The Smoaks appear on CNN
Posted on 01/08/2003 11:35:54 PM PST by JohnHuang2
The Tennessee policeman who shot and killed a family's dog during a terrorizing traffic stop took just three seconds to slay the animal after it jumped out its owners' car, reports the Cookeville Herald-Citizen.
Law-enforcement authorities released a videotape of the incident yesterday, which shows the three-second time frame on the tape's counter.
The Cookeville police officer who shot the dog, Eric Hall, has since been reassigned to administrative duties while the incident is probed.
As WorldNetDaily reported, the Smoak family was returning to their home in North Carolina on New Year's Day when three police cars swarmed their vehicle on Interstate 40 in what appeared to be a traffic stop.
The Smoaks appear on CNN |
A Tennessee Highway Patrol officer broadcast orders over a bullhorn for driver James Smoak to toss the keys out of the car window, get out with his hands up and walk backwards to the rear of the car. Smoak obeyed and was subsequently ordered onto his knees and handcuffed at gunpoint. Officers similarly handcuffed his wife, Pamela, and their 17-year-old son with their guns drawn.
As the troopers were putting the family members inside the patrol car, one of the Smoak family dogs, a boxer-bulldog mix named Patton, came out of the car and headed toward one of the Cookeville officers who were assisting the THP troopers.
"That officer had a flashlight on his shotgun, and the dog was going toward that light, and the officer shot him, just blew his head off," Pamela Smoak told the Herald-Citizen. "We had begged them to shut the car doors so our dogs wouldn't get out, [but] they didn't do that."
The Smoaks had been pulled over by mistake after someone reported seeing the car getting on the highway with cash flying out from behind the vehicle. James Smoak, it turns out, had mistakenly left his wallet on the roof of the car when he stopped to get gas. Someone within the THP reportedly thought a robbery had occurred, though it turns out none had.
Hall claimed he was acting in self-defense.
"I yelled at the dog to get back, but it attempted to circle me to attack, so I felt that I had no option but to protect myself," the officer wrote in a police report.
Police Chief Bob Terry told the Herald-Citizen, "We are aware there is a lot of criticism out there over this incident, and we want to take [Hall] off the road and let him perform other duties while we get this all resolved." Terry stressed that Hall was not being punished for killing the dog.
The Herald-Citizen reports that "to an average viewer, the scene recorded on the video may not demonstrate the aggressiveness or the threat the officer said he experienced as the dog came toward him."
Terry said he will have two unrelated police agencies perform independent reviews of the incident.
"We once again extend our deepest concerns to the Smoak family for their loss," Terry said. "We know this was a terrible experience for them, and we truly wish that we could undo the events that occurred on the night of Jan. 1."
The Smoaks recently told their story on CNN's "Connie Chung Tonight."
Speaking of Patton, son Brandon Smoak told Chung, "He's the gentlest dog that I've ever been around. He's like Scooby Doo. He wasn't mean at all."
And as other human beings they should suffer the consequences of their "mistakes". Aiming and firing a shotgun is not a "mistake". It is a deliberate act which the shooter initiates. The "mistake" may be in judgement, temperment or thought processes of the shooter. For this the shooter should suffer the consequences and they should be severe.
If a passenger in the car had made a "mistake" and shot one of the officers would you be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt? Should he suffer the consequences of his "mistake"?
Maybe if you or I had seen and heard exactly what transpired at the moment that the young man, whose dog had just been shot, described as the officer grinning, we would have interpreted Hall’s expression entirely differently. Maybe it was more of a grimace than a grin. Maybe the other officer said something to Hall, which the young man did not hear, that elicited a response with an entirely different meaning.
Are you absolutely convinced that the young man’s characterization of Hall’s expression was flawlessly accurate?
Have you watched the interview of Officer Hall that I posted the link(s) for above?
Kevin, you know I'm not an animal rights nut - but blowing away someone's property just because it appears obnoxious to you doesn't seem very American.
That's just about the worst way to deal with dogs. Kind of like being aggressive with something that has at most the mentality of an obnoxious little toddler and most often are just as easy to defuse if you actually pay attention.
The most wonderful men I've met are those who have the discernment to understand animal behavior, as well as not be unduly threatened by bluffing dogs, annoying as they are.
The cop may not have been able to see whether the dog was aggressive, but he WAS asked to close the door to prevent it getting out, and still ignored the danger. That is just plain arrogant. It wasn't only a danger to the dog, it was dangerous for other drivers who might have hit it or swerve and cause an accident, but he made the decision to ignore the request.
So--- if you were stopped by a cop, while holding your suspicious dogs' collar, and he demanded you put your hands up, and you said if you did, the dog may try to protect you, please don't make me put both hands up...
...and he still made you, the dog growled at him and he shot it... who would be at fault?
Definitely. I'm just watching the 'trend' you mentioned in another post. None of this stuff surprises me but it quietly (sometimes not so quietly) outrages me nonetheless. I am only waiting with a calm certainty of where this trend is going, and mentally preparing myself and my family and friends for it as best I can.
Have a beer man... it's outrageous what is happening but being all hot under the collar won't make you a more effective soldier against it.
We can "what if" until terriers became horses. It was a quick, panicked event. Cops tried to act proactively in what had been reported as a crime situation.
If they'd succeeded in grabbing a bunch of lowlife cretinous robbers (esp. illegal aliens) who'd just robbed Gramma's last $450, most of the FReepers here would be cheering.
They didn't. They made a mistake. It was almost over. But then the cop who was actually there said a pit bull/boxer attacked him and he shot, and not until the last millisecond. That's what actually happened.
So one is either basically with the "Cops! They're jackbooted pigs! Poor doggie! The cop's lying!" school of thought, or he's with the "Cops, they risk their lives daily to keep peace in a fallen world, make decisions weekly that most of us are spare for our entire lives, I'm inclined to cut him some slack" school.
It's clear where a lot of "experts" here are. It's clear where I am. What more do you want? Feel I haven't quite heard plainly enough what some of my darling co-FReepers here think? Believe me, I could pass a written exam. (c;
Dan
Police don't want to shoot it out with bad boyz.
Make a simple arrest and the boss will give you a pat on the back. Revenue!
Most are not fit to patrol... and few do.
You really know how to make a guy glad he took the time to give a thoughtful response.
Noted.
Dan
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.