHER DOG!!!

It's not about this cop being evil. It's about him being inexperienced where his first instinct was to reach for his gun, in a public place, and shoot a dog.

IMO, the cop made a mistake. And their should be some repercussions for that. And, btw, I don't think he should lose his job. I'm not jumping on any bandwagon for tarring and feathering him. I just don't want this incident swept under the rug because of what he does for a living. JMO.


----------



## codmaster

Anyone else notice the placement of the ad banner for "Firearms Training institute"?


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> Anyone else notice the placement of the ad banner for "Firearms Training institute"?


The word firearms is being used alot and it brings it up.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Selzer: in my previous post it meant that if the person is a direct threat to you or another person. Example; a guy has a gun pointed at another person, if you were to shoot the agressor it is a justifiable shoot. Or someone who has a knife and threatens you. Shooting them would be justifiable. 

Just being afraid of a general group of things does not justify shooting them. I am afraid of spiders (yea I know lol), I would be arrested for shooting at one. 

Just for general information Wv,Va are both open carry stares where it is legal to carry your weapon openly into public areas as long as it is not prohibited in by the law or buisness. Both have concealed carry as well. Depending on which area you are in it is nothing to even see people open carry.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

IllinoisNative said:


> Not enough of an attack to warrant shooting the other dog. And it wasn't just no blood. There were no injuries at all. Which means it was two dogs posturing and being vocal. That happens a lot while dogs work out rank, etc. And an experienced person would have known that.
> 
> When dogs get into fights/squabbles, should everyone reach for their gun to shoot the other dog? There would be a lot of dead dogs at the dog park...and in homes. LOL
> 
> The fact that there was no blood/injuries, doesn't mean the dogs weren't fighting. It just means it wasn't serious and it sure as heck didn't need to be resolved by SHOOTING THE OTHER DOG!!!
> 
> It's not about this cop being evil. It's about him being inexperienced where his first instinct was to reach for his gun, in a public place, and shoot a dog.
> 
> IMO, the cop made a mistake. And their should be some repercussions for that. And, btw, I don't think he should lose his job. I'm not jumping on any bandwagon for tarring and feathering him. I just don't want this incident swept under the rug because of what he does for a living. JMO.



Yes, Thats what alot of people were trying to say. There was no proof of blood or injuries so how all it really means is that the dogs were just playing and the guy should have known better than to shoot the dog.

And aren't Huskies known to be very vocal?


----------



## Zoeys mom

I totally agree with the above post IllinoisNative!!!! A true dog fight ends in some form of injury- it doesn't have to be bloody and gory of course but cuts, scratches, and lacerations are going to be present. Otherwise it was mouthing and noise something all dogs do to establish who's who in the park. Dogs also often play rough- even rough play can end in cuts and scratches though the responsible owner will call this kind of play off. Dogs make noise, posture themselves, mount, jump on each other, and growl to communicate- they can't talk and introduce themselves after all Either way guns were made for two things: killing food, and killing an imminent threat. The cop didn't want to eat the Husky and there is still no evidence the husky was a threat.

If for instance the dog attacked said cop or wife and could not be contained I don't think most people would be this upset. There are situations with truly aggressive or sick dogs where deadly force is applicable, but this isn't one of those cases. The cop can not even prove intent on this dogs part to do harm so no I still don't believe this situation could not have been handled better.


----------



## IllinoisNative

Jessiewessie99 said:


> And aren't Huskies known to be very vocal?


As someone who owned two, YES!!!

And I'm bothered by the fact that I used "their" in my post instead of "there." But it was too late to edit...lol. I hate that spell check doesn't correct that for me.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Jessiewessie99 said:


> Yes, Thats what alot of people were trying to say. There was no proof of blood or injuries so how all it really means is that the dogs were just playing and the guy should have known better than to shoot the dog.
> 
> And aren't Huskies known to be very vocal?


I am not disagreeing with the fact it appears he over reacted, I wanted to point out the rationale he used when exercising his decision. The evidence is limited and the case could go either way. I do believe he will lose his job. Md is not a gun friendly state.


----------



## selzer

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> Selzer: in my previous post it meant that if the person is a direct threat to you or another person. Example; a guy has a gun pointed at another person, if you were to shoot the agressor it is a justifiable shoot. Or someone who has a knife and threatens you. Shooting them would be justifiable.
> 
> Just being afraid of a general group of things does not justify shooting them. I am afraid of spiders (yea I know lol), I would be arrested for shooting at one.
> 
> Just for general information Wv,Va are both open carry stares where it is legal to carry your weapon openly into public areas as long as it is not prohibited in by the law or buisness. Both have concealed carry as well. Depending on which area you are in it is nothing to even see people open carry.


Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

selzer said:


> Thanks for the clarification.


Your welcome. I just want to make sure everyone understands the rationale for the shooting. Regardless if it was an over reaction or not.

I just want to add another example. If a person who is way bigger than you physically threatens you and appears ready to act on this is also a justifiable reason to shoot. The reason for this is that the individual can do serious harm to you or another person because of the physical aspect of the persons involved.


----------



## Melina

Jessiewessie99 said:


> Last time I checked it wasn't ok for ANYONE to carry a concealed weapon into public areas. This man was off duty, so no he really didn't need to be carrying his gun with him.


It's okay in Arizona so long as you have a permit.  You can even carry it into a bar. If the bartender serves someone with a concealed weapon and they use it while there, the bartender can get in trouble....but the  thing was concealed, how would the bartender know he had it? Hahaha. Arizona is a  up state.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Melina said:


> It's okay in Arizona so long as you have a permit.  You can even carry it into a bar. If the bartender serves someone with a concealed weapon and they use it while there, the bartender can get in trouble....but the  thing was concealed, how would the bartender know he had it? Hahaha. Arizona is a  up state.


Most of the time the bar tenders can deny knowing they have it and get away with it. The individual would be in some very nasty trouble though. Va allows this now and it's fine as the person carrying is not suppose to drink. If they use it and have drank it is a nasty felony.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

IllinoisNative said:


> As someone who owned two, YES!!!
> 
> And I'm bothered by the fact that I used "their" in my post instead of "there." But it was too late to edit...lol. I hate that spell check doesn't correct that for me.


I thought so. Maybe this guy needs to go back to Dog Behavior 101.I remember the husky at my shelter, Mason, Beautiful dark wolf grey with golden brown eyes and cute bear like paws but was a total talker.


----------



## Zoeys mom

It's not the gun though it is the use without provocation. A husky is surely not bigger than a grown man, and while any dog can do serious damage there were at least 3 other adults around to step in. My neighbor is a Maryland cop and carries his weapon everywhere whether on duty or not. He has broken up fights amongst gangs of people and dogs without using it. I don't think anyone here is saying carrying a gun is bad, someone should never use their gun, or that it is never justifiable to shoot a dog. However, the fact remains there are conditions in which firing your gun is acceptable and this doesn't appear to be one of them.


----------



## AbbyK9

> My daughter likes to run around and pretend she is a dog, which I constantly try to get her to NOT do,


I realize this is taking the thread off topic, but I wanted to second what someone else said, that it's not okay for young children to run around and play in a dog park. Many dog parks actually have rules that children under a certain age are not allowed inside the park at all - simply as a safety rule. 



> Last time I checked it wasn't ok for ANYONE to carry a concealed weapon into public areas. This man was off duty, so no he really didn't need to be carrying his gun with him.


No offense, but when it comes to firearms and carrying them, you obviously do not know what you are talking about.

There are currently only 2 states that do not issue any concealed carry permit and don't allow concealed or open carry. There are 7 states where carry is restricted and not everyone who applies for a permit will be granted one. 3 states are unrestricted, meaning you don't need any kind of permit to carry, open or concealed. And all the rest - 38 if you weren't counting - permit carrying with a permit, which is generally granted if you are eligible to obtain one (ie, a citizen - or in some areas, legal resident - non-felon, etc.).

Virginia, the last state where I had a concealed carry permit allows for both concealed carry with permit and open carry without except in places posted as "no weapons" - some malls, some stores, some national parks.

And that, FYI, is for ordinary citizens, not law enforcement.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

AbbyK9 said:


> I realize this is taking the thread off topic, but I wanted to second what someone else said, that it's not okay for young children to run around and play in a dog park. Many dog parks actually have rules that children under a certain age are not allowed inside the park at all - simply as a safety rule.
> 
> 
> 
> No offense, but when it comes to firearms and carrying them, you obviously do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> There are currently only 2 states that do not issue any concealed carry permit and don't allow concealed or open carry. There are 7 states where carry is restricted and not everyone who applies for a permit will be granted one. 3 states are unrestricted, meaning you don't need any kind of permit to carry, open or concealed. And all the rest - 38 if you weren't counting - permit carrying with a permit, which is generally granted if you are eligible to obtain one (ie, a citizen - or in some areas, legal resident - non-felon, etc.).
> 
> Virginia, the last state where I had a concealed carry permit allows for both concealed carry with permit and open carry without except in places posted as "no weapons" - some malls, some stores, some national parks.
> 
> And that, FYI, is for ordinary citizens, not law enforcement.


Someone else stated something earlier. I do somewhat know what I ma talking about. If you are going to carry a weapon a public place do it responsibly, this man clearly did not.


----------



## AbbyK9

> I do somewhat know what I ma talking about.


People responded to what you posted. Obviously, we all got it wrong and you really know what you're talking about.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

AbbyK9 said:


> People responded to what you posted. Obviously, we all got it wrong and you really know what you're talking about.


I never said all of it, but somewhat which is a little bit.


----------



## AbbyK9

I think this is what people were responding to. The one I quoted in my post above.



> Last time I checked it wasn't ok for ANYONE to carry a concealed weapon into public areas.


Which, as you know, is incorrect. That's what people pointed out. IMHO that's a very different point than needing to carry firearms responsibly.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

AbbyK9 said:


> I think this is what people were responding to. The one I quoted in my post above.
> 
> 
> 
> Which, as you know, is incorrect. That's what people pointed out. IMHO that's a very different point than needing to carry firearms responsibly.


and now I read their responses and understand. From reading this on another forum, the guy was not authorized to carry his gun outside of work.


----------



## Chicagocanine

codmaster said:


> You sound sort of like a member of our obedience club who once told me when i asked her what she did when a dog charged at her and her dog (a "fierce' 50 lb Poodle) - she said that she jumped in front of her dog and yelled at it and then she told me she had never met a dog that she couldn't back down! I told her that she just hadn't met the wrong dog yet! BTW she also told me that she would do it to any pit bull that she met.


I've done that in some situations, depending on the body language of the dog that is coming at me and the situation at hand. In some cases it works (or at least has a chance to) on certain types of dogs, but again lot of dogs are so used to their owners yelling that they don't even notice.
Of the dogs I have done that with, maybe a few actually backed off, others have slowed down or changed their approach, and many paid no attention.


----------



## GSDMan

Well, this thread certainly has its fair share of oral flatulence. So, naturally, I have to add mine.

One thing isn’t clear to me. For this to be a legal shooting there needs to be a clear, articulable fear of immediate or imminent death or serious bodily harm to self or another person. I believe this is the standard for LEO and Joe Citizen, alike, and fear for ones pet is not justification for shooting. Now, as I understand it, the Husky was shot in the abdomen damaging several organs beyond repair. To me, this indicates the dog was shot from the side. The officer is apparently claiming the Husky was attacking his dog and when he tried to separate them it turned on him, trying to bite him. He then took a couple steps back, drew and fired his weapon. What I don’t understand is if the dog was going to attack him, wouldn’t it be facing him? If so, how then was the dog shot from the side? I think what really happened was he shot the Husky defending his dog and the rest of the story is made up to justify the shooting.

One other point. I’ve had dogs for many years and felt I was fairly well versed in dog behavior. But all those years were with just one dog at a time and I suspect most dog owners, including the people involved in this incident, are like that. It wasn’t till I got Asia and Jasper that I realized I had a LOT to learn about dog-dog behavior and how different it is from dog-human behavior. And, occasional trips to a dog park is not enough to learn how to read what’s happening in a noisy, rolling dog on dog squabble. There have been many occasions where I thought Asia or Jasper was about to lose body parts and, when I intervened, they just looked at me like I’d lost my mind. Take away the experience and knowledge that most of us have and how might any of us interpret these shots in the heat of the moment?















This is a tragedy that likely didn’t have to happen. Ultimately, I don’t see any serious criminal charges coming for this officer but the administrative troubles will probably be insurmountable. I’d bet his career is soon to take a serious turn that does not involve carrying a gun. What a waste all the way around?


----------



## codmaster

IllinoisNative said:


> Not enough of an attack to warrant shooting the other dog. And it wasn't just no blood. There were no injuries at all. Which means it was two dogs posturing and being vocal. That happens a lot while dogs work out rank, etc. And an experienced person would have known that..........................................
> It's not about this cop being evil. It's about him being inexperienced where his first instinct was to reach for his gun, in a public place, and shoot a dog.
> 
> IMO, the cop made a mistake. And their should be some repercussions for that. And, btw, I don't think he should lose his job. I'm not jumping on any bandwagon for tarring and feathering him. I just don't want this incident swept under the rug because of what he does for a living. JMO.


You, along with a number of others on this forum, seem to make a very large thing about drawing his weapon in a public place. 

Just as a matter of fact, are you aware of the fact that cops may have to draw and use their weapon in a public place, or perhaps you think that cops should never use their weapons in public places? I believe that they have training in the use of firearms. And you have noticed, I am sure, that only the dog was hit no innocent bystanders either canine or human were involved.

Did the cop make a mistake - probably.

BUT, just because there were no injuries or blood does not mean that the other dog was not serious about an attack (maybe he wasn't but we don't know that). It may mean simply that the cop acted quickly enough to stop the attack before any injuries to either dog came from the attack (or non attack as some may think).

It sounds like some misguided folks think that he should have waited till his dog or others suffered serious injuries showing blood before defending himself! Would love to see how those folks would act in a similar situation.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> You, along with a number of others on this forum, seem to make a very large thing about drawing his weapon in a public place.
> 
> Just as a matter of fact, are you aware of the fact that cops may have to draw and use their weapon in a public place, or perhaps you think that cops should never use their weapons in public places? I believe that they have training in the use of firearms. And you have noticed, I am sure, that only the dog was hit no innocent bystanders either canine or human were involved.
> 
> Did the cop make a mistake - probably.
> 
> BUT, just because there were no injuries or blood does not mean that the other dog was not serious about an attack (maybe he wasn't but we don't know that). It may mean simply that the cop acted quickly enough to stop the attack before any injuries to either dog came from the attack (or non attack as some may think).
> 
> It sounds like some misguided folks think that he should have waited till his dog or others suffered serious injuries showing blood before defending himself! Would love to see how those folks would act in a similar situation.


The man was off duty with his wife and dog. His dog was ON LEASH at a OFF LEASH park. The husky came up to his dog and they started playing. The guy heard what he thought was "fighting" and said "Stop" once, stood back, drew his gun and shot the dog. He didn't bother to separate the dogs at all and he just stood there watching the dog die. 

There is no proof of a dog fight. He didn't even bother to see if the dogs were actually fighting. But no he didn't he was ignorant and decided to shoot an innocent dog.

When a cop is shooting or is going to shoot he/she needs to be aware of their surroundings such as people, dogs, children etc. When anyone is drawing a gun in a public place they need to be careful no matter what.


----------



## codmaster

Jessiewessie99 said:


> The man was off duty with his wife and dog. His dog was ON LEASH at a OFF LEASH park. The husky came up to his dog and they started playing. The guy heard what he thought was "fighting" and said "Stop" once, stood back, drew his gun and shot the dog. He didn't bother to separate the dogs at all and he just stood there watching the dog die.
> 
> There is no proof of a dog fight. He didn't even bother to see if the dogs were actually fighting. But no he didn't he was ignorant and decided to shoot an innocent dog.
> When a cop is shooting or is going to shoot he/she needs to be aware of their surroundings such as people, dogs, children etc. When anyone is drawing a gun in a public place they need to be careful no matter what.


How do you know all these "Facts" about the dog fight? i.e. "the husky came up to his dog and they started playing" How do you know they were *playing*?

The cop may have reacted too quick, but he was obviously aware of his surroundings - Did you fail to notice that he didn't shoot any one except his intended target. We may think that was not needed (and it may have been!) BUT the cop acted very professionaly in handling his firearm, don't you agree?

I guess it was a real pity that you and a couple of others on this forum were not at the dog park - as you could have just stopped the dogs from "playing" or 'fighting" quickly and easily with no injuries to anyone.


----------



## codmaster

Is it a crime to have a dog on-leash temporarilly in an off lead park?


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> How do you know all these "Facts" about the dog fight? i.e. "the husky came up to his dog and they started playing" How do you know they were *playing*?
> 
> The cop may have reacted too quick, but he was obviously aware of his surroundings - Did you fail to notice that he didn't shoot any one except his intended target. We may think that was not needed (and it may have been!) BUT the cop acted very professionaly in handling his firearm, don't you agree?
> 
> I guess it was a real pity that you and a couple of others on this forum were not at the dog park - as you could have just stopped the dogs from "playing" or 'fighting" quickly and easily with no injuries to anyone.


Pulling out a gun and shooting the dog would NOT be the first thing we would do. There is no proof of a fight. Based on all the articles there was no proof of a dog fight. There were witnesses at the dog park who said the dogs were playing not fighting.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> Is it a crime to have a dog on-leash temporarilly in an off lead park?


The dog came up and greeted his dog and he thought they were fighting.Is it a crime for a dog to greet another dog? Guess so since he was shot.


----------



## Syaoransbear

codmaster said:


> Is it a crime to have a dog on-leash temporarilly in an off lead park?


The german shepherd was pulling on its leash to get to the husky. That causes a lot of tension. I know that if my dog is pulling tight on his leash and a dog runs up to him while there is that tension, sometimes the meeting is explosive. No, it's not a crime, but it's stupid. If anything, his dog being on a leash caused the entire incident. If the german shepherd had little experience with dogs or off-leash dogs, the german shepherd could have actually been the one that initiated the fight by showing dominance and anxiety.

And imo, if a dog is serious about attacking another dog, you don't have to wait around for there to be blood. But more likely no one would spend that time waiting, they'd spend that time figuring out a way to end the fight while causing the least damage to the dogs, not the MOST damage.

And then the officers made the dog lay there bleeding for 20 minutes, guaranteeing his death. 

I don't think anyone really wants to see this LEO lose his job, but what he could do is admit he acted too soon, he made a mistake, he misjudged the situation, and that the owners of the husky would be compensated for his mistake.


----------



## codmaster

Jessiewessie99 said:


> Pulling out a gun and shooting the dog would NOT be the first thing we would do. There is no proof of a fight. Based on all the articles there was no proof of a dog fight. There were witnesses at the dog park who said the dogs were playing not fighting.


And the nice thing is that you can believe whoever you want and slant the incident however you want.

Have you even considered the fact that there would have been no dog shot if the husky didn't "come running up to" a leashed dog either. Do you think that had something to do with the way the incident developed?


----------



## Syaoransbear

codmaster said:


> Have you even considered the fact that there would have been no dog shot if the husky didn't "come running up to" a leashed dog either. Do you think that had something to do with the way the incident developed?


That's how a dog park IS. There wouldn't be a single dog left in a dog park if people shot every dog that approached their own.


----------



## codmaster

Syaoransbear said:


> ......... If anything, his dog being on a leash caused the entire incident. If the german shepherd had little experience with dogs or off-leash dogs, the german shepherd could have actually been the one that initiated the fight by showing *dominance and anxiety*.
> ................. I don't think anyone really wants to see this LEO lose his job, but what he could do is admit he acted too soon, he made a mistake, he misjudged the situation, and that the owners of the husky would be compensated for his mistake.


 
So now it is the dog on leash who caused the fight? *Unbelievable!* Have you considered if the husky doesn't run up to the leashed dog? - no incident!

BTW, I never have seen a dog that showed both dominance and anxiety at the same time - but that is probably just me. I am sure you must have if you can diagnose such a condition at such a long distance.

The husky owner should be compensated for his dog IF it can be proven that the dog did not act aggressively because he/she did initiate the contact by running up to the GSD.


----------



## codmaster

Syaoransbear said:


> That's how a dog park IS. There wouldn't be a single dog left in a dog park if people shot every dog that approached their own.


"approach" and "running up to" = two different things, aren't they?

You have missed the point again. (and the question) 

If the husky doesn't come running up to the GSD - no fight and thus no shot.

Why didn't the husky handler call his dog and then the husky would have immediately left the GSD and gone back to the handler and thus no shot!

Maybe NO Control of the husky?


----------



## GermanPrinceHero

There is not enough info here to make assumptions. I have been trained in law enforcement myself. If this "Fed" (on or off duty) thought his personal safety was being threatened then lethal force would be the first and only step possible when it comes to an aggressive dog if there was no pepper spray available. Sure, there were probably other options, but he may have been green and went straight for the way he was trained. It may not be right, but I can't see any legal fault in that. If an 8 year old is coming straight at me with what looks like a gun pointed in my direction, I have many options. My choice would be to yell and do everything to keep from getting shot, but I would take the bullet if the gun does end up being real vs. shooting a child. But if someone that follows what they are trained to do ends up killing a child with a cap gun, they have not broken a law. The 2 senarios are not exactly the same, but the outcome is very similar. Any such case will call for a mandatory investigation, but that does not mean the officer was at fault.


----------



## APBTLove

Even if it WAS a fight, the German Shepherd is not hurt. If there is a scuffle going on there are better ways to break it up! One dog was already leashed - drag him out of the park! 

I would shoot a dog who was mauling my dog. Not one who was tussling with him.


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> If the husky doesn't come running up to the GSD - no fight and thus no shot.


It's a freaking dog park. Dogs run up to other dogs ALL THE DANG TIME. And likewise, if the other dog wasn't on the leash...

Again, if every dog was shot who got vocal with another dog, there wouldn't be many dogs left. That isn't missing the point. I've been going to dog parks for years and there have been many skirmishes. Not one dog was shot. Why? Because people there didn't have guns to whip out. It's funny how one finds a way to break up a fight when they don't have a gun.

Honestly, do you think this warranted a shot dog? No blood, no injuries. Simple dogs being vocal and working out their rank. And this dude whips out a gun? Seriously?



> Maybe NO Control of the husky?


Most people at the dog park don't have control of their dogs. I wish they did but you have a lot of inexperienced people who go there which is why many people on this forum won't go. 

Bottom line, a dog doesn't deserve to get shot over this. It was a dog fight that resulted in no injuries or blood expect what was caused BY A BULLET!!!


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> Is it a crime to have a dog on-leash temporarilly in an off lead park?


No, but it's stupid and reckless. It also speaks to the LEO's inexperience* if he did that*. And if his actions contributed to a fight, he's partly to blame. And you don't shoot a dog for your own stupidity especially when your own life isn't at stake. There are consequences for that behavior.

You don't draw your gun, while off duty, at a public dog park, for a dog fight that resulted in no injuries aside from what the bullet did to the other dog.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

IllinoisNative said:


> No, but it's stupid and reckless. It also speaks to the LEO's inexperience* if he did that*. And if his actions contributed to a fight, he's partly to blame. And you don't shoot a dog for your own stupidity especially when your own life isn't at stake. There are consequences for that behavior.
> 
> You don't draw your gun, while off duty, at a public dog park, for a dog fight that resulted in no injuries aside from what the bullet did to the other dog.


Well said.


----------



## codmaster

IllinoisNative said:


> It's a freaking dog park. Dogs run up to other dogs ALL THE DANG TIME. And likewise, if the other dog wasn't on the leash... *Nice to know the facts, wouldn't it be? But not if they get in the way of your beliefs!*
> 
> Again, if every dog was shot who got vocal with another dog, there wouldn't be many dogs left. That isn't missing the point. I've been going to dog parks for years and there have been many skirmishes. Not one dog was shot. Why? Because people there didn't have guns to whip out. It's funny how one finds a way to break up a fight when they don't have a gun.
> 
> Honestly, do you think this warranted a shot dog?*Don't know as Iwasn't there and I don't feel qualified to judge a dog fight if I didn't see any of it. But more power to you if you do feel so qualified!* No blood, no injuries. Simple dogs being vocal and working out their rank. And this dude whips out a gun? Seriously? *Ever think that there were no injuries BECAUSE the husky was shot BEFORE he could draw blood from the GSD or vice versa? Think!*
> 
> 
> 
> Most people at the dog park don't have control of their dogs.* Then they shouldn't not bring their dog to the dog park!* I wish they did but you have a lot of inexperienced people who go there which is why many people on this forum won't go. *Isn't the lack of experience of the GSD owner what folks on this forum are blaming him for?????*
> 
> Bottom line, a dog doesn't deserve to get shot over this. It was a dog fight that resulted in no injuries or blood expect what was caused BY A BULLET!!!


If a dog attacks another dog, and whether the husky did or not depends on whom you believe, then he deserves what he got. If the husky did not attack, then the cop should compensate, at least for the cost of the dog, the husky owners.

Was it a dog fight or a "skirmish"? You should be a little consistent.

Do I agree that the dog should not have been shot? I admit I don't know - it depends on whose version of the incident that you believe. Would I have shot or whacked the other dog on the head with a stick IF I thought that my dog was being attacked and was in danger of serious injury, d#$N right I would.

Would you? Your decision, isn't it? But think about whether your dog would risk it's life for you if you were attacked!


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> And the nice thing is that you can believe whoever you want and slant the incident however you want.
> 
> Have you even considered the fact that there would have been no dog shot if the husky didn't "come running up to" a leashed dog either. Do you think that had something to do with the way the incident developed?


I am not slanting the incident in any way.

When I used to take my dogs to dog park, we would go into a little enclosed area, unleash our dogs, and then open another gate which led into the dog park. There were always dogs there ready to greet my dogs or running up to them. But I guess I should have shot them since they ran up to my dogs(in a non-aggressive way.).

This man did nothing to break up the "fight" and he didn't really know dog behavior. All he said was stop and shot the dog, stood there watched the dog bleed to death.

\If you go to a dog park chances are that you will come across dogs that are not controlled by their owners, and you will see stupid owners, and you will meet good dogs and good owners.


----------



## codmaster

IllinoisNative said:


> No, but it's stupid and reckless. It also speaks to the LEO's inexperience* if he did that*. And if his actions contributed to a fight, he's partly to blame. .............
> ......................QUOTE]
> 
> It is also incredibily stupid, reckless and negligent to have a dog the size and temperament of a husky and have no control over that dog and let him loose in a dog park, don't you think?
> 
> Do you think that the husky's actions contributed to the dog fight and ensuing shot due to the fear of the LEO? Or maybe it was totally the fault of the GSD?


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> If a dog attacks another dog, and whether the husky did or not depends on whom you believe, then he deserves what he got. If the husky did not attack, then the cop should compensate, at least for the cost of the dog, the husky owners.
> 
> Was it a dog fight or a "skirmish"? You should be a little consistent.
> 
> Do I agree that the dog should not have been shot? I admit I don't know - it depends on whose version of the incident that you believe. Would I have shot or whacked the other dog on the head with a stick IF I thought that my dog was being attacked and was in danger of serious injury, d#$N right I would.
> 
> Would you? Your decision, isn't it? But think about whether your dog would risk it's life for you if you were attacked!


Many articles say the dogs were not fighting, and there are witnesses to this incident that also say the dogs were not fighting. The dog was innocent and did not deserve this at all.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> IllinoisNative said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but it's stupid and reckless. It also speaks to the LEO's inexperience* if he did that*. And if his actions contributed to a fight, he's partly to blame. .............
> ......................QUOTE]
> 
> It is also incredibily stupid, reckless and negligent to have a dog the size and temperament of a husky and have no control over that dog and let him loose in a dog park, don't you think?
> 
> Do you think that the husky's actions contributed to the dog fight and ensuing shot due to the fear of the LEO? Or maybe it was totally the fault of the GSD?
> 
> 
> 
> It was a off leash dog park, the dog has been there before and no one said the dog was a problem.The husky was under control.
> 
> Now you are saying there was a dog fight? THe husky was just greeting the dog. The owner of the GSD is at fault not the dogs(neither dog is at fault)
Click to expand...


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> It is also incredibily stupid, reckless and negligent to have a dog the size and temperament of a husky and have no control over that dog and let him loose in a dog park, don't you think?


Um, did the stupid and reckless husky owner have a gun and shoot another dog? Um, no. So while both may have done stupid and reckless things, only ONE person had a gun to whip out and end the situation. Hence one person being at fault. And what the heck do you mean the temperament of a husky? How about the termperament of a GSD? I've owned both. 

And aside from the LEO's account, who's to say the dogs were fighting? There is certainly is no evidence of it. No injuries, no scratches, no bites, no blood, no witnessess. But we do have a dead dog.



> Do you think that the husky's actions contributed to the dog fight and ensuing shot due to the fear of the LEO? Or maybe it was totally the fault of the GSD?


Having a dog on leash can instigate a dog fight. Period. I have a leash reactive dog. I'm not just speaking out of my butt. My dog DOES instigate fights because of the tention created when he pulls on the leash...whether it's out of excitement, fear, whatever. Even a non-aggressive dog can cause a fight while being on leash. You don't allow the dog to flee thus the dog has no alternative but to fight. 

Nobody is saying there was malice. But there was a situation between two dogs and only one owner had a gun. And he used it...IN A PUBLIC PLACE...to stop a dog fight. 

And there is no evidence there was even a fight since there were no injuries. So, exactly, how was it warranted to pull out a flipping gun? Who does that?


----------



## Syaoransbear

codmaster said:


> So now it is the dog on leash who caused the fight? *Unbelievable!* Have you considered if the husky doesn't run up to the leashed dog? - no incident!
> 
> BTW, I never have seen a dog that showed both dominance and anxiety at the same time - but that is probably just me. I am sure you must have if you can diagnose such a condition at such a long distance.
> 
> The husky owner should be compensated for his dog IF it can be proven that the dog did not act aggressively because he/she did initiate the contact by running up to the GSD.


Anxiety can mean just anxious to do something, as in the german shepherd was anxious to meet the dog. 

There are witnesses claiming the dogs were just playing, the description the officer gave is a description of play, neither dog had any injuries, the husky has no history of any aggression towards people or dogs, and he was well liked at the dog park. What more proof do you need? The officer's job is on the line. Why SHOULD we take his side of the story? Just because he's an officer? He won't be anymore if he admits that he did overreact and didn't understand what was happening. 

I don't doubt he feared for the safety of his dog because he comes off as so inexperienced with dog on dog behavior, but I very, very much doubt he feared for his own life.


----------



## shilorio

that makes me so angry! WTH! ugh stupid ignorant people.. that poor dog..


----------



## jjones22

selzer said:


> Bringing a firearm in isn't dangerous, using it is.
> 
> No one would be defending this guy if he was an ordinary citizen pulling out his gun and shooting a dog in a dog park -- especially with no marks on either dog.
> 
> I have broken up fights all alone between 75 pound bitches, and 80 pound dogs. Bitches were worse, blood, and all. I was not trained for this either. I did not use a gun.
> 
> This guy had the other dog's person, himself, and his wife. This dog did not need to be shot.


you couldn't have said it better. I actually know this guy and work with him. He is currently on administrative leave. I am a MP in the Army. He needs his license to carry, badge and career taken from him. Not to mention some time in jail. The man is a trigger happy moron that jumps at any chance to use his gun. And loves to brag about how he just ruined someone's day by writing them a ticket or something. There was ABSOLUTELY no reason to use a hollow point 9mm to break up what he thought was a dog fight. Now, as an MP I've seen what a GSD's jaws can do to another fleshy area. The officer in question's dog IS, in fact, a retired MWD. With no marks on either dog, there was no fight.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

jjones22 said:


> you couldn't have said it better. I actually know this guy and work with him. He is currently on administrative leave. I am a MP in the Army. He needs his license to carry, badge and career taken from him. Not to mention some time in jail. The man is a trigger happy moron that jumps at any chance to use his gun. And loves to brag about how he just ruined someone's day by writing them a ticket or something. There was ABSOLUTELY no reason to use a hollow point 9mm to break up what he thought was a dog fight. Now, as an MP I've seen what a GSD's jaws can do to another fleshy area. The officer in question's dog IS, in fact, a retired MWD. With no marks on either dog, there was no fight.


Now this post actually helps alot. Thank you for your input.


----------



## jjones22

*Help out*

This officer in question needs swift and harsh judgment.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/justice-foe-bear-bear/


----------



## codmaster

IllinoisNative said:


> Um, did the stupid and reckless husky owner have a gun and shoot another dog? *Actually, the husky owner was not even present in the dog park was he? Read the article and you will see what I mean.*
> *The husky handler just did not have any control of his dog and let him run up on the evidently inexperienced owner of the GSD who still had him on a leash before he could remove the leash.*
> Um, no. So while both may have done stupid and reckless things, only ONE person had a gun to whip out and end the situation. Hence one person being at fault. And what the heck do you mean the temperament of a husky? How about the termperament of a GSD? I've owned both. *Good for you, then you know how much huskies are dog fighters, don't you? *
> 
> *BTW, what about the temperament of a GSD? that they don't like dogs who come rushing up at them? Mine doesn't either and would probably fight if another male dog did that to him also.*
> 
> And aside from the LEO's account, who's to say the dogs were fighting? There is certainly is no evidence of it. No injuries, no scratches, no bites, no blood, no witnessess. But we do have a dead dog.
> *Who is to say that they weren't fighting? *
> 
> 
> Having a dog on leash can instigate a dog fight. Period. I have a leash reactive dog. I'm not just speaking out of my butt. My dog DOES instigate fights because of the tention created when he pulls on the leash...whether it's out of excitement, fear, whatever. Even a non-aggressive dog can cause a fight while being on leash. You don't allow the dog to flee thus the dog has no alternative but to fight.
> 
> Nobody is saying there was malice. But there was a situation between two dogs and only one owner had a gun. And he used it...IN A PUBLIC PLACE...to stop a dog fight. *The only dog owner involved also had his dog under control on a leash, the other poor dog was not under control of anybody eveidently.*
> 
> And there is no evidence there was even a fight since there were no injuries. So, exactly, how was it warranted to pull out a flipping gun? Who does that?


As to evidence of a dog fight, what about the testimoney of the LEO - you may choose for your own reasons not to believe it but it does constitute evidencce!

You do sound like you need to chill, at least a little bit!

BTW you make a big issue that this was in a PUBLIC place - are you suggesting it would have been ok or at least less of a tragedy if it had occured in a PRIVATE place? i.e. a privately owned dog park?


----------



## codmaster

jjones22 said:


> This officer in question needs swift and harsh judgment.
> 
> http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/justice-foe-bear-bear/


Sounded like a totally non slanted non judgemental news reporting!


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> As to evidence of a dog fight, what about the testimoney of the LEO - you may choose for your own reasons not to believe it but it does constitute evidencce!
> 
> You do sound like you need to chill, at least a little bit!
> 
> *BTW you make a big issue that this was in a PUBLIC place - are you suggesting it would have been ok or at least less of a tragedy if it had occured in a PRIVATE place? i.e. a privately owned dog park?*


You are just asking questions and people are telling you the same thing. There is NO evidence of a dog fight at all. Huskies are not dog fighting dogs. Also not all GSDs hate having dogs come up to them. My male doesn't mind other dogs coming up to him.

No, it is a public more people and dogs are present of all different lifestyles and such. Public or private it would be just as dangerous.


----------



## selzer

Thanks James. 

Codmaster, you need to do a study on dog parks, what types of dogs and people go to these parks. There are dog parks and dog parks. But the majority have a group of dogs that are very used to running around and playing with other dogs. 

Bear-bear was a regular at the dog park. You really cannot get to be a regular at a dog park and be aggressive. There are idiot owners, that just cannot believe their dog is causing all the problems, but the other regulars at the dog parks shun these people to the point that it is no fun to take their dog there anymore. 

Running around in a field with other dogs amps dogs up. They run around and jostle with other dogs. Your recall can literally go to the fiery pit in such circumstances. Most dog park dogs are not obedience champions, utility dogs, schutzhund dogs, etc. They are usually pets who may have some basic obedience classes or a CGC, but that is not their point in their owner's lives. 

They go to the park, because they have taken the dog there since it was a puppy and the dog loves to run around and play with its own kind. 

If Bear's handler was given an opportunity to come forward and take hold of his dog, it could have stopped the whole incident, but this was not the case. 

The fact that an off-lead dog ran up to a dog in an off-lead dog park is not a problem, and should not be allowed to stand as a problem. If someone wants to go over and above the call of duty and take hold of their dog while another enters and is unleashed, well that is very considerate and probably a good thought. But shooting someone's dog because he was not as considerate as you might think he should be is terrible. 

Someone new to the dog park experience is likely to want to keep his dog tethered and close to him so that they can avoid problems if they are to arise. One of the well-informed people explained the issues with a dog being leashed in an off lead area, but you think it is blaming the victim. This is because you really do not know. 

It takes an instant to unclip your lead. This guy and his wife did not want to do this because they were unfamiliar with the entire scene. 

They basically went into an unknown environment, created a situation by keeping the dog on-lead, and then decided it was hostile and shot a dog. 

I see blaming the husky or the person with the husky for this is repulsive. Someone has to be at fault, the shooter is some type of LEO, the shooter cannot be at fault, it must be the fault of the dead dog and devastated handler.


----------



## codmaster

Jessiewessie99 said:


> You are just asking questions and people are telling you the same thing. There is NO evidence of a dog fight at all. Huskies are not dog fighting dogs. Also not all GSDs hate having dogs come up to them. My male doesn't mind other dogs coming up to him.
> 
> No, it is a public more people and dogs are present of all different lifestyles and such. Public or private it would be just as dangerous.


Jessie, I admire your faith, not so much the judgement.

BTW, I never said that ALL GSD's don't want other dogs coming rushing up to them, but some would react to that action of rude dogs. It is a great way to trigger a reaction in many dogs.

BTW2, so it sounds like you are also ignoring the eyewitness evidence of a dog fight from the LEO. that of course is your right to do so but you should admit that not say there was NO evidence of a fight when one person who was really there says there was a fight.

Were you one of the folks here mentioning how terrible it was for a duly appointed LEO to carry and to discharge a firearm in a PUBLIC place? I coudn't really see why it was worse to do it in a public place than in a private place.


----------



## selzer

Codmaster, please keep yourself, your dog, and your gun out of off lead parks and you will probably not have to shoot a dog in an off lead park.


----------



## selzer

If I had to call my brother and tell him that his dog has been shot while I was out with it, it would be a terrible thing. 

The poor dog. 

The poor handler to have had to witness this and take blame from people with no understanding about dog parks.

The poor owner who had rescued this dog and gave it a good home. 

All because someone who didn't know what he was doing, was quick to pull his gun and blast his way out of a situation.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> Thanks James.
> 
> Codmaster, you need to do a study on dog parks, what types of dogs and people go to these parks. *I already know what a lot of them are like from paying attention to other threads on this site!* There are dog parks and dog parks. But the majority have a group of dogs that are very used to running around and playing with other dogs.
> 
> Bear-bear was a regular at the dog park. You really cannot get to be a regular at a dog park and be aggressive. *Huh!* There are idiot owners, that just cannot believe their dog is causing all the problems, but the other regulars at the dog parks shun these people to the point that it is no fun to take their dog there anymore.
> 
> Running around in a field with other dogs amps dogs up. They run around and jostle with other dogs. Your recall can literally go to the fiery pit in such circumstances. *OH!* Most dog park dogs are not obedience champions, utility dogs, schutzhund dogs, etc. They are usually pets who may have some basic obedience classes or a CGC, but that is not their point in their owner's lives. *So they are "out of control" in the park - that sounds really good.*
> 
> They go to the park, because they have taken the dog there since it was a puppy and the dog loves to run around and play with its own kind.
> 
> If Bear's handler was given an opportunity to come forward and take hold of his dog, it could have stopped the whole incident, but this was not the case. *Exactly how long was he given? I assume due to your judgement that you are aware of this number, right? Or did you maybe make your own assumption?*
> 
> 
> The fact that an off-lead dog ran up to a dog in an off-lead dog park is not a problem, and should not be allowed to stand as a problem. If someone wants to go over and above the call of duty and take hold of their dog while another enters and is unleashed, well that is very considerate and probably a good thought. But shooting someone's dog because he was not as considerate as you might think he should be is terrible. *Wasn't shot for a "lack of consideration' he was shot because in the eyes of the owner of the other dog he was attacking, or did I mis understand again?*
> 
> Someone new to the dog park experience is likely to want to keep his dog tethered and close to him so that they can avoid problems if they are to arise. One of the well-informed people explained the issues with a dog being leashed in an off lead area, but you think it is blaming the victim. This is because you really do not know. *Thank &^& that you do know!*
> 
> It takes an instant to unclip your lead. This guy and his wife did not want to do this because they were unfamiliar with the entire scene.
> 
> They basically went into an unknown environment, created a situation by keeping the dog on-lead, and then decided it was hostile and shot a dog.
> 
> I see blaming the husky or the person with the husky for this is repulsive. Someone has to be at fault, the shooter is some type of LEO, the shooter cannot be at fault, it must be the fault of the dead dog and devastated handler. *Let me guess! You naturally would reject the idea that both were at least partly responsible, right?*


No I am afraid that I do not "need to study dog parks". They are an invitation to disaster in most cases due to all of the uncontrolled owners, handlers and dogs that are often found in them. People bring dogs in to parks and have absolutely no control over them. CA has rules at most if not all that no unneutered males over 6 months can be in a dog park - a clear attempt to reduce fighting. Many many people here on this forum have related tales of attacks at dog parks. 

This particular case was a real tragedy, no doubt, for a number of people and is unfortunately a picture of what can go wrong in a dog park. Many folks have taken up a very emotional side of it, and very understandably so.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> Codmaster, please keep yourself, your dog, and your gun out of off lead parks and you will probably not have to shoot a dog in an off lead park.


I do not go to dog parks - my dog is intact and most CA parks don't allow them in parks. Plus I don't believe they are a very good place to take him with way too many people having no control of their dogs and that can only lead to dog fights and the ensuing problems! Too many idiot owners as well!

Too many folks in dog parks saying "My dog is friendly"! Been there, done that!

Selzer, you will be glad to know that I do not consider it necessary to even own a gun at this time soo can't shoot anyone at all. I do understand though that you do own a gun so could really shoot someone or even a dog.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> Jessie, I admire your faith, not so much the judgement.
> 
> BTW, I never said that ALL GSD's don't want other dogs coming rushing up to them, but some would react to that action of rude dogs. It is a great way to trigger a reaction in many dogs.
> 
> BTW2,* so it sounds like you are also ignoring the eyewitness evidence of a dog fight from the LEO.* that of course is your right to do so but you should admit that not say there was NO evidence of a fight when one person who was really there says there was a fight.
> 
> Were you one of the folks here mentioning how terrible it was for a duly appointed LEO to carry and to discharge a firearm in a PUBLIC place? I coudn't really see why it was worse to do it in a public place than in a private place.


You are twisting my words. I said if you have a gun in a public or private area where people are present then you need to be careful. He is not really a witness he caused it.

The witnesses I ma talking about are te other people who were at the dog park and said that there was NO DOG FIGHT. The Husky was being friendly and had never shown aggression and was never a problem at the park before.

The LEO really didn't need to shoot the husky.He was overreacting. He seems like the kind of guy who is a trigger happy guy trying to look all tough when all he did was cause a tragedy.


----------



## selzer

codmaster said:


> I do not go to dog parks - my dog is intact and most CA parks don't allow them in parks. Plus I don't believe they are a very good place to take him with way too many people having no control of their dogs and that can only lead to dog fights and the ensuing problems! Too many idiot owners as well!
> 
> Too many folks in dog parks saying "My dog is friendly"! Been there, done that!
> 
> Selzer, you will be glad to know that I do not consider it necessary to even own a gun at this time soo can't shoot anyone at all. I do understand though that you do own a gun so could really shoot someone or even a dog.


 
I keep forgetting your from CA. 

So now I am a bad guy for owning a shotgun. This stupid scenario could not have taken place with a shotgun. 

But from your posts, your dog probably should not go to an off-lead dog-park. Sorry, has nothing to do with the other idiot owners. It is more about your dog not liking to be approached, and your not having control of the dog if it feels threatened, you cannot keep it behind you, etc. So, for now your dog is not a good candidate for an off-lead park, at least not in the general population. 

Many of those idiot owners have perfectly normal dogs that get along with dogs. But because people, some of them GSD owners, take reactive dogs to parks, or dogs that do not like being approached, well, suddenly these people with friendly dogs are idiots. Some dog/handler teams do not belong in these parks. 

People in areas where dogs are required to be on lead, who have dogs run up to them have every right to be insensed. 

People in off-lead areas, should not be there if their dog is not trustworthy.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> I keep forgetting *your* from CA. *I used to live in Ohio. Are you a native Buckeye?*
> 
> So now I am a *bad guy* for owning a shotgun. *Nope! not in my thought, but those are your words.* This stupid scenario could not have taken place with a shotgun. *Why not? - you said that you could shoot a dog with your gun, didn't you? If it was "sick and vicsious", as I think I remember.*
> 
> But from your posts, your dog probably should not go to an off-lead dog-park. Sorry, has nothing to do with the *other idiot owners*. *Please don't be sorry about you recommending that I don't go to dog parks. I appreciate the thought and agree with it entirely.* It is more about your dog not liking to be approached, and your not having control of the dog if it feels threatened, you cannot keep it behind you, etc. *No, he considers it his job to protect me, unlike a lot of dogs that are mentioned on here by some people. *
> 
> *I guess that your dog(s) will stay behind your legs when there is a threat to you and them?*
> 
> So, for now *your dog is not a good candidate for an off-lead park*, at least not in the general population. *Never would be, and thank you for recognizing it. BTW, you might want to try to read the posts here a little more carefully, I never said that my dog did not like to be approached - just that he did not like another dog to be rude and to run up to him. He is generally very well behaved and trustworthy with dogs that approach him politely and under control, not to mention all puppies and kids. I also recognize that he is not real reliable off lead just yet and treat him accordingly. Pity that everyone doesn't recognize it in their dogs.*
> 
> Many of *those idiot owners* have perfectly normal dogs that get along with dogs. But because people, some of them GSD owners, take reactive dogs to parks, or dogs that do not like being approached, well, suddenly these people with friendly dogs are idiots. *Your words, huh?*
> 
> *Some dog/handler teams do not belong in these parks.* *Finally I agree with something that you said!*
> 
> People in areas where dogs are required to be on lead, who have dogs run up to them have every right to be insensed. *Interesting. Why would you say that?*
> 
> People in off-lead areas, should not be there if their dog is not trustworthy. *Exactly!*


*What if mine is trustworthy and the one running up to him is not?*


----------



## Kayla's Dad

codmaster said:


> I do not go to dog parks - my dog is intact and most CA parks don't allow them in parks.


Not sure what part of CA you're referring to or what you basing this on. I'd like to see or know about it. Unless you're referring to private parks which I don't think are too numerous here, I find this statement is pretty much incorrect, based on my experiences in So. Calif and here in the Bay Area.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

Kayla's Dad said:


> Not sure what part of CA you're referring to or what you basing this on. I'd like to see or know about it. Unless you're referring to private parks which I don't think are too numerous here, I find this statement is pretty much incorrect, based on my experiences in So. Calif and here in the Bay Area.


I know, I have never seen anything like that at the one I went to.


----------



## VitaBene

*Breathe and Blink*

Guys, someone is going to need to blink on this one, the posts are becoming redundant.

The bottom line from these almost 40 pages (in my mind anyway) is that while the LEO had every right to carry where and when he did he was most likely not justified to fire his weapon in this scenario. 

As a responsible gun owner and licensed concealed carrier, I know that I need to be well justified to even show my CCW, let alone present it or fire it. 

Peace everyone!


----------



## IllinoisNative

Jessiewessie99 said:


> There is NO evidence of a dog fight at all. Huskies are not dog fighting dogs. Also not all GSDs hate having dogs come up to them.


Thank you.



> No, it is a public more people and dogs are present of all different lifestyles and such. Public or private it would be just as dangerous.


Thank you.



jjones22 said:


> you couldn't have said it better. I actually know this guy and work with him. He is currently on administrative leave. I am a MP in the Army. He needs his license to carry, badge and career taken from him. Not to mention some time in jail.* The man is a trigger happy moron that jumps at any chance to use his gun*. And loves to brag about how he just ruined someone's day by writing them a ticket or something. There was ABSOLUTELY no reason to use a hollow point 9mm to break up what *he thought was a dog fight*. Now, as an MP I've seen what a GSD's jaws can do to another fleshy area. The officer in question's dog IS, in fact, a retired MWD.* With no marks on either dog, there was no fight*.


Thank you for your perspective. 



VitaBene said:


> while the LEO had every right to carry where and when he did he was most likely not justified to fire his weapon in this scenario.


That pretty much sums it up.


----------



## Bridget

I just can't believe it. What are we coming to?


----------



## Caledon

Has there been any updates to the status. Was he ever investigated further and charged?


----------



## arycrest

Caledon said:


> Has there been any updates to the status. Was he ever investigated further and charged?


Here's an August 10, update from THE BALTIMORE SUN:
Two Anne Arundel prosecutors assigned to dog shooting probe - Baltimore Sun

In a nutshell, the article says, "Two prosecutors have been assigned to work with police on the investigation into the shooting of a Siberian husky Aug. 2 at the private dog park in the Quail Run community in Severn, the Anne Arundel County state's attorney said Tuesday."

""It is still under investigation," Frank R. Weathersbee said, with prosecutors and county police investigators working together on the case."

The article went on to state, "Nothing prohibits the shooter, a civilian police officer employed by the Army at Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall in Northern Virginia, from carrying his service or personal weapon off-post, according to a spokeswoman for military officials at the post. "

"The weapon used in the shooting was the man's personal weapon, police said. Police said Friday that the officer's legal authority to carry a personal firearm was "questionable." "


----------



## jjones22

codmaster said:


> Sounded like a totally non slanted non judgemental news reporting!


I am an officer and I know the person. I work with him on a regular basis. He is an arrogant ****** that goes around looking for trouble while he's on duty. I for one would not trust this guy as far as i can throw him so his statement is pretty much garbage.


----------



## k9ma

Wow. So he's in a dog park when...surprise...a DOG comes towards him. He is so stunned at this turn of events that his first reaction is to open fire in an enclosed area populated by people and animals. According to the first article, he does not try to shoo the dog, pull his own dog away, or even kick the husky, but KILL it. Just, wow.


----------



## robinhuerta

I just absolutely hate dog parks......too many weirdos and accidents waiting to happen. I think the "normal, average" dog owner & their beloved pets, are the ones who become the "casualties" in these places......just plain sad.


----------



## codmaster

jjones22 said:


> I am an officer and I know the person. I work with him on a regular basis. He is an arrogant ****** that goes around looking for trouble while he's on duty. I for one would not trust this guy as far as i can throw him so his statement is pretty much garbage.


That might explain a lot of what happened!


----------



## DFrost

codmaster said:


> That might explain a lot of what happened!


Maybe so, but to trash a brother officer in a public forum while he's being investigated!!!!!!! AND from someone that works with him. Yeah he's got his back. I wonder if that department has an IA section, they are always looking for helpful officers. Cheese anyone?????? 

DFrost


----------



## mazza

I really don't want to sound ignorant or offend but what the heck? some of the things I hear from your side of the pond are well just crazy dogs getting shot, kids getting shot, yes I am aware that it goes on in other places but every day I am hearing these things, I weep at the thought


----------



## IllinoisNative

DFrost said:


> Maybe so, but to trash a brother officer in a public forum while he's being investigated!!!!!!!


And, IMO, that is part of why people brought up cops defending each other..."brother officer." If the guy was wrong, he's wrong. And I'd expect him to be called out on it whether you work with him or not. That just further confirms the mentality that they should stick together no matter what. He may be investigated but, if this other officer knows what his temperament is and knows about him personally, I applaud him for speaking out. After all, the dead dog can't speak for himself. 

Besides, if a "brother officer" is willing to speak out, the LEO obviously isn't making friends which speaks volumes.

I wish more people did this and then corruption wouldn't be so rampant.

JMO


----------



## DFrost

IllinoisNative said:


> And,
> Besides, if a "brother officer" is willing to speak out, the LEO obviously isn't making friends which speaks volumes.
> 
> I wish more people did this and then corruption wouldn't be so rampant.
> 
> JMO


 
So just because this guy claims he knows the man, claims he is garbage (his words) says he looks for trouble ( his claim) has he reported the guy. Does the guy have a history of causing trouble. Do his performance reports indicate he is garbage. That is why I said what I said. If he is concerned about this officer he needs to bring it to his superiors, not hide behind some screen name and make accusations on some dog forum. 

DFrost (my real name)


----------



## StellaSquash

DFrost said:


> So just because this guy claims he knows the man, claims he is garbage (his words) says he looks for trouble ( his claim) has he reported the guy. Does the guy have a history of causing trouble. Do his performance reports indicate he is garbage. That is why I said what I said. If he is concerned about this officer he needs to bring it to his superiors, not hide behind some screen name and make accusations on some dog forum.
> 
> DFrost (my real name)


doesn't that then make it much harder on the "whistle blower" for "squealing" on his "brother"???

I can see why a fellow cop would be awfully hard pressed and torn over reporting a cop.


----------



## IllinoisNative

DFrost said:


> So just because this guy claims he knows the man, claims he is garbage (his words) says he looks for trouble ( his claim) has he reported the guy. Does the guy have a history of causing trouble. Do his performance reports indicate he is garbage. That is why I said what I said. If he is concerned about this officer he needs to bring it to his superiors, not hide behind some screen name and make accusations on some dog forum.


I understand that and I agree with that point. I was only taking issue with the "brother officer." I guess it was the phraseology that bothered me more than the accusation that he may not be a "real" friend of the LEO.

You're point is well taken. I just don't like the suggestion that he shouldn't have said anything to us because of the "brother officer" code. Stuff like that is why people think cops protect each other even at the expense of the public.

And, no, I don't mean all cops or even the majority of them. I don't think that is the case at all. I just find it funny given how this thread started out and the accusations made. 

I liken it to the priest scandal. Not in terms of crimes but in terms of handling things "in house" vs. letting the public know. IMO, there should be full disclosure when the public is involved.
JMO


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

IllinoisNative said:


> And, IMO, that is part of why people brought up cops defending each other..."brother officer." If the guy was wrong, he's wrong. And I'd expect him to be called out on it whether you work with him or not. That just further confirms the mentality that they should stick together no matter what. He may be investigated but, if this other officer knows what his temperament is and knows about him personally, I applaud him for speaking out. After all, the dead dog can't speak for himself.
> 
> Besides, if a "brother officer" is willing to speak out, the LEO obviously isn't making friends which speaks volumes.
> 
> I wish more people did this and then corruption wouldn't be so rampant.
> 
> JMO


They "claim" to know the person. Can anyone confirm that he actually does? 

If this particular officer has such an issue with the discussed officer he should have went to his superiors long ago. More than likley the discussed officers record doesnt show one issue. Temperment means nothing if the officer doesnt ever break procedure. 

When somone does somthing stupid you know to distance yourself as much as possible from the incident and you leave your comments to yourself.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

IllinoisNative said:


> I understand that and I agree with that point. I was only taking issue with the "brother officer." I guess it was the phraseology that bothered me more than the accusation that he may not be a "real" friend of the LEO.
> 
> You're point is well taken. I just don't like the suggestion that he shouldn't have said anything to us because of the "brother officer" code. Stuff like that is why people think cops protect each other even at the expense of the public.
> 
> And, no, I don't mean all cops or even the majority of them. I don't think that is the case at all. I just find it funny given how this thread started out and the accusations made.
> 
> JMO


In the military everyone is your "brother". When it comes to police work it isnt any different. These are the people that you may spend more time with than your own family. These are the people you may have to call on to back you up one day when your in a life or death situation. You have to be that close and willing to protect each other. There are those out there that are out to do anything they can to ruin an officers life. The media accentuates this. They pick and choose the stories they want to run. 

Like I said before this is only to a certain extent. There is a line and when crossed you can not defend the other officer. Some just take this line a lot further than others. These are the stories that make the news though, not how many lives were saved that day due to an officers bravery.


----------



## codmaster

DFrost said:


> Maybe so, but to trash a brother officer in a public forum while he's being investigated!!!!!!! AND from someone that works with him. Yeah he's got his back. I wonder if that department has an IA section, they are always looking for helpful officers. Cheese anyone??????
> 
> DFrost


 
Likewise, a good point!


----------



## DFrost

I'll take it one step further. If this new poster is so sure the "shooter" is garbage and nothing but a trouble maker, and he's done nothing to bring it to the attention of his superiors, he's partly at fault. Perhaps had he reported this officer, none of this would have happened. The dog would still be alive, the department wouldn't have embarrassed, corruption would be wiped out and all in the world would be whole again. I question the professionalism of anyone that would allow someone to continue in a position of trust if they knew they shouldn't be there. 

DFrost


----------



## Jessiewessie99

What this man does needs to be known to the public. But yes proof of actually knowing the guy will help. If I knew someone in my squad was doing something wrong and nobody said anything I would tell my superiors and not hide or protect my "brother", to he won't be a brother if he did something wrong.

So JJones, if you could, please provide evidence that you know this man.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

DFrost said:


> I'll take it one step further. If this new poster is so sure the "shooter" is garbage and nothing but a trouble maker, and he's done nothing to bring it to the attention of his superiors, he's partly at fault. Perhaps had he reported this officer, none of this would have happened. The dog would still be alive, the department wouldn't have embarrassed, corruption would be wiped out and all in the world would be whole again.
> 
> DFrost


Departments do anything about officers that were brought to their attention and did nothing about it.That is why reporting to superiors sometimes doesn't work.


----------



## IllinoisNative

DFrost said:


> I'll take it one step further. If this new poster is so sure the "shooter" is garbage and nothing but a trouble maker, and he's done nothing to bring it to the attention of his superiors, he's partly at fault.


Good point. I agree with that.

Of course, the "pressure" to not turn a "brother" in is incredibly strong...and not just with the police force. It doesn't take away the moral responsibility, however.


----------



## IllinoisNative

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> In the military everyone is your "brother". When it comes to police work it isnt any different.


I'm not disagreeing with that. It was also the context in which it was used..."speaking out against their brother during an investigation" that I took issue with.

It was saying one shouldn't do this to their "brother" which leaves the impression that you "don't do that." And if one of my "brothers" did what he did, he wouldn't be my brother no matter what my occupation.

I get that it's the nature of their relationship. What I don't get is that one shouldn't be outed because he is a "brother."


----------



## Syaoransbear

The comment from the person claiming they know the officer should have no bearing on this discussion. Come on, this is the internet. That could be a 12 year old girl posting. The comment should be disregarded and isn't proof of anything, imo.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

IllinoisNative said:


> I'm not disagreeing with that. It was also the context in which it was used..."speaking out against their brother during an investigation" that I took issue with.
> 
> It was saying one shouldn't do this to their "brother" which leaves the impression that you "don't do that." And if one of my "brothers" did what he did, he wouldn't be my brother no matter what my occupation.
> 
> I get that it's the nature of their relationship. What I don't get is that one shouldn't be outed because he is a "brother."


It is all in how you look at it. During an investigation NO ONE should be saying anything. The reasoning for this is that anything that is said about that person during the investigation can and will be taken into consideration. The information could be just somones accusation. In the possibility that an officer may be innocent but the evidence may be threading a fine line in his favor could be turned by just an accusation. It could cost them thier job or worse. 

Let me ask what you would do in this situation. Say you arrested an idividual for a rape. The DA gets them off on some sort of technicality. You know the individual was guilty though. Say one night another officer catches the guy for somthing simple, but the officer plants some additional evidence to make the charges worse to help get them off the street. You know what they did. Would you turn them in for it or would you go along with you partners story against the allegations the perp would bring? 

I know that the above question may be an extreme case and has nothing to do with this particular incident or my 1st paragraph. The question though makes you have to make a choice along those moral grounds.


----------



## AbbyK9

> you couldn't have said it better. I actually know this guy and work with him. He is currently on administrative leave. I am a MP in the Army. He needs his license to carry, badge and career taken from him. Not to mention some time in jail. The man is a trigger happy moron that jumps at any chance to use his gun. And loves to brag about how he just ruined someone's day by writing them a ticket or something.


Not to take this thread off topic, but is it appropriate for you to comment on this person as this is currently an ongoing investigation and you are a coworker?



> The officer in question's dog IS, in fact, a retired MWD.


Do you have any proof of this? I saw that several articles raised the question whether Asia is a police dog or working dog, and the attorney went on record saying that Asia is, in fact, a pet adopted from a rescue. County police also said that in statements to reporters.


----------



## DFrost

Jessiewessie99 said:


> Departments do anything about officers that were brought to their attention and did nothing about it.That is why reporting to superiors sometimes doesn't work.


 
That's a broad statement. Our department has fired at least 5 this year, so to say "departments ..... did nothing" may not be exactly accurate. 

DFrost


----------



## selzer

This is the internet and anyone can claim anything. I can claim I am an LEO. I can claim that I work with this guy.

I did not want to make much of a comment on this guy's post especially because it was attached to a petition of some sort. I do not know the guy and while it would be really neat if this guy does work with the guy, we just do not have any reason to accept that at face value -- even if the guy is supporting my side of the argument. 

Not at all surprised that the LEO-people are ripping him a new one for speaking out against the guy. And I kind of agree if there is an ongoing investigation and that it is against policy to say anything about anyone brought up on charges.


----------



## Syaoransbear

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> Let me ask what you would do in this situation. Say you arrested an idividual for a rape. The DA gets them off on some sort of technicality. You know the individual was guilty though. Say one night another officer catches the guy for somthing simple, but the officer plants some additional evidence to make the charges worse to help get them off the street. You know what they did. Would you turn them in for it or would you go along with you partners story against the allegations the perp would bring?
> 
> I know that the above question may be an extreme case and has nothing to do with this particular incident or my 1st paragraph. The question though makes you have to make a choice along those moral grounds.


I don't know if I'd turn them in for it, but I would definitely not go along with the story. While they had the best intentions, it's things like that that make people lose trust for officers. If that information ever got out, the officer would lose his job, I'd lose my job, the public would be upset, and the guy would still go free. Hatred and distrust for the people protecting you can be just as dangerous as some rapist running around who may or may not strike again.

Imagine if you had a pile of evidence stacked against you in the case of a murder, but you honest to god did not do it and you were luckily found innocent, but police everywhere were out to get you because THEY believed you were guilty. And then having them plant false evidence on you? The hatred I would feel for them would be immense.

I believe it's wrong to plant false evidence on someone, even if they did commit some other crime.

actually this is a neat question for any forum


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Just my gut, but I believe JJones. He didn't just join to jump into this topic. His profile and previous posts provide evidence that he could be in a position to know and work with this guy. Any local rescues claiming this dog, Asia? I haven't heard so. Aren't "retired" MWDs rescued and adopted out? It clearly states retired, in which case the lawyer would not be lying by saying Asia is not a police or working dog.


----------



## IllinoisNative

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> It is all in how you look at it. During an investigation NO ONE should be saying anything.


Fine. Then say so-and-so shouldn't speak to anyone during an ongoing investigation. Not so-and-so shouldn't speak out against his "brother." It gives a different interpretation. By making it about his "brother," he's making it about protecting his "family" which is different than taking a professional look at someone speaking out during an investigation without the "loaded" word.

Given the debate we had over LEO's protecting their own, it was a loaded way of saying something which leads to one perceive that it's about not speaking out against one's own.

I have no problem with the fact that someone shouldn't be speaking out during an investigation. I have no problem with someone saying we shouldn't believe him because we have no proof. That's missing my point.

It was about the wording of speaking out against a "brother" that rubbed me the wrong way.

On a side note, everyone here has family. Everyone, even if they are not a cop, can make the leap to protecting one's family against an outsider. You don't need to be a cop to relate to that or understand it.

As to the rape situation, I would probably look the other way for the greater good although I acknowledge it is wrong...and if caught, would suffer the consequences. But it wouldn't be at the publics expense, it wouldn't be risking the publics safety, and it wouldn't be about protecting the officer. It would be to protect the public. However, what this so-called cop did was none of those things. You don't shoot a dog at a dog park for approaching your dog. YOU JUST DON'T! There was no greater good here. There is a dead dog and no evidence of a dog fight. Again, who the heck whips out a gun and shoots a dog at a dog park? There was no rape. There was no crime agaisnt humanity. There was nothing but a trigger-happy moron whose first reaction was to shoot a dog to interrupt a so-called fight. The whole thing irritates the living daylights out of me. A

Good gravy.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

DFrost said:


> That's a broad statement. Our department has fired at least 5 this year, so to say "departments ..... did nothing" may not be exactly accurate.
> 
> DFrost


Its true. I have read stories about. These days $$$ will hide anything.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

IllinoisNative said:


> Fine. Then say so-and-so shouldn't speak to anyone during an ongoing investigation. Not so-and-so shouldn't speak out against his "brother." It gives a different interpretation. By making it about his "brother," he's making it about protecting his "family" which is different than taking a professional look at someone speaking out during an investigation without the "loaded" word.
> 
> Given the debate we had over LEO's protecting their own, it was a loaded way of saying something which leads to one perceive that it's about not speaking out against one's own.
> 
> I have no problem with the fact that someone shouldn't be speaking out during an investigation. I have no problem with someone saying we shouldn't believe him because we have no proof. That's missing my point.
> 
> It was about the wording of speaking out against a "brother" that rubbed me the wrong way.
> 
> On a side note, everyone here has family. Everyone, even if they are not a cop, can make the leap to protecting one's family against an outsider. You don't need to be a cop to relate to that or understand it.
> 
> As to the rape situation, I would probably look the other way for the greater good although I acknowledge it is wrong...and if caught, would suffer the consequences. But it wouldn't be at the publics expense, it wouldn't be risking the publics safety, and it wouldn't be about protecting the officer. It would be to protect the public. *However, what this so-called cop did was none of those things. You don't shoot a dog at a dog park for approaching your dog. YOU JUST DON'T! There was no greater good here. There is a dead dog and no evidence of a dog fight. Again, who the heck whips out a gun and shoots a dog at a dog park? There was no rape. There was no crime agaisnt humanity. There was nothing but a trigger-happy moron whose first reaction was to shoot a dog to interrupt a so-called fight. The whole thing irritates the living daylights out of me. A
> 
> Good gravy.*


Exactly!!


----------



## selzer

IllinoisNative, I agree with you on most of it. I wouldn't look the other way on the evidence thing. I just KNOW that would be found out, and that compramises EVERY conviction. So, fabricating of evidence I just could not condone or accept or anything. 

But, I am glad that this irritates the living daylights out of people. Because there is just something about it that makes me infuriated too, to the point where I am wondering if it is just me.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

The investigation is continuing. The latest is that a decision on charges is unlikely until Monday. Funny, before they said Wednesday night.


----------



## tonkatuff81

DNP, very well stated.

I personally think that this cop is a horses ass based upon what I've read and tempered by my life's experiences with dogs and cops. I appreciate that you are a LEO with an open mind and not a Kool Aid drinker. Thats not meant as


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

IllinoisNative said:


> Fine. Then say so-and-so shouldn't speak to anyone during an ongoing investigation. Not so-and-so shouldn't speak out against his "brother." It gives a different interpretation. By making it about his "brother," he's making it about protecting his "family" which is different than taking a professional look at someone speaking out during an investigation without the "loaded" word.
> 
> Given the debate we had over LEO's protecting their own, it was a loaded way of saying something which leads to one perceive that it's about not speaking out against one's own.
> 
> I have no problem with the fact that someone shouldn't be speaking out during an investigation. I have no problem with someone saying we shouldn't believe him because we have no proof. That's missing my point.
> 
> It was about the wording of speaking out against a "brother" that rubbed me the wrong way.
> 
> On a side note, everyone here has family. Everyone, even if they are not a cop, can make the leap to protecting one's family against an outsider. You don't need to be a cop to relate to that or understand it.
> 
> As to the rape situation, I would probably look the other way for the greater good although I acknowledge it is wrong...and if caught, would suffer the consequences. But it wouldn't be at the publics expense, it wouldn't be risking the publics safety, and it wouldn't be about protecting the officer. It would be to protect the public. However, what this so-called cop did was none of those things. You don't shoot a dog at a dog park for approaching your dog. YOU JUST DON'T! There was no greater good here. There is a dead dog and no evidence of a dog fight. Again, who the heck whips out a gun and shoots a dog at a dog park? There was no rape. There was no crime agaisnt humanity. There was nothing but a trigger-happy moron whose first reaction was to shoot a dog to interrupt a so-called fight. The whole thing irritates the living daylights out of me. A
> 
> Good gravy.


LOL. I was interested to see if anyone would answer it and in which direction they would take it. The answers were interesting. The question shows how people think and rather they are willing to do somthing for the good of the people or if they just want to cover their own behinds. 

Ok if you leave the "loaded" word out of the equation, then we are in agreement that people should not be speaking about or against anyone during any investigation. That was my biggest problem with thier comments. I do not believe they actually know the person because they would not be saying the things they are during an investigation. That is part of your basic training in dealing with the media. If they do actually know them and said what they said anyways. Well I do not believe I would want that person having my back.


----------



## IllinoisNative

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> LOL. I was interested to see if anyone would answer it and in which direction they would take it. The answers were interesting. The question shows how people think and rather they are willing to do somthing for the good of the people or if they just want to cover their own behinds.


Did I pass? LOL! I had a family member who was raped. And because of a technicality, he was let go after his first offense which was long before my family member got attacked. She wouldn't have been attacked if he was in jail. So, yeah, it's kind of personal for me. That's probably why I shouldn't be a cop...lol. I wouldn't have it in me to "plant" evidence but I do have it in me to look the other way. Heh. But only for the greater good and not to cover someone's behind. 



> Ok if you leave the "loaded" word out of the equation, then we are in agreement that people should not be speaking about or against anyone during any investigation. That was my biggest problem with thier comments.


I agree with this.



> I do not believe they actually know the person because they would not be saying the things they are during an investigation. That is part of your basic training in dealing with the media.


That's a good point. Or maybe the LEO is such a jerk, the guy was willing to risk it.:laugh:


----------



## Mrs.K

> That is part of your basic training in dealing with the media.


Oh come on, as if everybody would follow the rules strictly...


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

IllinoisNative said:


> Did I pass? LOL! I had a family member who was raped. And because of a technicality, he was let go after his first offense which was long before my family member got attacked. She wouldn't have been attacked if he was in jail. So, yeah, it's kind of personal for me. That's probably why I shouldn't be a cop...lol. I wouldn't have it in me to "plant" evidence but I do have it in me to look the other way. Heh. But only for the greater good and not to cover someone's behind.


I can understand where you are coming from. It could be somthing as simple as a piece of evidence was mislabled slightly.


----------



## tonkatuff81

Obviously, this is a very hot topic. The perspectivs of cops and civilian dog owners are not that far off, with a few exceptions.

My point is that _*in a dog park, the dogs should be given quarter*_. It's not the same situation as if a dog ran up to you (playfully or otherwise) while you were playing with your child at the local park or while mowing your own lawn.

We see things through our own, personal lense that has ben shaped through the years by what we've seen and learned. And while I value everyone's opinion, I must say that CODMASTER's lense has been shaped in a disturbing way. Can anyone say involuntary confinement?

Very important is the fact that the shooter is a recent veteran. If the facts, as presented pan out, this man should be given the best treatment available. It is not the same as if any one of us civilians (LEO or not) wigged out and shot a dog at the least provocation. 

Many thousands of our sons have come home from th a** hole of the world and many more will soon (hopefully) follow. These kids will need understanding, gratitude, patience, and our help. Hopefully, we are all up to the task.


----------



## selzer

tonkatuff, I appreciate your post.

in a dog park, the dogs should be given quarter. 

It reminds me of a story (groan):
I had two little girls, just turned 3 and amost 3 at the Cleveland Classic dog show last year. I had signed Babs up for all four days, and she finished in three, so I took my nieces there on Sunday. 

I was walking in the area where the venders are with the two toddlers. And a hag came up behind me with her dogs and made a nasty comment about getting my kids out of her way -- it is a _dog_ show, _dogs _have the right of way. Uhm, around the rings, maybe. 

But whatever. I agree with your statement particularly because these dogs are being brought there by people who love and care for them, and likely are ok in this element, at least give them the benefit of the doubt. 

A stray dog running up to you anywhere else, well, that is a much more questionable situation.


----------



## StarryNite

jjones22 said:


> I am an officer and I know the person. I work with him on a regular basis. He is an arrogant ****** that goes around looking for trouble while he's on duty. I for one would not trust this guy as far as i can throw him so his statement is pretty much garbage.


That was the first impression I got, someone that would just open fire in a dog park while their own dog is on a leash, almost like they were looking for trouble? Someone posted about officers opening fire in public, and I understand that certain situations call for it, but a dog park and their dog not hurt? I can understand if a perp draws a weapon or they are in danger, but not this situation.

Anyway, I actually have never had an incident at the dog park and Lou loves it but from all I have read here I am afraid to take her there again!


----------



## codmaster

tonkatuff81 said:


> My point is that _*in a dog park, the dogs should be given quarter*_. It's not the same situation as if a dog ran up to you (playfully or otherwise) while you were playing with your child at the local park or while mowing your own lawn.
> 
> We see things through our own, personal lense that has ben shaped through the years by what we've seen and learned. And while I value everyone's opinion, I must say that CODMASTER's lense has been shaped in a disturbing way. Can anyone say involuntary confinement?
> 
> *I do appreciate your interest, but do wonder if you would care to explain this somewhat confusing opinion of yours? Although actually it does seem obvious that you may have simply forgotten taken your medicine today?*
> 
> Very important is the fact that the shooter is a recent veteran. If the facts, as presented pan out, this man should be given the best treatment available. It is not the same as if any one of us civilians (LEO or not) wigged out and shot a dog at the least provocation. *You think it is important that the man was a recent vetran? Do you really think it mattered to the dog?*
> 
> Many thousands of our *sons* have come home from th a** hole of the world and many more will soon (hopefully) follow. These kids will need understanding, gratitude, patience, and our help. Hopefully, we are all up to the task.


*I see that you also express yourself very well regarding other countries in the world. *

*And I notice that you only seem to care about "our sons" - can the readers assume that you don't give a rats behind about all of the females who have served quite admirably in all branches of the US armed forces?*

*That does seem kind of misguided of you.*


----------



## tonkatuff81

COD....Not engaging in a battle of wits with you as you are clearly unarmed.


----------



## codmaster

tonkatuff81 said:


> COD....Not engaging in a battle of wits with you as you are clearly unarmed.


 
WOW! How clever and original. Haven't heard anything so good since grade school!

I certainly can see why you would not want to have an adult debate.


----------



## DogGone

> was shot to death by an off duty federal


Seems like another case of an authority abusing their power and being hypocritical, tyrannical and fascist.

So if a dog plays rough with my dog I have the right to shoot it? Somehow I think average Joe citizen would be treated much differently. For the most part; I think authorities should get the same treatment and have to obey the same rules and laws as every citizens. I think authorities would make much more reasonable laws and regulations if they actually abided them themselves; that country/world would be in much better shape.


----------



## LaRen616

DogGone said:


> Seems like another case of an authority abusing their power and being hypocritical, tyrannical and fascist.
> 
> So if a dog plays rough with my dog I have the right to shoot it? Somehow I think average Joe citizen would be treated much differently. *For the most part; I think authorities should get the same treatment and have to obey the same rules and laws as every citizens. I think authorities would make much more reasonable laws and regulations if they actually abided them themselves; that country/world would be in much better shape*.


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## selzer

Codmaster, I am a woman that was raised with the King James version of the Bible in the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church/school. For those who do not know anything about this synod, they are rather strict, and also when I was there, there was no place for girls in the church -- we could ring the bells if there were no boys around. Girls could not serve at the altar. Women did not become ushers or elders. 

And yet even we were taught that when it said "Men" in the Bible or hymnal, it meant men and women or people in general. 

I am sick and tired of having to qualify sons and daughters, when sons can be a term for progeny, as forefathers can be a term for our ancestors of both sexes. 

Yes, yes it used to be only our boys over there fighting and now our girls are going too. But as a woman I think it stinks that some guys need to make a big deal about semantics that do not include women. This really shouldn't be deal to you and it comes off like you have nothing better to fight about. So you are going to pick on her words.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Amen, Selzer!


----------



## Vinnie

*Friendly reminder time......*

Lets try to stay on topic and remember that there's no reason to insult or personally attack another just because we may disagree.

I hate closing threads but I'll be happy to if people find the above request too difficult to follow.  At 45 pages, the topic has probably run it's course anyway.

Thanks!
Vinnie
Admin.


----------



## codmaster

Vinnie said:


> *Friendly reminder time......*
> 
> Lets try to stay on topic and remember that there's no reason to insult or personally attack another just because we may disagree.
> 
> I hate closing threads but I'll be happy to if people find the above request too difficult to follow.  At 45 pages, the topic has probably run it's course anyway.
> 
> Thanks!
> Vinnie
> Admin.


 
Seems like it may have!


----------



## KZoppa

i understand there is a large amount of info missing from the article but he really should still be charged with the destruction of property and animal abuse. Federal officer or not, what the **** was he doing pulling out a gun in a public place, where kids are on occasion as well, shooting someones dog?! Was the dog attacking a person and couldnt be called off?! Had the husky been a problem before they arrived? Was the officers dog being aggressive? I mean there are just so many questions to ask and no answers being given.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

I hope the thread is not closed before we know the outcome. Last I heard, a decision on charges may be known by Monday.


----------



## Rusty_212

Wasn't the dog shot in the hind quarter, which could mean the dog was facing away, rather than attacking the officer, according to "his" story?


----------



## Rusty_212

Holy crap, here's another example of an idiot with a gun: Police investigate shooting of bulldog at dog park | KOMO News | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News - Seattle, Washington | Local & Regional

I think I need to get a gun to protect myself from stupid ppl that are allowed to carry one!


----------



## codmaster

Rusty_212 said:


> Holy crap, here's another example of an idiot with a gun: Police investigate shooting of bulldog at dog park | KOMO News | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News - Seattle, Washington | Local & Regional ....


Interesting article - it said the dogs "were wrestling". Never saw dogs doing that!


----------



## Rusty_212

Lol, it's not wrestling like the Olympics!
Obviously between dogs fighting and playing, ppls interpretations vary. Even if they are really fighting, I personally don't think it's necessary to shoot one.


----------



## Dainerra

well, he said it was an accident. He pistol-whipped the dog and the gun accidentally went off. I think that breaks the #1 rule on any weapon - don't pull it out unless you plan to use it. It's hard to say "I was afraid my dog was going to be killed or I was in danger" if you were using your gun like a club!


----------



## Zoeys mom

He pistol whipped a dog? What the heck is wrong with people? I think myself and dogs will be staying very far away from anything even remotely resembling a dog park from now on.


----------



## arycrest

Here's something from WJZ dated the 13th. 

It doesn't add too much to what has already been said except that Bear's owner's have a lawyer and are having a difficult time getting supplemental information about the shooting. "Weinstein is also waiting for that critical information from police, including witness statements, diagrams and 911 tapes, before filing a civil lawsuit."

The story also says, "The careful review of this case has reached the highest level of the state's attorney's office because of the high profile of Bear-Bear's death."

It also states that supporters of Bear will hold a rally in Annapolis on Monday outside the State's Attorney's office.

http://wjz.com/local/bear.husky.dog.2.1859302.html


----------



## ba1614

Zoeys mom said:


> He pistol whipped a dog? What the heck is wrong with people? I think myself and dogs will be staying very far away from anything even remotely resembling a dog park from now on.


Man, even if that guys story is to believed, it shows he shouldn't own any kind of firearm, let alone have a carry permit!


----------



## selzer

LOL, they're storming the state attourney's office. I was joking about storming the federal building. 

Whatever. 

How the heck does a gun go off shooting the object it is being struck with? I am trying to picture this. I mean, one would think that you would hit something with the butt of the gun not the barrel -- or am I wrong. If you hit it with the butt of the gun and the gun went off, wouldn't the bullet most likely strike the person holding the gun? 

Or do you leave your hand and fingers on the gun the way you would normally shoot it and hit the dog with the skinny barrel? 

Does anyone else think that is a little far-fetched.

It sounds like another person who has a gun, is walking tall, and at the very first chance he draws it out and shoots a dog with it. 

You have to go through some type of conceal carry training around here to get a licence or permit. Either they are not doing a very good job of impressing on people that this is not something to be used casually, or I don't know. 

How did the retreiver get injured, did the bullet go through the bulldog's neck and hit the retriever? Or was the retriever actually bitten? 

All in all, there are not nearly as many ccp problems hitting the media as everyone thought there would be. There are so many idiots out there, it stands to figure, that some of them will get ccp, and as that will not increase their common sense, they will screw up.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

selzer said:


> LOL, they're storming the state attourney's office. I was joking about storming the federal building.
> 
> How the heck does a gun go off shooting the object it is being struck with? I am trying to picture this. I mean, one would think that you would hit something with the butt of the gun not the barrel -- or am I wrong. If you hit it with the butt of the gun and the gun went off, wouldn't the bullet most likely strike the person holding the gun?
> 
> Does anyone else think that is a little far-fetched.
> 
> All in all, there are not nearly as many ccp problems hitting the media as everyone thought there would be. There are so many idiots out there, it stands to figure, that some of them will get ccp, and as that will not increase their common sense, they will screw up.


The first part is hilarious. People will "storm" a building when a dog dies but do NOTHING when another soldier or police officer dies in the line of duty.

I have to agree with the above section. This particular individual is full of you know what. If you were to "pistol whip" anything you are holding the front part of the weapon. Which means it would have been pointing back at him. EVEN if he was to have it in his hand and hit the animal with it while holding the grip of the weapon it would have shot off someplace else. Guns very very very very rarley will ever fire when striking somthing with it unless thier finger was on the trigger. Which is more likley the case. Now he may have done this and struck the side of the dog and had his hand wrapped around the rear portion of the gun allowing it to fire sideways. REGARDLESS he was clearly negligent with the weapon.

I have been around and used enough weapons in my short lifetime to know this story is fabricated. 

Though I do believe the reason people are seeing a lot of these stories are the media knows us (people) are animal lovers and these stories pull at our heart strings, or play to the distrust of certain groups. They present the facts to do so as well. All to sell thier paper or get them to visit thier website. There are tons of much more enlightening stories that happen everyday but alas, those are the stories that we will never know about.


----------



## IllinoisNative

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> The first part is hilarious. People will "storm" a building when a dog dies but do NOTHING when another soldier or police officer dies in the line of duty.


I think the difference is that a soldier or police officer makes a choice when they sign up to put themselves in danger. They are also adults. A dog doesn't have any rights. A dog, IMO, is like a child in that's it's innocent. It's up to us to protect them...not pistol whip them or shoot them when they are fighting/wrestling.

I don't know, when something happens to a child or an animal, my protective instincts come out.



> I have to agree with the above section. This particular individual is full of you know what. If you were to "pistol whip" anything you are holding the front part of the weapon. Which means it would have been pointing back at him. EVEN if he was to have it in his hand and hit the animal with it while holding the grip of the weapon it would have shot off someplace else. Guns very very very very rarley will ever fire when striking somthing with it unless thier finger was on the trigger. Which is more likley the case. Now he may have done this and struck the side of the dog and had his hand wrapped around the rear portion of the gun allowing it to fire sideways. REGARDLESS he was clearly negligent with the weapon.


Thank you for your insight.

I agree with you about the media playing at our heartstrings, I just don't think the original story makes sense...no injuries to the animal, etc. to warrant it being shot. Something doesn't add up to me. If new information comes out, I'll be happy to change my opinion. But, based on what information is available, I don't get why this LEO shot the dog. I'm dumbfounded. And it's not because of what he does for a living.

JMO.


----------



## tonkatuff81

*Regarding Police Officer Shootings*

A couple of posts have alluded to the lack of outrage when it comes to police officer shootings. It may be true to some extent, but there are several reasons for it.

First, the officer has a department, a family, a law enforcement community, and surely a civil community that can mourn him or her. 

People care a lot when an officer is shot. To the general public, there is some comfort in the fact that they can make donations and send condolences to the family. Most important, in my opinion, is that when a LEO dies, it is in the line of duty and for a greater good.

Not all canine deaths at the hands of humans are pointless. Some dogs do attack and people should defend themselves, their loved ones, etc. It just seems that there have been too many killings that do not seem justified. Lethal force should be the last option rather than the first.

Finally, a dog and its owner tend not to have a soapbox to stand on when tragedy strikes other than to communicate with other dog owners through the press or forums like this one. 

Remember that most people that frequent this site have a GSD and their opinions are shaped considerably by their experiences with this large, calm, intelligent, and extremely loyal breed. We are, in turn, extremely loyal to them. They do not have anyone else to speak for them.


----------



## AbbyK9

At the risk of taking the discussion off topic, I have been recently thinking about some of the statements made, especially to the press, about what happened here and why Bear-Bear was shot. 

One thing that really stood out to me was that everyone has been saying, "He was such a great dog. He got along with all the other dogs. He was at the dog park all the time."

Now this being a dog forum, I think we could all stand to spend some time thinking about those statements. I know that the place I have seen statements like this posted most often has been in the behavior section and in the aggression section. I'm sure you have, too. "My dog is always so good with other dogs." "We go to the dog park everyday and he's never had a problem." And then, maybe a sentence or two down, people write how they're absolutely baffled and aghast that their "friendly with everyone" dog suddenly lunged at, bit, or attacked another dog, "without provocation."

I am not saying this is what happened here, but I am saying that this is something that we, as dog owners, should think about. 

I have two dogs who are great with each other. They play. They wrestle. They have a good time. They're also two bitches and they CAN go from play-wrestling to serious in .3 seconds. It has happened - it doesn't happen a lot. Heck, the entire time I've had the two of them together, it's happened once. But they have the capability to go from one to the other quickly.

I think when people say to the press, "He's here every night and never has any issues with other dogs" that's not really a true statement. That would be like me saying, "I'm around other people all the time and never had any problems with any of them." That would be a huge lie. There are some personalities I don't like being around. There are some people I just don't get on with. What's to say that Bear-Bear didn't, in fact, take a dislike to the Shepherd and that the game didn't go from friendly wrestling to being nasty?

Just because there's no injury to the dog doesn't mean there wasn't a fight. Sometimes they get a hold of that thick neck fur and bite and shake but don't puncture or cause bleeding. I can tell the difference between play and fighting - and when my two got into it, it definitely was fighting but there was no damage on Abby - Ronja'd gotten her by the neck where her fur is thick and her skin relatively loose.

Just two cents.


----------



## tonkatuff81

Abby,

Can't say I agree with you. My Tonka is 100 % non agressive with other dogs at the dog park and elsewhere. That to me is the best part of the dog park; the socialization.

I know that a good deal of it is genetic, but environment is important as well. He has been bitten twice by other dogs and will not react aggressively. He loves all other dogs. 

I would never say that I trust him 100 % with people and I will not let small children (strangers) approach him. However. though aloof with strangers he will not shy away nor become aggressive.

A dog that goes to an off leash dog park regularly and has no problems probably has a very sound temperment and has been well socialized. If not, other dog owners would leave or insist that you do if your dog is a risk. 

One of my (dog park) friends has 6 huskies that can behave like a pack within the dog park pack. He will sound an air horn if the dogs become agitated or become too interested in another dog. It works wonders. Just today, his dogs were behaving normally (ie. well behaved) but he accidentally sat on his horn and it went off. All of the dogs stopped what they were doing and looked at him. His dogs all looked up and their eyes said "what'd we do?"

My point is, I believe that Bear Bear was a well socialized dog given his history. And in th rarest event is lethal force necessary to quell a dog skirmish.

Just my opinion though.


----------



## codmaster

It would appear that the only thing that we can all agree (I hope!) on is that the shooting of that husky was a true tragedy! No matter what the reason or provocation happened to be, this event was such for at least two families.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Codmaster, You are absolutely right!


----------



## selzer

AbbyK9 said:


> At the risk of taking the discussion off topic, I have been recently thinking about some of the statements made, especially to the press, about what happened here and why Bear-Bear was shot.
> 
> One thing that really stood out to me was that everyone has been saying, "He was such a great dog. He got along with all the other dogs. He was at the dog park all the time."
> 
> Now this being a dog forum, I think we could all stand to spend some time thinking about those statements. I know that the place I have seen statements like this posted most often has been in the behavior section and in the aggression section. I'm sure you have, too. "My dog is always so good with other dogs." "We go to the dog park everyday and he's never had a problem." And then, maybe a sentence or two down, people write how they're absolutely baffled and aghast that their "friendly with everyone" dog suddenly lunged at, bit, or attacked another dog, "without provocation."
> 
> I am not saying this is what happened here, but I am saying that this is something that we, as dog owners, should think about.
> 
> I have two dogs who are great with each other. They play. They wrestle. They have a good time. They're also two bitches and they CAN go from play-wrestling to serious in .3 seconds. It has happened - it doesn't happen a lot. Heck, the entire time I've had the two of them together, it's happened once. But they have the capability to go from one to the other quickly.
> 
> I think when people say to the press, "He's here every night and never has any issues with other dogs" that's not really a true statement. That would be like me saying, "I'm around other people all the time and never had any problems with any of them." That would be a huge lie. There are some personalities I don't like being around. There are some people I just don't get on with. What's to say that Bear-Bear didn't, in fact, take a dislike to the Shepherd and that the game didn't go from friendly wrestling to being nasty?
> 
> Just because there's no injury to the dog doesn't mean there wasn't a fight. Sometimes they get a hold of that thick neck fur and bite and shake but don't puncture or cause bleeding. I can tell the difference between play and fighting - and when my two got into it, it definitely was fighting but there was no damage on Abby - Ronja'd gotten her by the neck where her fur is thick and her skin relatively loose.
> 
> Just two cents.


Just a few thoughts about this:

1. Everyone LOVES to jump on the band wagon. If Bear-bear had attacked another dog at this park, I have to believe they would be on the phone with someone about it. 

2. Even if Bear-bear did all out attack this other dog, the first thing most of us would not do is pull out a gun and shoot the dog in the stomach. 

3. It is a dog park. Everyone going to a dog park should understand that their may be an issue between dogs. they should be prepared for it. they should have a plan for it. That plan should not include shooting a dog. 

It certainly is tragic for the owners of Bear-bear. If the shooter takes some heat for this, my opinion is that he made his bed.


----------



## codmaster

It appears that a lot of folks on this thread made up their mind, based on the little bit of a view that was available of the incident, about what really transpired that day in the dog park and who is guilty and should be punished and no one can change their mind. That is of course a nice thing about the Internet and all of the information available there, and the chance to express one's opinion.

Unless the shooter is a real specimen, then he would also be upset about having to shoot a dog, even if he was convinced that the dog was attacking his dog and even was a threat to him and/or his wife. 

Now please don't anyone jump up in outrage - I said if HE thought that, not that is what actually happened. I have said many times I will admit I don't know what happened since I was not there.


----------



## selzer

I am going by just the facts that no one is disputing: 1) it was an off-lead dog park; 2) there were three adult humans there at least; 3) the shooter shot the dog prior to any injury on either dog or human; 4) the shooter's dog was on lead.

Between him and his wife, he should have been able to remove his leashed dog from danger without shooting the dog. 

I still do not buy any bit of his fearing for his life or the wife's life. I just cannot accept that. Too many people there. Dog is in a dog park, not a possibly rabid or viscious stray. 

I cannot think of ANYTHING this guy could possibly come up with to make it ok to shoot this dog. Sorry. It isn't about being a police officer. It is about being a big guy with a gun. It is about never thinking, gee lots of people manage this kind of thing without pulling out a gun. 

I think this guy should undergo some grief over pulling out his gun and shooting this dog. Some people would feel bad about HAVING to shoot any dog. I am not convinced that this guy feels anything but anxiety about how this incident will affect him now that it is done. I certainly wouldn't count on him beating himself up about it.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> I am going by just the facts that no one is disputing: 1) it was an off-lead dog park; 2) there were three adult humans there at least; 3) the shooter shot the dog prior to any injury on either dog or human; 4) the shooter's dog was on lead.Between him and his wife, he should have been able to remove his leashed dog from danger without shooting the dog.I still do not buy any bit of his fearing for his life or the wife's life. I just cannot accept that. Too many people there. Dog is in a dog park, not a possibly rabid or viscious stray. I cannot think of ANYTHING this guy could possibly come up with to make it ok to shoot this dog. Sorry. It isn't about being a police officer. It is about being a big guy with a gun. It is about never thinking, gee lots of people manage this kind of thing without pulling out a gun.
> 
> I think this guy should undergo some grief over pulling out his gun and shooting this dog. Some people would feel bad about HAVING to shoot any dog. I am not convinced that this guy feels anything but anxiety about how this incident will affect him now that it is done. I certainly wouldn't count on him beating himself up about it.


What does the "fact" that he is a "big" guy have to do with anything - would it be ok for a little guy or a woman to have shot the dog? Of course not, so why mention it?

Many, many folks will have a very emotional reaction to a story like this one.

For example, you have told us how the guy feels. Where did you come up with this information? And you say that he did *not* fear for his life or danger to his wife - how did you come up with this information?

One other thing - do you believe that people with no experience in a dog park environment should be allowed to bring their dog to a dog park?


----------



## Melina

I'm only interjecting here so maybe you guys can enlighten me as I haven't read all 47 pages here in detail...Was there _anyone else_ at the dog park at the time of the incident besides Bear-Bear's owner's Brother, the Man who shot Bear-Bear, and that Man's Wife? Did no one else see what happened that night? No other eyewitness accounts?


----------



## guitarest

My question would be pretty simple, why would a Off Duty Federal have a weapon on him anyways? It sounds like from what I read he mentioned to the owner of the Husky to get his pup and he did not react fat enough and he shot the husky.

Many sides to this story and since its a very quick story there has to be so much more to this. Husky's while are capable of being Alpha's for the most part with my experience with them are usually passive and full of energy and wanting to play. 

If that was my pup; somebody would be a unemployed off duty federal officer.


----------



## guitarest

Tried to edit my post but was unable due to a time constraint...

If that was my pup; somebody would be a unemployed off duty federal officer.

I just did a google search and the case has been reopened and the Humain Society of America is backing Ber bears family and the federals officers name is not to be released due to death threats against him. Also it appears that others have come forward and have stated that it did not happen as the off duty officer has stated on record. 

From the original blog...

_The Anne Arundel County's state's attorney said through a spokeswoman that a decision on whether to charge an off-duty federal police officer in the fatal shooting of a dog at a dog park probably would not be made before Monday.

State's Attorney Frank R. Weathersbee said this week that the case remains under investigation by two prosecutors who were working with county police. Police said Tuesday that they had turned their information over to prosecutors._ _
Last Monday, the off-duty officer, whom police have refused to name, shot a dog at the private dog park in the Quail Run community. His lawyer said the Siberian husky had become aggressive toward him, his wife and his German shepherd named Asia, and the man who brought the dog to the park did not respond to requests to intervene.

Rachel and Ryan Rettaliata, owners of the husky named Bear-Bear, have said Rachel Rettaliata's brother, who brought the husky to the park, told them the dogs were playing. Rettaliata's brother said after the play became rougher, the shepherd's owner asked him to get his dog but shot the husky before he could act.

Another link

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/24530406/detail.html
_


----------



## tonkatuff81

Selzer: I think that point 3 of your post is really the answer to the whole dog park dilemma. Good point.


----------



## codmaster

If the person thought his dog, wife or himself was in serious danger (and remember I said if HE thought so, maybe due to his inexperience (assumed!), then did he have the right to defend himself as best he could?

I think he did, but he also must be responsible for the consequences of his action if it turns out that they were not in any danger.

Would I shoot a dog to protect myself or my family or my dog from what I considered a dangerous animal? Yes!

If it came to that, would I shoot before any of them were injured or had blood drawn from the attack? Yes!

Would you?


----------



## BlackPuppy

Oh Geez, this is just being dragged out and stalled. First they said last Wednesday, then they said Today, now they are saying it will take another week before they decide if charges are going to be filed because they have so many witnesses to interview. 

Possible Charges In Dog Shooting Still Being Investigated - WBAL Radio - wbal.com

On the radio:

Possible Charges In Dog Shooting Still Being Investigated 
The state's attorney's office in Anne Arundel County remains days away from any decision one way or the other on whether a federal worker should face charges in the shooting of the Husky Bear Bear.


Justice for Bear Bear is up to 10,000 members and they are continuing to hold rallys in Annapolis.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=142251502461794&ref=ts


----------



## Jessiewessie99

Bear-Bear was a beautiful dog.He shouldn't have been shot because of someone's big ego.


----------



## AbbyK9

> That to me is the best part of the dog park; the socialization.


I suppose that depends on what your definition of socialization is. To me, dog parks are not a place where you bring an unsocialized or undersocialized dog to "learn" to be social with other dogs. Dog parks are a place where already well socialized dogs will be able to run off-lead and play.

The original intent behind dog parks was to give urban dog owners, especially people who live in apartments, a place where they can play with their dogs off leash so the dogs get the proper amount of exercise they don't just get by leashed walks. IMHO dog parks were never meant to be a place where packs of dogs were meant to run and play, but places where the owners would be able to let their dogs run off leash.

Unfortunately, it's gone from the original intent to what we have now, where every Tom, ****, and Harry brings their dogs. And yes, most dog parks have posted rules, but many don't enforce them and some don't have any at all. The amount of idiocy I've seen at dog parks boggles the mind. Females in heat. Dogs with chokes or prongs left on. People who bring their miniature pinscher in to become prey for all the big dogs. People who bring obviously aggressive dogs.



> My Tonka is 100 % non agressive with other dogs at the dog park and elsewhere.


Yes ... right until he finds that ONE dog that just rubs him the wrong way.

Both of my girls are very well behaved around other dogs and play well with others. They love to wrestle. They love to run and play with other dogs. We have people come over to our property that hike with us and train with us with their dogs. But I also know that my dogs are dogs and that there's no such thing as 100%. I'm sure all the people whose dogs "suddenly attacked" another dog thought they'd be fine with every single dog, too, because - up until that point - they have been.



> My point is, I believe that Bear Bear was a well socialized dog given his history.


Uh ... yes, and I'm not disputing that. I also didn't say that this was a case where Bear-Bear took a dislike to the dog. BUT I did say that it wouldn't be a first if that were what happened, and in all those cases where we see this type of thing happen, the FIRST thing people say is, "But he was always friendly."

IMHO as dog owners we ought to know better. There is no "always" or 100%.



> It is a dog park. Everyone going to a dog park should understand that their may be an issue between dogs. they should be prepared for it. they should have a plan for it. That plan should not include shooting a dog.


Yes, in a perfect world, everyone who brings their dogs to the dog park would have a clue about dog behavior, bring only well-socialized dogs, and actually watch their dogs.

In this world, half the people who bring their dogs to an off-leash park are good owners and the other half are the morons I keep encountering. The people who let their dog drag them up to the gate, then turn them loose, choke collar still on, and go sit on a bench to text their friends instead of watching their dogs. Or people who bring little kids to the park. Or dog toys. Etc. Etc.



> Was there _anyone else_ at the dog park at the time of the incident besides Bear-Bear's owner's Brother, the Man who shot Bear-Bear, and that Man's Wife?


According to the police report, the only people there were the owner's brother, the off-duty officer, and the officer's wife. You'd figure if there had been other people, police would have talked to them or we would have heard from them in the articles.



> My question would be pretty simple, why would a Off Duty Federal have a weapon on him anyways?


Has been discussed earlier in the thread. Many Law Enforcement Officers carry on and off duty. Many are required to do so by their department, others are encouraged to do so by their department and others choose to do so regardless.


----------



## selzer

codmaster said:


> What does the "fact" that he is a "big" guy have to do with anything - would it be ok for a little guy or a woman to have shot the dog? Of course not, so why mention it?
> 
> Many, many folks will have a very emotional reaction to a story like this one.
> 
> For example, you have told us how the guy feels. Where did you come up with this information? And you say that he did *not* fear for his life or danger to his wife - how did you come up with this information?
> 
> One other thing - do you believe that people with no experience in a dog park environment should be allowed to bring their dog to a dog park?


Perhaps I am not clear enough but others after my thread mentioned it and possibly they understood what I meant when I said "big guy with a gun" It means a guy with a big head because he has a gun in his pocket. It has nothing to do with bodily dimensions. 


Codmaster I want you to scour the internet for the following: 

Man killed in dog park by crazed husky, while horrified wife and husky's handler look on. 

After you find that, I would like statistics about how many huskies kill adult humans each year. 

It may be ok to kill a dog if you fear for your life, or your wife or kid's life, but not if you fear the dog might bite your dog. Sorry. Not ok. 

So, you would kill a dog in a dog park if it was coming after your dog???

There is a difference between shooting a dog in a dog park when it has someone there with it, and killing a stray dog coming after you and yours in the street. 

The shooter is a moron. Whatever they do to him will not be enough, because he will not be sitting in JAIL at the end of the day. 

I still think he should lose his job for making such a stupid decision with his firearm, and his wife should take his dog and leave him because of his quickness to turn to violence and use his gun to solve a simple problem.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> Perhaps I am not clear enough but others after my thread mentioned it and possibly they understood what I meant when I said "big guy with a gun" It means a guy with a big head because he has a gun in his pocket. It has nothing to do with bodily dimensions.
> Codmaster I want you to scour the internet for the following: *Does this request mean that you believe whatever you read on the Internet? Have you actually seen these articles on the Internet?*
> 
> Man killed in dog park by crazed husky, while horrified wife and husky's handler look on.
> 
> After you find that, I would like statistics about how many huskies kill adult humans each year.
> *Do you also want to find out about any children that were husky killed?*
> 
> It may be ok to kill a dog if you fear for your life, or your wife or kid's life, but not if you fear the dog might bite your dog. Sorry. Not ok.
> *If you feel that your dog is not worth it and would sacrifice your dog to another one, that is your option of course. I and a lot of other dog owners would certainly make a different choice.*
> 
> So, you would kill a dog in a dog park if it was coming after your dog???
> 
> *I certainly might if I determined it was needed to save me and mine.*
> 
> There is a difference between shooting a dog in a dog park when it has someone there with it, and killing a stray dog coming after you and yours in the street.
> *Evidently that "someone" did not have much control of their dog if he could not just call it and have it come running back to him when it started "playing" with the GSD. Given that many owners do not have much control of their dogs, I fail to see much difference if a stray or a dog park dog does actually attack your dog. have you read any of the messages from people on this forum about their dogs were attacked in a dog park? If not maybe you should try that. *
> 
> 
> *The shooter is a moron. I agree that certainly could be the case, but we don't know enough to make that determination. *
> 
> Whatever they do to him will not be enough, because he will not be sitting in JAIL at the end of the day. *How long should he get, according to you?*
> I still think he should lose his job for making such a stupid decision with his firearm, and his wife should take his dog and leave him because of his quickness to turn to violence and use his gun to solve a simple problem.


*Wow! You must be really upset to think that his wife should leave him because of this!! And who do you think should keep their dog?*

So let me see, *"Big guy with a gun"* really means "*guy with a big head and a gun in his pocket"* - right? I am sorry that I could not figure out what you really meant. I don't know how I could have possibly misunderstood what you really meant with this.


----------



## selzer

codmaster said:


> *Wow! You must be really upset to think that his wife should leave him because of this!! And who do you think should keep their dog?*
> 
> So let me see, *"Big guy with a gun"* really means "*guy with a big head and a gun in his pocket"* - right? I am sorry that I could not figure out what you really meant. I don't know how I could have possibly misunderstood what you really meant with this.


 
What it means is you will probably not find ANY situation where a husky in a dog park has killed an adult man or woman while there were other people there to help them. 

I do not care about children in this instance as there were no children involved. Why do YOU keep bringing up kids? You keep trying to find SOME reason this yayhoo is justified in shooting. 

I am saying put every thing the other way, according to the shooter. The dog's handler was in an alterred state of mind, the dog was aggressively attacking, and STILL you have two humans and two dogs. You would still not have to shoot one of them to make everyone safe. 

If this dog was a pit bull of some type, then with their reputation and the amount of injury they can and do inflict, and because the breed was originally bred to fight other dogs, I guess maybe a lot of people would not feel so much animosity toward the shooter. 

The pit mix that lived next door to me charged toward me and my dogs every time I tried to get them in the car for months on end. I had to be quick. The sherriff's department TOLD me to shoot the dog IF it was coming for me. When I asked specifically if I could shoot it if it was going after my dogs, they said NO. So which is it Codmaster? Why is it ok for you to shoot a dog coming after your dog? It is unlawful for me to do so? So I am heartless to say I would not. 

I would leave a man who would do something like this. It is irresponsible and unnecessarily violent. Someone that violent is probably not all that safe to be around, especially when you consider that violent people generally attack the people closest to them. I would leave him and take the dog. 

This is an opinion about a situation that was newsworthy. People on this forum beat the heck out of the head of the humane society who allowed her dog to die in her car, because her husband loaded the dog in the car that day and she did not realize he was in there. They wanted to CRUCIFY her. Nobody was saying, let's wait to see what comes of the investigation, lets wait for all the facts, we do not have enough facts. Do you know why??? Because she was not attached in any way to law enforcement.


----------



## Rusty_212

Is there anyone following this thread that believes they could have stopped the Husky without using a gun?


----------



## Jessiewessie99

Rusty_212 said:


> Is there anyone following this thread that believes they could have stopped the Husky without using a gun?


Yes, if the dogs were fighting.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> What it means is you will probably not find ANY situation where a husky in a dog park has killed an adult man or woman while there were other people there to help them.
> 
> *How many people helped the guy? I didn't see that or is this another fact that you seem to have manufactured or just assumed?*
> 
> *Even it is true, so what? It has no relevance to the episode whatsoever.*
> 
> I do not care about children in this instance as there were no children involved. Why do YOU keep bringing up kids? You keep trying to find SOME reason this yayhoo is justified in shooting.
> 
> *BTW, you really don't care about kids? that sounds very callous! *
> *I thought if you really wanted me to find out about how many people that huskies killed that you would also be interested in including kids - guess not if you don't care about children at all.*
> 
> *NO, I don't, but you won't (or maybe just can't) understand that HE may have felt like he was in danger. Try again to understand his (possible) view - you are new in the dog park, a big dog comes running up to your dog with your wife right behind and "attacks" your dog. You going to stand there and let it go? NO! I never said that I agreed with the shooting - read my posts if you don't believe that.*
> 
> I am saying put every thing the other way, according to the shooter. The dog's handler was in an alterred state of mind, the dog was aggressively attacking, and STILL you have two humans and two dogs. You would still not have to shoot one of them to make everyone safe.
> 
> If this dog was a pit bull of some type, then with their reputation and the amount of injury they can and do inflict, and because the breed was originally bred to fight other dogs, I guess maybe a lot of people would not feel so much animosity toward the shooter. *So does that mean that you are breed biased also? A lot of people on the forum speak out very strongly against breed bias but I would assume that you think it is ok. If you knew pit bulls very much you would also know that unless they are trained differently they are some of the very most people friendly dogs on earth. I would trust a pit more than I would an awful lot of the GSDs that I have met. Please don't be so biased against such a usually sweet dog breed.*
> 
> The pit mix that lived next door to me charged toward me and my dogs every time I tried to get them in the car for months on end. I had to be quick. The sherriff's department TOLD me to shoot the dog IF it was coming for me. When I asked specifically if I could shoot it if it was going after my dogs, they said NO. *How about whacking it with a club? *So which is it Codmaster? Why is it ok for you to shoot a dog coming after your dog? It is unlawful for me to do so? So I am heartless to say I would not. *Not heartless just misguided! I would rather risk the law later than a dog attack, in certain circumstances. You do what you want and i will protect me and mine as best I can! *
> 
> I would leave a man who would do something like this. It is irresponsible and unnecessarily violent. Someone that violent is probably not all that safe to be around, especially when you consider that violent people generally attack the people closest to them. I would leave him and take the dog.
> 
> *I bet you would!*
> 
> This is an opinion about a situation that was newsworthy. People on this forum beat the heck out of the head of the humane society who allowed her dog to die in her car, because her husband loaded the dog in the car that day and she did not realize he was in there. They wanted to CRUCIFY her. Nobody was saying, let's wait to see what comes of the investigation, lets wait for all the facts, we do not have enough facts. Do you know why??? Because she was not attached in any way to law enforcement.


Terrible! I guess that you don't like LE people, heh?


----------



## codmaster

Rusty_212 said:


> Is there anyone following this thread that believes they could have stopped the Husky without using a gun?


 
Probably a lot of people will claim they could. 

And a few probably could handle it - wonder how many would wait to jump in to try until there was blood on at least one of the dogs. Otherwise why would anyone try to break the fight up if there is no blood?


----------



## selzer

There WERE other people. There was his wife. She is a people. She had hold of the shepherds leash, there was no reason he should have been afraid for his life or hers or even his dog's.

Codmaster you are bound and determined to make this a law enforcement vs the rest of us issue. It is not. A moron with a gun shot and killed a dog for being a dog in a dog park. That is all there is to it. Oh, well, except for the inital sweeping it under the rug that the police did in the beginning because the guy had a badge to go along with his gun. 

I do not care about kids in this instance because there were no kids involved in it. -- How exactly does that translate to I do not care about kids. Again, YOU are trying to make it alright for this guy to shoot the dog by _manufacturing_ a few children. Because once we say, oh if there are kids, then it is ok to shoot before the dog attacks, you will immediately say, if it is ok to do it if there are kids, than why not for adults. 

I really do not care how many kids are there in the dog park, shooting and killing a dog is at least as tramatic as witnessing a dog fight. People who take their kids to dog parks should be aware that these are indeed dogs and play may become rough. They should have a plan for that. And the plan should not involve a gun. 

Codmaster, you can love this guy, you can believe that he cannot possibly be an idiot because he has a badge. That is perfectly fine. But I reserve the right to hold a different opinion. I do not give cops the benefit of the doubt BECAUSE they are cops. That does no one any good. If a cop pulls his gun and shoots a dog, then he had better be able to give a good reason for doing so. Otherwise none of our dogs are safe.

The idea that this officer was afraid for his or his wife's life with a husky dog is more far fetched than stating he was afraid for his or his wife's life with a pit bull because of the media hype. So my statement suggests that his statement may have held more water with some people if the dog was a pit. Because people BELIEVE that you cannot get their jaws apart and because everyone has heard of MANY people killed by pitties, his statement might have less people up in arms about it. 

I am not a fan of either pitts or huskies, I do not like the looks of the one, or the energy level of the other. But I do not like to hear of either of them needlessly slaughtered. If this was a pit bull, I would probably be more angry with the person with it as he should have been more Johnny-on-the-spot simply because of their reputation, and other people's insane reaction to them. This guy with the husky probably was in shock when the guy pulled the gun and shot it. People are not generally afraid of huskies just because of their breed. 

But you are insisting on making it more than it is. That I do not care about kids, that I am biased against pitts, and that I don't like LE. 

Whatever, enjoy your love affair with anything that has to do with cops. Is that why you chose GSDs????


----------



## codmaster

Of course, aren't they POLICE dogs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## selzer

Lol!!!!


----------



## codmaster

I did notice that you very carefully answered all of the questions that I asked you in trying to understand where in the world you have found the attitudes that you exhibit. Oh no wait a minute - looks like you couldn't answer any of them. That's ok, as I am not really interested in what you would have to say about it anyway!

As far as LE people - where in the world did you get the idea that I like them so much/?Was it because I have indicated that him being one has no relevance to this case (which does seem to annoy you a lot) or maybe when I said that he probably had a right to CARRY a concealed weapon. Yea boy, that is really favoring them, isn't. it?

From your extremely obvious dislike of LE people one might even suspect that maybe a cop or two has crossed your path in the past and not in a good way! In which case your obvious dislike would certainly be very understandable.

You really don't like pit bulls, heh? "because of their *reputation"* - you think people have to be more careful of them? That is almost unbelievable! 
What about people that think that of GSD's - you agree with them too?


----------



## selzer

I have consistantly slapped people about on the forum for being irresponsible with their shepherds, for letting them roam, for leaving them loose, for letting them get into situations where they need to take care of themselves or their owners. This is because I LOVE the breed. I do not want irresponsible people to ruin MY chances of owning them. 

Pit bulls DO have a reputation and their owners have to be doubly careful NOT to let their dogs do anything to make it worse for owners everywhere. People letting their pitties run loose, break out of yards, etc, etc, are causing all kinds of BSL that they cannot afford. People who own these dogs KNOW about the public feeling toward them and their reputation. They cannot AFFORD to wait around for their dog to bite someone or another dog before they are careful with them, because people WILL call for their heads, they WILL demand euthanasia for a first offense, and BSL WILL be enacted if the victim's family attends a few counsel meetings.

So if the husky person had a pit bull, he probably would have approached the situation totally different. 

I have never been arrested. And other than a single trip to traffic court, I have never been up in front of any judge if that is what you are trying to imply now. 

The ONLY relevance that his being some type of officer has is the quickness that the police closed the investigation -- initially. 

I have NO problem with his gun, or his carrying a gun. None whatsoever. Sorry to cause you to be wrong there. But, guns don't kill people OR dogs, people do. I have NEVER suggested that he should not have had the gun. But I WILL say he had no business using the gun in this situation.


----------



## Syaoransbear

codmaster said:


> I did notice that you very carefully answered all of the questions that I asked you in trying to understand where in the world you have found the attitudes that you exhibit. Oh no wait a minute - looks like you couldn't answer any of them. That's ok, as I am not really interested in what you would have to say about it anyway!


You ask so many sarcastic questions that it's hard to tell which questions you actually want answered and which questions are just sarcasm/giving attitude. It's confusing.


----------



## codmaster

Syaoransbear said:


> You ask so many sarcastic questions that it's hard to tell which questions you actually want answered and which questions are just sarcasm/giving attitude. It's confusing.


Thank s for your interest! I wasn't asking you but if you want to answer please feel free to do so. I will try to ask easier questions or at least less confusing ones. 

Assuming that we could assume (and it is an assumption) that the LEO believed that his dog was in danger; do you think that the cop should not have acted in any way until he saw some blood?

Just curious about what you think he should have done when, since obviously shooting the other dog was a little extreme.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> .........
> Pit bulls DO have a reputation ...... *I really hate to break it to you but GSD's also have a reputation as do Dobermans and a few other breeds. That is why some people cross the street when I am walking down the sidewalk with my GSD.*.............
> So if the husky person had a pit bull, he probably would have approached the situation totally different. *Do you really think that all pit bull owners would have approached the situation differently (what do you think they would have done?)*
> 
> I have never been arrested. And other than a single trip to traffic court, I have never been up in front of any judge if that is what you are trying to imply now. *What? I was just curious as to why you were coming down so hard on the fact that he was a LEO, that's all. No implication of anything intended other than that.*
> 
> The ONLY relevance that his being some type of officer has is the quickness that the police closed the investigation -- initially.
> 
> I have NO problem with his gun, or his carrying a gun. None whatsoever. Sorry to cause you to be wrong there.
> *Please don't be sorry!*
> But, guns don't kill people OR dogs, people do.
> *Actually guns do kill people when they are used by a person to do so. People also kill people without guns.*
> I have NEVER suggested that he should not have had the gun. But I WILL say he had no business using the gun in this situation.


 In hindsight, maybe that is the case, maybe not.

But if he thought (and I will admit I don't know the guy or what he was thinking at the time) that his dog was being attacked then he had a right to protect him as best he could. Do you agree? If you don't agree, that is also your right. Maybe you think he should of just grabbed his dog by his hind legs and pulled him away - but who would have gotten the husky then, as wasn't the husky handler not quite there yet (I assume this because if the husky handler was right there then he could have just stopped the husky from playing or attacking the GSD (whichever he was actually doing) without anyone getting shot, I would think.

Have a nice day.

BTW, has anyone heard of any updated news about this incident which has generated such intense interest?


----------



## Syaoransbear

codmaster said:


> Thank s for your interest! I wasn't asking you but if you want to answer please feel free to do so. I will try to ask easier questions or at least less confusing ones.


I was just giving insight on why people aren't answering all of your questions since you've complained multiple times throughout this thread about people not answering all of your questions.


----------



## Mrs.K

codmaster said:


> Thank s for your interest! I wasn't asking you but if you want to answer please feel free to do so. I will try to ask easier questions or at least less confusing ones.
> 
> Assuming that we could assume (and it is an assumption) that the LEO believed that his dog was in danger; do you think that the cop should not have acted in any way until he saw some blood?
> 
> Just curious about what you think he should have done when, since obviously shooting the other dog was a little extreme.


Codemaster, usually I like reading your posts and I enjoy talking to you but in this topic Syaoransbear is right. Telling somebody that he wasn't asked, doesn't help it much either. 

Please don't take this as an attack, it's not meant to be like that. Like I said, I like you.


----------



## KZoppa

for anyone interested here is the petition going around to get justice. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/justice-foe-bear-bear

I'm of the opinion the "officer" should be charged. If it had been anyone else whipping out a gun in a public place and shooting it off, no matter at what, they would be in a world of trouble. This guy should be punished. He isn't anyone special.


----------



## Mrs.K

KZoppa said:


> for anyone interested here is the petition going around to get justice. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/justice-foe-bear-bear
> 
> I'm of the opinion the "officer" should be charged. If it had been anyone else whipping out a gun in a public place and shooting it off, no matter at what, they would be in a world of trouble. This guy should be punished. He isn't anyone special.


Already signed the petition.


----------



## Dainerra

codmaster said:


> In hindsight, maybe that is the case, maybe not.
> 
> But if he thought (and I will admit I don't know the guy or what he was thinking at the time) that his dog was being attacked then he had a right to protect him as best he could. Do you agree?


protect him within what is allowed by law - which is not to kill the other dog. In a few states, you can kill another dog for harassing livestock. In some cases even shoot another dog for attacking your dog on your property. But in a public place? Let alone a DOG PARK? No. You can only shoot to protect yourself and other people. Get between the dogs, pick up a club or even a rock from the ground? absolutely! But, every person who carries a weapon should use it only in the most extreme of circumstances, esp when in a public place.

The burden, legally, is would a REASONABLE person have feared for their life in this situation. It's a bit hard for us, since we are all dog people. Though, I don't think most people ANYWHERE would have said "If I don't shoot this dog, it will kill or maim me" Very rarely have I ever feared a loose stray dog, let alone one that has someone with it and has brought it to a public park to play. I, perhaps naively, assume that the dog must be accustomed to the place and at least to interacting with people. I don't assume that just because a dog growls or snarls at me that my life is in danger.


----------



## Mrs.K

> I don't assume that just because a dog growls or snarls at me that my life is in danger.


And if I, You or anyone else does, than they sure as **** shouldn't own a dog themselves. 

I can't even imagine what would happen if that dog would snarl at their owner which WILL happen at one point. Either because of medication, or because they are in pain, or what ever else...

I have yet to meet a dog that has not snarled at it's owner at least once in their entire life. There is always a point where a dog will snarl just to let us know that he's uncomfortable. God forbid he is in the hands of people that fear for their life and shoot the dog or put him down, just because he snarled...


----------



## BlackPuppy

Rusty_212 said:


> Is there anyone following this thread that believes they could have stopped the Husky without using a gun?


Yes, *if there was a fight,* which I don't believe there was.

The best way takes 2 people, and since one dog was already leashed you're half way there. All you need to do is grab the Husky by the back legs and drag him backwards. I have had to do this on several occasions.

If you don't have two people, it's a matter of getting one dog secured and then going to secure the other dog. 

But, I've never seen an all out dog fight at a dog park. Scuffles, yes, but not anything serious. The majority of dogs don't want to fight.


----------



## codmaster

I am truly curious about something that a number of people have mentioned as being kind of stupid of the LEO (and I tend to agree as much as I can without having been there).
That is - is it the use of a gun in the public dog park that has got so many upset? In other words if he had picked up a large stick and whacked the husky with that; would so many of us feel as upset with the guy?


----------



## gsdraven

codmaster said:


> I am truly curious about something that a number of people have mentioned as being kind of stupid of the LEO (and I tend to agree as much as I can without having been there).
> That is - is it the use of a gun in the public dog park that has got so many upset? In other words if he had picked up a large stick and whacked the husky with that; would so many of us feel as upset with the guy?


Personally, I don't care the he is a LEO. I care that someone carelessly shot a dog. And yes, that it was in a public dog park makes it even more upsetting. While children do not belong in a dog park, what if there had been one there?

I would also be upset if he hit the husky with a stick but the husky likely would have lived and we would not have heard about it. While I don't agree with hurting an animal, if the husky were actually attacking his dog or himself and his wife, then hitting or kicking the dog would have been a reasonable action. A gun was not a reasonable first choice for defense.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

gsdraven said:


> While I don't agree with hurting an animal, if the husky were actually attacking his dog or himself and his wife, then hitting or kicking the dog would have been a reasonable action. A gun was not a reasonable first choice for defense.


If this _WERE _an actual dog attack (which we don't know) and this man, his wife, or his dog were truly at risk of serious bodily injury from the husky (which, again, we can only speculate on at this point) I would have NO problem with him kicking the dog, or whacking it with a stick. Minor skirmishes are not unusual in a dog park - mostly they're a bunch of noise and nothing more, and even if it goes beyond that, they're usually easily broken up without having to shoot a dog. A swift kick to the ribs would deter most dogs under those circumstances. 

It's not the fact that he had a gun in a residential dog park that's the problem, it's that he USED it. If new facts come to light that show that this was a seriously aggressive attack and that this guy was justifiably concerned about his own safety and the safety of his wife and dog because nothing short of killing it would have stopped the attack, well that would change things. But until and unless facts come to light that support that scenario, well it just doesn't seem to add up.


----------



## Samba

Our Animal Control officers aren't even armed with firearms.


----------



## guitarest

We do not have dog parks in S Mississippi; although there are places where we gather. My dogs are really calm around other dog 90% of the time but Willie the Chow/Collie mix (or what ever he is) does have a complex if another dog barks at us. It takes a quick and stern no and he stops but is on high alert and while not vocal he does so the signs of a pending fight if he was not under my control. I am still working on the visual signs... 

Walks are very peaceful for me majority of the time; I can walk up to any person and the two adult dogs will go for a pat from the the stranger if the individual is OK with it and I hear a verbal OK; if not we move on. 

What I personally think happened is a little play fight and the shepherd might have gotten rough? I mean serious here guys and gals our dogs do have a little of the dominance factor in the breed or more so than a husky. The shepherd might have felt threatened or what ever and a fight broke out and in a few seconds it went from a level one to a full all out fight with the husky losing his life. 

My dogs are always on leashes but from watching Caesar and many other shows on TV allot of people use dog parks to just let their dogs run while they do not pay attention. It appears that the owners were around when this happened and I just wonder what type of socialization skills the shepherd had? I would bet thats the key in this puzzle. 

I also do not feel that deadly force should have been used; a quick correction or pulling them apart (I had to do this once with friends dogs) and yes maybe a little blood but at least a pup is around to live another day. 

Again I do not agree with what the off duty police officer or what ever he really is did and should be forced to do community service at a pound to socialize him some on dog reactions.


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> That is - is it the use of a gun in the public dog park that has got so many upset?


Frankly, yes. Because other means, other than DEADLY, should have been used. He shot the dog in the side. It wasn't attacking him. So I find it hard to accept that this guy feared for his life. That simply doesn't ring true.



> In other words if he had picked up a large stick and whacked the husky with that; would so many of us feel as upset with the guy?


I understand trying to break up a dog fight. I understand wanting to protect your dog. I've done it. I've done some stupid ish in my time trying to break up a dog fight. Apparently, when the adrenaline flows, I have no fear...LOL. But I wouldn't have used deadly force to break up a fight. In all my years of working at kennels, working for a rescue group, doing fostering, etc., I've never had to use deadly force. Ever. And I'm not a big, tough chick. I scare easily and I bruise like a peach...hahaha.

Now there is a dead dog and no evidence that there was even a fight. I'm not saying there couldn't have been a squabble, but that rarely involves the death of a dog. 

If it was anyone else (ie, Joe Public) and they shot a dog at a dog park, there would have been consequences immediately. You don't have the right to kill a dog that is fighting another dog.

I guess what is hard to wrap my brain around is that this guy was a LEO and owned a German Shepherd. I find it hard to imagine that he was so clueless as to a) have his dog on leash at an off leash dog park b) was in fear for his life c) had no alternative but to shoot the other dog. 

I know I'm a "dog" person, but doesn't his behavior defy common sense? He's at a dog park. Was it it his first time? I wouldn't think so given that he would have to know how his dog was with other dogs, right? So he had to have some level of experience/knowledge. And being a LEO with a GSD, wouldn't he have some knowledge of dog behavior?

Did he just show up at the dog park for the first time with no idea of what he was doing? Somehow, I don't think so.


----------



## selzer

codmaster said:


> I am truly curious about something that a number of people have mentioned as being kind of stupid of the LEO (and I tend to agree as much as I can without having been there).
> That is - is it the use of a gun in the public dog park that has got so many upset? In other words if he had picked up a large stick and whacked the husky with that; would so many of us feel as upset with the guy?


If he would have wacked it with a stick, the husky's handler would have probably been ticked off but the dog would have been alive at the end of it. The shooter and his wife would probably not try to go to a dog park again, and that would have been the end of it. No, it would not have made the papers. 

From this side of the equation, it is easy to say, yes hit it with a stick (not a ball bat), that would be ok. But if we did not know that the alternative would be to shoot the dog, then I don't know. 

Personally, I think carrying a stick or bat sometimes increases aggression in dogs, hitting or kicking a dog might make the dog turn on you. You really do not know this dog and it is really unnecessary to jump right into attacking the dog. Much better to let your wife pull the shepherd back, hopefully out of the gate, while you grab the back legs of the husky. That is the safest method of getting out of this situation, and nobody gets hurt.


----------



## AbbyK9

> Our Animal Control officers aren't even armed with firearms.


They aren't armed because in many jurisdictions, they are not actually police officers or part of the sheriff's office, but part of health services, parks and recreation, or bylaw enforcement.


----------



## LARHAGE

codmaster said:


> I am truly curious about something that a number of people have mentioned as being kind of stupid of the LEO (and I tend to agree as much as I can without having been there).
> That is - is it the use of a gun in the public dog park that has got so many upset? In other words if he had picked up a large stick and whacked the husky with that; would so many of us feel as upset with the guy?


 

Personally, yes I would feel better if the jerk had used a stick, only because like the majority of us it would have meant that he had to use his brain to help his dog, though like most here I don't for one second believe the Husky was ever going to kill his dog. I have had German Shepherds for well over 40 years, even as a kid me and my siblings were able to break up dog fights between 2 intact males without resorting to such disgusting force. I have a HUGE problem with this man killing a dog for essentially being a dog, he was the cause of the problem by his ignorance of dog behavior, why in **** would you bring a dog to an off leash dog park to keep it on leash and make it feel defensive of other dogs? The Husky lost his life for his sheer stupidity, I hope at the very least he is banned from ever stepping foot in another dog park, or at least let the general public know when he will be there so everyone can leave him and his leashed dog to themselves.

This notion he feared for his life is absolutely frigging comical, so we are to believe that he feared that after killing his GERMAN SHEPHERD, the Husky was than going to turn his murderous eyes onto he and his wife to complete the killing trifecta. LOL!!!!!! Give me a break, the guy is an egomaniac and wanted to show everyone how tough he is, kind of like giving a Chimpanzee a fur coat would make him feel like King Kong.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

LARHAGE said:


> Personally, yes I would feel better if the jerk had used a stick, only because like the majority of us it would have meant that he had to use his brain to help his dog, though like most here I don't for one second believe the Husky was ever going to kill his dog. I have had German Shepherds for well over 40 years, even as a kid me and my siblings were able to break up dog fights between 2 intact males without resorting to such disgusting force. I have a HUGE problem with this man killing a dog for essentially being a dog, he was the cause of the problem by his ignorance of dog behavior, why in **** would you bring a dog to an off leash dog park to keep it on leash and make it feel defensive of other dogs? The Husky lost his life for his sheer stupidity, I hope at the very least he is banned from ever stepping foot in another dog park, or at least let the general public know when he will be there so everyone can leave him and his leashed dog to themselves.
> 
> This notion he feared for his life is absolutely frigging comical, so we are to believe that he feared that after killing his GERMAN SHEPHERD, the Husky was than going to turn his murderous eyes onto he and his wife to complete the killing trifecta. LOL!!!!!! Give me a break, the guy is an egomaniac and wanted to show everyone how tough he is, kind of like giving a Chimpanzee a fur coat would make him feel like King Kong.


Well said!!


----------



## arycrest

From the WASHINGTON POST - Aug 18 - Officer who shot dog at park to be charged 

Anne Arundel County prosecutors plan to charge a civilian Army police officer with two misdemeanors in the fatal shooting of a Siberian husky in a Severn dog park.
The shooting of the dog, known as Bear-Bear, prompted widespread outrage, and County Executive John Leopold pressed county police for a full investigation.
Prosecutors say 32-year-old Keith Shepherd of Severn will be charged with animal cruelty and discharging a firearm within 100 feet of an occupied structure. The firearm charge carries a maximum of six months in jail, and there's a maximum 90-day term on the animal cruelty charge. Both could also result in a $1,000 fine.
Shepherd's attorney has said Bear-Bear attacked Shepherd's dog and that his client fired his gun to defend his dog, himself and his wife.
-- Associated Press


----------



## arycrest

OOPS - I forgot to put the link to the story from the WASHINGTON POST I posted above - OFFICER WHO SHOT DOG AT PARK TO BE CHARGED:
Post Now - Officer who shot dog at park to be charged


----------



## arycrest

I don't recall seeing this posted:

911 Tape: Dog Shooting

911 Tape: Dog Shooting | Video (www.HometownAnnapolis.com - The Capital)


----------



## IllinoisNative

arycrest said:


> From the WASHINGTON POST - Aug 18 - Officer who shot dog at park to be charged


Thank you for the link. 

Well, I think this was the right decision based on what we know. It's just a sad situation all around.



LARHAGE said:


> This notion he feared for his life is absolutely frigging comical.


Honestly, that's what did it for me. The moment it came out that he feared for his life, I knew he was guilty. It just didn't add up.

I'm also a little irritated that this case was closed the same day it happened, and was only reopened due to public outrage. And, yet, now they have enough information to charge him? Where the heck was the investigation when this happened? If the public didn't know, would there have been ANY investigation? Wow. And I think this was the point many of were addressing many pages ago...lol.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

I don't know if anyone posted the link from yesterday's Baltimore Sunpaper. I had heard this previously. Shepherd told police that Kurinij (the brother who had Bear-Bear) seemed "out of it" after the shooting.

Geez - ya think? If somebody just pulled out a gun and shot my dog, I'd probably seem pretty out of it too. It appears to me that Shepherd was looking for a way to cast blame on Kurinij. Maybe I'm alone here, but I thought that was pretty low.


----------



## tonkatuff81

I hope that Officer Shepherd is treating his own dog well as he seems to lack any common sense.


----------



## selzer

I listened to the tape. You can just hear all the fear he had for him and his wife -- NOT. 

At the very end he did request that they get them there fast so they can get this dog to a hospital. But otherwise, he was cool as a cucumber about the whole thing. 

Whoever thinks this guy is sorry about shooting the dog has another thing coming. And, it is clear that he shot the dog because (he felt) the dog was attacking his dog, not himself or his wife, nor did he mention being afraid for himself or his wife. 

He certainly did not sound like he just created a tragedy for himself or the husky's people. 

I am glad that they are charging him. 

How do I really feel??? Well Bob Mitchum played in The Night of the Hunter -- great movie. But the old lady who owned the ice cream parlor where the mother of the two children worked before the 'reverend' Harry Powell murdered her, went to his trial and yelled "LYNCH HIM!!!!" That is how I FEEL.

But I know that the offence is not a capitol offence, but couldn't they tar and feather him and run him out of town on a rail???

My guess that if they find him guilty he will be fined, given probation or community service, and possibly told to stay out of the vacinity of the dog park. I really think I would just be happy with a guilty verdict. I am not convinced that justice will be served by throwing him in jail.


----------



## Dainerra

well, if he is found guilty of the gun charge, he will most likely lose his job. If you are found guilty of a weapons violation, you can no longer cown a gun. It's kind of hard to be a cop if you can't handle a gun.


----------



## Stosh

He's being charged with animal cruelty and discharging a firearm- both misdemeanors, one carries a $1000 fine and the other a maximum of 6 months in jail.


----------



## selzer

If you are guilty of a weapon's violation, then maybe you cannot handle a gun safely, and maybe you should not be in law enforcement. 

But he has not been convicted yet, just charged. A judge and possibly a jury will have to decide whether or not he should be convicted. I do not think a jury will give a rat's behind whether or not he loses his job over this. A judge might. Maybe he would be better off without having to convince a jury. Get a judge who owns a Yorkie or Shitzu and maybe he will be home free.


----------



## Dainerra

even a misdemeanor weapons violation can end a law enforcement career.


----------



## selzer

Maybe this guy should have considered that before pulling his gun out.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

Judge: "Jury, how do you find the defendant?"

Jury: "Guilty!"


----------



## KZoppa

personally of the opinion he should get the full punishment and then some. Not to mention foot the bill for the entire estimated cost this family put into Bear Bear before his untimely demise at the hands of a gun happy moron. I mean think about it. The cost alone for getting the dog from a breeder is no less than $500 but if they got him from a high end breeder you're talking a few thousand. Plus vet care up to that point. Collars, leashes, kennels, ect. Plus the cost of food figured by how much the dog ate per day. That can really add up and it still wouldnt be enough for this family who just lost one of their family members. I would press charges myself and demand all costs be reimbursed and THEN some. But like i said, personal opinion. and less than a year of jail time wouldnt cut it either. Guys convicted of dog fighting get locked up for longer than that!


----------



## codmaster

Nice to see that everyone is folowing that old American axiom --- "Innocent till proven guilty".

Maybe we should just follow the old Western approach - "Hang 'em, then try 'em".

Heh! heh!


----------



## Mrs.K

arycrest said:


> I don't recall seeing this posted:
> 
> 911 Tape: Dog Shooting
> 
> 911 Tape: Dog Shooting | Video (www.HometownAnnapolis.com - The Capital)



And THAT guy was supposed to be in fear of his life? Seriously? 




> I listened to the tape. You can just hear all the fear he had for him and his wife -- NOT.
> 
> At the very end he did request that they get them there fast so they can get this dog to a hospital. But otherwise, he was cool as a cucumber about the whole thing.
> 
> Whoever thinks this guy is sorry about shooting the dog has another thing coming. And, it is clear that he shot the dog because (he felt) the dog was attacking his dog, not himself or his wife, nor did he mention being afraid for himself or his wife.
> 
> He certainly did not sound like he just created a tragedy for himself or the husky's people.
> 
> I am glad that they are charging him.
> 
> How do I really feel??? Well Bob Mitchum played in The Night of the Hunter -- great movie. But the old lady who owned the ice cream parlor where the mother of the two children worked before the 'reverend' Harry Powell murdered her, went to his trial and yelled "LYNCH HIM!!!!" That is how I FEEL.
> 
> But I know that the offence is not a capitol offence, but couldn't they tar and feather him and run him out of town on a rail???
> 
> My guess that if they find him guilty he will be fined, given probation or community service, and possibly told to stay out of the vacinity of the dog park. I really think I would just be happy with a guilty verdict. I am not convinced that justice will be served by throwing him in jail.


I agree with you. He doesn't sound like he was in fear, in fact he sounded like he did something great there and why the need to repeat a dozen times that he is an off duty federal officer?


----------



## Rusty_212

I'm glad he's being charged, as he should have been from the start.
I hope his life will be a living **** for years to come.


----------



## guitarest

He is very casual in his conversation with 911; if he feared of his life there should at least be some fluctuations in his voice. Or so I would think, very casual and he said on the tape he discharged the weapon in the rear of the head of the husky? Or thats what I heard; I hope he didn't like working in law enforcement because IMO its going to be a long time before he has a badge again. 

All so casual, like a day at the office. The husky's welfare was a after thought about getting animal control out there. If that happened to me no matter what the law did to the shooter his arz would be in civil court paying for the pup etc.....

Its so sad this happened to the husky. I had a run in with some of our locals about two years ago and some LEO are very cocky and have a huge chip IMO. There was a disturbance on my street and I went outside still on my property to see what was going on and he started yell that he was going to shoot my dog because he was visually upset behind a fence. I don't like to be threatened by any one and I said excuse me; the deputy said it again and I calmly told him "No he wasn't going to use any force on my contained dog". The deputy turned his aggressions on me and eventually I was hand cuffed and taken to the sheriffs office and charged with disobeying a direct order; my only run in with the Police in 49 years. I was out within a hour and had my day in court with the charge was dropped.

Majority of the Police are great guys under loads of stress that sometimes can only be equaled being in a combat theater with the military. I have the utmost respect for those in uniform; but sometimes there is a bad apple. Its sad that those are the ones that we remember just like this dog killing gun caring individual. There has to be more to this story if he is being charged; so I can say I am willing to say he is one of those "I'm a cop and can do what I want to do bad apples".


----------



## AbbyK9

> in fact he sounded like he did something great there and why the need to repeat a dozen times that he is an off duty federal officer?


He did exactly what he was supposed to have done after discharging his weapon outside of duty - he called 911, identified himself, and informed them he had discharged his firearm and that police and animal control needed to respond. Police to take statements and deal with the firearms discharge, and animal control so the dog he shot could be helped. Also sounded like he was not trying to kill the dog, simply stop it from attacking his own dog.

I didn't hear him repeat several times that he was a LEO until he was asked by the dispatcher to verify it. Then again ... I listened to it yesterday so maybe I don't remember correctly.

Also, let's bear in mind that different people react to stress and fear differently. Some people appear perfectly calm and rational - it's how they handle stress and fear. Some people go hysterical. Some people become emotional. But not everyone handles stress the same way. Sounds to me he went into that calm-type of state.

Incidentally, my husband pulled his firearm (concealed carry permit) once when he felt his life threatened (and mine), when one of the gang bangers who used to meet across the street from where we lived when we lived in Newport News pulled a gun on him. My husband did not shoot the kid (who dropped his pistol and ran off as soon as he saw my hubby's), but his 911 call sounded very much the same way. He called and informed police that he'd just pulled his firearm (but not discharged it) and that the weapon dropped by the gang banger was in the street. I know my hubby was very upset but you probably could not have told it from the 911 tape.


----------



## guitarest

Thats very fearful to live in a area like that Chris, but the huge difference was discharging the weapon. Yall didn't and he did


----------



## AbbyK9

> Thats very fearful to live in a area like that Chris, but the huge difference was discharging the weapon. Yall didn't and he did


I was using the example to make a point about the fact that not all people react to stress in the same way. IMHO the 911 call in this case sounded very much like the 911 call my husband made. I don't think the fact that my husband did not fire at the threat (he didn't because the threat stopped being a threat because my husband produced his firearm) makes a difference in how he reacted to the stress. That reaction set in once he saw the other person draw a gun. Not once he pulled his.

On a complete side note, this was not actually a bad area per se - but we did have a group of gang bangers hanging out at one particular corner, dealing drugs. During the daytime, there was never any kind of issue, but once it got dark, they came out.


----------



## guitarest

I just came across this on a different website; did yall know he used a 9mm with *hollow points*. Thats in his personal weapon and he killed Bear Bear before the owner could even react to his asking the dog to be removed.


----------



## Dainerra

all of our weapons have hollow points? don't know why that matters?


----------



## codmaster

Dainerra said:


> all of our weapons have hollow points? don't know why that matters?


 
Much more deadly when they hit flesh!


----------



## AbbyK9

> did yall know he used a 9mm with *hollow points*. Thats in his personal weapon and he killed Bear Bear before the owner could even react to his asking the dog to be removed.


Do we know for certain that he was carrying his personal weapon and not his duty weapon? The police report said he was carrying a Glock 17, which is fairly widely used in law enforcement, both as duty weapons and personal weapons. 

As far as the hollow-point rounds are concerned, when I carry concealed, I am always loaded with hollow-point rounds. The reason for this is not the fact that hollow-point rounds have what people call "greater stopping power", but the fact that they expand once they hit a target. This makes them less likely to go through the target and hit something else - like an innocent bystander. Round point rounds are much more likely to go in one end and out the other and injure or kill someone else.

I did, for a while, carry frangible 9mm hollow-points when I carried my FS92 (civilian version of the M9 pistol). Frangible rounds break up when they hit anything solid, such as a brick wall, wood floor, a stack of books, etc. so they're a really good defense round as they will not go through a wall, car door, etc. I've noticed a greater rate of misfires with them, though, and they tend to be more expensive than standard hollow-points. At least they were a couple of years ago.


----------



## IllinoisNative

AbbyK9 said:


> Do we know for certain that he was carrying his personal weapon and not his duty weapon?


Yes, the article was posted in post #396 on page 40. It said,_* "The weapon used in the shooting was the man's personal weapon," police said.*_

Listen, I can buy almost anything aside from the fact that this man feared for his life (and not because of the voice recording). That's where he lost me. If he's afraid of a dog fight, IMO, he needs to turn in his LEO badge. But that's just me. And he sure as heck shouldn't own a GSD. Again, just my opinion. The man shouldn't be able to own a gun, IMNSHO.



> And, it is clear that he shot the dog because (he felt) the dog was attacking his dog, not himself or his wife, nor did he mention being afraid for himself or his wife.


Exactly, *selzer*. Heck, he shot him in the REAR of the head. The dog wasn't even facing him.


----------



## AbbyK9

Thanks for pointing me to the article that clarified/verified this was his personal weapon. That said, though, the point about hollow-point rounds is still relevant. A lot of people - probably the majority - who carry concealed carry hollow-points for their ammunition simply because it is less likely to go through a target and accidentally injure someone else. 

Plus, if you were to carry a weapon that's the same or similar to the one you carry in your work, such as LEOs who carry Glocks on and off-duty, you would also be more likely to use one type of ammo consistently. If his department uses hollow-points normally, he would probably use them for concealed carry as well. If you're used to one type of firearm and one type of ammo, it wouldn't make sense to carry or train with a different type of ammo in the same weapon, since it performs differently with different types of ammo.



> Heck, he shot him in the REAR of the head. The dog wasn't even facing him.


Where does it say he shot him in the rear of the head? I went to listen to the tape again and I'm pretty sure that he said "The dog is still alive. I shot it in the rear hip to keep it from attacking my dog." You can shoot a dog in the hip if he is facing you, depending on your angle. And it's pretty safe to say that a shot to the rear of the head would have killed the dog immediately. (Particularly with a hollow-point 9mm round.)

I'm not saying that I think he did the right thing, but people seem to jump to a whole lot of conclusions based on very little facts and that bothers me. When this goes to trial, maybe we will learn more of the facts and be able to actually comment on them. 

As it stands now, lots of people are immediately jumping to making statements about the types of rounds used, how his voice sounded on the phone, etc. which are based on purely emotional responses and, in a lot of cases (such as in the case of the type of ammo) very little knowledge on the subject matter.


----------



## Mrs.K

Actually, it's getting somewhat annoying on the justice for bear bear facebook site. I joined this with good intents but now they want the law to be changed so it the shooting of bear bear turns into a felony. 

Honestly, if I buy a dog, it's MY property. I did not adopt any of my dogs and I do not like using that term because I BOUGHT Indra. She is MY property and just because she's my property doesn't mean that I can't treat her like a family member. 

However, they don't seem to realize what consequences these kind of changes have. It doesn't just affect dog owners, it will affect EVERY pet owner out there and not just dog owners and how is this supposed to work? 

Will they have legal guardians? Who is speaking for them and what kind of status will they have? 

It is horrible what happened but I hope they will never be able to change that law. You pay money, its your property!


----------



## IllinoisNative

AbbyK9 said:


> Where does it say he shot him in the rear of the head? I went to listen to the tape again and I'm pretty sure that he said "The dog is still alive. I shot it in the rear hip to keep it from attacking my dog."


You're right. I misquoted. But the rest of that still applies. He said, "I shot it in the rear hip *to keep it from attacking my dog*." He didn't say he shot it to keep it from attacking him or his family. So he really had no business firing that weapon at all. He wasn't fearful for his life or his family members. He said it himself.

I don't think it matters what bullets he used or how many rounds he fired. It's irrelevant now. He just stated that he fired to protect his dog and you can't do that. If he stated that on the tape, I'm confused as to how he was cleared in a day before the public outrage.:headbang:


----------



## Zoeys mom

Hollow points are illegal in Maryland though maybe not for cops. I don't think the ammo is the problem though, it's the fact a person shot a dog killing it in a suburban neighborhood when there is still no proof the dog was even a threat. The only victim here is the dead dog and his owner IMO. If this dog had torn into the man, his wife, or dog I would still think a gun shot was a little harsh, but may have been able to understand why he acted the way he did. In Maryland to discharge a firearm you must be able to show imminent deadly harm. I don't know about other states, but here you may not shoot an unarmed person, shoot someone for hitting you, or even shoot someone in your yard even if they are trying to break in. While I don't agree with the last one it's the law and something a cop was aware of. With the few facts we do know this person's judgement was way off


----------



## Dainerra

number 1 rule for pulling your weapon - if you shoot to wound, you weren't in enough danger to pull the trigger.


----------



## AbbyK9

> Hollow points are illegal in Maryland though maybe not for cops.


Are you sure about that?

I lived in Maryland for a number of years and do not recall hollow-point rounds being illegal - they used to be available at any gun shop and at any gun show (we used to go to the one in Upper Marlboro).

The only state I am aware of where hollow-points are illegal is NJ, and even there, there's an exception for LEOs, as far as I know.


----------



## codmaster

AbbyK9 said:


> Thanks for pointing me to the article that clarified/verified this was his personal weapon. That said, though, the point about hollow-point rounds is still relevant. A lot of people - probably the majority - who carry concealed carry hollow-points for their ammunition simply because it is less likely to go through a target and accidentally injure someone else.
> 
> Plus, if you were to carry a weapon that's the same or similar to the one you carry in your work, such as LEOs who carry Glocks on and off-duty, you would also be more likely to use one type of ammo consistently. If his department uses hollow-points normally, he would probably use them for concealed carry as well. If you're used to one type of firearm and one type of ammo, it wouldn't make sense to carry or train with a different type of ammo in the same weapon, since it performs differently with different types of ammo.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say he shot him in the rear of the head? I went to listen to the tape again and I'm pretty sure that he said "The dog is still alive. I shot it in the rear hip to keep it from attacking my dog." You can shoot a dog in the hip if he is facing you, depending on your angle. And it's pretty safe to say that a shot to the rear of the head would have killed the dog immediately. (Particularly with a hollow-point 9mm round.)
> 
> I'm not saying that I think he did the right thing, but people seem to jump to a whole lot of conclusions based on very little facts and that bothers me. When this goes to trial, maybe we will learn more of the facts and be able to actually comment on them.
> 
> As it stands now, lots of people are immediately jumping to making statements about the types of rounds used, how his voice sounded on the phone, etc. which are based on purely emotional responses and, in a lot of cases (such as in the case of the type of ammo) very little knowledge on the subject matter.


Well said! A voice of reason!


----------



## AbbyK9

> number 1 rule for pulling your weapon - if you shoot to wound, you weren't in enough danger to pull the trigger.


In a lot of CCW classes, they teach that "You shoot to stop the threat." Not to kill, maim, wound, etc. But to STOP the threat. In whichever way that can be done.


----------



## codmaster

Zoeys mom said:


> ............... If this dog had torn into the man, his wife, or dog I would still think a gun shot was a little harsh, but may have been able to understand why he acted the way he did. ............
> 
> *If I saw a dog tearing into my wife, I would do ANYTHING I could to stop him. An AK-47 would be a choice if available even.*
> 
> I don't know about other states, but here you may not shoot an unarmed person, shoot someone for hitting you, or even shoot someone in your yard even if they are trying to break in. While I don't agree with the last one it's the law and something a cop was aware of. With the few facts we do know this person's judgement was way off


True perhaps for his judgement - we willprobably see about this during the trial.

That is a real strange law in MD about defending your self.


----------



## selzer

Bear-bear was a rescue. His owners loved him, socialized him, took him to the dog park and let him play regularly with children and dogs. I am pretty sure that the owners will file a civil case and having him found guilty of these misdemeaners might help with their civil case. 

But Bear-bear was property. If they win, the shooter will likely have to pay the vet costs, and replacement costs for the rescued dog. Possibly something for pain and suffering but I doubt it. My guess is they will be awarded probably approximately $120 + vet bills if they win. There is no guarantee they will win, it will cost them attourney fees, time off of work, etc, etc. I can see both sides of persuing it. 

The shooter did not know Bear-bear, did not know that he was probably not even a threat, did not know his background or his dog park behavior; however, the shooter should have considered where he was and that the dog was owned by someone, and had someone there. I hope this guy decides that dog parks aren't his thing after this.


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> Well said! A voice of reason!


Why is AbbyK9 the voice of reason (not that I'm saying they aren't...lol)?

The man said he shot the dog to stop the dog from attacking his dog. So the man didn't fear for his life. The man lied. So, from what we know, the man admitted to what he did and the investigation led to the guy being charged. There must be some evidence he did the wrong thing, right?

So we know he did the wrong thing. 

I'm confused as to why there is even a debate at this point given what the LEO stated in the phone call. Isn't it clear cut now? What else do we need to know now that the man admitted to why he shot the dog? Am I missing something?

There was no imminent harm to himself or his family. So he had no business using his gun. Period.

IMO, it's not an emotional response to say that the guy didn't shoot the dog to protect himself or that he feared for his life WHEN HE ADMITTED IT.

How is he to protect the public if he's afraid of dog scuffles and his first response is to shoot? Or is he only brave because he has a gun? That's a problem all by itself, IMO.


----------



## Mrs.K

> Bear-bear was a rescue. His owners loved him, socialized him, took him to the dog park and let him play regularly with children and dogs. I am pretty sure that the owners will file a civil case and having him found guilty of these misdemeaners might help with their civil case.
> 
> But Bear-bear was property.


Yes, I know, however they do not want him legally to be treated as property, from what I read on facebook the question is asked how murdering a dog can not be a felony and than they go on about how they want to change the law and how sickening it is that a dog is considered property while it is a family member. They don't agree with the misdemeanor they want it to be a felony. 

Welcome to Facebook


----------



## guitarest

Dainerra said:


> all of our weapons have hollow points? don't know why that matters?


It matters because he said it was his personal weapon.


----------



## Mrs.K

guitarest said:


> It matters because he said it was his personal weapon.


And it was confirmed that it was his personal owned weapon in an earlier report.


----------



## selzer

Mrs.K said:


> Yes, I know, however they do not want him legally to be treated as property, from what I read on facebook the question is asked how murdering a dog can not be a felony and than they go on about how they want to change the law and how sickening it is that a dog is considered property while it is a family member. They don't agree with the misdemeanor they want it to be a felony.
> 
> Welcome to Facebook


If someone did this to my dog, I would want their head on a platter too. 

Codmaster with all of his talk would probably pull out his glock and shoot the guy with a gun and then tell the police he pulled out a gun started shooting and he was afraid for his life as well as his dog's. In fact, with his dog laying there bleeding, his decision to shoot the man would probably be less questionable that of this shooter. 

While I understand their pain, I would not want the law changed to equal status of killing a human being. At the same time, a pet IS living and breathing and feels pain and has emotions. It is not the same as putting a few rounds into a coffee table. 

In fact, many abusers will torture or kill their family member's pet to cause them pain. Those yayhoos should go to the fiery pit in my opinion. 

In this instance there is no indication that the shooter was trying to torture the handler or owner by attacking their pet. I truly think his opinion was that it was just a dog and it was going to attack his, so he killed it. No big deal. 

Should the penalty be higher for causing pain, injury, or death to a living breathing creature, than to a piece of property that has no life? I think so. I think he is being charged with animal cruelty, and I agree with that. I think in civil cases, one should be able to claim damages for loss of companionship, pain and suffering of the owner.

But I do not believe that it should be equal to taking a human life.


----------



## tonkatuff81

I love the coffee table analogy. 

My guy might sometimes be as inanimate as a coffee table, but no piece of "property" can give one the joy of a companion animal. 

I guess that's the crux of it. Domesticated dogs need more legal protection than property / livestock, and less than that of a human being. (not to say I condone cruelty to livestock)

Back to the coffee table; there are animal cruelty statutes. I can't think of any legal sanctions preventing an owner from damaging their own property. No one cares if we paint that nice walnut table purple, burn it, or take it to the dump. 

How can a companion animal be considered property ?


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Mrs.K said:


> Yes, I know, however they do not want him legally to be treated as property, from what I read on facebook the question is asked how murdering a dog can not be a felony and than they go on about how they want to change the law and how sickening it is that a dog is considered property while it is a family member. They don't agree with the misdemeanor they want it to be a felony.
> 
> Welcome to Facebook


If they were to make killing an animal a felony murder charge PETA would have a field day! We could no longer kill cows or chickens for food. You can not treat one animal any different than the others just because somone has an emotional attachment to that animal. 

Animal Cruelty is a very broad charge and will come in many different degrees. Somone who shot a dog and killed it, is not going to be treated the same as somone who tortured an animal. If the cruelty is bad enough there will be other charges brought up on the person that are felonys.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

guitarest said:


> It matters because he said it was his personal weapon.


The type of amunition used is not relevant to any part of the case. With the exception that they may be able to throw another charge at him. The only part that is relevant is that it was his personal firearm.

I carry in my own personal weapons a type of amuntion called a hydroshock.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

IllinoisNative said:


> You're right. I misquoted. But the rest of that still applies. He said, "I shot it in the rear hip *to keep it from attacking my dog*." He didn't say he shot it to keep it from attacking him or his family. So he really had no business firing that weapon at all. He wasn't fearful for his life or his family members. He said it himself.
> 
> I don't think it matters what bullets he used or how many rounds he fired. It's irrelevant now. He just stated that he fired to protect his dog and you can't do that. If he stated that on the tape, I'm confused as to how he was cleared in a day before the public outrage.:headbang:


Once again I will state that there are 2 and I repeat 2 parts to any investigation when it comes to shootings. The initial investigation by the officers that responded was concluded and there were no initial charges from the police due to the evidence at hand. Now because it was a shooting the secondary investigation is conducted to go deeper and find any other issues with the shooting. Charges are being brought from this part just like I said there would be. If he is convicted of the weapons charge which is almost a certainty, he will lose his badge and not be allowed to purchase a weapon or work in any capacity that gives him access to firearms. The animal cruelty charge may go either way.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

Dainerra said:


> number 1 rule for pulling your weapon - if you shoot to wound, you weren't in enough danger to pull the trigger.


Whoever taught you that statment were fools! 

NO ONE that has taken a weapons class is EVER taught to wound. You are taught to stop the threat. If the threat stops before thier life ceases then they will just be injured. If they have to die to stop being a threat then so be it. 

There is a video (I am not going to search for it) that shows just how this works. The jist of the video is as follows.

Officers respond to a call of a burglary. A description of the suspect is a young girl blah blah. Well they find a girl matching the description (to include clothes worn) and they stop her. She pulls a gun on the officers and they fire. She falls to the ground on her butt. She again raises the weapon at the officers. They fire again. She falls onto the ground and as the officers move in she raises the weapon again and they fire the final rounds into her. 

Each time they shot to stop the threat, and each time until her death they stopped until she raised the weapon. The spoken of weapon being a .22 pistol.


----------



## R3C0NWARR10R

AbbyK9 said:


> As it stands now, lots of people are immediately jumping to making statements about the types of rounds used, how his voice sounded on the phone, etc. which are based on purely emotional responses and, in a lot of cases (such as in the case of the type of ammo) very little knowledge on the subject matter.


This is what I was complaining about much earlier in this thread.


----------



## Dainerra

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> Whoever taught you that statment were fools!
> 
> NO ONE that has taken a weapons class is EVER taught to wound. You are taught to stop the threat. If the threat stops before thier life ceases then they will just be injured. If they have to die to stop being a threat then so be it.
> 
> There is a video (I am not going to search for it) that shows just how this works. The jist of the video is as follows.
> 
> Officers respond to a call of a burglary. A description of the suspect is a young girl blah blah. Well they find a girl matching the description (to include clothes worn) and they stop her. She pulls a gun on the officers and they fire. She falls to the ground on her butt. She again raises the weapon at the officers. They fire again. She falls onto the ground and as the officers move in she raises the weapon again and they fire the final rounds into her.
> 
> Each time they shot to stop the threat, and each time until her death they stopped until she raised the weapon. The spoken of weapon being a .22 pistol.


that's what I was saying. You don't shoot to "wound" you shoot to stop the threat. Everyone I know who has any firearms training has been taught the same thing. If you are in danger, 2 to the chest 1 to the head.


----------



## IllinoisNative

R3C0NWARR10R said:


> Once again I will state that there are 2 and I repeat 2 parts to any investigation when it comes to shootings.* The initial investigation by the officers that responded was concluded and there were no initial charges from the police due to the evidence at hand*.


That's hysterical considering the tape recording. He admits he shot the dog because it was attacking his dog. Who the **** did the inital investigation? That evidence was available from the beginning.



> Now because it was a shooting the secondary investigation is conducted to go deeper and find any other issues with the shooting.


Then why did they ADMIT to reopening the case due to the public outcry? Wouldn't that investigation be happening regardless?

I just find it odd that the man admits ON TAPE that he shot the dog because of that dog attacking his dog. That evidence was available to the cops from day one. And yet they didn't do jack until the public got wind of it. 

I don't get it.


----------



## Mrs.K

> NO ONE that has taken a weapons class is EVER taught to wound.


I think you got that Statement wrong. I perceived it the way that if you pull the trigger to wound somebody you weren't in danger and should have never pulled that trigger at all.


----------



## DFrost

Cop shoots dog - - 56 pages.

Non-cop shoots dog - - 2 pages.

chuckle, chuckle.

DFrost


----------



## Mrs.K

Jeez, some of these people take that stuff way to far. I am not going to be a part of a group like that. They will never understand the big picture and don't understand what consequences their movement can have.


----------



## selzer

DFrost said:


> Cop shoots dog - - 56 pages.
> 
> Non-cop shoots dog - - 2 pages.
> 
> chuckle, chuckle.
> 
> DFrost



Chuckle all you like, the two stories are about as different as they come. I do not want to get involved in that because I have not a lot of experience with rescue dogs, how likely they are to have a biting issue etc. But the story of the bulldog getting shot by the idiot at the dog park -- that story I can't even find, maybe just appeared in one of these threads. 


No major contraversy there because the guy was not some type of LEO and the dog survived. Probably everyone just agrees he is a yayhoo because he is not a police officer.


----------



## Syaoransbear

DFrost said:


> Cop shoots dog - - 56 pages.
> 
> Non-cop shoots dog - - 2 pages.
> 
> chuckle, chuckle.
> 
> DFrost


Cop shoots dog for playing with his dog = no investigation (until public outcry made them investigate)

Non-cop shoots dog that attacked a person = investigation in progress


----------



## GSDolch

I would like where you found out that the dogs were only playing? Link plz? Proof?

Otherwise it is only your own personal guess on what happened.

Gotta say DF makes a good point. Both stories with very little information. Only difference is ones authority, ones not.


----------



## selzer

And one's investigation was ended right away and the other did not -- could not POSSIBLY have anything to do with what the guy did for a living.


----------



## DFrost

selzer said:


> Chuckle all you like, the two stories are about as different as they come. I do not want to get involved in that because I have not a lot of experience with rescue dogs, how likely they are to have a biting issue etc. But the story of the bulldog getting shot by the idiot at the dog park -- that story I can't even find, maybe just appeared in one of these threads.
> 
> 
> No major contraversy there because the guy was not some type of LEO and the dog survived. Probably everyone just agrees he is a yayhoo because he is not a police officer.


 
Nonsense, it is the controversy. You can try and make it sound anyway you like. Lets look at this way; dog is attacking another man's dog (his story) dog is shot. 56 pages

Dog bites someone, put in a crate and shot a day or so later while not being a threat. 2 pages. 

I won't drink your kool aid. The "pages" speak for themselves. Keep in mind, I've not defended either one of the shooters, I've only pointed out the "lynch mob" mentality.

DFrost


----------



## Mrs.K

It is because it was a cop and cops are held to a higher standard, they are also suppossed to keep us safe and if a cop goes out and shoots a dog that is definitely not something people want to see. 

If then the investigation is stopped because it was a cop that shot the dog... well people will be outraged and I think that is why it has so many pages.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

Which will make a better headline? Cop shoots dog? or Non-Cop shoots dog? 

Its just like with dog attacks. People will read a story titled "Pitbull mauls child" than one hat says "Golde Retriever mauls child"


----------



## selzer

No, no, DFrost, many of those pages are filled with my posts and others who do not have a dog in the other fight. 

Sorry, but someone killing their own dog because it actually did bite a family member is a lot different from a law enforcement officer killing someone else's dog when there is no evidence that it bit anyone.

The one dog bit people, the other dog was maybe going to bite a dog. BIG difference. in my opinion.


----------



## IllinoisNative

Syaoransbear said:


> Cop shoots dog for playing with his dog = no investigation (until public outcry made them investigate)
> 
> Non-cop shoots dog that attacked a person = investigation in progress


Thank you.

You know, I was attacked by a dog when I was five. This was back in the seventies. It was at a neighbors house. The dog was an abused **** hound (the owner abused his wife, sons, dog) who was tied to a dog house and eating at the time. How many things are wrong with that sentence? LOL! He took a chunk out of my thigh. They had to stuff two feet of gauze in my leg and I couldn't walk on it for months or the stitches would break open. I had to be carried everywhere and relearn how to walk. I ended up terrified of dogs. Keep in mind, I had a GSD and lab at the time. 

I have no problem shooting a dog who attacks a human. I would expect it. I wouldn't hesitate to kill any dog who attacked my children, family members, etc. I don't think dogs are more valuable than humans although I consider my dogs as family and treat them as such. 

But, IN THIS INSTANCE, the dog was "attacking" another dog. You can't whip out a gun and shoot a dog for that. Period. And the man said he shot the dog because he was "attacking" his dog. It wasn't a "fear for your life" scenario. THE MAN ADMITTED IT.

So how the **** is that a mob mentality to think the LEO was wrong? Did he not admit it?

What we do know for a fact? There were no injuries. There was no blood. There was no evidence of a fight. The man made a tape recorded phone call admitting that he shot the dog for attacking his dog.

So, if we know you can't shoot a dog for attacking another dog, and this man shot a dog for attacking another dog (per his own words), he's wrong. Period. End of story. And the second investigation concluded as much since they are now filing charges. 

And, IMO, it's perfectly logical to think that maybe his job had something to do with them immediately closing the case when there was a tape recording of him admitting to shooting the dog for attacking his dog. It would be odd if people didn't question that aspect of the story. It doesn't make sense. Either that, or the initial investigators are more incompetent than I thought. And it doesn't make one a cop hater to think the cop, IN THIS INSTANCE, scewed up and made a mistake. He did.

And the fact that they admitted to reopening the case due to public outcry, also speaks volumes. Again, this is what they are saying...not us.

It doesn't make it a lynch mob for a majority of people to agree that something doesn't add up give the evidence we do know. What it means is that the majority of the people aren't buying the LEO's story per the evidence.

Afraid for my life, my ***.

JMHO.


----------



## codmaster

"Guilty until proven innocent" = "Lynch mob" ???????????

Maybe at this point we should all just let the legal system play itself out?


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> "Guilty until proven innocent" = "Lynch mob" ???????????
> 
> Maybe at this point we should all just let the legal system play itself out?


We heard the man admit that he shot the dog for attacking his dog. Can you do that? LOL! Aren't they only supposed to fire the gun if there is an imminent threat to a person? Did I get that part wrong? Because if you can't shoot a dog for attacking another dog and he did (per his own words), we have to wait until a court rules on this? Um, we heard him.

Somewhere OJ Simpson is laughing. I'm sure glad a court of law got that one right.

If he admitted it, doesn't that mean he's guilty? He obviously didn't shoot it because he was afraid for his life.

And if a LEO, who is trained to deal with much bigger threats, who also owns a GSD, shot a husky at a dog park and was afraid for his life, I want him to turn in his badge. He shouldn't own a gun much less be a LEO, IMNSHO.

I am a small framed woman who was the victim of a dog bite...and I wouldn't have shot the dog in that circumstance. You're telling me a TRAINED LEO officer with a GSD was terrified for his life during a dog "fight"? LOLOLOLOLOL! I feel like taking away his man card.:laugh:


----------



## selzer

OMG, nobody waited for the juveniles down in chat room to be tried and convicted -- they are ready to surgically castrate them, and euthanize them. 

We are discussing the legal system, it is the internet, not a law court.

In some ways the legal system is lacking, ie, how dogs are treated by law the same as a stupid coffee table. If you paid $120 at the shelter for this dog, its replacement value is approximately $120. 

We needed a lousy lynch mob to get them to reopen the case. 

NOBODY hear is saying he should not stand trial. We are just waging our opinions that the guy doesn't have a leg to stand on, and hoping for particular outcomes. 

Codmaster, there is nothing wrong with this as you keep trying to imply.


----------



## selzer

LOL, OM!!!! Taking away his MAN card!!! 

I'm dying!!! that is great. 

He is real brave when he waves around his gun and shoots a medium sized dog.


----------



## codmaster

So are many people brave and all-knowing on the Internet!

BTW, selzer, when did he admit to "waving his gun around" or is that simply another of your assumed facts?

Seems like you would make a great jurer in a trial.


----------



## selzer

It is not an assumed fact. It is a word picture. Kind of like gossips wagging their tongues. That means they are talking not sticking their tongues out and wagging them. 

Waving his gun around, is another way of saying "look at me, I am a big hero who can shoot a dog because I have a gun." 

If he is going for a jury trial, he probably hopes to get you on it. Because, really, I am a bit more open minded about this whole thing than you are. The difference is you are trying desperately to make what this guy did ok. Maybe it is because you like the idea of shooting a dog to protect your dog. Maybe because of his profession. Maybe it is really your brother or cousin. 

I really cannot fathom how ANYONE could still think this guy is in the right. Maybe if he was my kid, I would want to take his part.... maybe. 

Because it is crystal clear by the tape that he shot the dog because it was attacking his dog, not him or his wife. After thinking it over a bit, it sounds he added that in there to cover his butt.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> OMG, nobody waited for the juveniles down in chat room to be tried and convicted -- they are ready to surgically castrate them, and euthanize them. *?????? Relevance???*
> 
> We are discussing the legal system, it is the internet, not a law court. *Your point?*
> 
> In some ways *the legal system is lacking*, ie, how dogs are treated by law the same as a stupid coffee table. If you paid $120 at the shelter for this dog, its replacement value is approximately $120.
> 
> *Would you like a dog to be treated like a person? They are not people, they are dogs! Would you treat rabbits like people also, not to mention guina pigs, ants and even cats?*
> 
> We needed a lousy lynch mob to get them to reopen the case. *The American way, eh? Unbelievable!*
> 
> NOBODY *hear (?)* is saying he should not stand trial. We are just waging our opinions that the guy doesn't have a leg to stand on, and hoping for particular outcomes. *Why bother with a trial as it seems like for some people it isn't needed? And in some countries there wouldn't be one, as you seem to favor!*
> 
> Codmaster, there is nothing wrong with *this* as you keep trying to imply.


That really depends on your point of view, doesn't it? I guess if you really don't believe in "innocent till proven guilty", then a trial might only get in the way of your assumption of guilt and could be a real bummer, wouldn't it?

I am not "implying" anything - merely stating that we don't know all of the facts in the case and shouldn't make a definitive judgement without knowing more about the case, as will hopefully come out in the trial. 

It sets a very dangerous precendent when people make up their mind about guilt/innocence from rumor, innuendo, assumptions, and newspaper reports. But enjoy yourself!


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> So are many people brave and all-knowing on the Internet!


So many people are brave with a gun in hand. Sigh. Bravery would have happened if he stopped the fight without a gun. It doesn't take a lot of guts to shoot a dog who is supposedly attacking your dog. I don't see the bravery in that. I see poor judgment. And you don't need to be juror to see that. 



> BTW, selzer, when did he admit to "waving his gun around" or is that simply another of your assumed facts?


What does it matter if the guy admitted to shooting the dog for attacking his? Again, this is the guy's OWN words. Nobody is speculating or manufacturing this crap. IT'S ON TAPE.



> Seems like you would make a great jurer in a trial.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a discussion forum, no? What discussion would we have if no one had an opinion? Besides, not to beat a dead horse...but the guy admitted what he did...on tape. Or can we not judge based on a person's own words?

Did people not speculate on OJ Simpson? On Scott Peterson? On Michael Vick? Do people not get opinions until a court settles it? Interesting. People don't raise awareness or shine a light on problems by remaining silent. If people remained silent, this investigation would have remained closed...and it was reopened by people who didn't have all the facts.

I honestly don't get what your point is? That we shouldn't have an opinion based on what we know? That we aren't entitled to feel how we do? Apparently, we're not too far off because this case when from, "It's closed" to "We're not pressing charges." So we can't be that off base.


----------



## selzer

No, no Illinois native. Only police officers are ALLOWED to be innocent until proven guilty. 

If you bring up another instance of people on the internet discussing the guilt and prospective punishment of a perp, that is not relevent. 

It is only relevent if it is a police officer.

Because police officers NEVER think people are guilty until proven innocent.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> It is not an assumed fact. It is a word picture. Kind of *like gossips wagging their tongues.* That means they are talking not sticking their tongues out and wagging them.
> 
> Waving his gun around, is another way of saying "look at me, I am a big hero who can shoot a dog because I have a gun."
> 
> *So waving his gun around is just more stuff that YOU MADE UP, right? Didn't really happen - correct?*
> 
> If he is going for a jury trial, he probably hopes to get you on it. Because, really, I am *a bit more open minded (Huh!) *about this whole thing than you are. The difference is you are trying desperately to make what this guy did ok. Maybe it is because you like the idea of shooting a dog to protect your dog. Maybe because of his profession. Maybe it is really your brother or cousin. *Maybe it is your "bad seed" cousin????????????*
> 
> I really cannot fathom how ANYONE could still think this guy is in the right. Maybe if he was my kid, I would want to take his part.... maybe. *Nice!*
> 
> Because it is crystal clear by the tape that he shot the dog because it was attacking his dog, not him or his wife. After thinking it over a bit, it sounds he added that in there to cover his butt.


 
*Selzer, *
*Perhaps you might want to take a break and chill and "Read my posts" or a few of the others on here. We, and I, ARE NOT SAYING WHAT HE DID WAS RIGHT - JUST THAT WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE HONEST JUDGEMENT!*

*As I have said if I thought that another dog or person for that matter, was attacking me or my family or my dog with very serious designs, yes, I would shoot them without a thought and without waiting for blood to show up.*

*Anyone who would not, I would consider an idiot or a coward.*

*BTW, I would also expect my dog to do the same for me if I were under attack - just the way it goes in GSD land.*

*Are you say*


----------



## selzer

Codmaster, when someone shoots and kills YOUR dog, and you find that he will get a slap on the wrist, and you will have to sue him in civil court to get nothing but the vet bills and his purchase price out of the idiot. Then maybe YOU will think a little bit different about dogs being treated the same as an inanimate object. 

I NEVER suggested dogs should be treated as people in the law, but they should be treated as living, breathing beings and people should be able to sue for more than their replacement value, because we all know you cannot replace your dog.


----------



## codmaster

selzer, if he shot a pit bull I assume that you think that would have been ok? Or at least a lot better than a Husky?


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> It sets a very dangerous precendent when people make up their mind about guilt/innocence from rumor, innuendo, assumptions, and newspaper reports.


Actually, we're not. It's not rumor that the guy admitted to what he did on tape. It's not rumor that they said they are reopening the case based on the public outcry. It's not rumor to say the LEO used his own gun. It's not rumor to say he fired in a public dog park. It's not rumor to say that they went from closing the case to pressing charges. It's not rumor to say that the dogs had no injuries.

It's awfully dismissive to say that we're basing our opinions on rumor and innuendo when we've stated the exact opposite.

But don't let facts get in your way. I can't be any clearer. My position is based on the FACTS of the case. Rumors don't have anything to do with it.

Let me ask you this, why do you think they are now pressing charges? What makes someone press charges? Wouldn't they need some sort of evidence? They aren't going to press charges if he did every thing by the book.

Is he allowed to shoot a dog if a person's life wasn't at stake? If the answer is no, then he'll be found guilty. Because, ON TAPE, he clearly stated why he did it. How in the Sam Hill is that rumor?

I guess we're supposed to ignore the facts in the interst of appearing impartial. Nice.

You know, you can say we're jumping the gun on guilt. Just like we can say you're ignoring the obvious. It works both ways.

And, if we know he didn't do right, how can we not make a judgment? That's illogical. In order to know he didn't do right, you have to make an honest assessment...LMAO. We do know enough to make this judgment...we would have to in order to acknowledge what he did wasn't right.


----------



## selzer

codmaster said:


> *Selzer, *
> *Perhaps you might want to take a break and chill and "Read my posts" or a few of the others on here. We, and I, ARE NOT SAYING WHAT HE DID WAS RIGHT - JUST THAT WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE HONEST JUDGEMENT!*
> 
> *As I have said if I thought that another dog or person for that matter, was attacking me or my family or my dog with very serious designs, yes, I would shoot them without a thought and without waiting for blood to show up.*
> 
> *Anyone who would not, I would consider an idiot or a coward.*
> 
> *BTW, I would also expect my dog to do the same for me if I were under attack - just the way it goes in GSD land.*
> 
> *Are you say*


If you shoot a dog here for going after your dog, than be prepared to face the consequences. 

DID YOU LISTEN TO THE 911 TAPE??? The guy did not say anything about fear for himself or his wife, just his dog. That was it. That is not allowed. He is guilty. He can lose his job for a weapons violation, he can go to jail for animal cruelty -- I actually doubt they will get him on that charge, because he was not deliberately torturing the dog. But whatever. I certainly hope that the husky owner DOES take him to civil court to get at least something that this idiot has to pay for his utter stupidity with a gun. 

It is funny, the LEOs were all afraid that when people got their CCPs there would be shootings all over the place. We do not have to worry so much about private citizens with CCWs but LEOs making stupid decisions with their firearms.


----------



## codmaster

IllinoisNative said:


> We heard the man admit that he shot the dog for attacking his dog. Can you do that? LOL! Aren't they only supposed to fire the gun if there is an imminent threat to a person? Did I get that part wrong? Because if you can't shoot a dog for attacking another dog and he did (per his own words), we have to wait until a court rules on this? Um, we heard him. *Sigh! No, you can jump to conclusions at any time!*
> 
> Somewhere OJ Simpson is laughing. I'm sure glad a court of law got that one right. Actually didn't a court of law find him guilty and had him liable to her esate for a lot of money? *Listen to all the facts and then make up your mind (unless of course it gets in the way of your emotions!)*
> 
> If he admitted it, doesn't that mean he's guilty? *Did he already plead guilty? I had not heard that - guess you are once again ahead of the law!*
> 
> 
> He obviously didn't shoot it because he was afraid for his life. *And a mind reader as well! Congrats!*
> 
> And if a LEO, who is trained to deal with much bigger threats, who also owns a GSD, shot a husky at a dog park and was afraid for his life, I want him to turn in his badge. He shouldn't own a gun much less be a LEO, IMNSHO.
> 
> I am a small framed woman who was the victim of a dog bite...and I wouldn't have shot the dog in that circumstance. You're telling me a TRAINED LEO officer with a GSD was terrified for his life during a dog "fight"? LOLOLOLOLOL! I feel like taking away his man card.:laugh:


It is your choice about defending your self if a dog bites you. Some folks freeze when a dog attacks them and that is what they choose, others choose to fight back.

Did you think that the dog was trying to kill you?

What did you do when the dog bit you - just wait till the dog was done and wandered off?

Did you choose to not shoot the dog because you were afraid that your bullet would hit somebody else? Or because you didn't want to hurt the dog? Or maybe because you didn't have a gun handy? Or?


----------



## selzer

codmaster said:


> selzer, if he shot a pit bull I assume that you think that would have been ok? Or at least a lot better than a Husky?


You are really trying to get me to go off and start calling you names aren't you? That is not going to work. 

What I said many, pages ago is that his stupid story about being afraid for himself or his wife might hold some water in some people's minds because of pit bulls reputation and their ability to produce extensive damage. I never said I thought it was ok. Just that so many people are afraid of pit bulls and have heard of such horrible stories about them, that he might get someone to believe him. 

This has nothing to do with what kind of dog it was. But a lot more people are afraid of GSDs, Rotties, and Pitties, than huskies. If this dog was a GSD, then he might be able to get someone to believe him about how scared he should have been for his life or his wife's, because a lot of people think of GSDs as killers. 

So now you are going to say that I think it would be ok if Bear-bear was a GSD. 

You go. Have fun.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> No, no Illinois native. Only police officers are ALLOWED to be innocent until proven guilty.
> 
> If you bring up another instance of people on the internet discussing the guilt and prospective punishment of a perp, that is not relevent.
> 
> It is only relevent if it is a police officer.
> 
> Because police officers NEVER think people are guilty until proven innocent.


You really don't like police officers, do you? Nice to live in America where one can feel and express that feeling.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> Codmaster, when someone shoots and kills YOUR dog, and you find that he will get a slap on the wrist, and you will have to sue him in civil court to get nothing but the vet bills and his purchase price out of the idiot. Then maybe YOU will think a little bit different about dogs being treated the same as an inanimate object.
> 
> I NEVER suggested dogs should be treated as people in the law, but they should be treated as living, breathing beings and people should be able to sue for more than their replacement value, because we all know you cannot replace your dog.


I hope no one ever shoots my dog or anybody else's dog unless they truly deserve it.

Are you aware that in some states anyone can shoot a dog who is chasing a deer?


----------



## selzer

codmaster said:


> You really don't like police officers, do you? Nice to live in America where one can feel and express that feeling.


Why do you continue to bring up things about my loyalty to my country? Are you manufacturing stuff about my opinions of this country now???

I was born here, my folks were born here, I have not known any other country. But that does not mean I have to believe that police officers are always 100% wonderful and beyond doing something wrong.


----------



## selzer

codmaster said:


> I hope no one ever shoots my dog or anybody else's dog unless they truly deserve it.
> 
> Are you aware that in some states anyone can shoot a dog who is chasing a deer?


In my neighborhood, if dogs are running deer, the three S's. Shoot, shovel, shut up. Not sure it is ok, but a game warden told my dad that. 

But a dog running deer in this state is running loose and there is a leash law in this state. So it is a little different from people who take their dog to a safe, fenced in dog park, to let them run and play.


----------



## IllinoisNative

*codmaster*, I see you stil haven't gotten into the habit of quoting correctly. When I go to quote you, I don't get all your quotes because you quote your answers as well as my post. Your posts should be outside my quotes so that when I reply to you, I get all your points.



codmaster said:


> It is your choice about defending your self if a dog bites you. Some folks freeze when a dog attacks them and that is what they choose, others choose to fight back.


What part of the tape are you not understanding? He blatently said, ON TAPE, that he shot the dog because it was attacking his dog. I realize this doesn't fit into your agenda but those are the facts.



> Did you think that the dog was trying to kill you?
> 
> What did you do when the dog bit you - just wait till the dog was done and wandered off?
> 
> Did you choose to not shoot the dog because you were afraid that your bullet would hit somebody else? Or because you didn't want to hurt the dog? Or maybe because you didn't have a gun handy? Or?


I can't debate the illogical. You're coming at this from the standpoint that the guy was attacked. What are you basing this on? Because this contradicts what the guy said ON TAPE. THE OTHER DOG DIDN'T ATTACK HIM!!! Do you honestly think they would have filed charges if he was attacked? The cops said they investigated and interviewed multiple witnesses. If those witnesses backed up the "attack," they wouldn't be filing charges. If there was no evidence, they wouldn't be filing charges. This really isn't a hard concept. Honest.

And for flips sake, it's not being a mind reader to say that the man didn't fear for his life WHEN THE GUY ADMITTED WHY HE SHOT THE DOG ON TAPE. He didn't say he shot the dog because it attacked him. He said he shot the dog because it attacked his dog.

And, FYI, pleading guilty has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It's a plea. Nothing more. It doesn't make one guilty or innocent. But, ON TAPE, he admitted to what he did and why he did it. He can plead whatever he likes, it won't change what he said.


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> You really don't like police officers, do you? Nice to live in America where one can feel and express that feeling.


You're deflecting and making this about something that has nothing to do with anything. It's usually what people do when they are losing an argument...they question someone's patriotism and turn the argument around.

I would hope you could debate the merit of your argument rather than make this personal about something that has no bearing on the discussion at hand.


----------



## codmaster

IllinoisNative said:


> Actually, we're not. It's not rumor that the guy admitted to what he did on tape. It's not rumor that they said they are reopening the case based on the public outcry. It's not rumor to say the LEO used his own gun. It's not rumor to say he fired in a public dog park. It's not rumor to say that they went from closing the case to pressing charges. It's not rumor to say that the dogs had no injuries.
> *True enough - we have some of the facts. AND a whole lot of assumptions!*
> 
> It's awfully dismissive to say that we're basing our opinions on rumor and innuendo *(you forgot assumptions!)* when we've stated the exact opposite.
> 
> But don't let facts get in your way. *(As I can see you have not done! So thanks. But I would prefer to know more of what really went on before I make a judgement, but maybe that is just me)* I can't be any clearer. My position is based on the FACTS of the case. Rumors don't have anything to do with it.
> *Assumptions? For example, how long did the fight/attack/play between the two dogs actually last? Please let me know as I could not find a number so far. Would the amount of this time make any material difference in the incident?*
> 
> Let me ask you this, why do you think they are now pressing charges? What makes someone press charges? Wouldn't they need some sort of evidence? They aren't going to press charges if he did every thing by the book. *A few people have stated that they didn't press charges till the big public outcry - could it have been elected officials reacting to political pressure? I am sure if you asked the guys lawyer he/she would probably state that his client is only being charged because he is a cop! Do I agree - no! if there was a law against discharging a gun wherehe did then he should be tried on the charge - same as with shooting a dog if it attacks your dog and not you - let him prove that he was convinced that he thougt his life was in danger. BUT, give him a chance to prove it in court before we all "convict" him. That's all!*
> 
> Is he allowed to shoot a dog if a person's life wasn't at stake? If the answer is no, then he'll be found guilty. Because, ON TAPE, he clearly stated why he did it. How in the Sam Hill is that rumor? *Are you making the assumption that the tape includes EVERYTHING that the guy said about what happened? Would that be an assumption? Also could a tape have been altered?*
> 
> I guess we're supposed to ignore the facts in the interst of appearing impartial. Nice.
> 
> You know, you can say we're jumping the gun on guilt. Just like we can say you're ignoring the obvious. It works both ways. *That it does!*
> 
> And, if we know he didn't do right, how can we not make a judgment? That's illogical. In order to know he didn't do right, you have to make an honest assessment...LMAO. We do know enough to make this judgment...we would have to in order to acknowledge what he did wasn't right.


*Actually we could say something like "I think it appears that the guy may have done something wrong and it sure looks like it, BUT I will reserve judgement until we find out under oath what really happened that day".*


----------



## selzer

IllinoisNative, Codmaster _manufactures _all kinds of facts, and then accuses everyone else of doing so. 

I really think he is just bored and thinks it is fun to get us going.


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> *Actually we could say something like "I think it appears that the guy may have done something wrong and it sure looks like it, BUT I will reserve judgement until we find out under oath what really happened that day".*


Well, you're "assuming" that people don't lie under oath...lol. As if he was lying on tape instead.

You know, people go to court and plead not guilty all the time. But when the police bring in evidence (ie, the tape recording), it doesn't matter what they say under oath if the evidence (ie, the tape recording) contradicts it.  So what he says on the stand would have less validity than the evidence that is presented. Just saying.


----------



## codmaster

IllinoisNative said:


> You're deflecting and making this about something that has nothing to do with anything. It's usually what people do when they are losing an argument...they question someone's patriotism and turn the argument around. *I suspect your patriotism is just fine!*
> 
> I would hope you could debate the merit of your argument rather than make this personal about something that has no bearing on the discussion at hand.


I will try.

Don't you think that the attitude that one has about LEO's might have some tiny bit of influence about how someone feels about this incident? I was just expressing that opinion.

Besides, she practically accused me of being his brother. Isn't that a little personal also?


----------



## selzer

So if it is a police officer, than you reserve judgement until we find out under oath? Anyone else is open season?

Whatever. 

Who is going to doctor the 9-1-1 tape? The police? Do THEY want this guy thrown to the wolves??? I have heard it all now.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> Why do you continue to bring up things about my loyalty to my country? Are you manufacturing stuff about my opinions of this country now???
> 
> I was born here, my folks were born here, I have not known any other country. But that does not mean I have to believe that police officers are always 100% wonderful and beyond doing something wrong.


If you think that I would question your loyalty to your country, then I apologize. 

All I meant was that you do seem to be a little down on cops. If that is also not the case, then I misread some of your previous posts and again I must apologize about that.

I misinterpreted the following comments that you made in a previous post as indicating that you didn't seem to like or respect LEO's.

"Only police officers are ALLOWED to be innocent until proven guilty." 

"It is only relevent if it is a police officer."

"Because police officers NEVER think people are guilty until proven innocent."


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> I will try.
> 
> Don't you think that the attitude that one has about LEO's might have some tiny bit of influence about how someone feels about this incident?


It can, but regardless of how one feels, it doesn't make them wrong just because of it. You can not like cops and still be right about this instance. (For the record, I don't hate cops...lol)

This instance should be judged by itself. We shouldn't discount what that poster says because of her feelings if the argument is sound.

I'm not one that thinks he's guilty because he is a cop. Being a cop is why this person had a gun and was able to shoot when most people wouldn't have had that option. So his job does play a role. It's also hard to think his job wouldn't play a role when they immediately dismissed this case without doing a thorough investigation. And we know this because, upon further investigation, they are now filing charges. So we do know someone screwed up.

But, just because this officer did the wrong thing, doesn't mean this is indicative of all officers. Far from it. But this particular officer made a mistake and there are consequences for that, IMO. I don't think he should be burned at the stake and run out of town. But maybe he shouldn't be in the position to have a gun or make these kind of decisions. I don't think he was evil. I think he was inexperienced and lacked judgment. And this is a price to be paid for that even if it was a mistake. He has the awesome responsibility of carrying a gun. He needs better judgment, IMO.


----------



## VitaBene

*C'mon Mods*

Time to close this one, IMO


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> IllinoisNative, Codmaster _manufactures _all kinds of facts, and then accuses everyone else of doing so.
> I really think he is just bored and thinks it is fun to get us going.


selzer,

Let's both promise to be civil. For example I would ask you politely which facts have I manufactured (or assumed without explicetly saying I was making an assumption, which I have stated a few times).

And I may be bored but that has got nothing to do with this forum - just a personal thing.


----------



## codmaster

IllinoisNative said:


> It can, but regardless of how one feels, it doesn't make them wrong just because of it. You can not like cops and still be right about this instance. (For the record, I don't hate cops...lol)
> 
> This instance should be judged by itself. We shouldn't discount what that poster says because of her feelings if the argument is sound.
> 
> I'm not one that thinks he's guilty because he is a cop. Being a cop is why this person had a gun and was able to shoot when most people wouldn't have had that option. So his job does play a role. It's also hard to think his job wouldn't play a role when they immediately dismissed this case without doing a thorough investigation. And we know this because, upon further investigation, they are now filing charges. So we do know someone screwed up.
> 
> But, just because this officer did the wrong thing, doesn't mean this is indicative of all officers. Far from it. But this particular officer made a mistake and there are consequences for that, IMO. I don't think he should be burned at the stake and run out of town. But maybe he shouldn't be in the position to have a gun or make these kind of decisions. I don't think he was evil. I think he was inexperienced and lacked judgment. And this is a price to be paid for that even if it was a mistake. He has the awesome responsibility of carrying a gun. He needs better judgment, IMO.


Very well put! I agree about the consequences of his seeming lack of judgement about dogs especially.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

I actually like following the thread. Why open it, if you aren't interested? I heard there is, in fact a witness. According to the source, the witness validates Bear-Bear's handlers story. Plus - stated some other things that do not look good for Mr. Shepherd. If the source is correct, it will come out at trial. I am in MD. This story has been in the local paper almost every day. I'll get news regardless, but I fail to see why the thread should be closed.


----------



## Redgrappler

I carry mine on and off duty. To say an LEO shouldn't carry off duty is just ridiculous. An LEO is never really "off duty." Rid


----------



## BlackPuppy

Charges to be filed Wednesday. 

"The misdemeanor charges against Keith Shepherd, 32, of Severn, a civilian police officer for the Army in Northern Virginia, are animal cruelty and discharging a firearm within 100 yards of an occupied home, according to a statement by prosecutors. "


Anne Arundel County prosecutors are filing charges Wednesday morning against a man who shot Bear-Bear, a Siberian husky, at a dog park in a Severn dog park about two weeks ago. - baltimoresun.com


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> Very well put! I agree about the consequences of his seeming lack of judgement about dogs especially.


Thank you, *codmaster*. It wasn't my intention to vilify this LEO or to make blanket statements about all LEO's. I just think, in this instance, the LEO lacked judgment and there should be some consequences for that.

Peace.



Redgrappler said:


> I carry mine on and off duty. To say an LEO shouldn't carry off duty is just ridiculous. An LEO is never really "off duty." Rid


I don't think that they shouldn't carry off duty. But, IMO, this particular LEO shouldn't based on how he used it. Carrying isn't the problem. Discharging the weapon is. I agree that they are never really "off duty" and I'm personally glad for that. I think emotions tend to run high when a gun is used incorrectly. If someone has the responsibility of having a gun, the bar should be high when they use it. JMO.

*Stevenzachsmom*, I think people said the thread should be closed because it got very heated and became personal. I think a few of us, me included, needed to count to ten before we posted...LOL.


----------



## VitaBene

*Bickering*



Stevenzachsmom said:


> I actually like following the thread. Why open it, if you aren't interested? I heard there is, in fact a witness. According to the source, the witness validates Bear-Bear's handlers story. Plus - stated some other things that do not look good for Mr. Shepherd. If the source is correct, it will come out at trial. I am in MD. This story has been in the local paper almost every day. I'll get news regardless, but I fail to see why the thread should be closed.


Discourse is fine, but when 2 or 3 posters start to bicker endlessly back and forth it is typically time to close a thread. That is not to say that another thread cannot start when more information is known. Again, just my opinion.


----------



## selzer

Oh for heaven's sake, why close a thread because a couple people are going back and forth about a few posts? 

Codmaster, you pulled every statement that I made completely out of context. You said that the other thread that I brought up where people are talking about what they would do to the perps and treating them guilty before any type of trial is irrevelent, so I said that it is only relevent if it is LEOs??? And they are only ALLOWED to be innocent until proven guilty if they are LEOs. 

This is about how some of the people are giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt BECAUSE he is an LEO. The police closed the investigation right away because they did so. And many people here want more and more and more information about this because they cannot believe any type of LEO would do something so henous. 

I do not BELIEVE LEOs are innocent BECAUSE they are LEOs. 

I also do not BELIEVE they are guilty BECAUSE they are LEOs. 

I think that makes me more open minded than someone who BELIEVES they are innocent because they are an LEO. 

You have accused me of manufacturing facts when I use figures of speach, you have accused me of being unpatriotic because I am not believing police are innocent because they are police. 

I find this pretty pathetic, particularly your pea that we both be civil. 

Can you point to any point where I called you any names or said that you were stupid or anything else??? 

Or, does it mean that I have to be nice to the shooter or I am personally attacking you and every officer or family member of an officer on this board? 

Whatever.


----------



## GSDolch

I think it should be closed cause people cant keep their emotions in check.

All I can say is im glad alot of people in this thread arent on a jury. Minds are made up before any solid facts or an investigation is even over with.

Enough already unless someone has something constructive about the situation, IMO.

ETA: And whoever gave the line about "just dont read it"...give me a break, ever think people might come back to read hoping that someone has posted more information on the subject. While a few have, its getting lost in the "my opinion is better than your opinion" BS.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> Oh for heaven's sake, why close a thread because a couple people are going back and forth about a few posts?
> 
> Codmaster, you pulled every statement that I made completely out of context. You said that the other thread that I brought up where people are talking about what they would do to the perps and treating them guilty before any type of trial is irrevelent, so I said that it is only relevent if it is LEOs??? And they are only ALLOWED to be innocent until proven guilty if they are LEOs.
> 
> This is about how some of the people are giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt BECAUSE he is an LEO. The police closed the investigation right away because they did so. And many people here want more and more and more information about this because they cannot believe any type of LEO would do something so henous.
> 
> I do not BELIEVE LEOs are innocent BECAUSE they are LEOs.
> 
> I also do not BELIEVE they are guilty BECAUSE they are LEOs.
> 
> I think that makes me more open minded than someone who BELIEVES they are innocent because they are an LEO. * Ok, you are certainly entitled to any opinion that you want to have.*
> 
> You have accused me of manufacturing facts when I use figures of speach, *(please see my apology below!)*you have accused me of being unpatriotic *(Could you please point out where I did this? Or is this perhaps yet another case of a "Figure of Speech" that I again did not understand properly?)* because I am not believing police are innocent because they are police.
> 
> I find this pretty pathetic, particularly your *pea *that we both be civil.
> 
> Can you point to any point where I called you any names or said that you were stupid or anything else??? *If I do that, won't you think I am "taking it out of context"?*
> 
> Or, does it mean that I have to be nice to the shooter or I am personally attacking you and every officer or family member of an officer on this board? *No!*, *and I don't know if you are intending that or not!*
> Whatever.


I must apologize again for thinking that when you said the LEO was "waving a gun around" that you meant that he was "waving a gun around"!  Was this what you meant that I was taking your actual statements out of context?

*You did accuse me of being the LEO's brother and I can attest to the fact that this fact is false!*


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Personally, I don't mind the differing opinions. I am open to hearing what people have to say, whether I agree, or not. People are passionate about this subject. I have read every page and hope the thread stays open. 

Two points that keep coming up regard LEOs and animal cruelty laws. I just thought I would add my opinions - for what they are worth.

I have never had a bad experience with a law enforcement officer. Nothing, but good things to say about my encounters. I certainly don't think all LEOs hate dogs and are out to get them. 

Last year, in Baltimore City, a 2 year old pit bull was doused with gasoline and set on fire. The dog ran through the streets, screaming. A young female city officer, Officer Teel, saw the burning dog. She chased after her and used her sweatshirt to put out the fire. I'm pretty sure that wasn't it her job description. She went above and beyond the call to try to save that dog. She could have been burned, or bitten by the dog. Despite her efforts, the dog could not be saved. Even so, the officer is a hero. I suppose Officer Teel raised my expectations of what to expect from a LEO.

As for the talk about changes in Animal Cruelty laws - they are needed here in Maryland. I'm not saying to make charges felonies, but loop holes need to be closed, stiffer penalties are needed, and people need to know they will be punished for the crime of animal cruelty. 

The horse rescues I have volunteered with take in cruelty cases. When my daughter was about 14, she and her friend were volunteering at the rescue when a mare and her filly came in. The horses were starving. They had been locked in a barn. The manure had piled up until the mare's back touched the roof of the barn. The wall of the barn had to be cut to get the horses out. These two kids spent the day picking manure off the horses. They were glad the horses were now in a safe environment. Unfortunately, due to a technicality, the guy got those horses back. I have seen it happen time and time again. People are seldom held accountable and often the animals are returned. Rescues sometimes have to be satisfied that the horses don't go back to the owners. That is the only justice the horses will get. I think animals deserve better. JMO.


----------



## selzer

selzer said:


> It is not an assumed fact. It is a word picture. Kind of like gossips wagging their tongues. That means they are talking not sticking their tongues out and wagging them.
> 
> Waving his gun around, is another way of saying "look at me, I am a big hero who can shoot a dog because I have a gun."
> 
> If he is going for a jury trial, he probably hopes to get you on it. Because, really, I am a bit more open minded about this whole thing than you are. The difference is you are trying desperately to make what this guy did ok. Maybe it is because you like the idea of shooting a dog to protect your dog. Maybe because of his profession. Maybe it is really your brother or cousin.
> 
> I really cannot fathom how ANYONE could still think this guy is in the right. Maybe if he was my kid, I would want to take his part.... maybe.
> 
> Because it is crystal clear by the tape that he shot the dog because it was attacking his dog, not him or his wife. After thinking it over a bit, it sounds he added that in there to cover his butt.


 
Ok, that is my accusation that it is your brother. My trying to figure out why ANYONE would still be so insistant this this guy might still be innocent after that tape. 

THEN you go on to say the tape may have been doctored, but would not answer my question of who would be doctoring the 9-1-1 tape???

AND you said that he might not have said EVERYTHING on the 9-1-1 tape, but when you are making a 911 call, if you are going to leave out info it will be the less important info. If this dog tried to attack him or his wife, that would have been on the 911 tape. If he was afraid of the dog attacking him or his wife, he would have said that, and not that the dog attacked his dog.


----------



## selzer

Stevenzachsmom said:


> As for the talk about changes in Animal Cruelty laws - they are needed here in Maryland. I'm not saying to make charges felonies, but loop holes need to be closed, stiffer penalties are needed, and people need to know they will be punished for the crime of animal cruelty.


I think there needs to be some changes to animal cruelty. I think there should be different levels to animal cruelty. I do not necessarily think shooting a dog that is attacking your dog is animal cruelty. 

I think animal cruelty is deliberately torturing an animal to watch it suffer, like the guy that cut the kittens paws off. People like that need to be removed from society entirely. Starving an animal to death would fall in this category. 

Gross neglect, allowing an animal to become diseased or injured due to not providing the animal basic care. Forcing animals to live in filthy cages or stalls, allowing wounds to go untreated. And the like. This would be animal cruelty/neglect.

And a third category for causing serious injury or death to an animal. But not with the intent of watching it suffer, or prolonged neglect. 

I just do not think that shooting a dog because you are afraid it is going to injure or kill your dog, is the same as cutting a kittens paws off or leaving a horse in a barn full of manure until it is starved and has a bunch of other problems.

At the same time, killing someone's dog unnecessarily causes a lot of pain and grief to its people even if the dog does not suffer terribly.


----------



## IllinoisNative

GSDolch said:


> I think it should be closed cause people cant keep their emotions in check.


That's a valid point. However, I think people are passionate about this subject and that's where the "heatedness" comes from. Personally, I'm glad people feel strongly about this.



> All I can say is im glad alot of people in this thread arent on a jury. Minds are made up before *any solid facts or an investigation* is even over with.


With all due respect, that is incorrect. We do know some solid facts. We know, per the police, that the officer used his own gun. We know there were no injuries to either dog or any human. We know the LEO admitted on tape that he shot the dog because the dog was attacking his. We know the case was dismissed the same day the incident happened. We know the case was only reopened due to the public outcry. We know that since they reopened the case, charges have been filed. So it is an incorrect statement to say we don't have solid facts.

What I got upset over was people acting like people who have an opinion that the LEO made a mistake were doing so because of a) a mob mentality b) without looking at any facts c) before a jury ruled on it d) basing it on pure emotion c) hated cops, etc.

People have painstakingly pointed out the facts and have an opinion based on all that. I mean why do you think they filed charges when the case was previously dismissed? Could it possibly be that "some" evidence supports it? 

I'm not sure how one can dismiss a recording where the man basically admitted why he shot the dog...and it wasn't that he feared for his life. I shouldn't have to ignore the obvious just to give the appearance of being impartial. I mean, if a man murdered his wife, his prints were found on the gun, he was home, and he was overheard threatening her, should I say I'm waiting for a jury to form an opinion? Or can I form a LOGICAL/REASONABLE opinion based on fact without being called over emotional or being told I have no solid facts to back up my opinion?



> Enough already unless someone has something constructive about the situation, IMO.


Again, with all due respect, there are a lot of posts on this forum that aren't exactly constructive. This thread is no exception. People have opinions and should be allowed to voice them without being told to "wait and see." I mean, why discuss anything? People have different opinions on everything from health care to breeders. 



> While a few have, its getting lost in the "my opinion is better than your opinion" BS.


That wasn't what it was about. It was a debate over the actual evidence of the case...where opinions differ. Was it heated? Yes. But it wasn't about an opinion being better.

The crux of the matter, for me, was the LEO saying he shot the dog because he feared for his life. Only the tape recording contradicts what he said. That's actually arguing the merits of the case and has nothing to do with someone's opinion being better.

I guess it bothers me because I read a lot of things I don't agree with and threads that become heated, but I would NEVER tell someone to close a thread because *I* didn't want to read it or that it wasn't contructive enough for me. I'm perfectly capable of using the scroll button.


----------



## selzer

Unless the thread is violating board rules, we should leave it open. We should not be afraid of it being a bit emotional. Life is emotional. And having a beloved pet shot while being supervised in a dog park -- this is an issue that touches us all, even if we do not go to dog parks. 

It would be the same if the headline was "dog shot and killed during a schutzhund trial" or "dog shot and killed at AKC event" or "dog shot and killed while hunting with its owner" or "dog shot and killed at a pet store." 

We all of us do our best to ensure that our dogs are safe at home and under our control when we take them anywhere. We follow the rules. We take them to fenced in areas so that nothing terrible happens. When someone does all of this, and something terrible still happens, it effects us. It upsets us. It makes us furious. 

Venting how we feel about it is normal. It happens all the time about a ton of topics: stray dogs attacking our dog; people letting their dogs die in their car; scenarios about what the neighbors said or did last; and non-dog related topics.


----------



## GSDolch

IllinoisNative said:


> That's a valid point. However, I think people are passionate about this subject and that's where the "heatedness" comes from. Personally, I'm glad people feel strongly about this.


Passion is fine, Personal attacks are not, specifically going after a poster simply because you dont agree with them is not.





> With all due respect, that is incorrect. We do know some solid facts. We know, per the police, that the officer used his own gun. We know there were no injuries to either dog or any human. We know the LEO admitted on tape that he shot the dog because the dog was attacking his. We know the case was dismissed the same day the incident happened. We know the case was only reopened due to the public outcry. We know that since they reopened the case, charges have been filed. So it is an incorrect statement to say we don't have solid facts.


With all due respect, these are facts that are basically unimportant. So he had is own gun? Do you KNOW how many people have their own guns with them all the time? LEO and not? That has NOTHING to do with it. Plenty of people have CCW and many of them you probably have no idea about. You are with them in public and are non the wiser. This means what? excatly? The injury part has also been discussed in the thread as had him calling and admitting it. These are NOT solid facts to convict someone of! But many think it is.



> What I got upset over was people acting like people who have an opinion that the LEO made a mistake were doing so because of a) a mob mentality b) without looking at any facts c) before a jury ruled on it d) basing it on pure emotion c) hated cops, etc.
> 
> People have painstakingly pointed out the facts and have an opinion based on all that. I mean why do you think they filed charges when the case was previously dismissed? Could it possibly be that "some" evidence supports it?


You can't honestly tell me that with more than one person pointing out the biased in some peoples post means nothing? I could see your point if only one person did so, but..well, ive seen a few people do so..sooooo, I fail to see how you can say that people saying that means nothing and is upsetting? If you didn't do it, then why would it upset you so much? Ever think maybe they see something that you don't?

What evidence supports it? Im not, nor have I ever said that there was not any evidence, but I think I would like better facts on it and would rather wait for an investigation to be done and over with first. Don't put the cart before the horse.



> I'm not sure how one can dismiss a recording where the man basically admitted why he shot the dog...and it wasn't that he feared for his life. I shouldn't have to ignore the obvious just to give the appearance of being impartial. I mean, if a man murdered his wife, his prints were found on the gun, he was home, and he was overheard threatening her, should I say I'm waiting for a jury to form an opinion? Or can I form a LOGICAL/REASONABLE opinion based on fact without being called over emotional or being told I have no solid facts to back up my opinion?


Wait wait wait....did I miss something? He was no in fear of his life now? I will have to go back and reread cause I missed that lol.





> Again, with all due respect, there are a lot of posts on this forum that aren't exactly constructive. This thread is no exception. People have opinions and should be allowed to voice them without being told to "wait and see." I mean, why discuss anything? People have different opinions on everything from health care to breeders.


Which all tend to stay around the same topic or subtopic there of. Not personal bantering back and forth. People should be allowed to voice their opinions, however...looking at some of these spinoffs are cutting it really really close to personal attacks and some which could be personal attacks. Which is against the rules.





> That wasn't what it was about. It was a debate over the actual evidence of the case...where opinions differ. Was it heated? Yes. But it wasn't about an opinion being better.


Reading and rereading some of the posts, I beg to differ on that opinion. The same things have been hashed out by both sides, over..and over..and over again. Not by everyone no, but its starting to get a bit redundant.



> The crux of the matter, for me, was the LEO saying he shot the dog because he feared for his life. Only the tape recording contradicts what he said. That's actually arguing the merits of the case and has nothing to do with someone's opinion being better.


That is you, and I think that is great, You are entitled to your opinion, I never said otherwise.

[quote'I guess it bothers me because I read a lot of things I don't agree with and threads that become heated, but I would NEVER tell someone to close a thread because *I* didn't want to read it or that it wasn't contructive enough for me. I'm perfectly capable of using the scroll button.[/QUOTE]


This, implies to me the following. "my opinion to keep it open matters, your opinion to close it does not" I don't think that is how you meant it though.

You can't say that you accept opinions and people should have them then turn around and contradict it. You choose to use the scroll button, I chose to say something....I really don't see how one is wrong and the other rights. Esp. if they are just different opinions. 

With that, I bow out.


----------



## VitaBene

GSDolch said:


> Passion is fine, Personal attacks are not, specifically going after a poster simply because you dont agree with them is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, these are facts that are basically unimportant. So he had is own gun? Do you KNOW how many people have their own guns with them all the time? LEO and not? That has NOTHING to do with it. Plenty of people have CCW and many of them you probably have no idea about. You are with them in public and are non the wiser. This means what? excatly? The injury part has also been discussed in the thread as had him calling and admitting it. These are NOT solid facts to convict someone of! But many think it is.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't honestly tell me that with more than one person pointing out the biased in some peoples post means nothing? I could see your point if only one person did so, but..well, ive seen a few people do so..sooooo, I fail to see how you can say that people saying that means nothing and is upsetting? If you didn't do it, then why would it upset you so much? Ever think maybe they see something that you don't?
> 
> What evidence supports it? Im not, nor have I ever said that there was not any evidence, but I think I would like better facts on it and would rather wait for an investigation to be done and over with first. Don't put the cart before the horse.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait wait wait....did I miss something? He was no in fear of his life now? I will have to go back and reread cause I missed that lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which all tend to stay around the same topic or subtopic there of. Not personal bantering back and forth. People should be allowed to voice their opinions, however...looking at some of these spinoffs are cutting it really really close to personal attacks and some which could be personal attacks. Which is against the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading and rereading some of the posts, I beg to differ on that opinion. The same things have been hashed out by both sides, over..and over..and over again. Not by everyone no, but its starting to get a bit redundant.
> 
> 
> 
> That is you, and I think that is great, You are entitled to your opinion, I never said otherwise.
> 
> [quote'I guess it bothers me because I read a lot of things I don't agree with and threads that become heated, but I would NEVER tell someone to close a thread because *I* didn't want to read it or that it wasn't contructive enough for me. I'm perfectly capable of using the scroll button.



This, implies to me the following. "my opinion to keep it open matters, your opinion to close it does not" I don't think that is how you meant it though.

You can't say that you accept opinions and people should have them then turn around and contradict it. You choose to use the scroll button, I chose to say something....I really don't see how one is wrong and the other rights. Esp. if they are just different opinions. 

With that, I bow out.[/QUOTE]
Better said than I ever could!


----------



## GSDMan

With regard to the filing of charges meaning the guy must be guilty; that really doesn't necessarily mean anything of the sort. After working for county government for many years I can say from personal experience they react not in the interest of public safety, or even common sence, but rather what is politically expedient. Because of the public's response to this shooting there was such pressure put on the county executive, and then on down the line, that charges were a given. I think that the charges were not more serious is more telling than anything else. I still believe the animal cruelty charge will go away and the discharging within 100' charge will be pled down to something that will allow him to keep his job. Some kind of PBJ, or something.

I feel a little guilty about this but I'm more worried about what this will do to the 2nd Amendment movement in Maryland than I am about what happens to this dumb***.


----------



## Mrs.K

selzer said:


> I think there needs to be some changes to animal cruelty. I think there should be different levels to animal cruelty. I do not necessarily think shooting a dog that is attacking your dog is animal cruelty.
> 
> I think animal cruelty is deliberately torturing an animal to watch it suffer, like the guy that cut the kittens paws off. People like that need to be removed from society entirely. Starving an animal to death would fall in this category.
> 
> Gross neglect, allowing an animal to become diseased or injured due to not providing the animal basic care. Forcing animals to live in filthy cages or stalls, allowing wounds to go untreated. And the like. This would be animal cruelty/neglect.
> 
> And a third category for causing serious injury or death to an animal. But not with the intent of watching it suffer, or prolonged neglect.
> 
> I just do not think that shooting a dog because you are afraid it is going to injure or kill your dog, is the same as cutting a kittens paws off or leaving a horse in a barn full of manure until it is starved and has a bunch of other problems.
> 
> At the same time, killing someone's dog unnecessarily causes a lot of pain and grief to its people even if the dog does not suffer terribly.


Very well said.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

The "Man Card" comment was just hilarious.


----------



## IllinoisNative

GSDolch said:


> Passion is fine, Personal attacks are not, specifically going after a poster simply because you don't agree with them is not.


And I think I agreed with you when I said the same thing in TWO previous posts.



> With all due respect, these are facts that are basically unimportant. So he had is own gun?


First, YOU said that we don't have "any" facts. That WAS an incorrect statement. Secondly, I only brought that one point up since it was an issue of contention. Thirdly, the fact that he ADMITTED that he shot the dog because it went after his dog is important since it negates the fact that he feared for his life. Fourthly, the fact that he's being charged for shooting the gun in a close proximity of a public place is a fact that's important since he's being charged for it. And it was a KNOWN fact.



> These are NOT solid facts to convict someone of! But many think it is.


Let me clarify. The man admitted that he shot the dog because it was attacking his dog. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. He didn't fear for his life so he can be charged with the counts they are charging him for. That is a solid fact. As is the fact that he do so in a public place.



> You can't honestly tell me that with more than one person pointing out the biased in some peoples post means nothing?


Being biased doesn't change the facts. It doesn't take away the LEO firing in a public place, admitting that he did because his dog was being attacked, no injuries on anybody, case being closed until public outcry, etc. The facts speak for themselves. And it turns out, those "biased" people weren't exactly wrong since charges are now being filed based on the investigation.



> If you didn't do it, then why would it upset you so much? Ever think maybe they see something that you don't?


No, because being told I hate cops or I'm part of a mob trivializes the fact that I have pointed out why I feel like I do and it doesn't involve any of the following. How can they see something that doesn't exist? LMAO.



> but I think I would like better facts on it and would rather wait for an investigation to be done and over with first.


The investigation is over which is why the charges have been filed. What's not over is the trial.



> Wait wait wait....did I miss something? He was no in fear of his life now? I will have to go back and reread cause I missed that lol.


On the tape, he admitted that he shot the dog because it attacked his dog. He didn't say, "The dog attacked me." He didn't say, "The dog was coming after me, my wife..." I'm guessing that is why the charges were filed. Because if he shot the dog because it came after him...., no charges would have been filed. 



> oking at some of these spinoffs are cutting it really really close to personal attacks and some which could be personal attacks. Which is against the rules.


I agree with that and said as much in previous posts.



> Reading and rereading some of the posts, I beg to differ on that opinion. The same things have been hashed out by both sides, over..and over..and over again. Not by everyone no, but its starting to get a bit redundant.


Duly noted. No person shall ever post any redundant information.:crazy:



> I guess it bothers me because I read a lot of things I don't agree with and threads that become heated, but I would NEVER tell someone to close a thread because *I* didn't want to read it or that it wasn't constructive enough for me. I'm perfectly capable of using the scroll button.





> This, implies to me the following. "my opinion to keep it open matters, your opinion to close it does not" I don't think that is how you meant it though.


But keeping it open is for all people to discuss. Closing it takes that option away. I would never ask for a thread to be closed because that is not my right/responsibility, etc. This board is for everyone...not just me. So I would be forcing my opinion on others by asking for it to be closed because it's what *I* wanted.



> You can't say that you accept opinions and people should have them then turn around and contradict it.


There was no contradiction. I'm for all discussion even if I disagree with it. I think everyone should be heard...since this is kind of why the board exists.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

This case is going to trial tomorrow - Friday, November 19th. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.


----------



## Caledon

I was just wondering when the trial was. Glad someone is keeping us informed. Thank you.


----------



## codmaster

Could be he is being charged and brought to trial because of the public outcry and publicity which to me would be just as wrong as himnot being charged because he is a LEO - don't you think?


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Well, it appears he is being charged with animal cruelty and firing his gun near homes. Public outcry aside, it must have been felt there was merit to the charges, or they would not have been filed. He will have his day in court and a judge, not the public, will decide whether or not he is guilty of any crime.


----------



## mssandslinger

very interesting post i have to say..


----------



## Rusty_212

codmaster said:


> Could be he is being charged and brought to trial because of the public outcry and publicity which to me would be just as wrong as himnot being charged because he is a LEO - don't you think?


WRONG! You've kept up on this, he's being charged because HE BROKE THE LAW. Do you understand that? If he hadn't broken the law, he would not have been charged.

You just never give up on trying to piss ppl off, do you?


----------



## codmaster

Rusty_212 said:


> WRONG! You've kept up on this, he's being charged because HE BROKE THE LAW. Do you understand that? If he hadn't broken the law, he would not have been charged.
> You just never give up on trying to piss ppl off, do you?


Might want to chill?

Do you really think that only people who break the law get charged and have to go to court?

That being the case, you must get really upset when you hear about an Innocent verdict, huh?

And he really truly hasn't "Broken the law" yet. At least I thought that was what the trial was all about - to determine IF he had broken the law? Do you remember "Innocent until proven guilty"?

Although, I guess that might conflict with what you thought, or maybe the trial is just a formality since you already think he is guilty.

Have a nice day!


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

No point in getting angry with each other. The decision is up to the judge. Our personal opinions, one way or the other, change nothing.


----------



## codmaster

Stevenzachsmom said:


> No point in getting angry with each other. The decision is up to the judge. Our personal opinions, one way or the other, change nothing.


So true!


----------



## kiwilrdg

When he is charged and tried he can be found not guilty.

He would not have had that opportunity if he had not been charged because as you can see he is guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion.


----------



## Rerun

codmaster said:


> That being the case, you must get really upset when you hear about an Innocent verdict, huh?


There is no such thing as an innocent verdict. Only "not guilty." Doesn't mean they are innocent, just means they couldn't prove it for XYZ reason.


----------



## codmaster

Rerun said:


> There is no such thing as an innocent verdict. Only "not guilty." Doesn't mean they are innocent, just means they couldn't prove it for XYZ reason.


Check the facts - ever hear of "Innocent by reason of insanity"?

SO, you think like the other one, - that everybody who gets charged by some division of our covt. is "GUILTY"?

You would be no doubt a great juror - a proscecuter's delight!


----------



## codmaster

kiwilrdg said:


> When he is charged and tried he can be found not guilty.
> 
> He would not have had that opportunity if he had not been charged because as you can see he is guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion.


 
Sounds like it, don't it?


----------



## Rerun

codmaster said:


> Check the facts - ever hear of "Innocent by reason of insanity"?
> 
> SO, you think like the other one, - that everybody who gets charged by some division of our covt. is "GUILTY"?
> 
> You would be no doubt a great juror - a proscecuter's delight!


It is not guilty by reason of insanity.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Let's play nice and not make me sorry I told ya'll that the trial starts tomorrow. Just thought people would like the update. Let's wait to see what comes out in court. No matter, this man, as everyone deserves a fair trial in a court of law. Anything less is not justice.


----------



## codmaster

Rerun said:


> It is not guilty by reason of insanity.


Exactly! Glad you noticed it and agree!


But do you still think that everyone should be sentenced once they are accused?


----------



## BlackPuppy

Ooo, thanks for reminding me that the court date is tomorrow! Stupid guy is pleading self defense.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

The dude being charged gets a face palm from me.


----------



## DFrost

Rusty_212 said:


> WRONG! You've kept up on this, he's being charged because HE BROKE THE LAW. Do you understand that? If he hadn't broken the law, he would not have been charged.
> 
> You just never give up on trying to piss ppl off, do you?


Civics 101;

Actually, he was not charged because he broke the law. Whether or not he broke the law is for the court to determine. He was charged because there was probable cause to believe he has broken a law. It's not a minor technicality. It is the basis of our judicial system.

DFrost


----------



## codmaster

DFrost said:


> Civics 101;
> 
> Actually, he was not charged because he broke the law. Whether or not he broke the law is for the court to determine. He was charged because there was probable cause to believe he has broken a law. It's not a minor technicality. It is the basis of our judicial system.
> 
> DFrost


Amen!


----------



## Rerun

codmaster said:


> Exactly! Glad you noticed it and agree!
> 
> 
> But do you still think that everyone should be sentenced once they are accused?


I have no idea what you're talking about. I most certainly am not interested in reading 60 something pages of this thread. I saw there were 63 pages and was sitting here wondering what on earth could be that interesting so I went to the end page to see what all the fuss was about, and saw your extremely incorrect post about being found innocent.

In this justice system, there is NO SUCH THING as being "found innocent." In any manner. The term is NOT GUILTY. Not guilty is not the same thing as "innocent." No one is ever found innocent, they are found not guilty. It's a very important distinction to make. If they are found to be "insane" they are found to be NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY. They are not found "innocent by reason of insanity."

Thus, I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say "glad you noticed it and agreed."

The second part of your statement makes no sense. I'm not arguing about this case one way or the other. I have an opinion and given my career background it'll differ from most on this forum. My opinion really doesn't matter and I won't debate it. But regarding your statement "should everyone be sentenced when they are accused" - again, your knowledge of the legal system really shows here. An accusation is what occurs to cause the justice system to start rolling. Sentencing doesn't occur until after a CONVICTION.

That's really all I have to say in the thread. Have a nice evening.


----------



## codmaster

Rerun said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about. I most certainly am not interested in reading 60 something pages of this thread. I saw there were 63 pages and was sitting here wondering what on earth could be that interesting so I went to the end page to see what all the fuss was about, and saw your extremely incorrect post about being found innocent.
> 
> In this justice system, there is NO SUCH THING as being "found innocent." In any manner. The term is NOT GUILTY. Not guilty is not the same thing as "innocent." No one is ever found innocent, they are found not guilty. It's a very important distinction to make. If they are found to be "insane" they are found to be NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY. They are not found "innocent by reason of insanity."
> 
> Thus, I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say "glad you noticed it and agreed."
> 
> The second part of your statement makes no sense. I'm not arguing about this case one way or the other. I have an opinion and given my career background it'll differ from most on this forum. My opinion really doesn't matter and I won't debate it. But regarding your statement "should everyone be sentenced when they are accused" - again, your knowledge of the legal system really shows here. An accusation is what occurs to cause the justice system to start rolling. Sentencing doesn't occur until after a CONVICTION.That's really all I have to say in the thread. Have a nice evening.


I hope that you can pay attention enough to understand the following to correct your seeming assumption about the US court system. See the following quote from DFrost:

"Actually, he was not charged because he broke the law." he was actually charged because someone THOUGHT that he broke some law(s) - the *trial *was to either prove him guilty (there is that funny little American custom about INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty - remember I tried to tell you that previously!)
or proven not guilty (innocent in the eyes of the law and most people(even if not in yours!).
It might have helped you a lot to actually read the thread instead of just the last page or two. 
Just a hint for you.

No need to answer if you are busy. And you have a great day.


----------



## kiwilrdg

> There is no such thing as an innocent verdict. Only "not guilty." Doesn't mean they are innocent, just means they couldn't prove it for XYZ reason.


Since we are protected from double jeopardy being found not guilty should be the same as innocent. Due to the importance of the word of law the term not guilty is used on the idea that innocent is an absolute and no person is all knowing. 

In the case we are talking about we only have a few parts of the story and I am not inclined to believe the newspaper account of the way things happened. I hope the lawyers both present cases that will lead to a balanced and true understanding of what occured. I am sure that whichever verdict is returned there will be lots of people who will complain about it without having the information that the trial presents.


----------



## Rerun

kiwilrdg said:


> Since we are protected from double jeopardy being found not guilty should be the same as innocent.


No, it shouldn't be. There are people all over the country that are found "not guilty" - not because they are innocent, but because there isn't enough proof to find them guilty beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT. Anyone that has an legit dealings with the criminal justice system understands this, although the general public generally does not. If people had any idea how many criminals are free in society due to problems in the justice system causing them to have to be found "not guilty" they would understand why the justice system does not refer to them as being found innocent.

I don't need to read 63 pages of an insane thread about someone, officer or not, shooting a dog for attacking his, to read an incorrect quote that people can be found innocent. my argument has nothing to do with the officer or his decision. My only dog in the fight is that people are not found innocent. It's really that simple.


----------



## kiwilrdg

Rerun, I agree with what you are saying. I was just trying to express that "not guilty" means that the person has been found not guilty of the charge with which they were accused. It would meet some definitions of innocent, but it is not a valid verdict because a court does not have the ability to know all facts and thoughts of the people involved so a court cannot find someone innocent. 

I meant that they are still treated as though they are innocent when guilt is not proven (they are not found innocent). They are innocent until proven guilty and they cannot be tried again on the same charge for the same offense.


----------



## BlackPuppy

Trial starts at 1:30 today. 

Keith Shepherd is also being sued by his former landlord to be tried in January. Being sued for $8,800 for "moving out and leaving the house trashed."


----------



## Jessiewessie99

BlackPuppy said:


> Trial starts at 1:30 today.
> 
> Keith Shepherd is also being sued by his former landlord to be tried in January. Being sued for $8,800 for "moving out and leaving the house trashed."


He is just getting himself in all sorts of trouble isn't he?


----------



## GSDolch

Jessiewessie99 said:


> He is just getting himself in all sorts of trouble isn't he?



Two COMPLETELY different issues IMO. Just because he is being taken to court doesnt mean anything. The two don't have anything to do with the other and mean nothing on court. (and no a judge most likely wont care as this isnt a thing that has happened yet and is hear-say)

My last landlord tried to take us to court for over 3k, same issues. The judge tossed it out because the issues with the place were the landlords responsibility, but he had it down as "trashed" also. There is such a thing as slumlord.

I think we should stick to the issues at hand (the dog) and leave it at that. I doubt anyone on here would want their lives micro-analyzed


----------



## Miikkas mom

kiwilrdg said:


> Since we are protected from double jeopardy being found not guilty should be the same as innocent.


Seriously? O.J. Simpson was found not guilty, but I still think he did it (and so do a lot of other people)! That is just one example....I’m sure I can think of many more.


----------



## BlackPuppy

*The verdict is in.*

*Guilty on both charges. *


*1 year probation,*

*$500 fine.*


----------



## wildo

BlackPuppy said:


> *The verdict is in.*
> 
> *Guilty on both charges. *
> 
> 
> *1 year probation,*
> 
> *$500 fine.*


No link?


----------



## wildo

Found a link, and as normal- it is filled with lots of unanswered questions. Such as- does this ******* get to keep his job?

Federal officer gets probation in dog park shooting of Bear-Bear - baltimoresun.com

Edit- and this article paints an entirely different picture of the result:
http://www.wbal.com/absolutenm/templates/story.aspx?articleid=62694&zoneid=40


----------



## BlackPuppy

He admitted in court that he really didn't feel threatened. I read the play by play on the Twitter feed.

You can read the same detail as they were copied over to the "Justice for Bear Bear" facebook group.


http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=791744445#!/group.php?gid=142251502461794

You can read how he said he looked all over the dog park for a rock to through at the dog. (I doubt it.)


----------



## BlackPuppy

Oh! Total fine of $1500, 500 for cruelty and 1000 for the gun charge. Only 8 hours of community service. 

http://www.eyeonannapolis.net/2010/11/19/keith-shepherd-found-guilty-in-bear-bear-shooting/


----------



## IllinoisNative

BlackPuppy said:


> *The verdict is in.*
> 
> *Guilty on both charges. *
> 
> 
> *1 year probation,*
> 
> *$500 fine.*


Thank God. I couldn't imagine it going any other way given what we knew per the statements made by the actual offender...lol.

I know people said not to jump to conclusions but, when the actual man ADMITS that he didn't shoot the dog because he felt threatened, you can't help but state the obvious.

For some reason, the link keeps timing out on me. Did he have to pay to replace the dog whom he killed? Way too light on the community service, IMNSHO.


----------



## BlackPuppy

Illinois Native, no he didn't, but Bear Bear's owners intend to take him to civil court.


----------



## IllinoisNative

BlackPuppy said:


> Illinois Native, no he didn't, but Bear Bear's owners intend to take him to civil court.


Thanks, BP!

I hope Bear Bear's owner gets justice. It should help with a guilty conviction in criminal court.


----------



## Rusty_212

Gee, no responses from the ppl. who believed his story?:rolleyes2:

Glad he got what he deserved, although he deserves more. It's obvious he needs to be retrained on how and when to use a firearm. I still say he's a POS.


----------



## Deuce

Sorry, but i'm behind the officer who shot the Husky and i'm in MD. He's authorized to carry his weapon at all times and the husky that attacked his German Shepherd was off leash during the attack. The officer was protecting himself, his wife and his dog....sell defense. I would have shot the husky, too, especially if the person with the husky (NOT its owner mind you) didn't do ANYTHING to call the dog off.


Justice for Bear Bear. Just a short time ago, a federal police officer was found guilty of shooting a dog at a popular dog park.

Mike Hellgren just finished talking with some key players in the case.

It's been an emotional day. It started around 1:30 p.m. and wrapped up just a short time ago. It was a win and a loss for Bear Bear and his owners, the Rettaliatas. They got the guilty verdicts they wanted but he sentence was not what they wanted. Federal police officer Keith Shepherd will serve no jail time. 

Shepherd, 32, left the court with heavy security after a judge found him guilty of animal cruelty and weapons charges stemming from the shooting of a Siberian husky named Bear Bear in a dark park in Severn, Md. This happened last August.

"I think we're clear that the person there with the dog wasn't able to control the dog," said defense attorney David Putzi. "It led to a series of events where things just got out of control."

Bear Bear's owners declined to comment. Many of their supporters were angry that Shepherd only got probation before judgment and will serve no jail time. He will do community service.

"Again, the animals are the looser," said Wendy Cozzone, Bear Bear supporter. "We just can't get any help. He comes to a dog park where children are, where people are with a loaded gun, shoots an innocent dog, and again the dogs loose."

Shepherd claimed Bear Bear lunged at him and his wife while they were at the park with their dog, and he feared for his safety. He then fired his personal handgun. He was off duty at the time.

Both charges against Shepherd are misdemeanors.

Shepherd testified in his own defense. He faced a maximum of nine months behind bars. If he completes his probation successfully, everything will be wiped from his record.

Shepherd will also have to pay a $500 fine.


----------



## BlackPuppy

Even though he admitted, under oath, that he lied about feeling threatened or fearing for his life? An eye witness said that he didn't hesitate one second before pulling out a gun and shooting. I thought law enforcement was supposed to use discretion and avoid pulling out a weapon unless there was a life in danger. Like I said, he admitted to the judge that he didn't feel threatened, neither did his wife.

I'm glad it's over, well, mostly.


----------



## adamdude04

Lucy Dog said:


> I missed that last paragraph... i cant believe he's not being charged.
> 
> How can someone who pulled out a gun in a public place and shoot someones pet not be charged with anything? I know he's a cop, but am i missing something here?


Self defense. Nuff said..


----------



## Hansel & Gretel

Glad he was found guilty. I hope he looses his job. He should not be carrying a gun. I can't see how anyone can take his side. What if it was YOUR dog that he killed. It could have happened to any of our dogs. 

John


----------



## IllinoisNative

Deuce said:


> Sorry, but i'm behind the officer who shot the Husky and i'm in MD. He's authorized to carry his weapon at all times and the husky that attacked his German Shepherd was off leash during the attack.
> 
> The officer was protecting himself, his wife and his dog....sell defense. I would have shot the husky, too, especially if the person with the husky (NOT its owner mind you) didn't do ANYTHING to call the dog off.


Did you read this whole thread? Um, he was OFF lead because it was an OFF leash dog park...LMAO. In fact, it's more dangerous to have a dog ON lead at an off leash dog park. That's standard dog knowledge. And those that don't possess that level of knowledge DON'T BELONG AT A DOG PARK. It's actually irresponsible, IMNSHO. Secondly, being authorized to carry a weapon does not mean one is authorized to use that weapon in all circumstances. You aren't authorized to shoot a dog that is attacking your dog. He wasn't attacking a human. Thirdly, there is no evidence of an attack. Nobody was hurt. So he shot a dog that didn't injure anyone which means he can't read dog body language. Dogs at dog parks get vocal with each other. Is everyone allowed to shoot in that instance? Of course not!

So it's false to assume that there was an attack when there was no evidence of it. And lastly, the man admitted he felt no danger. So he was NOT justified in shooting the other dog. Period. I'm unclear as to why you think he was protecting his wife when he admitted he didn't feel threatened and that isn't why he shot the dog.

The case was handled correctly and the right verdict was reached.


----------



## Syaoransbear

As most of us guessed in the beginning, he lied about feeling threatened. So I'm glad he's been found guilty, and I've gained a tiny bit of respect for him for confessing.


----------



## adamdude04

IllinoisNative said:


> Did you read this whole thread? Um, he was OFF lead because it was an OFF leash dog park...LMAO. In fact, it's more dangerous to have a dog ON lead at an off leash dog park. That's standard dog knowledge. And those that don't possess that level of knowledge DON'T BELONG AT A DOG PARK. It's actually irresponsible, IMNSHO. Secondly, being authorized to carry a weapon does not mean one is authorized to use that weapon in all circumstances. *You aren't authorized to shoot a dog that is attacking your dog.* He wasn't attacking a human. Thirdly, there is no evidence of an attack. Nobody was hurt. So he shot a dog that didn't injure anyone which means he can't read dog body language. Dogs at dog parks get vocal with each other. Is everyone allowed to shoot in that instance? Of course not!
> 
> So it's false to assume that there was an attack when there was no evidence of it. And lastly, the man admitted he felt no danger. So he was NOT justified in shooting the other dog. Period. I'm unclear as to why you think he was protecting his wife when he admitted he didn't feel threatened and that isn't why he shot the dog.
> 
> The case was handled correctly and the right verdict was reached.


You may want to rethink this..

Also was the dog a police dog?


End of the day, if a dog attacked mine, and I couldnt get the attack dog off, I would shoot to kill in defense for my dog. Now one must know the difference between play fight and full all out attack. 

A dog all out attacking, is a threat to man or animal. If a dog is attacking mine, you think any time I try to cut between them, he will lick my hand, but bite to kill my dog?


----------



## IllinoisNative

adamdude04 said:


> You may want to rethink this..


Why?



> Also was the dog a police dog?


No.



> End of the day, if a dog attacked mine, and I couldnt get the attack dog off, I would shoot to kill in defense for my dog. Now one must know the difference between play fight and full all out attack.


Sigh. Legally, you can't shoot if you're not in danger. That is the problem and that is why the man was found guilty. The man's life was not in danger. It's why they found him guilty. Secondly, HIS DOG WASN'T ATTACKED. The dogs made noise which is what happens at a dog park. Thridly, he put his dog in a bad position by having his dog ON leash at an OFF leash dog park. That was an ignorant, bone-headed, stupid, dangerous move. That can cause a dog fight. He put his dog in a position to be reactive. But dogs scuffle all the time and it doesn't equal a fight. Yes, one must know the difference between a fight and full out attack and this officer did not. 



> A dog all out attacking, is a threat to man or animal. If a dog is attacking mine, you think any time I try to cut between them, he will lick my hand, but bite to kill my dog?


What does this have to do with the situation at hand? The other dog wasn't full on attacking. In fact, there is no evidence of an attack. And the man wasn't threatened. He admitted that.

You're describing a situation that didn't happen. The guy was found guilty for a reason...and it's because he didn't act correctly. 

You can't whip out a gun at a public place and shoot a dog who's making noice at your dog when you put your dog in a position by having him ON lead at an OFF leash dog park. 

Either way, the court found him guilty. Which they should have based on the evidence. The facts speak for itself.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

adamdude04 said:


> Self defense. Nuff said..


Except that it wasn't. Why do people keep trying to bring fantasies into this discussion and then arguing THAT instead of the actual facts of the case? :thinking: 

If I shot a gun every time I saw dogs playing loudly or even snarking at each other my OWN dogs would be dead by now!  Normal dog play sounds a lot more serious than it is, and _there were no injuries to either dog or any of the humans present_. No matter how many times it's referred to as attack, that doesn't mean it WAS. And the fact that he admitted in court under oath that he didn't feel he was in danger, along with the fact that there were also no injuries to his supposedly "attacked" dog, clearly shows that lethal force was overkill, literally. What you or anyone else would do in a fictitious dog attack is completely irrelevant to this case.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

GSDolch said:


> Two COMPLETELY different issues IMO. Just because he is being taken to court doesnt mean anything. The two don't have anything to do with the other and mean nothing on court. (and no a judge most likely wont care as this isnt a thing that has happened yet and is hear-say)
> 
> My last landlord tried to take us to court for over 3k, same issues. The judge tossed it out because the issues with the place were the landlords responsibility, but he had it down as "trashed" also. There is such a thing as slumlord.
> 
> I think we should stick to the issues at hand (the dog) and leave it at that. I doubt anyone on here would want their lives micro-analyzed


I was kidding and I really don't care for dude's life anyways.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

Seriously? People are still on the officer's side? There was no evidence of an attack. Go to a dog park, dogs make noise and will play fight, and go up to one another. And its better and safer to take your dogs lash OFF when at a OFF leash dog park.


----------



## Montana Scout

ive been reading through the thread... but not through all 67 of them... I'm still on the officers side (and whoever said shoot rounds up in the air to scare the dog is even more of an idiot), even if the officer thought for 1/2 a second "depending" keyword depending on the situation, that could be 1/2 a second too late.. granted I myself probably couldn't shoot a dog unless it was gnawing my limb off, he apparently had a different personal SOP.. obviously wasn't the smartest choice in the world, but at the time it could have been his gut instinct to shoot the dog then realized what happened... not saying everyone has a shoot first ask questions later policy, just remember unless you have been very close to walking in their shoes, don't even try to imagine what they were thinking


----------



## Jessiewessie99

Montana Scout said:


> ive been reading through the thread... but not through all 67 of them... I'm still on the officers side (and whoever said shoot rounds up in the air to scare the dog is even more of an idiot), even if the officer thought for 1/2 a second "depending" keyword depending on the situation, that could be 1/2 a second too late.. granted I myself probably couldn't shoot a dog unless it was gnawing my limb off, he apparently had a different personal SOP.. obviously wasn't the smartest choice in the world, but at the time it could have been his gut instinct to shoot the dog then realized what happened... not saying everyone has a shoot first ask questions later policy, just remember unless you have been very close to walking in their shoes, don't even try to imagine what they were thinking


But he admitted that he wasn't even scared. He was walking his dog ON leash in a OFF leash park. He wasn't defending anyone, there is evidence of an attack. When you go to a dog park dogs will come up to you and your dog, they will play fight and make noise.


----------



## adamdude04

Uhh depending on the situation (play fighting against an all out attack)

Seiously people, depending on the situation. Some of you are really taking this too seriously and too far to heart. 

We were not there, so we dont know the all out facts of the situation. Of course the owner of the killed dog says it was wrong, but take into account the loss, not gain from the situation. The officer came forth with the truth, butnhad he stood by his words orig about being scared, feared, ect, doubt he would have been charged. 

So please, dont nit pick.


----------



## selzer

I am glad that they found him guilty on both counts. I do not know if he will lose his job over a misdemeaner, except that both of them involved the use of his gun. 

I would hope that the finding of guilty will allow Bear-bear's owners to go after him in civil court. I think since Bear-bear was a rescue, and they normally do not give you much in replacement costs, I do not know what this guy will have to pay other than vet bills. 

But I think it helps the owners and supporters of Bear-bear, to have the court back them up that this guy was out of line to shoot the dog.


----------



## selzer

adamdude04 said:


> Uhh depending on the situation (play fighting against an all out attack)
> 
> Seiously people, depending on the situation. Some of you are really taking this too seriously and too far to heart.
> 
> We were not there, so we dont know the all out facts of the situation. Of course the owner of the killed dog says it was wrong, but take into account the loss, not gain from the situation. The officer came forth with the truth, butnhad he stood by his words orig about being scared, feared, ect, doubt he would have been charged.
> 
> So please, dont nit pick.


Does "So please, dont nit pick" mean we are not allowed to disagree with you?

If he would have stood by his lie, that many of us saw through, then he would have perjured himself. So he tells the truth, and they find him guilty. Good. 

Are you suggesting that he should be given special consideration for telling the truth in court when he could have stuck to his original lie?

We take this very seriously and take it to heart because when we are out with our dogs we do not want people shooting them. It is an issue that effects us.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

adamdude04 said:


> Uhh depending on the situation (play fighting against an all out attack)
> 
> Seiously people, depending on the situation. Some of you are really taking this too seriously and too far to heart.
> 
> We were not there, so we dont know the all out facts of the situation. Of course the owner of the killed dog says it was wrong, but take into account the loss, not gain from the situation. The officer came forth with the truth, butnhad he stood by his words orig about being scared, feared, ect, doubt he would have been charged.
> 
> So please, dont nit pick.


We are dog owners and dog lovers, of course we are going to take this to heart and take this seriously.Who would say such a thing? If this were a GSD or Labradoodle that was I would still just as upset and take this seriously and take it to heart. Have you not read all the of the thread and articles? The guy was at an OFF LEASH park with his dog ON A LEASH. There was no evidence of an attack at all. 

Just because he came forward with the truth doesn't mean we should give him a less punishment. He is an officer of the law, he lied, shot off his gun in a public place for no reason(there is NO EVIDENCE OF AN ATTACK) and took the life of a beloved pet.


----------



## AbbyK9

Wow, there's some seriously bad reporting in those articles. Some of them refer to his firearm as his "service revolver", even though it's a semi-automatic Glock. Some mentioned 80 hours of community service, others 8. Some say the fine is $500 and others say $500 on one and $1000 on the other. Does any article actually have some facts or did you have to be physically present at the trial to get those?


----------



## Jessiewessie99

AbbyK9 said:


> Wow, there's some seriously bad reporting in those articles. Some of them refer to his firearm as his "service revolver", even though it's a semi-automatic Glock. Some mentioned 80 hours of community service, others 8. Some say the fine is $500 and others say $500 on one and $1000 on the other. Does any article actually have some facts or did you have to be physically present at the trial to get those?


I think Black Puppy read it wrong and corrected herself.She stated that he got a $500 fine, but he actually got fined for $1000 for one charge and $500 for the other totaling to $1500.


----------



## Rusty_212

adamdude04 said:


> Uhh depending on the situation (play fighting against an all out attack)
> 
> Seiously people, depending on the situation. Some of you are really taking this too seriously and too far to heart.
> 
> We were not there, so we dont know the all out facts of the situation. Of course the owner of the killed dog says it was wrong, but take into account the loss, not gain from the situation. The officer came forth with the truth, butnhad he stood by his words orig about being scared, feared, ect, doubt he would have been charged.
> 
> So please, dont nit pick.


His dog wasn't hurt, that's an all out attack? All i can get from these ppl. that still defend him is, that they really know nothing about dog behavior, even though they may own one.


----------



## codmaster

Rusty_212 said:


> His dog wasn't hurt, that's an all out attack? All i can get from these ppl. that still defend him is, that they really know nothing about dog behavior, even though they may own one.


 
Really nice to hear from a expert. Oh, wait were YOU there? Is that where you developed your deep and expert knowledge of the case?

Maybe you can enlighten all of us on how you developed your view of the case?


----------



## Miikkas mom

Jessiewessie99 said:


> We are dog owners and dog lovers, of course we are going to take this to heart and take this seriously.Who would say such a thing? If this were a GSD or Labradoodle that was I would still just as upset and take this seriously and take it to heart. Have you not read all the of the thread and articles? The guy was at an OFF LEASH park with his dog ON A LEASH. There was no evidence of an attack at all.
> 
> Just because he came forward with the truth doesn't mean we should give him a less punishment. He is an officer of the law, he lied, shot off his gun in a public place for no reason(there is NO EVIDENCE OF AN ATTACK) and took the life of a beloved pet.


Nicely said, Jessie! :thumbup:


----------



## codmaster

And I guess that's how you ascertained beyound a reasonable doubt that there was no attack?


----------



## Miikkas mom

:thumbup:


selzer said:


> Does "So please, dont nit pick" mean we are not allowed to disagree with you?
> 
> If he would have stood by his lie, that many of us saw through, then he would have perjured himself. So he tells the truth, and they find him guilty. Good.
> 
> Are you suggesting that he should be given special consideration for telling the truth in court when he could have stuck to his original lie?
> 
> We take this very seriously and take it to heart because when we are out with our dogs we do not want people shooting them. It is an issue that effects us.


Bravo, Selzer!


----------



## codmaster

"The guy was at an OFF LEASH park with his dog ON A LEASH. There was no evidence of an attack at all."

What a crime - he should be branded a criminal and charged for that for sure.

And as far as the attack - were you there? And I guess that if a mugger attacked you or your wife or kid, that you would naturally wait until the mugger had physically injured someone until you would respond, correct? Otherwise there would be no evidence of the attack and if you hit him then you would naturally be charged with assualt.

If i saw a big dog come running at me or mine, bet on me responding BEFORE he did bodily harm - wouldn't you or would you wait till you could feel his/her teeth before you would try to respond?


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> And I guess that's how you ascertained beyound a reasonable doubt that there was no attack?


Why don't you read the articles and read what the witnesses at the park said. There was no evidence at all of a dog attack. His dog had no marks at all and neither did he or his wife. He even admitted he was not afraid for his life and was not in any danger. There was no physical evidence. Why do you keep insisting there was an attack?


----------



## codmaster

Does him being an LEO make his actions worse?

Isn't that the same bias (in reverse) that a few were outraged about him not being charged - can't have it both ways folks?


----------



## codmaster

Jessiewessie99 said:


> Why don't you read the articles and read what the witnesses at the park said. There was no evidence at all of a dog attack. His dog had no marks at all ad neither did he or his wife. He even admitted he was not afraid for his life and was not in any danger.


So he just pulled his gun and shot the dog because he felt like it?


----------



## Montana Scout

codmaster said:


> Does him being an LEO make his actions worse?
> 
> Isn't that the same bias (in reverse) that a few were outraged about him not being charged - can't have it both ways folks?


even though i am on the same side as the officer, LEO's are held to a higher demeanor than a civilians. Just the same as truck drivers for instance, if they get pulled over speeding in their car they get a higher ticket because they are "trained professionals"... so yes, being a LEO would make them more highly accountable for his actions, positive or negative.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> "The guy was at an OFF LEASH park with his dog ON A LEASH. There was no evidence of an attack at all."
> 
> What a crime - he should be branded a criminal and charged for that for sure.
> 
> And as far as the attack - were you there? And I guess that if a mugger attacked you or your wife or kid, that you would naturally wait until the mugger had physically injured someone until you would respond, correct? Otherwise there would be no evidence of the attack and if you hit him then you would naturally be charged with assualt.
> 
> If i saw a big dog come running at me or mine, bet on me responding BEFORE he did bodily harm - wouldn't you or would you wait till you could feel his/her teeth before you would try to respond?


Why do you keep insisting there was an attack when there was no physical evidence to support it?Also I am not a dude I am a girl. If I or anyone I knew were mugged there would be physical proof of it such as something being stolen or some sort injury. Also I would have witnesses.

You are making no sense. There is no evidence of a dog attack.The man ADMITTED that there was no attack and has no proof, PLUS there were witnesses at the dog park. You are just making excuses for the officer to get away for killing an innocent animal.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> Does him being an LEO make his actions worse?
> 
> Isn't that the same bias (in reverse) that a few were outraged about him not being charged - can't have it both ways folks?


It goes on his record. It hurts his reputation as well other LEO's reputations. We would be upset if he were not charged.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> So he just pulled his gun and shot the dog because he felt like it?


Why don't you read what he said in court the links for it are posted.


----------



## Montana Scout

so if a man tried to mug you and you beat the living crap out of him, and you have no proof that he tried to mug you, you should be charged for assault?


----------



## Miikkas mom

I don’t understand why you are defending the actions of this guy, codmaster? With all due respect, I always thought you were more reasonable than that. 

This case sort of haunts me. I keep thinking what if the dog that was shot was my Miikka. I’d be so devastated they would probably have to institutionalize me. I feel sooo terrible for Bear Bears people and for Bear Bear. He didnt do anything wrong and yet he is dead.


----------



## Miikkas mom

Montana Scout said:


> so if a man tried to mug you and you beat the living crap out of him, and you have no proof that he tried to mug you, you should be charged for assault?


What are you talking about???


----------



## Montana Scout

Miikkas mom said:


> What are you talking about???


post #685


----------



## Jessiewessie99

Miikkas mom said:


> What are you talking about???


Codmaster asked about what would happened if I were mugged, but his question hardly made sense.


----------



## Montana Scout

how does it not make sense? if someone tried to mug you, but you ended up beating the crap out of him, then should you be charged for assault if there were no witnesses?... its the concept, not reality


----------



## Jessiewessie99

Montana Scout said:


> so if a man tried to mug you and you beat the living crap out of him, and you have no proof that he tried to mug you, you should be charged for assault?


I think a man would be much larger than me and will more than likely overpower me. But I usually carry pepper spray, or scream. And usually if a mugger mugs you they are rather sneaky and do it unexpectedly.

There is just no evidence at all that the dog or owner was attacked in any way, there were witnesses at the dog park who also said there was no dog attack.


----------



## codmaster

Montana Scout said:


> even though i am on the same side as the officer, LEO's are held to a higher demeanor than a civilians. Just the same as truck drivers for instance, if they get pulled over speeding in their car they get a higher ticket because they are "trained professionals"... so yes, being a LEO would make them more highly accountable for his actions, positive or negative.


I disagree with that regarding his actions with his dog. A higher standard for handling his weapon - yes absolutely. But not for his lack of dog knowledge, since that has nothing to do with being a cop. If he were a pro dog trainer then yes he would have a different standard to be judged against, but he is a cop and not a K9 handler so he would not be expected to be a pro regarding dog behavior.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> I disagree with that regarding his actions with his dog. A higher standard for handling his weapon - yes absolutely. But not for his lack of dog knowledge, since that has nothing to do with being a cop. If he were a pro dog trainer then yes he would have a different standard to be judged against, but he is a cop and not a K9 handler so he would not be expected to be a pro regarding dog behavior.


No said he had to be a pro at dog behavior.But if you are going to be a dog owner you need to have some sort of knowledge of dog behavior.


----------



## Rusty_212

codmaster said:


> I disagree with that regarding his actions with his dog. A higher standard for handling his weapon - yes absolutely. But not for his lack of dog knowledge, since that has nothing to do with being a cop. If he were a pro dog trainer then yes he would have a different standard to be judged against, but he is a cop and not a K9 handler so he would not be expected to be a pro regarding dog behavior.


Lack of common sense, which every one of your posts contain.


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> "The guy was at an OFF LEASH park with his dog ON A LEASH. There was no evidence of an attack at all."
> 
> What a crime - he should be branded a criminal and charged for that for sure.


While having a dog on leash makes him culpable, it does not make him a criminal who should be branded for life. What makes him a criminal is firing his gun and killing the dog when he was not in fear for his life. False argument.



> And as far as the attack - were you there? And I guess that if a mugger attacked you or your wife or kid, that you would naturally wait until the mugger had physically injured someone until you would respond, correct? Otherwise there would be n
> 
> o evidence of the attack and if you hit him then you would naturally be charged with assault.


Again, false argument. If a mugger were attacking me, I would be in fear for my life. By the man's own admission, he wasn't. So his actions were not warranted. He was not in jeopardy.



> If i saw a big dog come running at me or mine, bet on me responding BEFORE he did bodily harm - wouldn't you or would you wait till you could feel his/her teeth before you would try to respond?


With all due respect, this was a dog park. Loose dogs are running all over the place...lol. It's to be expected AT A DOG PARK. This didn't happen in someone's neighborhood or at the grocery store. There is a reasonable expectation that dogs run at a dog park. People don't get to kill dogs that are running at them at a dog park. I thought this was common sense. Apparently not. Secondly, the man put his dog in the position of being defensive by having him on leash which was a contributing factor. That makes dogs reactive and vocal so that people can misinterpret an attack when there isn't one. There is a reason people tell you to take off your dog's leash at an off leash dog park. So situations like this don't happen.



selzer said:


> Does "So please, dont nit pick" mean we are not allowed to disagree with you?
> 
> If he would have stood by his lie, that many of us saw through, then he would have perjured himself. So he tells the truth, and they find him guilty. Good.
> 
> Are you suggesting that he should be given special consideration for telling the truth in court when he could have stuck to his original lie?
> 
> We take this very seriously and take it to heart because when we are out with our dogs we do not want people shooting them. It is an issue that effects us.


:thumbup: 

I have to say, I'm a little confused by people still defending him when he not only lied, but eventually admitted what he did and was found guilty. I remember a few people stating that we shouldn't make judgments about this until the evidence came out and he was found guilty. Well, he was. And now we still can't say that he was guilty when most of us saw through his lies to begin with?


----------



## codmaster

Rusty_212 said:


> Lack of common sense, which every one of your posts contain.


Rusty, Rusty, Rusty - really not a nice or polite message!


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

codmaster said:


> And I guess that's how you ascertained beyound a reasonable doubt that there was no attack?


Apparently, that's what the court ascertained. If the court had determined that there _was_ an attack it would presumably have found his actions warranted under the circumstances as self defense, and the verdict would have been not guilty. So since none of us were there to witness the incident, that's all we have to go by. Continuing to refer to this as an attack is just ridiculous at this point.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

BTW, if anyone would like to start a thread about what you'd do in the event of being mugged, we have a Chat forum for that, so go for it. I'm not sure why it was asked in this thread since it's completely irrelevant to the circumstances of this case.


----------



## Lexi

IllinoisNative said:


> While having a dog on leash makes him culpable, it does not make him a criminal who should be branded for life. What makes him a criminal is firing his gun and killing the dog when he was not in fear for his life. False argument.
> 
> If a mugger were attacking me, I would be in fear for my life. By the man's own admission, he wasn't. So his actions were not warranted. He was not in jeopardy.
> 
> With all due respect, this was a dog park. Loose dogs are running all over the place...lol. It's to be expected AT A DOG PARK. This didn't happen in someone's neighborhood or at the grocery store. There is a reasonable expectation that dogs run at a dog park. People don't get to kill dogs that are running at them at a dog park. I thought this was common sense. Apparently not. Secondly, the man put his dog in the position of being defensive by having him on leash which was a contributing factor. That makes dogs reactive and vocal so that people can misinterpret an attack when there isn't one. There is a reason people tell you to take off your dog's leash at an off leash dog park. So situations like this don't happen.
> 
> I have to say, I'm a little confused by people still defending him when he not only lied, but eventually admitted what he did and was found guilty. I remember a few people stating that we shouldn't make judgments about this until the evidence came out and he was found guilty. Well, he was. And now we still can't say that he was guilty when most of us saw through his lies to begin with?


Totally agree with this post. Although as a rule, I don't believe most of what I read in the news through personal experience of news reports being nearly completely inaccurate, biased, and slanted, it sounds like they were right on for a change.


----------



## selzer

I agree with Lexi, great post IllinoisNative.


----------



## codmaster

Jessiewessie99 said:


> Codmaster asked about what would happened if I were mugged, but his question hardly made sense.


Sorry, thought you could understand! 

I meant to explain that, if you were being attacked, would you wait until you were actually injured before starting to defend yourself? 

I hope that that is clearer so that you can understand what I was saying. 

(And sincerely hope that you never find yourself in a situation that you have to fight while in fear for yoursef, your family or even your dog!)

If you thought that your dog was being attacked by another dog, would you wait till you could see blood, or see the other dogs jaws wrapped around a piece of your dog before you started to defend him/her?

That is not the way life is on the street. (least not where I came from). If you thought that you were under attack, you had better fight back as quick and as strongly as you could, else ....

Now maybe this guy fought back inappropriately (with his gun), but we each ought to think what we would do in a similar situation before we start branding the guy. 

He did what he thought that he had to and now he takes the penalty.

Seems fair to me. 
And maybe now is a good time to close and lock this way too long thread.


----------



## Zoeys mom

I'll stay on topic and say I'm glad this guy was found guilty though the fact he got a PBJ means this will not go on his permanent record I didn't think the guy should go to jail, but he should have to pay reasonable damages and have this on his record permanently. I guess it's better than nothing though


----------



## codmaster

Cassidy's Mom said:


> BTW, if anyone would like to start a thread about what you'd do in the event of being mugged, we have a Chat forum for that, so go for it. I'm not sure why it was asked in this thread since it's completely irrelevant to the circumstances of this case.


It was supposed to be an analogy to a situation where one is going to have to decide WHEN to fight back if you yourself were to come under attack. Do you wait till actually injured or does one have the right to defend yourself before that. Some people here stated that "there was no attack" because there was no blood (i.e. no "proof" of an attack), thus the guy did not have a right to defend anyone( not saying that he should have used a gun!) at all. 
I merely suggest that only an idiot would wait until he or his were physically injured to begin to defend himself or others.

I do apologize to you and anyone else who did not understand that.


----------



## codmaster

Jessiewessie99 said:


> I think a man would be much larger than me and will more than likely overpower me. But I usually carry pepper spray, or scream. And usually if a mugger mugs you they are rather sneaky and do it unexpectedly.
> 
> There is just no evidence at all that the dog or owner was attacked in any way, there were witnesses at the dog park who also said there was no dog attack.


Jessie,

Please answer just this one question. WHEN would you use the pepper spray? 

If you were walking down the street and a big man came toward you yelling and threatening you verbally, would you spray him before he actually touched you? OR would you wait untill he actually hit or grabbed you?

Just a question?


----------



## selzer

Codmaster, I really, really hope you never go to a dog park. 

On the street, if a slobbering dog comes racing toward you and your dog, well, maybe you have a case. At a dog park, that is what happens. They are off leash and their to play, not to get shot. 

Are there aggressive dogs in dog parks. YES. It happens that inexperienced owners bring their dogs that have no business being there, and occasionally there are squabbles and fights. Those can usually be stopped without any serious injury to any party. 

Unfortunately, this person was there with his gun handy and he misjudged the situation, pulled his gun, and killed a dog unnecessarily. 

You said to think what we would do in a similar situation. W e l l, since the majority of us are not toting firearms, we probably would not have shot the dog. Maybe when the dog was rushing over, we might say something like, Hey, Uh, is your dog friendly??? And then he would report what the total moron with the GSD asked at the dog park today on his husky site. 

I think that unless you KNOW that your dog is terribly dog aggressive, then you do let things develop before using deadly force. 

The man admitted that he was not afraid for his life or his wife's life. So shooting the dog was not lawful. Glad they at least found him guilty of two charges. 

People just cannot go around shooting. Every time people get on here spouting about getting a gun or shooting the dog, I think it is really immature and irresponsible.

That is where this guy being a person asked to carry a firearm for his job is really scarey. He is quick to draw it and fire it, in a situation that did not warrant it, and could have easily been dangerous to the people there as well. 

Again, this was an off-lead dog park. Just like you expect to see half-naked people at a beach, you expect to see dogs running at a dog park. One hast to take in the context of their situation.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> Codmaster, I really, really hope you never go to a dog park.
> 
> On the street, if a slobbering dog comes racing toward you and your dog, well, maybe you have a case. At a dog park, that is what happens. They are off leash and their to play, not to get shot.
> 
> Are there aggressive dogs in dog parks. YES. It happens that inexperienced owners bring their dogs that have no business being there, and occasionally there are squabbles and fights. Those can usually be stopped without any serious injury to any party.
> 
> Unfortunately, this person was there with his gun handy and he misjudged the situation, pulled his gun, and killed a dog unnecessarily.
> 
> You said to think what we would do in a similar situation. W e l l, since the majority of us are not toting firearms, we probably would not have shot the dog. Maybe when the dog was rushing over, we might say something like, Hey, Uh, is your dog friendly??? And then he would report what the total moron with the GSD asked at the dog park today on his husky site.
> 
> I think that unless you KNOW that your dog is terribly dog aggressive, then you do let things develop before using deadly force.
> 
> The man admitted that he was not afraid for his life or his wife's life. So shooting the dog was not lawful. Glad they at least found him guilty of two charges.
> 
> People just cannot go around shooting. Every time people get on here spouting about getting a gun or shooting the dog, I think it is really immature and irresponsible.
> 
> That is where this guy being a person asked to carry a firearm for his job is really scarey. He is quick to draw it and fire it, in a situation that did not warrant it, and could have easily been dangerous to the people there as well.
> 
> *Very true and now he is paying for making a mistake!*
> 
> Again, this was an off-lead dog park. Just like you expect to see half-naked people at a beach, you expect to see dogs running at a dog park. One hast to take in the context of their situation.


Hi Selzer,

Not to worry about me and Baron going to a dog park - most of them here in CA frown on intact male dogs over 6 months attending. Wonder why? Maybe because they think those dogs might cause more dog fights and that dog fights are a problem in dog parks? I don't know but we are not eligible to go to the parks.

I don't like them anyway because of the irrisponsible owners ( a small fraction of the people that go to parks but too many for me) who have no control over their dogs and let them run around and run up to other dogs and people probably causing many of the dog fights.

My GSD would definetly tolerate that (esp. now he is an adult) and their might be a fight if another big male dog tried it. No thanks.

BTW, I think I can read dogs well enough to determine, even in a dog park, if an oncoming dog has evil intentions in mind or is just rushing up to play. At least most of the time anyway. But I have certainly seen MANY people who cannot read a dog at all and were scared to death of Baron when he made very friendly dog language to go visit them.

This could be a real problem in a dog park if some of the owners get scared - they get scared and pass that frieght and nervousness down to their dogs, who pick it up and react to it, and POOF the dogs will fight.

Wouldn't your dogs be more apt to react to an outside stranger dog or person if they feel that you are scared of it? Mine certainly would and has proven it time and time again.


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> I don't like them anyway because of the irrisponsible owners ( a small fraction of the people that go to parks but too many for me) who have no control over their dogs and let them run around and run up to other dogs and people probably causing many of the dog fights.


I agree, but the other irresponsible owners are ones that leave their dogs on leash, don't know their own dogs, can't read canine body language, and escalate a situation. It goes both ways. People should be aware if their dogs are dog park material or not. Not every dog does well in those situations.



codmaster said:


> It was supposed to be an analogy to a situation where one is going to have to decide WHEN to fight back if you yourself were to come under attack. Do you wait till actually injured or does one have the right to defend yourself before that. Some people here stated that "there was no attack" because there was no blood (i.e. no "proof" of an attack),


Here's my issue. Your analogy wasn't accurate. Nobody was mugged or in fear for their life. The man ADMITTED that he wasn't in fear for his life. So what does that have to do with someone being mugged? You're talking about someone being accosted and fearing for their life vs. someone who shot a dog, AT A DOG PARK, when he wasn't afraid. And we're determining there was no attack because that is what the courts ruled per the evidence.



> I merely suggest that only an idiot would wait until he or his were physically injured to begin to defend himself or others.


But what does this have to do with this particular case? The man wasn't defending him or his wife and they weren't afraid for their lives per their own statements.



cod master said:


> (And sincerely hope that you never find yourself in a situation that you have to fight while in fear for yourself, your family or even your dog!)


I also hope nobody finds themselves in this situation. It's a good thing this man wasn't in this situation, either.

I just wonder if the officer understands how having his dog on leash could have contributed to how his dog responded. And I say this as someone who has a leash-reactive dog. I was walking my dog in the neighborhood when two dogs jumped their fence and went after my dog. My dog was never leash-reactive before that. So now, when a loose dog comes up to my dog, I immediately drop his leash. My dog gets loud and noisy on leash towards other dogs. Dropping the leash immediately diffuses his reactions. But never once did I think to shoot the other dog. Of course, I don't have a gun. LOL! 

But there is something so incredibly irresponsible about keeping a dog on leash at a dog park. This man directly contributed to this situation so he gets no praise/understanding from me for killing a dog to solve the issue no matter how "afraid" he was. I really think there needs to be a test or pamphlet at dog parks that explains canine behavior before you enter. Too many idiots running around...lol. 

I've told this story before but I was at the dog park once and there was a young lady who brought her AKITA. Her Akita was also on leash. (See where this is going?) And she was throwing hissy fits because other dogs had the nerve to approach her dog...AT A DOG PARK!!! The sheer absurdity of that scene still boggles my mind. What I determined was common sense is not all that common. And it's also why I don't go to dog parks anymore. It's to the point where I enjoy them more than my dogs do, anyway.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> Jessie,
> 
> Please answer just this one question. WHEN would you use the pepper spray?
> 
> If you were walking down the street and a big man came toward you yelling and threatening you verbally, would you spray him before he actually touched you? OR would you wait untill he actually hit or grabbed you?
> 
> Just a question?


I have no idea why you keep thinking this guy is innocent or was right in this situation. 

Also, I have been in a situation where my dog protected not only me but a younger child from a grown man. Also, I have taken karate, I scream quite loud. And most people who see me then see my big black GSD they usually walk across the street or turn around.

Otherwise I don't see your point of mugging. Its not irrelevant. The guy ADMITTED he wasn't afraid. He LIED about it. He was at a OFF LEASH dog park with his dog ON LEASH. There was no evidence of an attack. When you go to a dog park dogs will come up to you and your dog and make noise. Its part of going to a dog park. 

If you are going to own a dog you need to learn basic dog behavior.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

IllinoisNative said:


> I agree, but the other irresponsible owners are ones that leave their dogs on leash, don't know their own dogs, can't read canine body language, and escalate a situation. It goes both ways. People should be aware if their dogs are dog park material or not. Not every dog does well in those situations.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my issue. Your analogy wasn't accurate. Nobody was mugged or in fear for their life. The man ADMITTED that he wasn't in fear for his life. So what does that have to do with someone being mugged? You're talking about someone being accosted and fearing for their life vs. someone who shot a dog, AT A DOG PARK, when he wasn't afraid. And we're determining there was no attack because that is what the courts ruled per the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> But what does this have to do with this particular case? The man wasn't defending him or his wife and they weren't afraid for their lives per their own statements.
> 
> 
> 
> I also hope nobody finds themselves in this situation. It's a good thing this man wasn't in this situation, either.
> 
> I just wonder if the officer understands how having his dog on leash could have contributed to how his dog responded. And I say this as someone who has a leash-reactive dog. I was walking my dog in the neighborhood when two dogs jumped their fence and went after my dog. My dog was never leash-reactive before that. So now, when a loose dog comes up to my dog, I immediately drop his leash. My dog gets loud and noisy on leash towards other dogs. Dropping the leash immediately diffuses his reactions. But never once did I think to shoot the other dog. Of course, I don't have a gun. LOL!
> 
> But there is something so incredibly irresponsible about keeping a dog on leash at a dog park. This man directly contributed to this situation so he gets no praise/understanding from me for killing a dog to solve the issue no matter how "afraid" he was.* I really think there needs to be a test or pamphlet at dog parks that explains canine behavior before you enter. Too many idiots running around...lol. *
> 
> I've told this story before but I was at the dog park once and there was a young lady who brought her AKITA. Her Akita was also on leash. (See where this is going?) And she was throwing hissy fits because other dogs had the nerve to approach her dog...AT A DOG PARK!!! The sheer absurdity of that scene still boggles my mind. What I determined was common sense is not all that common. And it's also why I don't go to dog parks anymore. It's to the point where I enjoy them more than my dogs do, anyway.


Yes!! I agree!!


----------



## selzer

codmaster said:


> Hi Selzer,
> 
> Not to worry about me and Baron going to a dog park - most of them here in CA frown on intact male dogs over 6 months attending. Wonder why? Maybe because they think those dogs might cause more dog fights and that dog fights are a problem in dog parks? I don't know but we are not eligible to go to the parks.
> 
> I don't like them anyway because of the irrisponsible owners ( a small fraction of the people that go to parks but too many for me) who have no control over their dogs and let them run around and run up to other dogs and people probably causing many of the dog fights.
> 
> My GSD would definetly tolerate that (esp. now he is an adult) and their might be a fight if another big male dog tried it. No thanks.
> 
> BTW, I think I can read dogs well enough to determine, even in a dog park, if an oncoming dog has evil intentions in mind or is just rushing up to play. At least most of the time anyway. But I have certainly seen MANY people who cannot read a dog at all and were scared to death of Baron when he made very friendly dog language to go visit them.
> 
> This could be a real problem in a dog park if some of the owners get scared - they get scared and pass that frieght and nervousness down to their dogs, who pick it up and react to it, and POOF the dogs will fight.
> 
> Wouldn't your dogs be more apt to react to an outside stranger dog or person if they feel that you are scared of it? Mine certainly would and has proven it time and time again.


Maybe people who are afraid of dogs should go to a dog park without a dog (or a gun) if they are trying to overcome their fear of dogs. 

If a person is going to be horrified when a dog runs up to their dog, they need to find a different venue to have a good time with their dog. 

I can understand someone new to dog parks not knowing about the leash thing, I can understand them wanting to keep their dog leashed at first to see how it goes. While he contributed to what happened, I can understand that. 

What I cannot understand is how someone whips out a gun and shoots a dog in a dog park where his guardian was there, never even considering that most people would have to find a different solution to this problem. Without considering what this might do to his job, etc. 

If found the whole incident from the begining to be scarey because someone would completely disregard the context of the situation, the fact that the dog was not an unknown entity/stray, and that using a firearm was overkill and could affect his future.


----------



## codmaster

And eventually it turned out that the guy was punished for his use of a firearm. And that seems appropriate based on what we who were not there have heard.

BUT, who should be the first to cast the first stone if you have never been in that situation before, where you think (regardless if it is true!) that you or your family or your pet is in some danger? 

For example, I guarantee that the majority of people including most of the people on this forum would react to my own dog if he came rushing at them and/or their pet even though the odds are very very high that he would do nothing but bark and sniff 9unless you tried to attack him!). Make people bad people? Of course not - just reacting as a lot of normal people would. (I would too if he were not my dog!)

The guy did something wrong in the eyes of the local law and he paid for it. Probably time to let it go.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> And eventually it turned out that the guy was punished for his use of a firearm. And that seems appropriate based on what we who were not there have heard.
> 
> BUT, who should be the first to cast the first stone if you have never been in that situation before, where you think (regardless if it is true!) that you or your family or your pet is in some danger?
> 
> For example, I guarantee that the majority of people including most of the people on this forum would react to my own dog if he came rushing at them and/or their pet even though the odds are very very high that he would do nothing but bark and sniff 9unless you tried to attack him!). Make people bad people? Of course not - just reacting as a lot of normal people would. (I would too if he were not my dog!)
> 
> The guy did something wrong in the eyes of the local law and he paid for it. Probably time to let it go.


You are the one who keeps thinking the guy is innocent and had a right to do what he did. We have been repeating the same thing over and over again.

He was a OFF LEASH dog park! Have you been to a dog park before? An off leash one? When you go to an off leash dog park there will be dogs that will come up to you and your dog. They will make noise. He had his dog on a leash at an OFF leash dog park. The husky was doing what any other dog at a dog park would do. Its normal dog behavior for a dog to come up and greet you at a dog park.

He admitted he wasn't afraid for his life, or his wife's. He didn't know dog behavior. If anyone plans on owning a dog, learning dog behavior is very important.


----------



## arycrest

codmaster said:


> And eventually it turned out that the guy was punished for his use of a firearm. And that seems appropriate based on what we who were not there have heard.
> 
> BUT, who should be the first to cast the first stone if you have never been in that situation before, where you think (regardless if it is true!) that you or your family or your pet is in some danger?
> 
> For example, I guarantee that the majority of people including most of the people on this forum would react to my own dog if he came rushing at them and/or their pet even though the odds are very very high that he would do nothing but bark and sniff 9unless you tried to attack him!). Make people bad people? Of course not - just reacting as a lot of normal people would. (I would too if he were not my dog!)
> 
> The guy did something wrong in the eyes of the local law and he paid for it. Probably time to let it go.


Codmaster this is none of my business and you don't have to answer this question, but have you ever been in a similar situation as happened in the Maryland dog park between Bear and Keith Shepherd? The reason I ask is because of the numerous pages of messages you've written dedicated to defending Mr. Shepherd's actions ... it's almost like somehow you've been trying to defend yourself.


----------



## codmaster

arycrest said:


> Codmaster this is none of my business and you don't have to answer this question, but have you ever been in a similar situation as happened in the Maryland dog park between Bear and Keith Shepherd? The reason I ask is because of the numerous pages of messages you've written dedicated to defending Mr. Shepherd's actions ... it's almost like somehow you've been trying to defend yourself.


Not with my dog, but I have had to defend myself on the street - which is why I wonder about all of the folks here who claim that they KNOW there was no "Attack" because there was no blood. And how they are so fast to blame the guy for reacting (inappropriately it turns out as the court tells us) to protect his dog from what by all accounts he thought was an attack, at least on his dog.

And I simply suggested that, before we condemn the man, (and I certainly do not know him), we try to put ourselves in his position and see how we might react. 

IF you thought that your dog or anybody else were under attack - would you react as best you thought or would you wait till you can see blood (for example).

Just as a question, as I have not really seen it described anywahere (and admittedly might have just missed it) - what was the dogs handler doing in all this? Did he have control of the Husky? Did he notice him running up to the leashed dog and did he realize, as many of you have suggested, that having a leashed and unleashed dog together can easily lead to one of them reacting badly? Did he call the Husky and the dog not respond to him while on the way up to the other dog? I did understand that the handler who took him to the park was not his owner.


----------



## arycrest

codmaster said:


> Not with my dog, but I have had to defend myself on the street - which is why I wonder about all of the folks here who claim that they KNOW there was no "Attack" because there was no blood. And how they are so fast to blame the guy for reacting (inappropriately it turns out as the court tells us) to protect his dog from what by all accounts he thought was an attack, at least on his dog.
> ...


Thanks for your answer. I kind of thought you had some type of personal experience similar to what happened in MD. About 30 years ago I was mugged, dragged thru a parking lot, injured, up in MD one night when I was going to visit a friend at his apartment. I'm still paranoid about anyone walking up behind me in parking lots at night.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Codmaster,
I was born and raised in Baltimore City. You learn street smarts pretty quickly. 

1. Always be aware of your surroundings. 
2. Avoid anyone who looks suspicious. If in doubt - try to get to a safe place.
3. Always have keys in hand. Into the car quickly. Into the house quickly.
4. Certain places I wouldn't even go in broad day light.
5. Whenever possible, don't walk alone.
6. Make sure you are not being followed.

I read people pretty well. Fortunately, I have never been attacked. I have been in some potentially dangerous situations, but was able to talk my way out. And....While I am talking, my mind keeps working, looking for help and an opportunity to get away.
You need street smarts and common sense to survive in the city. You need dog smarts and common sense to go to a dog park. 

My dog is not dog park material, so we won't be going. My dog has always been reactive and I have managed her for the past ten years, without her or another dog being harmed, and without a gun. Likewise, I have survived on the streets without a gun. My brother is a correctional officer and carries his gun. A suspicious character approached him and his wife in, the city. My brother pulled back his jacket to reveal his gun and told the guy to back off. Never pulled, or pointed the gun, and certainly didn't shoot the guy. If he had, he would have been in a whole heap of trouble.

You keep mentioning that none of us were there and we don't know the facts. While that is true and may have held water previously, the verdict is in. I was not at the trial. I heard no testimony and know nothing about the evidence. The judge, however, WAS at the trial. He heard every word and declared that Keith Shepherd over-reacted. Keith Shepherd was found guilty, because in the eyes of the law, he did wrong. It is way past time to give Shepherd the "benefit of the doubt."


----------



## kiwilrdg

When codmaster posted


> And how they are so fast to blame the guy for reacting (inappropriately it turns out as the court tells us)


It should be clear that there is no longer an issue. 
Why is everyone baiting codmaster for wanting both sides of the issue evaluated before passing judgement?


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

codmaster said:


> It was supposed to be an analogy to a situation where one is going to have to decide WHEN to fight back if you yourself were to come under attack. Do you wait till actually injured or does one have the right to defend yourself before that. Some people here stated that "there was no attack" because there was no blood (i.e. no "proof" of an attack), thus the guy did not have a right to defend anyone( not saying that he should have used a gun!) at all.
> I merely suggest that only an idiot would wait until he or his were physically injured to begin to defend himself or others.
> 
> I do apologize to you and anyone else who did not understand that.


I understood perfectly. Apparently _you_ didn't understand _my_ point that your analogy, while interesting, is not relevant to this case. It's a perfectly valid question, and anyone who wishes to discuss it further is free to do so. But it has nothing to do with Bear and the man who shot him, especially now that a court has found him guilty. Whether you or anyone else agrees with the verdict is irrelevant, as the court has decided that "there was no attack". 

If you're still interested in discussing what criteria other people would use to decide if they're being attacked by a dog, a mugger, or space aliens from Mars, and when and how it's appropriate to defend themselves from this fictitious attack, you should start a Chat thread. THIS thread is about Bear.

I think the best way to stop this endless arguing for the sake of arguing is for all of us to just ignore the posts in this thread that don't have anything to do with Bear's case. :shrug: That's what I plan to do.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

codmaster said:


> Not to worry about me and Baron going to a dog park - most of them here in CA frown on intact male dogs over 6 months attending. Wonder why? Maybe because they think those dogs might cause more dog fights and that dog fights are a problem in dog parks? I don't know but we are not eligible to go to the parks.


You could go to any of the off leash parks we regularly frequent. They are regional parks open to the general public, and we often see intact dogs. Keefer wasn't neutered until 15 months old and went to off leash parks every weekend. I don't know of any private parks in the area that restrict dogs for anything other than aggressive behavior, and even that would be informally policed by whoever was there at the time and felt bold enough to speak up.

Okay, NOW I'm going to ignore the off topic posts!


----------



## selzer

Codmaster,

I lived next door to a dog that looked somewhere between a Rhodesian Ridgeback and a pit bull. The people were the kind that let their barefoot eight and nine year old kids run the rider mower toting their barefoot two year old, and tying their intact husky bitch out back to a dog house year round whether she had a litter or not.

In short, these were not the people you would meet at your local training club, socializing their dog at petsmart, or taking the dog to the dog park. 

Anyway, the dog was left to run loose, and as I do not have a garage, my dogs must be loaded in my car in my front yard with no fences protecting them. The dog would rush over to attack my dogs EVERY TIME I tried to take them anywhere.

I had to be quick and get them in the car, I had to yell and try to avoid the inevitable. I called the dog warden numerous times. I called the sherriff's department. No one did ANYTHING. The sherriff's department TOLD me to shoot the dog IF it was trying to attack me. I asked if I could if it was trying to attack my dogs, and they refused to answer that question. So I pretty much knew what I should say if I chose to shoot the dog.

I did not shoot the dog. 

Eventually the people lost their house and moved, thankfully taking the Hound of the Baskervilles with them. It WAS close a few times, the dog WAS menacing. Finally their kids told me that they had to keep him tied up now because he had attacked their other dogs. Well, just great. 

Being charged by a dog in the street or on your own property is much different than in a dog park. Did the dog not come back to the guy, was obedience 100% at the park? Maybe not. That is not a killing offense though. 

There have been COUNTLESS posts on this forum in the past five years of people out walking their dogs and some loose mutt come up to them, and what these people did to avoid the death and dismemberment of their beloved pets. So far nobody pulled out their gun and fired away.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

There is a difference between being at a dog park and walking down the street and seeing a stray/loose dog.


----------



## selzer

And evenso, the majority of us do not pull out guns and shoot them.


----------



## codmaster

Stevenzachsmom said:


> .........You need street smarts and common sense to survive in the city. You need dog smarts and common sense to go to a dog park.
> * But where do you get these very valuable things?*
> ........... Likewise, I have survived on the streets without a gun. My brother is a correctional officer and carries his gun. A suspicious character approached him and his wife in, the city. My brother pulled back his jacket to reveal his gun and told the guy to back off. Never pulled, or pointed the gun, and certainly didn't shoot the guy. If he had, he would have been in a whole heap of trouble.
> 
> *What do you think he should have done if the guy didn't back off? Would he have shot him then? If he thought that he and his wife were in danger of attack? If he hadn't shot, he could have been in even bigger trouble, I would suspect.*
> 
> 
> You keep mentioning that none of us were there and we don't know the facts. While that is true and may have held water previously, the verdict is in. I was not at the trial. I heard no testimony and know nothing about the evidence. The judge, however, WAS at the trial. He heard every word and declared that Keith Shepherd over-reacted. Keith Shepherd was found guilty, because in the eyes of the law, he did wrong. It is way past time to give Shepherd the "benefit of the doubt."


Exactly what I have said multiple times - he overreacted and is now paying the price for it!

OTOH, do you think that the handler of the other dog bears at least some of the responsibility? Again, without seeing what happened, I would never begin to think that I know what happened. 

But, why wouldn't the handler just call his dog back when he went running up to another dog who was still on leash? The handler should have known that that was a very risky thing for a free dog to go running up to a leashed one - shouldn't he? Many folks here have stated that about a leashed dog.

I do know that my dog reacts differently to a dog who comes *running* up to him as opposed to one introducing himself in proper dog language.


----------



## selzer

Because in proper dog language, two humans hold leashes and carefully walk dogs closer together and allow them to sniff, etc.???

Who says that in proper dog language, the dog isn't thinking, "hey, there's my big black and tan buddy I played with last week, hello, hello, lets go run and play. c'mon, ditch those humans and lets go!!!"


----------



## selzer

Not everyone at dog parks have their dogs titled utility or schutzhund dogs. Not all dogs will run back to the owner when called if the alternative is something much more interesting. 

Dogs need to be friendly and not dog aggressive to have good dog park experiences, but they do not need to have drop dead perfect obedience skills. Sorry to burst your bubble on that. 

The fact that the dog was not called off, is not a reason the guy should have pulled out his gun and killed the dog. 

If that dog started to attack the other dog, his owner/guardian should have ran over and grabbed the legs and pulled his dog out of the situation. His dog was a regular at the dog park, and he was not too fussed about the situation because his dog was PREDICTABLE around other dogs. I really do not fault him at all in this. 

SOME of us would have seen a new dog entering and taken a hold of our collars until that person entered and removed his leash. That would give us time to figure out whether the guy and dog should even be there. But that might be dog park etticate or good manners, not a dog park rule. 

If you are sitting on a full bus, and an elderly or pregnant lady comes on, manners may suggest that you stand up and give her your seat. No one has the right to shoot you for not doing it.


----------



## Syaoransbear

codmaster said:


> *What do you think he should have done if the guy didn't back off? Would he have shot him then? If he thought that he and his wife were in danger of attack? If he hadn't shot, he could have been in even bigger trouble, I would suspect.*


You would be in so much trouble if you shot someone before they even touched you, unless you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were about to _kill_ you. Even if they just slapped you and you shot them, you'd be in a lot of trouble. Using excessive force for self defense will still land you in jail. The father of my cousins child was abusive and had anger issues, and one day he punched her in the face, so she knocked him unconscious with an object(don't remember what she used). She had a heck of time not going to jail herself. 

And we still have no evidence that this dog was even being a threat. It could have been rough play that the german shepherd didn't like, or it could have been a scuffle. It definitely didn't sound like a threat to the dogs life.

If you have so many questions(such as where was the handler, why didn't he call the dog back, etc), why don't you contact the people who witnessed it all? Bear-bear has a facebook page, they'll probably answer your questions.


----------



## codmaster

Syaoransbear said:


> You would be in so much trouble if you shot someone before they even touched you, unless you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were about to _kill_ you. Even if they just slapped you and you shot them, you'd be in a lot of trouble. Using excessive force for self defense will still land you in jail. The father of my cousins child was abusive and had anger issues, and one day he punched her in the face, so she knocked him unconscious with an object(don't remember what she used). She had a heck of time not going to jail herself.
> 
> And we still have no evidence that this dog was even being a threat. It could have been rough play that the german shepherd didn't like, or it could have been a scuffle. It definitely didn't sound like a threat to the dogs life.
> 
> If you have so many questions(such as where was the handler, why didn't he call the dog back, etc), why don't you contact the people who witnessed it all? Bear-bear has a facebook page, they'll probably answer your questions.


But what would you do? Many people are very critical and judgemental about this guy BUT never would answer the question of what they would have done in a similar situation? 

How about you, Syaoransbear? *Exactly* what would you do if you thought your dog was being attacked by another big dog? *Stand by and let it happen? * Hit the dog with a stick (if you had one?). Shoot him (if you had a gun handy?) *WHAT?*


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> Not everyone at dog parks have their dogs titled utility or schutzhund dogs. Not all dogs will run back to the owner when called if the alternative is something much more interesting.
> 
> Dogs need to be friendly and not dog aggressive to have good dog park experiences, but they do not need to have drop dead perfect obedience skills. Sorry to burst your bubble on that.
> 
> The fact that the dog was not called off, is not a reason the guy should have pulled out his gun and killed the dog.
> 
> If that dog started to attack the other dog, his owner/guardian should have ran over and grabbed the legs and pulled his dog out of the situation. His dog was a regular at the dog park, and he was not too fussed about the situation because his dog was PREDICTABLE around other dogs. I really do not fault him at all in this.
> 
> SOME of us would have seen a new dog entering and taken a hold of our collars until that person entered and removed his leash. That would give us time to figure out whether the guy and dog should even be there. But that might be dog park etticate or good manners, not a dog park rule.
> 
> If you are sitting on a full bus, and an elderly or pregnant lady comes on, manners may suggest that you stand up and give her your seat. No one has the right to shoot you for not doing it.


Selzer, 

I would think that you of all people would know that if you don't have control of your adult dog, THEN YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS BRINGING HIM OR HER TO A DOG PARK. If you cannot even recall your dog when you need to, that dog has no business being off lead in public!

People like that are one more good reason not to go to dog parks.


----------



## Miikkas mom

codmaster said:


> Selzer,
> 
> I would think that you of all people would know that if you don't have control of your adult dog, THEN YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS BRINGING HIM OR HER TO A DOG PARK. If you cannot even recall your dog when you need to, that dog has no business being off lead in public!
> 
> People like that are one more good reason not to go to dog parks.


I think even the best trained dog could have a momentary laps of reason and not listen his/her master. Sometimes, no matter how well we think our animal is trained, it could still have a relapses. To think otherwise is a bit naive, in my opinion.


----------



## AbbyK9

> I would think that you of all people would know that if you don't have control of your adult dog, THEN YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS BRINGING HIM OR HER TO A DOG PARK. If you cannot even recall your dog when you need to, that dog has no business being off lead in public!
> 
> People like that are one more good reason not to go to dog parks.


I second this.

The whole reason I no longer go to dog parks is because of people who bring dogs that do not have any basic obedience skills and that usually do not have any dog-dog interaction skills, either.

My absolutely biggest pet peeve are people whose dogs won't do something as simple as "come". That's not an advanced skill. That should be a very, very basic skill. (And if your dog doesn't come, don't stand there hollering - GO GET YOUR DOG.) At most parks I've been to, fights start right at the gate because everyone just lets their dog rush people and dogs coming into the park. It's particularly bad in single-gate parks where the dog and owner enter with the dog leashed.

It's sad that we NEED to have detailed rules at dog parks because people don't have the SIMPLE COMMON SENSE not to let their dog rush another dog, especially if that other dog is leashed.


----------



## IllinoisNative

kiwilrdg said:


> Why is everyone baiting codmaster for wanting both sides of the issue evaluated before passing judgement?


IMO, it's not baiting to disagree with his views and state the reasons why. Which is what every post has done. And it's because he's only seeing it from one side even when the courts ruled the man was in the wrong.



Stevenzachsmom said:


> Codmaster,
> I was born and raised in Baltimore City. You learn street smarts pretty quickly.
> 
> 1. Always be aware of your surroundings.
> 2. Avoid anyone who looks suspicious. If in doubt - try to get to a safe place.
> 3. Always have keys in hand. Into the car quickly. Into the house quickly.
> 4. Certain places I wouldn't even go in broad day light.
> 5. Whenever possible, don't walk alone.
> 6. Make sure you are not being followed.


As someone who grew up in Chicago...and is a female...I totally agree. I think everyone here (especially females) get what it's like to be afraid especially in a secluded place with strange men. It's not like people don't know what it's like or would have a problem with someone defending themselves. Women tend to "get" the fear issue...lol.

My issue is that this guy admitted he wasn't afraid. So codmaster making a point about how this guy was scared and trying to protect is family is moot. THE MAN WASN'T AFRAID. So it's not the same as someone defending themselves from a mugger. It's also not the same situation as being in the "streets" and having a stray dog come running up to you. THIS WAS A DOG PARK! That is to be expected. So his analogies and comparisons do not pertain to this particular case.



> You keep mentioning that none of us were there and we don't know the facts. While that is true and may have held water previously, the verdict is in. I was not at the trial. I heard no testimony and know nothing about the evidence. The judge, however, WAS at the trial. He heard every word and declared that Keith Shepherd over-reacted. Keith Shepherd was found guilty, because in the eyes of the law, he did wrong. It is way past time to give Shepherd the "benefit of the doubt."


:thumbup:



codmaster said:


> Not with my dog, but I have had to defend myself on the street - which is why I wonder about all of the folks here who claim that they KNOW there was no "Attack" because there was no blood. And how they are so fast to blame the guy for reacting (inappropriately it turns out as the court tells us) to protect his dog from what by all accounts he thought was an attack, at least on his dog.


There was no attack because there were no injuries...not just no blood. Neither dog was hurt. Therefore, it was ONLY vocal. Therefore, no attack occured. The man misread the situation. Secondly, we're not blaming the man for reacting. We're blaming him for HOW he acted.



> And I simply suggested that, before we condemn the man, (and I certainly do not know him), we try to put ourselves in his position and see how we might react.


He's condemned because he was found guilty. The facts are in and he's guilty. For what it's worth, I don't think he is a monster. I think he had no experience at dog parks or reading dog behavior. I also think he did an illegal thing by shooting the dog. And I think that behavior deserves consequences. The courts agreed. 

Why don't you put yourself in the position of the other guy who had his dog run up to greet another dog only to have a man misinterpret canine behavior and shoot your dog. Wouldn't you want justice?



> Did he have control of the Husky? Did he notice him running up to the leashed dog and did he realize, as many of you have suggested, that having a leashed and unleashed dog together can easily lead to one of them reacting badly?


When you're at a dog park, you shouldn't have to worry about leashed dogs. Dogs run up to other dogs all the time. Let's say you realize your dog is going up to a leashed dog that you didn't realize was leashed until it was too late. Then the leash reactive dog growls/bares teeth and the other dog feels like it has to defend itself. Then a fight is on and it's hard to get your dog back when he's already in that zone. People have an expectation of going to a dog park where dogs are off leash.

Lastly, codmaster, most of us have been in that situation. I've had dogs come up to my dog on the streets and at the dog park who were more aggressive. And most of us were able to get out of those situations without whipping out a gun and killing another dog. You seem to think shooting this dog was this guy's only recourse. No, it was just the most quick and convenient. And now he's paying for it.


----------



## codmaster

Miikkas mom said:


> I think even the best trained dog could have a momentary laps of reason and not listen his/her master. Sometimes, no matter how well we think our animal is trained, it could still have a relapses. To think otherwise is a bit naive, in my opinion.


That is very true even with a well trained dog, BUT your dog should be very, very reliable even under heavy distractions, before going publicly off lead. To do otherwise, esp. with a large, often aggressive, and more often protective breed like our GSD, is to be worse than irresponsible (at least in my opinion), others may not care as much, or simply have thieir own opinion.


----------



## Zoeys mom

I totally love the above post. I had a hairy situation yesterday when a stray golden ran up on us barking and taunting my dogs. I called them, leashed them, and left- no gun needed. I don't personally carry or own a firearm and live right outside of Washington, DC where crime is most definitely an issue. I take measures to decrease my odds of becoming a victim and don't agree a gun is always the difference between getting out of a bad situation and dying. How many people are shot with their own firearms, unarmed, and killed anyway statistically. However, I did grow up in a gun friendly house so I don't have a problem with people owning firearms just the ways on which they are more often used.

The bottom line is this asshat did not protect anyone with his gun- he killed someone's dog because he was an idiot with no business owning and carrying a gun or dog for that matter


----------



## codmaster

IllinoisNative said:


> IMO, it's not baiting to disagree with his views and state the reasons why. Which is what every post has done. And it's because he's only seeing it from one side even when the courts ruled the man was in the wrong. *WRONG! I am one of the few who actually see and understand BOTH sides.*
> *BTW - no problem with baiting!*
> 
> As someone who grew up in Chicago...and is a female...I totally agree. I think everyone here (especially females) get what it's like to be afraid especially in a secluded place with strange men. It's not like people don't know what it's like or would have a problem with someone defending themselves. Women tend to "get" the fear issue...lol.
> 
> *Got a revelation for you - so do men! Men also get scared in dangerous situations. Anyone who doesn't is either kidding themselves or others. It is really a question of can one act when scared or does one "freeze"?*
> 
> *Because of your background, perhaps you could answer my previous question - and it is relavant because it goes to the question of when one should respond to a perceived attack. And that is the one about walking down a street and being verbally accosted by a big, really scruffy looking man and you have a can of pepper spray (or a gun)* *in your hand. Do you wait until he has physically grabbed/hit you before you spray? Or do you do it before he has a chance to touch you (would you fear that if you let him get close enough to touch you, then you might be unable to spray or fight back very effectively. I am sure that you would have no problem answering this easy question.*
> 
> *Many folks here say the guy acted too fast and should have at least waited longer or not reacted at all. So you see it is a very relevant question. I really look forward to you answering the question but i really do understand if you don't want to or can't.*
> 
> My issue is that this guy admitted he wasn't afraid. So codmaster making a point about how this guy was scared and trying to protect is family is moot. THE MAN WASN'T AFRAID. So it's not the same as someone defending themselves from a mugger. It's also not the same situation as being in the "streets" and having a stray dog come running up to you. THIS WAS A DOG PARK! That is to be expected. So his analogies and comparisons do not pertain to this particular case.
> 
> *If the dog who comes running at your dog is not under someones control, and the dogs in the dog park are not tested before they are allowed in the park, and the owner is not in evidence, perhaps you could be so kind and informative to explain exactly what the difference is? Please?*
> 
> :thumbup:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no attack because there were no injuries...not just no blood. Neither dog was hurt. Therefore, it was ONLY vocal.
> *So you were there? I did not realize that you were there. Otherwise you would be saying that only because there were no injuries! There are many attacks among dogs that can reault in no injuries if they are broken up soon enough - doesn't mean at all that there was not an attack - only that it didn't last long enough to have any inflicted. *
> 
> *Unless of course you are positive that no injuries to either dog WOULD have occured if the guy did not react to the husky running up to his dog. I wonder just a little how you could be so positive of that. But it is easy to be positive after the fact, I suppose.*
> 
> 
> Therefore, no attack occured. The man misread the situation. Secondly, we're not blaming the man for reacting. We're blaming him for HOW he acted.
> 
> 
> 
> He's condemned because he was found guilty. The facts are in and he's guilty. For what it's worth, I don't think he is a monster. I think he had no experience at dog parks or reading dog behavior. I also think he did an illegal thing by shooting the dog. And I think that behavior deserves consequences. The courts agreed.
> 
> *And so did I!*
> 
> Why don't you put yourself in the position of the other guy who had his dog run up to greet another dog only to have a man misinterpret canine behavior and shoot your dog. Wouldn't you want justice? *Yes, as the husky owner got when the guy was found guilty. Don't you agree?*
> 
> 
> 
> When you're at a dog park, you shouldn't have to worry about leashed dogs.
> *Or about uncontrolled dogs either!*
> 
> Dogs run up to other dogs all the time. Let's say you realize your dog is going up to a leashed dog that you didn't realize was leashed until it was too late. Then the leash reactive dog growls/bares teeth and the other dog feels like it has to defend itself. Then a fight is on and it's hard to get your dog back when he's already in that zone. People have an expectation of going to a dog park where dogs are off leash.
> 
> *Absolutely right! - the guy made a mistake! How many others have made the same mistake about leashes in a dog park? Was the other guy also wrong by going to a dog park without having control of his big dog?*
> 
> Lastly, codmaster, most of us have been in that situation. I've had dogs come up to my dog on the streets and at the dog park who were more aggressive. And *most* of us were able to get out of those situations without whipping out a gun and killing another dog.
> 
> *Most - what about the others? Did they "whip out a gun and kill another dog"?*
> You seem to think shooting this dog was this guy's only recourse. No, it was just the most quick and convenient. And now he's paying for it.


 
Let's see if I can help you understand what I said and meant. Please see the blue text above - that should help make it clearer, I hope.

But first, let's see if i can state this clearly for you and any others who have not quite understood what I said. (And for not being clear enough, I apologize.)

I said that the guy obviously over reacted in the eyes of the judge (and he/she is the only opinion that really matters even if he/she was not actually at the dog park either). AND HE IS PAYING THE PENALTY!

What I was curious about was how would all those folks who jumped all over this guy have reacted in the same or a similar position when they though they or their dog was being attacked. Most people, unless you were too scared to do anything (nothing to be ashamed about either as it is common unless you are used to violence somewhat) or perhaps you might be a pacifist; would act to defend themselves or their family or even their dog. How many people on this forum have stated "It is my job to defend my dog, not the other way around".


----------



## Syaoransbear

codmaster said:


> But what would you do? Many people are very critical and judgemental about this guy BUT never would answer the question of what they would have done in a similar situation?
> 
> How about you, Syaoransbear? *Exactly* what would you do if you thought your dog was being attacked by another big dog? *Stand by and let it happen? * Hit the dog with a stick (if you had one?). Shoot him (if you had a gun handy?) *WHAT?*


I have answered this question somewhere in this thread before as many other people have, so I'll say it again.

If the dog was attacking my dog, I would grab the dog by the back of the legs and pull him off, then start swinging him around if he was trying to redirect. If my dog and the other dog were attacking each other, I'd yell at the owner to help me and we'd pull the dogs off together. If none of that worked, I'd boot the dog. Breaking bones is better than an immediate death sentence. I don't think I'd use a stick, sticks aren't as strong as my foot. I wouldn't use a gun, because it's dangerous for my dog, it's illegal to carry, it's dangerous for other people, and it is _lethal_ force for a potentially nonlethal problem. A gun should be used if YOUR life is in immediate danger from a _lethal_ threat. This was not the case.

I mean, the one dog was already on a leash, it would have been even easier. And they weren't latched on since there weren't any bite marks, so, again, an even easier situation. If I shot every dog that my dog got in a scuffle with, there would be like 10 dead dogs in the world already. Dogs have arguments, there are only so few ways they can express them, so assuming a dog fight is going to be lethal or even have injuries isn't smart.

Honestly, the biggest issue I have is leaving the dog to bleed out for 20 minutes before allowing anyone to take it to the vet. Don't even _criminals_ in a critical state get medical attention as soon as possible?


----------



## Jessiewessie99

codmaster said:


> Let's see if I can help you understand what I said and meant. Please see the blue text above - that should help make it clearer, I hope.
> 
> But first, let's see if i can state this clearly for you and any others who have not quite understood what I said. (And for not being clear enough, I apologize.)
> 
> I said that the guy obviously over reacted in the eyes of the judge (and he/she is the only opinion that really matters even if he/she was not actually at the dog park either). AND HE IS PAYING THE PENALTY!
> 
> What I was curious about was how would all those folks who jumped all over this guy have reacted in the same or a similar position when they though they or their dog was being attacked. Most people, unless you were too scared to do anything (nothing to be ashamed about either as it is common unless you are used to violence somewhat) or perhaps you might be a pacifist; would act to defend themselves or their family or even their dog. How many people on this forum have stated "It is my job to defend my dog, not the other way around".


 
She never said that men weren't afraid. Just women are seen as weaker(not saying they are) but thats how they are protrayed.

Ok back on topic. The guy obviously had no idea when it came to dog behavior and was not in fear of his life, he even admitted it. There are other way to deal with a dog running up to you ate a dog park and dealing with an issue, such as getting the owner of the husky to help if a problem arose, but there was no fight, and no issue. 

The guy shot the dog because he failed to know dog behavior. With any breed, an owner should know dog behavior. I seriously think there needs to be a manual for Dog Ownership.


----------



## selzer

codmaster said:


> Selzer,
> 
> I would think that you of all people would know that if you don't have control of your adult dog, THEN YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS BRINGING HIM OR HER TO A DOG PARK. If you cannot even recall your dog when you need to, that dog has no business being off lead in public!
> 
> People like that are one more good reason not to go to dog parks.


 
Why should I of all people knwo that if I do not have control of my adult dog, then I ahve no business bringing him or her to a dog park???

Do you know something I do not know???

Have ANY of my dogs EVER attacked anyone or anybody else's dogs???

Have ANY of my dogs EVER been attacked at a dog park??? 


I really want you to explain this because it seems kind of personal.


So, the way I see dog parks is that if you take puppies to dog parks regularly as they grow, it is part of their regular day, they run and play and are thoroughly used to the inns and outs, meeting new dogs, etc. 

The dog park is completely fenced in, so if the dog does not come immediately, yes, it is something to work on, but not the end of the world -- IF and only if your dog is not dog aggressive.

If your dog is dog aggressive or dog reactive or leash aggressive, YOU should know that and take action prior to entering such a place. IF you know the dog is leash reactive, you call in, and ask everyone to grab a hold of their dog. If your dog is dog aggressive, work on that FIRST and when the dog is way better, then maybe you could start doing this on a limited bases with one or two regular dogs. But because YOUR dog has a problem, does not give YOU the right to shoot an ordinary dog.

NOT EVERYBODY SPENDS THEIR EVENINGS IN DOG CLASSES.

And, frankly, we are the ones with the working/herding/guarding dogs that are intelligent, energetic, and can be prone to being protective and guarding, even dog aggressive if not socialized carefully. WE need to make sure OUR dogs are trained and will respond to us every time, because our dogs are likely to do damage if they are not. And even if they won't enough people are afraid of them, and might react to them. 


If you get a dog as an adult rescue, that dog will not have the extensive socialization with the dog park experience as a youngster. That does not mean that you need to give up the idea, but it might take a different approach. And all the training classes in the world, will not mean the dog will do 100% the first time he is off lead in a dog park with a bunch of other dogs. The dog needs to LEARN how to behave in a variety of settings and with varied distractions. Dogs are not robots. 

I am waiting to find out where all these dog parks are that only allow SchH III and Utility dogs.

Codmaster, when you step through the gate at a dog park, you are pretty much agreeing that you will be subjecting your dog to a possible problem. Sorry, but that is the case. These are living, breathing, animals with teeth. No one has required a test or any titling required for them to be there. So you are allowing that your dog may be attacked. Someone's dog may not be as well trained, and dog-savy as your dog is. 

But people accept that in order to allow their dog to run about with their own kind. They figure the benefits outweigh the risks, and they will be able to step in before any serious injury happens. Nobody expects someone to shoot their dog for running up to another dog in a dog park. And to suggest that this is something any of us might do is simply rediculous.


----------



## BlackPuppy

Wow, you guys still going. 

There were no injuries other than the bullet. Mrs Shepherd did not even bother to take her dog to the vet. It was part of the testimony. 

My Malinois has bit my Laekenois on two occassions in my own yard. You bet I took him to the vet both times. (I told her she'd be going to her final resting place if she did it again.)


----------



## selzer

codmaster said:


> What I was curious about was *how would all those folks who jumped all over this guy have reacted in the same or a similar position when they though they or their dog was being attacked*. Most people, unless you were too scared to do anything (nothing to be ashamed about either as it is common unless you are used to violence somewhat) or perhaps you might be a pacifist; would act to defend themselves or their family or even their dog. How many people on this forum have stated "It is my job to defend my dog, not the other way around".


When we answered your question, you took no notice if it does not support your point. 

So until someone comes on and says, "yeah, when I saw that thar dog comin', I could jist tell it was going to rip my dogs throat clean out, mine too maybe, so I pulled my 12 gage out from under my raincoat (kind of long, them there shot guns) and pointed it and hit him right between the eyes", _then _you will say, SEE, SEE, we should protect our dogs, you would, I would, this guy got a bum rap!


It IS my job to protect my dog, that poor husky owner who let his brother take his dog out, and the brother, they had NO CHANCE to protect their dog. 

Do you REALLY think this is justice for their loss? Two misdemeaner's???

If you are walking your dog down the street and some yayhoo sees the dog, gets scared, and shoots it dead in front of your eyes, would two little misdemeaners be justice for your pet???

I know they cannot tar and feather him and run him out of town on a rail, and I really did not expect him to get any jail time. I think this is the best that criminal court can do for this offense. I hope that they take him to civil court and at least get compensated for the dog's vet bills, and maybe a little to put toward another dog.


----------



## BlackPuppy

The reason the guy moved out of his house (leaving it "trashed") was because he was getting death threats.


----------



## AbbyK9

> So, the way I see dog parks is that if you take puppies to dog parks regularly as they grow, it is part of their regular day, they run and play and are thoroughly used to the inns and outs, meeting new dogs, etc.


I think that's one of the problems with dog parks. People who get puppies or get dogs that may previously not have been socialized at all, or not have been socialized well, think that dog parks are the place to go and do that. This is NOT the case.

Dog parks are where you take an already well-socialized dog to provide it with off-leash exercise and interaction that you would otherwise not be able to give them.

If you have a puppy or a dog that was previously not socialized around other dogs, the way to get them socialized is not to take them to a dog park, especially one where dogs do not have to pass any temperament testing or other screening to be allowed in, but to a supervised puppy play group, training classes, or one-on-one or small group play with dogs that are known to be well-socialized, friendly, and tolerant.


----------



## selzer

I am guessing it really depends on where you are and what the groups are like in your area. 

I took Babs and Jenna a few times. I did not know what I was doing either. They were about eight months old at the time. I quickly realized that one dog was enough at a time. The people there, the old hands, were very friendly and were helpful on what to do. 

The first day, we stayed in the small dog pen which ran alongside the other pen. And I let Babs and Jenna play. 

After that with just one dog, I went in to the big dog area. 

The dogs had been to dog classes, but at eight months, they were not perfect with every obedience command, especially when they are playing amongst other dogs. 

I only went a few times because it is simply too far away from my home, and I got involved in showing -- most people who take their dogs to shows are not too excited about having the play in dog parks, not because they will get hurt or dirty, but that they may want to play with the other dogs at the shows. 

We did not have puppy play groups around here, or one on one group play with dogs that re known to be well-socialized, friendly, and tolerant. 

In fact the vast majority of people out here going to classes are people who are having aggression problems with their dogs. The CGC class I am currently in...

AbbyK9, where did you come across your definition of who belongs in dog parks though? Just curious. Because it is different where I live. Not every dog on the block is dog aggressive, and so long as the dog is not openly hostile to other dogs, they can go in. In fact, no one is standing at the gate keeping them out. 

The rules say things like, dogs must be vaccinated, no toys or throwing sticks, but none of the rules say anything about what dogs are welcome, or what the qualifications are for dogs and owners. I wonder how many people have your definition and how many people have different ideas of who should be there.


----------



## codmaster

Syaoransbear said:


> I have answered this question somewhere in this thread before as many other people have, so I'll say it again. *Never saw it!*
> 
> If the dog was attacking my dog, I would grab the dog by the back of the legs and pull him off, then start swinging him around if he was trying to redirect. If my dog and the other dog were attacking each other, I'd yell at the owner to help me and we'd pull the dogs off together. If none of that worked, I'd boot the dog. Breaking bones is better than an immediate death sentence. I don't think I'd use a stick, sticks aren't as strong as my foot. I wouldn't use a gun, because it's dangerous for my dog, it's illegal to carry, it's dangerous for other people, and it is _lethal_ force for a potentially nonlethal problem. A gun should be used if YOUR life is in immediate danger from a _lethal_ threat. This was not the case.
> 
> I mean, the one dog was already on a leash, it would have been even easier. And they weren't latched on since there weren't any bite marks, so, again, an even easier situation. If I shot every dog that my dog got in a scuffle with, there would be like 10 dead dogs in the world already. Dogs have arguments, there are only so few ways they can express them, so assuming a dog fight is going to be lethal or even have injuries isn't smart. *Wouldn't a better way for the dog to express themselves would be being trained to ignore it?*
> 
> Honestly, the biggest issue I have is leaving the dog to bleed out for 20 minutes before allowing anyone to take it to the vet. Don't even _criminals_ in a critical state get medical attention as soon as possible?


*Would depend on what they have done in my book! *
*That is bad for a dog - did anyone ever ask and find out why he delayed it?*

While you grab the other dog by the back legs - what is your dog doing? Or is he trained just to stop fighting when you grab the other dog? That is some well trained dog! Congrats on that level of training.

BTW, it does sound like you are also very experienced, as your dog seems to get into a LOT of fights. At least *10* from your words above. Mine is 3 yo and he has got into 0 fights so far. Would most of your dog's fight have come in dog parks?

BTW, if you (or anyone else) ever grabbed my dog while he was fighting with your dog (esp if it was your dog who came running up on my dog); I would grab you by your legs and swing you into the air! (Or maybe shoot - heh! heh!)


----------



## selzer

codmaster, you have asked over and over again questions, but you do not respond to any of the answers or to the questions when people ask them of you.

So, why do you think that I of all people should know....???

I want to know why you singled me out, and what your point was in your post.


----------



## selzer

codmaster said:


> *Would depend on what they have done in my book! *
> *That is bad for a dog - did anyone ever ask and find out why he delayed it?*
> 
> While you grab the other dog by the back legs - what is your dog doing? Or is he trained just to stop fighting when you grab the other dog? That is some well trained dog! Congrats on that level of training.
> 
> BTW, it does sound like you are also very experienced, as your dog seems to get into a LOT of fights. At least *10* from your words above. Mine is 3 yo and he has got into 0 fights so far. Would most of your dog's fight have come in dog parks?
> 
> BTW, if you (or anyone else) ever grabbed my dog while he was fighting with your dog (esp if it was your dog who came running up on my dog); I would grab you by your legs and swing you into the air! (Or maybe shoot - heh! heh!)


I take it you really haven't the first idea how to protect your dog if it should become necessary. Why don't you ask JessieWessie, she can probably give you some good pointers on this. 

At the dog park there were at least two people and two dogs. In fact, Shepherd and his wife were there. He could have EASILY gave her the leash and pulled the other dog away. 

The REASON you go for the back legs is so that you do not get bitten by accident in the fight probably by your own dog. They usually go for the neck region, so grabbing a collar can get you injured. The back legs, does two things. It removes the dogs balance so that continuing in the fight is really difficult and it protects you pretty well from teeth. 

It is the right answer. 

If you shoot someone for grabbing your attacking dog by the back legs, I think you will get more than two little misdemeaners. If you boot them, same thing. 

When you are alone and a dog comes up menacing your dog, that is when you try to get your dog behind you, or get in between, shouting, even kicking at the other dog to get it away from your dog. But I can order my dog to SIT and STAY while I pull another dog away. I have done it a couple of times. The problem is what to do with the other dog then. You can get ahold of the collar then, and if you have a spare leash you can tie it to a tree or post or something. It is usually easier to keep them off your dog until you can load yours in your car. 

So far, in over four decades, I have yet to feel the need to pull out a gun and shoot another dog. 

This dog is DEAD for no good reason. It is not a good reason for death threats, but the yayhoo is not some kind of misunderstood hero.


----------



## Zoeys mom

I really don't get the debate here. The Husky was a regular at this park or at least had frequented it on multiple occasions, had zero record of bites, and never made contact with the cop or his dog. Barking is not necessarily aggressive nor is approaching another dog. There is a difference between protecting yourself and animals and shooting an animal who in no way was threatening. This cop misread another dogs behavior and discharged a firearm 30 yards away from a residential neighborhood- that was reckless and endangered an entire community. I also don't understand why shooting the dog was this guys first line of defense. He could have walked away with his leashed dog who was under his control and not lose easily with little effort- instead he shot a dog the idea is just insane and shows no reasonable train of thought.


----------



## Syaoransbear

codmaster said:


> *Would depend on what they have done in my book! *
> *That is bad for a dog - did anyone ever ask and find out why he delayed it?*
> 
> While you grab the other dog by the back legs - what is your dog doing? Or is he trained just to stop fighting when you grab the other dog? That is some well trained dog! Congrats on that level of training.
> 
> BTW, it does sound like you are also very experienced, as your dog seems to get into a LOT of fights. At least *10* from your words above. Mine is 3 yo and he has got into 0 fights so far. Would most of your dog's fight have come in dog parks?
> 
> BTW, if you (or anyone else) ever grabbed my dog while he was fighting with your dog (esp if it was your dog who came running up on my dog); I would grab you by your legs and swing you into the air! (Or maybe shoot - heh! heh!)


I don't recall reading why they delayed the dog seeing a vet. 

Of course a better way to react would be to ignore it, but training has to start somewhere. Dogs aren't born with the ability to ignore things that piss them off.

When I said that if the dog was attacking my dog, I implied that my dog wouldn't be fighting back, so I wouldn't have to do anything to stop my dog from fighting. If both dogs were fighting, I'd get the owner to help me. 

He's only ever gotten into one real fight(which he didn't fight back), the rest were scuffles. He's a very large dog and many dogs do not like large dogs or they feel intimidated by them. This is how most of the scuffles played out: Upon meeting a dog at the dog park(he doesn't run up to any dog, he walks up to them and sniff them) the dog would suddenly bark in his face and there would be a small scuffle that the dogs would break up on their own. Another time was over a toy. Another time was my boyfriend's shitzu trying to steal his bone. Once a person was there at night with a reactive dog and they were training by the gate, it went after every dog that approached it until the person finally left. 

This has also happened 2 times during training class(albeit a class with several dominant or reactive dogs), so it's not just a dog park issue. 

It's nice to know that instead of helping to stop a fight, you would assault the owner of another dog. Just because a dog ran up to your dog doesn't give you the right to shoot it, or your dog the right to bite it. There's a huge difference between a dog playfully running up to another dog out of excitement and running up to a dog with the intent to hurt it, your dog should learn the difference and not react. Like you said, maybe a better way for your dog to express itself would be to ignore it.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> codmaster, you have asked over and over again questions, but you do not respond to any of the answers or to the questions when people ask them of you.
> 
> So, why do you think that I of all people should know....???
> 
> I want to know why you singled me out, and what your point was in your post.


Sorry if I offended you - I just figured from many of your previous posts that you wanted your dogs to respond to your commands and be reliable in their obedience. I do apologize if that is not true.

Could I ask you what questions have I not responded to? 
That seems to be a common trait of many folks on this forum.

And I am done responding to this particular thread! And hope one of the mods will lock it!

The guy has been convicted and sentenced - it should be ended.

Everyone seems to have their own opinion of the incident and what happened and what should have happened. No one will change their mind based on what anyone else says. 

No one who has not been there in such a situation will ever know what they would REALLY do until they are in such a situation (and hopefully none of us will!).

Everyone have a nice day!


----------



## Jessiewessie99

selzer said:


> *I take it you really haven't the first idea how to protect your dog if it should become necessary. Why don't you ask JessieWessie, she can probably give you some good pointers on this. *
> 
> At the dog park there were at least two people and two dogs. In fact, Shepherd and his wife were there. He could have EASILY gave her the leash and pulled the other dog away.
> 
> The REASON you go for the back legs is so that you do not get bitten by accident in the fight probably by your own dog. They usually go for the neck region, so grabbing a collar can get you injured. The back legs, does two things. It removes the dogs balance so that continuing in the fight is really difficult and it protects you pretty well from teeth.
> 
> It is the right answer.
> 
> If you shoot someone for grabbing your attacking dog by the back legs, I think you will get more than two little misdemeaners. If you boot them, same thing.
> 
> When you are alone and a dog comes up menacing your dog, that is when you try to get your dog behind you, or get in between, shouting, even kicking at the other dog to get it away from your dog. But I can order my dog to SIT and STAY while I pull another dog away. I have done it a couple of times. The problem is what to do with the other dog then. You can get ahold of the collar then, and if you have a spare leash you can tie it to a tree or post or something. It is usually easier to keep them off your dog until you can load yours in your car.
> 
> So far, in over four decades, I have yet to feel the need to pull out a gun and shoot another dog.
> 
> This dog is DEAD for no good reason. It is not a good reason for death threats, but the yayhoo is not some kind of misunderstood hero.



Why would he ask me that? Everyone has their own way of doing and will do each situation differently. So I really don't see what your reasoning for that comment is.


----------



## Hunther's Dad

A mod should rename this the Zombie Thread. It's never going to die.


----------



## selzer

codmaster said:


> *Sorry if I offended you - I just figured from many of your previous posts that you wanted your dogs to respond to your commands and be reliable in their obedience. I do apologize if that is not true.*
> 
> Could I ask you what questions have I not responded to?
> That seems to be a common trait of many folks on this forum.
> 
> And I am done responding to this particular thread! And hope one of the mods will lock it!
> 
> The guy has been convicted and sentenced - it should be ended.
> 
> Everyone seems to have their own opinion of the incident and what happened and what should have happened. No one will change their mind based on what anyone else says.
> 
> No one who has not been there in such a situation will ever know what they would REALLY do until they are in such a situation (and hopefully none of us will!).
> 
> Everyone have a nice day!


Thank you for responding to the question that I asked previously about why I of all people should.... That was the one that worried me.

I want my dogs to be happy. I want for there to be trust between me and each of them. I am less concerned with drop dead obedience. Super straight sits, immediate compliance, etc. I want them to do what I tell them because they want to please me. 

It works for me. I do tend to stay alert and recognize potential dangers and change course before a danger is realized. I do not mean shooting a dog. But if I am walking a dog off lead, and I see a person or dog or cat walking along, I will snag the colllar and clip the lead, and then decide what other action may be necessary to ensure the safety of my critters.

That way, I do not have to rely on a recall regardless of the distractions presented to keep my dog out of harms way.


----------



## selzer

Jessiewessie99 said:


> Why would he ask me that? Everyone has their own way of doing and will do each situation differently. So I really don't see what your reasoning for that comment is.


Sorry, Jessie, I thought you had worked with shelter dogs or at a shelter and had some good posts on how to manage dogs attacking other dogs. 

Maybe I was thinking about someone else?


----------



## AbbyK9

> We did not have puppy play groups around here, or one on one group play with dogs that re known to be well-socialized, friendly, and tolerant.


"Play groups" are something that you organize with other dog owners. I have never had ANY trouble finding other people locally who had dogs that were well-socialized, friendly, and tolerant toward other dogs. I've always had "dog friends" I would meet up with so our dogs could play together - in a supervised, safe setting.



> AbbyK9, where did you come across your definition of who belongs in dog parks though?


All you have to do to come up with a definition of WHO should be using dog parks (as opposed who is using the now) is to read the dog park threads on this forum. Almost every time someone posts about going to the dog park, it's horror stories - people who take their puppies and wind up setting their socialization and training goals back by months when their pups get charged or attacked at the park; people whose dogs are attacked by out-of-control dogs whose owners have no clue about dog behavior and, half the time, aren't even watching them.

More times than not, I see people and dogs in the parks who have no business being there. People with fearful dogs who are terrified of other dogs - "Oh, he has never been socialized, so I thought this would be a good experience and help him get over that fear." (While their dog is pressed to the ground, tail embedded between his legs, giving every calming signal he can think of.) People who open the gate, let their dog inside (still wearing a choke or prong collar), and wander off to text on their cell phones. People with intact male/female pairs that get aggressive the second another dog approaches. People who bring toys to play with dogs that are known to be possessive/aggressive of their toys.

I've just about seen it all and I can tell you, dog parks were not meant for these people to be a nuisance to everyone else. Since a dog park is a shared area, the dogs that go need to be comfortable in that setting, which means they need to be comfortable around other dogs, and the people who bring them need to watch and control their dogs. Especially when there are larger groups running together.

The whole reason dog parks got started was to give people living in city settings a chance to provide their dogs with off-leash exercise, anyway.



> The rules say things like, dogs must be vaccinated, no toys or throwing sticks, but none of the rules say anything about what dogs are welcome, or what the qualifications are for dogs and owners. I wonder how many people have your definition and how many people have different ideas of who should be there.


My point exactly. Nobody is keeping the idiots out and most people are completely clueless as to WHY dog parks exist and how they should be used safely so that everyone can enjoy them, people and dogs. Most people out there have YOUR definition of dog parks - a free-for-all, regardless of how they were socialized or how well they do with other dogs. 

Which is EXACTLY why I go only to the dog park on base, only during hours when it's not so busy, and leave when I see people and dogs that clearly are going to be a problem (or a danger to my dogs). And why I prefer to meet with my friends and their dogs at my place so the dogs can play together and run off-leash.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

selzer said:


> Sorry, Jessie, I thought you had worked with shelter dogs or at a shelter and had some good posts on how to manage dogs attacking other dogs.
> 
> Maybe I was thinking about someone else?


I work with shelter dogs at a shelter. I work with dogs with many aggression issues(fear, dog etc.)

I just saw my name, and was trying to figure why he would ask me a question about defending himself. But then I reread it.


----------



## PDXDeutschhund

Just some observations after reading through this thread...

#1 In Oregon it's 100% legal to protect your animal with deadly force. I do not necessarily think this applies in this case. I'm not sure but I think you have to be on your property for this to apply. 

#2 If there was actually evidence that the husky was attacking the GSD (IE witnesses or damage to the dog) then maybe the LEO would be justified, but it certainly doesn't appear that way. 

#3 There are other ways of breaking up a dog fight without using deadly force. I think this just goes back to the lack of knowledge of some dog owners. He should have known about having his dog on a leash in an off-leash park.

#4 I've defended some actions of police shooting dogs based on the situation and their training. This isn't one of those situations. He was off-duty, there wasn't a crime being committed, and it wasn't on his property. 

#5 I think some people will defend the LEO no matter what, and I think some people will blame the LEO no matter what. That's why this thread will never die.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

Here are the rules for Point Isabel, the place we've been going since 2000, and "the largest public off-leash dog park in the nation with over 500,000 dog visits per year", according to the East Bay Regional Park District website:



> *Special Rules for Dogs at Point Isabel Regional Shoreline*
> 
> Dogs may be taken off leash at Pt. Isabel Regional Shoreline. Any person allowing their animal to be off leash must:
> 
> 
> Carry a leash (six-foot maximum).
> Keep their dog or other animal under voice control and within sight at all times.
> Clean up feces deposited by their dog or other animal and place it in provided and marked containers or garbage cans.
> Immediately leash any dog or other animal showing aggressiveness toward people or other dogs or animals.
> Prevent dogs or other animals from digging or damaging park resources.
> Any person who walks or exercises a dog or dogs for a fee or who walks more than three (3) personal dogs must obtain and have in their possession a revokable annual permit.


----------



## tonkatuff81

*What about a mugging?*

The analogy between an unsubstantiated dog vs. dog attack and a mugging is a silly one. Some people would defend themselves to the end, and some would submit and give up their dough to a mugger. Both extremes have their merits as do the many other options in between. So what?

There was no evidence of a dog attack. There is conclusive evidence that a dog was shot and killed at an off leash *at a dog park.*

Dog parks are a great place for dogs to exercise and socialize with other dogs and people. They are a wonderful place to watch dogs play and communicate with each other in ways that are truly amazing. Attacks can happen, but there are usually warning signs that precede any potential violence. And when something bad happens, human (non-lethal) intervention will squash it quickly.

Codmaster, I'm reassured to hear that you live on the "other" coast, and that you do not frequent dog parks. 

You're a gadfly and simpleton. 

P.S. Ever hear of spell-check?


----------



## keddy

I would definitely contact animal control. If you think animal control will hurt the dog, then find a no kill shelter in your area and tell them the situation. It sounds as though you have some valid concerns that need to be addressed by the proper authorities. The poor dog needs some one to take care of her and I think it is very admirable of you to watch out for her.






-----------------------------------

dog kennels


----------



## Jessiewessie99

keddy said:


> I would definitely contact animal control. If you think animal control will hurt the dog, then find a no kill shelter in your area and tell them the situation. It sounds as though you have some valid concerns that need to be addressed by the proper authorities. The poor dog needs some one to take care of her and I think it is very admirable of you to watch out for her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------
> 
> dog kennels


Umm.....nevermind.


----------



## codmaster

tonkatuff81 said:


> The analogy between an unsubstantiated dog vs. dog attack and a mugging is a silly one. Some people would defend themselves to the end, and some would submit and give up their dough to a mugger. Both extremes have their merits as do the many other options in between. So what?
> 
> There was no evidence of a dog attack. There is conclusive evidence that a dog was shot and killed at an off leash *at a dog park.*
> 
> Dog parks are a great place for dogs to exercise and socialize with other dogs and people. They are a wonderful place to watch dogs play and communicate with each other in ways that are truly amazing. Attacks can happen, but there are usually warning signs that precede any potential violence. And when something bad happens, human (non-lethal) intervention will squash it quickly.
> Codmaster, I'm reassured to hear that you live on the "other" coast, and that you do not frequent dog parks.
> You're a gadfly and simpleton.
> P.S. Ever hear of spell-check?


So you have written such an &^&^& message that I must break my self imposed restriction about ending this thread for just a single reply.

You are a New yorker, I see - a native one I would assume. That does make me glad that I now live on the West Coast.

It may also explain why you were unable to get the analogy of defending yourself from a mugger (although I would think that a New yorker might understand mugging) and defending yourself and your dog from a dog attack. Once again, I intended to use it to demonstrate the decision that one must make of WHEN does someone decide to take action to defend oneself and/or their dog if need be. Now do you understand? Just an event that one might want to respond to. I am sorry if it was too confusing to you and I do apologize.

You really should not call people on this board names - that is not polite and probably against the rules of the board, perhaps. And if someone felt like it, and if it wasn't against the rules, does leave you open to name calling yourself. Which, by the way, would be really easy!

You called me a "gadfly" - wonder if you could explain which meaning of the word that you actually meant. I found the following three definitions of the word that you used. You might want to choose your attempted insults a little more carefully. 

But at any rate which (or maybe some other meaning that you found when you look it up) meaning did you really intend? I am guessing not the second since then you would have used the correct wording.

"Gadfly", a term used for flies that annoy horses and other livestock, usually used to refer to the horse-fly or the botfly
Social gadfly, a person who upsets the status quo
Gadfly (database), a relational database in the Python programming language

At any rate, you have a nice day. And keep going to dog parks. I am sure from reading your message that when the inevitable attacks happen, you will be able to "squash it quickly" without any harm to people or dogs!

Oh, and thank you very much for your kind suggestion of a spell check; i will certainly have to look into thet.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Codmaster, You crack me up. Thank you for the smile. I needed that.


----------



## tonkatuff81

*Gadfly*

"_a person who stimulates or annoys especially by persistent criticism"_

_Merriam Webster Dictionary._




Sheesh


----------



## selzer

opcorn:


----------



## IllinoisNative

codmaster said:


> It may also explain why you were unable to get the analogy of defending yourself from a mugger (although I would think that a New yorker might understand mugging) and defending yourself and your dog from a dog attack.


I know...dead horse, but the guy wasn't defending himself from a dog attack. The guy wasn't afraid and wasn't in fear for his life. So the analogy is not applicable. It isn't even in the same ball park. It also wasn't a loose dog on the run. It was dog that was loose at an OFF LEASH dog park. The analogy simply doesn't work because it's NOT the same type of situation. It's not that people don't get the analogy, it's that the analogy isn't applicable in this case. The two are nothing alike and can't really be compared.



> Once again, I intended to use it to demonstrate the decision that one must make of WHEN does someone decide to take action to defend oneself and/or their dog if need be.


But you're leaving out some pertinent information. He wasn't afraid. He stated that. And he's at a dog park. A dog ran towards his dog and made noise. Do you honestly think everyone should be able to shoot dogs that run at their dog and get into a scuffle at the dog park? Do you know how many dead dogs there would be? You're analogies of stray dogs running up to people and muggers wanting to attack people don't apply to this particular case...like, at all.

I'm still not sure of your point. The man was clearly in the wrong and is paying the consequences for that. Are you condoning his behavior? Doesn't he deserve what he's going through for a) not knowing his dog shouldn't have been on leash b) not understanding canine language c) whipping out a gun in a public place d) killing a dog that he wasn't fearful of???? 

What exactly are you objecting to? The consequences? I'm honestly curious.


----------



## IllinoisNative

Zoeys mom said:


> I really don't get the debate here. The Husky was a regular at this park or at least had frequented it on multiple occasions, had zero record of bites, and never made contact with the cop or his dog. Barking is not necessarily aggressive nor is approaching another dog. There is a difference between protecting yourself and animals and shooting an animal who in no way was threatening. This cop misread another dogs behavior and discharged a firearm 30 yards away from a residential neighborhood- that was reckless and endangered an entire community. I also don't understand why shooting the dog was this guys first line of defense. He could have walked away with his leashed dog who was under his control and not lose easily with little effort- instead he shot a dog the idea is just insane and shows no reasonable train of thought.


 :thumbup:

I also agree with Abby, however, that a dog park should be the place to bring an *already* socialized dog. I started with my dogs when they were puppies. But to bring an unsocialized dog to the dog park, is a disaster waiting to happen. Other dogs shouldn't have to pay the price for someone using the dog park as a place to socialize an unsocialized dog, IMO. There can be serious consequences for that kind of mistake. 

I started going to the dog park as a newbie as well...but with puppies. The "regulars" taught me a lot. I certainly didn't know every thing in the beginning, either. Mistakes happen. I just wish there was some sort of rule book or waiver that you sign acknowledging certain canine behaviors and what to expect before entering. Then situations like this would be less likely to happen.


----------



## selzer

I think some dogs could go to a dog park with no training or special socialization and be no problem at all. 

I think other dogs are more prone to have issues at a park, whether they are reactive, leash reactive, dominant, etc. I have a dog that does not like dogs right up in her face. When I go to PetsMart with her, I have to be vigilent, because other people will allow their dogs to come right up. The problem is hers and mine, because ultimately I would have to pay if she snapped. This dog would not be a good candidate for a dog park.

Some people think an off lead park is for an owner to interact with his dog off-lead.

Others think of it as a place where dogs can run together and play.

Other people think it is a place where only people with drop dead perfect obedience and recall should take their dogs. 

Frankly, dog parks would be EMPTY if that third was a requirement. Super obedience people, are usually training for shows and trials. They do not really want their dogs to run around and play with other dogs, or to pick up stuff at dog parks. No one I train with take dogs to dog parks. 

Dog parks seem to be where city dwellers can take their dogs. They do not have to be perfect, but they cannot go around trying to EAT other dogs. 

There are a LOT of dogs that really are good around other dogs. 

Shepherds can be more aloof around strange dogs, they may not put up with dogs in their face or dogs trying to dominate them, they may not like to let another dog get a toy or stick before them. And there are probably dogs in any breed who would have to be taught how to behave in that venue.

As for a husky barking, aren't huskies one of the most vocal breeds out there? They bark for the sheer joy of life.

I think on a shepherd site, what we think a dog at a dog park should be, might be very different than what is on a Golden Retriever site, or a English Setter site, or pet dog site.


----------



## tonkatuff81

I would add that the dog park is the best place for dogs to develop their socialization skills, unless you have a household where there are several dogs. (probably the ideal situation)

IMO puppy classes, etc. do not provide enough socialization opportunities.

When a questionablly socialized or obviously unsociaized dog enters the park, LEAVE. We've done it several times over the years.

However, it's amazing to watch the regulars (socialized dogs) teach the unruly ones the ropes. It's win - win.


----------



## selzer

Right, a dog park is a unique situation. It is not like puppy classes where all dogs are around the same age and no one allows any one dog to get too crazy. Often puppies are about the same size as well.

It is not like dog classes where dogs are in close quarters but on leash and not allowed to sniff one another or socialize with one another.

It is certainly not like at home where you might have two to four dogs running together -- why even take the dogs to a park but whatever, this is a clear pack, and rules are different at home. 

So EVERY dog that steps into a dog park for the first time, is NOT socialized to the dog park experience. 

So ANY dog at a dog park MAY not respond exactly how you would expect due to all that training in classes, and at home. 

Will you stay in a box?
Will you stay with a fox?
Will you stay here or there?
Will you stay anywhere?

I think that for us to think that dog parks are only going to be filled with perfect dogs and perfect handlers is a bit rediculous. I think it is more reasonable to HOPE that the people going are willing and trying to LEARN how to, and are not bringing dogs that have serious issues with other dogs in those other venues.


----------



## IllinoisNative

selzer said:


> I think some dogs could go to a dog park with no training or special socialization and be no problem at all.


I don't necessarily disagree with that...but a lot has to do with a dog's temperament, breed, etc. Most sporting breeds, from what I've observed (used to own one), do fairly well even if their socialization experiences are/were limited. Other breeds and more dominant/fear reactive dogs don't.

I just don't think a dog park is necessarily the best place to get that exposure when people are so clueless as to dog behavior, etc. I think in a perfect world, most puppies would be socialized so that they would do well as an adult dog. But a lot don't. My dog was great at dog parks. But the older he got, the less he cared about other dogs. He's also become a little more dominant with strange dogs and leash reative due to being attacked. I mean, he's still fine for the most part considering. But he just doesn't enjoy it all that much anymore. He doesn't like to play with strange dogs. He enjoys being with me, chasing balls, and playing with dogs he knows. 



> I think other dogs are more prone to have issues at a park, whether they are reactive, leash reactive, dominant, etc. I have a dog that does not like dogs right up in her face.


Totally agree. And that is my dog...he's leash reactive. But I think a lack of socialization (in my dog's case, it was a particular incident) tends to cause fear related issues/reactivity. I realize not all cases...and that there are exceptions. My late Golden Retriever was a dog who didn't have that much dog/dog socialization as a puppy (I was not as educated with her) but did phenomenal with other dogs as an adult. 



> Some people think an off lead park is for an owner to interact with his dog off-lead.
> 
> Others think of it as a place where dogs can run together and play.
> 
> Other people think it is a place where only people with drop dead perfect obedience and recall should take their dogs.


I see what you are saying. I don't necessarily think they have to be perfectly trained. I think it's more important that they have good temperaments and are dog-friendly. Doggy manners are the key to having a good time. Much more so than perfect recall, IMO. 



> As for a husky barking, aren't huskies one of the most vocal breeds out there? They bark for the sheer joy of life.


Yep. I had two of them growing up. They are noise makers...even in play.



> I think on a shepherd site, what we think a dog at a dog park should be, might be very different than what is on a Golden Retriever site, or a English Setter site, or pet dog site.


I had a Golden. I had Huskies. I currently have a Shep/Rottie mix and a chow mix. I would hope that everyone would agree that doggy manners with other dogs is important. I don't think a sporting breed should act like a herding breed, or that a norhtern breed should act like a hound. But I do expect the dogs, at a dog park, to be dog-friendly. 

If you have a dog that is reactive to other other dogs, I don't think you should bring that dog to a dog park where other dogs have to pay the price for your dog's issues.

But I agree with you in that it depends on the individual dog. Some dogs can get along with other dogs even with limited exposure. Other dogs, not so much.


----------



## witness

*witness offering facts*

I did not read all the posts here but the couple I did read made me sick. It is unfortunate because I checked out this site hoping to get some great advice and help for training our non-duty GSD. 

I will not be back to this site and will not even read direct messages. Spread the word about the truth.

Background: the GSD involved in this incident was with the family only 28 days when the attack happened and was advised to keep on leash until fully recall trained. the GSD was approx 2.5 yrs old, 72#, healthly but under-muscled with no endurance. for the first 2 yrs of life, the GSD was tied to a tree in a backyard, neglected, yelled at, offered no socialization, taught to fear toys and play, and had zero training. for 5 months after that, she was kenneled with a rescue group, not at a foster. the GSD has since been proven non-aggressive. only fearful/defensive.

Let me offer you the facts of that night. 

the investigating officers were sickened by the fact charges were filed. they wanted to file charges against the husky/malamute owners. 

to call it a park was generous. it was a grassy area with a 4-ft chain link fence, single gated, no suggestions/rules either way about leash use. no one else was present. the husky/malamute was 2-3" taller at withers, easily 40# heavier (putting in in 100-120# range), and obviously in better physical condition with tons more confidence. 

after entering, the husky/malamute lined up nose-to-nose with the GSD with the wife standing at the shoulder of her GSD, just brushing up against her dog. the h/m started trying to play by jumping on the GSD's head. this made the GSD uncomfortable so the GSD tried to back away. at that point, trying to prevent either dog from learning/experiencing a bad situation, the GSD handler started asking the h/m handler to call his dog. husky/malamutes are known to get aggressive with non-submissive dogs so the dog tried again to play. the GSD issued a warning growl and took another step back. the h/m posture instantly changed entirely to one of attack lunging, ears back, tail tucked, hunkered down, full mouth open at the GSD's neck. this type of attack continued with the GSD wife being bumped and knocked around. the GSD handler/wife yelled repeatedly for the other handler to get his dog. the GSD husband started yelling "get your dog". the wife tried to get between the dogs but of course a GSD won't allow its human to be in harms way. 

both wife and husband continued yelling, at least 4-5 times each, at the h/m's human to do anything but he just stood there either stoned beyond belief (common self-med for tourettes) or having a petit mal epileptic seizure. or worse, he didn't understand (based on court testimony, this is possible) or care what was happening. 

the husband tried to pull at the h/m's collar but the h/m took 2 aggressive lunging rapid steps towards him with the obvious appearance of an attack. the wife took the opportunity to get away in a different direction, was able to make it one step, pulling her GSD. the movement attracted the h/m who was instantly turned back on the GSD. the wife accepted they were about to be dragged to the ground but made the choice to stay with her GSD (who deserved the love) to help defend. without intervention the wife and GSD were seconds from being mauled. had the wife dropped the leash and run off (as the judge said should have happened) the GSD would have been killed. how many of you would abandon your dog?

at the point the wife accepted this fate, the husband yelled "get your dog or I'll shoot". the wife turned to see his weapon was drawn. the wife turned back away, focused on trying to get away but unable to make progress. another 10 seconds or more passed, and the gun was fired. 

more than 60 full seconds elapsed from the warning growl to the shot. the average human can react in about 3-5 seconds. the h/m handler spoke one word prior to the GSD entering the area. he did not move or speak AT ALL after that. he stood approx 20-ft away with his arms crossed. h/m have been known to be aggressive when away from their strong alpha master. why were the h/m handler and owners not, at least partially, responsible for the events that night? I have a sibling with slight physical and mental challenges. I would never let my sibling take any dog in public, ever. on or off leash. though I would trust my sib to dogsit at our house where there is a private, fenced back yard.

all you LEOs:
the judge allowed the prosecution to repeatedly suggest firing a warning shot into the air would have been better. firing up like that is 100% against any and all firearms training and safety.

lastly, consider this:
if some crazy guy on PCP starts waving a knife around posturing and theatening to stab your wife, would you prefer he be stopped before or after drawing blood? and if a LEO stopped him prior to blood being drawn, charges would still be levied again the PCP creep and the attack still happened. why was that night treated as bizarro time where the PCP guy was considered the victim?


----------



## Kris10

^^This post is certainly strange. If they had actually read the thread they would have realized that this was certainly not a one sided issue. Oh well!


----------



## Kayos and Havoc

Agree, there are always 2 sides to every story, I wonder if this poster is the owner of the GSD?


----------



## Kris10

Yeah something







about that post...


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

I think Kathy is right - might be the GSD owner. Knows WAY too much information. I thought there were no outside witnesses. This poster sure knows the play by play.


----------



## CassandGunnar

I'm not reading through all the pages of the post, does anyone know what happened to the person who shot the dog?
Just curious. I'm gathering they were charged with some sort of crime, but I can't tell.


----------



## Kayos and Havoc

It has been a few months but I think he was charged but I think it ended up being a misdemeanor. Honestly don't remember though and am too lazy to google it.


----------



## CassandGunnar

Kayos and Havoc said:


> It has been a few months but I think he was charged but I think it ended up being a misdemeanor. Honestly don't remember though and am too lazy to google it.


 
Thanks......me too.


----------



## Kris10

CassandGunnar said:


> Thanks......me too.


No help here...


----------



## Syaoransbear

So the german shepherd did start the fight by growling? If your dog is uncomfortable, you leave before it gets to that point. And who brings a fearful/defensive dog they just adopted into a dog park?

And what was the reason for allowing the malamute to bleed out for 20 minutes before allowing the owner to take it to a vet?


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Justice For Bear Bear - Federal officer gets probation in dog park shooting of Bear-Bear - Baltimore Sun

Hmmm. That's supposed to be the link. Let's see if that works.


----------



## codmaster

Syaoransbear said:


> So the german shepherd did start the fight by growling? If your dog is uncomfortable, you leave before it gets to that point. And who brings a fearful/defensive dog they just adopted into a dog park?...................


Growling starts a fight? So who ever growls first is responsible for the fight?

Should someone have to leave a dog park just because another dog comes up to them and their dog and makes their dog uncomfortable?

A lot of dogs that go to a dog park are at least a little fearful. Are you saying that they shouldn't go to a park? Is that what you mean?

BTW, from all of the original stuff posted on this incident, I never realized that the attacker dog was so much larger than the GSD. Interesting fact.


----------



## Kris10

Uh oh- here we go again! 

There was another incident that was posted this past week that was "reported" in a newspaper article that involved an off duty officer who shot a dog that was attacking his in his neighborhood. The article only had quotes/interviews from the dead dogs family. Someone posted a comment below the article that had witnessed it and the story was quite different... 

I said "I love the media" there, and I repeat it here. Can never tell what the truth is by reading one source...


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

True - You can't go by one source, but I posted the verdict in the link above. #783

And I really hope we don't go here again. Done and over. "Witness" made his one post and is gone. Odd he/she only became a member to pull up this old thread, complain, and leave.


----------



## Syaoransbear

codmaster said:


> Growling starts a fight? So who ever growls first is responsible for the fight?
> 
> Should someone have to leave a dog park just because another dog comes up to them and their dog and makes their dog uncomfortable?
> 
> A lot of dogs that go to a dog park are at least a little fearful. Are you saying that they shouldn't go to a park? Is that what you mean?
> 
> BTW, from all of the original stuff posted on this incident, I never realized that the attacker dog was so much larger than the GSD. Interesting fact.


It seems like it DID lead to a fight if the dog was playing and then the husky attacked(even though there was no evidence of any physical harm done to the shepherd) right after the shepherd growled.

If another dog is making your dog uncomfortable, it is always your responsibility to get your dog out of the situation. If the other owner isn't getting their dog under control or they have a different opinion than you about what is considered 'just playing', then yes, you leave. 

No, they shouldn't go to a dog park. Dog parks are for dogs who are already fully socialized, not dogs who need socialization because it's a free for all and you can't control the situation. If your dog is fearful/defensive, arrange meetings with dogs you know or with dogs that are leashed and under control.


----------



## BlackPuppy

Kayos and Havoc said:


> Agree, there are always 2 sides to every story, I wonder if this poster is the owner of the GSD?


Anybody who knows that much detail, must be the owner. Also, why would they register as "witness". Sounds pretty fishy to me.


----------



## BlackPuppy

CassandGunnar said:


> I'm not reading through all the pages of the post, does anyone know what happened to the person who shot the dog?
> Just curious. I'm gathering they were charged with some sort of crime, but I can't tell.


On November 19, 2010, Keith Shepherd was convicted on both the animal cruelty charge and for discharging his firearm less than 100 yards from an occupied dwelling. According to the Baltimore Sun, Judge Thomas Pryal called the shooting unreasonable and "an overreaction."

While the conviction is a victory, the sentencing of probation for 1 year and a $500 fine for killing Bear-Bear ($1,000 for the handgun charge) highlights the need, more than ever, for stronger animal cruelty penalties in Maryland.

That was cut and paste from "Justice for Bear Bear" facebook page.


----------



## pache11

Link to interview with Bear Bear's family:

Meeshka's World: Justice for Bear-Bear - An interview with his family


----------



## codmaster

I read it, and it seemed kind of written with a particular view in mind.


----------



## BlackPuppy

I hadn't read that before... 

This is just the worst:
"When Ryan arrived and rushed to attend to his wounded pet, an Anne Arundel County Police Officer instructed Ryan to stop. Ryan, visibly upset, insisted several times that he wanted to go to his wounded dog, at which point an Anne Arundel County officer reportedly pulled and pointed a taser at Ryan’s chest and ordered him to stop. Ryan knew that if he was tased, he would not be able to help Bear-Bear, so he complied, at which point the officer lowered the taser and told Ryan to go to his dog, but not to move him."


----------



## selzer

Another thing I hate is when posters come on and immediately say, they will not come back and they will not read any messages, but this is why all of you are such turds. 

Hmmmm. 

Sounds like someone wants to start trouble....

Do we have to believe this yayhoo who is not going to come back just because he says he has insider information???

Or was he the owner of the GSD?


----------



## CassandGunnar

Is that what's known as a "drive by" in the forum world?


----------



## selzer

I like that.


----------



## DharmasMom

> I did not read all the posts here but the couple I did read made me sick. It is unfortunate because I checked out this site hoping to get some great advice and help for training our non-duty GSD



So supposedly he came here to get training advice for his dog but instead found this thread, got mad, posted his rebuttal and stormed off. BUT (and here is where the plot thickens) he registered as "witness", and searched for and found a post that was months old. I am willing to bet my left kidney he is the GSD's owner, was googling himself and the case and came across this forum, read the first couple of posts and decided to register to post his "defense". I call bullpoop!! He was no more looking for training advice then he was looking for baseball statistics.


----------



## AbbyK9

> the GSD involved in this incident was with the family only 28 days when the attack happened and was advised to keep on leash until fully recall trained. the GSD was approx 2.5 yrs old, 72#, healthly but under-muscled with no endurance. for the first 2 yrs of life, the GSD was tied to a tree in a backyard, neglected, yelled at, offered no socialization, taught to fear toys and play, and had zero training. for 5 months after that, she was kenneled with a rescue group, not at a foster. the GSD has since been proven non-aggressive. only fearful/defensive.


If this is an *accurate, factual description *of the German Shepherd, that dog should have *never *been inside a dog park where other dogs, leashed or unleashed, could approach her without the supervision of a trainer. *Stupid *decision on the part of the owners putting the dog into this situation.


----------



## IllinoisNative

witness said:


> Background: the GSD involved in this incident was with the family only 28 days when the attack happened and was advised to keep on leash until fully recall trained. the GSD was approx 2.5 yrs old, 72#, healthly but under-muscled with no endurance. for the first 2 yrs of life, the GSD was tied to a tree in a backyard, neglected, yelled at, offered no socialization, taught to fear toys and play, and had zero training. for 5 months after that, she was kenneled with a rescue group, not at a foster. the GSD has since been proven non-aggressive. only fearful/defensive.


And a dog with this background/issues was taken to a dog park? I hate to call the owner stupid, but I think it applies in this case. YOU DON'T TAKE AN UNSOCIALIZED DOG INTO A SITUATION LIKE THIS. Again, I guess common sense isn't so common. Secondly, if the owner was advised to keep the dog on leash, it NEVER should have been in an area that was for off-leash dogs. The owner put their dog in a very bad situation. Period. And the fault lies 100% with the owner of the GSD. Not only that, it doesn't matter if the dog is fearful instead of aggressive since fearfulness leads to aggression. The result is the same. What a weak argument.



> to call it a park was generous. it was a grassy area with a 4-ft chain link fence, single gated, no suggestions/rules either way about leash use. no one else was present. the husky/malamute was 2-3" taller at withers, easily 40# heavier (putting in in 100-120# range), and obviously in better physical condition with tons more confidence.


If there was a fence and dogs were allowed, isn't it a given that off-leash dogs would be there? I mean, how stupid is this owner? I don't need a sign to tell me to move forward at a drive through window but somehow I know to do this...lol. Fences are there to prevent dogs from escaping, no? And if off-leash dogs were allowed, having a dog on-leash was a BIG faux pas. At the very least, it speaks to the owners ignorance. An owner who NEVER should have owned a dog with those issues without doing research.



> both wife and husband continued yelling, at least 4-5 times each, at the h/m's human to do anything but he just stood there either stoned beyond belief (common self-med for tourettes) or having a petit mal epileptic seizure. or worse, he didn't understand (based on court testimony, this is possible) or care what was happening.


Let me get this straight...you, I mean, the owner put his dog in this position and you're blaming everyone else?



> the GSD would have been killed. how many of you would abandon your dog?


I don't know many of us who would be in that situation given the history of the GSD.



> lastly, consider this:
> if some crazy guy on PCP starts waving a knife around posturing and theatening to stab your wife, would you prefer he be stopped before or after drawing blood?


Apples and oranges and a RIDICULOUS argument. The owner put his dog in this situation. A situation that could have been prevented had the owner had two brain cells to rub together...or at least did his homework before putting an unsocialized, neglected dog in this position. Nobody is to blame but the owner. A little accountability from the owner wouldn't hurt since his actions led to this entire situation and a dog had to pay the price for his ignorance. The judge was too lenient, IMO. At least the justice system got it right in their verdict.

Sorry, I normally don't respond so aggressively, but it irks the heck out of me to see stupidity defended when then there is a dead dog. At least own up to it. But defend it? Good gravy.


----------



## selzer

Illinois Native, great post. It does sound like this guy either has WAY too much specific information to be an innocent bystander (probaby dog owner) or he is flat out lying and trying to get the post going again so he can watch. Sickos, they're everywhere I guess.


----------



## codmaster

"both wife and husband continued yelling, at least 4-5 times each, at the h/m's human to do anything but he just stood there either stoned beyond belief (common self-med for tourettes) or having a petit mal epileptic seizure. or worse, he didn't understand (based on court testimony, this is possible) or care what was happening. "

So let me see if I understand this quote from a supposed eye witness to the incident.

Is this about the handler of the off lead dog who came running up and tried to bite the GSD? And the handler just stood there and did nothing? If that is the case and it was caused by a medical condition then I guess that it would explain why the husky/malamute handler did nothing to get his dog back. If he had been able to have a dependable recall (admitedlly very difficult under the assumed conditions); then the entire incident probably never reaches the headlines.


----------



## selzer

Codmaster, you are playing into the trolls game. You are bringing back to life this story. If there was an eye-witness who was able to testify that the dog viciously attacked the shepherd owner, then the court probably would not have found the shepherd owner guilty on two counts.

Only some of the people who are carrying handguns would have responded this way. The vast majority of the people would have managed to keep our dog safe without lethal force, either because we do not carry firearms or because we do not see a possible dog fight as a situation that requires somebody's dog to die.


----------



## codmaster

"Troll"?

Not my intent to revive a dead issue at all. This issue is over and done with as far as i was concerned. As a number of folks here have already commented, the poster did seem to know a lot of details (if they were true of course). If the husky/malamute was incapacitated that would have made a difference, i would think. 

IF true, and if a dog 40 or more pounds bigger than mine was attacking my dog (again an assumption of course) and I and my wife yelled at the handler to get his dog and he just stood there - what exactly would anyone recommend that I (or the handler of the second dog) do in that case? Think about what YOU would do in that situation! 

Just asking so no one get their shorts in a twist, please. And leave us let this thread die.


----------



## selzer

Not calling you a troll. Calling the poster with all the new information a troll starting trouble, and you are buying right into it.

I would have to do something other than shoot the dog, as I do not have a conceal carry permit, and do not carry a gun. 

But since you asked, I have had dog fights with no significant other or other owner to help me separate. There WAS blood and wounds on the dog (this was the real thing and no playing around), and I WAS able to separate them by myself without help. Both dogs were alive after the fact, and this was two full grown shepherds. 

If you are not prepared to act in a non/lethal manner if a dog does not like your dog, then do not take your dog to a dog park.


----------



## codmaster

selzer said:


> Not calling you a troll. Calling the poster with all the new information a troll starting trouble, and you are buying right into it.
> 
> I would have to do something other than shoot the dog, as I do not have a conceal carry permit, and do not carry a gun.
> 
> But since you asked, I have had dog fights with no significant other or other owner to help me separate. There WAS blood and wounds on the dog (this was the real thing and no playing around), and I WAS able to separate them by myself without help. Both dogs were alive after the fact, and this was two full grown shepherds.
> 
> If you are not prepared to act in a non/lethal manner if a dog does not like your dog, then do not take your dog to a dog park.


Didn't think you were calling me one but thanks!

Were the dogs that you seperated both your own? That would certainly make a big difference to me.

It might also make a difference to me if the other dog (if not mine) was a real threat to me or to my dog regarding my reaction. i.e. 120 lb Rottie (for example) versus a 20/30 lb terrier.

Would I use lethal force (eg. gun/knife/club) to seperate the dogs if I had to - believe I would if I thought that I had to.


----------



## selzer

Let's see, Jazzy and Arwen -- bitch fight, Jazzy was not mine, Arwen was. 

Except for the little pitt that came flying out of a house (no injuries on that one), the rest of them were my own dogs, or rather bitches. But when bitches go at it, I am sorry, but it does not matter if they are yours or not. If you are not careful, everyone will be going to the ER. And, yes, 75 and 65 pound bitches are something to separate, and they CAN actually kill each other. 

And there were two guys (one a police officer) and a gal present in this incident. I has to separate them myself, and I am only a girl, without a gun. Amazing how girls who are smaller and weaker (supposedly) can manage to deal with situations without pulling out a gun and blasting away.

They had a four foot fence there, and a gate. That would be the way to go, grab the back legs, pull one dog through the gate and then use the gate to get between them. I KNOW this works, I have done it several times. 

Only one time I was out with two of mine, and we were early for a grooming appointment, and the field beyond the fairgrounds looked tempting, so I let a couple of my dogs out to run about. These were pretty well trained, but the young male thought he could push his weight around with my old female, she retaliated, and he attacked. I put my hand in there and got bit up really good -- needed hospital visit, stitches and all. No gates, no people, no nothing out there. I hiked back to my vehicle bleeding profusely, got into the four by four SUV, aimed it at the dogs and drove it toward them. Believe it or not it stopped them breifly. Arwen went underneath, and in a moment of superhuman speed and agility, I got the back open and the dog into the crate. Then Arwen came out and went in. The dog, Rushie was unscathed. Arwen was cut on the neck/shoulder, and I was bleeding like a pig, but my own fault. I took them to Dad's and had him help me look them over before taking them home and then going to the ER. I doubt if that technique would work a second time, so I made sure there was not a second time between those two.


----------



## Sheemaset1

Keith Shepherd found Guilty in Bear-Bear shooting. Keith Shepherd Found Guilty In Bear-Bear Shooting | Eye On Annapolis
Ironic last name for the federal officer, don't you think.


----------



## rjvamp

As a person who has a permit to carry a gun, you def. learn that lethal force is the last option. But it is an option. I hope I'm never in that situation as I was taught to go the other way and try to avoid the situation....however, if a dog is running **** bent on attacking then that dog is probably going down - why? cause I have no clue if that dog is going to kill me or attack me if I'm trying to break them up. If I feel my life is in immediate danger and can't get away from the situation, then gun use is permitted...doesn't mean there might not be legal consequences (civil and even criminal depending on how the police, other dog's family and the courts look at it). But if i'm alive...then I'm happy to have pulled the trigger. 

It really sucks when pets are considered just property...in my state you can't even stop a thief with your gun in your yard when the thief is going into your yard and taking your dog (and you know the dog is going to be stolen for dog fights or being sold or something else). All you are supposed to do is call the police. It sucks.


----------



## malinois_16

At least he got punished some. See, when a cop is involved everyone favors them and they get away with anything. 

If that were your regular citizen off the street they would of been charged 20 times over and spending a few years in jail for the SAME crime this cop commited. He probably still has his job, which is very sad.


----------



## rjvamp

malinois_16 said:


> At least he got punished some. See, when a cop is involved everyone favors them and they get away with anything.
> 
> If that were your regular citizen off the street they would of been charged 20 times over and spending a few years in jail for the SAME crime this cop commited. He probably still has his job, which is very sad.


Yep - sad but true...


----------



## Draugr

If he got probation he's not spending any time in jail, but he is no longer working for any police department. You can't be convicted of a jail-able offense and work for a PD at least not anywhere around here that I know of.


----------



## WarrantsWifey

Draugr said:


> If he got probation he's not spending any time in jail, but he is no longer working for any police department. You can't be convicted of a jail-able offense and work for a PD at least not anywhere around here that I know of.


I really hope that is the case, because clearly in his mind it's a shoot first, ask questions later.....


----------



## Draugr

WarrantsWifey said:


> I really hope that is the case, because clearly in his mind it's a shoot first, ask questions later.....


Justice still hasn't been served...******* deserves to spend the rest of his life rotting in a jail cell.

It scares me knowing that there are other people with his level of judgement on police departments scattered throughout the country. An office is supposed to have a higher standard of judgement, held to a higher standard...that is clearly lacking here. If he still has his job, he is INCREDIBLY dangerous where he is and I'd be nervous going to that dog park too...or just living in that community.

The type of ammunition he used is also disgusting, and why Bear-Bear didn't live. It's designed to send out shrapnel upon entering a soft-tissue target, causing maximum damage possible. There's no reason a standard hollow-point round (which simply expands upon entering a target, it doesn't send out shrapnel) is insufficient for personal defense. IMHO these rounds should be outlawed. It's excessive, cruel, and unusual punishment - they're designed to cause the target to slowly bleed out if the round doesn't kill them.


----------



## codmaster

malinois_16 said:


> At least he got punished some. See, when a cop is involved everyone favors them and they get away with anything.
> 
> If that were your regular citizen off the street they would of been charged 20 times over and spending a few years in jail for the SAME crime this cop commited. He probably still has his job, which is very sad.


Some folks would say if he were rich then he would get off or a relative of a cop as well. But then a few might say if he were an ordinary citizen (whatever that might be), then he would get off easier than someone famous or rich or a relative or ..........


----------



## codmaster

Draugr said:


> Justice still hasn't been served...******* deserves to spend the rest of his life rotting in a jail cell.
> 
> It scares me knowing that there are other people with his level of judgement on police departments scattered throughout the country. An office is supposed to have a higher standard of judgement, held to a higher standard...that is clearly lacking here. If he still has his job, he is INCREDIBLY dangerous where he is and I'd be nervous going to that dog park too...or just living in that community.
> 
> The type of ammunition he used is also disgusting, and why Bear-Bear didn't live. It's designed to send out shrapnel upon entering a soft-tissue target, causing maximum damage possible. There's no reason a standard hollow-point round (which simply expands upon entering a target, it doesn't send out shrapnel) is insufficient for personal defense. IMHO these rounds should be outlawed. It's excessive, cruel, and unusual punishment - they're designed to cause the target to slowly bleed out if the round doesn't kill them.


Was the type of bullet he used illegal in his state?

If not, then he should use the bullet that would be the most certain to stop whatever it was that the owner was shooting at. At least I would do so (animal or person). 

Now in this case it could be argued that maybe he shouldn't have pulled his gun in the first place and I don't argue that; but once he decided to do so, than only someone very inexperienced in guns and life threatening situations would ever comment about where he shot or the kind of legal bullets that he used.

Unless you are the type of person who would "only shoot to wound whatever you are shooting at".

Maybe shoot the gun out of the hand if it were a person ready to shoot you? Or if it were a big dog ready to grab hold of your leg or face. Some stupid people would actually try that - I, OTOH, was taught by very dedicated folks to, (if you have to shoot your weapon), shoot to stop/kill whatever it is that you are shooting at. And it has worked so far! 

And don't pull a weapon unless you are prepared to do just that.


----------



## Draugr

codmaster said:


> Was the type of bullet he used illegal in his state?
> 
> If not, then he should use the bullet that would be the most certain to stop whatever it was that the owner was shooting at. At least I would do so (animal or person).
> 
> Now in this case it could be argued that maybe he shouldn't have pulled his gun in the first place and I don't argue that; but once he decided to do so, than only someone very inexperienced in guns and life threatening situations would ever comment about where he shot or the kind of legal bullets that he used.
> 
> Unless you are the type of person who would "only shoot to wound whatever you are shooting at".
> 
> Maybe shoot the gun out of the hand if it were a person ready to shoot you? Or if it were a big dog ready to grab hold of your leg or face. Some stupid people would actually try that - I, OTOH, was taught by very dedicated folks to, (if you have to shoot your weapon), shoot to stop/kill whatever it is that you are shooting at. And it has worked so far!
> 
> And don't pull a weapon unless you are prepared to do just that.


A standard self-defense hollow-point round - what private citizens and police departments do use and have used for decades - is _more_ than sufficient to kill someone.

No, you do not draw your gun and fire with the intent to wound, you do it to kill. But the type of round that he used is ridiculously cruel, far over the top, and extremely unnecessary in a civilian context. It was developed for military applications IIRC and now isn't even used there.

If you're arguing that it's okay for a round to take an hour to kill someone (by design, not incidentally) if it doesn't kill the target immediately, simply because the gun is drawn with intent to kill, then I really don't have anything more (nice) to say here.

You want a round with stopping power and lethality. A 40 cal (or 9mm) hollow point round does that excellently - which is why those are the standard rounds of US police departments across the nation. You don't need a round that is designed by nature to cause a slow, excruciating death in the event that the target is not killed.

That goes beyond "stopping a threat." The "extra features" of this bullet don't do anything more or less to stop a target, what it does more than a standard hollow point round amounts to torture.

My philosophy is - if you have to fire your sidearm, then shoot to kill, every time. If you don't end up killing your target, consider yourself lucky (if you were justified, either the law or your department's SOP, or both, should protect you). Er...maybe I should say, "depending on the context."

If I ever have to shoot a dog I hope the dog survives. The rounds I carry have great stopping power (40 cal BJHP). If I have to shoot someone who is drawing his weapon and firing at me, and has killed several civilians already...well, I'll be blunt, I hope he doesn't survive. If he does die, I don't want it to be a slow and painful process. That may be what he deserves but it isn't just, moral, or ethical.

Anyway, that's why I'd like to see these rounds outlawed.


----------



## codmaster

"You don't need a round that is designed by nature..."

by nature?

Must be a real reason for the design of this type of bullet, don't you think?


----------



## selzer

I do not think the guy examined the situation, decided that a sub machine gun was his best weapon of choice, filled the gun with ammunition that would cause the most damage, and then got around to killing the dog. The guy used the gun that was in his pocket/holster whatever, and whatever rounds that were in it. He over-reacted in my opinion.

Most of the time, an ordinary citizen WOULD NOT get jail time for this type of offence. And likely they would not lose their job. Maybe if they fired the gun within city limits, had not jumped the hoops required to carry a gun, or did something else, they would get probation or a stiff penalty, plus they would probably have to pay for the veterinary treatment and replacement cost of the dog. I would like to find where any ordinary citizen is out there doing time for taking out a dog to avoid an altercation with their dog. I see it as a case of bad judgment and inexperience with dog parks, not so much criminal intent.

I do find the officer in question clearly at fault, and since he carries a gun with his position, I think losing his job for making such a serious lapse of judgment with a firearm makes sense. 

If we are going to shoot every dog that might pose a threat to our dog in a dog park, well, all over the country, we would be having shootings in dog parks. The chi-owner from the dog park tragedy thread, could have unloaded his clip, and taken out the whole group of dogs -- they were all certainly a threat to that little dog. If you are going to go to dog parks you really have to use some common sense, and be ready to manage a situation without firing away at the first dog that comes over to say hi.


----------



## Draugr

codmaster said:


> "You don't need a round that is designed by nature..."
> 
> by nature?
> 
> Must be a real reason for the design of this type of bullet, don't you think?


Yes. It was designed to be used in a warzone where you are fighting enemies of the state that need to die at all costs. If you also think that makes it excellent for use in a context where you are serving and protecting the people, I severely question your judgement.



selzer said:


> I do not think the guy examined the situation, decided that a sub machine gun was his best weapon of choice, filled the gun with ammunition that would cause the most damage, and then got around to killing the dog. The guy used the gun that was in his pocket/holster whatever, and whatever rounds that were in it. He over-reacted in my opinion.


Remind me where I said he did that...wait a sec, I didn't.

I was just expounding on the nature of the round - which is _specifically_ the reason Bear-Bear didn't survive his injury. The shrapnel from the bullet lacerated his colon and severed his pancreas, among a couple other things, if I remember the article correctly. It doesn't do anything extra for killing/stopping a dangerous person - it just drags out an excruciating death.

And if you'll permit me to stereotype, here, the kinds of people who I generally see carrying this type of ammunition are the egotistical assholes who think their badges are a permit to do whatever they like. That kind of ammunition sounds "cool" to them. The killer in question, based on the actions I'm reading about...sounds like that kind of person =/.



> I do find the officer in question clearly at fault, and since he carries a gun with his position, I think losing his job for making such a serious lapse of judgment with a firearm makes sense.


That's the difference right there. He carries a gun with his position, and is expected to have a higher standard of judgement and is held to a higher standard of accountability because of it. This isn't just a case of "misinterpreting events" it's a _severe_ lapse of judgement of a nature which I cannot possibly see how it is isolated from the other sorts of decisions he needs to make on a day to day basis.



> Justice still hasn't been served...******* deserves to spend the rest of his life rotting in a jail cell.


I will, however, recant this - justice has been served, at least AFAIK. What he deserves and what is fair and just are two extremely different things.


----------



## codmaster

Draugr said:


> Yes. It was designed to be used in a warzone where you are fighting enemies of the state that need to die at all costs. If you also think that makes it excellent for use in a context where you are serving and protecting the people, *I severely question your judgement*.
> 
> *And?*
> 
> 
> 
> I was just expounding on the nature of the round - *which is specifically the reason Bear-Bear didn't survive his injury*.
> 
> *And your surgical Vet credentials are from where? *
> 
> *So you are saying that any other bullet type would not have killed him???? As I said, if you do decide to shoot something, you better be darn sure to kill it otherwise it may just kill you! Otherwise probably very wise for you not to get yourself into that type of situation.*
> 
> 
> .......................
> 
> And if you'll permit me to stereotype, here, the kinds of people who I generally see carrying this type of ammunition are the *egotistical a******* who think their badges are a permit to do whatever............
> 
> *Really nice language on a family website! *
> *I am actually surprised that the moderators let you get away with it. We can't in our quote of your post.*
> 
> ......................................


Why don't you look up what that type of bullet was actually designed for before you start ranting about it's use. You might be surprised.


----------



## Draugr

codmaster said:


> Why don't you look up what that type of bullet was actually designed for before you start ranting about it's use. You might be surprised.


Maybe you should read the article that's been posted in this very thread multiple times before you start talking out your back end. It's obvious from your cute little commentary that you haven't.


----------



## codmaster

Draugr said:


> Maybe you should read the article that's been posted in this very thread multiple times before you start talking out your back end. It's obvious from your cute little commentary that you haven't.


 
More really nice language, I see. 

Not an answer in the cute language. Nice thing about America though - everyone can have their own opinion.

Have a nice day! Hope you never need a cop to help you!


----------



## Draugr

codmaster said:


> More really nice language, I see.
> 
> Not an answer in the cute language. Nice thing about America though - everyone can have their own opinion.
> 
> Have a nice day! Hope you never need a cop to help you!


It's also cute how much you think you know about me.


----------



## codmaster

Draugr said:


> It's also cute how much you think you know about me.


 
Don't know anything about you except what I get from your nice language (and I could never say anything about that on a family website). And that is really more than I would ever want to know.

*This conversation is now completed!* have a really nice day.


----------



## Draugr

codmaster said:


> Don't know anything about you except what I get from your nice language


Then don't assume.

You know the saying about that, right?


----------



## Jessiewessie99

Why has this thread been brought up again!?


----------

