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 ...
Think about it, not a single person on FR would put up with being attacked by a dog if he or she could do anything about it.
I think we need a bit more information on this one before we can render judgment.
The cops involved white? If so we can expect this story to go on. If the scumbag hadn’t shot the dog he probably would have shot a human cop.
This is Knoxville PA? When I saw Pittsburgh I got confused. I thought it was Tenn., where of course they have some terrible crime too.
The dog may be a “police officer” by statutory definition, but certainly not in any sane reality. Nor can any sane person expect a human being to react to a canine in the same manner as one would expect a human being to react to a human officer.
In the People’s Republik of New Jersey, a Daisy Red Rider BB gun is statutorily defined as a “firearm”. Would you blow your friend away with a .357 Magnum if he popped you with his Red Rider?
This is why little foo-foo should never be let off his leash, nor should he be allowed to go for someone's legs or ankles.
Good Point. Sending a dog in attack mode is using deadly force. I wonder if it was caught on tape.
Yeah. I thought it was K town in TN at first as well !
Frankly, if it had been me, the guy would have been shot as soon as he reached inside his shirt. And then all of the “trigger happy policeman” crowd would have been screaming about that. Thankfully, I am not a police officer!
Not unlikely at all, have you ever actually faced an animal attacking you? I have, and trust me, you are going to defend yourself, regardless of what else is going on.
This is a common practice in really tough neighborhoods.
No,
I live in Pittsburgh, many witnesses have made statements to the press and they have been broadcast, not just the victims family or friends.
The officer is on paid administrative leave pending an investigation which I am sure will get to the bottom of this.
Apparantly Pittsburgh police think they have a right to stop and attack somebody they think "might" have a gun.
Around here, no officer would dare think that ~ county doesn't have enough money for the ensuing lawsuit and payout to the victims.
It’s a dog. You can paint him blue but he’s still a dog. Nothing more than that. We tolerate dogs in our camps, but we don’t worship them. They are not gods.
Harper is the chief of police as was not at the scene.
Several witnesses at the scene have stated the suspect did not pull his gun until after the dog was set on him. (and no, they are not the victims friends or family, as some want to claim)
There is a lot more that’s been reported on this case than what’s in this article. Its been in the broadcast news here all morning.
There's clearly no probable cause in this case, and he wasn't even sitting in a parked car so that the cops could claim "he tried to run us over". They sent in a dog and shot the guy ~ for what crime?
While the world is full of possibilities, I tend to focus on probabilities. And it just so happens that in responding to a shots fired call, the officers stumble upon a tigger happy idiot?
Now, I too would shoot my neighbors dog if it came after me. But, if a cop holding a police dog tells me to show him my hands, I’m going to comply. And if I have my gun on me, I’ll be telling the officer I have a gun, with my hands in plain view. All will go home healthy after the encounter...
Very sad that the dog died. Good riddance to the perp.
The point is the cops needed probable cause to stop the guy and demand anything of him. What was “probable cause”?
I would hazard to guess that prior to the dog being unleashed Mr. Jackson was told to put his hands in view...maybe he was told that more than once...and maybe his not cooperating with the police request to put his hands up is what caused the dog to be unleased upon him.
I don’t have a problem with the perp having a gun. But I have a big problem with him pulling it on a police officer and police dog and shooting the dog.
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.