A Bad Shooting

[Arc]

Sometimes police officers shoot and kill people or animals. This past Wednesday an LAPD officer shot and killed a dog.

Slow-moving and heavy-set, Teri the pit bull was the pride of animal lovers who find homes for stray dogs roaming the streets of downtown Los Angeles.

But Teri won't be around to see the calendar page when it's flipped over at Josephs' alley alcove. On Wednesday, a Los Angeles police officer shot the animal in front of the gate to the pair's makeshift home. A city animal control officer said Teri died on the way to a clinic.

Police assert that the 70-pound dog attacked a column of four bicycle patrol officers riding through the alley west of Mateo Street.

The last officer in line, 10-year-veteran Gina Iglesias, fired the fatal shot "fearing for her safety," police said Friday.

"The apparently startled dog bared its teeth and attacked," officials said in a statement. None of the officers was injured…

Manuel Maldonado, a DHL delivery driver who works from a warehouse next to the shooting site, said he encountered Teri moments before the bicycle patrol pedaled up.

"I'd pulled into the alley and the dog was sleeping. I got out to tell her to move — you pet her and she'll move out of the way. A little later I heard a gunshot and went back to look and she was lying there in the same spot," Maldonado said.

"I don't think she even barked," he added. "This was unnecessary."

Mark Helf, an art director working at the studio on a sportswear advertising photo shoot, described the scene as heart-wrenching.

"They wouldn't let Benny go to his dog, even to put a compress on the wound. He had to basically watch his dog bleed to death and die over a two-hour period.

"I heard Benny plead, 'Please, please shoot my dog, put it out of its misery.' They wouldn't even do that," Helf said.

Rescue founders Lori Weise and Richard Tuttlemondo said Josephs was essentially dismissed as a homeless transient by authorities, even though Teri was licensed to him at the 7th Place address.

She believes the officer's actions were excessive and dangerous to the entire neighborhood.

"If they felt threatened, why didn't they just Mace her?" Weise said. "Postmen do it every day."

Sometimes even when procedures or guidelines are not violated in officer involved shootings it is still what is known as "a bad shooting." At this point this may be one of those case.

Here is the LA Times article. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dog19feb19,1,186113.story?coll=la-headlines-california)

[Copzilla]

Then again, it may not.

[MorWired]

Manuel Maldonado, a DHL delivery driver who works from a warehouse next to the shooting site, said he encountered Teri moments before the bicycle patrol pedaled up.

"I'd pulled into the alley and the dog was sleeping. I got out to tell her to move — you pet her and she'll move out of the way. What a nice man.

[BigDeputyDog]

"Friendliest dog in the world. Wouldn't hurt a flea."
"Everyone in the neighborhood loved him. They all played with him."
"He was just a big baby. He'd lay down and let you rub his belly."

The pit bull in this story?? NO!

It was a beautiful 3 year old German Shepherd that tried to take my leg off. Came at me with teeth bared, ears down against his skull, tail between his legs and not wagging. Barking and slathering.

I was a hundred yards from my patrol vehicle, 50 yards from any shelter. I did the only thing I could do to keep from getting bit... I had to fire on him, killing him instantly.

The neighborhood was up in arms for the "needless killing and excessive violence"...

Until 3 eyewitnesses came forward and gave the same details that I had given. It was a "good shoot"...

Anecdotal accounts of the dog's previous behaviour can't always be used to judge the justification for shooting the dog.

I'll give the officers the benefit of the doubt in this instance...

BDD...

[RetFireCapt]

I can speak from experience, some dogs have a thing for uniforms, and I'm not talking leg humping.

[RetFireCapt]

Yep, that is for sure. But this dog based on the story didn't seem to have that problem--just ask the guy in the DHL uniform.


When I say uniform, I'm thinking of something a bit more substantial than a yellow shirt and brown pants. Something with a shiny badge, brimmed uniform cap, and collar brass f'rinstance.

I personally know of a people loving Golden Retriever in San Juan Capistrano who bounded up to a cop on the owner's estates huge lawn one night. The Deputy shot her dead. But this was an Orange County Sheriff's deputy, and I have nothing good to say about them, so I won't.

[mikepd]

Not having been there and never had to face that situation, I am not about to find fault with the officer's action.

I have seen cases in the ER where a dog, for whatever reason, decided to turn and attack. It is amazing the force that can be exerted by a canine's jaws on flesh and bone.

[Arc]

This shooting doesn’t even come close to passing the smell test. And it doesn’t look like the LA Times is going to follow up despite their personal assurances to me they would.

But here is part of a related story from today’s Times that covers the broader subject of cop versus dogs and includes an update of sorts on the original story that started this thread.

One out of every four times Los Angeles police officers intentionally fired their guns during the last 20 years, the target was not a man; it was man's best friend.

Since 1985, police have shot at more than 465 dogs, killing at least 200 and wounding at least 140, according to incident reports.

The standard an officer must follow when shooting a dog is the same as for shooting a person: as a last resort to avoid death or serious injury. When dogs are involved, officers often believe they are going to be bitten, which is why many of the animals shot by police were pit bull terriers, Rottweilers and other breeds that have reputations for being vicious.

Police said that was the case Feb. 16, when LAPD Officer Gina Iglesias shot and killed Teri, a pit bull in downtown Los Angeles. Teri was the pride of animal lovers who find homes for stray dogs, and had been featured in a calendar put out by the organization Downtown Dog Rescue.

According to police, Teri bared her teeth and seemed on the verge of attacking Iglesias and other officers who were on bike patrol and riding in an alley off 7th Place. Local volunteers who rescue dogs and workers in the industrial neighborhood on the eastern edge of downtown condemned the shooting as unnecessary.

The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, though smaller than the Los Angeles Police Department, has shot at more animals over the last decade. Though LAPD officers have shot at an average of about 26 dogs a year in that period, sheriff's deputies have fired at an average of 36 animals a year, almost all of them dogs.

"Our opinion is that often, lethal use of force is not required or justified," he said. "In many cases, a shooting is a knee-jerk reaction by an officer not familiar with dogs. We have to acknowledge that there are situations where they have to shoot a dog, but we feel that's relatively rare."

Growling dogs baring sharp teeth can present frightening situations for police officers, officials said. And if dogs charge at officers, sometimes there is little they can do but shoot to protect themselves, they said.

"Look at what our officers face," said Assistant Chief Jim McDonnell, who oversees the department's review of all officer-involved shootings. "There are areas of the city where packs of dogs are running around loose, with no leash and no license. Often, vicious dogs are owned by people in the most high-crime areas that the officers are being called to."

McDonnell, who was not surprised by the number of canine shootings over the years, said officers are trained to shoot dogs only as a last resort.

Police agencies throughout the country have grappled with controversial dog shootings, some of which have resulted in more public outcry than shootings of people.

Such was the case with the New Year's Day 2003 killing of Patton, a terrier-bulldog, during a traffic stop on Interstate 40 in Tennessee.

Patton's owners were pulled over in the mistaken belief that they had committed a robbery. As the dog's owners were held at gunpoint, Patton climbed out of the car and, according to the Cookeville, Tenn., police officer who shot him, "charged toward me growling and in an aggressive manner."

Patton's owners, however, told the Tennessean newspaper in Nashville that the dog was "as harmless as Scooby-Doo" and was wagging his tail when he was shot.

The shooting resulted in widespread criticism of the police, and the city paid $77,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by the dog's owners. The department also started a training program to enable officers to better deal with potentially dangerous dogs.

In Los Angeles, no easily discernible trends emerge from an analysis of LAPD shooting data maintained by the Los Angeles Times.

Through most of the early 1990s, dog shootings hovered around 20 a year — roughly one for every four times that officers fired on suspects. But in 1998 and 1999, officers shot at dogs more often than at people, with 42 dog shootings in 1998 and 43 in 1999. In recent years, dog shootings dropped to lower levels. Last year, for example, there were 20.

Dog experts and even several high-ranking LAPD officials said they thought that in some cases, officers resorted to deadly force too quickly.

It was a concern that then-Chief Daryl F. Gates expressed in 1986, encouraging officers to seek alternative ways to defuse encounters with dogs.

Former Chief Bernard C. Parks also was troubled by the number of dog shootings, and he developed a training regimen aimed at reducing them. However, implementation of that program was postponed because department officials said reforms mandated by a federal consent decree after the Rampart corruption scandal were more important.

Joseph Pentangelo, a retired New York City police detective who works as an investigator for the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said informing officers about nonlethal alternatives is essential.

"If, as a police officer, you see a dog barking and your first instinct is to reach for a firearm — that is not the thing to do," Pentangelo said. "This should be the last resort."


The particular cop who shot Teri was wrong, dead wrong in this case. Four cops on bikes fully armed with clubs and pepper spray in addition to their guns. No officer was attacked or injured but they shot and killed a dog that according to police, "bared her teeth and seemed on the verge of attacking" the officers. So naturally the proper response was to shoot the dog. (We will just skip over the part to what happen after they shot the dog regards treatment and dealing with the owner.)

But hey it was only a dog, but wait the same “rules of engagement” on using deadly force against a dog is the same as using deadly force on a human. Yeah sure. The clear and convincing evidence says otherwise. Time and time again.

Full LA Times article. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dogs12mar12,1,4832331.story)

[Stiofán]

Somehow I won't lose any sleep over this. Life's pretty shitty and then you die. What I mean by that is, you can't save the world and so you have to pick your battles. I don't think the average cop is out targeting dogs for the sport of it. Shit's going to happen. No offense to you Arc, but there's bigger things for me to personally stress over.

[Arc]

Somehow I won't lose any sleep over this. Life's pretty shitty and then you die. What I mean by that is, you can't save the world and so you have to pick your battles. I don't think the average cop is out targeting dogs for the sport of it. Shit's going to happen. No offense to you Arc, but there's bigger things for me to personally stress over.

For me as an individual this is about two major subjects but for everyone it should be at least about one and that is police accountability in the use of force--especially deadly force. In any position of responsibility but especially a protect and serve job like police officer it is important that trustworthiness, judgment, accountability and training be of the highest order. (And I am speaking about reasonable standards.)

Under current circumstances and speaking broadly IMO there are many police who should not be permitted to carry guns. The shooting of the dogs in general as detailed in the article but in particular this one dog is to me a strong example.

In Los Angles whether you are a dog or a human, if you get in a physical confrontation with the LAPD you are exposed to an unreasonable and unacceptable risk of being shot. (And of all the police officers and police forces I've dealt with over the years the LAPD is the one I've been the most exposed to in its operations and personnel. And I also happen to have an overall very positive opinion of them. I strongly support them although I have had significant disagreement on some issues with elements of the LAPD.)

[Arc]

Addendum: I am not making a general statement on the shooting of dogs or people and the use of deadly force. There are lots of dogs and people shot who needed shooting and more often than not by a long ways cops use deadly force correctly and most shootings are "good shootings." But good shootings doesn't excuse that on questionable shootings you bury your head in the sand or circling the wagons every time some one criticizes you. Any group or person should simply say is there truth or validity to the criticism and proceed in good faith accordingly. Denying everything or invoking a code of silence though hurts everyone. And I do mean everyone.

[ShinyTop]

I do not see how either side has shown any definitive proof of the validity of the shooting. Perhaps the policeman shot the dog because he loves killing animals. Perhaps the dog was a vicious attack dog shot in the act. Somewhere between the two lies the truth and neither our discussion nor the position of the various groups leaping to the defense of the dog or cop will bring out the "truth".

Personally I will not side against anybody who thinks they are about to be bitten. I don't think anybody must wait until the dog gets close enough to do harm to defend himself.

And yes, anybody who shoots must be prepared to defend the shooting. I do not think the default position should begin with the shooter is always wrong, however.

[Copzilla]

Ask mailmen how many dogs won't bite...

[Arc]

I do not see how either side has shown any definitive proof of the validity of the shooting...

You're right. Even the cops said the dog wasn't attacking. None of the four cops, count them four, on bikes and all armed with pepper spray and clubs confirmed that. They felt threatened, all four presumely, because the dog "bared her teeth and seemed on the verge of attacking." What choice did the four have but to shoot the dog. It's obvious.

Ask mailmen how many dogs won't bite...

Of course that has nothing to do with this issue. The cop was trigger happy and irresponsible. And besides the fact that a dog might be thinking of biting you doesn't rate being shot. Not even close. Good thing that cop shot that dog and saved all four of them from certain death or grave bodily injury. What else could any of the four possibly have done but shoot the dog.

But that is OK the cop will skate. And except for those involved in the incident will soon be forgotten.

[Copzilla]

Of course that has nothing to do with this issue. The cop was trigger happy and irresponsible. And besides the fact that a dog might be thinking of biting you doesn't rate being shot.

I disagree. But of course, since it's someone else on the line and not you, it's easy to reach that decision, isn't it?

[Arc]

But of course, since it's someone else on the line and not you, it's easy to reach that decision, isn't it?

Not as easy as it is to hide behind that standard lame fits all situations excuse.

But I admit when scared and panicked people will often do things that they wouldn't otherwise do.

I try to decide things as best I can on the facts as presented. So I would not view the actions of BDD in his unfortunate encounter with the charging German Sheppard as being the same thing as what the shooter and his four partners encountered in this situation.

I have had my life and others on the line and had to make decisions to "shoot or not to shoot." And I've had to face the consequences in a variety of ways. But you know what? That has nothing to do with this incident and what happen any more than does your question.

[Copzilla]

I try to decide things as best I can on the facts as presented.

Except none of the facts presented support your firm stance.

I do not see how either side has shown any definitive proof of the validity of the shooting.

Thank you.

[Arc]

Except none of the facts presented support your firm stance.
.

You must have missed it:

The dog was shot because: "According to police, Teri bared her teeth and seemed on the verge of attacking" the four officers.

Yep, pretty scary. What do you and your three partners do? Back off? Get out your baton? Get out your pepper spray? Try to interact with the dog? Immediately reach for your gun and shoot?

Than after the dog was shot the owner--the dog was shot in front of its residence--according to all witnesses quoted was not allowed to attend to the still alive dog. The dog was allegedly denied adequate first aid. And, well there is more but if anyone is interested they can read the lead post with the article that describes what allegedly happen after that. (Did you by chance read either article presented? I ask because I know that most of us don't always have the time to read every single post in a thread.)

[Copzilla]

Oh, I read it, as did Shinytop. We just reached different conclusions than you did. And I don't believe the articles support your conclusion.

I also do not believe we're going to reach a consensus on it.

[jfcjrus]

And the 'spin' just goes on and on....

So, let me see if I've got this right...

Four armed police officers felt threatened.
So, one of said armed police officers shot the perceived threat.
- Some of us think that's ok.
- Some of us think it's a bit overboard, and should be investigated.
- Some of us think the importance of killing a dog shouldn't even register on the 'things to be concerned about' scale.

Me, I do wonder why did the officer shoot to kill, as such an action is a supposed, trained for, <i>last resort</i>?
Was there <i>really</i> no other option?
Was the <i>perceived</i> threat really that great?
Was the 'baring of teeth' (a quite common defensive posture of a dog) misinterpreted by someone ill trained, or was the dog in mid-leap for the officer's throat?

Yea, I know, on the scale of world events, how important is this event?

But, to me, a common citizen, this does sound like a trigger happy cop.
And, I don't think it'd hurt to fully investigate the shooting.
Perhaps there's something to be learned.
(Public releations, if nothing else, eh?)
I've looked, and I've found no good reason why the dog had to die.

Just my opinion.
Regards,

[Arc]

CopZ,

I owe you an apology. When I said referring to part of your reply that: "It was not as easy as it is to hide behind that standard lame fits all situations excuse" I meant it in the sense that the excuse itself was lame not that you were being lame in making it--even though I must admit it seems to read that way in my wordig. It was only afteward in reading the post I realized that my words might me perceived as an attempt on my part to insult you. That was not the case.

And to further clarify in reflection I would have better served the point I was trying to make by instead of labeling the excuse as lame I should have used the term boilerplate which really more accurately reflects my position on that exuse or defense. I do really feel that in general what is acutally a VERY VALID general consideration has been turned into a boilerplate reponse by some in the law enforcement community. Consequently it is beginnig to lose of its real or original value and meaning because it is being abused by some.

Again sorry if I seemed to be questioning your integrity or that I was trying to be insulting. I really wasn't.

PS: Separate from the above we may not me done dueling or posting on the subject of the thread--the shooting itself. ;)

[Arc]

So, let me see if I've got this right...

Four armed police officers felt threatened.
So, one of said armed police officers shot the perceived threat...


Me, I do wonder why did the officer shoot to kill, as such an action is a supposed, trained for, <i>last resort</i>?
Was there <i>really</i> no other option?
Was the <i>perceived</i> threat really that great?
Was the 'baring of teeth' (a quite common defensive posture of a dog) misinterpreted by someone ill trained, or was the dog in mid-leap for the officer's throat?



You have summed it up completely.

And no the dog was not attacking or "in mid-leap for the officer's throat" or at least the cops say it wasn't. So far all they have publicly said about why they shot is they felt threatened by the dog. That must have been some snarl.

[cmhbob]

I just caught up on this thread, and I want to point out a couple of things.

IIRC, releasing a police dog to bite is considered deadly force. An officer is allowed to counter deadly force with deadly force. That's just common sense. Mail carriers use Mace because they're not allowed to carry guns. Yes, I know this wasn't a police dog, but I'm trying to put things in perspective. The officer may have validly felt she was being attacked with deadly force.

We don't know how close the dog was to the officer when she fired. If the dog was closer than about five feet, the officer probably didn't have enough time to draw and deploy an ASP collapsible baton. I doubt a bike officer carries a full-sized PR-24 (side-handle) or regular baton; they're too likely to get caught up in the spokes. Those collapsible batons take some room to deploy - to extend them. You can't just pull it out and pull the tip out; it'd done with a swinging action. So tactically, she may have had no choice.

I will add that in my experience as a bicyclist and motorcyclist, that dogs tend to act aggressively towards two-wheeled conveyances, whether motorized or not. I have to think this officer was aware of that, or should have been. The other officers should have made sure that all of them were aware of the dog.

[Arc]

We don't know how close the dog was to the officer when "she" fired. If the dog was closer than about five feet, the officer probably didn't have enough time to draw and deploy an ASP collapsible baton. I doubt a bike officer carries a full-sized PR-24 (side-handle) or regular baton; they're too likely to get caught up in the spokes. Those collapsible batons take some room to deploy - to extend them. You can't just pull it out and pull the tip out; it'd done with a swinging action. So tactically, she may have had no choice.





One of the earlier quotes said the dog barred its teeth and attacked but that was later changed to just barred its teeth and snarled but did not attack.

It's true that it takes less time to draw and fire the gun than the collapsible baton or for that matter the pepper spray--the weapon of choice here, especially in the context that "she"* was with three other officers in broad daylight in a well populated
area.

But the gun shown have ONLY been the choice to protect herself or others from immediate serious injury or deadly force and only in the absence of some other less deadly options.

And of the times you been threatened with a dog while out riding how many times did you feel the threat from the dog rose to the level that you would have used a gun if you had it?

Finally distance and movement is an unknown element here. A dog or a man that is less than 20 feet to you can close the distance with clearly evil intentions before you can even clear leather.

A rhetorical and hypothetical. If none of the four and very fit officers had guns on them what would have happened? Would they all have faced potential death or critical injuries from this dog?

*"This part has flipped flop to: One version has a male officer shooting the dog to protect the female and others have her doing the shooting."

[Sir Joseph]

A dog baring its teeth and snarling is the same as a guy cocking his gun. Or at the very least, it should be the same to a cop. Whether or not the dog or the man will attack is irrelevant. A PO shouldn't have to wait to find out.

[deltat2000]

I am the chosen guardian of three Dobies......so keep that in mind....

Here is my 2 cents worth on this subject.

I believe that once a dog has learned to be aggressive towards humans, it can never be trusted again. I also know that some dogs can, due to their size, and breed pose a serious threat to anyone they come upon...reminds me of a news article I read online recently.
A pack of three dogs killed a woman in her backyard, they were after her poodle...the body of the woman was discovered by her daughter. The daughter called the Police, who killed one of the dogs because he was "grazing" on the corpse, the other 2 dogs ran for the nearby woods. It took the Police two days to track the remaining dogs down and put them down.
The article also mentioned that several complaints had been made in the area about pack challenging the local residents, but by the time animal control arrived the pack had already moved on.

As I said earlier, my Dobies are just like kids to me, but on one ocassion one of them has attacked someone who was trying to attack my wife. He literally took the right rear glass out of the door frame on our car to get at the attacker. And he held the man at bay until the Police arrived.....the Police ordered my wife to command him to return to the car, or they threatened to shoot him...lucky for us that he obeyed my wife, and got in the front seat of the car near my wife.
It took over sixty stiches to close the wounds on the man who attacked my wife! The only reason the perp didn't sue us was that he was identified has having attacked and raped several other women in that neighborhood, and was too busy defending himself against multible charges to think of getting any payback from us. That was a couple of years ago.

I have kept an eye on my male Dobie ever since...I look for any signs of his personality changing. He is way to big, and way to strong, and way to smart to not keep an eye on.
Just an FYI...their jaws exert about 16,000 psi when they decide to chew on something...that is more than enough force to sever a limb, or a head. Should my boy ever develope a super alpha trait, should he ever show violence towards me, or a family member, I would put him down immediately!

Many people get a pet...then for whatever reasons turn them loose, the ones that survive, and find their way into a pack usually revert to their natural state, and can no longer be trusted as pets. There have been several instances locally where joggers have been mauled to death by packs. Adults dragged off the jogging paths, dragged into the woods, and consumed by the dogs!

Anyone who doesn't have respect for their capacity to do violence, is in my opinion clueless... a large dog, untrained, unsupervised, and allowed to roam freely is a tragedy waiting to happen. The responsiblity lies with the owner....not the police, not the neighbors,. not the public!

The Cop did what he felt was needed to match the threat! Probably the same thing I would have done in the same situation.

[jfcjrus]

A dog baring its teeth and snarling is the same as a guy cocking his gun. Or at the very least, it should be the same to a cop. Whether or not the dog or the man will attack is irrelevant. A PO shouldn't have to wait to find out.
An interesting opinion, sir.

So, let me ask you this;
When you were a kid, riding your bike, did you NEVER have a dog chase you?
(Or, what do you do, as a kid riding a bike, when a dog chases you?)
#1 - pedal like crazy, and outrun the beast?
#2 - if that fails, then stop and throw your bike on the dog?
(Personally, I've NEVER experienced a failure utilizing option #2)
THAT personal experience is why I submit that I find it pretty unbelievable that the PO 'had' to shoot the dog (not to mention, let it bleed to death).

Or, consider this senario;
I'M licensed to carry, and I often do.
I also often ride my 10speed 10 miles each way to the fishing club (at my age, a little exercise is good, no)?
So, say during my trip, a dog snarles at me and I shoot the beast, perceiving it to be a threat to my safety.
The local suburban neighborhood folks are aghast and stunned, while the owner cries.
Does anyone here really think I'd simply cruse through this event, as these police officers seem to be doing?

Do you not think I would at least be questioned as to what other options I concidered before I deemed it necessary to kill someones dog?
Do you not think that I SHOULD have been questioned about that?
That's all I'm talking about.

And, so far, from what I read, the police officer's reasoning for the shooting is one that probably would have landed ME in court.
So, I just wonder about the slack being given to this POLICE OFFICER in the use of deadly force?

But, of course, all this is just my opinion.
Regards,

[Copzilla]

So, let me ask you this;
When you were a kid, riding your bike, did you NEVER have a dog chase you?
(Or, what do you do, as a kid riding a bike, when a dog chases you?)
#1 - pedal like crazy, and outrun the beast?
#2 - if that fails, then stop and throw your bike on the dog?

Same argument back on you...

When you were a kid, were you ever mauled by a dog?

Want links to stories where the dog DID maul someone (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=news+dog+mauls+child&btnG=Search)?

How were you able to tell that the dog chasing you was NOT going to maul you?

Are you aware of how ineffective a baton can be against a full grown dog?

Are you aware that every dog carries a deadly weapon, by natural design?

Do you expect police officers to actually be bitten before utilizing deadly force on a dog?

---

Does anyone here really think I'd simply cruse through this event, as these police officers seem to be doing?

Yes, you would. If a large dog was on the loose, which is a law violation, and was menacing the public, and someone licensed to carry a concealed weapon shot and killed it, there would be no problem.

---

I'm not permitted to carry pepper spray, by department policy. Since it's my ass on the line and my decision to make, I think if I'm approached by a large menacing dog, I will kill it. I don't care who is offended by it. It is an animal like any other, after all.

[cmhbob]

I'm not permitted to carry pepper spray, by department policy. This is a tangent, but what do you carry besides the firearm? Anything to replace the chemical step in the use of force continuum?

[Arc]

When you were a kid, riding your bike, did you NEVER have a dog chase you?
(Or, what do you do, as a kid riding a bike, when a dog chases you?)
#1 - pedal like crazy, and outrun the beast?
#2 - if that fails, then stop and throw your bike on the dog?
(Personally, I've NEVER experienced a failure utilizing option #2)
THAT personal experience is why I submit that I find it pretty unbelievable that the PO 'had' to shoot the dog (not to mention, let it bleed to death).

Or, consider this senario;
I'M licensed to carry, and I often do.
I also often ride my 10speed 10 miles each way to the fishing club (at my age, a little exercise is good, no)?
So, say during my trip, a dog snarles at me and I shoot the beast, perceiving it to be a threat to my safety.
The local suburban neighborhood folks are aghast and stunned, while the owner cries.
Does anyone here really think I'd simply cruse through this event, as these police officers seem to be doing?

Do you not think I would at least be questioned as to what other options I concidered before I deemed it necessary to kill someones dog?
Do you not think that I SHOULD have been questioned about that?
That's all I'm talking about.

And, so far, from what I read, the police officer's reasoning for the shooting is one that probably would have landed ME in court.
So, I just wonder about the slack being given to this POLICE OFFICER in the use of deadly force?

But, of course, all this is just my opinion.
Regards,

:clap:

The first applause I've ever conferred on a post.

Well said sir.

[deltat2000]

An interesting opinion, sir.

So, let me ask you this;
When you were a kid, riding your bike, did you NEVER have a dog chase you?
(Or, what do you do, as a kid riding a bike, when a dog chases you?)
#1 - pedal like crazy, and outrun the beast?
#2 - if that fails, then stop and throw your bike on the dog?
(Personally, I've NEVER experienced a failure utilizing option #2)
THAT personal experience is why I submit that I find it pretty unbelievable that the PO 'had' to shoot the dog (not to mention, let it bleed to death).

Or, consider this senario;
I'M licensed to carry, and I often do.
I also often ride my 10speed 10 miles each way to the fishing club (at my age, a little exercise is good, no)?
So, say during my trip, a dog snarles at me and I shoot the beast, perceiving it to be a threat to my safety.
The local suburban neighborhood folks are aghast and stunned, while the owner cries.
Does anyone here really think I'd simply cruse through this event, as these police officers seem to be doing?

Do you not think I would at least be questioned as to what other options I concidered before I deemed it necessary to kill someones dog?
Do you not think that I SHOULD have been questioned about that?
That's all I'm talking about.

And, so far, from what I read, the police officer's reasoning for the shooting is one that probably would have landed ME in court.
So, I just wonder about the slack being given to this POLICE OFFICER in the use of deadly force?

But, of course, all this is just my opinion.
Regards,

#1. Yes....worked well until dog got my leg, and pulled me off.
#2. Didn't think of it at the time. Too busy trying to get my leg out of his mouth!

Additional comment: The dog couldn't be found that day....so I had to take the required rabies shots until he was found. They hurt like hell.....try sticking a needle in your stomach once a day for 10 days...let me know how you fell about it!

I also have a permit to carry...I also ride a GaryFisher hybrid bike on the trails here....25 miles out, and 25 miles back....used to be I'de do that 3-4 times a week, weather permitting. Never thought to carry a weapon on the trails though! I do always carry a cell phone....never know when a skater will decide to pull over in front of you...and I have seen several head injuries on the trails....they should have been wearing a helmet....but thats their choice.

But now we are back to the subject of rabies......whenever someone is bitten by a dog, and the dog can't be located...they always start the injections.
And if the dog is caught...they send it to the vet to have it tested for rabies...but the tests take days to return....so you still have to beging the rabies treatment.

Who wants to risk being bitten? Who wants to volunter for a round of rabies shots here?:banghead:

[Arc]

A. LAPD officers all carry pepper spray, batons, and guns—including the GROUP OF FOUR officers at the scene when the dog was shot.

B. Not allowing you to carry pepper spray is stupid unless they give you pepper spray and totally fail to professionally train you in its use and have refresher courses—real ones not CYA ones. (I am sure we could tell each other some funny stories of the results of some people trying to use pepper spray—not to mention clearing their handguns.)

Here is what we know as of now:

The dog was very well known in the neighborhood and interacted daily for years with both those who worked and lived nearby as well as vendors who came and went. All spoke of the good nature non-aggressiveness of the animal.

The dog was shot outside its residence.

Just prior to it being shot it had interacted with a uniformed DHL driver who patter her to get her to get up off the ground and move so he could go around her.

C. LAPD must use the same rules of escalating force up to and including deadly force as with dogs as they do on humans.
D. According to police, (there were no other witnesses to the shooting), the dog, “Teri bared her teeth and seemed on the verge of attacking Iglesias and other officers who were on bike patrol…”

CopZ— A direct question for you. Under the above but specifically in light of A,C & D, would you have shot the dog?

Yes or no? Yes or no officer! (Remember you are on the stand and under oath!)

Addendum: I suspect we will NEVER know the whole truth, (no matter who it "favors" but I also suspect if it was known it would be shown that the cop who did the shooting was the ONLY officer who drew her gun. And that afterward her partners said something to the effect of why the F did you do that? Pure speculation on my part.

[Sir Joseph]

If D is true, then I would shoot. It's a dog, I'm a human.

[Arc]

If D is true, then I would shoot. It's a dog, I'm a human.

Judge to Sir J: "Sir, shut up and sit down. You are not on the stand and are out of order. One more outburst and I will hold you in contempt and the bailiff will remove you. (Just kidding--me not the judge.) :)

Judge turning to the witness, (CopZ): "My apologies sir, you may answer now."

[deltat2000]

A.


http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=3&RecNum=2226


Besides the attack against Ryan in February 2001, there have been others in Illinois, including the brutal attack earlier this year by two stray dogs of a woman who was killed as she jogged through Dan Ryan Woods on the south side of Chicago. More than 300,000 people a year in the United States seek treatment for dog-bite injuries in hospital emergency departments.

The legislation signed by the governor permits county boards to pass ordinances to require that dogs and cats are implanted with a microchip to provide a permanent, positive identification, which cannot be lost, altered or intentionally removed. This type of identification provides accountability should a dog injure or kill someone and increases chances that lost dogs and cats are returned to their owners.

The new law, which is effective immediately, also mandates that dogs found to be dangerous must be muzzled and leashed whenever in a public place or on public grounds and imposes stiffer penalties against dog owners who are in violation. It establishes liability for a dog owner who’s dog causes injuries without provocation and requires vicious dogs impounded under the law to be sprayed or neutered within 30 days.

Additionally, the bill provides that an owner who sees his or her livestock, poultry or horse being killed or injured by a vicious, unsupervised dog, has a right to kill the dog.


B.


http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/rabies/default.htm
Rabies diagnosis in animals
The direct fluorescent antibody test (dFA) is the test most frequently used to diagnose rabies. This test requires brain tissue from animals suspected of being rabid. The test can only be performed post-mortem (after the animal is dead).




Consider point A & B!

[Copzilla]

CopZ— A direct question for you. Under the above but specifically in light of A,C & D, would you have shot the dog?

Yes or no? Yes or no officer! (Remember you are on the stand and under oath!)

No, I am not on the stand, neither am I under oath. But I will answer truthfully.

Probably, yes. I have seen too many people mauled by otherwise "friendly" dogs. And I have seen pepper spray not work. And I know how ridiculously ineffective batons are.

[Copzilla]

This is a tangent, but what do you carry besides the firearm? Anything to replace the chemical step in the use of force continuum?

Asp baton, which is a fool's weapon. They are a liberal's idea of what police should use as an intermediate force weapon. I have seen them literally BENT across a perp and did not shut him down. I have never seen one used that stopped the perp, ever.

The only effective use I have ever made of an Asp baton is using it to wake a drunk up. Rack their ribcage with it like playing the washboard, and they'll come up out of a deep drunk coma.

[cdw]

I just want to say one thing about 'friendly' dogs. My dog, german shepard is huge. Friendliest dog you would ever want to see. First sight of him, because of his size and his breed, would probably scare the poop out of you, but, once near him, you realize he's just a big teddy bear.
We had a friend of my husband's come over. He's a cop. He carries in his boot. Our big, wonderful teddy bear went ape shit. He knew something was different, knew something was wrong, his hair stood up and he beared his teeth. Never did it before, has never done it since. So...sometimes dogs just get a 'feeling' and are not the same old nice dog they usually are. Hell, I've owned dogs with wonderful personalities that went apeshit if someone wore a hat. There's no telling what would set a dog off or why.... they can't tell us. :)

[Arc]

I just want to say one thing about 'friendly' dogs. My dog, german shepard is huge. Friendliest dog you would ever want to see. First sight of him, because of his size and his breed, would probably scare the poop out of you, but, once near him, you realize he's just a big teddy bear.
We had a friend of my husband's come over. He's a cop. He carries in his boot. Our big, wonderful teddy bear went ape shit. He knew something was different, knew something was wrong, his hair stood up and he beared his teeth. Never did it before, has never done it since. So...sometimes dogs just get a 'feeling' and are not the same old nice dog they usually are. Hell, I've owned dogs with wonderful personalities that went apeshit if someone wore a hat. There's no telling what would set a dog off or why.... they can't tell us. :)

Lucky for all that your friend wasn't the cop who shot Teri. If it had been she quite possibly would have shot your dog on the spot. Boy that would have been unpleasant for everyone.