Police shoot and kill suspect after K-9 is stabbed

A couple random points.

I trust the media about as much as I trust police--very little. So, it might be that the cops shot the guy because he actually threatened them with deadly force a very short time after killing the dog. The story doesn't really say. And, if the cops are smart, they wouldn't say, either. Probably just apply the rule about not commenting until after talking to their union-supplied attorneys. I'm not saying they didn't shoot the suspect vindictively--such would not surprise me at all. I'm saying the story doesn't exclude a self-defense situation a moment after the dog was killed.


Separately, it strikes me as hypocritical to the point of lying for police to think of dogs as fellow officers, fellow heroes in blue. But, then send the dog into a dangerous situation. If the dog is all that wonderful, all that much of a brother officer, why send in the dog instead of another cop who actually has a gun and can defend himself? By their own comments the police sent in the cop least able to defend himself. The fact is they thought the dog was less than themselves, that he was expendable. If they really thought the dog was really was on similar plane with them, then they're cowards. And, they can include some blame for themselves for the dog's death. Where was the heroic human cop who stepped forward and said, "No, Officer Kody can run faster than us. But with a cornered and potentially armed felon, we have guns, tasers, and pepper spray that can reach across a distance, whereas Officer Kody only has his teeth. I will go. You guys back me up."

I have no problems with police dogs used properly, I have a big problem with this report. The suspect was defending himself, there is no doubt about that, a dog is deadly force that the police officer used without justification. The police officer then shot the suspect clearly out of revenge and anger. Which most of us would have wanted to do if it was our dog, but by law we cannot. The cop should be arrested and prosecuted.

As a retired cop I am sickened by what our police are getting away with. In my time we had the FBI taking apart our every move with a fine tooth comb. Now the FBI is patting police on the back for violating rights.

WalkingWolf said:

I have no problems with police dogs used properly, I have a big problem with this report. The suspect was defending himself, there is no doubt about that, a dog is deadly force that the police officer used without justification. The police officer then shot the suspect clearly out of revenge and anger. Which most of us would have wanted to do if it was our dog, but by law we cannot. The cop should be arrested and prosecuted.

As a retired cop I am sickened by what our police are getting away with. In my time we had the FBI taking apart our every move with a fine tooth comb. Now the FBI is patting police on the back for violating rights.

Click to expand...

Careful. You're generalizing, and the forum rules can be stretched to call it cop-bashing. A certain moderator might be along any moment to delete or edit your post.


Separately, thanks for bringing up the dog being deadly force used without justification. I didn't think of that. It occurs to me that the dog can't be blamed or held accountable if he doesn't follow his training and attacks a suspect. Pretty convenient, yes? And, you can't sue the dog. And, the cop who sent the dog in has qualified immunity for doing so because, among other things, we don't have a clearly established right to have used on us only dogs that never break their training.

WalkingWolf said:

I have no problems with police dogs used properly, I have a big problem with this report. The suspect was defending himself, there is no doubt about that, a dog is deadly force that the police officer used without justification. The police officer then shot the suspect clearly out of revenge and anger. Which most of us would have wanted to do if it was our dog, but by law we cannot. The cop should be arrested and prosecuted.

As a retired cop I am sickened by what our police are getting away with. In my time we had the FBI taking apart our every move with a fine tooth comb. Now the FBI is patting police on the back for violating rights.

Click to expand...

+1

Even though we have our disagreements, I have respect for you as a former cop who doesn't apologize for the crap they are getting away with. Thank you.

Citizen said:

Careful. You're generalizing, and the forum rules can be stretched to call it cop-bashing. A certain moderator might be along any moment to delete or edit your post.


Separately, thanks for bringing up the dog being deadly force used without justification. I didn't think of that. It occurs to me that the dog can't be blamed or held accountable if he doesn't follow his training and attacks a suspect. Pretty convenient, yes? And, you can't sue the dog. And, the cop who sent the dog in has qualified immunity for doing so because, among other things, we don't have a clearly established right to have used on us only dogs that never break their training.

Click to expand...

That's Ok he was a cop and Big Dave isn't stalking him to report his posts.

WalkingWolf said:

I have no problems with police dogs used properly, I have a big problem with this report. The suspect was defending himself, there is no doubt about that, a dog is deadly force that the police officer used without justification. The police officer then shot the suspect clearly out of revenge and anger. Which most of us would have wanted to do if it was our dog, but by law we cannot. The cop should be arrested and prosecuted.

As a retired cop I am sickened by what our police are getting away with. In my time we had the FBI taking apart our every move with a fine tooth comb. Now the FBI is patting police on the back for violating rights.

Click to expand...

+1

Citizen's right on the money; I didn't even think of it as the police using deadly (there's no escalation, as was said by OC for ME) force without justification. But you're absolutely correct: that's what this use of a dog represents.

Unacceptable.

Citizen said:

Careful. You're generalizing, and the forum rules can be stretched to call it cop-bashing. A certain moderator might be along any moment to delete or edit your post.

Separately, thanks for bringing up the dog being deadly force used without justification. I didn't think of that. It occurs to me that the dog can't be blamed or held accountable if he doesn't follow his training and attacks a suspect. Pretty convenient, yes? And, you can't sue the dog. And, the cop who sent the dog in has qualified immunity for doing so because, among other things, we don't have a clearly established right to have used on us only dogs that never break their training.

Click to expand...

A police dog is, the police dog handler employing deadly force, whether the dog can cause a death is irrelevant. Every "family" dog shot by cops, in self defense, were not all big mean vicious man killer breeds. It is safe to state that the opposite is true in the vast majority of "cop shoots family pet incident." Cops have the discretion to shoot a family pet and they are virtually guaranteed to be held as acting reasonable. Even when that cop goes to the wrong house.

LE has no business "owning a pets." Contract out tracking/SAR and use human cops to "fight crime" and to apprehend criminals.

OC for ME said:

A police dog is, the police dog handler employing deadly force, whether the dog can cause a death is irrelevant. Every "family" dog shot by cops, in self defense, were not all big mean vicious man killer breeds. It is safe to state that the opposite is true in the vast majority of "cop shoots family pet incident." Cops have the discretion to shoot a family pet and they are virtually guaranteed to be held as acting reasonable. Even when that cop goes to the wrong house.

LE has no business "owning a pets." Contract out tracking/SAR and use human cops to "fight crime" and to apprehend criminals.

Click to expand...

Hey, that's right! Cops shoot family dogs on the self-defense premise. If a family pet that is just growling can be shot in self-defense, then police dogs necessarily represent grave bodily injury or lethal force, also.

Twenty-seven (27) posts and not one bothered to actually look up the law in Minnesota. Someone did look up and post the law from states other than Minnesota, but for the life of me I cannot understand the relevance until/unless the Minnesota law is cited.

Had someone done so, they would have found https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.596&year=2012

[h=1]2012 Minnesota Statutes[/h][h=1]609.596 KILLING OR HARMING PUBLIC SAFETY DOG.[/h][h=2]Subdivision 1.Felony.[/h]It is a felony for any person to intentionally and without justification cause the death of or great or substantial bodily harm to a police dog, a search and rescue dog, or an arson dog when the dog is involved in law enforcement, fire, or correctional investigation or apprehension, search and rescue duties, or the dog is in the custody of or under the control of a peace officer, a trained handler, or an employee of a correctional facility. A person convicted under this subdivision may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.

Click to expand...

Does anybody wish to go back and revise their comments based on this information?

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Does anybody wish to go back and revise their comments based on this information?

Click to expand...

No.

Wait.... Can I make them stronger?

Besides,

It is a felony for any person to intentionally and without justification cause the death of or great or substantial bodily harm to a police dog, a search and rescue dog, or an arson dog when the dog is involved in law enforcement, fire, or correctional investigation or apprehension, search and rescue duties, or the dog is in the custody of or under the control of a peace officer, a trained handler, or an employee of a correctional facility. A person convicted under this subdivision may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.

Click to expand...

Clearly, as already discussed, killing this dog was justified.

ADobbs1989 said:

Personal opinion doesn't always have to be logical. No I am not for the prohibition of alcohol as there are millions of people who use alcohol responsibly (including myself), there is no such thing as the responsible use of meth. So no I would not do meth if it were legal, and if it was legal I would still be against it. That's my take on it, you can agree or you can disagree.

Click to expand...

Personal opinion doesn't "have" to be logical, but if one is going to make laws that affect EVERYONE then the reason for such laws NEEDS to be logical. The fact that you wouldn't use it and think it irresponsible is fine, but remember that there's people that think the same thing about guns, religion, etc. And before you say "but those are rights!" that doesn't matter when one doesn't use logic to base policy. Not to mention "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." and I don't remember ever delegating the power to relegate drugs to the Feds. So the feds need to get out of the "Drug War" and leave it to the states

Aknazer said:

Personal opinion doesn't "have" to be logical, but if one is going to make laws that affect EVERYONE then the reason for such laws NEEDS to be logical. The fact that you wouldn't use it and think it irresponsible is fine, but remember that there's people that think the same thing about guns, religion, etc. And before you say "but those are rights!" that doesn't matter when one doesn't use logic to base policy. Not to mention "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." and I don't remember ever delegating the power to relegate drugs to the Feds. So the feds need to get out of the "Drug War" and leave it to the states

Click to expand...

+1

I actually had a very similar discussion with a friend, one who is for the most part pretty pro-liberty, just in the last couple weeks.

The anti-drug propaganda of the last 80 years has apparently been quite effective. It's unique to see people accept all your arguments, and still say, "yeah, but I think it's real bad, so I don't want it legal."

I really don't get it, myself. I can "hate" meth and still realize that prohibition makes it worse.

marshaul said:

+1

I actually had a very similar discussion with a friend, one who is for the most part pretty pro-liberty, just in the last couple weeks.

The anti-drug propaganda of the last 80 years has apparently been quite effective. It's unique to see people accept all your arguments, and still say, "yeah, but I think it's real bad, so I don't want it legal."

I really don't get it, myself. I can "hate" meth and still realize that prohibition makes it worse.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And if someone hates it so much then they shouldn't use it and they should properly raise their children to make informed choices and (hopefully) not do it either. But I mean look at prohibition, it passed and then alcohol use turned into an epidemic. Those VERY SAME people who voted to outlaw it turned around and were then using it! And you see it with illegal drugs now too. It's just ridiculous and hypocritical.

Lana Taylor told WCCO-TV that the man was Alden Anderson, her brother.

Click to expand...

Where is the direct correlation of the decedent as the person named in the warrant.

“They sent a dog down there and I heard my brother yell out…and then we heard six gunshots,” Taylor said.

Click to expand...

Based only on this "witness" it "sounds" like self-defense against the use of lethal force. Especially so if the decedent was not the person named in the warrant. Then again, the decedent did kill a "cop." Cops don't like that.

Given the value that many in our society place on dogs. It may be difficult for some in our society to accept the fact that Kody was a trained attack dog. Trained to seriously injure or even kill a human if not handled properly by the attendant police dog handler.

Freedom1Man said:

If a police dog is an officer and gives a false alert then that dog should be charged with perjury. If said dog is used to arrest you that dog should be directly cross examined at trial. They should either be tools or officers and not both. If they are officers then they need to follow the constitution and get their noses out of my crotch.

Click to expand...

The best reply in this thread.

I can rehabilitate any dog that has not suffered brain damage, and has more than a year of life left. I am not the only professional that can claim this . . .

Will it take time, yes, will it cost money, yes, should we do it, yes.

Guard dogs, service dogs, and work dogs all share the same behavioral traits as police dogs, the training in many regards is parallel or the same. The expense of this training is fairly substantial, and just from a business perspective it would make little sense to euthanize such dogs when their service could be used elsewhere after careful consideration is completed regarding their rehabilitation.

ie, IMHO, it would be foolish.

If a police dog is an officer and gives a false alert then that dog should be charged with perjury.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Being wrong is not the same as lying.

I am in agreement that no tool, animal or otherwise, should be allowed to circumvent the procedures of RAS, PC in regards to the 4th, but lets not ignore the distinction between the words, suspicious, know, and probable.

Further if you have a method to know the intent of a dog id love to hear it . . . should sound silly saying it out loud.

Xulld said:

I can rehabilitate any dog that has not suffered brain damage, and has more than a year of life left. I am not the only professional that can claim this . . .

Will it take time, yes, will it cost money, yes, should we do it, yes.

Click to expand...

Well, I can see where your interests lie. (I don't suppose you're offering to pay for all this rehabilitation?)

Xulld said:

Guard dogs, service dogs, and work dogs all share the same behavioral traits as police dogs, the training in many regards is parallel or the same.

Click to expand...

Oh goody. Even more evident bias.

I am in agreement that no tool, animal or otherwise, should be allowed to circumvent the procedures of RAS, PC in regards to the 4th, but lets not ignore the distinction between the words, suspicious, know, and probable.

Click to expand...

And just where are you going with that? Anywhere substantive?

LEOs strongly believe that their K9 brethren should be granted all the EXTRA rights and protections they receive.

Kill a LE K9 and in most of their minds you should get the death penalty. Anybody not believe me go to any K9 stories on a LE site like officr.com or policeone and read their comments. Truly demented.

Just checked.

http://www.policeone.com/K-9/articles/6118875-Minn-man-killed-by-police-after-stabbing-police-K-9/

some comments

-Unfortunately as much as it pains me to write, a K9 is just police-property under the law. Using deadly force in defense of them is a no go. Wish that wasn't the case, as I've never met a K9 that wasn't worth more then the suspects they dealt with.


- Our dogs are like our kids. How dare he do that!

-We will know where this will then go and some hood rats family will get a check and a brother's career might be over..


Here is another K9 stabbing story, dog lived.

S.C. man gets 5 years for stabbing K-9
http://www.policeone.com/K-9/articles/6092294-S-C-man-gets-5-years-for-stabbing-K-9/

comments from "Law" EnFORCEment officers

-Maximum sentence running concurrently. Should have been consecutive. Plus attacks on Police K-9s should be the same as attacks on police officers.

-They're uniformed law enforcement. Not enough time on that sentence.

- I say this moron should be stabbed first, given no medical attention and sent to rot in a hole.

- I agree with the below statements the sob should have gotten a much longer sentence, hope he gets shanked in prison.

-Should have gotten attempted murder of a police officer. Our K-9 officers are just that in my opinion. Fellow officers.

- So far as I'm concerned the canine is a fellow officer ! Human or canine makes no difference, defendant should have recd.15 yrs. at least ! S.C. legislature needs to amend the law !

- KILL THIS S O B !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


-Anybody who stabbed my dog would more than likely fall down a lot on the way back to the cruiser.....

One guy try's to object to some of the stuff being said and look what they do to him in their posts. Looks like reasoned thinking is not allowed. Go to the link and check it out.

Jeff. State said:

Here is another K9 stabbing story, dog lived.

S.C. man gets 5 years for stabbing K-9
http://www.policeone.com/K-9/articles/6092294-S-C-man-gets-5-years-for-stabbing-K-9/

comments from "Law" EnFARCEment officers

-Maximum sentence running concurrently. Should have been consecutive. Plus attacks on Police K-9s should be the same as attacks on police officers.

-They're uniformed law enforcement. Not enough time on that sentence.

- I say this moron should be stabbed first, given no medical attention and sent to rot in a hole.

- I agree with the below statements the sob should have gotten a much longer sentence, hope he gets shanked in prison.

-Should have gotten attempted murder of a police officer. Our K-9 officers are just that in my opinion. Fellow officers.

- So far as I'm concerned the canine is a fellow officer ! Human or canine makes no difference, defendant should have recd.15 yrs. at least ! S.C. legislature needs to amend the law !

- KILL THIS S O B !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One guy try's to object to some of the stuff being said and look what they do to him in their posts. Looks like reasoned thinking is not allowed. Go to the link and check it out.

Click to expand...

There you go. FIFY.