All we have to go on is the posted article.
The cop claims the dog “confronted” him. I don’t know if that’s true or not, or what exactly he meant by that. That’s for a court to decide, if the dog’s owners decide to file suit.
If the dog DID in fact go after the cop in such a way that he legitimately feared for his safety, then he may well have had some justification for defending himself.
The article states that the cop was investigating a burglary, and was canvassing the neighborhood looking for possible witnesses.
How exactly is a cop supposed to do that?
Is a cop supposed to phone each resident, or email them, or send them a registered letter to get permission to enter their property?
The obvious way is to simply walk up to the front door and knock. And guess what? That means entering the front yard of the residence.
No warrant is necessary for this, and I’m pretty sure trespassing laws don’t apply to LEOs doing their job.
Any assertion that the dog was “restrained” by being on the homeowner’s property, and was therefore free to do whatever it wanted (or what its instinct dictated) is BS.
We have no information on what sort of training the dog may have had, and the cop certainly didn’t either.
We don’t know whether there was an “invisible fence” there either.
The dog’s owners certainly weren’t exerting any “verbal restraint” on the dog because, as stated in the article, they were inside the house at the time of the shooting.
The dog’s owners were negligent by allowing the dog to be outside without actual, visible restraint, and without supervision.
If instead of a cop, a child had wandered into their yard, and the dog bit him, the owners would be responsible, not the child.
It’s a shame these people lost their pet, but they share at least part of the blame.
Which is full of reported facts, that you are choosing to igore and/or presume to be wrong.
If the dog DID in fact go after the cop in such a way that he legitimately feared for his safety, then he may well have had some justification for defending himself.
And further, IF the dog was a known felon, in the commission of a felony, and was pointing a shotgun at the officer, then yea, the cop was like totally justified, probably a hero. I wonder why that wasn't included in the article.
The article states that the cop was investigating a burglary, and was canvassing the neighborhood looking for possible witnesses. How exactly is a cop supposed to do that?
Without shooting dogs that happen to bark in their own yards. I suppose that if the home owner wouldn't answer the door, then by your reasoning the cop is justified in kicking in the door, because, "Hey, how else is the cop supposed to get his questions answered?".
They share none of the blame. All of the blame is on this thug cop. There was no legitimate reason for this tin star punk to start blasting away at this dog.
As someone up thread said, If you or I did this (unless you're a cop) we would be arrested, and rightfully so. Law abiding citizens do not go onto other peoples property and kill their dogs.
The fact that you do not realize this does not speak very highly of you. You are in the vast minority on this thread. You are either trolling, or you are a cop, or one of the resident copsuckers here. I am not sure which one it is, and quite frankly, I don't care. Bye now.
I’ve seen enough of your posts now to see that you have no problems with this dog being shot.
Your reasoning is out to lunch and if you don’t see how the police force is different now than a few decades back then your head must be buried in the sand or at worst you’re one of these types we are being warned about.