# Police Officer Kills K-9 Partner



## W.Oliver (Aug 26, 2007)

With this news story, I may have now heard it all.....

Witness Testifies Officer 'Hated' Police Dog - Miami News Story - WPLG Miami

Seems hard to believe, but its on the internet so it must be true, right??


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

well, that's the purpose of the trial, to find out if it's true or not.

I do find it believable, though. I know a guy who beat his K9, breaking a couple of ribs, for chasing/killing chickens. He was demoted from K9 officer, but he is possibly going to be re-instated. The dog is still on duty, but has serious human aggression issues. Esp towards his handler.


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

If the guy hated his dog so much and was so uncontrollable, why did he continue to work with him? Doesn't really make sense, but these kind of stories never do.


----------



## ChristenHolden (Jan 16, 2010)

Sick Just Sick. This is supposed to be the people that protect us :angryfire:


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

This was on our news the other day - that so called officer is one sick puppy!


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

Did anyone even read the article? You are assuming the officer did what was stated out of malice or ill handling and that it caused the death of the dog. Both points are being disputed and thus the trial.

The officer did not say he hated the dog, someone else stated that he did. It's interesting that one is automatically given the presumption of truth and fact, while the other who has years of experience, training, and a good solid reputation as a K-9 handler is given the presumption of guilt, based on one persons testimony who may or may not have any experience in dog handling at all, much less handling a malinois with high drive that may or may not have been coming up leash on its handler. 200 stitches to his face the last time a dog come up leash on him, according to the article. Let a dog do that to you and see how you react the next time it happens. That is assuming that the information presented in the article is "the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth," which of course, it never is. It's always slanted, and usually slanted in the way the public prefers to see.


----------



## dOg (Jan 23, 2006)

Stuff happens. We weren't there, don't know what he's done since, how he feels about now, 4 years later... there is way more not said in this report than what is,
and it's not fair reporting, it's sensationalism. 
That he may face 6 years is prison seems absurd to me. Perps murder people in cold blood and get lighter sentences. This guy was a 25 yr veteran with no issues 4 years ago, so he's likely going to retire soon, but you have to go past this last post to know that. We should not judge what we know next to nothing about.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

I don't know if he did it purposefully because he "hated" the dog. If he was frustrated and lashed out at the dog. Or if he felt the need to defend himself from the dog and the death was an accident.

However, if he felt that the dog was too strong-willed or was afraid of the dog coming after him, then he shouldn't have been working with the dog.

The idea that a K9 officer would beat their dog into submission is believable, though.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

No one should beat their dog ever. Thats just wrong and just shows how much respect some has for a life.


----------



## W.Oliver (Aug 26, 2007)

Rerun said:


> Did anyone even read the article? You are assuming the officer did what was stated out of malice or ill handling and that it caused the death of the dog.





W.Oliver said:


> Seems hard to believe, but its on the internet so it must be true, right??


Yes, I read the article and not only questioned the believability, but seasoned it with some sarcasm regarding the quality of information on the internet.

An aspect of this circumstance that I have often pondered without specific regard to this incident is the handler/dog relationship. In a broader context, the bond....puppy vs. older dog with a handler or owner.

Governmental organizations and some competitive sport folks have a common attribute in the working of subadult dogs rather than raising a puppy. I fully understand why, in that time is money, and puppies offer too many unanswered questions. Subadult dogs identified as appropriate for the work eliminate the risk of investing time on a pup that may not be of correct temperament/nerve. However, I question the depth, quality or strength of the bond between dog & handler in starting with a subadult? It may be my misconception, but I believe I can cultivate a richer bond by raising a puppy.....asuming the risk of ending-up with a less than ideal dog for the work.

The fact that the handler in question has had 200 stitches from a previous incident lends a case in point that supports the notion.....and lets spice the pot with the additional notion of handler, and what that is not, a trainer. I am of the view that there is a difference between handlers, and trainers. 

Thoughts?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I do not see this scenario as impossible. I remember another incident where a police officer tied the dog up and kicked it to death. Another one that disciplined it so harshly in a training class that it died. 

Our sherriff's department has some k9 officers. They train their own dogs and one of the deputies is the trainer that leads the classes. 

I think that this would work very well if the dogs were purchased already trained. Then all the guys would have some fun on Saturday morning, put the dogs through their paces, lay a track or pull out the bite suit, and then everyone could stop at someone's house for beers. 

But with dogs purchased untrained, I think there is a lot of pressure on the handlers, the trainer and probably not the level of experience required to actually get all the dogs through all the training to the level of passing the state tests. 

Most of this training is done on the police officer's own time. You may say that was there choice in becoming a k9 officer. But think about it. Cops are not very highly paid. Many work second jobs, and find that difficult due to swing shifts, etc. It is an hourly wage and working OT for free is a bitter pill. Taking a dog from zero to passing the state boards is an awful lot of unpaid OT. And it is not like these officers do not know that if the dog was purchased trained it would have cost the county/city ten or twenty thousand. They are not getting paid overtime for this training, and often they do not own the dog. Not an excuse to mistreat the dog though.

And lets discuss the breed here. Was this guy's experience all with GSDs prior to this dog? Four years ago, GSDs were the norm. They call this dog a Belgium Malinois Shepherd. Is it a BM or a BM/GSD cross? Either way, Malinois seem to be even more energetic and driven than sheps. Maybe this dog WAS a whole lot more dog than he was used to. 

So I can see it happening. I wasn't there. That is what the jury is for. If he did kill that dog, then I say that six years is fine. But that is coming from a dog lover. Frankly, I do not really think that this should be in the court system, it should have been dealt with within the department with the people who know this guy. They should determine whether the guy is reprimanded or fired, and then whether or not charges should be filed. 

If that is how this went about, and they determined that charges should be filed against this officer, then what he did was probably pretty extreme.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think also that dogs chosen as police dogs are dogs that have strong hard temperaments. These are dogs that might be able to be decent companion animals with all positive training techniques employed, but I do not know if the common thought is that this will make reliable police dogs.

About a year ago, a little less when I was attending a puppy seminar put on by my vet, the lass session had a k9 officer come in with his dog. The dog was a nice black and red German showline dog who was 9 years old. The two things I remember about what he said about training was that one of the first things they do is go out and urinate on a tree -- not sure what female k9 officers do for this. They then do not allow the dog to pee over it. This supposedly shows the dog who is dominant. 

The other thing was that he said over and over again not to be afraid to correct your dog. He said normally he would have a prong on the dog and he was demonstrating his correction which was very strong. A solid, hard, police dog type might need a strong correction like that, but my dogs never do. 

But my dogs are not required to bite someone and to back off of biting someone, they are not required to jump and tackle people and to keep going even though the guy is fighting, punching, using a stick on them. I do not NEED the level of drop dead obedience that police dogs need to have. 

So perhaps, I try not to be too critical of the techniques used by police officers to train these dogs. 

I almost think that it would make more sense for the dogs to be purchased by the departments trained though. And training facilities should be required to maintain certain standards. I think puppies should be exposed to a variety of situations and people and not be skittish around any. I think that dog aggressive dogs should be avoided if possible. I think that there should be several handlers who handle the dog completely for a period weeks or months. This would help a department if the dog has to be reassigned. And I think that K9 officers should spend a week training with the dog before the dog is released to a program. 

Of course I know nothing about training police dogs. I just think that the way many of the departments are doing it, to save a few bucks, can cause problems in the long run. Oh, and the sensor on the collar/officer to ensure that the dog's environment is safe would be a must in the world according to Sue.


----------



## tonkatuff81 (Jul 13, 2010)

Well.... The Felony charge was dropped by The State and Officer Cockfield was aquitted of the lesser charge by a jury of _someone's_ peers.

It is very telling that other officers testifid against him regarding the act itself and Cockfields hatred of that particular dog. Cops don't normally testify against other cops except in the most egregious cases. 

His 20 years on the force doesn't mean much to me. If he is incompetent, 20 years experience just means 1 year of experience suffered 20 times.

Now to the real pros at NYPD, NCPD, SCPD, and PANYNJPD (and many others) ..... give your friend an extra hug for Duke.


----------



## CaliBoy (Jun 22, 2010)

I met a police officer who had to train a Belgian Malinois and he said that it was more involved and much more difficult for him than training the German Sherpherds which he had trained. He said it required much more patience and even still his BM had attacked him on the firing range once.

Some men do not know when they should not be around a dog anymore. They don't realize when they have humanized the dog to the point that they think the dog is mocking them and is being spiteful. I personally think a woman handles these moments in a more healthy way than a man. The response of an unstable man is to shake violently or beat the animal. Men have even done this to children. 

I find the entire incident described in this article to be very believable and very sad. That the officer was found guilty of a lesser charge shows that others saw him as having gotten out of control.


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

"Well.... The Felony charge was dropped by The State and Officer Cockfield was aquitted of the lesser charge by a jury of _someone's_ peers"

Charges are dropped because they are not supported by the evidence. A jury acquits the person yet that's not good enough? It is our system and this officer utilized it. Funny how folks become upset when a police man exercises his rights. We didn't give them up when they gave us this badge. 

At any rate, I don't know if he did it or not. Evidences seems to not support it and a jury didn't believe. I've seen a lot of trials and while I don't always think they get them right, it's still the system. I doubt OJ"s arguing too much. 

I do find a few other comments interesting as well. Such as: "Most of this training is done on the police officer's own time." If that is the case, more power to them. However it's not necessary. Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA which is federal law) requires training be a compensated activity. FLSA also requires compensation if the dog is kenneled at the handler's residence. 

"I think that this would work very well if the dogs were purchased already trained. " 

Some Departments do buy trained dogs, others buy untrained and train them. I think it has more to do with the experience level in a department and the time available. The larger departments I"m familiar with buy untrained and train them themselve. That keeps a lot of sport nonsense out of PSD and produces a better dog for that department.

"But with dogs purchased untrained, I think there is a lot of pressure on the handlers, the trainer and probably not the level of experience required to actually get all the dogs through all the training to the level of passing the state tests."

there is a lot of pressure on handlers whether the dogs are trained or untrained. I would point out though, there are only two states in teh country that have mandatory "tests" for a dog. Most departments rely on outside certification agencies such as USPCA, NAPWDA etc. They establish standards that have been accepted in court. In addition, the "industry standard" recommends 16 hours per month in service training on a certified, working dog. Of course all training is heavily documented. 

"The two things I remember about what he said about training was that one of the first things they do is go out and urinate on a tree -- not sure what female k9 officers do for this. They then do not allow the dog to pee over it. This supposedly shows the dog who is dominant."

I have to admit, 45 years in the business and this is a first. I've heard the stories of how we get drug dogs addicted to drugs, feed them gunpowder, beat them till they are mean, etc etc, etc. This is a first. Peeing aside, female handlers do quite well. 

There are many misconceptions in some previous posts, but I'm not going to change anyones mind. I will on occasion however attempt to provide a different perspective. Canine is, in my opinion, the best thing happening in the police business. In my experience the vast majority of handlers are hard working dedicated employess. The dog becomes their partner. They'll spend more time with it than most of their friends and some of their family. I've seen battle hardened veterens cry when their partner was lost whether in conflict or just because his time ran out. Police aren't perfect. We hire from the same labor pool as everyone else. We certainly do make the news on every little thing though, ha ha, but I've come to expect that.

DFrost


----------



## tonkatuff81 (Jul 13, 2010)

*Acquitted and yet the dog is dead*

Of course I can question the verdict. Officers testified as to what they saw regarding the choking and kicking, and what they heard about his disdain for the dog.

I agree that when a cop makes a mistake in the heat of the moment, they should not be criminally charged, but if warranted, dismissed from the force.

This was not one of those moments. It was a training session. In the end, Duke is dead, and it was caused by the hands (and feet) of the handler.


----------



## BlackPuppy (Mar 29, 2007)

I've seen at least one very dominant police dog. I was at an IPO seminar and the dog was there in an attempt to correct it's "dirty biting". When the dog is called off the decoy, it would run back towards the handler, but then turn around for one more bite before finally obeying the command to return. It was a Romanian import GSD. When the dog was let out of the squad car, we were told not to look at it, or we might become a target.

Does law enforcement really need to buy such head strong-dogs for their departments? Sounds like a liability to me. Get a decent dog that obeys. Malinois love to obey, they do it much better than a GSD, who actually might think first.


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

tonkatuff81 said:


> Of course I can question the verdict. Officers testified as to what they saw regarding the choking and kicking, and what they heard about his disdain for the dog.


Of course you can question the verdict, but don't put it on the police. They weren't the jury. They were not the DA's office that reduced the charges. The jury acquitted him. They didn't have to convince you, only the 12 people on the panel. Neither of us, and doubtful anyone on this forum, was there. We can only go on what was said by the media (which I distrust) and the testimony of other police officer (which obviously many people distrust) and the decision of the jury. Worked that way for countless people that have sat in the defense chair. 

DFrost


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

DFrost, my point is that many departments without a lot of experience are doing their own training and there seems to be as many ways to train these dogs as there are departments. The comment about peeing on a tree had my jaw hanging when I heard it but whatever. 

In our county, if our guys are being compensated for training times, then our adminsitration is boldly lying in the papers and such to help support k9 units. They are trying to run the k9 units totally on donations. People actually donate food for the k9s -- so, what, if someone donates a big bag of Old Roy, you feed it to them???

Telling us that the officers are not being paid for the training of the dogs, may be their way of encouraging the community to volunteer to the program.


----------



## VaBeachFamily (Apr 12, 2005)

Just a note on an earlier post... 6 years in Prison is NOT absurd... especially for murdering a police officer.. that dog is just as much an officer as he was... someone should hand him by a chain and beat him


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

selzer said:


> my point is that many departments without a lot of experience are doing their own training and there seems to be as many ways to train these dogs as there are departments. The comment about peeing on a tree had my jaw hanging when I heard it but whatever.
> 
> In our county, if our guys are being compensated for training times, then our adminsitration is boldly lying in the papers and such to help support k9 units. They are trying to run the k9 units totally on donations. People actually donate food for the k9s -- so, what, if someone donates a big bag of Old Roy, you feed it to them???
> 
> Telling us that the officers are not being paid for the training of the dogs, may be their way of encouraging the community to volunteer to the program.


Ohio is one of few states that has a POST test. Many departments in Ohio are also Accredited. Ohio is also a state that has a lot of members in USPCA. They should know better. My point is; if they are training poorly, if they are violating Federal Law, perhaps it's best to not have a program. While K9 is an important tool and a force multiplier, it's also a magnet for law suits. Poor training, and not having the proper equipment or supervision is a good reason to not have a K9 section at all. I don't feed Old Roy, although I know a lot of dogs that seem to do well on it. I have a budget for dog food and we buy Nutro. Works very well for a large number of years. Gotta admit, the "peeing on a tree" is a new one on me. It did give me a good laugh.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

DFrost said:


> ...
> My point is; if they are training poorly, if they are violating Federal Law, perhaps it's best to not have a program.
> ...


Just curious since this surprises me. I never realized that there were any federal laws regulating police canines. What exactly do they regulate?


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

There aren't any laws regulating police canine, per se. There are laws regulating the amount of hours a person can work, and what must be compensated. I'm sure the Federal Government has policy and standards pertaining to their canine, but nothing that controls a state, city or county canine program. What I was referring to was Fair Labor Standards. One that specifically pertains to police canine requires officers be compensated for canine training and for the care of the dog if the dog is kept at the handler's residence. The law applies to almost anyone that works for a company or business. For example; if you work for a company and it's mandatory to attend an hour long meeting each day before work, they have to pay you for that hour. If the company you work for requires a company specific training program once a week for an hour, they have to pay you for that hour. Police are no different. If they require me to attend training to keep my job, they have to pay me for it. It's the law whether it's right or wrong isn't my concern. As a program manager, I have to be aware of the law and at a minimum ensure my supervisors are aware of the requirements. There is such a thing as vicarious liability, but I'm not a lawyer so I won't go into that. 

DFrost


----------



## Stogey (Jun 29, 2010)

Someone should kick this jerk in the ribs and see how he likes it !!!


----------



## RebelGSD (Mar 20, 2008)

I heard a peeing story, a somewhat different one, from a police officer who is in the K9 unit and is responsible for training the police K9s. He claimed that there was a GSD that nobody in the department could handle or even take him out of the kennel. So this person (won't mention his name) walked up to the dog's kennel and peed through the kennel grid. He says that was it, the dog never challenged him after that. I always wondered whether this was a war story or the truth. I always wandered how a female officer could pee at the dog through the gate of the kennel.
It is funny though, but the peeing stories seem to circulate.


----------



## CaliBoy (Jun 22, 2010)

Stogey said:


> Someone should kick this jerk in the ribs and see how he likes it !!!


ROFLOL. That's we like Texans. You folks don't mess around with administering justice!!


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

DFrost said:


> There aren't any laws regulating police canine, per se. There are laws regulating the amount of hours a person can work, and what must be compensated. ...
> 
> DFrost


Thanks for taking the time to explain what you were talking about.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

CaliBoy said:


> ROFLOL. That's we like Texans. You folks don't mess around with administering justice!!


My dad is from Texas and always speaks his mind on stories like this.


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

RebelGSD said:


> I heard a peeing story, a somewhat different one, from a police officer who is in the K9 unit and is responsible for training the police K9s. He claimed that there was a GSD that nobody in the department could handle or even take him out of the kennel. So this person (won't mention his name) walked up to the dog's kennel and peed through the kennel grid. He says that was it, the dog never challenged him after that. I always wondered whether this was a war story or the truth. I always wandered how a female officer could pee at the dog through the gate of the kennel.
> It is funny though, but the peeing stories seem to circulate.


There are many stories about training, training techniques etc that are more myth that truth. One never knows where stories like that start. It's like the one about drug dogs being addicted so they will look harder for drugs. I'd bet a dollar to a donut I'm asked that question at least once during every demo we've ever conducted. I think sometimes, trainers, such as myself, perpetuate myths like this because, at the time, it's funny.

DFrost


----------



## RebelGSD (Mar 20, 2008)

Well, it is comforting to hear that outpeeing male K9s or peeing through kennel doors or on trees is not the part of formal K9 officer qualification 

Now Malinois are supposed to be GSDs on crack - so a drugged Malinois would be some sight! I have not heard the one about drugged detector dogs though.


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

I don't give a hoot if he meant to kill the dog, you pick a dog up on a chocker and then hit it to are a coward. If he was so scared of dogs that a dog nipping it's leash unnerved him from past experiences to the point he felt he need to physically attack this working dog, he should have never been given the privilege to work with a K9.

Here's a comparison...
A man in Richmond Va was found guilty of dogfighting, he got a decade behind bars. 
This man treats cruelly, and kills, a police K9, and he may get six.

How is that right? I don't think either crime is higher than the other, letting two dogs fight or painfully killing a dog you are supposed to train to protect the public? 

If he is found guilty I hope he gets every punishment possible. Hope he's cellmate to a dog lover...


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think there is a difference. One is premeditation. And most likely your buddy in Richmond Va had priors. Usually people do not go up for ten years with a squeaky clean record, unless we are talking murder. 

the dog fighter most likely had a pit, different people there for gambling etc, dogs, probably got the dog ready for the the fight, etc. 

The police officer went to a very legal training session with his dog and lost it and killed it. 

The dogs are both just as dead, but... 

With people, a guy who comes home all drunk and stuff and gets into a fight with his wife and beats her up and she dies due to falling on the corner of the fireplace bricks, does not get nearly the sentence that the woman gets when she waits for the husband to fall asleep, gets the gun, loads it and shoots him. 

They are different crimes even if both of the victims are very much dead.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

in the scenario you put forth, the guy would get more time than the woman. Most likely, he has a long history of coming home and beating his wife. 

In the case of women killing their husbands in that manner, they are usually long-term victims of abuse. 

Of course, that is assuming that both of them have decent lawyers lol 

It's not a matter of right or wrong, to me at least. He is an officer who over-reacted to a threat and killed his k-9 partner. I would be more worried about his ability to react to situations on the job. To make it relevant to everyone here, this officer responds to your home. Your dog is in the yard or house, barking as our GSDs do. Would he shoot the dog because he is afraid?


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

To me, killing your K9 partner is the same thing as killing a human police officer.

If a normal citizen harmed a K9 officer that is a serious crime because the force considers them as real police officers.

He should be charged with killing a police officer and animal cruelty.


----------



## Stogey (Jun 29, 2010)

CaliBoy said:


> ROFLOL. That's we like Texans. You folks don't mess around with administering justice!!


Sorry ... idiots like this fool, just get my dander up !


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

I have no idea who the man in Richmond was, but the story stuck out to me because I used to live there. And his dogs were not dead, either. Animal control killed them. He did have a prior, I looked it up just now. I'm glad he got the time he did, he did not treat his dogs well and was breaking the law.

I happen to think that an officer who "loses it" and ends up killing a large (and important) animal is a very dangerous person, what if it's a person he 'loses it' with next and kills? A lawbreaker who gets on his nerves perhaps. It doesn't take much more to kill a human than it does a dog. Violence like that is what is scary more than the animal cruelty shown. It shows he's got very little self-control and a short fuse. A very bad mixture for someone who is supposed to protect and uphold the law.


----------



## CaliBoy (Jun 22, 2010)

I still think Stogey had the best idea of all. The guy's fellow police officers should have wrestled him to the ground and kicked in his ribs. They always say an officer who prescribes a certain kind of discipline for a subordinate should be willing to undergo that same discipline himself if he is the guilty one.


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

LaRen616 said:


> If a normal citizen harmed a K9 officer that is a serious crime because the force considers them as real police officers.
> 
> He should be charged with killing a police officer and animal cruelty.


Actually, that's not true. They are considered property, not the same as a human of any kind. He was charged and acquitted by a jury. I understand there are those that disagree with the verdict. In my business I see that every day. 

As for kicking in the officers ribs, well, according to the courts they would have been assaulting an innocent person. Where I come from that is assault, maybe even aggravated assault. Both felonies.

dFrost


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

DFrost said:


> Actually, that's not true. They are considered property, not the same as a human of any kind. He was charged and acquitted by a jury. I understand there are those that disagree with the verdict. In my business I see that every day.
> 
> As for kicking in the officers ribs, well, according to the courts they would have been assaulting an innocent person. Where I come from that is assault, maybe even aggravated assault. Both felonies.
> 
> dFrost


I heard recently that K9 dogs were also considered officers. I am in California, so maybe its different in every state or county. I was ROP Law Enforcement and we had a former K9 officer come in and talk to us and they are treat more like officer because that is what they are. 

But like I said it probably depends on where you are. I also know that during the Vietnam war, the dogs were treated and called "Military Equipment" and after their service time they either were humanely ethunized, given to the village people(Vienamese people) or assigned to another unit. Now they are considered war vets and when they have done their service time, they are retired and live with their partner or given to a forever home.

Thats what I have read and heard. They are officers and soldiers who are ready to give their undying devotion and love to their partner. And to be treated with such abuse such as the officer who did this, is uncalled for. They deserve much more respect.


----------



## CaliBoy (Jun 22, 2010)

DFrost:

You are right, of course. Justice has to be without passion, blind to favors, and with due process, otherwise it becomes vengeance. My friend who was a prosecutor used to tell me that he could not handle cases where children or animals had been abused, because he was too emotional and he was always relieved to see these cases assigned out to other prosecutors. An animal which is beaten is always going to bring out intense emotion.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I have always heard that women usually get stiffer sentences when they kill their spouse because they usually need a weapon and get tried for murder 1 or premeditated murder. The battered woman defense does not seem to work in most cases. I expect that maybe they figure if you are that battered you would not be able to stick up for yourself enough to go out and get a gun or a baseball bat and do him in. Be that as it may, my woman just waited for her husband to fall asleep, got the gun and shot him. It does not say that she was beaten at all. The first one where the woman gets killed was beaten. 

But it is much harder to PROVE premeditation when there is no weapon. And harder to defend against when there is. 

The dog fighter started out with the intention of breaking a slew of laws and got caught, he should go to jail. 

The police officer, was tried and not convicted. In hopes that our justice system works somewhat, the judge/jury should have had a more complete set of the facts than we here, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. 

Too bad the dog is dead.


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

Jessiewessie99 said:


> I heard recently that K9 dogs were also considered officers. I am in California,
> 
> I also know that during the Vietnam war, the dogs were treated and called "Military Equipment" and after their service time they either were humanely ethunized, given to the village people(Vienamese people) or assigned to another unit. Now they are considered war vets and when they have done their service time, they are retired and live with their partner or given to a forever home.
> 
> .


I've spent almost a lifetime (I say almost, because I'm still above ground and kicking) working with military and police dogs. I love forums because of a number of reasons. Among them are it gives me an opportunity to present a different perspective on military and particularly, police and police dog training. Having said that, first I'll say, no where in the U. S. is a police canine considered the same as an officer. The penalties may vary state-to-state, but no where is it a capitol offense for killing a police service animal. My opinion is, that's the way it should be, they aren't human. As an officer, I'll send a dog on a mission that I wouldn't send a human. Sometimes, real life isn't pretty. As for the dogs that were left in Viet Nam. That was a tragedy and it upset many people. Mostly those that had worked those dogs and more importantly, owed their life to those dogs. Todays policies are a direct result of organizations such as: Viet Nam Dog Handlers Association (of which I am a member) The organization as a whole, expressed our outrage at the treatment afforded those fine animals. Personally, I'm very glad to see many of these dogs being retired and afforded good homes to live in. 

DFrost


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

I even remember watching an episode of Cops and they sent the dog after someone and the guy struck the dog and I remember the officer yelling to the guy "You just struck a K9 officer, that's a serious offense." Maybe he was bluffing? But thats what I heard.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

Statutes

this site has several states, looks like the toughest listed there is a $2000 fine. Others have as little as $100


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

LaRen616 said:


> I even remember watching an episode of Cops and they sent the dog after someone and the guy struck the dog and I remember the officer yelling to the guy "You just struck a K9 officer, that's a serious offense." Maybe he was bluffing? But thats what I heard.


I didn't say the offender wouldn't be subject to an ass-whipping, ha ha. 

DFrost


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

The man who came and talked to us un my ROP class was a K9 officer and he said that the dogs were considered officers of the law.


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

Jessiewessie99 said:


> The man who came and talked to us un my ROP class was a K9 officer and he said that the dogs were considered officers of the law.


Again, they are not considered by law to be the same as a human, and as such if someone beats or kills one, they can not be charged with homicide, manslaughter, or any other form of murder. Regardless of what people have heard and read, it's simply not the case that police K-9's are equal in the eyes of the criminal justice system. They are equal in the eyes of the officers, and the department, but they are not the same as a human and you can not charge someone with the same charges as you would a human.


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

selzer said:


> I have always heard that women usually get stiffer sentences when they kill their spouse because they usually need a weapon and get tried for murder 1 or premeditated murder. The battered woman defense does not seem to work in most cases.


The reason it doesn't work as a defense in most cases is simply because in most cases, the women do indeed wait until their boyfriend/husband is asleep, and then they kill them. You can not claim self defense in these cases, which is essentially what they are trying to claim. To claim self defense, there must be an immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death to yourself or someone with you (in which case, you can defend their life as well).



selzer said:


> But it is much harder to PROVE premeditation when there is no weapon. And harder to defend against when there is.


This is false.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

well guys out this way get about 6 years for strangling their wives. Women get more.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

In California police dogs are considered officers of law. But it may depend on the state. I never said they are on the same level, I just said they are considered officers of the law.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

In Ohio: 

E)(1) Whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of assaulting a police dog or horse. Except as otherwise provided in this division, assaulting a police dog or horse is a misdemeanor of the second degree. If the violation results in the death of the police dog or horse, assaulting a police dog or horse is a felony of the third degree. If the violation results in serious physical harm to the police dog or horse other than its death, assaulting a police dog or horse is a felony of the fourth degree. If the violation results in physical harm to the police dog or horse other than death or serious physical harm, assaulting a police dog or horse is a misdemeanor of the first degree.

found in "2921.321 Assaulting or harassing police dog or horse or service dog."


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

RebelGSD said:


> Now Malinois are supposed to be GSDs on crack -


 
ROFLMAO!!!!! I have to say that so far, this has made me crack up. I live on a military base right now and constantly see malinois' and dutch shepherds who are jittery and just crazy. The ONE shepherd on the K9 force here has his tail dog, is the best behaved dog of the bunch and listens the best. They did a demo of the dogs last year and i just couldnt believe how spazzy the BM's and the DS's were. This actually explains that perfectly!


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

APBTLove said:


> I happen to think that an officer who "loses it" and ends up killing a large (and important) animal is a very dangerous person, what if it's a person he 'loses it' with next and kills? A lawbreaker who gets on his nerves perhaps. It doesn't take much more to kill a human than it does a dog. Violence like that is what is scary more than the animal cruelty shown. It shows he's got very little self-control and a short fuse. A very bad mixture for someone who is supposed to protect and uphold the law.


 I totally agree! 

Really there is no way to defend this officer's action. That he "accidentally" beat and/or hung the dog to death just doesn't work. As though it would have been ok to beat and/or hang the dog if the dog hadn't died from it?


----------

