# GSD shot, officer went to wrong home



## damaya

A mix up on addresses led the officer to the wrong home. He should have been across the street. Feel terrible for the family. 


Family's dog killed by DeKalb officer who went to wrong house | ajc.com


----------



## Courtney

What a tragic story...to have the wrong house.

Domestic voilence calls are some of the most dangerous calls that officers respond too.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

I just hate stories like this. Poor dog. Poor homeowner. Not sure why the dog was "chained" in the garage, but since he was chained - why was it necessary to shoot him?


----------



## msvette2u

Courtney is right. More cops are killed on DVs than any other call and so their adrenalin is pumped up before they even get on the scene.


----------



## Twyla

I used to live in Dekalb County. The county itself is rough, the area this happened at is rougher. The police there have to be more alert.

One of the news report I heard this morning stated this was a service dog. Though that didn't make sense since it was chained in the garage.


----------



## wildo

> Currie’s husband, Anthony, told Channel 2 that the officer also pointed his gun at him and told him to put his hands up.
> “I said, ‘Why [did] you shoot my dog?’ And he said, ‘Well, I’ll blow your brains out,’” Anthony Currie said.
> 
> The officer is *not facing disciplinary action* pending an internal investigation, Channel 2 said.


 (bolding mine.)

How pathetic.


----------



## Draugr

wildo said:


> (bolding mine.)
> 
> How pathetic.


I agree.

This is why police forces are fast losing respect. There is no accountability for their actions. He's "off the hook" because it was a "dangerous situation."

Excuse me????

If that's true, it's even more vital that he have clarity of mind. The public hires (indirectly, of course) police officers because these individuals display the ability to make good judgement calls under high stress situations. Academy takes their natural ability and then hones it even further. They are trained to do this job under stress. While mistakes are expected to be made, this smacks of very poor judgement, not just a mistake.

Getting the wrong address is a mistake - shooting the dog is extremely poor judgement.

I'm not saying the guy ought to lose his job, but he needs some mandatory training hours. Getting the wrong address and then shooting a _chained_ dog is ridiculous.

I believe it was up in NY there was a ridiculous number of dog shootings by police (unjustified and justified) - and after the city required mandatory training on how to handle dog situations for its officers, the next year, the number of dog shootings was down in single digits. I don't remember the specific details, but, it was an exponential drop.

I don't know if what the man said is true or not, but if it is...wow, how unprofessional. I would never want to hear those words out of a policeman's mouth. Would not make me feel very safe knowing that person is in charge of protecting my neighborhood.


----------



## ken k

Stevenzachsmom said:


> I just hate stories like this. Poor dog. Poor homeowner. Not sure why the dog was "chained" in the garage, but since he was chained - why was it necessary to shoot him?



yes, would like to hear the cops explanation why he shot a dog that was chained up


----------



## BGSD

I'm losing respect for police officers more and more everyday.

They are way too trigger happy. There are so many forms of non-lethal force available to police officers these days, that they really do not need to go guns drawn except in the most extreme cases. 

They need to start rethinking the training for police officers.


----------



## Germanshepherdlova

How terrible. I don't understand why the officer shot the dog since the dog was CHAINED in the garage. The fact that it was the wrong house makes this story even worse.


----------



## msvette2u

Does it say the chain was short enough to keep the dog off the officer?
I missed that portion of the story.


----------



## Desmo

BGSD said:


> I'm losing respect for police officers more and more everyday.
> 
> They are way too trigger happy. There are so many forms of non-lethal force available to police officers these days, that they really do not need to go guns drawn except in the most extreme cases.
> 
> They need to start rethinking the training for police officers.


+10000.

I could not agree more. They have no regard it seems, why should they bother checking things (or double checking). That poor dog and poor family, that is awful.


----------



## Courtney

I have a overwhelming amount of respect for law enforcement officers & believe most of them are squared away and take their jobs seriously. 

I do believe tragic stories like this are not the norm. I have lost respect for most media outlets who chose to sometimes only publish stories showing the awful mistakes/abuse of LEO.

Do you have ANY idea how many lives are saved every single day across the US by a outstanding police officer? I wish those stories were out there more...


----------



## mycobraracr

Everyone is commenting on the dog being chained. How do we know the officer saw the chain? Was it dark? Did all her see was a GSD lunging at him? I am not saying what he did was justified. He made a huge mistake by going to the wrong house. Please remember that hindsight is always 20/20 and for those of you who have never been in high stress split second situations then you have NO right to judge him. He should be held responsible for his actions. I do not disagree there. However at the time he was in a house with someone who was thought to have a weapon. Again we can sit here and dissect a split second situation over weeks and months to decide if what he did was justified under the circumstances but he only had a split second to decide. Just some food for thought.


----------



## mycobraracr

courtney said:


> i have a overwhelming amount of respect for law enforcement officers & believe most of them are squared away and take their jobs seriously.
> 
> I do believe tragic stories like this are not the norm. I have lost respect for most media outlets who chose to sometimes only publish stories showing the awful mistakes/abuse of leo.
> 
> Do you have any idea how many lives are saved every single day across the us by a outstanding police officer? I wish those stories were out there more...


 
like!!!


----------



## msvette2u

Courtney said:


> I have a overwhelming amount of respect for law enforcement officers & believe most of them are squared away and take their jobs seriously.
> 
> I do believe tragic stories like this are not the norm. I have lost respect for most media outlets who chose to sometimes only publish stories showing the awful mistakes/abuse of LEO.
> 
> Do you have ANY idea how many lives are saved every single day across the US by a outstanding police officer? I wish those stories were out there more...


Like x 1000!
I worked with LEOs for 3yrs. and every occupation has a jerk or two. Those are the ones you hear about unfortunately. You don't hear about the good ones. Until you do a ride-along or 5, or live with a cop or work with them, you don't really have the right to judge them, kinda like arm-chair quarterbacking. It is easy to talk about how they failed this or blew that or wrecked this or that or the other - what's hard is being the only guy on scene faced with the potential of losing your life at any moment. Even a simple traffic stop can get you killed these days. Put yourself in their shoes for a few moments before you go off on _all _cops. 

Law Officer | Facebook 

Law Enforcement & Police - Police News, Training, Equipment & Law Enforcement Jobs LawOfficer.com

These guys have to deal with the worst of humanity every single day.
To see statements like "losing respect for all cops" is extremely disappointing to say the least


----------



## Seer

The sadist part of this story is that Mr Currie would have lost even more had he done the right thing and returned fire on this oh so brave officer.... Your at the wrong house you are murdering someones chained pet... The officer will receive a slap on the rest because its policy to open fire with the most minuscule amount of justification and kill everyones pet here on this forum and every other. Thats wrong. Period


----------



## GregK

UNACCEPTABLE!!

The cop should be suspended *without* pay. Maybe he'll be more careful when reading addresses next time.

:angryfire::angryfire:


----------



## idahospud49

Courtney said:


> I have a overwhelming amount of respect for law enforcement officers & believe most of them are squared away and take their jobs seriously.
> 
> I do believe tragic stories like this are not the norm. I have lost respect for most media outlets who chose to sometimes only publish stories showing the awful mistakes/abuse of LEO.
> 
> Do you have ANY idea how many lives are saved every single day across the US by a outstanding police officer? I wish those stories were out there more...





mycobraracr said:


> Everyone is commenting on the dog being chained. How do we know the officer saw the chain? Was it dark? Did all her see was a GSD lunging at him? I am not saying what he did was justified. He made a huge mistake by going to the wrong house. Please remember that hindsight is always 20/20 and for those of you who have never been in high stress split second situations then you have NO right to judge him. He should be held responsible for his actions. I do not disagree there. However at the time he was in a house with someone who was thought to have a weapon. Again we can sit here and dissect a split second situation over weeks and months to decide if what he did was justified under the circumstances but he only had a split second to decide. Just some food for thought.





msvette2u said:


> Like x 1000!
> I worked with LEOs for 3yrs. and every occupation has a jerk or two. Those are the ones you hear about unfortunately. You don't hear about the good ones. Until you do a ride-along or 5, or live with a cop or work with them, you don't really have the right to judge them, kinda like arm-chair quarterbacking. It is easy to talk about how they failed this or blew that or wrecked this or that or the other - what's hard is being the only guy on scene faced with the potential of losing your life at any moment. Even a simple traffic stop can get you killed these days. Put yourself in their shoes for a few moments before you go off on _all _cops.
> 
> Law Officer | Facebook
> 
> Law Enforcement & Police - Police News, Training, Equipment & Law Enforcement Jobs LawOfficer.com
> 
> These guys have to deal with the worst of humanity every single day.
> To see statements like "losing respect for all cops" is extremely disappointing to say the least


Yay!!!!  DV cases can be literally lethal for an LEO responding. Yes, it is extremely tragic that he shot a dog at the wrong address. We definitely hear a number of stories like this, officers who messed up. You know what we don't hear? That cop who had to go tell a family that their loved one has been killed and promising to do what they can to find the person. That cop who leaves their family to go help a child in a child abuse case. That cop who helps the lost child find their family. That cop who gets out of bed at 3 am because they are on call. That cop who answers the phone at midnight because they are a detective and that's what they do. That cop who does everything they can to save a scared animal and won't stop until they do.


----------



## CassandGunnar

It's amazing how some people can get one side of a story from the media (and everyone knows how unbiased they tend to be) and come to the conclusion that the officer should be dismissed or face criminal charges.
I guess only wife beaters, child molesters, murderers and drug dealers get the benefit of the justice system and are innocent until proven guilty.
I spent 25 years as a deputy and sergeant so I have a bias. 
Are there bad cops out there, yep. Do good cops hate them, YEP. 
If this cop is proven to be wrong, he'll probably get harsher treatment then the average citizen would get. Ok, that comes with the badge, but until then, let the justice system work.


----------



## Seer

*Following bad policy is not honorable. Its cowardess*



CassandGunnar said:


> It's amazing how some people can get one side of a story from the media (and everyone knows how unbiased they tend to be) and come to the conclusion that the officer should be dismissed or face criminal charges.
> 
> The officer made a mistake on the house, But policy shot that dog. The anger everyone is feeling should be directed at the willy nillie policy of killing of pets by police officers many many all over he country.
> 
> The fact is that officer would not have been so gracious had the circumstances been reversed I GuArAnTeE you. *Had Mr Currie gone into the wrong house the officers house by accident and was confronted by his k9 (if he had one) and shot his chained dog we would be burying Mr Currie with no charges filed. Not many questions asked *
> 
> Their is no Police Officer I have ever met that would not shoot you dead if this happened in their house. If someone is shooting in your house and your not trained you come around the corner hair trigger and most likely firing. If you point a gun at an officer and tell them you going to blow their brains (if he did say this as Mr Currie reported) and there will be no more discussion.
> 
> I disagree completely that punishment will be harsher then if citizen had done this. Your in the wrong house shooting a weapon, killing a chained up pet as a citizen and you will do jail time and pay punitively. I suspect that the slap on the wrist will be the call of order. Again policy shoot animals first ask questions later. *******went into the wrong house that happens alot.
> 
> Thank you for your time served.
> 
> @idahospud49;2371671 and the other cops can do no wrongers because they have a tough job. Thats a dangerous slope your all sliding down. Can our military also do no wrong while doing their duty. The fields they choose come with an assumption of honor. Following bad policy is not honorable. And should get you a little hot under the collar. *My mom got up at three am to breast feed me, can she do dumb ****** in the name of duty as wel*l.
> 
> So please stop with the "I have so much respect for"
> 
> I respect Ghandi but he's going out in cuffs if surrendering, and out in a box if threatening to blow my head off, if he is in my garage shooting my chained dog! I dare any LEO not to agree with that, they would be lying.
> 
> I have no idea if this officer deserves respect and thats not the point.


----------



## hobbsie711

OK folks lets take a step back for a second. I'm an LEO. I'm not backing what this officer did. As of 2006 there were a little under 900,000 police officers in the US. Our actions are under a lot of scrutiny on a daily basis. How many of these stories do we hear every year? This is a tiny fraction of officers you are hearing about. Much like many of us get angry when we hear people talk about breed bans and GSD. A few rotten eggs can make the whole dozen look bad.

I don't know the part of the country where this happened but if you walk into the area where I work often times the houses are poorly labeled with their addresses if they are labeled at all. I personally have almost shot several dogs on chains. Often times your not alerted to the dogs presence until it is charging and you only have a couple of seconds to decide if you need to shoot or not. Many dogs in the area I work in are not well cared for and have not been vaccinated against any diseases. This unfortunately is a reality of where I work. That being said perhaps this was in a well lit part of on a well labeled house with a dog that was not being aggressive. 

Point is we were not there and if there is one thing I have learned about the media in my years in law enforcement and the military is that the media tends to lean against both. I can assure you I have been called into internal affairs on multiple occasions to give a statement regarding myself or another officer based on the statement of a citizen that is blatantly lying about what happened. They have nothing to lose (there are no consequences for filing a false complaint) and much to gain (lawsuits).

Obviously listening to what happened here it would seem someone dropped the ball on the LEO side. Officer obviously ended up at the wrong house but how did he get there? Did he misunderstand the dispatcher (his fault), was he given the wrong address (dispatcher's fault) was the dispatcher given the wrong address (whoever called 911's fault).

Like I said perhaps this officer completely screwed up and had every opportunity to get it right and still screwed up. Notice is said he's not facing disciplinary action *PENDING* an internal investigation. I read this to mean he may still be disciplined. 

I'm just saying don't lose respect for all of us based on the actions of a very few. Misconduct occurs in very small percentage of us.


----------



## mycobraracr

hobbsie711 said:


> OK folks lets take a step back for a second. I'm an LEO. I'm not backing what this officer did. As of 2006 there were a little under 900,000 police officers in the US. Our actions are under a lot of scrutiny on a daily basis. How many of these stories do we hear every year? This is a tiny fraction of officers you are hearing about. Much like many of us get angry when we hear people talk about breed bans and GSD. A few rotten eggs can make the whole dozen look bad.
> 
> I don't know the part of the country where this happened but if you walk into the area where I work often times the houses are poorly labeled with their addresses if they are labeled at all. I personally have almost shot several dogs on chains. Often times your not alerted to the dogs presence until it is charging and you only have a couple of seconds to decide if you need to shoot or not. Many dogs in the area I work in are not well cared for and have not been vaccinated against any diseases. This unfortunately is a reality of where I work. That being said perhaps this was in a well lit part of on a well labeled house with a dog that was not being aggressive.
> 
> Point is we were not there and if there is one thing I have learned about the media in my years in law enforcement and the military is that the media tends to lean against both. I can assure you I have been called into internal affairs on multiple occasions to give a statement regarding myself or another officer based on the statement of a citizen that is blatantly lying about what happened. They have nothing to lose (there are no consequences for filing a false complaint) and much to gain (lawsuits).
> 
> Obviously listening to what happened here it would seem someone dropped the ball on the LEO side. Officer obviously ended up at the wrong house but how did he get there? Did he misunderstand the dispatcher (his fault), was he given the wrong address (dispatcher's fault) was the dispatcher given the wrong address (whoever called 911's fault).
> 
> Like I said perhaps this officer completely screwed up and had every opportunity to get it right and still screwed up. Notice is said he's not facing disciplinary action *PENDING* an internal investigation. I read this to mean he may still be disciplined.
> 
> I'm just saying don't lose respect for all of us based on the actions of a very few. Misconduct occurs in very small percentage of us.


 
Well said! This is what I was trying to get at before I ran off on a tangent.


----------



## selzer

I feel sad for the dog and the owner(s) of the dog. I think that it sparks such a vehement response because we think, "but for the grace of God, that could be me." And certainly, being a religious person doesn't make us immune to an accident. 

Wrong addresses do happen but they seem to be few and far between, so when it does happen it is NEWS. And what really can you do? Was the address reported wrong, was it the dispatcher, was it the officer? The fact is, human beings make mistakes. When you are carrying a gun, and are expected to use it, when the situation is likely to be charged, when the neighborhood is tough, well, you have to be that much more careful, but that does not mean mistakes are not going to happen.

The cop that killed the dog in the dog park -- that guy should have been fired. Because he was functioning as a civilian, doing what most civilians manage to do regularly without the use of a gun, and in a dog park and a dog comes toward his dog, and he pulls out the gun and shoots. This guy is a whole different story. He is actually doing his job, responding to a call, and a dog charges him, and he shot the dog. Typing it makes me cringe, but I can see it happening, and I can just feel bad for the owner and the dog. 

People who break the law and get themselves arrested own dogs too. Dogs are owned by people who fight with each other and get a visit from the cops. Those cops should not take a bite because they are afraid to kill someone's pet. They need their wits about them in domestic violence calls as much as in any other. Usually those people are drunk or high and when the cops come both of them might turn on the cop. We hope that by not breaking the law, we keep our dogs safe from what might happen if the cops come to our door. But the life of the officer is much more important than the life of a pet. Sorry. If getting attacked by the dog will put him at a disadvantage in a charged and dangerous situation, there is no time to pull out a dog friendly gun with dog friendly bullets. The life of the officer trumps the life of a pet. 

I do not think the officer should be fired. Officers should be fired for things like taking bribes or using their position to bully people, for using their position to get advantages they are not due, for dereliction of duty, and maybe a few other things. But I do not think an honest mistake (with regards to the address), warrants that.

ETA: I also feel for the officer. Most officers have dogs and really do not want to shoot someone's dog. Finding out that he was at this house in error, whether he can say anything about it or not, probably makes him feel terrible.


----------



## hobbsie711

I would also like to say I carry a bag of treats in my gear bag at work.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

(In red below) A fair conclusion but the way you reach it is non-sequitur.

It could also be systemic to the culture of that particular police dept, i.e. poor or corrupt leadership. 

I know the general vicinity of this incident.

I know it's the "in thing" to blame media for every negative thing that passes through our lives (o.k. that's creative rhetoric but it sure seems that way sometimes). Keep in mind the media is all that stands between some citizens _and_ some abusive bad apple _barrels_ too......

As to the story what I don't get is why the man whose dog was shot and had a gun pointed at him could have such a 'well it happens' kind of demeanor at the end of the interview. I've been watching the locals...not another peep about this incident. 


(So the story has _more life_ here on this forum......just sayin'.)



hobbsie711 said:


> OK folks lets take a step back for a second. I'm an LEO. I'm not backing what this officer did. As of 2006 there were a little under 900,000 police officers in the US. Our actions are under a lot of scrutiny on a daily basis. How many of these stories do we hear every year? This is a tiny fraction of officers you are hearing about. Much like many of us get angry when we hear people talk about breed bans and GSD. A few rotten eggs can make the whole dozen look bad.
> 
> I don't know the part of the country where this happened but if you walk into the area where I work often times the houses are poorly labeled with their addresses if they are labeled at all. I personally have almost shot several dogs on chains. Often times your not alerted to the dogs presence until it is charging and you only have a couple of seconds to decide if you need to shoot or not. Many dogs in the area I work in are not well cared for and have not been vaccinated against any diseases. This unfortunately is a reality of where I work. That being said perhaps this was in a well lit part of on a well labeled house with a dog that was not being aggressive.
> 
> Point is we were not there and if there is one thing I have learned about the media in my years in law enforcement and the military is that the media tends to lean against both. I can assure you I have been called into internal affairs on multiple occasions to give a statement regarding myself or another officer based on the statement of a citizen that is blatantly lying about what happened. They have nothing to lose (there are no consequences for filing a false complaint) and much to gain (lawsuits).
> 
> Obviously listening to what happened here it would seem someone dropped the ball on the LEO side. Officer obviously ended up at the wrong house but how did he get there? Did he misunderstand the dispatcher (his fault), was he given the wrong address (dispatcher's fault) was the dispatcher given the wrong address (whoever called 911's fault).
> 
> Like I said perhaps this officer completely screwed up and had every opportunity to get it right and still screwed up. Notice is said he's not facing disciplinary action *PENDING* an internal investigation. I read this to mean he may still be disciplined.
> 
> *I'm just saying don't lose respect for all of us based on the actions of a very few. Misconduct occurs in very small percentage of us*.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Gwenhwyfair said:


> (In red below) A fair conclusion but the way you reach it is non-sequitur.
> 
> It could also be systemic to the culture of that particular police dept, i.e. poor or corrupt leadership.
> 
> I know the general vicinity of this incident.
> 
> I know it's the "in thing" to blame media for every negative thing that passes through our lives (o.k. that's creative rhetoric but it sure seems that way sometimes). Keep in mind the media is all that stands between some citizens _and_ some abusive bad apple _barrels_ too......
> 
> *As to the story what I don't get is why the man whose dog was shot and had a gun pointed at him could have such a 'well it happens' kind of demeanor at the end of the interview. I*'ve been watching the locals...not another peep about this incident.
> 
> 
> (So the story has _more life_ here on this forum......just sayin'.)


I have thought the same thing. I can't imagine that would be my reaction if an officer shot my dog and pointed a gun at MY head.

I'm thankful the officer did not blow Mr. Currie's brains out. In that case, I'm thinking the "mistakes happen" philosophy would be harder to swallow.


----------



## Courtney

Seer said:


> CassandGunnar said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how some people can get one side of a story from the media (and everyone knows how unbiased they tend to be) and come to the conclusion that the officer should be dismissed or face criminal charges.
> 
> The officer made a mistake on the house, But policy shot that dog. The anger everyone is feeling should be directed at the willy nillie policy of killing of pets by police officers many many all over he country.
> 
> The fact is that officer would not have been so gracious had the circumstances been reversed I GuArAnTeE you. *Had Mr Currie gone into the wrong house the officers house by accident and was confronted by his k9 (if he had one) and shot his chained dog we would be burying Mr Currie with no charges filed. Not many questions asked *
> 
> Their is no Police Officer I have ever met that would not shoot you dead if this happened in their house. If someone is shooting in your house and your not trained you come around the corner hair trigger and most likely firing. If you point a gun at an officer and tell them you going to blow their brains (if he did say this as Mr Currie reported) and there will be no more discussion.
> 
> I disagree completely that punishment will be harsher then if citizen had done this. Your in the wrong house shooting a weapon, killing a chained up pet as a citizen and you will do jail time and pay punitively. I suspect that the slap on the wrist will be the call of order. Again policy shoot animals first ask questions later. ****** went into the wrong house that happens alot.
> 
> Thank you for your time served.
> 
> @idahospud49;2371671 and the other cops can do no wrongers because they have a tough job. Thats a dangerous slope your all sliding down. Can our military also do no wrong while doing their duty. The fields they choose come with an assumption of honor. Following bad policy is not honorable. And should get you a little hot under the collar. *My mom got up at three am to breast feed me, can she do dumb ***** in the name of duty as wel*l.
> 
> So please stop with the "I have so much respect for"
> 
> I respect Ghandi but he's going out in cuffs if surrendering, and out in a box if threatening to blow my head off, if he is in my garage shooting my chained dog! I dare any LEO not to agree with that, they would be lying.
> 
> I have no idea if this officer deserves respect and thats not the point.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? But the situation you describe in bold would be breaking & entering / burglary? I don't understand your analogy using a citizen as an example going into houses and shooting people & pets and not getting away with it...well I hope not. What do you mean by "bad policy" in regards to the law & the military? Just trying to understand what your saying.
Click to expand...


----------



## damaya

I merely posted this link as a discussion topic certainly not to start a good officer, bad officer thread.
Let me say that I have a dozen officers and four dispatchers that fall under my supervision and I tell them on a regular basis I appreciate the job they do. It is a dangerous job even in a small time like ours. I am glad they have chosen this as a profession. It is one that is certainly not for everybody, and I would never start a sentence with "well if I would have been there...". 

There are several aspects of the story we don't know, and the point made about getting the wrong address from dispatch was the first thing I thought of. There are absolutely ways of checking this.
Also the point made about domestic calls in general being a complete unknown for the officer to go into was very valid. 

As the dog owner I can imagine my immediate reaction would be rage at the officer. After coming to terms with what's done is done. I would follow this through with the disiplinary action placed upon the officer by his supervisor, and if that did not satisfy me I would be a regular at the town council meetings to have my voice heard in regard to this. The officer has a supervisor, as does the captain, assistant chief, and the chief. I would make sure each heard my opinion if the punishment did not seem to suit his action. If that got me no where I would voice my opinion to the local news outlet. 

That's just me though. There are certain things I cannot just shrug my shoulders over, and still sleep at night.


----------



## idahospud49

Seer said:


> @idahospud49;2371671 and the other cops can do no wrongers because they have a tough job. Thats a dangerous slope your all sliding down. Can our military also do no wrong while doing their duty. The fields they choose come with an assumption of honor. Following bad policy is not honorable. And should get you a little hot under the collar. *My mom got up at three am to breast feed me, can she do dumb **** in the name of duty as wel*l.
> 
> So please stop with the "I have so much respect for"
> 
> I respect Ghandi but he's going out in cuffs if surrendering, and out in a box if threatening to blow my head off, if he is in my garage shooting my chained dog! I dare any LEO not to agree with that, they would be lying.
> 
> I have no idea if this officer deserves respect and thats not the point.


Can't believe I'm rising to this, but I'm in that kind of mood. If you are going to respond and or quote to someone, please do so accurately. I NEVER said a cop can do no wrong. I have known many who are complete *BLEEPS*. What I said is that with all of the "bad" cops and the stories we hear about, there are many more about GOOD cops that we don't. Yes there are soldiers that are out there doing horrendous things and that makes me enraged, but does that diminish those that were doing good? Those that truly wanted to make a GOOD difference in the lives of people? No. I'm so glad you were lucky enough to have a mom that got up in the middle of the night to take care of you, a child they bore, but you cannot compare that to someone who leaves their loved ones to go out and help people they do not know, not that that gives any of them the right to be let off scot free with no punishment.

I too do not know the whole story about this officer and it is not my place to pass judgement on the situation. Are there cops who are way too trigger happy? Heck yeah. Was he? Possibly, but once again, I don't know.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Just a heads up type observation here (in red) > There have been threads in the past covering similiar incidents. A discussion regarding the officers/dept involved often ensues as a part of the topic. There is a concern that LEOs have a tendancy to shoot first and ask questions later when it comes to dogs. I do NOT know if there is validity to this perception or not,_ generally_ speaking. I do know that everytime this type of story is posted in the 'Current Dog Affairs' that aspect becomes a part of the discussion, it's the nature of this forum and this topic. 

An update from the locals from this morning, the family is asking for an apology and to have their dog replaced, reporters words not the family. I'm not sure what they mean by replaced...I thinking monetary compenstation to buy a similiar dog.

Given the circumstances I think that's a fair request by the family.





damaya said:


> I merely posted this link as a discussion topic certainly not to start a good officer, bad officer thread.
> Let me say that I have a dozen officers and four dispatchers that fall under my supervision and I tell them on a regular basis I appreciate the job they do. It is a dangerous job even in a small time like ours. I am glad they have chosen this as a profession. It is one that is certainly not for everybody, and I would never start a sentence with "well if I would have been there...".
> 
> There are several aspects of the story we don't know, and the point made about getting the wrong address from dispatch was the first thing I thought of. There are absolutely ways of checking this.
> Also the point made about domestic calls in general being a complete unknown for the officer to go into was very valid.
> 
> As the dog owner I can imagine my immediate reaction would be rage at the officer. After coming to terms with what's done is done. I would follow this through with the disiplinary action placed upon the officer by his supervisor, and if that did not satisfy me I would be a regular at the town council meetings to have my voice heard in regard to this. The officer has a supervisor, as does the captain, assistant chief, and the chief. I would make sure each heard my opinion if the punishment did not seem to suit his action. If that got me no where I would voice my opinion to the local news outlet.
> 
> That's just me though. There are certain things I cannot just shrug my shoulders over, and still sleep at night.


----------



## Courtney

Gwenhwyfair, please continue to keep us updated...I'm curious what the internal investigation reveals...if the info is put out there.


----------



## GregK

Gwenhwyfair said:


> There is a concern that LEOs have a tendancy to shoot first and ask questions later when it comes to dogs.


yep! I've seen this pattern.


----------



## Jax08

Here are my only questions....

The officer comes into the wrong home at night and fires a gun.

Had the owner of the home shot and killed the police officer as an intruder, without realizing he was an LEO, would the owner be going to jail for murder of an LEO? This IS an armed intruder regardless of his occupation.

If a person charges into your home, do you shoot first and ask questions later? What rights does the citizen have against a wrongful entry, which by all rights this was, when it is a police officer?


----------



## wildo

Jax08- depends on the state. In Indiana, there is a castle law which means you have the right to use lethal force to protect you and yours. However, I did hear that a law was recently passed allowing police officers to enter your home without cause in Indiana. I'm not sure if that's true or not, but that's what I was told.

EDIT- 

Castle Law in Indiana
Police may UNLAWFULLY enter...


----------



## Seer

@ Courtney

The law applies to the officer as well. He had no legal right to be on that property, if in the garage he was breaking and entering even while on duty. My point was that Mr currie was far more gracious then this officer would have been stumbling into the wrong place and shooting someones dog.

As I read it there is no on accidents and on purposes you are either breaking or entering or not. The rest is up to the DA and a jury. I learned today that he was looking thru a window far away from the garage according to the homeowner, when the dog lawfully charge and defended his house. Im not saying the officer should be charge with anything, right now, I don't know. 

I was trying to point out poorly at that, if the homeowner had done what appears was in is rights and returned fire and shot or killed this officer, he would have been hungout to dry. He had far more reason to shoot the officer then the officer had in shooting the dog from what I have to go on so far. The officer states he was in fear for his life and shot the chained dog… Ok well Mr Currie states the officer said he was going to blow his head off… A bit more threatening then a chained dog.

Fortunately for the officer the homeowner had better threat management skills then the young officer. 

*The main point is in killing their dog the officer escalated this from an error on someones part…. a non story, to what could have been human life loss. *The bad policy of departments all over the country of shoot animals first claim life threat and move on IS NOT HONORABLE and should not be followed. _Bad policy in any service should be bent or disregarded by anyone that has any honor at all_.

@ the spud from Idaho. I always wonder if the good honorable officers that are leveraged for the ones that deserve no respect, ever get offended. Why use the honor of the good ones to blanket the ding dongs..?? Didn't mean to rise you. I always see the husband, brothers, sister, wifes, cousins, uncles, roommate chime in with "the utmost respect for" when discussing one bonehead. It makes it appear that because they choose this profession there should be a lot of lenience with bad behavior. Surely you don't respect the ding dongs the one's we are talking about that make the ones your talking about look bad. I saw the lose respect for all cops.. I think on reflection and out of the un justifed killing of an innocent dog the words "all" where not really ment.

@LEO's

Thank you for your service, ****** (pre edited) Job and rewarding, Im sure at the same time. You chose this job, I appreciate all of you that do your job well everyday and try to do the right thing. In no way do I wish to demin (sp?) you. I know nurse's and doctors etc. get up out of bed at 3am to go save lifes of people that they don't know, as well with risk, albeit much much less then what you face but never the less with risk. When I see stuff like this it errks me. If this is in a thread by itself its Yeh and right on, thats right!!. But its usually found where the possible bad ones had, screwed the pooch. (not sure if that needed to pre edited). 

@Damaya

I withdraw my edited "numb thinges" comment pending who's error. I didn't think about the dispatch or RP being in error regarding the address. Indeed it may go that direction as It looked like a very easy identification of which property via the clearly numbered address on the big mail box in the driveway.


----------



## idahospud49

Seer said:


> @ the spud from Idaho. I always wonder if the good honorable officers that are leveraged for the ones that deserve no respect, ever get offended. Why use the honor of the good ones to blanket the ding dongs..?? Didn't mean to rise you. I always see the husband, brothers, sister, wifes, cousins, uncles, roommate chime in with "the utmost respect for" when discussing one bonehead. It makes it appear that because they choose this profession there should be a lot of lenience with bad behavior. Surely you don't respect the ding dongs the one's we are talking about that make the ones your talking about look bad. I saw the lose respect for all cops.. I think on reflection and out of the un justifed killing of an innocent dog the words "all" where not really ment.
> 
> @LEO's
> 
> Thank you for your service, ****** (pre edited) Job and rewarding, Im sure at the same time. You chose this job, I appreciate all of you that do your job well everyday and try to do the right thing. In no way do I wish to demin (sp?) you. I know nurse's and doctors etc. get up out of bed at 3am to go save lifes of people that they don't know, as well with risk, albeit much much less then what you face but never the less with risk. When I see stuff like this it errks me. If this is in a thread by itself its Yeh and right on, thats right!!. But its usually found where the possible bad ones had, screwed the pooch. (not sure if that needed to pre edited).
> 
> @Damaya


The ding dongs of all professions are the ones that you really want to throttle, because somehow that is all society hears about. I think what irks me is the people who hate ALL of a certain type of person, whether it is cops, soldiers, Catholics, Mormons, teachers, little grey people , whatever because they only hear medias side of how "horrible" these people are. I could make some random statistic and throw it in there, but for every idiot cop, teacher, or whatever there are a ton more that truly believe in what they are doing and what to do good. I definitely don't think that the bad of any one individual in a group should outweigh the good that the rest is doing. Punish the individual, not the profession (or whatever) as a whole. Does that make sense? Makes sense in my head, but I have come to realize my brain doesn't relate to everyone else the same!


----------



## msvette2u

Not to mention, LEOs are probably the people (other than bill collectors) who take the worst humanity has to dish out, day after day, traffic stops to warrants, etc. 
Their lives are on the line from the time they clock in until when they clock out. Some, even after the shift has ended and they're heading home. Most, merely because they wear the uniform. 
And all some people want to do is (to borrow a phrase) "hate on them" more.


----------



## Seer

*Our brains align..*



idahospud49 said:


> Punish the individual, not the profession (or whatever) as a whole. Does that make sense? Makes sense in my head, but I have come to realize my brain doesn't relate to everyone else the same!


Our brains align with that.. And its probably a good thing your brain does not relate to most in this world right now.. look around. Right


----------



## idahospud49

Seer said:


> Our brains align with that.. And its probably a good thing your brain does not relate to most in this world right now.. look around. Right


Very true!!! There is some scary thinking going on out there now.


----------



## Draugr

wildo said:


> Jax08- depends on the state. In Indiana, there is a castle law which means you have the right to use lethal force to protect you and yours. However, I did hear that a law was recently passed allowing police officers to enter your home without cause in Indiana. I'm not sure if that's true or not, but that's what I was told.
> 
> EDIT-
> 
> Castle Law in Indiana
> Police may UNLAWFULLY enter...


From what I read of that situation, that's how it's always been - it was just codified to say that you can't assault police if they unlawfully break into your home - that needs to be hashed out in the courts, later. You won't be justified for fighting police due to an unlawful break-in. It wasn't so much a law being passed as it was the courts saying "okay, this is what you can and can't do when a cop comes into your home." Which, given our hybridized common law system - is basically the same as passing a law, but, still.

So, police are still not allowed to unlawfully enter your home. You are just not allowed to violently resist if they do. The courts take care of that, later.

That may have been another case I was reading about, but I think that was the Indiana situation, IIRC.



Seer said:


> The sadist part of this story is that Mr Currie would have lost even more had he done the right thing and returned fire on this oh so brave officer.... Your at the wrong house you are murdering someones chained pet... The officer will receive a slap on the rest because its policy to open fire with the most minuscule amount of justification and kill everyones pet here on this forum and every other. Thats wrong. Period


How on earth is this the right thing??? Why would you even say that???

Killing a human being won't bring back the poor dog. And you won't ever be owning another one any time soon, either, unless your prison has a fostering system in place.

Might does not make right, and revenge is not the answer. Violence is necessary only when protecting life/limb...vigilante justice is never the answer.

~

Bottom line is...police forces across the country *really* need to have mandatory training on how to handle dog-related situations. Reading canine body language, etc, things like that. There are what - 80 million owned dogs in this country? Something like that? I can't remember the ASPCA's most recent statistic on that. That's one dog for every 4 people (slightly less than 4, I rounded up).


----------



## Seer

*Woah Tiger where do you see revenge...?*

I and you and everyone else has the right not be killed in error and or on purpose in error. If Im in your house in error and firing weapons at you and yours, in error, and you get the drop on me to protect yourself, I would haunt from the grave anyone that tried to vilify you. You had the right to stop me from hurting you and yours, I was in error.... Simple as that.


RE: Might does not make right, and revenge is not the answer. *Violence is necessary only when protecting life/limb*...vigilante justice is never the answer.

Adorable and right on with my views but not even close to what my point was. Only the middle sentance applies.
~


----------



## Seer

Correction take the only out. Seems fair that if your in my house trying to steal my TV that the right to break a couple bones as your escorted to the curb seems to be a fair trade, but that me be just me...


----------



## GregK

Seer said:


> Correction take the only out. Seems fair that if your in my house trying to steal my TV that the right to break a couple bones as your escorted to the curb seems to be a fair trade,


Right! Both hands.


----------



## hobbsie711

Draugr said:


> Bottom line is...police forces across the country *really* need to have mandatory training on how to handle dog-related situations. Reading canine body language, etc, things like that. There are what - 80 million owned dogs in this country? Something like that? I can't remember the ASPCA's most recent statistic on that. That's one dog for every 4 people (slightly less than 4, I rounded up).



Here is the problem. I have owned dogs all my life. I understand the body language. In a dark garage on a hot call when you suddenly hear barking and realize that your in the same space with a dog who may be angry, vicious, diseased and perfectly capable of inflicting serious injury. You have a few seconds to identify A. Where is the dog and B. Is it a threat. All the while having to make sure Mr Bad Guy isn't sneaking up on you. I would have been well within my rights to kill many dogs that I have not. Including one that was chained in a back yard (I was in a foot chase with a guy who had jumped out of a car I pulled over). Would the department have bought somebody a new dog? Probably. Would I have been punished? I sure hope not I was doing my job at the end of the day it's a crappy outcome but my well being comes before the welfare of that dog. I would have felt horrible about it down the road. 

A little perspective to explain why it seems we're quick on the trigger. If a human has a knife and is 21 feet away. The average human can close the distance on a person with a holstered gun and stab them before the other person can draw and fire their gun. Google the Tueller Drill. Now think about a dog instead of a human. It's safe to say the majority of dogs that would cause you to fear for your safety are faster than humans on their feet. 

Remember it's easy to sit here with 20/20 hind sight and judge what happened. I love my job and look forward to work most days but I spend the bulk of my time on a call making sure I don't get killed or maimed. 

This guy will probably catch some discipline if it was his fault for being in the wrong house (see my previous post for why it might not be his fault). The department will likely get the family a new dog or the money for one and I'm sure the officer will likely give the family an apology. I go back to however we don't know enough about this situation to make an informed call.


----------



## juliejujubean

what a terrible mix up.. my heart goes out to the family


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

There are two problems with line of thought below...

One the presumption that people are blaming the LEO profession, _entirely_.

Two the presumption that there is NOT some type of systemic problem (at least with some depts) wrt how officers handle dogs. 

A good LEO friend of mind told me his job would go from many hours of pure boredom to pure adrenaline in a matter of seconds. That's hard, not knowing what you will be facing from one second to the next, no doubt. I don't think anyone in their _correct _mind would presume that being a LEO is an easy job. 

I also have a client who is a recently retired LEO and a dog lover. We chatted about this issues a year or so ago and he himself told me there are ways to handle situations with dogs that some officers just don't want to be bothered with. So that reality does exist.

In other words there maybe ways to help prevent situations like this by using less lethal methods (such as a taser) and as such the discussion shouldn't be dismissed as some kind ad hominem attack on the LE.

(I'm not even going to touch a third aspect which alludes to something that treads to closely to pure politics for this forum IMO).




Seer said:


> _Our brains align with that.. And its probably a good thing your brain does not relate to most in this world right now.. look around. Right_





> Originally Posted by *idahospud49*
> _Punish the individual, not the profession (or whatever) as a whole. Does that make sense? Makes sense in my head, but I have come to realize my brain doesn't relate to everyone else the same!_


----------



## wildo

I was wondering why the officer didn't pull his taser over his gun. I wonder if that's a regional practice or something?


----------



## Seer

*To be even more clearer??*



Gwenhwyfair said:


> There are two problems with line of thought below...
> 
> Two the presumption that there is NOT some type of systemic problem (at least with some depts) wrt how officers handle dogs.
> 
> Im not sure if you read the entire thread here. So to be clear once again let me state for may be my third or fourth time.
> 
> The Problem Here Is Bad Policy. I think its clear from my posts on this topic that I believe there is a prolific problem meaning most depts, not just some, indicating a few.
> 
> In most homes, Im willing to bet for most readers of this forum, shooting one our pets is very close to pointing your weapon at one of our teenagers and pulling that trigger. This is the point I wish to make to the boots on the ground. The ones that can have an immediate effect to bad policy.
> 
> @hobbsie711
> 
> nervous to throw this out... because it looks like you get it, but the Tueller Drill the 21 yard rule, I don't believe is the right headset. If I have a knife as a human and Im moving towards you as an officer sure as **** its my intent to to end your life. If your not chambered theres a good chance Im wining that fight.
> 
> If you are poising this to illustrate the distraction that may get an officer killed from his/her attention being moved to a scuffle with a dog rather then the threat ...then, right this may be in my mind.
> 
> _"it's a crappy outcome but my well being comes before the welfare of that dog" _
> 
> This statement is a toughie for me. For me it brings up the double standard that you LEO and me non LEO have to live with. If I put a dog down by firearm and you answer that call, and I tell you the dog barked and growled at me then lunged so I drew my weapon and shot it in the head.
> 
> Im pretty sure we are not filing an incident report, shaking hands and Im on my way. Not to mince words but well being and life threating are very different and especially in the use of deadly force.
> 
> Again thanks for what you do. Thanks for the insight. End to hobbsie711
> 
> 
> To be clear again.. If in the coarse of doing what you have to do... LEO's have to put something that has a mother, down, f'n tragic as it may be, if its mine, I have to try and forgive you. If you screw the pooch and blow the call and make the wrong one in the coarse of a high stress sit.... again, i have to try to forgive you.
> 
> The policy that my pets life are of no value or little value and should be shot for convenience and move on, this to me is not forgivable and must be corrected. This is the pervasive policy as I see it right now.


----------



## hobbsie711

wildo said:


> I was wondering why the officer didn't pull his taser over his gun. I wonder if that's a regional practice or something?


Taser is a one pop shot. You fire and many times you don't have a second cartridge on you to try for a second shot. Not to mention even if you do have a reload it takes several seconds to reload. Additionally hitting a small (smaller than a human anyway) moving target with both prongs (only works if you hit with both) on a downward shot is extremely difficult. Essentially it's the same reason I don't taze a guy who is advancing on me with a knife. If I miss I get stabbed. If I miss I get bit and then I have to shoot the dog anyway and the dog is able to continue to attack until I can get my gun out. Bare in mind all of these option need to be weight, an option selected, and action taken inside of a couple of seconds. Everyone here has days to think of alternatives.

The department this officer works for may not issue tasers or may just not give them to all officers. Perhaps his was out for repair. An X-26 runs about $1000 last I checked



Seer said:


> @hobbsie711
> 
> nervous to throw this out... because it looks like you get it, but the Tueller Drill the 21 yard rule, I don't believe is the right headset. If I have a knife as a human and Im moving towards you as an officer sure as **** its my intent to to end your life. If your not chambered theres a good chance Im wining that fight.
> 
> *If you are poising this to illustrate the distraction that may get an officer killed from his/her attention being moved to a scuffle with a dog rather then the threat ...then, right this may be in my mind. *
> 
> _"it's a crappy outcome but my well being comes before the welfare of that dog" _
> 
> This statement is a toughie for me. For me it brings up the double standard that you LEO and me non LEO have to live with. If I put a dog down by firearm and you answer that call, and I tell you the dog barked and growled at me then lunged so I drew my weapon and shot it in the head.
> 
> *Im pretty sure we are not filing an incident report, shaking hands and Im on my way. Not to mince words but well being and life threating are very different and especially in the use of deadly force.*
> 
> Again thanks for what you do. Thanks for the insight. End to hobbsie711
> 
> *The policy that my pets life are of no value or little value and should be shot for convenience and move on, this to me is not forgivable and must be corrected.* This is the pervasive policy as I see it right now.


My gun is always chambered on duty the situation addresses a holstered gun. As for how I'm posing the situation, I'm posing it as if the dog gets to me before I kill it, it's possibly going to inflict great bodily injury upon me.

You are right if I respond to a scene where you have shot a dog in what you say is self defense I will take a report and then conduct an investigation if during the course of the investigation I determine that your use of force was not justified you may be charged with discharging a firearm in city limits and cruelty to animals. In this case the officer was in the wrong house (we still don't know why) and shot a dog presumably because he felt threatened by it. In my department if this happens I'm sitting in internal affairs inside of the next couple of hours being interviewed by a detective.

When I referred to my well being before I was implying the possibility of me being bitten the dog and being injured.

As for your pets not having any value. This is a broad statement and you are painting the LE community with a broad brush. Are there cops that would just assume shoot a dog as find an alternate means? Yep. Are all or the majority of cops like this? Not the ones I know. 

I don't agree that a dog is just property. Unfortunately in the eyes of the law in most places this is the case.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

*No no it's a bird it's a plane it's not a red herring!*

Yes I read your other comments and those of hobbsie. I also quoted the _specific comments_ that I was addressing for a reason. Same as you're addressing only one of my observations....

You're the one mixing metaphors here...not me. 

I still say most people get it and did not (need hobbsie) to have it spelled out for them. 

I'm just sorting a couple-O-rhetorical red herrings out of the kettle, that's all. 

(btw In red below, I love my dogs very much and would be heart broken had this happened to my dog. Yet, I really would not be as grief stricken as you indicate in your comparison....you see??)





Seer said:


> Gwenhwyfair said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two problems with line of thought below...
> 
> Two the presumption that there is NOT some type of systemic problem (at least with some depts) wrt how officers handle dogs.
> 
> 
> 
> Im not sure if you read the entire thread here. So to be clear once again let me state for may be my third or fourth time.
> 
> The Problem Here Is Bad Policy. I think its clear from my posts on this topic that I believe there is a prolific problem meaning most depts, not just some, indicating a few.
> 
> In most homes, Im willing to bet for most readers of this forum, shooting one our pets is very close to pointing your weapon at one of our teenagers and pulling that trigger. This is the point I wish to make to the boots on the ground. The ones that can have an immediate effect to bad policy.
> 
> <snipped>
> To be clear again.. If in the coarse of doing what you have to do... LEO's have to put something that has a mother, down, f'n tragic as it may be, if its mine, I have to try and forgive you. If you screw the pooch and blow the call and make the wrong one in the coarse of a high stress sit.... again, i have to try to forgive you.
> 
> The policy that my pets life are of no value or little value and should be shot for convenience and move on, this to me is not forgivable and must be corrected. This is the pervasive policy as I see it right now.
Click to expand...


----------



## cuttingedge

I should probably not even comment but I feel that I have to throw my two cents in here. I am not an LEO but am a Firefighter that deals with Police all of the time. I have friends that are cops and a future brother in-law. Now that I got that out there I respect the job that they do and have great respect for the ones that I know personally. I am however saddened by reading stories like this as it tarnishes the reputation of these brave people that are out there to protect us. What I don’t understand is how in the age of technology that we live in you could show up at the wrong house? That is a really bad situation for many reasons one of which is if you are at the house across the street by accident and the person of interest is at the other house they could easily “take off” or shoot at the officer without any warning. If I were a police officer you better believe that I would make sure that I responded to the right address especially for the safety of myself and partner. Then to shoot a dog that is barking/ lunging at you? Well there have been many times that I have entered into houses and peoples dogs barked or lunged at me and I simply took a step back or put something between myself and the dog. I know that sometimes this is not a viable option but maybe we need to get more training on entering houses? I know that the police are trained differently but as a firefighter we are instructed to identify ourselves upon entering a house. If we hear someone shoot (which has happened) or a dog barking we back up and assess the situation before proceeding. I know that my dogs are my family and I would protect them in ANY situation. I don’t know what the law states where I am and I don’t much care. If someone comes into my house unidentified I will ask them to stop and identify themselves. If they come in shooting I am not going to ask but am going to return fire and a lot of it. It is my God given right to defend myself and I will do so. As for the dog park cop well I won’t even get into that because I don’t go to dog parks but I will say Eye for an Eye comes to mind.


----------



## Dainerra

technology isn't going to help in a situation like this. You get a 911 call from a neighbor. Neighbor says the incident is happening at 1924 Sycamore Street. Except that it's not, it's actually the nice on the next block, 1863 Elm Street, right across the backyard. 
There is no way for the officer to know that. He shows up at the address that he was given. 

Cops can't just step back and wait as you can as a fireman if there is an aggressive dog or gun shots being fired. It is the cops' job to go in and end the situation. My husband was a volunteer firefighter for many years and also worked as a cop. Believe me, the situations are entirely different. As a fireman, you step back and let the police get the dangerous situation under control. As a cop, you step back and let the firemen get the fire under control. 
A cop doesn't enter a burning building. A fireman doesn't get involved in a gun fight. The tools and training isn't there, hence we have 2 different jobs. 

Do we know that the officer didn't ID himself as a cop when he entered? If the cop broke in unannounced, having gotten the wrong address, and never ID'ed himself and he got shot? Then yes, I'd say "better judged by 12 than carried by 6"
However, cops don't generally go breaking down doors without saying "POLICE!!" for exactly that reason - they don't want to get shot.


----------



## Seer

*Good insight.*



hobbsie711 said:


> Taser is a one pop shot. You fire and many times you don't have a second cartridge on you to try for a second shot. Not to mention even if you do have a reload it takes several seconds to reload. Bare in mind all of these option need to be weight, an option selected, and action taken inside of a couple of seconds. Everyone here has days to think of alternatives.
> 
> The department this officer works for may not issue tasers or may just not give them to all officers. Perhaps his was out for repair. An X-26 runs about $1000 last I checked
> 
> I'm posing it as if the dog gets to me before I kill it, it's possibly going to inflict great bodily injury upon me.
> 
> You are right if I respond to a scene where you have shot a dog in what you say is self defense I will take a report and then conduct an investigation if during the course of the investigation I determine that your use of force was not justified you may be charged with discharging a firearm in city limits and cruelty to animals. In this case the officer was in the wrong house (we still don't know why) and shot a dog presumably because he felt threatened by it. In my department if this happens I'm sitting in internal affairs inside of the next couple of hours being interviewed by a detective.
> 
> When I referred to my well being before I was implying the possibility of me being bitten the dog and being injured.
> 
> As for your pets not having any value. This is a broad statement and you are painting the LE community with a broad brush. Are there cops that would just assume shoot a dog as find an alternate means? Yep. Are all or the majority of cops like this? Not the ones I know.
> 
> I don't agree that a dog is just property. Unfortunately in the eyes of the law in most places this is the case.


Good insight. Though my brush's is wide at this junction in time, I do realize thats not the whole and am glad to hear thats not the majority you know. 

I do understand we are going to hear about *every* dog LE shoot's and *never* about the ones that don't. That does make it hard to paint fairly. Indeed this is one place I hope Im wrong, but there is a lot of work that needs to be done to reduce what appears to be the disregard I spoke of.

Should be a no brainer....


----------



## muddypaw

Sad, Sad, SAd. I hope they at least try to compensate the homeowner. If not, then as the homeowner I would file a civil suit. 
My mom worked in Domestic Violence for 30 years. In fact, she founded the FIRST women's shelter in the state of Missouri. She spent MUCH of her time training police on how to properly handle a DV call. It made a world of difference. I bet this County doesnt do that kind of training.


----------



## Seer

Dainerra said:


> technology isn't going to help in a situation like this. You get a 911 call from a neighbor. Neighbor says the incident is happening at 1924 Sycamore Street. Except that it's not, it's actually the nice on the next block, 1863 Elm Street, right across the backyard.
> There is no way for the officer to know that. He shows up at the address that he was given.
> 
> Do we know that the officer didn't ID himself as a cop when he entered?
> 
> Was trying to follow the story through, where did you see it was in fact an error with the reporting person? I didnt hear that yet. Mrs Currie said he was outside the window way away from the garage. I didnt hear he went inside after shooting the dog unannounced.. Please throw up those links where you found this info.
> 
> Thanks


----------



## cuttingedge

Dainerra said:


> technology isn't going to help in a situation like this. You get a 911 call from a neighbor. Neighbor says the incident is happening at 1924 Sycamore Street. Except that it's not, it's actually the nice on the next block, 1863 Elm Street, right across the backyard.
> There is no way for the officer to know that. He shows up at the address that he was given.
> 
> Cops can't just step back and wait as you can as a fireman if there is an aggressive dog or gun shots being fired. It is the cops' job to go in and end the situation. My husband was a volunteer firefighter for many years and also worked as a cop. Believe me, the situations are entirely different. As a fireman, you step back and let the police get the dangerous situation under control. As a cop, you step back and let the firemen get the fire under control.
> A cop doesn't enter a burning building. A fireman doesn't get involved in a gun fight. The tools and training isn't there, hence we have 2 different jobs.
> 
> Do we know that the officer didn't ID himself as a cop when he entered? If the cop broke in unannounced, having gotten the wrong address, and never ID'ed himself and he got shot? Then yes, I'd say "better judged by 12 than carried by 6"
> However, cops don't generally go breaking down doors without saying "POLICE!!" for exactly that reason - they don't want to get shot.


I am sorry but i disagree with most of what you said. If a cop enters into a house and there are shots fired or a dog barking he / she better assess the situation and his surroundings before proceeding. Not taking the second(s) to assess could be disasturous. Don't tell me about cops doing a firemans jobs and vice versa. Around here there have been many instances of police entering into burning buildings as well as FF's entering houses and being shot at and or greeted with fists or nasty dogs. There was one instance were we were covering another town and entered into a known drug house that we thought was vacant and it was on fire. upon entry one of two thugs that had a gun came toward us and one of our guys was almost taken hostage by a drugged out maniac. we thought about what to do and the COPS were not there to help us. We took matters into our own hands and when the guy turned around to see what was going on behind him a few of us took action and neutralized the threats. when the cops arrived and took statements they proceeded to tell us how stupid that was and to let them do their jobs. Well had we done that one or more of our brothers may have ended up dead.


----------



## Seer

*Thanks for sorting things out. How sweet.*



> I still say most people get it and did not (need hobbsie) to have it spelled out for them.
> 
> I'm just sorting a couple-O-rhetorical red herrings out of the kettle, that's all.
> 
> (btw In red below, I love my dogs very much and would be heart broken had this happened to my dog. Yet, I really would not be as grief stricken as you indicate in your comparison....you see??)



Ohhh... I think I get YOU clearly. I do thank hobbsie for a better understanding from someone that has to deal with this stuff often, and especially for spelling it out for the slower of us. Im not all knowing, but will try to catch up to your level, if thats possible. 

I do believe, more then less, people love their animals almost as much as their kids. Thats been my life experience. But again It appears Ill have to try and catch up to your level understanding. 

For most people that bond runs deep. I think grief stricken might be more appropriate for many, and thats what makes this such an important thing to address. 

Its is true as well that a simple moment of mourning and pull out the classifieds and find another 50 dollar dog to replace the last one, might be all the is needed, for some thats is enough, to just move on.

Thanks for sorting things out. How sweet.


----------



## jetscarbie

I thought LE always had to announce when they were entering some one's house. Even on COPS, when they enter a house they yell "Police" Even on those other shows where they go to bust a drug house or serve a warrant on a dangerous criminal....they yell "Police" when they bust down the door.

Anybody ever watch "Jail"? They had a girl on the other night who was arrested. She was yelling that the police shot her dog....that was chained up in the garage.
The whole reason the police were there in the first place....to serve a warrant on the girl's brother for having an un-neutered dog.

I'm sure there was more to the story...but that's all I could make out b/c the woman was screaming so loud.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Hey....I was just calling you out on an ad hominem, nuttin' personal. 

hehehe.

I love my dogs very much, but if it came between pulling my kids, or sister, or mother out of a burning car....I'd pull them out FIRST then if I could, yeah I'd probably put myself at risk to save my dog.

I do agree with the comment highlighted in red below as well, it spans the spectrum....


Oh and you're welcome, back at 'cha. :wild:

(seriously, nothing personal intended. I belong to a couple of debate forums....so I get you clearly too... ya know.  )





Seer said:


> Ohhh... I think I get YOU clearly. I do thank hobbsie for a better understanding from someone that has to deal with this stuff often, and especially for spelling it out for the slower of us. Im not all knowing, but will try to catch up to your level, if thats possible.
> 
> I do believe, more then less, people love their animals almost as much as their kids. Thats been my life experience. But again It appears Ill have to try and catch up to your level understanding.
> 
> For most people that bond runs deep. I think grief stricken might be more appropriate for many, and thats what makes this such an important thing to address.
> 
> Its is true as well that a simple moment of mourning and pull out the classifieds and find another 50 dollar dog to replace the last one, might be all the is needed, for some thats is enough, to just move on.
> 
> Thanks for sorting things out. How sweet.


----------



## Seer

Ahh debate club, like band camp in high school, how fun.

Serious and dangerous topic I was not thinking fun... Fair enough. But as long as I bit... 

My quoted comment in your example was indeed not ad hominem. My comment and the other was a straight insult to many that surround us and who walk and live there life's asleep. I was not countering any argument with this comment. Just a blanket insulting statement.

People introducing impressive-sounding Latin terms like "ad hominem" in complete error in a actual debate club, in an attempt to make oneself shine, will indeed perform the opposite. 

Again a statement not an attack on you per say.. but not in order to avoid the countering of your argument, not ad hominem. 

I may be wrong but this is my recollections from high school debate. its been a while but it was a good class, lots of cute girls, I was really surprised when I saw the sign up line. 

As my attention was not always with the teacher. I could be in error.

That was fun... Maybe I did pay a little attention?

PM me if you don't mind with some beginner debate site's for someone of my skill level its clear I could use a tune up.


----------



## Tim Connell

Courtney said:


> I have a overwhelming amount of respect for law enforcement officers & believe most of them are squared away and take their jobs seriously.
> 
> I do believe tragic stories like this are not the norm. I have lost respect for most media outlets who chose to sometimes only publish stories showing the awful mistakes/abuse of LEO.
> 
> Do you have ANY idea how many lives are saved every single day across the US by a outstanding police officer? I wish those stories were out there more...



@ Courtney and the other supporters on here: Thank you.

Most of the LEO's on here, myself included will usually avoid commenting on these threads that usually deteriorate quickly into "bash the police" unwinnable debates.

Various factors including not having all the facts, emotion based responses, and the armchair quarterback mentality of all the tactical and legal experts out there in cyberspace all lead to less than accurate conclusions of what did or might have happened.

Perhaps some of the *experts* should go through the hiring process and perhaps they could do a far better job.


----------



## Seer

Tim Connell said:


> @ Courtney and the other supporters on here: Thank you.
> 
> Most of the LEO's on here, myself included will usually avoid commenting on these threads that usually deteriorate quickly into "bash the police" unwinnable debates.


I think this is one of the ones that has not. For me its important to understand what the thought process's are before during and after taking someones pet's life. 

If you talk to your K9 officers in your dept. I would be willing to bet, that they, like most protection dog trainers, feel they can back down 75-85 percent of all dogs including GSD from an attack or bite even in their own home.

By not engaging we cant possibly understand why you feel it was necessary to use deadly force on our pets. Thats important... Most dogs don't want to bite, they have to be trained to bite and many just wont. 

For me its about what needs to get done or what training needs to happen so that the number of peoples pets killed by an officers actions drop dramatically. That seems like a real good focus to me. 

I don't want your job.. So you wont see me in recruitment. But it is fair to attempt to look into and try and reduce the number of times our pets are shot. Even for pure selfish reasons like public perception LE should be working on reducing that number.


----------



## Seer

Tim Connell said:


> @ Courtney and the other supporters on here: Thank you.
> 
> Most of the LEO's on here, myself included will usually avoid commenting on these threads that usually deteriorate quickly into "bash the police" unwinnable debates.


I think this is one of the ones that has not. For me its important to understand what the thought process's are before during and after taking someones pet's life. 

If you talk to your K9 officers in your dept. I would be willing to bet, that they, like most protection dog trainers, feel they can back down 75-85 percent of all dogs including GSD from an attack or bite even in their own home.

By not engaging we cant possibly understand why you feel it was necessary to use deadly force on our pets. Thats important... Most dogs don't want to bite, they have to be trained to bite and many just wont. 

For me its about what needs to get done or what training needs to happen so that the number of peoples pets killed by an officers actions drop dramatically. That seems like a real good focus to me. 

I don't want your job.. So you wont see me in recruitment. But it is fair to attempt to look into and try and reduce the number of times our pets are shot. Even for pure selfish reasons like public perception LE should be working on reducing that number.


----------



## Tim Connell

Based on observations made during my career, I would surmise that most LEO's use great restraint and abide by the law and their respective agency policies and procedures with regard to use of force issues.

Most utilize good judgement, and as such, we don't hear about those cases as often. Force related cases are often popular in the news media, as controversial material is what catches people's attention.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Smashing the olive branch I offered to smithereens an intelligent response does not make.

Well, what we have here is an I.E. on this topic and should one DARE to disagree be prepared for the wrath of Seer.

A serious topic that will *not *be solved by your lecturing and condenscending attitude where you presume a select few elite, who think exactly as you, are the only ones in their 'right' mind.

I had you pegged as a bully and I was correct.



Seer said:


> Ahh debate club, like band camp in high school, how fun.
> 
> Serious and dangerous topic I was not thinking fun... Fair enough. But as long as I bit...
> 
> My quoted comment in your example was indeed not ad hominem. My comment and the other was a straight insult to many that surround us and who walk and live there life's asleep. I was not countering any argument with this comment. Just a blanket insulting statement.
> 
> People introducing impressive-sounding Latin terms like "ad hominem" in complete error in a actual debate club, in an attempt to make oneself shine, will indeed perform the opposite.
> 
> Again a statement not an attack on you per say.. but not in order to avoid the countering of your argument, not ad hominem.
> 
> I may be wrong but this is my recollections from high school debate. its been a while but it was a good class, lots of cute girls, I was really surprised when I saw the sign up line.
> 
> As my attention was not always with the teacher. I could be in error.
> 
> That was fun... Maybe I did pay a little attention?
> 
> PM me if you don't mind with some beginner debate site's for someone of my skill level its clear I could use a tune up.


----------



## Jax08

Tim Connell said:


> Based on observations made during my career, I would surmise that most LEO's use great restraint and abide by the law and their respective agency policies and procedures with regard to use of force issues.
> 
> Most utilize good judgement, and as such, we don't hear about those cases as often. Force related cases are often popular in the news media, as controversial material is what catches people's attention.


Let's not discuss LEO's as a whole group. I don't think these instances represent LEO's as a whole. There are good and bad in every occupation. And even the good make bad judgement calls with the wrong information. 

But my bad judgement call in my field doesn't get someone killed, so....

Let's discuss THIS particular LEO and the fact that a gun was fired while at the WRONG address.

What are the citizen's rights to self defense when a person, regardless of occupation, comes into their home unlawfully and fires a gun? What is that citizen's rights in a civil court of law? What if that had been a child instead of a dog?

And who is held responsible for being at the wrong address to begin with? Somebody screwed up, screwed up bad, and somebody should be held accountable. 

You just can't shrug your shoulders and say 'oh, it was an LEO so it's all ok' Then the next time it happens an innocent person dies.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

For the record, I (the one being bashed the most in this thread at the moment) made a very similiar statement earlier in this thread.

Additionally, it goes both ways. You have people who jump to an automatic defense of LEOs and people who comment that this type of incident is all too common.







Tim Connell said:


> Based on observations made during my career, I would surmise that most LEO's use great restraint and abide by the law and their respective agency policies and procedures with regard to use of force issues.
> 
> Most utilize good judgement, and as such, we don't hear about those cases as often. Force related cases are often popular in the news media, as controversial material is what catches people's attention.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

To clarify my comment below further, what I mentioned earlier is the place I've found this story getting the most attention_ is on this forum_.

Not the local news stations. 




Gwenhwyfair said:


> For the record, I (the one being bashed the most in this thread at the moment) made a very similiar statement earlier in this thread.
> 
> Additionally, it goes both ways. You have people who jump to an automatic defense of LEOs and people who comment that this type of incident is all too common.


----------



## Seer

Jax08 said:


> And who is held responsible for being at the wrong address to begin with? Somebody screwed up, screwed up bad, and somebody should be held accountable.


Here's the video I spoke of earlier. Identification if the officer was given the right address looks to be a no brainer.


----------



## Jax08

Seer said:


> Here's the video I spoke of earlier. Identification if the officer was given the right address looks to be a no brainer.
> 
> Police shoot Dog for no Reason - Cop should not have even been at her home - YouTube


I really dont' want to get into a finger pointing session when there must be an investigation and not all the facts are out so I'm not even going to watch the video.

I want to hear from a LEO on what the civilian rights are in this case. That is my main concern.


----------



## Seer

Jax08 said:


> I really dont' want to get into a finger pointing session when there must be an investigation and not all the facts are out so I'm not even going to watch the video.


The video is her first hand account. Not finger pointing. The title is theirs not mine just to be clear, I didnt post her story. Just found it.

[/QUOTE] I want to hear from a LEO on what the civilian rights are in this case. That is my main concern.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Tim Connell

It is hard to give advice on a scenario where the FACTS are not known. Media and eyewitness accounts form only part of the picture. Leaping to conclusions based on emotional responses, limited facts or beliefs are what fuel the fire of controversy.

To determine relevant facts, a proper, unbiased investigation should occur.

This is where an Internal Investigation of the matter should occur, and procedural wrongdoing (if any) would theoretically be identified, and the appropriate action taken, as deemed necessary.

Any criminal aspects of a case, if identified, would be referred to the appropriate agency for potential prosecution.

There are also civil remedies available to the "damaged" parties alleged damages, regardless of the outcome of any internal or external investigations.


I do not leap to conclusions without taking an impartial look at all of the facts, circumstances, and evidence present, to reach a logical conclusion.


----------



## msvette2u

> Leaping to conclusions based on emotional responses, limited facts or beliefs are what fuel the fire of controversy.


Ah but then we'd have nothing to talk about


----------



## Mrs.K

That chain, you hear. You don't need to see it to hear that the dog is chained, even when the dog goes off. And if he was really standing where the woman said he was standing, the dog was NOT a threat to him.


----------



## Tim Connell

msvette2u said:


> Ah but then we'd have nothing to talk about


'Tis true. That's what brings some people out of the woodwork. :laugh:


----------



## Jax08

Tim Connell said:


> It is hard to give advice on a scenario where the FACTS are not known. Media and eyewitness accounts form only part of the picture. Leaping to conclusions based on emotional responses, limited facts or beliefs are what fuel the fire of controversy.
> 
> To determine relevant facts, a proper, unbiased investigation should occur.
> 
> This is where an Internal Investigation of the matter should occur, and procedural wrongdoing (if any) would theoretically be identified, and the appropriate action taken, as deemed necessary.
> 
> Any criminal aspects of a case, if identified, would be referred to the appropriate agency for potential prosecution.
> 
> There are also civil remedies available to the "damaged" parties alleged damages, regardless of the outcome of any internal or external investigations.
> 
> 
> I do not leap to conclusions without taking an impartial look at all of the facts, circumstances, and evidence present, to reach a logical conclusion.


I can respect that answer.


----------



## Mrs.K

I don't know... what more facts other than: *WRONG HOUSE, DOUBLE CHECK THE INFO BEFORE YOU GO OuT AND SHOOT A DOG! *Does anyone, honestly, need?


----------



## msvette2u

Mrs.K said:


> That chain, you hear. You don't need to see it to hear that the dog is chained, even when the dog goes off. And if he was really standing where the woman said he was standing, the dog was NOT a threat to him.


With all due respect, I watched the video, and I see that the dog is chained at the edge of the garage with plenty of room to rush out and even bite someone.
Either that or the chain is in the corner and it is indeed long enough for the dog to rush out. 
Everyone's hung up on the chain (no pun intended) and I'm just pointing out that it is a very long chain with room for the dog to even reach the door.


----------



## chelle

Aghh. I read the majority of posts on this thread, but not all of them, I will admit. I usually won't post on a thread that's this hot without reading them all, but I am not sure that I need to in this case.

With that said, I'm not a cop, but address screw ups happen. Easier than you think. As a person whose profession has been to "find" places, I know very, very well just how easy it is to have either: information given to you wrong OR to simply go to the wrong place. If you've never worked in a field where you are constantly going to new and unknown places, you won't understand that, you'll just point a finger and say, geez you're an idiot, you went to the wrong place. Go ahead and go out there and try to find 15, 20 different addys every day... and let me know how many times you have trouble. 

As far as shooting a chained dog. Ok that sounds horrible. But no one knows about the chain; how long was it? Was it in reaching distance of the cop? How was the dog behaving? I'm curious as to why a dog was chained in a garage. This makes me wonder if the dog had issues -- why else would you "chain" your dog in your own garage?

Still doesn't make it right by any stretch. But we don't know enough.

I can imagine this: Cop thinks he is where he is supposed to be. He's in a dark garage. There is a barking/snarling/growling dog lunging at the end of a chain that can likely reach him. He reacts, he shoots. What would you folks do? The cop was responding to a call, after all. Was he supposed to sit there and offer the dog biscuits? Especially if he felt he was in peril?

Again! We don't know enough.

Worst case scenario? This is a horrible, rotten cop who hates dogs and shot the dog just because he could. (Does that really sound legit?)

More realistic? (at least to me) Cop got bad directions or just plain screwed up the address, felt threatened by the dog and shot it to defend from being attacked. 

I don't know, but I'm certainly willing to entertain both sides of the argument, and I'm hoping more details will come about soon.


----------



## selzer

Mrs.K said:


> I don't know... what more facts other than: *WRONG HOUSE, DOUBLE CHECK THE INFO BEFORE YOU GO OuT AND SHOOT A DOG! *Does anyone, honestly, need?


I am not so sure it is a no-brainer, I wouldn't be so quick to judge. Usually, when someone thinks they have the right address, they do not consider it to be wrong. And if every cop went into every situation, with the thought in the back of their minds that this might be the wrong address, well, maybe more cops would not reach home at night. 

It is really easy for us to sit in our warm cozy homes, typing on our little safe computers, and examine a situation when it is done and over with and say, "he should have..."


----------



## msvette2u

> As a person whose profession has been to "find" places, I know very, very well just how easy it is to have either: information given to you wrong OR to simply go to the wrong place.


This is why, when awaiting an ambulance, dispatchers often tell the callers to go outside and wait/flag the ambulance down.
My husband is a medic and I completely agree w/the above!


----------



## GSDolch

selzer said:


> I am not so sure it is a no-brainer, I wouldn't be so quick to judge. Usually, when someone thinks they have the right address, they do not consider it to be wrong. And if every cop went into every situation, with the thought in the back of their minds that this might be the wrong address, well, maybe more cops would not reach home at night.
> 
> It is really easy for us to sit in our warm cozy homes, typing on our little safe computers, and examine a situation when it is done and over with and say, "he should have..."



Gotta say I kinda agree with Mrs. K. This could have easily been me. My neighbors moved out and that night the cops came to raid their house. Their place was dark, so they assumed that it was my house. What is worse is that there was NOTICES on their place with their names and addressed on it. But because there was no one there, they assumed.

If the dogs had not alerted us to them being there, them behaving and not trying to go out the windows or doors saved us from them breaking down my door.

It doesn't take that long to double check. More so if they are not sure.

I didn't like going out in my nightgown at 1am to "We thought that it might have been that house but wasn't sure." I was furious.


----------



## selzer

Mistakes happen. Lots of times all the numbers are no longer on the mailbox. Sometimes people invert a set of numbers. The number of my house is 2541, the number of one of my newest puppy buyers is 2451 (different street and city). But I had to look at it almost four times to actually see that it actually was two different numbers. 

I know when you carry a gun, you have to be more careful. But the act of carrying a gun or the application of the badge to the uniform, does not make these individuals super-human. It does not make them immune to errors. 

Being angry about this is doing nobody any good. Most likely the officer who shot the dog feels worse than all the rest of us. But at the end of the day, he made a mistake. I would rather save up the animosity I have for police officers who abuse their power, and do things that are shady. I see what this guy did as a tragic accident. Poor dog. Move on. Sure the pet owner will be angrier and grieve for her dog. But are we just using the incident to go to town on a cop? I guess I am not really surprised we are on page nine.


----------



## msvette2u

selzer said:


> Mistakes happen. Lots of times all the numbers are no longer on the mailbox. Sometimes people invert a set of numbers. The number of my house is 2541, the number of one of my newest puppy buyers is 2451 (different street and city). But I had to look at it almost four times to actually see that it actually was two different numbers.
> 
> I know when you carry a gun, you have to be more careful. But the act of carrying a gun or the application of the badge to the uniform, does not make these individuals super-human. It does not make them immune to errors.
> 
> Being angry about this is doing nobody any good. Most likely the officer who shot the dog feels worse than all the rest of us. But at the end of the day, he made a mistake. I would rather save up the animosity I have for police officers who abuse their power, and do things that are shady. I see what this guy did as a tragic accident. Poor dog. Move on. Sure the pet owner will be angrier and grieve for her dog. * But are we just using the incident to go to town on a cop?* I guess I am not really surprised we are on page nine.


:thumbup:


----------



## The Packman

cuttingedge said:


> What I don’t understand is how in the age of technology that we live in you could show up at the wrong house?


I live in the sticks on a main road and I am involved in a dispute with the director of the local E-911, that has been going on for almost 3 years now. Because of a improper subdivision, I share the same address with 3 house on a completely different street that abuts my property. They are down a dirt road and designated 1000 B, 1000 C, 1000 D.

Since I bought my house, I have had all kinds of unwanted guest including a police officer looking to serve a warrant on my neighbor. One time when I accidentally called 911 and hung up, the police went to my neighbors house.

When the county mayor became involed the problem was suppose to be fixed but never was, despite the director telling the mayor it had. The reason I beleive the guy won't change the address is because he does not want me challenging his authority. There is no other logical reason why, when safety is involed and it would be a simple matter to just give those houses a lot # as all the rest of the houses on the dirt road have.

I was letting it go because I was tired of making myself a pain in the ass but after reading this thread, I am going to again pursue a remedy.


----------



## msvette2u

Technology!?? That just makes it worse!
GPS gets more people lost on their way to our place to adopt a dog than anything else!
And they can't be lost, right, because "We used our GPS!"
When you live in the boonies, GPS is useless.


----------



## Mrs.K

Honestly, what's even more scary than shooting the dog was that he said to the pet-owner "I'll blow your brain out."
That sounds to me that he was set on using that gun way to easily.


----------



## Mrs.K

> I know when you carry a gun, you have to be more careful. But the act of carrying a gun or the application of the badge to the uniform, does not make these individuals super-human. It does not make them immune to errors.


Only... that most of the time, somebody ends up DEAD when they do errors. But hey, it's just human, right?


----------



## Jax08

chelle said:


> I can imagine this: Cop thinks he is where he is supposed to be. He's in a dark garage. There is a barking/snarling/growling dog lunging at the end of a chain that can likely reach him. He reacts, he shoots. What would you folks do? The cop was responding to a call, after all. Was he supposed to sit there and offer the dog biscuits? Especially if he felt he was in peril?
> 
> Again! We don't know enough.
> 
> Worst case scenario? This is a horrible, rotten cop who hates dogs and shot the dog just because he could. (Does that really sound legit?)
> 
> More realistic? (at least to me) * Cop got bad directions or just plain screwed up the address,* felt threatened by the dog and shot it to defend from being attacked.
> 
> I don't know, but I'm certainly willing to entertain both sides of the argument, and I'm hoping more details will come about soon.


And this is where I am stuck at. The problem as I see it is not the dog that got shot, as horrible as that is, but the fact that the LEO was at the WRONG house. This could have turned into a much, much worse tragedy. So, my question is still, what safeguards are in place for an innocent person to protect themselves and recourse for the dead dog? What safeguards are going to be in place for this police force to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Mistakes happen. Domestic calls are the most dangerous a LEO can go in to. There is already stress...so how to make it so the the mistakes are not an issue?

But maybe my engineering brain says, "Here is the problem. What is the solution?"


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

_(I know I shouldn't)_ IMO Mrs K. is hitting the key points.

A comment in general-

Everyone certainly is entitled to express their POV but two things that keep cropping up that simply are assumptions at best are:

A - The media is driving some sort of frenzy about this story is false. I've been watching the local media as much as I can and this story is not being replayed over and over. Frankly, in a large urban market like Atlanta ...a dog being shot (though very very sad...) isn't ranking real high on the news meter here. 

B - People who feel the police officer/police dept could have done better and are critiquing this incident *be they right or wrong* aren't doing so to bash police, police depts, or the police officers involved. They don't automatically 'hate' LEOs just because they feel passionate about this incident.

It's seems impossible, at times, to discuss incidents like this without some folks coming along and imputing the worst of others because they have different POVs.

Really, would we all drop dead for saying, once and awhile, to the other guy...'maybe you have a point there'.......


----------



## Jax08

Mrs.K said:


> Honestly, what's even more scary than shooting the dog was that he said to the pet-owner "I'll blow your brain out."
> That sounds to me that he was set on using that gun way to easily.


I really doubt the LEO said "I'll blow your brain out". I really want to see the rest of the facts before the LEO gets hung in the court of GSD.com.


----------



## Mrs.K

Jax08 said:


> I really doubt the LEO said "I'll blow your brain out". I really want to see the rest of the facts before the LEO gets hung in the court of GSD.com.


I can easily believe it. I'm not saying that he did but I can easily believe it. There are just way too many bad apples out there and if you've seen one or two in action you can easily believe that there are others that might just do the same idiotic things. I take it with a grain of salt but I wouldn't be so quick to disregard it either.


----------



## jetscarbie

The people said they "rescued" that dog. He was scared and had been an outside dog so they were keeping him chained in the garage until he became use to everything.

They hoped to breed him with their dog.

The cop said he shot the dog b/c he feared to much slack in the chain.



> The dog was shot in the head by an officer who responded to the wrong address for a domestic disturbance call in the neighborhood. In the report, the officer said the dog was chained when it charged him, but he shot it because he feared there was enough slack in the chain for the dog to be able to reach him





> *"Due to the aggressive nature of the dog, and its close proximity, I was in fear for my life and discharged my firearm," the officer wrote*


DEKALB | Officer shot dog fearing extra chain slack | 11alive.com


----------



## jetscarbie

"[Easy] loved the yard, he loved the outdoors," said Rev. Anthony Currie. "And although we had him chained up, we walked that dog daily." 

Easy had been rescued by the Curries from an abusive home, and they had been trying to get him comfortable inside the house without a chain. They hoped he would have puppies with their other dog. 

"I'm gonna miss my baby," said Rev. Bobby Currie, Anthony's wife and fellow pastor. "We saved him from abuse, and then he had to die so brutally." 

Police confirmed the call came from the house across the street from the Currie family. Anthony says the officer told him his dog had been lunging at him in the street. But Currie said the officer parked on an adjacent street and entered their yard on the opposite side of the property from the garage . They said the officer fired a single shot at the dog's head, even though its chain wouldn't allow it past the driveway. Despite cleaning their driveway Wednesday morning, there was still evidence of the dog's remains a few feet from the front doorstep. 
CONLEY | Police Officer Shoots Family Dog | 11alive.com


----------



## Mrs.K

jetscarbie said:


> The people said they "rescued" that dog. He was scared and had been an outside dog so they were keeping him chained in the garage until he became use to everything.
> 
> They hoped to breed him with their dog.
> 
> The cop said he shot the dog b/c he feared to much slack in the chain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DEKALB | Officer shot dog fearing extra chain slack | 11alive.com


Now it's slack in the chain and before it was "the dog was unchained"?



> *"Due to the aggressive nature of the dog, and its close proximity, I was in fear for my life and discharged my firearm," the officer wrote*


standard answer...


----------



## msvette2u

There was a boatload of slack in that chain from the vid I watched. He could easily have reached the door/porch. The woman said he was over by that window, he was probably retreating as he shot. 
If it was dark, this is very plausible. 

Life sucks sometimes. This is one of those times.


----------



## jetscarbie

The only problem I have....a cop's mistake can be deadly. Just because he's a cop, still doesn't excuse his mistake. Do I think he should be fired or any of that....no. BUT I do think they should use his mistake to up the training on these cops and the handling of private citizen's pets. 
There has to be some kind of checks and balances here.

Just because somebody is a cop...doesn't mean they don't have the same responsible we all do. They can't become judge, jury, and executioner of people's pets just b/c a pet "may" look dangerous, or be on a chain, or bark or lunge. Or even if a criminal has a pet.

Just my 2 cents. Not meant as a bash against any profession.


----------



## msvette2u

Mrs.K said:


> Now it's slack in the chain and before it was "the dog was unchained"?
> 
> 
> standard answer...


And now the dog is a Golden Retriever, too.  



> The Currie family, who owned "Easy," the 2-year-old Golden Retriever,


I am so happy the news is doing justice to this story!


----------



## jetscarbie

msvette2u said:


> And now the dog is a Golden Retriever, too.
> 
> 
> 
> I am so happy the news is doing justice to this story!


HAHAHAHa, I didn't even notice the Golden Retriever bit.


----------



## Jax08

Mrs.K said:


> I can easily believe it. I'm not saying that he did but I can easily believe it. There are just way too many bad apples out there and if you've seen one or two in action you can easily believe that there are others that might just do the same idiotic things. I take it with a grain of salt but I wouldn't be so quick to disregard it either.


Because you have a ton of experience with LEO's here in the states or is this based on your experience in Germany? 

I'm asking because you seem to have a warped view of police here in the US and seem to jump in pointing fingers without all the facts being out, even before you moved here.


----------



## Mrs.K

Jax08 said:


> Because you have a ton of experience with LEO's here in the states or is this based on your experience in Germany?
> 
> I'm asking because you seem to have a warped view of police here in the US and seem to jump in pointing fingers without all the facts being out, even before you moved here.


Let's just say I know some cops and have them within my family. Not all of them out there are the finest the country has to offer. The same goes for Soldiers or Firefighters. 
*
I take it with a grain of salt but I am not disregarding it either*. I don't know how that is pointing fingers...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Mr Currie stated on camera the police officer did threaten him verbally, as noted a couple of times in this thread.

So is he lying?

Thus far all the family has asked for is an apology and to have their dog replaced. That's not an overly dramatic request.


----------



## jetscarbie

When I was researching about this dog's killing, I decided to look around and see how common it is.

OMG! Very common. Outrageous

Just to give you an idea.....all different stories but the results were all the same.


This family won some money for the death of their lab
Chicago police must pay 330k for killing dog in home raid | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

Here's a Golden
Cop shoots, kills family dog | ajc.com

Here's a pit
http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-offduty-cop-shoots-family-dog-20110301,0,203542.story

Here's a dash cam that actually shows a cop shoting a dog during a traffic stop...graphic




 
Here's another one that was shot in the back of the head....even though he was running towards the cop.
Wake deputy kills dog while searching for runaway teen :: WRAL.com

Here's a dobie that was shot in the backyard..
Owners Angry After Cops Shoot Dog in Backyard | NBC 6 Miami

Here's another where the dog was chained up. The family is now suing
Video Landing Page - KTUL.com - Tulsa, Oklahoma - Coverage You Can Count On

And...a lab that was shot
Answering alarm, Oakland police kill family dog

another dobbie
Family dog fatally shot by Port Authority police officer - National Pet Rescue | Examiner.com

There are thousands of them.


----------



## Jax08

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Mr Currie stated on camera the police officer did threaten him verbally, as noted a couple of times in this thread.
> 
> So is he lying?
> 
> Thus far all the family has asked for is an apology and to have their dog replaced. That's not an overly dramatic request.


I"m not going to say anyone is lying. I do think there are always 3 sides to a story. Stories get distorted with emotions involved and there must be a lot of emotion on both sides right now.


----------



## msvette2u

Gwenhwyfair said:


> and to have their dog replaced. That's not an overly dramatic request.


Well of course, they have to get right on that breeding program!


----------



## Dainerra

jetscarbie said:


> When I was researching about this dog's killing, I decided to look around and see how common it is.
> 
> OMG! Very common. Outrageous
> 
> There are thousands of them.


thousands isn't that many. How many dogs are in the US? How many police officers? How many cops encounter dogs in the course of their duty every day? Thousands is an tiny tiny percentage of that.


----------



## Mrs.K

I just wonder how other countries do it without shooting dogs on an almost daily basis...


----------



## GregK

Thousands are too many!!!


----------



## GregK

jetscarbie said:


> Here's a dash cam that actually shows a cop shoting a dog during a traffic stop...graphic
> Police shoot family dog over lost wallet - (Very graphic) - YouTube
> 
> .


Boy that little dog was such a threat. They really had to blow him away. :rolleyes2::rolleyes2::rolleyes2:

Pathetic!!!


----------



## wildo

Here is a very interesting read I found via google on New York City's 2009 police firearm discharge report: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/AFDR200920101101.pdf

Starting on page 45 is a section: "2009 ANNUAL FIREARMS DISCHARGE REPORT
INTENTIONAL DISCHARGE — ANIMAL ATTACK"

It defines an the intentional discharge as:


> INTENTIONAL DISCHARGE – ANIMAL ATTACK:
> when an officer intentionally discharges
> his or her firearm to defend against an
> animal attack


And concludes the section with:


> In 2009, police officers responded to more
> than 28,400 calls through 911 for incidents
> involving dogs and other animals. This number
> includes 4,531 complaints about vicious
> animals made through the 311 system. It
> does not account for incidents in which officers
> proactively encounter dogs or answer
> civilian complaints that were not processed
> through 911.
> From among more than 28,400 calls involving
> animals that thousands of officers responded
> to, as well as uncounted incidents
> in which officers came into contact with
> dogs or other animals, a total of 28 instances
> resulted in officers discharging their
> firearms.


So for New York City, that is .0986% chance of the cop shooting the dog. That said, I found this to be the most shocking part of the section (which is still referring to dog attacks):


> Only 9 percent of the reporting officers report
> utilizing their sights when discharging
> their firearm during these confrontations,
> which is dramatically fewer than the 31 percent
> of the reporting officers who used their
> sights during adversarial conflict.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I get what you are saying...but thus far the family has not been overly emotional as evidenced by their request for an apology and to replace the dog only.





Jax08 said:


> I"m not going to say anyone is lying. I do think there are always 3 sides to a story. Stories get distorted with emotions involved and there must be a lot of emotion on both sides right now.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

We run into a lot of people who are wanna be breeders (BYBs).....but I don't see how that's pertinent to the case.....




msvette2u said:


> Well of course, they have to get right on that breeding program!


----------



## Courtney

I agree...these homeowners are not to be blamed or judgement passed on them.


----------



## Dainerra

honestly, when it comes to me or the dog, yes, I'm going to shoot the dog. Might just be the way that I was brought up, but it's a fact of life. My safety and well-being is more important than the dog.


----------



## msvette2u

Dainerra said:


> honestly, when it comes to me or the dog, yes, I'm going to shoot the dog. Might just be the way that I was brought up, but it's a fact of life. My safety and well-being is more important than the dog.


Dogs are in the way when it comes to LEOs performing their duties. ANY situation can become life or death in the blink of an eye. If taking out a dog means saving their own lives (and quite possibly the other people on scene) then that's what they will do. 
LEOs are not ACOs. Never will be. Their priority is not to keep the pets on scene safe, it's their own safety and that of the general public (excluding 4 legged ones).

I had a situation where we had some very horrible dog owners who never licensed their pets, but just changed dogs when I'd find out they got another, and give them a verbal warning. Boom that dog is gone, and a month or so later another would be there.
So one day I decided, enough is enough. I went to their home where a new dog was wandering about, and proceed to knock on the door. Well the wife answered but hubby was home and I knew (from the past experiences) he was a problem. All the guys knew it too, because when I radioed I'd like some backup, one of the guys came screaming in, lights and sirens. He jumped out of his car, and came in the yard, and the dog was happy to see him (happy to see anyone!) and started to jump up on him.
The officer whipped out his pepper spray, and sprayed the dog in the face! 
The officer ended up having a toe-to-toe confrontation with the man, and just as slick as can be, the dog was out of the way. 

I asked him later why he sprayed the dog, and he said "I just washed this uniform and didn't want it to get dirty!"

That's just an LEO for ya. 

But in all honesty, that guy is a very nasty guy (still is) and can be violent and dangerous at times. I was glad for the back up and just took the spraying at face value. The dog was in the way and he got the dog out of the way.


----------



## Mrs.K

Still wonder how it's done in other countries where they don't shoot the dogs at any given time they start barking. All the dog has to do is bark and the officer can say "I felt threatened." over here and it's justified. 

You don't get to see that in the UK, Germany, Sweden, Finland or Denmark. How are they doing it? What are they doing different? 

Maybe it wouldn't be too bad to peek over into other countries. Cops out here rather use their weapon than their brains when it comes up to dogs. 

And you can't tell me that really every single dog owner is that irresponsible that shooting the pet is truly justified.


----------



## msvette2u

There's some reallllly irresponsible ones, as we've seen already in this thread.


----------



## Courtney

Dainerra said:


> honestly, when it comes to me or the dog, yes, I'm going to shoot the dog. Might just be the way that I was brought up, but it's a fact of life. My safety and well-being is more important than the dog.


Agree. This story is tough...honestly when I first read it I thought about my own dog being shot & killed...the emotion on that can take my breath away.

Take away the officer responding to the wrong address the call he was responding too happens all day long across the US...domestic violence calls, between husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, parent/child, etc. These calls are so dangerous to respond to. Sometimes the victim who actually called the police will turn on the officer once they arrive (officer killed in my parents township a few years ago in this case...the wife shot & killed the officer who responded, she is the one that called for help)...so many different situations where these calls can go bad really fast, both for the officer & victim & even accused.

An officer sometimes does not have the luxury to decide good dog/ bad dog...there is a human life that needs to be checked on/secured.


----------



## selzer

Mrs.K said:


> Honestly, what's even more scary than shooting the dog was that he said to the pet-owner "I'll blow your brain out."
> That sounds to me that he was set on using that gun way to easily.


I sometimes roll my eyes quite a bit with how sensitive folks are on this site. I did not grow up in a ghetto, just in the city (I am talking about when I was ten years and younger) and my mom came from a pretty rough situation. She used to call us every name in the book F-words preceding things that described other rather disgusting sexual acts, the n-word (we are not black, but she kind of used that word when we did something funny or whitty), and she often called us things like slutty pigs, as well as various parts of the human anatomy. Nothing was really left out. She told us she would kill us often -- we all knew that she would not or at least not unless we did something off the scale horrible. But it was a way of talking that was derived from her experience growing up. 

I think I would be safe in saying that my mother's brothers, and me and my siblings, would not not give a pile of poo if an officer said "Halt! I have a gun!" Or, "don't move!" Or "Hold it right there." Sorry, it is what it is. But if the cop said, "I'll blow your brains out!" we maybe would have thought he meant business. 

It was indicated that this was a rough neighborhood. If a cop says, I will blow your brains out, he rarely has to do it. If a cop says, "mister, could you please put your hands up where I can see them?" yeah, well he isn't going to live very long.

Less cops kill dogs than people kill cops. 

Maybe when you, not your family, are a police officer and you actually see one of the two people you went through police training with killed in their very first year, people who wanted to be police officers so they could help people, shot dead in a domestic dispute where some drunken idiot doesn't heed a simple command, maybe you can better judge whether or not an officer should say strong words. 

The first thing a police officer has to do is secure the scene, and remain safe themselves and try to keep the other people safe as well. If that means saying, "don't move or I'll blow your brains out!" I really don't have a problem with that. 

When I was ten years old, we moved to a very small town. My father gathered us around and told us, that the cops have nothing better to do out here than to chase after little punk kids. And while I was never arrested by any of them, I have talked to many, and they are all very professional when they talk to me because I am not a drunken idiot in the middle of criminal activity. 

The Rev. Curry probably was not either, but the officer at that point did not know what he was walking in on. In a rough neighborhood, they are going to use rough language that is very clear to the inhabitants.

And if you do not like the US, than maybe there is another country that you would prefer to go to. I find it really hard to take you constantly attacking the US. You are here, if you don't like it, move somewhere better.


----------



## Mrs.K

Honestly? I am not a very sensitive person but if somebody, doesn't matter if it is an officer, stands in front of me, pointing a weapon right into my face, saying "Get your hands up or I'll blow your brain out."
THAT'S NOT FUNNY and I'd probably pee my pants in the process!

That has nothing to do with being sensitive, Selzer.


----------



## Jax08

selzer said:


> And if you do not like the US, than maybe there is another country that you would prefer to go to. I find it really hard to take you constantly attacking the US. You are here, if you don't like it, move somewhere better.


Amen to that. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


----------



## selzer

How do other countries handle dogs???

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Dog cull in China to fight rabies

read it over 50,000 dogs, pets slaughtered.

we aren't so bad.


----------



## Mrs.K

selzer said:


> How do other countries handle dogs???
> 
> BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Dog cull in China to fight rabies
> 
> read it over 50,000 dogs, pets slaughtered.
> 
> we aren't so bad.


You don't take an example on those who do it worse, you take it on those who do it better in order to get better yourself and there certainly are countries out there that barely have any dog shooting incidents at all. And that is NOT attacking the US. 

It's merely critiquing unnecessary and excessive force and I'm not the only one critiquing it. It's a free country. I may just have a greencard but free speech applies to me just as much as it applies to you.


----------



## msvette2u

BTW that dog on the side of the road, the medium sized tan mutt that jumped out of the car?
Play out scenarios here. I don't know what the stop was for, but they called in multiple officers, the guys were on their knees it appeared, hands over their heads while the officers subdued and handcuffed. 
Play out the scenario - one of the cops (or maybe even 2, you know how dogs are) stop doing what they are doing to try to capture the dog. If those guys were suspected to be armed/dangerous, it could mean an officer's life, to take the focus off the people and put it on the dog.
Let's say they ignore the dog. It runs out into traffic. Now there's going to be a major pileup _right beside the officers and their suspects_, and could cost many people their lives. 

Either scenario could result in many human lives lost. A dog can be replaced. Humans cannot. 
When an officer is on scene, that is uppermost in his mind. He wants to get home safely and he wants everyone else (humans) to be safe as well.


----------



## msvette2u

Mrs.K said:


> You don't take an example on those who do it worse, you take it on those who do it better in order to get better yourself and there certainly are countries out there that barely have any dog shooting incidents at all. And that is NOT attacking the US.
> 
> It's merely critiquing unnecessary and excessive force and I'm not the only one critiquing it. It's a free country. I may just have a greencard but free speech applies to me just as much as it applies to you.



Then name those countries and give us the examples. I don't know where to look but you obviously do or you wouldn't be talking about it. 
Let us know how they aren't having to shoot pets.


----------



## Jax08

How many citizens in Germany euthanize their own dogs instead of taking them to a vet? I read an article about German breeders and their pension for euthanizing rather than spend the money to fix the dog. Can't find it now so if anyone else can, would greatly appreciate it.


----------



## Courtney

Not to sound curt but I don't care what other countries do in regards to their police training...our laws are different.


----------



## selzer

Mrs.K said:


> Honestly? I am not a very sensitive person but if somebody, doesn't matter if it is an officer, stands in front of me, pointing a weapon right into my face, saying "Get your hands up or I'll blow your brain out."
> THAT'S NOT FUNNY and I'd probably pee my pants in the process!
> 
> That has nothing to do with being sensitive, Selzer.


it does matter if it is an officer. if it is an officer, i comply, if it is not, then i am probably going to take a bullet.


----------



## Mrs.K

msvette2u said:


> BTW that dog on the side of the road, the medium sized tan mutt that jumped out of the car?
> Play out scenarios here. I don't know what the stop was for, but they called in multiple officers, the guys were on their knees it appeared, hands over their heads while the officers subdued and handcuffed.
> Play out the scenario - one of the cops (or maybe even 2, you know how dogs are) stop doing what they are doing to try to capture the dog. If those guys were suspected to be armed/dangerous, it could mean an officer's life, to take the focus off the people and put it on the dog.
> Let's say they ignore the dog. It runs out into traffic. Now there's going to be a major pileup _right beside the officers and their suspects_, and could cost many people their lives.
> 
> Either scenario could result in many human lives lost. A dog can be replaced. Humans cannot.
> When an officer is on scene, that is uppermost in his mind. He wants to get home safely and he wants everyone else (humans) to be safe as well.


If I remember correctly there was a robbery right before that. They stopped the wrong car because of a wallet and bills that were flying around. It was a traveling family, the police stopped them believing those were the criminals.


----------



## Mrs.K

selzer said:


> it does matter if it is an officer. if it is an officer, i comply, if it is not, then i am probably going to take a bullet.


ANYONE holding a gun pointblank into my face telling me they'll blow my brains out is a threat. No matter if it is an officer or not. And an officer going to the wrong house, doing that to the wrong person IS a threat.
Try to put yourself into the shoes of a lawabiding citizen. Your dog is wrongfully shot by an officer, now he's holding a gun to your face telling you to put your hands up or he'll blow your brain out and you have NO IDEA why he's doing it or what you did wrong.

You guys have issues with an officer to stop a car and to present an ID but a cop going to the wrong house, holding a gun to your face saying "I'll blow your brains out" seems to be perfectly normal... to me it's the other way around. I have no issues with presenting an ID whenever or wherever. If a cop wants to see it, they can see it. But holding a gun to my face without any frickin reason... that crosses a line.


----------



## LaRen616

selzer said:


> And if you do not like the US, than maybe there is another country that you would prefer to go to. I find it really hard to take you constantly attacking the US. You are here, if you don't like it, move somewhere better.


:thumbup:

I cant stand it when people bash my country, if you dont like it then leave!


----------



## Draugr

LaRen616 said:


> :thumbup:
> 
> I cant stand it when people bash my country, if you dont like it then leave!


So if you find a possible flaw, instead of pointing it out and attempting to improve it, it's better to just ignore it, flee the scene, let it sit there and fester?

Or at least discuss it and see whether it actually *is* a flaw or not?

No thanks. That sounds like a horrible place to live. I'll keep right on living in the good 'ol USA, where we have first amendment rights and the ability to point out what we think is wrong (and right!) with our governmental processes. Where there is a chance to improve things rather than just leave them be because, "if you don't like it, then leave."


----------



## selzer

Mrs.K said:


> You don't take an example on those who do it worse, you take it on those who do it better in order to get better yourself and there certainly are countries out there that barely have any dog shooting incidents at all. And that is NOT attacking the US.
> 
> It's merely critiquing unnecessary and excessive force and I'm not the only one critiquing it. It's a free country. I may just have a greencard but free speech applies to me just as much as it applies to you.


When you walk into your mother in law's house, do you immediately point out everything she is doing wrong and how much better it is done in your mother's house? 

Since you have crossed the pond, your feet weren't dry yet and you were looking for public assistance programs for a possible crisis, and you haven't stopped complaining about how things are here and how much better it is in your country of origin. You come from a different type of government than we have here, and I think that drives what you think the government should pay for, and how it should act. I don't think you would like it if we constantly criticized your country, and you would like it less, if we were over in your country, benefiting from what it offers, and complaining about it.


----------



## Mrs.K

Draugr said:


> So if you find a possible flaw, instead of pointing it out and attempting to improve it, it's better to just ignore it, flee the scene, let it sit there and fester?
> 
> Or at least discuss it and see whether it actually *is* a flaw or not?
> 
> No thanks. That sounds like a horrible place to live. I'll keep right on living in the good 'ol USA, where we have first amendment rights and the ability to point out what we think is wrong (and right!) with our governmental processes. Where there is a chance to improve things rather than just leave them be because, "if you don't like it, then leave."


:thumbup:

Funny thing is, it's America that turned Germans into "Question your Government at all times." after WWII. 

I will question everything the government does. It has nothing to do with bashing the US but to question what our Government does. I live here. I care more for what the US Government does rather than what the German Government does because I live on US soil. I'll spend the rest of my life in this country because of my husband so I am concerned with everything that is going on and I do follow politics as well.
Critique and Questioning is not bashing.


----------



## Dainerra

that's the point, though. It's *NOT* without reason. In one case, the officer was relying on a phone dispatch that this house contained a man who was just in a physical altercation with his wife, one of the most dangerous calls that an officer can go on. Do you know what makes them so dangerous? Because, even if her husband just tried to kill her, the victim is very likely to attempt to kill the cops who have arrived to help her, to keep her husband from going to jail. How many other situations are there where the VICTIM can turn into an attacker?

In the case with the lost wallet, there is an armed robbery. How many times do you drive down the road and see money flying out of a car? Well, it's pretty common for criminals to toss evidence out of the car if they think the cops are going to pull them over. Again, money and objects flying out of the car are a valid reason. I would give it very good odds that the people in the car were angry about being pulled over. I bet they got mouthy with the cops, escalating the situation. 

As Ron White said, "I had the right to remain silent. Unfortunately, I didn't have the abillity"

In the case of asking for ID, I have no problem if there is a REASON. IE someone has called to say that someone is peeking in windows. Or someone matching my description is wanted by police. But to just stop me for no reason and demand to see who I am and know my business? No. Because it's not the cops' job to stop people, it's a cop's job to solve crimes.


----------



## Draugr

selzer said:


> When you walk into your mother in law's house, do you immediately point out everything she is doing wrong and how much better it is done in your mother's house?


We're not talking about dusting bookshelves or furniture arrangement. We're talking about a decision that resulted in a lost life. A decision that - however unlikely - could result in the lost life of YOUR beloved family pet.

I think you can agree that is a decidedly inaccurate analogy. We're talking about something a bit more serious, here.

I'm a bit undecided at the moment as to whether or not I agree with this officer's actions - I guess I don't know enough about what happened at the scene, and my snap judgement was well, based on, "that could happen to me!"

But the wrong course of action is to blindly defend what he did and shout down anyone who says different with a "if you don't like it, leave."

And however few officers are out there shooting dogs for no good reason (present example exempted), giving the rest a bad name, it does nobody any good to just ignore those situations and shove them to the wayside because "they don't represent most LEO's." You're absolutely right, they do not - which is why those cases need to be highlighted all that much more. And I'm not even saying all do it out of malice - some, probably most, do it in response to a situation which they've had _zero_ training for - hence my proposition before for at least _some_ sort of dog-related training. I thought it was New York that did this, and successfully dropped the number of dog killings by cop by a very significant amount. A quick google search doesn't turn anything up, though - I'll look more when I get back home.


----------



## Jax08

Mrs.K said:


> You guys have issues with an officer to stop a car and to present an ID


ummm...anyone that doesn't present ID is probably a criminal. Who said they have a problem presenting ID if pulled over? I have mine ready when by the time the cop gets to my window, along with my insurance card and registration. I imagine most everyone does so where does THAT example come from?


----------



## selzer

Mrs.K said:


> ANYONE holding a gun pointblank into my face telling me they'll blow my brains out is a threat. No matter if it is an officer or not. And an officer going to the wrong house, doing that to the wrong person IS a threat.
> Try to put yourself into the shoes of a lawabiding citizen. Your dog is wrongfully shot by an officer, now he's holding a gun to your face telling you to put your hands up or he'll blow your brain out and you have NO IDEA why he's doing it or what you did wrong.
> 
> You guys have issues with an officer to stop a car and to present an ID but a cop going to the wrong house, holding a gun to your face saying "I'll blow your brains out" seems to be perfectly normal... to me it's the other way around. I have no issues with presenting an ID whenever or wherever. If a cop wants to see it, they can see it. But holding a gun to my face without any frickin reason... that crosses a line.


You have no idea what that officer is thinking. Maybe he has just found four people shot to death or a little child raped and beaten and has your description. Do what he says, and work it out when everyone is safe. If you feel that you were treated unjustly, then complain to his superior, when everyone is safe. I don't have a problem with an officer using words that he thinks the scene warrants, so long as they are not blatantly racial, denegrating to specific race or some other qualifier like gay or muslim or old etc. 

Maybe some other countries do not deal with people the same because crime is on a different scale, maybe it is uncommon for ordinary citizens to have firearms, so they are not worried about getting their brains blown out. Maybe people in other places are scared to death to get on the wrong side of the law because their prison system and penalties for crimes are worse than ours. Maybe cops shooting dogs in other places just isn't newsworthy. Doesn't mean it does not happen, maybe it happens so much that they don't bother to report it. 

I am sorry but if the cops raid a drug dealer's home and shoot a couple of Rottweilers or Pit Bulls or German Shepherds in the process, my heart isn't bleeding for the drug dealers.


----------



## msvette2u

:shaking head:

This has gone from points of view to "you are going to see it my way or ELSE".

*sigh*

What happens on this message board isn't going to change the course of history. What's done is done, and what's going to be done will be done.

And...I'm done. LOL


----------



## Dainerra

Jax08 said:


> ummm...anyone that doesn't present ID is probably a criminal. Who said they have a problem presenting ID if pulled over? I have mine ready when by the time the cop gets to my window, along with my insurance card and registration. I imagine most everyone does so where does THAT example come from?


there was a forum on here a while ago about cops just stopping random people on the street and wanting to see your papers. If I do get pulled over, yup my license and registration is at the ready. I don't, however, think that cops have the right to demand papers of people without having some type of reason.


----------



## Mrs.K

selzer said:


> When you walk into your mother in law's house, do you immediately point out everything she is doing wrong and how much better it is done in your mother's house?
> 
> Since you have crossed the pond, your feet weren't dry yet and you were looking for public assistance programs for a possible crisis, and you haven't stopped complaining about how things are here and how much better it is in your country of origin. You come from a different type of government than we have here, and I think that drives what you think the government should pay for, and how it should act. I don't think you would like it if we constantly criticized your country, and you would like it less, if we were over in your country, benefiting from what it offers, and complaining about it.


Oh you have no idea how much Americans rip our country apart just by living in Germany. You should take a peek into the Forum of Americans living abroad and take a look what they criticize and make fun of. I'm harmless. I'm merely critiquing brute force that results in deaths.

And if you've never lived outside your own country you don't know what a culture shock is and how hard it is to leave everything behind you know and deal with all those new things, rules and regulations. Do it yourself and see how far you get without practicing ANY kind or form of critique of the new place you live in.
As a matter of fact. As hard as it is. I love life in the US. There is no boundaries of possibilities. But that always is forgotten just because I critique the government doesn't mean I hate the US or life in the US.


----------



## Draugr

Jax08 said:


> ummm...anyone that doesn't present ID is probably a criminal.


That's a really dangerous POV. The thinking that anyone who doesn't want to give up something, must be guilty of something. It's the kind of thinking that results in warrantless wiretaps, etc, things like that.

What do the Miranda rights say, again? Your words can and will be used against you in a court of law? Does not say they will be used for you. I've never, ever seen that happen. Nor has a lawyer friend of mine. Your words will be used against you. Probably not even maliciously. May just be an innocent mix-up or someone didn't remember a detail correctly - but then it is your word against the PD, FBI, etc, whatever.

No, I have nothing to hide. But I also have principles, and this country also has something called the fourth amendment - and I see no reason to put myself at risk that by doing something completely innocent, could be misconstrued to be something entirely different in court. It's not just criminals that have to worry about that.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure that is not what you meant at all...I just wanted to highlight that, because what you said, alarmed me.

If you don't exercise your rights, you lose them. Someone who doesn't want to present their ID may just be someone who has no interest in providing more rights to police than they have. If they don't have the right to ask for your ID in a certain situation - why give it? You have the right to refuse.


----------



## Dainerra

Draugr said:


> If you don't exercise your rights, you lose them. Someone who doesn't want to present their ID may just be someone who has no interest in providing more rights to police than they have. If they don't have the right to ask for your ID in a certain situation - why give it? You have the right to refuse.


the most important right is the one to remain silent.

But, check the state laws regarding your driver's license. By having one, you have agreed to present it whenever asked. You have also, by default, agreed to give a breath or blood sample for alcohol testing. The penalty for not doing it, is losing your license.


----------



## Mrs.K

> If you don't exercise your rights, you lose them. Someone who doesn't want to present their ID may just be someone who has no interest in providing more rights to police than they have. If they don't have the right to ask for your ID in a certain situation - why give it? You have the right to refuse.


See, I wouldn't even know that without this forum. However, what happens if you do refuse to a cop? Are they going to force you because you question their authority? Are they arresting you? Taking your finger prints and mug shot because you refused to show your ID?


----------



## Jax08

Dainerra said:


> there was a forum on here a while ago about cops just stopping random people on the street and wanting to see your papers. If I do get pulled over, yup my license and registration is at the ready. I don't, however, think that cops have the right to demand papers of people without having some type of reason.



ahhh...must have missed that one! You are correct. I did have one stop me that didn't seem to want to be to forthcoming on WHY he stopped me. It's those young ones that usually do something like that. The ones with experience don't usually get to powertrippy. I've never been pulled over without knowing exactly what the reason was. Typically my lead foot.

btw...glad to see you are on here and weren't in the path of those storms!! I wondered if you were.


----------



## wildo

Mrs.K said:


> See, I wouldn't even know that without this forum. However, what happens if you do refuse to a cop? Are they going to force you because you question their authority? Are they arresting you? Taking your finger prints and mug shot because you refused to show your ID?


My guess is that yes, you would be arrested. Then you can fight it in court at some later time... Exactly like how you can't refuse arrest from a cop who illegally entered your home (in Indiana, anyway)- you can only fight it in court at a later time. Sweet, eh?


----------



## Dainerra

Mrs.K said:


> See, I wouldn't even know that without this forum. However, what happens if you do refuse to a cop? Are they going to force you because you question their authority? Are they arresting you? Taking your finger prints and mug shot because you refused to show your ID?


it depends on your state. In some places, it will be no big deal as long as you aren't argumentative. In others, they can technically hold you as a John Doe until you can provide proof of who you are. Being a prick to the cops is considered a reason by some departments. 

When it comes to searching your vehicle, If they want to be adamant about doing it, I'm more than happy to wait for them to bring out the drug dogs to go over my car. But I'm not going to volunteer to let them do it. Of course, the point is to know your rights and not be a jerk about expressing them. 

That, of course, is where things usually go wrong. 1 - people don't actually know what their rights are in these situations 2 - they get nasty and argumentative with the cops How many times I've heard belligerent drunks ranting on about their "constipation-al rights"  going on about how "I pay your salary and you need to do as I say".....


----------



## selzer

If a domestic violence call, a cop cannot be grabbing a catch pole and securing the dog first, he has to be watching his back and protecting himself. Draugr, if you have read some of my posts, you would know that I would NEVER blindly support any type of police action. I think that cops are just like anyone else, there are good and bad, sufficient, and insufficient, over-achievers, and lazy bums. It does them no favors to put them on a pedestal. 

But we cannot expect them never to make a mistake either. Even if my dog was shot and killed, I would prefer that that happened due to an honest mistake, than cops stealing funds from auxilary charity drives, or cops presenting themselves and their buddies with the donated thankgiving turkeys, or cops taking drugs from a raid and putting them back out in circulation, or off-duty cops killing a dog in a dog park. The guy was doing his job. He was answering a call for a potentially dangerous situation. There was a mistake, and the dog ended up being killed. 

For this, we need to listen to people dissing the US, asking how other countries do it. How our police kill thousands of dogs from accidents such as this one, which I highly doubt. I don't understand why the US should be concerned at all. This was a local cop from a local governing agency. It has been blown out of proportion. And, frankly, nothing on a federal level will be done, because this has nothing to do with the federal government. Maybe this officer is reprimanded, maybe training is put into place, maybe the officer is fired, maybe officers are issued star-trek stun guns instead of typical hand guns. But all of that is not going to stop it from happening next year in Los Angeles, or next month in Chicago. Our police are funded by our local government. If the area is a rough area, chances are the economics of the area are such that there is little money in any of the coffers. Chances are the officer was on the dangerous scene alone because there is no way to pay for two officers together. Chances are they have no money to put into extra training programs for people's pets, and equipment to manage them safer.


----------



## Mrs.K

One thing I don't understand why so many cops don't have a partner. Why are they alone and have to wait until a second cop arrives at the scene, IF there is a second cop coming.


----------



## Dainerra

because no one wants to pay to have another cop on duty. 

Here, we have 3 cops on duty at night, if we are lucky. That is to cover over 600 square miles.
everyone complains about response times, but no one wants to pay the tax increase that would allow them to hire another officer.


----------



## Jax08

Mrs.K said:


> One thing I don't understand why so many cops don't have a partner. Why are they alone and have to wait until a second cop arrives at the scene, IF there is a second cop coming.


MONEY.

The only state I have seen consistently call for back up is NYS and that was only after 3 LEO's were killed in a year in our area. Now the troopers are back to being single and no regular back up.


----------



## Mrs.K

Dainerra said:


> because no one wants to pay to have another cop on duty.
> 
> Here, we have 3 cops on duty at night, if we are lucky. That is to cover over 600 square miles.
> everyone complains about response times, but no one wants to pay the tax increase that would allow them to hire another officer.



For that I would happily pay higher taxes. 

More Cops = less stress on the cops, lower incidents and mistake rates.


----------



## selzer

Mrs.K said:


> See, I wouldn't even know that without this forum. However, what happens if you do refuse to a cop? Are they going to force you because you question their authority? Are they arresting you? Taking your finger prints and mug shot because you refused to show your ID?



I might not like it, but when a cop asks for my id, I hand it over. Why? Because I am innocent, and I know it. I guess I have faith in our justice system, for the most part. 

What they say about taking a breathalizer test, is if you haven't been drinking, take it. You go home, everyone happy. If you have been, don't take it, they arrest you. You get a lawyer, the lawyer asks for a continuance, six months later you are still waiting to go to court, and often times to get it off their books, they will reduce the charge to reckless op or something. 

I don't know this, but was told this happens when discussing why some people that have been serious alcoholics, who regularly drink and drive, are still out there, never having a DUI. 

But just for ID, why risk an arrest for that? I mean, when they arrest you, they get your wallet and can then have your ID. 

Once I left my purse in my psych class and it was turned into the campus PD. I picked it up the next day. They had removed every personal item out of it and made an inventory. Note to self, never leave your purse behind, so that the police have to check it out. I am guessing they would do something similar if you are arrested. I don't think they would just leave your purse intact and wait for you to volunteer your name and address.


----------



## Dainerra

Mrs.K said:


> For that I would happily pay higher taxes.
> 
> More Cops = less stress on the cops, lower incidents and mistake rates.


then you are one of the very few who would. Here, it has been voted down numerous times as a waste of money. Everyone wants more coverage, but they don't want to pay for it. Deputies here make about $18K a year and people complain about that.


----------



## Mrs.K

Dainerra said:


> then you are one of the very few who would. Here, it has been voted down numerous times as a waste of money. Everyone wants more coverage, but they don't want to pay for it. Deputies here make about $18K a year and people complain about that.


Are you serious? Just 18k? No wonder they are so grouchy. I expected them to be at least somewhere around 25k per year. 

I don't understand how that is a waste of money?


----------



## selzer

18k in N. Central Arkansas can be very different than 18k in NY or CA. Just sayin'

I think our local government has plenty of money, they choose to allocate only so much for police protection. This does not automatically mean that I should want to pay more money. They make decisions with the idea that the people will increase their tax rate. What they should be doing is getting more businesses going in the area so there is a better tax base. Here, if you work here, you cannot afford to pay more taxes, and if you are traveling to work in the city, then you are paying for that in gas. Nothing is all cut and dried. Yes it is money, but if your raise, raise, raise the taxes, those who are paying it will eventually move out because they are not getting enough for the exorbitant taxes they are paying. Those who are left are in no position to pay any more, they are those that are needing help, and are generally not paying much in the way of taxes. 

You just cannot raise taxes, you have to spend what money you have smarter, and you have to generate more sources of income.


----------



## Dainerra

well, most of the cops here who have families actually qualify for some form of public assistance. The same in WV.


----------



## Jax08

Same in PA. LEO's don't make nearly enough money to risk getting killed while trying to avoid a dog when responding to domestic disputes. Sorry...sounds harsh...but...


----------



## selzer

It's really a crappy job. 

You deal the most with people that are very hard to manage, be tolerant and professional, are constantly under public scrutiny, and all for a salary just over subsistence. And, many cops have to purchase their own equipment, uniforms, etc. 

It is a sucky job to be sure. These are mostly kids -- six months training past high school, and they are expected to be perfect. They are expected to be perfectly calm in crappy situations, and every time they pull their weapon can be a real bad scene for them. 

Most of them do like dogs though and have dogs. The idea of a dog-killer cop, who goes around shooting every dog that crosses their path, well it just doesn't pan out, because even if they do not have dogs, their friends do. And they are influenced by their buddies.


----------



## Mrs.K

selzer said:


> It's really a crappy job.
> 
> You deal the most with people that are very hard to manage, be tolerant and professional, are constantly under public scrutiny, and all for a salary just over subsistence. And, many cops have to purchase their own equipment, uniforms, etc.
> 
> It is a sucky job to be sure. These are mostly kids -- six months training past high school, and they are expected to be perfect. They are expected to be perfectly calm in crappy situations, and every time they pull their weapon can be a real bad scene for them.
> 
> Most of them do like dogs though and have dogs. The idea of a dog-killer cop, who goes around shooting every dog that crosses their path, well it just doesn't pan out, because even if they do not have dogs, their friends do. And they are influenced by their buddies.


Then make the selection harder. NO Kid should be on the job with a gun in his hand after half a year training. The selection process should be very hard. The training shouldn't be just half a year. It should be at least three years. 

I would not want a 20 year old kid in front of me dangling with a gun having the authority of the law in his hands.


----------



## GregK

selzer said:


> It's really a crappy job.
> 
> You deal the most with people that are very hard to manage, be tolerant and professional, are constantly under public scrutiny, and all for a salary just over subsistence. And, many cops have to purchase their own equipment, uniforms, etc.
> 
> It is a sucky job to be sure. These are mostly kids -- six months training past high school, and they are expected to be perfect. They are expected to be perfectly calm in crappy situations, and every time they pull their weapon can be a real bad scene for them.


 
Well this pretty much explains things. I should would rather see governments paying police more instead of blowing money on pavers for crosswalks in town.


----------



## Dainerra

Mrs.K said:


> Then make the selection harder. NO Kid should be on the job with a gun in his hand after half a year training. The selection process should be very hard. The training shouldn't be just half a year. It should be at least three years.
> 
> I would not want a 20 year old kid in front of me dangling with a gun having the authority of the law in his hands.


then get a livable family wage. Why are only kids doing it? because it's EXPENSIVE to train and dangerous and the pay sucks.
In WV, departments have a year before they have to send new hires to the acadamy. So what do they do? They hire these guys, work them for 360 days and then fire them and hire new people because there isn't any money in the budget to pay for the police academy.

I agree that more training would be nice, but again who is going to pay for it? No one wants their taxes to go up. No one wants to pay extra fees. It's a catch-22 situation.


----------



## selzer

Mrs.K said:


> Then make the selection harder. NO Kid should be on the job with a gun in his hand after half a year training. The selection process should be very hard. The training shouldn't be just half a year. It should be at least three years.
> 
> I would not want a 20 year old kid in front of me dangling with a gun having the authority of the law in his hands.



Make the selection harder? People may be willing to work for the money, but usually not in the crappiest neighborhoods that are the most dangerous. 

One night, my sister and I were putting together book cases about 2:30AM, and an auxiliary cop come into the shop where we were, crept in, and listened to us talking. Anyhow, he never asked our names, we locked up and left. I talked to him about 4:30AM and I told him that he really startled me, he said, normally he would have gone in with his gun drawn. He asked me about my sister. So I asked him if he was married. He said, "No, he was just 18." I only remember thinking, Oh my, 18, on his own with his gun, pulling the night shift. Scary.


----------



## jetscarbie

A serious question.

What you would do if you were sitting at home one night watching tv? Your dog's are all laying on the couch or floor like they normally are. All of a sudden...a cop bust in. (I know for a fact my dogs would jump up and start barking, would yours?) And all of a sudden he shot one of your dogs that was barking, lunging, or whatever. Then you find out he was serving a warrart on somebody that didn't even live there.

What would be your reaction? 
Would YOU be understanding?
What would you think should be done?


----------



## Dainerra

at least he has a gun. The auxillary cops in this county aren't allowed to carry weapons.


----------



## Dainerra

jetscarbie said:


> A serious question.
> 
> What you would do if you were sitting at home one night watching tv? Your dog's are all laying on the couch or floor like they normally are. All of a sudden...a cop bust in. (I know for a fact my dogs would jump up and start barking, would yours?) And all of a sudden he shot one of your dogs that was barking, lunging, or whatever. Then you find out he was serving a warrart on somebody that didn't even live there.
> 
> What would be your reaction?
> Would YOU be understanding?
> What would you think should be done?


after the fact, I wouldn't blame the cop. I would want to know who messed up. Was there a mistake? Maybe the "mistake" was that some lowlife gave a false address.

But, no I wouldn't blame the cop for shooting my dog. Why? Because I have two large GSDs that would be rushing him and in his shoes I'd feel the need to defend myself as well.


----------



## Mrs.K

jetscarbie said:


> A serious question.
> 
> What you would do if you were sitting at home one night watching tv? Your dog's are all laying on the couch or floor like they normally are. All of a sudden...a cop bust in. (I know for a fact my dogs would jump up and start barking, would yours?) And all of a sudden he shot one of your dogs that was barking, lunging, or whatever. Then you find out he was serving a warrart on somebody that didn't even live there.
> 
> What would be your reaction?
> Would YOU be understanding?
> What would you think should be done?


Yes, mine would be barking. All of them. They'd probably shoot them all and no I wouldn't be understanding. 

I already stated what I think should be done but for some reason there is always one and the same excuse coming up. People just don't want to pay higher taxes. There's a fix:* MAKE THEM! *


----------



## Dainerra

taxes have to be voted on for such things. That's part of living in a free country. Even if the tax itself doesn't go to a vote, the politicians who DO set the taxes will be up for a vote. 
Here, the tax increase is on the ballot every couple of years. Each time, there is a huge outcry and it gets defeated by a huge margin.


----------



## jetscarbie

about the tax thing.....geez, I'm already taxed to death. Serious. I don't know if our income could take another tax hit. 

My dogs would lunge at a cop that just opened my door and rushed in. That makes me scared now.


----------



## Mrs.K

jetscarbie said:


> about the tax thing.....geez, I'm already taxed to death. Serious. I don't know if our income could take another tax hit.
> 
> My dogs would lunge at a cop that just opened my door and rushed in. That makes me scared now.


Well, than simply make the Government use the money more wisely. The money is probably available just not spent where it should be.


----------



## Dainerra

yes, more prudent use of the money would help some. but, who decides what other programs are frivolous? It's going to take a lot of cutting to put more officers on the street. Several hundred thousand a year for each department.

The problem is that citizens want the programs they already have, more programs added in, more police on the street, but want to pay less in taxes.


----------



## selzer

Train the emergency down. Train the emergency down. So far I have lived in the world for 43 years, and not once has a cop burst into my door. Before anyone gets to my door, I know they are there, the dogs tell me. They have business barks. Train the emergency down, and then ask politely if you can kennel your dogs. 

If the dog or dogs doesn't down, the cop may kill the dog. That would be awful. I am not worried because I can get my dogs under control before the cops get to the door, just by the length of my driveway and walk ways, and the ease of putting my dogs down in the sun room. 

But it has not happened. I have had a cop come to my door, and my dogs were barking. He went all around both neighbor's houses checking windows. He did not go into my back yard. I guess he figured the yayhoo wouldn't have messed with my fences. 

As he was leaving, I turned to the dogs and said, QUIET! and you could hear a pin drop. When ten dogs go from Loud to silent. I was really as surprised as he was when they all shut up completely like that. I usually have at least one that has to get the last word in.


----------



## selzer

Another problem is, where they are needed most, there is the least money. They generally get grants in these areas but that is to have the level they currently have. There are no easy answers. You cannot just say, make them. There are limits.


----------



## jetscarbie

I've never thought about an emergency down. That's a good idea. Thanks Selzer. Should I start with a special word that I never use?

I've never had any problems with the law. My brother has. When i was a teen, the wildlife and fishery broke down our door to get him. My mom and I were in the kitchen cooking. Scared the crap out of us. We were swarmed with about 20 LE around us. My brother wasn't even there. LOL (I'm glad he's a responsible adult now)


----------



## selzer

I just use DOWN!, but some use DROP! instead.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

This thread took an interesting turn.

George Marshall was a very smart man. I'm not sure if they cover him or his plan in school anymore.

I'm first gen German-American and IMHO the culture shock you are feeling is the 'pragmatism' gap.





Mrs.K said:


> :thumbup:
> 
> Funny thing is, it's America that turned Germans into "Question your Government at all times." after WWII.
> 
> I will question everything the government does. It has nothing to do with bashing the US but to question what our Government does. I live here. I care more for what the US Government does rather than what the German Government does because I live on US soil. I'll spend the rest of my life in this country because of my husband so I am concerned with everything that is going on and I do follow politics as well.
> Critique and Questioning is not bashing.


 
Well said. :thumbup::thumbup:



Draugr said:


> So if you find a possible flaw, instead of pointing it out and attempting to improve it, it's better to just ignore it, flee the scene, let it sit there and fester?
> 
> Or at least discuss it and see whether it actually *is* a flaw or not?
> 
> No thanks. That sounds like a horrible place to live. I'll keep right on living in the good 'ol USA, where we have first amendment rights and the ability to point out what we think is wrong (and right!) with our governmental processes. Where there is a chance to improve things rather than just leave them be because, "if you don't like it, then leave."


----------



## Seer

selzer said:


> Train the emergency down. Train the emergency down. So far I have lived in the world for 43 years, and not once has a cop burst into my door. Before anyone gets to my door, I know they are there, the dogs tell me. They have business barks. Train the emergency down, and then ask politely if you can kennel your dogs.
> 
> If the dog or dogs doesn't down, the cop may kill the dog. That would be awful.


Train the emergency down? Someone breaks your door down and your dogs sit still.... Am I missing something here... You can have all my dog training business if you can get your dogs to do this. 

Just kidding.. I dont want that trick in their arsenal.

How about its awful you have to train your dog to not respond to someone breaking your door down.

Holy complacency batman..


----------



## selzer

The emergency down has saved dogs from running in the road and getting killed. After you see that it is police, if you say DROP! and they do, then it may save your dog's life. It may. Better than not trying anything.


----------



## Seer

selzer said:


> The emergency down has saved dogs from running in the road and getting killed. After you see that it is police, if you say DROP! and they do, then it may save your dog's life. It may. Better than not trying anything.


The emergency down should be trained right away trick three or four. Its more useful then just about an other IMHO, no issues with that. Dont get me wrong. 

Just the application.


----------



## hobbsie711

Dang this thread exploded. I haven't been around in a couple of days and figured it had died off.


----------

