Posted on 06/23/2013 11:20:43 AM PDT by Dallas59
EL MONTE, Calif. (KTLA) — Police were investigating the fatal officer-involved shooting of a two-year-old German shepherd inside the fenced-in yard of a family in El Monte.
Officers came to the home on Maxson Road on Wednesday to follow-up on a report of a runaway teenager.
The encounter with the dog, named Kiki, was recorded by a home security camera.
It showed two police officers arriving at the home of Cathy Luu and her husband Chi Nguyen around 4:30 p.m. Wednesday.
Police said the officers shook the gate and otherwise took care to check if there were dogs present in the yard before opening the gate and entering, according to a report in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune.
(Excerpt) Read more at ktla.com ...
What is it with cops shooting family pets all of the time these days?
Quicker than waiting for the family to leash the dogs. In the case of these cops.....they had to get to Golden Coral for lunch.
Shooting the family dog is the first thing the po-po do, whether they are there because they were called there, or simply at the wrong address.
Luu said she told the officers that her dog, which was lying wounded in the backyard and vomiting blood, needed medical attention. An officer responded that the dog was okay.
Before the animal was treated, officers demanded to see license documents not only for the wounded dog, but for the family's other dogs, Nguyen's sister Anna Nguyen said.
The dog lay wounded for more than an hour before being taken for treatment by animal control officials, the video shows.
Buehler said animal control officials were promptly contacted after the incident.
Following the shooting, which was recorded on the video about 4:36 p.m., animal control officials are seen arriving at 5:12 p.m. The wounded dog is carried from the home by an animal control officer at 5:39 p.m.
Luu said police officials initially told her they would take care of the dog's medical expenses, but changed their mind once a veterinarian informed them the dog would require an operation costing at least $7,000 to save its life.
Luu said she was told by a Police Department supervisor that the surgery exceeded the value of the dog, and suggested she just get a new pet.
“Maybe he didn't have a dog and he doesn't understand,” she said. “It's not about the money. It's about the love.”
Unable to afford the surgery themselves, the family elected to have the dog put down, Luu said. “It's sad.”
The family was then notified that they owed more than $900 for the treatment the dog had already received, Chi Nguyen said.
But the clinic ultimately told the family no payment was required. The family said they did not know if the city paid the bill, or if the veterinarian simply chose to forgive it.
Family members said they would like to see more remorse on the part of police over the incident, as well as a new puppy to replace Kiki.
“Maybe they should be trained better,” Anna Nguyen said of officers. “They should apologize.”
Neighbor Suzette Parrish said she was also outraged over the dog's shooting.
“This is absolutely wrong. They shoot the persons’s dog. Then they say it's not their fault. Then they won't get the dog medical attention. Then they don't want to pay for the operation that (would) save the dog,” Parrish said. “There is no justified reason for shooting that dog.”
http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_23511786/el-monte-family-outraged-over-police-shooting-pet
After shooting the family pet, and ignoring the beware of dog sign on the fence, while waiting for animal control to arrive to take the pet off, officers demanded to see the owner’s licenses for the family pets.
I’m sure that since the family has released video of the incident, now the police will be showing up to wonder where their license is for the video camera, or why no signs were posted warning officers that their actions would be recorded?
Oh, right, that’s how this goes; in the name of ‘investigating the incident’, officers will show up and ‘take into evidence’ the camera, the recorder, and anything else that might embarrass the department. Hopefully the family has sensibly already made copies of the video and distributed to unknown parties... And at the same time installed a second video system to capture the seizing of the first.
That video suggests to me that the shooting could have been justified.It doesn’t prove it because you can’t be sure what happened off camera.That stuff about the signs is BS,assuming that the cops had legitimate business at that home...which sounds as if was the case (missing person).If I was on a jury and that video was shown I would conclude that it was at least as likely as not that the shooting was legit,therefore...”not guilty”...”not responsible”.
Coward!
The revenue collectors were angry about being taken away from their primary purpose. So they expedited things so they could get back to collecting revenue i.e. speed traps.
When police unleash a K9 on a “SUSPECT”. Do they think that the “SUSPECT” will be killed or seriously injured? NO! A dog trained to attack humans yet they will unleash this animal on an innocent until proved guilty person.
If an untrained “PET” approaches a cop, what? barking?, the cop “in fear for their life”? pulls out a lethal weapon and shoots. What kind of “pussy”, “coward”, “I can't wait to fire my gun”, A$$HOLE cop does this?
Maybe we should be like Brittan and take the guns away from police. They keep demonstrating they are not responsible enough to carry them.
Here they are protecting and serving.
No longer are cops expected to take risks.
My analysis:
1) Lowered standards for police officers for diversity sake
2) Introduction of the taser as a weapon for compliance, which leads to a mindset that risks no longer have to be taken
3) Cops now have every right to make it home safely. After all, it’s no longer a calling; it’s a gubmint job.
Some people might take umbrage at my third point, but you must read behind the lines and look at the mindset we’re encouraging.
” it was at least as likely as not that the shooting was legit, therefore...”not guilty”...”not responsible”.
Did they have a warrant? Were they not trespassing? Should they be allowed to open the front door and walk in the house and shoot their pet dog? Why not? The door to their property was the front gate, in the fence. They can’t just walk in without permission. It’s the same as their front door.
What if an unarmed teenager rushed the cop? Should they just shoot the teenager? The teenager might bite them.
These are “trigger happy” cops who have been trained to see ANY threat, as life threatening allowing lethal force to be used. This is nonsense. They won’t die from a dog bite IF and I say IF the dog was going to bite them.
I know from 35 years of going to peoples homes every day as a stranger and my uniformed wife for 30 years going to hundreds of locations (homes) a day, that we are very much alive and well. We never had to shoot a dog, well, we never would have shot any dog if we were armed. You see we were not cowards. We were not afraid of dogs. We knew they were 99% bark. You could tell the ones that might cause you harm, so you would be cautious and take precautions to protect yourself. Also I can tell you the breed has nothing to do with it.
In my opinion, it is NEVER, I say NEVER, necessary for a cop to shoot a dog.
phuck you el monte police, you are cowards
Just sayin’:
Anyone who hurts/kills one of my dogs will live to regret it.
I don't know.There was no mention of it.One would think that that family could get a lot more from a lawsuit alleging illegal entry than one regarding a dead dog.So I would bet that,under *that* case's particular circumstances,their presence on the property violated no laws.
Should they be allowed to open the front door and walk in the house..
Depends on the circumstances.I didn't notice any mention made of either of them having entered the dwelling without permission...or entering it at all,for that matter.If I've missed anything regarding these points do point it out to me.
These are “trigger happy” cops who have been trained to see ANY threat, as life threatening allowing lethal force to be used.
We can't know if they're "trigger happy" or not until we know their full history as cops.And it's reasonable for cops to use different standards when deciding whether to fire upon a person or an animal.With an animal the standard needn't be "life threatening" whereas with a person it most assuredly must be exactly that.
In my opinion, it is NEVER, I say NEVER, necessary for a cop to shoot a dog.
So will you extend that to "it's never necessary for a *person* to shoot a dog"? Or are cops the only ones who are never allowed to do so.Perhaps we should scour the reports of the nation's ERs to see if they ever treat people who are seriously injured (or worse) by dogs.I'd be stunned if we didn't find at least some...if not many.Perhaps if there an ER doc/nurse..or a cop reading this he/she/they can weigh in on that rather important issue.
“If an untrained “PET” approaches a cop, what? barking?, the cop “in fear for their life”? pulls out a lethal weapon and shoots. What kind of “pussy”, “coward”, “I can’t wait to fire my gun”, A$$HOLE cop does this?”
I am betting that the time is not far off when one of these “incidents” results in the dog’s owner taking out the cop! What goes around, will come around eventually. Cops are NOT your friends!
We have 4 German Shepherds.At least 2 will make it to a shooter and rip his(or her)head off.
People with fenceable yards should always keep a sacrificial dog as protection against family members or passersby being shot by police.
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.