# Never heard of this being an issue.



## Benjaminb (Aug 14, 2017)

I think he got what was coming to him. 









Arizona police dog mates with cop's pet, officer later resigns and loses certification


The Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Testing Board voted last month to revoke Jared Jake's certification following an investigation into his K-9 dog.



www.12news.com


----------



## tim_s_adams (Aug 9, 2017)

So many things going on there, that have nothing at all to do with dogs, or even that officer's conduct, that make me a bit hesitant to say he's in the wrong. Got what he deserved, better hope you're never accused of anything, because it's really easy to prove stuff via public media...

I actually don't see where this officer did anything wrong. Did I miss something?


----------



## David Winners (Apr 30, 2012)

What he did wrong was lie about stuff. Had he come forward and told the department that the neuter was unsuccessful and he believed that his female was pregnant, things may have been different.

If he's willing to lie about something as trivial as this, he doesn't belong on the force imo.


----------



## Bearshandler (Aug 29, 2019)

tim_s_adams said:


> So many things going on there, that have nothing at all to do with dogs, or even that officer's conduct, that make me a bit hesitant to say he's in the wrong. Got what he deserved, better hope you're never accused of anything, because it's really easy to prove stuff via public media...
> 
> I actually don't see where this officer did anything wrong. Did I miss something?


I feel like you’re trolling. He lied about his dog’s reproductive status as well as lie and hide the fact that their family dog had a litter by his working k9. An accidental pregnancy is one thing. To lie multiple times and try to cover it up is something much worse. He absolutely deserves to be fired.


----------



## REEHGE (Feb 16, 2020)

Sounds to me like he deserves to be fired, I wouldn't want someone lying like that in my local PD however I haven't heard his side of the story and I don't believe in the court of public opinion.


----------



## Buckelke (Sep 4, 2019)

Doesn't the canine belong to the department? It is not owned by the handler, is it? Seems the department (as the owner) would be responsible for neutering the dog and making sure it was done. 

yes, lying about it is wrong, but if the dog belongs to someone else is he lying, or just repeating what he was told?

something weird about the story.


----------



## drparker151 (Apr 10, 2020)

Buckelke said:


> Doesn't the canine belong to the department? It is not owned by the handler, is it? Seems the department (as the owner) would be responsible for neutering the dog and making sure it was done.
> 
> yes, lying about it is wrong, but if the dog belongs to someone else is he lying, or just repeating what he was told?
> 
> something weird about the story.


If he is the handler then he is the person in the department who is responsible as part of his official duties.


----------



## Buckelke (Sep 4, 2019)

so does he get to keep the dog? 
They seem to need clearer policy with regard to the dog's care.


----------



## Benjaminb (Aug 14, 2017)

Buckelke said:


> Doesn't the canine belong to the department? It is not owned by the handler, is it? Seems the department (as the owner) would be responsible for neutering the dog and making sure it was done.
> 
> yes, lying about it is wrong, but if the dog belongs to someone else is he lying, or just repeating what he was told?
> 
> something weird about the story.


Maybe he told the department he would take care of getting the dog neutered, planning to breed him in the future.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

Buckelke said:


> so does he get to keep the dog?
> They seem to need clearer policy with regard to the dog's care.


In many departments day to day care of the dog is a handlers responsibility, including vet care, since there are no kennel facilities. The policies are clearly spelled out. The dog is still property of the department.


----------



## LuvShepherds (May 27, 2012)

Interesting that his wife told the truth that led to his firing. She didn’t think what he did was right either.


----------



## hanshund (Oct 13, 2021)

tim_s_adams said:


> So many things going on there, that have nothing at all to do with dogs, or even that officer's conduct, that make me a bit hesitant to say he's in the wrong. Got what he deserved, better hope you're never accused of anything, because it's really easy to prove stuff via public media...
> 
> I actually don't see where this officer did anything wrong. Did I miss something?


marbles


----------



## tim_s_adams (Aug 9, 2017)

According to the article all the damning "evidence" was provided by his wife. To me, that just seems off.

Look, when a wife/ex is supplying info on her husband/ex, I am not one to believe it just because some paper decided to announce it to the world. 

You can believe what you want, I will reserve judgement...like I said, too much going on in that situation and too few facts!

Like, who believes that a Vet would do a partial neutering and then give the customer paperwork that states the dog is neutered?


----------



## hanshund (Oct 13, 2021)

tim_s_adams said:


> According to the article all the damning "evidence" was provided by his wife. To me, that just seems off.
> 
> Look, when a wife/ex is supplying info on her husband/ex, I am not one to believe it just because some paper decided to announce it to the world.
> 
> ...


he was caught cheating on his wife lol

smh


----------



## Bearshandler (Aug 29, 2019)

Buckelke said:


> Doesn't the canine belong to the department? It is not owned by the handler, is it? Seems the department (as the owner) would be responsible for neutering the dog and making sure it was done.
> 
> yes, lying about it is wrong, but if the dog belongs to someone else is he lying, or just repeating what he was told?
> 
> something weird about the story.


The dog belongs to the department. They don’t all handle care for the dog the same. A


tim_s_adams said:


> According to the article all the damning "evidence" was provided by his wife. To me, that just seems off.
> 
> Look, when a wife/ex is supplying info on her husband/ex, I am not one to believe it just because some paper decided to announce it to the world.
> 
> ...


if the paper was an invoice, it probably doesn’t differentiate. Also it’s a male. There’s zero doubt whether he still has his pieces or not. You don’t need paperwork for that.


----------



## tim_s_adams (Aug 9, 2017)

Bearshandler said:


> The dog belongs to the department. They don’t all handle care for the dog the same. A
> 
> if the paper was an invoice, it probably doesn’t differentiate. Also it’s a male. There’s zero doubt whether he still has his pieces or not. You don’t need paperwork for that.


I don't know man, but I've never gotten an invoice for a procedure from a vet. I've gotten estimates for more complex procedures, but the paperwork I have received always detail EXACTLY what was done. Again, just doesn't quite ring true! And again, ya'll believe what you want. I personally have too many reservations to draw a conclusion.

If he lied repeatedly, I agree that character wise he should not be a LE officer. I'm just still not convinced!


----------



## hanshund (Oct 13, 2021)

tim_s_adams said:


> If he lied repeatedly, I agree that character wise he should not be a LE officer. I'm just still not convinced!


a police dispatcher at his work admitted to making out and having inappropriate contact three times with him while on duty.

one of those times was in the sergeants hallway and he was caught lying about that too

there are some that still think the earth is flat as well

smh


----------



## tim_s_adams (Aug 9, 2017)

hanshund said:


> a police dispatcher at his work admitted to making out and having inappropriate contact three times with him while on duty.
> 
> one of those times was in the sergeants hallway and he was caught lying about that too
> 
> ...



Ah, so you have more insider rumor than the article itself. Cool...

The article that you posted said he was investigated for having an inappropriate relationship with a coworker, it didn't offer a conclusion.

It's all good man, believe what you want. I just think that everyone deserves not to be tried in a court of public opinion!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

What I see as sad is that they spent 20 sentences on the fact that his personal dog was impregnated by the k9. And one sentence: "Prior to his resignation, the officer was additionally investigated for lying about having an inappropriate relationship with a coworker and neglecting the K-9 dog." 

Letting the k9 impregnate his bitch did no damage to the dogs. I don't understand how it merits an investigation, or the expense of DNA testing. But neglecting the K9 is criminal, or should be. And what exactly is an "inappropriate relationship with a coworker"? I mean if you work for the police department, then you're an adult. So, if they were equals, what would be inappropriate. I mean unless they were doing stuff on company time. But that would be on both parties. Inappropriate sounds almost like he was messing with someone under him, which would be a LOT worse than letting the K9 mate with his female. 

If the k9 is owned by the department, then you could suggest that using his as a stud dog could be considered a form of theft. But it just sounds like the dude was a scumball, lying and mistreating his dog, and whatever other inappropriate stuff. Good riddance to bad rubbish.


----------



## Barrie (Jul 5, 2021)

Reading this thread reminded me as to why I choose to avoid the various strains of neuroses which today's media would love to have me feed on.

There is a difference between having an opinion and judging others. I can form an opinion (which may be influenced by my biases, and which I can choose to share or keep private) but it is not my want or right to judge.

Truth is universal. Perception of truth varies.


----------



## drparker151 (Apr 10, 2020)

Barrie said:


> Reading this thread reminded me as to why I choose to avoid the various strains of neuroses which today's media would love to have me feed on.
> 
> There is a difference between having an opinion and judging others. I can form an opinion (which may be influenced by my biases, and which I can choose to share or keep private) but it is not my want or right to judge.
> 
> Truth is universal. Perception of truth varies.


My dad had two sayings your post reminded me of.

"I have opinions on subjects I know nothing about."

"Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up."


----------



## dogma13 (Mar 8, 2014)

drparker151 said:


> My dad had two sayings your post reminded me of.
> 
> "I have opinions on subjects I know nothing about."
> 
> "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up."


Uh huh


----------



## CactusWren (Nov 4, 2018)

"AZPOST (Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board) determined Jake's alleged actions warranted discipline and the board voted on Nov. 17 to revoke his officer certification." 

This is not a trial-by-social-media, but at least two verified incidents of misconduct, and the responsible body determined he should be punished. Maybe let's not shoehorn everything into some half-baked "things were better in my day" narrative?


----------



## mpack (Aug 21, 2021)

This is a funny post. Sounds like the dept was just looking for an excuse to can this guy. "Prior to his resignation, the officer was additionally investigated for lying about having an inappropriate relationship with a coworker and neglecting the K-9 dog. " This was likely the final nudge to get him to quit or face charges. Those things sound a lot more serious than letting the K9 breed his family dog. Can't make this stuff up!


----------



## Barrie (Jul 5, 2021)

CactusWren said:


> This is not a trial-by-social-media, but at least two verified incidents of misconduct, and the responsible body determined he should be punished.


Of course you're right. It is a fact that the outcome was decided by the responsible body. That cannot be argued. But I would like to share my understanding of ´trial-by-media´. I think this can happen naturally before, during, and after a reported case. People watch, hear and read what is in the media and form an opinion based on their perception and bias. When trial-by-media happens _after_ a case people can still have their opinion regardless of whether they like the official outcome or not. I'm sure many of us here have wondered how on earth some juries, judges, and tribunals have reached their conclusion based of what's been reported. It's a natural thing to do. It's not wrong, it's just human behaviour. 



CactusWren said:


> Maybe let's not shoehorn everything into some half-baked "things were better in my day" narrative?


I can't find anything in any post on this thread that may have given you this notion, but on that note, I take the approach that today is the only day that matters. I can't do anything about yesterday and I can only do so much to prepare for tomorrow.


----------



## Lexie’s mom (Oct 27, 2019)

I don’t know how this mostly a trivial and private matter even became news…


----------



## CactusWren (Nov 4, 2018)

Barrie said:


> Of course you're right. It is a fact that the outcome was decided by the responsible body. That cannot be argued. But I would like to share my understanding of ´trial-by-media´. I think this can happen naturally before, during, and after a reported case. People watch, hear and read what is in the media and form an opinion based on their perception and bias. When trial-by-media happens _after_ a case people can still have their opinion regardless of whether they like the official outcome or not. I'm sure many of us here have wondered how on earth some juries, judges, and tribunals have reached their conclusion based of what's been reported. It's a natural thing to do. It's not wrong, it's just human behaviour.
> 
> 
> I can't find anything in any post on this thread that may have given you this notion, but on that note, I take the approach that today is the only day that matters. I can't do anything about yesterday and I can only do so much to prepare for tomorrow.


The part in question was, "Reading this thread reminded me as to why I choose to avoid the various strains of neuroses which* today's media* would love to have me feed on."


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Barrie said:


> Of course you're right. It is a fact that the outcome was decided by the responsible body. That cannot be argued. But I would like to share my understanding of ´trial-by-media´. I think this can happen naturally before, during, and after a reported case. People watch, hear and read what is in the media and form an opinion based on their perception and bias. When trial-by-media happens _after_ a case people can still have their opinion regardless of whether they like the official outcome or not. I'm sure many of us here have wondered how on earth some juries, judges, and tribunals have reached their conclusion based of what's been reported. It's a natural thing to do. It's not wrong, it's just human behaviour.
> 
> 
> I can't find anything in any post on this thread that may have given you this notion, but on that note,* I take the approach that today is the only day that matters. I can't do anything about yesterday and I can only do so much to prepare for tomorrow.*


We judge people all the time. Maybe we do not have all the facts. We give an opinion on the facts that are presented, and judge. We judge the person, we judge the presentation of the facts. I think that it is part of our survival instinct to judge people. It's natural. Or, it is unnatural not to judge folks. We have to train ourselves not to judge people. There is nothing wrong with giving folks some slack or comparing what we think our reaction might be in similar circumstances and in lieu of that, judge more or less harshly. But judging is how we protect ourselves and our loved ones. 

As to the bolded, I don't know. It depends on many things. Yesterday is not as gone to some folks as it is to others. If we have wronged someone, we don't just forget about it if we let a day pass. At least not if we have any character at all. So, we can actually do something about yesterday. And we constantly prepare for a better tomorrow. We can only do what we can do today, but we do today what we can for tomorrow. I think that is part of what separates us from the critters. God gives critters the instinct to stock food up, build their house just so, and prepare for the season. But God gives us a mind that is capable of preparing for years, decades into the future, to prepare for life, to prepare for death. I don't think we should waste away in worry about tomorrow -- "consider the lillies of the field..."


----------



## Barrie (Jul 5, 2021)

CactusWren said:


> The part in question was, "Reading this thread reminded me as to why I choose to avoid the various strains of neuroses which* today's media* would love to have me feed on."


Ah, OK. Thank you. You're right in that I am not a fan of today's media, especially what some consider to be "news" and how some of it is presented. But to infer or suggest this was any attempt by me to "shoehorn everything into some half-baked _things were better in my day_ narrative" is miles off. 

To echo something I said here earlier: I'm a person who lives by a philosophy of today is the only day that matters. Living in the past serves me no good. I learn from the past. That's it. What's more, even if I were to think some things were better in my day some things were certainly not. Either way there's nothing I can do about it so I don't let it worry me.


----------



## LuvShepherds (May 27, 2012)

tim_s_adams said:


> I don't know man, but I've never gotten an invoice for a procedure from a vet. I've gotten estimates for more complex procedures, but the paperwork I have received always detail EXACTLY what was done. Again, just doesn't quite ring true! And again, ya'll believe what you want. I personally have too many reservations to draw a conclusion.
> 
> If he lied repeatedly, I agree that character wise he should not be a LE officer. I'm just still not convinced!


You need a better vet. I always get detailed invoices of what was done and how much it cost. I recently had mine neutered and I have two identical copies, both a printed and a digital invoice that is proof. I have both the pre surgery estimate and the post surgery receipt. On that receipt, which is an 8x11 printed statement is also the dog’s weights for the last few years, dates of last shots and dates of shots due. It’s a pretty standard vet paperwork program which your vet could purchase and use if they wanted to. 

I don’t see any excuse for what this officer did. It appears he intentionally used the male to breed for personal gain.


----------



## Rionel (Jun 17, 2020)

One way of looking at this is that his dog is an asset of the department just like his squad car. Had he taken a department vehicle home, removed the battery to put into his own private vehicle, then reported his squad car‘s battery as stolen, most people would see that as wrong.

The department dog could have wound up with an STD like canine herpes virus, brucellosis or even a venereal tumor, so he actually placed the dog at risk. I’m willing to bet generating profit from departmental assets is frowned upon too.


----------

