Court: Police can shoot dog if it moves or barks when cop enters home

[Criticalt]

Pepper spray does not work on Dogs. Trust me. I have sprayed a whole can on one and all he did was to lick it up.

Every year the Pepoer spray companies swear that the new mix will work on Dogs and every year they are proven wrong.

As far as Dogs killing people, it has happened. And the standard to kill a human in self defense includes serious physical injury is about to be committed by the perpetrator. And animal is a lessor standard.

I have personally seen a pit bull bite take a chuck out of someone that you would have thought a shark bit them. Some dogs also go to bite the genital area rather than an arm. Sorry but with those choices, the dog "has to go" .


Here is a case of a dog getting shot. Please remember they slowed the video down. The cops did not knock on their door but a neighbor's door, yet they let the dog out.

The easy answer is :control your dog

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nydailynews.com/amp/new-york/bronx/exclusive-charged-shooting-dog-bronx-graphic-video-article-1.2823156?client=safari

Do think it was intentional? Probably not. But intentional or not, I am not going to let myself be maimed by a dog. The cop was right. Remember the video was slowed down and it was the Neighbor's apartment the cops were going to. The people opened the door to "see what was going on".

Its all good if the dog is attacking.
We are talking about cops breaking down the wrong door and a confused dog behaving naturally and protecting his family.

There was a case here last year where a cop went on a DV call. The cop got out of his car and a neigbor across the street from the call waved the cop over to his yard to give info on the DV call. As the cop walked over to the guy, the guys dog trotted toward the cop barking. According to witnesses the lab/shepard mix was NOT acting aggressive but was wagging his tail and barking. The owner said "knock it off Rocky", then the cop pumped 3 bullets into the dog, killing him.
It was a big deal around here. People had it on facebook, had tshirts made and the guy sued the PD.
There is no leash law and the dog was on his owners property. The cop shot from 20 ft away, from the street. The cop said he was trained by his department to neutralize aggresive dogs, thats why the guy sued the PD. I believe its still in litigation.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Oops cops goto wrong house, exercise terrible judgement traumatize and humiliate the wrong family....on Christmas eve

Police raided a family's home and mocked them on Snapchat — then realized it was the wrong house

It's terrible judgement and incompetence like this that concerns me

 

[Jmac00]

the only thing I worry about is the cops making a mistake and going to the wrong house. There is a rental property across the street from me and Im pretty sure they are dealing drugs out of there. Afterall cars are pulling up to the house, they hit the horn a few times, someone runs out, leans in a window, then they pull out and the cars drives away. I have reported this behavior a few times, but I don't think anyone in public office gives a shit.

But if they ever get around to making a raid, I hope they hit the right house

 

[Truebeliever]

Its all good if the dog is attacking.
We are talking about cops breaking down the wrong door and a confused dog behaving naturally and protecting his family.

There was a case here last year where a cop went on a DV call. The cop got out of his car and a neigbor across the street from the call waved the cop over to his yard to give info on the DV call. As the cop walked over to the guy, the guys dog trotted toward the cop barking. According to witnesses the lab/shepard mix was NOT acting aggressive but was wagging his tail and barking. The owner said "knock it off Rocky", then the cop pumped 3 bullets into the dog, killing him.
It was a big deal around here. People had it on facebook, had tshirts made and the guy sued the PD.
There is no leash law and the dog was on his owners property. The cop shot from 20 ft away, from the street. The cop said he was trained by his department to neutralize aggresive dogs, thats why the guy sued the PD. I believe its still in litigation.

I remember that one. The court decision doesn't appear to cover that one.

And yes, the dog might not be at fault. But in a choice between a cop whom is lawfully executing a search warrant getting hurt or a dog. The dog has to go.

 

[meketrefe]

I love dogs.

If you hurt a police dog on purpose w/o reason you could be charged the same way than hurting a police officer. I understand that.

So if a police officer hurts a dog on purpose w/o reason the police could be charged like hurting a human?

makes sense? your thoughts?

 

[Darth]

Oops cops goto wrong house, exercise terrible judgement traumatize and humiliate the wrong family....on Christmas eve

Police raided a family's home and mocked them on Snapchat — then realized it was the wrong house

It's terrible judgement and incompetence like this that concerns me

*drops mic*

 

[Darth]

I love dogs.

If you hurt a police dog on purpose w/o reason you could be charged the same way than hurting a police officer. I understand that.

So if a police officer hurts a dog on purpose w/o reason the police could be charged like hurting a human?

makes sense? your thoughts?

<3

 

[GOPerfect]

It's easier to control your cops.

Maybe not, have you seen some of the YouTube videos?

 

[Darth]

Maybe not, have you seen some of the YouTube videos?

Mine?


?

 

[Truebeliever]

Oops cops goto wrong house, exercise terrible judgement traumatize and humiliate the wrong family....on Christmas eve

Police raided a family's home and mocked them on Snapchat — then realized it was the wrong house

It's terrible judgement and incompetence like this that concerns me

It may or may not be incompetence on the part of the entry team. They are given instructions and followed them. The case detective develops the case. And he might not be incompetent either. It could be the supervisor who gave the wrong address to the team.

The telephone game could have been involved.

 

[Truebeliever]

I love dogs.

If you hurt a police dog on purpose w/o reason you could be charged the same way than hurting a police officer. I understand that.

So if a police officer hurts a dog on purpose w/o reason the police could be charged like hurting a human?

makes sense? your thoughts?[/QUOTEi]

If the officer had no legit reason, he would be charged with animal cruelty charges. It's not the same. And shooting a police dog in the performance of its duty is different than shooting a human police officer in NYS and most states.

 

[Acer-m14]

wait till PETA hears about this ruling .. I'm ducking .. claws will showing .. LOL ..

 

[NY Leatherneck]

What about agressive gold fish??

 

[Doc8404]

What about agressive gold fish??

Hittin the eggnog a bit much Marine?

 

[Rustycoins]

I have a great deal of respect for the police. But as far as the "uncontrollable" ones, first they shouldn't be there, second no complaining from the rest of the LEO's when it goes bad if you're sticking with "control your dog". This is one topic that I absolutely despise, as my dog is my family. This is the exact same situation we all hate when considering getting no-knocked in the night. You know damn well you'd have a gun in your hand and be in the same position your dog would be in with any intruder. Do you deserve to die now because you responded on instinct to a situation created by someone else?

This one is an awfully slippery slope and way too easy to abuse. If you don't consider this emotionally similar to dumping someone's child in front of them then you seriously don't get the attachment some people have with their dogs. Do not ever mess that one up.

Goperfect I read your posts alot and I truly do respect you, but my dog protects my family. He deserves to be respected if anyone enters his home just as much as the rest of us do.

Edit, Merry Christmas.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

It may or may not be incompetence on the part of the entry team. They are given instructions and followed them. The case detective develops the case. And he might not be incompetent either. It could be the supervisor who gave the wrong address to the team.

The telephone game could have been involved.

Regardless who's fault it was, they ended up at the wrong house. And the officers at the wrong house exercised terrible judgement.

 

[NY Leatherneck]

Hittin the eggnog a bit much Marine?

Nah, ...fuck eggnog....wife got me some of that vanilla crown royal to try.

 

[EMSBronco]

It may or may not be incompetence on the part of the entry team. They are given instructions and followed them. The case detective develops the case. And he might not be incompetent either. It could be the supervisor who gave the wrong address to the team.

The telephone game could have been involved.

I'm curious, when serving or executing a warrant, does the team have to have the written warrant present?
I assumed they did, but your post of the supervisor giving the wrong address made me question this. It should be a no-brainer double check to verify the address written on the warrant by the team leader before executing the warrant.

As far as shooting a dog, if the officer has the correct address and the warrant is for a suspect for a violent crime, I would be OK. However, the number of stories we see about wrong address raids, both in the warrant process and by mistake by the officers in the field, makes me concerned for not just the safety of innocent dogs, but also the safety of innocent civilians and police officers.

I don't fault an officer in the field for shooting a dog that is aggressive towards them, it's self-defense, but there has to be accountability. If the officers have the wrong house, then wherever the screw-up was made should be held responsible regardless of whether it was the officer in the field reading the wrong address or the detective that worked up the case and got the warrant.

 

[Truebeliever]

I have a great deal of respect for the police. But as far as the "uncontrollable" ones, first they shouldn't be there, second no complaining from the rest of the LEO's when it goes bad if you're sticking with "control your dog". This is one topic that I absolutely despise, as my dog is my family. This is the exact same situation we all hate when considering getting no-knocked in the night. You know damn well you'd have a gun in your hand and be in the same position your dog would be in with any intruder. Do you deserve to die now because you responded on instinct to a situation created by someone else?

This one is an awfully slippery slope and way too easy to abuse. If you don't consider this emotionally similar to dumping someone's child in front of them then you seriously don't get the attachment some people have with their dogs. Do not ever mess that one up.

Goperfect I read your posts alot and I truly do respect you, but my dog protects my family. He deserves to be respected if anyone enters his home just as much as the rest of us do.

Edit, Merry Christmas.

Again, you are asking the cop to get maimed. Sorry. The dog has to go. Human life comes first. If the cop is acting in good faith and is not involved in the "mistake" then he shouldn't wait to be maimed or killed.
It's no different than if a home owner sees someone breaking into the house and fires and the officers on a search warrant return fire.

If the officer is acting in good faith, then he has a right to defend themselves.

There is accountability. The department gets sued and there is a disciplinary process as well.

Also , remember that information for these warrants are based on what the police are told. Sometimes it's the informant who is wrong. Or it was right but the "shipment " or evidence the police were looking for was moved already or destroyed.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Again, you are asking the cop to get maimed. Sorry. The dog has to go. Human life comes first. If the cop is acting in good faith and is not involved in the "mistake" then he shouldn't wait to be maimed or killed.
It's no different than if a home owner sees someone breaking into the house and fires and the officers on a search warrant return fire.

If the officer is acting in good faith, then he has a right to defend themselves.

There is accountability. The department gets sued and there is a disciplinary process as well.

Also , remember that information for these warrants are based on what the police are told. Sometimes it's the informant who is wrong. Or it was right but the "shipment " or evidence the police were looking for was moved already or destroyed.

Well right. But the whole "good faith" thing only goes so far. I understand that LEO's should have clause to defend themselves against aggressive and attacking animals. The worry here is that this will be misused and abused to encompass any such encounter and fill in for when the officer in question temporarily lacks the proper cognitive judgement and makes the mistake of shooting an innocent animal having a natural reaction, verse one that is an actual threat. Remember in those cases you are talking about two parties trying to defend themselves. So who ends up being right and who ends up being wrong? I get that bad people use animals in a way that is wrong and a danger to everyone, most exclusively law enforcement, but if police enter a home erroneously and end up shooting someones dog, it doesn't matter if they were "acting in good faith", they were in the wrong place. Period. That would hardly be the occupant or their pet's fault.

 

[Rustycoins]

Again, you are asking the cop to get maimed. Sorry. The dog has to go. Human life comes first. If the cop is acting in good faith and is not involved in the "mistake" then he shouldn't wait to be maimed or killed.
It's no different than if a home owner sees someone breaking into the house and fires and the officers on a search warrant return fire.

If the officer is acting in good faith, then he has a right to defend themselves.

There is accountability. The department gets sued and there is a disciplinary process as well.

Also , remember that information for these warrants are based on what the police are told. Sometimes it's the informant who is wrong. Or it was right but the "shipment " or evidence the police were looking for was moved already or destroyed.

I'm not asking the cop to get maimed, ultimately at the end of the day pulling the trigger is always their choice. I'm just saying that this is something that should be done only when absolutely necessary. My point is that people will start to pull the trigger on the dog because they don't give a shit and it's "just a dog". They will pay dearly finding out the opposite in the wrong house.

Some people literally just shoot dogs because they're effed in the head and find it funny. When I was younger some guy drove around shooting dogs in the neighborhood saying they attacked him, and he got away with it for a long time because the cops didn't even care. I know several people who despise the police just for not helping them that day, think about had they been the actual shooter. To me this one has a way higher potential for PR issues than a lot of police issues. There's just really not a lot of consequence with shooting a dog, it's not like manslaughter or murder. And some people have a very strong bond with their dog.

I've never seen a huge case of disciplinary or settlement over a dog being killed by the police. I could be wrong or just never found one, but honestly I doubt the judge would give a damn either in 99% of cases.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I always thought people who said that they would shoot someone who killed their dog were stupid. I never thought a dog's life was worth a human's life until I got one of my own.

We aren't saying that cops should get maimed doing their jobs. What we are saying is that dogs should not be killed if they really aren't a threat to life. IE fenced in, leashed, small, ect. Many examples of this have occurred.

Most dogs aren't trained to fight to the death. And many dogs killed aren't even big enough to take you down. A swift kick and they yelp away. Let's be honest here.

 

[Truebeliever]

Well right. But the whole "good faith" thing only goes so far. I understand that LEO's should have clause to defend themselves against aggressive and attacking animals. The worry here is that this will be misused and abused to encompass any such encounter and fill in for when the officer in question temporarily lacks the proper cognitive judgement and makes the mistake of shooting an innocent animal having a natural reaction, verse one that is an actual threat. Remember in those cases you are talking about two parties trying to defend themselves. So who ends up being right and who ends up being wrong? I get that bad people use animals in a way that is wrong and a danger to everyone, most exclusively law enforcement, but if police enter a home erroneously and end up shooting someones dog, it doesn't matter if they were "acting in good faith", they were in the wrong place. Period. That would hardly be the occupant or their pet's fault.

It's not about fault but reality. In NYS , the standard for shooting an animal is a lot lower than if shooting a human in self defense.

The human vs dog is so slanted to the human that if a burglar was being torn up by the guard dog and the owner wasn't there to pull the dog off, I might be forced the shoot the dog that was just doing its job

 

[Doc8404]

It's not about fault but reality. In NYS , the standard for shooting an animal is a lot lower than if shooting a human in self defense.

The human vs dog is so slanted to the human that if a burglar was being torn up by the guard dog and the owner wasn't there to pull the dog off, I might be forced the shoot the dog that was just doing its job

That makes no sense.
You can't go back to your car to get your clipboard or a pen while the dog takes care of his kingdom?

Not kidding either.

 

[Marine Cpl]

It's not about fault but reality. In NYS , the standard for shooting an animal is a lot lower than if shooting a human in self defense.

The human vs dog is so slanted to the human that if a burglar was being torn up by the guard dog and the owner wasn't there to pull the dog off, I might be forced the shoot the dog that was just doing its job

That's understandable same as it's understandable if a warrant is being served and a big Rottweiler or Pitbull attacks the officer.

What we are talking about here is the shooting of small dogs like Beagles that you can kick away for situations that aren't eminent that warrant the cop to be there or life will be lost.

Here is such a situation.

 

[Doc8404]

Thanks for posting. Not. I couldn't watch the whole thing. Did this POS pussy show any remorse in the video?

I know, I never wore a badge so I just can't understand how scared the officer must have been.

 

[Doc8404]

WTF. He acts like it went on for minutes.
And same jerkoff that killed someone previously. Was CONVICTED too.

The officer then saw a dog begin charging at him in an aggressive manner,” the police department said in a news release Monday. “The officer attempted to retreat however the dog kept charging in a manner in which the officer felt threatened.”

The officer wrote in the report that when the dog began to charge: “I attempted to place time and distance between the dog and myself by running backwards. The dog continued to aggressively run toward me to attack,” while also barking and growling.

 

[Acer-m14]

good thing it was for only dogs .. wish i could afford this for home defense ...
I think you should have to take a bite first before shooting ... tons of dogs just love to run and bark at you just for a jump up and lick n hug ..

Officer put your dog back in the car .. i wouldn't want my cat to eat it ...

 

[Truebeliever]

I'm not asking the cop to get maimed, ultimately at the end of the day pulling the trigger is always their choice. I'm just saying that this is something that should be done only when absolutely necessary. My point is that people will start to pull the trigger on the dog because they don't give a shit and it's "just a dog". They will pay dearly finding out the opposite in the wrong house.

Some people literally just shoot dogs because they're effed in the head and find it funny. When I was younger some guy drove around shooting dogs in the neighborhood saying they attacked him, and he got away with it for a long time because the cops didn't even care. I know several people who despise the police just for not helping them that day, think about had they been the actual shooter. To me this one has a way higher potential for PR issues than a lot of police issues. There's just really not a lot of consequence with shooting a dog, it's not like manslaughter or murder. And some people have a very strong bond with their dog.

I've never seen a huge case of disciplinary or settlement over a dog being killed by the police. I could be wrong or just never found one, but honestly I doubt the judge would give a damn either in 99% of cases.

Any shooting, even a dog shooting, has its consequences even if it's a good shoot. Remember the shooting in IL on tape where the car chase. The officer who believed it was a good shoot is fretting about "30 days inside". It's 30 days of losing overtime which a lot of live on ( and for what he believes to be a good shoot).

Some guys have to wait a year or more before a determination is made. A year of no overtime or even just a tour change (and the loss of night diff) can cost the officer for some departments, over 50,000 dollars even in a good shoot.

That's in a good shoot.

I know of guys who's retirement plans were delayed because of a shoot where the investigation wasn't "complete". Good shoots too. Clear cut. Couldn't retire if he wanted to "leave in good standing" and have a gun permit.

There is a disciplinary system you have no idea what it's like. The closest historical equivalent would be the star chamber. It's often internal politics that can determine punishment officially and unofficially.
Here is an illustration. Fictional account but often true. Highway therapy is real and can add an hour or more to s commute. Or change in hours etc. A transfer to a day tour can cost an officer roughly 10% night differential. A 10% pay cut based on a ranking officer's whim of what happened at a scene( union protection or not) even if it is still being investigated.


Laungage warning on the link.

 

[spat]

It may or may not be incompetence on the part of the entry team. They are given instructions and followed them. The case detective develops the case. And he might not be incompetent either. It could be the supervisor who gave the wrong address to the team.

The telephone game could have been involved.

If the entry team trusted an incompetent supervisor, or broken procedures, then it is fault. Following bad orders isn't an excuse. If you are going to initiate an activity that could get people killed, you are personally responsible for making sure it goes right. If you can't trust the process, or even other people involved you have a duty not to continue.