Posted on 05/07/2008 6:09:50 AM PDT by PittsburghAfterDark
A Knoxville man shot and killed a Pittsburgh police dog Tuesday before the canine's handler returned fire, killing the man in what city police Chief Nate Harper called "an unfortunate" but justifiable action. The shooting outraged and angered the family of the 19-year-old man, Justin Jackson. He was pronounced dead by a passing paramedic almost immediately after the shooting that occurred at 6:53 p.m. in front of the UPMC facility on Arlington Avenue on the border of Knoxville and Mt. Oliver.
Harper said the dog's handler ordered the canine -- a 6-year-old German shepherd named Aulf -- to attack after Jackson pulled a gun from under his shirt. Both the officer, an eight-year-veteran Harper did not identify, and Jackson fired several shots, the chief said.
"They shot my son in the head. The officer told me, 'Our dog got shot so we shot him.' They killed my son over a dog," said Donald James Jackson of the West End.
"My 19-year-old son is lying there dead, shot in the head, execution-style. My son's brains are laying on the street. This is crazy. I'm going to do whatever I have to do, file charges against the officers, for my son. It's terrible, the mentality they have," Jackson said as he tried to comfort his wife.
"We are not going to let them get away with this!" Anna Jackson screamed. "They will pay for killing my son. They are going to pay for shooting my son over a dog!"
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
What a crazy story! He wasn’t killed over a dog. He was killed because he pulled out a gun when he was confronted by police officers. If he had shot and hit a tree, the police might still have shot him. Would people then say that he was killed over hurting a tree?
It’s always too bad when a person dies, I don’t think a person necessarily deserves death just for having an illegal gun, but the police still had every right to do what they did when an armed man started firing a gun in front of them.
No, it was a dog, not a police officer. A dog.
Is there an email address where I can send condolences for the dog’s death?
So should the police office have held his fire on the assumption that once the suspect finished blowing away the dog he would drop is gun and surrender? What with the whole dog/human difference and all?
Now this is an interesting scenario. Could it be the cops already had their guns trained on the guy and then sent the dog in so as to give them a reason to shoot? Interesting that the cops went for a head shot instead of center of mass unless they were real close. There very well may be more to this story.
They were responding to a shoots fired call. There could have been a description of the shooter and he matched the description. Wait for the investigation to be completed. Audio tapes will come into play. I’m sure both officers were wearing recorders. Could possibly be video available also. There will also be autopsy results.
I agree, but the article didn't say, and you know if he had been the one to fire the shots that the officers were called about that the article WOULD have said that, right? </sarc>
I'm not ragging on the police on this. When you're told to take your hands from your pockets and one of the hands comes out holding a gun, "you takes your chances and you pays the house sometimes".
I just wish "journalists" would do their job, investigate, and REPORT THE FACTS.
The dad is not the brightest bulb in the fixture, his son pulled a gun on a police officer, anyone who does that is asking to be shot.
(live in Pittsburgh, many witnesses have made statements to the press and they have been broadcast, not just the victims family or friends.)
I’m not interested in statements to the press. Sworn statements are all I’m interested in.
Very sad the officer lost his K-9.
We obviously wont be “talking” at all. Since you seem to fail to understand the basics of Guns101. Your right to have, hold and use is utterly dependent upon everyone else right to shoot back.
Standard operating procedure after you kill someone.
No it does not, in terms of being shot for defending yourself from an attacking animal.
If he pulled the gun first and threatened the officers, fine.. set the dog on him and plug him.
If however the cops sent the dog on him and he defended his life by a registered or unregistered firearm is irrellevant. If they wanted to know if the gun was registered they could certainly find that out without killing him for daring to have the audacity to use a weapon to defend himself from an attacking animal.
Like I said, if the guy pulled the gun first, fine.. if the cops sicked a dog on him and then shot him for daring to have the temerity to allow his survival instincts do what they are supposed to do when being attacked by an animal, then that’s a big problem.
I didn’t say him, I said ANYONE. Pay attention.
And the investigation will provide them, as of this moment, NO SWORN statements have been made by anyone, so to conclude anything by your standard, pro or con is impossible.
I never implied it wasn’t.
(so to conclude anything by your standard, pro or con is impossible.)
The only person trying to conclude anything from this is you!
I thought my post was clear in that I was being critical of the anthropomorphic view of canines in the law and not the “human” officer’s actions.
However, if the human officer was fearful of being shot, said offcier should have drawn his weapon and defended himself instead of commanding his partner to his death.
So if dogs are like people too, as you aver in dismissing the difference between human and canine for LEO purposes, then the human officer orderered his unarmed partner to attack an armed suspect which resulted in his partner’s death.
Alternatively, if the human officer ordered his canine partner to attack the perp when perp had no weapon visible nor gave any probable cause, then it would appear the human officer might have some professional trouble coming his way.
In either event, it begs the question, had the deceased officer survived could he have been promoted over his partner?
I agree, they should not be considered "police officers" any more than the officer's firearm or tazer. They are tools; living, breathing bio-weapons, used solely for their effective autonomy.
They can perform no other tasks required of a police officer. The threat of release may normally be enough for the perp to comply, through common knowledge/fear of dog attack, just as having a gun pointed at someone is understood through common knowledge of what a gun does.
There is a huge psychological difference between tackled/cuffed by an officer, and being attacked/bit by an animal trained to do so, which is why the threat of release is used in the first place.
Nominate for stupidest post on the thread. Police officers rarely bite, police dogs on the other hand, usually do.
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.