Cop took just 3 seconds to shoot dog

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.

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.

"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."

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."

3. Is it SOP to have just one video camera recording with several units on the scene?

First of all, not all police forces utilize video cameras in the police cars. I suspect that the since the video was released by the THP that they do and the Cookeville PD does not. It is also possible that none of the other cameras (if there were any) were not in position to show the activity. The THP car was the one that did the stop and the one most likely to have its camera in the best position to cover it.

4. Was Officer Hall aware of the video camera's field of vision? He had just stepped outside of it's field when he shot the dog.

What you saw was an artifact of a television station editor, who for misguided reasons of fear of offending viewers, edited and CROPPED the video to exclude the actual killing. The first video linked to FreeRepublic that I saw was a non-moving camera camera that showed the complete incident from the moment the car left the highway until the aftermath of the shooting. In that video, the officer's shot is in full view as is the dog being hit while in midleap at Officer Hall. In fact, it shows Hall RETREATING before the on coming dog before he fires at it as it jumps at him. One other edited version of this raw footage I have seen on TV omits other important events. The result of this editing is that Hall is shown in the worst possible light: i.e. "stepped outside of its field before shooting."

Why didn't they ascertain whether they were dealing with a Pitbull?

You've got THREE SECONDS... quick call the AKC and have an expert come and determine the breed of the dog that is jumping at you.

Right.

According to the latest reports the dog was a Bull Terrier - Boxer mix... and for those of you who don't know, a "Bull Terrier" is commonly called a "Pit Bull." The dog I saw running in the video looks much more like a "Pit Bull" than it does a Boxer.

Now add in the limited vision an officer has if their using flashlights and the headlights of the cruiser to illuminate the scene. You cannot judge the visibility from what the video sees.

Monday morning quarterbacking is great fun... but it doesn't win football games.

One the first statements from Hall to the press was that he thought he was being attacked by a Pitbull.

One might also say that one of the first statements the press chose to inform the public about was that Hall thought the dog was a Pitbull. The fact that the press, or police administrators or Hall himself may have thought this tidbit was important has never mattered much to me. But since you mention it, don't you think the dog resembles a Pitbull?

IMO, many of Officer Hall's accusers have blamed him for not knowing more about the dog's disposition... for not being more in command. Are you aware that the THP was in charge at the scene? Are you aware that Hall was assigned the duty of providing backup during a felony stop? Have you thought about what the imperatives are for an officer providing backup during a felon stop? ...the procedures and training? Have you thought about what the reasonable expectations of an officer providing backup are on the officer (trooper in this case) who is in charge?

Put yourself in Hall's (and the other Cookeville Officer(s)) shoes for a minute. Some dispatcher tells them to assist in a THP trooper request to provide backup during a felony stop of a robbery suspect... Officer Hall himself characterizes this occurrence as unusual and serious. They arrive at a scene were a THP Lt. is in charge and are assigned backup and assist duties. Have you thought about the difference between the on the scene authority of Tennessee State Troopers who are in change and the local Cookeville Police who are assigned backup and assist duties?

I could go on, but you either get it or you don't.

Per the internal affairs report, Two of the three Cokeville officers had video in their vehicles but did not activate them because of a possibility of a system "override" of the other units(yea right). No mention is made about the third officer other than all three video tapes were impounded by IA.

http://www.putnampit.com/pithome.htm
(go to IA report)

Oh yes seems dogs like to charge when officer Hall is around...and yelling get back at them...how many trained dogs know what "get back" means, maybe Jo Jo? How about stay, down, sit, roll over or even fetch?

The city released two police reports Friday afternoon detailing these other shootings involving people's pets, but here's the difference. In these cases Eric Hall got a thank you for it, and there's a good chance he prevented some children from getting hurt.

The first case was in May of 1998. In an excerpt of the report Hall says, "I started backing up yelling at the top of my lungs for the dog to get back. As I drew my weapon I was in grave fear of this animal. The dog charged at two children, informed my supervisor."

In another case three years later, Hall was called to a neighborhood where a vicious dog was roaming the streets. That time Eric Hall wrote, "The dog charged at two children...I told the kids to go inside. I informed my supervisor."

Hall ended up shooting and killing the dog.

The thing you ignore is, that the stop was no longer a felony stop once all the bad tourists were handcuffed and kneeling on the ground.
The situation was defused at that point.
The next course of action was to secure the scene, ie ensure the dogs did not get out and cause a traffic accident or worse.
They had time during the handcuffing procedure to also secure the vehicle, they chose not to, for whatever reason.
To now argue that because the dog resembled a pit bull and thus OK to kill on sight is making your arguement asinine, IMO.
Well judge, it looked like a Pit Bull and it looked like it was going to bite me so I killed it won't work for you and it shouldn't work for him.

I never said he backed out of view.

Oh? When the dog left the car Hall is backing up while the dog is not headed towards him like you said. Then they both go out of view."

Then you say Hall is backing up when comes *back* in view of the camera. That's absurd. If moving backward would take him out of camera range, it certainly wouldn't put him back in camera range from where he was positioned. Look again at the direction Hall headed in when the dog left the car. He is moving to the left from his right.

I'm done with the subject.

Look again at the direction Hall headed in when the dog left the car. He is moving to the left from his right.

That's your evidence that Hall was going after the dog? A few steps towards it (which also happened to be towards the car)? No wonder you refuse to admit he was backing up when he shot the dog. That would ruin your case.

The thing you ignore is, that the stop was no longer a felony stop once all the bad tourists were handcuffed and kneeling on the ground.

The thing YOU ignore is that the according to ALL the officers' statements and the videotape, the officers were STILL handcuffing Brandon, the last person out of the car, when the dog left the car. In fact, officer Hall had just stepped forward to hand the handcuffing officer HIS pair of handcuffs and as he stepped back, the dog got out. The scene was not yet secure... nor is a felony stop concluded until the police are sure there is no more threat. Until they search the station wagon, they do not even know if there is anyone still in the car hiding under what might appear to be luggage in the reat compartment.

Secondly, any DOG, whether a pit bull or Fifi the poodle, can inflict a dangerous bite, they are carnivores and instictively, predators. A pitbull can break your leg with its bite.

Finally, the dog was NOT SHOT ON SIGHT... it was shot only when it jumped at officer Hall.

Well judge, it looked like a Pit Bull and it looked like it was going to bite me so I killed it won't work for you and it shouldn't work for him.

It WILL work for you and for Officer Hall. If you are in fear of injury or death you are allowed to defend yourself... you are not required under law to wait for that injury before defending yourself.

But then the cop who was actually there said a pit bull/boxer attacked him and he shot, and not until the last millisecond.

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.

If he indeed "waited until the last millisecond" I would be "inclined to cut him some slack." But you know what? He didn't wait. He could have sprayed Patton with pepper spray, he could have hit him with his nightstick, he could have waited to see if the dog was going to attack. But he did none of those things. He immediately blasted off the poor dog's head when he thought he might get his hair mussed. Where was the struggle? Where was the alternative? Here is a cop placed in a not-even-close-to-stressful situation, a situation where there was a lot of assistance, a situation where the suspects were all handcuffed and on the ground, who immediately chooses to kill with a high-power weapon. What would he have done if he were alone in a really stressful stop? What would he have done if he were the first on the scene? Would we be debating over the dead body of one of the family members? It's the future I'm concerned about, not the dead dog. I'm concerned that we may have a hot-head who has revealed his inability to make snap decisions. If he is removed from police duty we may prevent a future tragedy involving a person. It was a dog this time, next time it could be me. It could be you.

Monday morning quarterbacking is great fun... but it doesn't win football games.

Who is responsible for the unfolding of events when someone assumes the police powers of the state and the targets of that power are in full compliance and cooperation with the requests of the individuals wielding that police power?

The police blew it. Unless that is recognized and dealt with we will have more "accidents" and it will not be just mangy mongrels that get their heads blown off.

One might also say that that one of the first statements the press chose to inform the public about was that Hall thought the dog was a Pitbull.

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make.

Hall made that statement early on, the police chief reiterated it, and it keeps getting repeated here. If it really were a Pitbull, then that would make his actions more understandable for most of the public.

Are you saying the press put this out to make him look bad?

But since you mention it, don't you think the dog resembles a Pitbull?

I wasn't the one who raised the Pitbull issue, as I point out in my previous paragraph, but since you asked, no I don't think it looks much like a Pitbull.

As to your other numerous questions-- I'm aware that Hall was providing back up (or one might say that the press chose to inform the public of this).

Look, I agree that the role of the THP is not getting as much play as it should and there are many points that need clarification, such as the standard for initiating felony stops, the role of back up, etc.

All parties involved, including Hall, the THP officers, and the Smoaks should be cross examined under oath in order to answer these and other questions.

It WILL work for you and for Officer Hall. If you are in fear of injury or death you are allowed to defend yourself... you are not required under law to wait for that injury before defending yourself.

That is playing fast and loose with the law, I believe it is "imminent danger" or "life-threatening danger", you can't kill a mugger because he looks like he is going to mug you.
I am modem challenged and unable to view the video frame by frame, but you are the ONLY poster describing the dogs actions as leaping at the officer.
No matter how you care to spin it, what that officer did was cold-blooded and unnecesssary. Defend it to your hearts content.

If you are in fear of injury or death you are allowed to defend yourself... you are not required under law to wait for that injury before defending yourself.

That's the whole point. We can't have an officer out there making life-or-death decisions who is constantly fearful of everything going on around him. An officer who is feels he is "in fear of injury or death" from a tail-wagging dog when he is surrounded by other policemen does not have the psychological temperament to be a police officer.

The unedited tape shows Officer Hall facing toward the left, covering the arresting officers as they handcuff the suspected felons. He then steps FORWARD, reaches out to the closest officer holding the last person out of the car, stretches and hands the officer a set of handcuffs, and then steps BACKWARDS, still covering the suspects. At this moment the dog gets out of the car.

Officer Hall, still facing the arrest scene and covering the arrestees while the arresting officer bends down to shackle his prisoner, backs slightly out of the frame as the dogs heads also out of frame in the distance, curving toward Officer Hall's position.

Officer Hall turns, and then rapidly steps backwards BACK into the frame as the dog (depending on whose story is being told) lunges and leaps either aggressively toward Hall, or playfully toward his gun mounted flashlight . As Hall collides with the arresting officer behind him, he fires ONE SHOT from the shotgun at the dog in mid-leap, knocking the dog to the ground, probably killing the dog instantly.

This is what a dispassionate observer will see when they look at the RAW, unedited video tape.

You've got THREE SECONDS..

Hogwash.

How much time did they have prior to the alleged attack? There was time enough to get all the occupants out of the car, handcuff them, and listen to repeated pleas from the family to close the doors so the dog wouldn't get out.

Don't you think they'd want to know if they were dealing with a Pitbull versus a Chihuahua?

BTW, what "latest report" are you refering to that says this was was a Bull Terrier(Pitbull)/Boxer mix?

Wrong. A dispassionate observer will read the effing internal investigation report; especially McWhorters statement. I think I see the problem, here. You've got your officers confused... *McWhorter*, the other covering Cookeville officer, is the one who hands the cuffs to the THP. He says so in his statement...McWhorter, not Hall is the officer you are talking about.

Read both statements; Halls and McWhorters. You've got your officers mixed up.

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.