He's just a real big puppy
Posted on 10/25/2013 5:06:22 PM PDT by nickcarraway
A Boise family is outraged over the death of their 5-year-old dog. Sunday afternoon, a Boise Police officer fired his weapon at the dog, killing it.
For years, Gabrielle Stropkai found companionship in her dog, Kita, calling her a lover and a friend for her son Hayden to grow up with.
“We have kids who run up and pull her tail and grab her by the back of the neck and get in her face and she does nothing but love on them,” said Stropkai.
However, as two Boise patrol officers were investigating a theft that was reported in the area of Woodlawn and 28th Sunday afternoon they felt threatened by Kita.
According to Boise Police spokesman Charles McClure, Kita began running toward them and the officers felt forced to protect themselves.
Neighbors like Bryan Adams were outside at that time and saw it happen.
“She was walking by and went 'ruff ruff' just a couple of little ruffs and that's when she was walking by she didn't jump at him or anything,” explained Adams.
Other witnesses to the incident described the dog as barking and snarling at officers as it approached them.
Stropkai tells KTVB she let Kita outside to use the bathroom and she was in her sight when the officer made an instant decision.
“In about five seconds he pulled his weapon, asked whose dog it was, and shot her in the back of the head,” said Stropkai.
Stropkai explains her two-year-old son Hayden was also witness to the shooting.
“Hayden was outside, about two feet away from me,” said Stropkai's mother, Michelle Pierott. McClure said the two officers were standing in a parking lot when one decided to fire a single shot at the dog when it came within three feet of them.
Kita, a mixed breed, was hit and died at the scene.
“By the time I came out she was down, (I) ran over and looked back and said you just shot her,” said Pierott. “Kita wouldn't have attacked.”
However, the Boise Police Department disagrees. In a statement issued Sunday evening by the department Deputy Chief Pete Ritter had this to say.
"Officers never want to harm an animal. The dog came upon the officers quickly and they felt it was about to bite them. This is a very dog friendly community. Many officers have dogs. We work with dogs. Dogs running loose are a safety risk, for people and for the dogs. This was a very unfortunate situation for everyone involved."
The family believes the officer acted too fast and although an investigation was launched, the biggest worry on their minds is Kita’s six two-week old puppies.
“Now we are going to have to figure out how to keep them alive... without her,” said Pierott. The City of Boise does have a leash ordinance; dog owners are required to keep their dogs on leash, except in specified areas.
You work for dial an argument?
Ya lost, deal with it.
Which officer was threatened: A or B or Both?
BTW, I don't need to read it again you moron.
If the shooter felt threatened, if true, would that not mean the dog was approaching him? Would that not mean the dog took a bullet in the front of the head or front of the body?
If the officer the dog was allegedly approaching did not shoot, why in hell not? Why would the other officer who the dog was *not* approaching, shoot the dog in the back of the head?
This is not rocket science....
Good grief!
All these dog-shooting incidents wouldn’t happen if Tasers were required items for police to carry.
You obviously can’t read with comprehension.
Try it again. This is not rocket science. BTW, do you know what a plural pronoun is? My 60,000 bucks, please.
“snarling at officers as it approached them.”
“they felt threatened by Kita”
“Kita began running toward them and the officers felt forced to protect themselves”
“one decided to fire a single shot at the dog when it came within three feet of them. “
“The dog came upon the officers quickly and they felt it was about to bite them”
Ya see your own words, "Approached" and "Running Towards them"??
If this is what occurred, how did the dog get shot in the back of the head?
Look up the definition of obtuse.
Ya see your own words, “Approached” and “Running Towards them”??
If this is what occurred, how did the dog get shot in the back of the head?
You don’t sound like a good comrade. You should know better than to ask counter-revolutionary questions. On a public forum no less.
Where are the stories of law enforcement who save the lives of people AND animals??? You suggesting that those cases don’t exist?
count out loud five seconds. Then, ask yourself how much ground can a dog cover in 5 seconds? There is a lot wrong with the information in this story. The above, plus other witnesses who stated that the dog was being aggressive towards the officers. Who wrote the story, and what agenda do they have?
My dog barks at everything that moves but he only decides to break out of the fence for girl dogs
Uh...The speed a dog can run is not the issue.
The issue is the dog was shot in back of the head according to the article.
If a suspect is shot in back of the head, that nearly always causes big issues if officers make statements alleging they felt threatened by the suspect.
This is not real complex.
I have two Black Labs. My male barks at everything that moves, including blowing leaves. My female rarely barks. Neither are permitted to roam the neighborhood off leash, unless my 5 year old granddaughter comes over and lets them out (thankfully, that’s rare). Then the chase is on. Neither dog would hurt anyone intentionally, and the male only barks when in the back yard. He doesn’t bark when out for a walk (or when the granddaughter lets them escape). I could see how things could end badly were they out and running up to someone who is armed. People, not only cops, tend to react quickly in such situations.
Don’t be silly. How would an elephant ever get into his pajamas?
He's just a real big puppy
Really? Two officers - one has the dog running in his/her direction - the other officer reacts to protect the first! There is no issue here with respect to the location of the head shot. If there had been a violent perp approaching one cop in a threatening manner, and the other cop shot the perp in the back to protect his/her partner, there would be no issue with the shoot. The ONLY question in this case is whether or not the dog presented a threat. The story states that there were witnesses who supported the position of the officer who shot the dog. The only ones questioning the decision, based on what the article indicated, was the owner of the dog, who definitely has a biased position.
Freedom is also harmless. He just loves people and other animals. Our cat plays with him, biting his neck and tail, and Freedom simply looks at the cat and wags his tail.
Really. That does not even make sense.
Tell me Mr. Dad, if the officer the dog was allegedly moving towards and threatening, why did that officer not shoot the dog?
Why would the officer who was not threatened be the one to shoot the dog in the back of the head?
I wasn’t there. Why would you expect me to know the details of what and why and how things occurred in this incident? You weren’t there either. You are taking a position based upon your opinions and speculations, which, of course, you are entitled to have. You cannot have your own set of facts, though, especially facts not witnessed yourself. I reiterated the facts as reported in the story, then speculated a reason for how the dog MIGHT have been shot in the back of the head - which is a plausible possibility. If you want to know why one officer fired, and not the other, I guess you’ll need to ask the two officers who were at the scene.
Tell me Mr. Dad, if the officer the dog was allegedly moving towards and threatening, why did that officer not shoot the dog?
Why would the officer who was not threatened be the one to shoot the dog in the back of the head?
You are taking a position based upon your opinions and speculations
Wait a minute Mr. Dad...You're the one who speculated and stated, "Two officers - one has the dog running in his/her direction - the other officer reacts to protect the first!"
Where did you get this?
The article never said a word about this.
In fact, unlike your comments, my comments were based strictly on what the article stated.
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.