Service people can walk way from a menace if treats, ammonia, or dog psychology doesn't work. A law officer;s work has other priorities.
Should we arm them as well, if "safety" is the test?
Safety isn't the test -- only a secondary issue. Obstructing a policeman in the performance of his duties is the issue here.
Why should only police officers be allowed to be "safe" in everyday situations, not just when in imminent danger?
Everyone should be safe, and they are when animal owners are responsible for their pets' conduct. But most Americans disregard their citizenship in this area, IMO -- they just brush it aside. They refuse to accept the duty to train the dog that he/she is also its absolute master.
According to researches reported by dogbitelaw.com, factors that determine whether a dog will bite includes the observations:
"There is much in the scientific literature of animal behavior that sheds light on the causes of dog attacks. As you review the literature, it is interesting to note that a dog owner is directly responsible for the presence or absence of most factors that determine whether a dog will bite."
and
"Training of the dog: the nature, degree and quality of training. A dog that has been trained to threaten people is an obvious danger, but so is a dog that has been poorly trained or not trained at all."
There's a lot more on this, if you are really interested and care enough to chase the available information down.
And walking onto someone's property while investigating a copper theft that already occurred is not an imminent danger.
It is if there's a contentious, territorial dog not being restrained by its owner, there is. For a LEO, when he does not know the people or neighborhood, he is going to view any scenario he walks into different than you do. Keep that in mind.
Here's some pertinent facts:
"The most recent USA survey of dog bites, conducted by CDC researchers and based on data collected during 2001-2003, concluded that dogs bite 4.5 million Americans per year (1.5% of the entire population). Sacks JJ, Kresnow M. Dog bites: still a problem? Injury Prevention 2008 Oct;14(5):296-301."
"The number of Americans who had to be hospitalized as a result of dog bites went up 86% in the past 16 years, from 5,100 hospitalizations in 1993, to 9,500 in 2008. The average cost of treatment was $18,200 per patient. The patients generally were kids under 5 years old and seniors over 65. (US Dept. of Health and Human Services.)"
"16,476 dog bites to persons aged 16 years or greater were work related in 2001. (Ibid., Nonfatal Dog Bite–Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments — United States, 2001, MMWR 2003;52:608.)"
Are you getting this down? We're not talking here about dog-lovers stoking each other into a rage. We're talking about people getting hurt on the job from irresponsible pet owners trying to blame such inconveniences on the bitee. These visitors with business to conduct for your convenience deserve a better break than they are getting. In particular, when the officer is visiting your property on business, it would be a good idea to start out your conversation with an attitude of respect and attention, rather than considering it an unwanted interruption of your day. And if you have such a pet, be ready to curb it as you would for any other visitor.
Now, perhaps you could turn over questions like this and ponder on them with an open mind. With a little effort, you'll be able to arrive at your own sensible answers.
Respectfully --
With a closing sentence like that, it is hardly respectful. Condescending is more like it.
What is not clear from the article is at what point in the encounter did the officer realize that he was at the wrong location - before or after he shot the dog. Once he realizes that he is not at the scene of the crime he is investigating, he ceases to be performing his duties if his duty was to investigate the copper theft.
If you are of the opinion that a police officer is on the lookout for crime 24/7, and that he is therefore a super-citizen with a gun and a badge, and that he is entitled to special rules that none of the rest of us have to live by, then maybe you can argue your point.
Barking is not biting. A barking dog is not a dog that will inevitably bite if given the chance. That is where this repeated issue always falls. The officer shoots at the first sign of barking out of "fear for his safety," without waiting for the dog to lunge. There are too many reports of officers shooting at dogs with children nearby, shooting on lawns and sidewalks with neighbors around, etc. The irrational fear for their own safety is not translating into concern for those around them.
And what about the kevlar vests they wear for protection? They get all armored up in the morning and yet cower in fear of a family pet?
-PJ