• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fearing for his life, 300 pound cop shoots 12 pound dog

If he's that heavy, the dog is probably a threat, a threat of the cop having a heart attack from the stress of the 12 lbs of barking. But no, I'm not going to defend him using a large-bore firearm on a 12 lb dog. Just no. Nor a small-bore. It shouldn't have happened, I'm just wondering how somebody that out of shape can do law enforcement safely.

There seems to be a spite of dog-shootings that are completely unnecessary these days.

"Responded appropriately"? WHAT?
 
In general, I try to keep an open mind about these things, you know, wait till more of the story comes out. We are after all, just hearing one side of it. In this case, though, I cannot see any logical reason why an adult of even average weight would feel it necessary to shoot a dog so small.
 
To be somewhat, just a tiny bit fair, you shouldn't put too much trust when someone says "my dog doesn't bite".

"He stated that he gave the dog verbal commands to get back but the dog continued to come towards him in an aggressive manner so he fired one shot at the dog using his duty weapon."

:dl:
 
I have a Jack Russell. They are pretty tough little dogs.

They surely are, and I've been bitten by bigger.

Other than looking the fool, hopping around trying to not step on him, and resisting the urge to punt him away, I can't imagine feeling the need to shoot him.

The cop on the other hand...
 
I used to work as a temp in the animal control department of our city council. Dogs that had been involved in an incident that wasn't deemed serious enough to see the animal put down might be instead identified as a "dangerous animal", and particular conditions were obligated by the owner, such as an inspection of their property, always keeping the dog on lead in public, and the wearing of a muzzle in public.

Of course the majority of the classified dangerous animals were of the breeds you might expect; Pitbulls, German Shepherds, Rottweilers, and so on.

But you'd probably also be rather shocked and surprised at the number of seemingly harmless dogs that had also been classified dangerous; Chihuahuas, Pomeranians, Spaniels, Bichon Frisés, and yes, Jack Russells.

Bear in mind, these were individual dogs that had been involved in very serious incidents; killing other animals or causing serious injuries to people. We had a pomeranian that caused horrific, extensive, and permanent injuries to an adult.

It's bizarre, it's certainly rare, and absent further information I'd be inclined to assume the policeman reacted with excessive force, but it's possible he was justified.
 
...We are after all, just hearing one side of it...

I like to be cautious too but in this case we are kind of getting both sides of the story. This is from the link in the first post:

On Oct. 7th, two Albany Probation Officers were conducting a field visit. During this time, an Albany Probation Officer was involved in an incident that required him to use force against an aggressive canine during a field visit. An incident report was filed and it was determined that the Probation Officer responded appropriately. - Georgia Department of Corrections

One fact (or factoid), this was a probation officer involved; people don't usually think of them as 'cops.'
 
I've never heard probation officers being called "cops" before.

Regardless, this seems like quite the over-reaction. I would have just kicked it if it seemed like it was trying to bite me.

That being said, if it were a much larger dog, I could have understood it.
 
Dog's aren't people, they're property.

Appeals to emotion aside (and as a dog owner, I do experience strong emotions about my dog), I am perfectly content that the custom in this country is that when a dog of any size displays aggression towards people, it may be shot with impunity. I support any police department that upholds such a policy for its officers.
 
Do things like this happen in the other developed countries as often?
 
Dog's aren't people, they're property.

Appeals to emotion aside (and as a dog owner, I do experience strong emotions about my dog), I am perfectly content that the custom in this country is that when a dog of any size displays aggression towards people, it may be shot with impunity. I support any police department that upholds such a policy for its officers.

In other words...all dogs should be turned into cats? :boggled:

A dog of any size, type or variety is likely to display aggression towards people in defense of it's territory. That is what dogs do.
 
Here's something I didn't know; this is apparently pretty common:

Roughly half of all firearms discharges by police officers involve shooting a canine, according to an ASPCA review of public records...But cops rarely get any real training on how to quickly assess how dangerous a dog is, according to the ASPCA.

"Although they may encounter truly dangerous dogs in some situations," the ASPCA says on its website, "the majority of dogs they are likely to meet are well-behaved family pets that are legitimately protecting their homes and families from intruders."Link
 
Do things like this happen in the other developed countries as often?

In this country, if officials anticipate an issue with a dangerous dog, they will make sure animal control officers accompany them to secure the animal. This happens for things like police executing a search warrant at a property where dangerous dogs are known to be housed.

If the official encounters a dangerous dog that wasn't anticipated, they will withdraw and request an animal control officer, and only proceed once the dog is secured.

The dog would only ever be shot if there was need for the official to carry out their duty immediately, such as to preserve human life or secure an escaping criminal. That's exceedingly rare because even our police aren't routinely armed, and situations seldom require such urgent action.

I can only think of a couple of instances, ever. Police seldom use guns here, so when they do it's front page news.
 
In other words...all dogs should be turned into cats? :boggled:

A dog of any size, type or variety is likely to display aggression towards people in defense of it's territory. That is what dogs do.
Caveat emptor (and cave canem, too, come to think of it).

If you choose to keep, as a companion, a beast that indiscriminately threatens anyone who approaches, including police officers lawfully discharging their duties, that's on you.

It's not the police officer's responsibility to make a nuanced evaluation of every arational home-defense system in the tri-state area.
 
Here's something I didn't know; this is apparently pretty common:
FTFA said:
"the majority of dogs they are likely to meet are well-behaved family pets that are legitimately protecting their homes and families from intruders."

"Legitimately protecting", huh?

Like the USS Vincennes was "legitimately protecting" itself from Iran Air Flight 655?

It seems to me that this whole line of reasoning begs the question that a dog's dumb instinct trumps all human social conventions, including the convention that neighbors, girl scouts, and policemen can approach a residence without being blindly categorized as intruders and met with threats of violence by untrained beasts.
 
Last edited:
Dog's aren't people, they're property.

Appeals to emotion aside (and as a dog owner, I do experience strong emotions about my dog), I am perfectly content that the custom in this country is that when a dog of any size displays aggression towards people, it may be shot with impunity. I support any police department that upholds such a policy for its officers.
What about parrots? I would like to shoot my neighbors parrot. Noisy Bastard.
 
"Legitimately protecting", huh?

Like the USS Vincennes was "legitimately protecting" itself from Iran Air Flight 655?

It seems to me that this whole line of reasoning begs the question that a dog's dumb instinct trumps all human social conventions, including the convention that neighbors, girl scouts, and policemen can approach a residence without being blindly categorized as intruders and met with threats of violence by untrained beasts.


Methinks you don't know much about dogs.

Dogs won't attack unless they've been specifically trained to, or you get close enough that you're posing an immediate threat.

By barking and taking an aggressive posture, the dog is doing two things;

1. Notifying the rest of its pack (which is in this instance its owners) that there is a threat.
2. Warning the threat not to come closer.

The appropriate response to such behaviour is to demonstrate to the dog that you are not a threat.

The fact that the dog was barking is telling. Dogs that are going to attack do not bark.
 
If you choose to keep, as a companion, a beast that indiscriminately threatens anyone who approaches, including police officers lawfully discharging their duties, that's on you.

According to the article, we're talking about a 12 pound dog. I have a cat that weighs twice that much. A Jack Russell is usually a bit larger than that, so I'll be charitable, and assume the reporter made a mistake. Let's assume we're talking about a 25 pound dog -big enough that it *could* bite someone's shin or calf. Otherwise, we're talking an "ankle biter" and I really doubt the officer failed to wear shoes that day. Even a thick sock would've likely prevented any serious damage. Beyond that, biting a hand or face would require the officer to have done something to put those parts within reach.

Supposedly, the woman told the officer the dog doesn't bite. I'll argue that wasn't the best response: she should've had the dog trained to stop barking and go lie down or something once she told it that everything was okay.

Again, according to the links posted, the officer "gave the dog verbal commands" to "get back". I've owned dogs all my life, and "get back" has never been an order one of them understood. "Quiet now" or better yet "Sit!" would've made some sense. Again, I'll be charitable, and assume this particular officer had never seen a dog before, and had no idea what a marginally trained house pet would understand or be trained to follow. I'll also note that even if he did know, a well-trained dog would be trained to disobey strangers.

We have the right to defend ourselves, our families, and our property. A pet dog is often the first line of defense: it starts to bark, and lets us know someone is in the driveway, ringing the bell, or crawling through the damned window. For most pets, that's the whole gig: bark 'til they're told not to, then back off and go lie down somewhere. A few of the more territorial breeds will continue to watch, ready to become aggressive again if they see something they think is wrong. Walk into a home and slap the owner of a German shepherd, and you just may lose your hand. That kind of defense is exactly what many people buy those dogs for.

As to the specifics of your post: very few house pets indiscriminately threaten anyone. They bark at strangers. They're far more likely to bark at adult men than anyone else, or at anyone dressed in a way that seems foreign to them. Again, they usually can be told to stop, and that's the end of it. I do not know why the owner of the dog in question didn't call the dog off, or if the dog wasn't trained to obey.

But, none of that changes the basic fact: a 300 pound man felt so frightened and threatened by a dog that he shot it -and not even in the head; it didn't die right away. That's a damn cowardly thing to do. Sorry, but it is. The man does not belong in any branch of law enforcement. He needs to pack up his marbles, and go find a nice desk job where cotton teddy bears are the most threatening thing around. Living, breathing people and pets are clearly far, far too much for him to handle.

Personally, I think they should compensate the woman for her dog, and fire him.
 

Back
Top Bottom