Calgary Cops Kill Dog

[Claeren]

I believe cops have to shot to kill if they draw their weapon.... firing a handgun is not as easy as TV makes it look. An extremely difficult weapon to aim.

Further, a police officer never has to chose the more risky response given a choice, especially when facing a dog. Simply put, a cops well being from even being scratched is of greater concern then the dogs life, especially when that dog is at the scene of a call where their partner is alone inside with the owner who was supposed to have restrained the dog in the first place...


What i want to know is why this guy called 911 in the first place. Apparently there was a domestic abuse situation with his girlfriend but HE called 911? That seems rare, no?


Claeren.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

I know some people might not agree with this, but you have to remember that it is just a dog. FDW you are talking about an unpredictable animal that one could make the reasonable assumption was running at the police officer. I would rather have a dead dog than an injured police officer. I know people will say that a dog is like a member of the family and all that stuff, but the safety of a human takes precidence over the life of an animal.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by Indi@Jun 9 2005, 03:01 PM
pepper spray works very well with dogs.....don't the boys in blue carry pepper spray.....hhmmm, I wonder if this officer was trained by Officer Ira McCumber??

You mean the officer that was being attacked with a knife by the man who had repeatedly assaulted police officers, and actually had his weapon jam resulting in him have to reholster the gun and then pull it out again and fire the weapon at the individual attacking him with a knife.

I mean the officer in the Ira McCumber case was being attacked with a knife. Should he have taken it like a man or something?

[Claeren]

Pepper spray is only effective if on hand and prepared for use. It is fairly cumbersome to deploy rapidly in an emergency...

It is also dangerous to use in populated and/or outdoor/windy areas. You could kill an asthma patient or a baby in a nearby house or (dangerously) incapacitate the officer (who is backing up his partner) discharging the spray even in a basic scenario...


Claeren.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Why bring up humans? We're clearing talking about dogs here. Stay on topic.

To use a parallel situation that shows how ridiculous your argument is.

If a person should be willing to suffer an assualt or injury from an animal, just to make sure it really is intent on attacking, then logically they should do the same when faced with a human attacker, no?

Human, animal, doesnt matter. If you feel that you are in imminent danger of injury or death, you have the right to defend yourself. In the case of a cop, he has the right to shoot whatever is attacking him.

And let's face it, you're making as many assumptions as anyone here. You're arguing hard against anyone who thinks it might have not been justified which means you're assuming the shooting was justified. Hypocrite.

Said the pot to the kettle. One sentence after telling me not to put words in your mouth, you try to do the same to me. Tell me, what assumptions have I made about this case?

Take a hard look in the mirror, FDW. You are the biggest hypocrite here.

I'm arguing hard against people who are convicting this man of unjustifiable use of force despite having no idea what actually happened. Nothing more, nothing less.

I've stated twice now that I dont know if it was justified, or if he overreacted, or if he misinterpreted the dog's actions. I'm just not willing to condemn a man's actions until I have a better idea what happened. If you want, I can go back and bold, red type and giant font those comments, seeing as how you seem to have great difficulty seeing anything that proves your arguments wrong.

[Indi]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard+Jun 10 2005, 03:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mean Mr. Mustard @ Jun 10 2005, 03:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Indi@Jun 9 2005, 03:01 PM
pepper spray works very well with dogs.....don't the boys in blue carry pepper spray.....hhmmm, I wonder if this officer was trained by Officer Ira McCumber??

You mean the officer that was being attacked with a knife by the man who had repeatedly assaulted police officers, and actually had his weapon jam resulting in him have to reholster the gun and then pull it out again and fire the weapon at the individual attacking him with a knife.

I mean the officer in the Ira McCumber case was being attacked with a knife. Should he have taken it like a man or something? [/b][/quote]
no I mean the officer who, only days after killing a person with his gun, killed a dog in the very same fashion. Have you seen the spray on a cannister of Pepper spray, its not a fine mist by any means...It would take one helluva wind to take it off its target. A dog's sense of smell is everything, take that away and the dog would cry like a baby.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Jun 10 2005, 05:02 PM
I'm arguing hard against people who are convicting this man of unjustifiable use of force despite having no idea what actually happened. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then why did you ever respond to me? I haven't "convicted" anybody. All I said is that I find it unlikely that the last resort (killing the dog) was the only option. I'm not sure why you have such a huge problem with that. Maybe you should go back and re-read my posts. I've said several times that it might be the case that they had to shoot it, all I said was that I think that is UNLIKELY.

You read me?

[Buff]

What about the 2nd shot to put the dog out of his misery? Was the first shot lethal? Is that a definite? Perhaps a vet could've saved the dog. Maybe the 2nd shot was a bit too hastey.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+Jun 10 2005, 10:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ Jun 10 2005, 10:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Snakeeye@Jun 10 2005, 05:02 PM
I'm arguing hard against people who are convicting this man of unjustifiable use of force despite having no idea what actually happened. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then why did you ever respond to me? I haven't "convicted" anybody. All I said is that I find it unlikely that the last resort (killing the dog) was the only option. I'm not sure why you have such a huge problem with that. Maybe you should go back and re-read my posts. I've said several times that it might be the case that they had to shoot it, all I said was that I think that is UNLIKELY.

You read me? [/b][/quote]
You responded to me, not the other way around.

And I stand by my original comments. How do you know that shooting the dog was the only action the cop took? How do you know that he had other options? You most certantly have convicted this man of use of excessive force, yet you know nothing of what happened.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

from the article (and from the owner I think)

"The dog was screaming, it was in agony," he said. "Hell, I would have shot it then myself to put it out of its misery."

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Jun 10 2005, 06:40 PM
You most certantly have convicted this man of use of excessive force, yet you know nothing of what happened.

There you go putting words in my mouth again.

[browna]

I still think its excessive.

If you or I was suprise attacked by this dog, given the fact that the owner is 50m away, what would you do, if you had no gun? Make a lot of noise, defend yourself with whatever you can, and try and get the hell out of the way ASAP.

That ruckus alone would've likely got the owner and the cop talking to the owner's attention. As would've firing a gun up in the air...that noise got the owner outside as it was, and then they can try and handle thier dog.

IMO, cops use of a gun is a privelidge, not a right. Only when its clear someone else has the intent of serious harming or killing him, should it ever be fired at someone. Of course, theres a reason they are the few that are allowed to be armed in Canada, but it doesn't give them carte blanche.

Again, it depends on the time frame from when the dog was let out by the Cops, to the death.

But did the Cop have any attack marks from a struggle? A dog bearing its teeth and growling isn't an excuse to pull out the gun...my dog does that to me when she's had enough playing and wants to go inside. She's licking my face 1 min later.

If he did struggle with this dog for a few minutes, and was still all alone, and this dog had snapped, and kept attacking, maybe then the force is justified.

He grew up around dogs, which should have him undersand that many dogs are not fond of strangers, and have different ways of appearing to show agression, some more serious then others.

If more facts come out, Ill change my tune. But from the story, it doesn't sound like there was enough time, or type of personal attack for this officier to truly determine and believe his life was really in danger, which is the only reason he should fire his gun at anything, dogs included.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Again we don't know the facts, but I have to disagree with a few of your points Browna.

1) Firing in the air is NOT an option. Who knows where that bullet is gonna end up, in a residential area you could end up doing a lot of harm by doing that.

2) Why does the cop have to have a struggle with the Dog before shooting it is jusified. As has been brought up, if a guy lunges at a cop with a knife is he expected to struggle with the guy first, or can he just shoot him? I for one would never want to struggle with a German Shepard if it was actually trying to do me any harm.

Again none of us know what the actual circumstances are. If the cop just decided to shoot a friendly dog he should be punished. If the cop actually precieved a threat to his safety then I'll defend him. Untill we get the actual facts both scenarios are equally likely so why don't we all just reserve our judgement for now.

[browna]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Jun 10 2005, 03:09 PM
2) Why does the cop have to have a struggle with the Dog before shooting it is jusified. As has been brought up, if a guy lunges at a cop with a knife is he expected to struggle with the guy first, or can he just shoot him? I for one would never want to struggle with a German Shepard if it was actually trying to do me any harm.

Again none of us know what the actual circumstances are. If the cop just decided to shoot a friendly dog he should be punished. If the cop actually precieved a threat to his safety then I'll defend him. Untill we get the actual facts both scenarios are equally likely so why don't we all just reserve our judgement for now.

Difference is, that a guy with a knife has the intent of harming the Cop, just by pointing a knife or gun at him.

With a dog, its a grey area. If there was one, it didn't seem like some prologed attack, or did the dog have the cop down on the ground.

As I mentioned, my dog growls and barks at me when she gets done playing around in the yard with me. Bears her teeth, and the odd time she'll jump up at me (70lbs lab) and take a nip at me. She'll also jump up, without teeth bared, to people who come into the house, in an excited way.

Each dog has different ways of dealing with strangers. What may seem agressive to someone, may seem like playing to the dog, and vice versa.

I just find its tough for the cop to assume that he was backed into a corner and it was clear that the dog had intent from doing severe harm or killing the cop, and thus only option was to shoot him/her, given the timeline of the story, thats all.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I don't know. I think most people can tell the difference between an excited dog and an agressive dog, even one they've never seen before.

And why is a dog any different than a person. If anything, the cops should be more sure about the person with the knife than a dog.

[Flame On]

Well maybe my trickshot ideas of blowing hands off was hasty/foolish, but I think my overall point was clear. I don't see why every shot is trained to be fatal.
I guess what a lot of you are all saying is that any civilian in Britain is pretty screwed if they have a dog problem potentially and coincidentally need a "bobby". I mean obviously they'd have to run away like little girls, clearly being unable to defend themselves and the original civillian would be abandoned to what ever fate they had called for. Either that or the police would be forced to call in the special arms unit, perhaps a helicopter or maybe get the military envolved, the SAS might be able to come to the rescue too.
If I'm the police chief and I have an officer that can't take out a dog with a knight stick, I'd be seriously questioning their ability.
I'm by far not advocating cops should second guess a dangerous armed person, or drugged out person, or hostage sittuation or whatever I'm not advocating no shooting. Feel free to fill perps with lead, dead as dodo's, I just don't think every sittuation warrents it, but admittedly perhaps this did too.

[CaptainCrunch]

Have you ever tried to take out an angry dog with a nightstick. If you miss or graze, your pretty much screwed.

If the dog was charging and threatening then the cop was justified in shooting it.

If the cop was trigger happy, the facts will come out. And that cop will be out of a job. We'll have to be patient

Well maybe my trickshot ideas of blowing hands off was hasty/foolish, but I think my overall point was clear. I don't see why every shot is trained to be fatal.

The thing with guns is that the moment that you decide to pull the trigger it has to pretty much be a fatal shot. That whole shooting to wound, or disarm is John Wayne stuff. And if you aim for a peripheral body part and miss and the bullet goes screaming down the streat at thousands of feet per second, who knows what its going to hit.

The reason for aiming for center mass is two fold. First of all, any hit in the x area is pretty much immediately fatal and will stop the shootee before he can do any more harm. The second reason is that the X zone is the thickest part of the body and will pretty much stop a bullet from traveling far beyond thus removing a lot of (but not all risk) of collateral damage.

I guess what a lot of you are all saying is that any civilian in Britain is pretty screwed if they have a dog problem potentially and coincidentally need a "bobby". I mean obviously they'd have to run away like little girls, clearly being unable to defend themselves and the original civillian would be abandoned to what ever fate they had called for. Either that or the police would be forced to call in the special arms unit, perhaps a helicopter or maybe get the military envolved, the SAS might be able to come to the rescue too.

The British now have armed constables that go into dangerous areas, and yes with the Bobbies discretion is the better part of valor, thier job is more to evaluate the situation and call in help as needed, they won't go into a dangerous area with a just a night stick. I think its very likely that the tradition of the unarmed Bobby is going to go away soon.

[/B]I'm by far not advocating cops should second guess a dangerous armed person, or drugged out person, or hostage sittuation or whatever I'm not advocating no shooting. Feel free to fill perps with lead, dead as dodo's, I just don't think every sittuation warrents it, but admittedly perhaps this did too. [B]

Until theres a solid non lethal method thats 100% effective and long range expect cops to continue to have discretionary use of firearms. As it stands the stun bag (bean bag in a shot gun) isn't 100% effective on putting people down, People high on angel dust and other hardened drugs have shrugged off pepper spray and tasers. There's a simple rule, do what the cops say in a arrest situation, don't make threatening moves or pull a weapon and they won't shoot you dead.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+Jun 10 2005, 11:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ Jun 10 2005, 11:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Snakeeye@Jun 10 2005, 06:40 PM
You most certantly have convicted this man of use of excessive force, yet you know nothing of what happened.

There you go putting words in my mouth again. [/b][/quote]
Dont be complaining when I connect the dots for you.

I realize this is a little late to chime in and that it is just healthy debate... however... everyones opinion seems to be based on a friggin article in the media... and we all know how truly accurate those are.... do any of you who are critical have any idea on how cops are trained? Do any of you have a clue about CPS policy or the Criminal Code of Canada? Do any of you have any clue what happens to the human body in a stressful situation, especially when it comes to life and death situation or even a situation of greivous bodily harm. Do you really think cops want to fire a a person or animal?

Maybe keep ignorant/misinformed opinions to yourselves.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Bent Wookie@Jun 11 2005, 11:01 PM
I realize this is a little late to chime in and that it is just healthy debate... however... everyones opinion seems to be based on a friggin article in the media... and we all know how truly accurate those are.... do any of you who are critical have any idea on how cops are trained? Do any of you have a clue about CPS policy or the Criminal Code of Canada? Do any of you have any clue what happens to the human body in a stressful situation, especially when it comes to life and death situation or even a situation of greivous bodily harm. Do you really think cops want to fire a a person or animal?

Maybe keep ignorant/misinformed opinions to yourselves.

Maybe you don't get the idea of a forum where people can share views, opinions, what ever they want.