Cop shoots wolf-dog

The topic of police shooting dogs has come up a few times here. This story has an interesting twist to it and adds an I-didn't-think-about-that-possibility to the discussion.

This dog was properly controlled, yet still presented an imminent threat to the officer.

http://www.wdtn.com/dpp/news/local/montgomery/wdtn-officer-shoots-pet-wolf-teen-arrested

The question is whether the police officer knew the dog was in the fenced yard before he entered. If he did then most likely he knew the suspect was not in the yard. In this case I believe without evidence that the teen was in the yard he should have waited for more officers to search. The yard could have been cordoned off, and the owner could have been contacted to control the dog. The department should pay the owner for his loss. The officer should use more common sense next time, if he had missed he likely would have been mauled.

Well, that's why I have a notice of trespass filed with state and local police. So, if it was my fenced in yard with the dog they would not have entered the property to begin with and the doggie would be alive today.

I agree with WW that the city should compensate the owner for his loss (although true compensation is impossible) since the owner had controlled his dog. I think the thug criminal is also responsible. However, his ever producing an honest nickel is doubtful.

I think the remark above mine is more silly and unsupported bluster, i.e. a blowhard post, as usual.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

I am truely disappointed in you for the way you posted this.

Up to this point the "discussion" and "focus" has been on cops that shoot pets immediately on encountering them - usually in the context of a dynamic entry no-knock search warrant being served. Almost all of the dogs shot in those circumstances were not actually attacking the sudden intruders into their territory - merely announcing that "This is my house, not yours. Get out now before I do start opening up a can of whoop-azz." Also, many of the dogs being shot are of the smaller breeds - not saying they cannot inflict injury but the liklihood of them ripping out your throat or guts was fairly small.

Now we get a dog that does not, from the description of its behavior, merely announce you are on his turff. It actively put the cop in a good position for the killing attack.

The cop committed a vast number of stupid moves, but none of them negate the fact that his life was more likely in danger than most of the door-busters we usually read about.

I'd like to turn this into a SD teaching moment by focusing on the fact that the cop shot the dog only one time. It was a "one shot stop" in that the attack was stopped - even if the dog did not go down DRT. I'm willing to bet that the cop kept his eye on the dog after he shot it and the attack stopped. But I'm also willing to bet the cop was not scanning the area for other threats or to locate other cops who might be in the area and responding to the gunfire. It's hard to remember to do all that when you are puckered up past 11 on the dial, but it sure does help keep you safer if you can do most of those things.

stay safe.

WalkingWolf said:

The question is whether the police officer knew the dog was in the fenced yard before he entered. ....

Click to expand...

Actually, the question should be if the cop knew/saw/read the BEWARE OF DOG sign. Ignoring it was the first stupid thing he did, if he saw it. From there the list of tactical and procedural errors just grows exponentially.

Sgt. Close told us the teenage suspect was stopped near a vacant home because he and a friend appeared suspicious.

Click to expand...

Heck, sitting at home in my recliner I look suspicious. But you would have more reason to be suspicious that I was up to something if you found me sitting in the front pew (or any pew) on Sunday morning.

Not that the teen had actually committed a violent crime, or even committed a crime at all except for giving a false name when stopped in what sounds like it really does not add up to a legitimate Terry stop. The over-riding desire to play Cops & Robbers with the full-on drive to capture "the enemy" at all costs needs to be the focus of training for that department, not how to tell if the doggie is friendly or not.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

I am truely disappointed in you for the way you posted this.

...

stay safe.

Click to expand...

I posted this because it was very different from what had been posted before. The idea was to get folks (and me) thinking outside their very comfortable boxes by looking at a unique set of actual circumstances that bore one similarity with the other dog shootings posted here.

BTW, the one dog shooting that stood out for me was the uncontrolled dog on the street, not any dog shot in its home.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Next eye post to come: Bear-Dog

then: Ape-Dog


then: Zombie-Dog


can't wait

Do you really think these turds you keep dropping all over the board are the least bit clever?

Moving on to the topic of the thread, leaving this troll behind.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I fall on the side of pound the cop into the ground on this one. I'll likely be alone on this one.

Watch the video news report and get a sense of the area that was being "searched" by the cop.

The cop will claim he had the authority to enter upon the property. The authority for the entry was to apprehend a kid who ran away in the dark. That claim will be/is supported by his chief.

Shooting the dog was OK by the chief. Likely many will agree with the chief because that cop had a right to defend himself from a dangerous dog.

The owner has doomed any civil action based on his remarks made on TV.

Write a check for a new dog, easy.

The tone in the chief's voice does not lead me to believe that he gives a rats azz about the dog. I don't care what he says. Shifting eyes, looking down and away from the interviewer continuously. My 14 y/o does that when he is lying his azz off.

This story will be lost to history in a day or two. Just another case of cop defends himself from a dangerous dog.

OC for ME said:

I fall on the side of pound the cop into the ground on this one. I'll likely be alone on this one.

Watch the video news report and get a sense of the area that was being "searched" by the cop.

The cop will claim he had the authority to enter upon the property. The authority for the entry was to apprehend a kid who ran away in the dark. That claim will be/is supported by his chief.

Shooting the dog was OK by the chief. Likely many will agree with the chief because that cop had a right to defend himself from a dangerous dog.

The owner has doomed any civil action based on his remarks made on TV.

Write a check for a new dog, easy.

The tone in the chief's voice does not lead me to believe that he gives a rats azz about the dog. I don't care what he says. Shifting eyes, looking down and away from the interviewer continuously. My 14 y/o does that when he is lying his azz off.

This story will be lost to history in a day or two. Just another case of cop defends himself from a dangerous dog.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately you are right, and there are to many statist cop apologist who'll will feel that as long as the officer is in pursuit who he hurts or damages that are not involved is irrelevant.