Posted on 06/09/2004 12:49:10 AM PDT by ambrose
I can't think of any reason on this earth where shooting a harmless golden retriever would be considered a "good shoot"
If a cop shot my dog, he would not longer be a cop. I guarantee it.
Oh sweet miracle of life............
The words "the officer was in fear for his life" should be received with as about much dread as the words "Allah Akbar!"
I predict a story will show up about a pair of female officers that empty their magazines after responding to a call. The vision's not to clear about whether it's a mouse, or a spider that threatens them and how soon afterwards males will follow suit.
One guaranteed result of this for Officer Cory is that till the end of his law enforcement career (which can't be soon enough, based on what I've read), he will be forever known to his fellow officers as the cop that shot Fluppy.
I'm sure he is being unmercifully teased even as you read this.
I don't know how citizens, (The mailman, water meter readers, salesmen, cable installers, gasman, painters, electricians, realtors etc) go through their daily lives without having to shoot the pets of homeowners.
Problem seems to be that the "owners" would rather keep the animal tied to a rope/tether in the front and back yard and then leave him out there all damn day and night. And it's over 95 daily here in South Florida now! Other neighbors have called animal control on them but nothing has happened. I look over to check and make sure the darn things has water, but I can't even go on that side of my house, ever, without being barked at.
Funny how no one said a thing to these dog owners about tying their animal up outside and leaving the house. Hmmm. Real resposible.
Gotta love those keywords though...lots of folks appear to be afriad to show up and defend this brave police officer.
No one is more pro LE than I. However I would never defend this. Tied up dog in it's own backyard? Come on.
"A Golden Retriever named "Fluppy". Yeah, it was real dangerous."
Admittedly, it wasn't named Fluppy but my sister-in-law had a golden retriever that you wouldn't cross. That dog was very aggressive and territorial. The whole family was glad when that mean SOB died although we didn't tell my sister-in-law. GRs are generally real nice dogs but there are some exceptions.
I'm not defending the cop, just stating that not all GRs are lovable bundles of joy.
The officer receives a call and enters the yard. Within the backyard is an old golden retriever (a breed renowned for decades for being non-violent) that is tied to a fence.
Next we are told that policy states, "officers are trained to use deadly force if they feel their life is in danger". Okay, exactly what conditions constitute "life in danger" concerning dogs?
We are told, "Fluppy was barking and approached Officer Cory Forister, so he shot the dog". By example we can see the criteria used to establish the threshold of "danger to life" is the utterly predictable and normal behavior of a dog barking and approaching an unknown intruder within its territory.
The officer knows (or should know if his training is adequate) before hand that if this dog so much as barks and approaches him, that behavior by definition constitutes a "threat to life" and procedure dictates the dog must be shot. And if he hasn't lived under a rock all his life, he knows that is precisely what is going to happen, given the nature of dogs within their own territory.
If the officer has the slightest situational awareness, he will take note of whether or not the dog is tied and therefore ascertain its ability to approach him, before he approaches further. It will be apparent in most cases by observing the length of the tether and the amount of wear on the ground (the grass will be worn) how far the tether allows the dog to approach.
At this point in this confrontation the officer ignores or disregards the area that the dog has access to, and proceeds to enter its area. By doing so, the officer has (according to his training and procedure) placed both himself and the dog's life in danger. This action needlessly escalates the confrontation, and results in the discharge of a firearm in a populated area as well as dead dog. This reckless behavior directly causes a tragic loss to the homeowner who the officer is purportedly serving.
The conclusions we can draw from this case:
The officer was either ignorant of, or disregarded the breed of dog he was dealing with.
The officer was either ignorant of, or disregarded the length of the dog's tether.
The established criteria for "threat to life" concerning dogs is arbitrary and capricious, does not require any violent actions, and in practice is exactly what behavior is expected from dogs.
If procedure vindicates the officers actions, that shows that the procedure itself must be brought under review and changed as to prevent a recurrence this needless tragedy.
And the most important and a telling sign of poor police work, the officer failed to de-escalate the confrontation, and through his own actions escalated it to the point that he had to use lethal force.
This officer ought to fired and be facing severe civil action. If you doubt that, go out and shoot a dog that barks at you and see what happens.
If you speak the wrong way to a police dog...you're going to jail.
I am also left wondering, why could he not have drawn on the approaching dog, and backed out of the dog's territory, only firing if charged? It's not like the dog had some sort of projectile weapon, and if it charged the officer it would have been directly in the line of fire.
This one doesn't pass the smell test. Not even close. I'm also afraid that this is not an isolated incident as these cases happen with frightening regularity, and reflects a change for the worse in procedure and mindset.
>I'm not defending the cop, just stating that not all GRs are lovable bundles of joy.
I am aware of that. However, the dog was tied. All Barney Fife had to do was to get beyond the chain's reach.
Shot it three and didn't kill it, then left it injured.
Makes me wonder if he didn't miss with other shots.
The first time was a doberman which literally sneaked up on me and then attacked. The spray was what was issued back in the 80's just for dogs. It was only 1/10 of 1% capsacium (sp?).
I think that issued today is at least 10%, although I think agencies today rate it by heat units.
I cannot imagine a case where a tied up Golden Retriever would have to be shot unless it was to put the dog out of it's misery.
"I am aware of that. However, the dog was tied. All Barney Fife had to do was to get beyond the chain's reach."
And I am aware of that which is why I wasn't defending the cop.
Sad ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.