# Utah Police that shot dog - Now Public Outrage



## freezeland (Nov 1, 2012)

From the dog shooting last week in Utah http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/06/2...for-victim-dog-named-geist/?intcmp=latestnews


----------



## truthseeker (Feb 2, 2012)

It's about time. Now maybe things will change but, I don't think so by the way the police chief was reacting. Just another day at the office.

Keith


----------



## Migillicutty (Jan 11, 2014)

From the article: _“We entered the yard looking for a lost child,” Sgt. Joseph Cyr says on the video, according to Fox13Now. "He was threatened by the dog and shot the dog. That’s as simple as it gets.”

_There you have it. The police defending the actions and protecting their own. They don't see a problem and if they do they won't admit it. They protect their own, essentially giving immunity for wrongful actions. This only goes to embolden and empower these bullies with a badge.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

The police including the chief don't seem much concerned. The way to influence change is through the politicians.


----------



## hackwusa (May 29, 2014)

Think we may need to think twice before we lump all police as "bullies with a badge".


----------



## Terri (May 28, 2008)

What happened to the other thread on this issue? I was on page 12 of 25, took a break to run to the store and when I got back on line it was gone. In less than two hours it vanished.

Terri


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

I think the OP, Mitty, probably deleted it. Some of the posts were not so nice.
I disagree with Darrin and Tony but I don't think any less of them and still hold them in high regard.


----------



## Migillicutty (Jan 11, 2014)

Sorry if my post made it seem that I think all police are bullies with a badge. I don't think that. I do think this dog killer is and there are others like him and it frustrates me the police refuse to police their own.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Migillicutty said:


> Sorry if my post made it seem that I think all police are bullies with a badge. I don't think that. I do think this dog killer is and there are others like him and it frustrates me the police refuse to police their own.





Agree - I talked to our local chief & his asst. about this - they are not dog people - but they know I am - 
They know I would make this an issue if it happened in our town - 

You can elect people that are appreciative of our 4 legged friends .


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

When we started hearing about the no-knock entry incidences where the SWAT/police shot family dogs, we moved the dogs into our bedroom at night and keep the door shut. No big deal. Just a small after-thought. 

Have these police-shoot-dog tragedies caused you to think about any changes in keeping your dog safe from this kind of danger? Even if you made no fundamental change, did it cross your mind that it's an outlier situation but worthy of at least thinking about?

IS there any way to protect the dogs from uninformed people with guns? Or is the real tragedy here the fact that we are basically helpless to prevent it?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

1tulip said:


> When we started hearing about the no-knock entry incidences where the SWAT/police shot family dogs, we moved the dogs into our bedroom at night and keep the door shut. No big deal. Just a small after-thought.
> 
> Have these police-shoot-dog tragedies caused you to think about any changes in keeping your dog safe from this kind of danger? Even if you made no fundamental change, did it cross your mind that it's an outlier situation but worthy of at least thinking about?
> 
> IS there any way to protect the dogs from uninformed people with guns? Or is the real tragedy here the fact that we are basically helpless to prevent it?


For us, living 20 miles out of town with a limited number of sheriffs to cover a big county, the odds of that happening are so remote it's not worth thinking about, but I hate the idea that some of you need to worry about it and change how you live your life in your own home. Where I live 90% of homes are armed, I hate to think what would happen if somebody barged in unannounced.


----------



## hackwusa (May 29, 2014)

I agree, I would hope most of you guys aren't living a lifestyle that you have to worry about a no knock warrant arriving at your house. Just saying.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

hackwusa said:


> I agree, I would hope most of you guys aren't living a lifestyle that you have to worry about a no knock warrant arriving at your house. Just saying.


Yeah but I have some scary neighbors


----------



## hackwusa (May 29, 2014)

lol. I can understand that then.


----------



## DSemple (Feb 16, 2008)

1tulip said:


> Have these police-shoot-dog tragedies caused you to think about any changes in keeping your dog safe from this kind of danger? Even if you made no fundamental change, did it cross your mind that it's an outlier situation but worthy of at least thinking about?


NOpe, being shot is way, way down on the list of dangers for a contained dog. Probably bellow lighting strikes and insect stings.

And part of the reason for having a nice backyard is so our dogs have a nice quality of life. 

Don


----------



## truthseeker (Feb 2, 2012)

DSemple said:


> NOpe, being shot is way, way down on the list of dangers for a contained dog. Probably bellow lighting strikes and insect stings.
> 
> And part of the reason for having a nice backyard is so our dogs have a nice quality of life.
> 
> Don


I always found it vary enjoyable, to have a good place to nap.


----------



## 150class (Jul 1, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> [/SIZE]
> 
> 
> Agree - I talked to our local chief & his asst. about this - they are not dog people - but they know I am -
> ...


We dont elect the police here in our town. Unless Im misinterpreting your statement.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Many sheriffs are elected. But the mayors and city council are elected who hire and fire the police chief. I think that was the message being sent to the chief referred to above.


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

Well I've sat on my hands long enough and it's time I chime in. I am a police officer and unfortunately had to shoot two dogs so far in my career. Though both shootings were justified I still felt extremely bad afterward and sorry for the owners. I'm as much of a dog lover as the next guy around here and have been my whole life. I also wont say the breed of the dog because I don't think that's fair to the owners of that/those breeds. 


It's very very easy for John Q. Public to Monday-morning quarterback the police officer involved in this shoot. I've heard all kinds of people imputing their shoulda/woulda/coulda opinions about what took place during that call.


Ive read a lot of people say the officer should have turned and walk/run away from the dog, yet, I'd like to know if any of those people know anything about the science of what is called in law enforcement as the "reactionary gap". Basically, studies show on average when a person "threat" is running at you....they can move approximately 28 feet before you can process and fully react to their actions. Now imagine the reactionary gap when dealing with a dog. That dog may be chewing on your leg...or worse...tackle you and chew on the rest of you before u can react. In this case....the dog was within feet. 


As as for why the officer was searching the back yard...we don't know the prior intel, department policy, or details of the operation/assignment. 


If you think cops are out to shoot your family dog or finished retriever for fun....ur an idiot. Can a particular set of unfortunate circumstances end with a dog getting shot....yes it can. But how often are dogs really getting shot? The mainstream media makes it hot news because more people get pissed off and fired up about a pet getting shot than the thousands of babies aborted/killed everyday. Think about the thousands and thousands of calls and contacts police have with dogs everyday were dogs aren't shot versus the ones where dogs are. But noooooo why would you consider that? U just heard about this one situation and a few others on the 11pm news and became outraged and scared that cops are going on a nationwide canine shooting spree. 


We weren't there but I've been there. I've stared that dog down and been in that officers shoes. Ill trust in the internal investigation of the incident to decide whether the officers actions were just or not (insert comment from all the conspiracy theorists).


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

Did you try pepper spray first, or a taser, baton, or was your first instinct to pull your service weapon ?


I have had encounters with aggressive dogs too. Been bit once, never was my first thought to shoot,
and it should not be an LEO's first option either.

As a public servent, you serve thru consent of the public, thru laws our lawmakers enact. We elect the lawmakers. We have the right and obligation to hold public servant's feet to the fire.


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

480/277 said:


> Did you try pepper spray first, or a taser, baton, or was your first instinct to pull your service weapon ?
> 
> 
> I have had encounters with aggressive dogs too. Been bit once, never was my first thought to shoot.


Not every aggressive dog in every situation needs to be shot, in some cases other methods can be used. It can depend on a variety on circumstances. But know if that dog attacks and one of your less lethal options fails or doesn't deter the dog.....u can be in big trouble. U wanna walk a tight rope without a saftey net where u either get it right or not?


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

goldieretriever50 said:


> Not every aggressive dog in every situation needs to be shot, in some cases other methods can be used. It can depend on a variety on circumstances. But know if that dog attacks and one of your less lethal options fails or doesn't deter the dog.....u can be in big trouble. U wanna walk a tight rope without a saftey net where u either get it right or not?



No safety net for USPS, UPS,FedEx,meter readers,etc.......


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

480/277 said:


> Did you try pepper spray first, or a taser, baton, or was your first instinct to pull your service weapon ?
> 
> 
> I have had encounters with aggressive dogs too. Been bit once, never was my first thought to shoot,
> ...



So he's guilty until proven innocent because u feel its society's duty and right to "put his feet to the fire" because of his job description. With that same school of thought someone arrested should be guilty until proven innocent and the burden of proof should be on the defendant not prosecutor? Yea that a good justice system.


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

goldieretriever50 said:


> So he's guilty until proven innocent because u feel its society's duty and right to "put his feet to the fire" because of his job description. With that same school of thought someone arrested should be guilty until proven innocent and the burden of proof should be on the defendant not prosecutor? Yea that a good justice system.


Strawman argument. Want to know what a person thinks, just ask.

I think the SOP of police needs to be changed. If everyday people can deal with dogs without shooting them
then LEO's can too. I think training needs to be a
progressive use of force, not a "LEO was threatened,your dog was shot, it's that simple" mentality.


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

480/277 said:


> Strawman argument. Want to know what a person thinks, just ask.
> 
> I think the SOP of police needs to be changed. If everyday people can deal with dogs without shooting them
> then LEO's can too. I think training needs to be a
> progressive use of force, not a "LEO was threatened,your dog was shot, it's that simple" mentality.


I never said dogs should be shot every time a LEO is threatened. And if u have ever read a SOP it is a progressive system, but, has exceptions where warranted. How can u say it wasn't or how can I say it was based on what has been reported? All I said is I've been there and can feel for the guy. And the jumping to conclusions and cop bashing is ridiculous.


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

Did you watch the video? Not the LEO who shot but the police at the scenes own words,
not an exact quote
" the officer was threatened, your dog was shot, it's that simple"

There will be no deviation in any investigation.
The officer will claim he felt his life threatened.
No one can testify other, case closed.

The police doing an internal investigation, ok. That's SOP


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

goldieretriever50 said:


> I never said dogs should be shot every time a LEO is threatened. And if u have ever read a SOP it is a progressive system, but, has exceptions where warranted. How can u say it wasn't or how can I say it was based on what has been reported? All I said is I've been there and can feel for the guy. And the jumping to conclusions and cop bashing is ridiculous.


There are a lot more factors that go into it than just "dog was threatening". I don't see how a reasonable person can't see where there might be a circumstance or circumstances that a threatening dog can be shot merely because a group of civilians aren't allowed to armed.


----------



## huntinlabs (Aug 4, 2009)

This s the same thing we face while deployed except a lot bigger if a price it's a humans life until you are out in the situation where you feel threatened and have 1.5 sec to make a call you will never understand what goes on through someone's head at that time. I personally think the officer was in the right u feel threatened you have a split second to protect yourself. Kill the dog or possibly be killed by it what would you do??


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

huntinlabs said:


> This s the same thing we face while deployed except a lot bigger if a price it's a humans life until you are out in the situation where you feel threatened and have 1.5 sec to make a call you will never understand what goes on through someone's head at that time. I personally think the officer was in the right u feel threatened you have a split second to protect yourself. Kill the dog or possibly be killed by it what would you do??


so how many USPS, UPs , FedEx, plumbers, electricians, etc are killed by dogs every year?


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

480/277 said:


> Did you watch the video? Not the LEO who shot but the police at the scenes own words,
> not an exact quote
> " the officer was threatened, your dog was shot, it's that simple"
> 
> ...


i watched the video. I could name several reasons why the explainaton was probably given in the manner it was such as: demeanor of owner when he arrived, officers not knowing all the details and maybe aren't allowed to disseminate them until investigation over especially when it's being recorded, some departments have policy on officers not being interviewed right away after they shoot....maybe all the two cops knew was what they said. This usually happens when a human is shot but maybe this dept's policy is diff.....we don't know. So u think it was a bad shoot merely on what the cop who didn't even do the shooting said? 

As for the internal investigation. I have no clue who is doing it. Maybe they will outsource it.


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

huntinlabs said:


> This s the same thing we face while deployed except a lot bigger if a price it's a humans life until you are out in the situation where you feel threatened and have 1.5 sec to make a call you will never understand what goes on through someone's head at that time. I personally think the officer was in the right u feel threatened you have a split second to protect yourself. Kill the dog or possibly be killed by it what would you do??



Exactly.........


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

480/277 said:


> so how many USPS, UPs , FedEx, plumbers, electricians, etc are killed by dogs every year?


He didn't have to shoot based merely on the idea he was going to be KILLED....rather if he was in fear for death or GREAT BODILY HARM to himself or another. Death isn't the mere threshold because great bodily harm is included. A dog bitting, tearing, shredding a leg knee arm foot thigh can be great bodily harm.


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

goldieretriever50 said:


> i watched the video. I could name several reasons why the explainaton was probably given in the manner it was such as: demeanor of owner when he arrived, officers not knowing all the details and maybe aren't allowed to disseminate them until investigation over especially when it's being recorded, some departments have policy on officers not being interviewed right away after they shoot....maybe all the two cops knew was what they said. This usually happens when a human is shot but maybe this dept's policy is diff.....we don't know. So u think it was a bad shoot merely on what the cop who didn't even do the shooting said?
> 
> As for the internal investigation. I have no clue who is doing it. Maybe they will outsource it.


There were 3 officers in the video. 

I think it was a bad shoot because an LEO's line of duty does not supersede private property rights.
And when he breeched those rights he should be held to the highest standard.


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

goldieretriever50 said:


> He didn't have to shoot based merely on the idea he was going to be KILLED....rather if he was in fear for death or GREAT BODILY HARM to himself or another. Death isn't the mere threshold because great bodily harm is included. A dog bitting, tearing, shredding a leg knee arm foot thigh can be great bodily harm.


and your opinion is how the investigation WILL pan out....wanna bet?


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

I looked at some of the pictures. As I recall the first thing I saw was a dog house through the open gate. My fence is wrought iron but I have previously lived in houses with dog ear board fences. I know if someone banged on the fence the dogs would bark and jump on the fence gate. I hope the Leo opened the gate cautiously. But may have just barged in surprising the dog.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

You have to ask yourself why you feel threatened and face your fears... while I understand a Doberman making a charge at your throat during a drug bust is justified.... there is Zero excuse for entering someones back yard and shooting the family pet because you put yourself into that position illegally. 

The cop in Utah deserves to lose his job... the age of the kid who was suppose to be missing could not open the gate or climb over it... the cop was up to no good... period. He had some other agenda that has yet to come out. He used the search as an excuse to do a little sneaking around. He got caught by the dog and panicked.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

What was wrong with contacting the resident in advance? Apparently they were able to do this after the fact. One two minute phone call could have avoided incident.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

Wayne Nutt said:


> What was wrong with contacting the resident in advance? Apparently they were able to do this after the fact. One two minute phone call could have avoided incident.


As a wise person said in the thread that was taken down, not all cops are good, or up to any good... as in all walks of life no matter the profession good and evil exist. We like to think all cops are on our side, when a small percentage are just bad eggs. 

The Code is a big issue for Police depts... they never will ever say they did wrong.. it's a brotherhood they hold close no matter if the action was wrong.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

I have walked into some potentially dangerous situations with 45 and M16 loaded and cocked. But believe me I proceeded with an abundance of caution.
I have also defended myself from a pack of dogs with a heeling stick while just out walking.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

.44 magnum said:


> You have to ask yourself why you feel threatened and face your fears... while I understand a Doberman making a charge at your throat during a drug bust is justified.... there is Zero excuse for entering someones back yard and shooting the family pet because you put yourself into that position illegally.
> 
> The cop in Utah deserves to lose his job... the age of the kid who was suppose to be missing could not open the gate or climb over it... the cop was up to no good... period. He had some other agenda that has yet to come out. He used the search as an excuse to do a little sneaking around. He got caught by the dog and panicked.



THIS!!!!! THIS!!!!!!

Its about trespass!!! and Warrant less search!

The debate is weather you personally feel the cop was justified to trespass! The oath he took, and rule of law says he was NOT!

He then made a bonehead decision to shoot a dog protecting its surroundings, or prolly more realistic,, was scared to death!

The police officer is the one who needs to take responsibility for his illegal actions. The department needs to make reparations, and punish the officer.


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

goldieretriever50 said:


> Well I've sat on my hands long enough and it's time I chime in. I am a police officer and unfortunately had to shoot two dogs so far in my career. Though both shootings were justified I still felt extremely bad afterward and sorry for the owners. I'm as much of a dog lover as the next guy around here and have been my whole life. I also wont say the breed of the dog because I don't think that's fair to the owners of that/those breeds.
> 
> 
> It's very very easy for John Q. Public to Monday-morning quarterback the police officer involved in this shoot. I've heard all kinds of people imputing their shoulda/woulda/coulda opinions about what took place during that call.
> ...


Very good thoughts in this post.

No one should be quick to judge....no one but those involved know all of the facts. Speculation is just wrong.


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

Vicky Trainor said:


> Very good thoughts in this post.
> 
> No one should be quick to judge....no one but those involved know all of the facts. Speculation is just wrong.


And trust in IAD to investigate its own/judge / and hand down any action.......


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

If the Cop had looked overthe fence, and saw the kid laying in the yard hurt, or in trouble, entered the yard, and the dog came at him, and he shot,,, TOTALLY different senario!

He had a Reason ,, he had reasoanble cause to enter the property, and secure the situation..

The Cop didnt have any witness or tip, or suspect that the kid was there! He made the conscious decision to illegally tresspass!


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

In order for a police department to be effective they must have the respect and confidence of the public they work for. The public has weighed in on this matter and it's clear they don't believe the officer was justified. One way or another that officer is going lose his job. Those that attempt to protect him will lose theirs as well. 

This is a situation that could have gone so much worse than it did and it was all caused by an officer acting stupidly.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Remember the law id *reasonable* search and seisure.

What reasonable evidence did the cop have that the kid was in that yard?

Remember he didnt have permission to enter.

That may be OK with many of us,, but the LAW is a different matter! If his illegal action causes damage,, He personally has to take resposibility,, and the department needs to take disciplinary action. The cop made the decision!!


----------



## kelrobin (Aug 12, 2013)

hackwusa said:


> I agree, I would hope most of you guys aren't living a lifestyle that you have to worry about a no knock warrant arriving at your house. Just saying.


No, but you read all the time about the SWAT and police entering/serving a warrant on the wrong house.


----------



## sunnydee (Oct 15, 2009)

Dog is mans best friend for god sakes and for very good reasons. They save human lives every day, soldiers, disaster victims, people that are lost, men, woman, children, and yes even cops. For everything that dogs do for us humans they should be given a lot more respect. If the cop really felt threatened by the dog he has more than just a gun on his duty belt., he has pepper spray, stun gun, his baton. No matter what the circumstances were I will never be convinced that the cop was justified in killing that dog and he should pay the consequences. As a disabled vet my dogs are more than field trial dogs, they are my companions, my best friends, my therapy. If someone shot one of my dogs, even a cop I might end up losing my freedom.


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

MooseGooser said:


> If the Cop had looked overthe fence, and saw the kid laying in the yard hurt, or in trouble, entered the yard, and the dog came at him, and he shot,,, TOTALLY different senario!
> 
> He had a Reason ,, he had reasoanble cause to enter the property, and secure the situation..
> 
> The Cop didnt have any witness or tip, or suspect that the kid was there! He made the conscious decision to illegally tresspass!



How do you know this. please point me to the direction where this has been confirmed.


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

480/277 said:


> There were 3 officers in the video.
> 
> I think it was a bad shoot because an LEO's line of duty does not supersede private property rights.
> And when he breeched those rights he should be held to the highest standard.





.44 magnum said:


> You have to ask yourself why you feel threatened and face your fears... while I understand a Doberman making a charge at your throat during a drug bust is justified.... there is Zero excuse for entering someones back yard and shooting the family pet because you put yourself into that position illegally.
> 
> The cop in Utah deserves to lose his job... the age of the kid who was suppose to be missing could not open the gate or climb over it... the cop was up to no good... period. He had some other agenda that has yet to come out. He used the search as an excuse to do a little sneaking around. He got caught by the dog and panicked.


Seriously. How on earth do you know that .44 mag? 


There are 13 exceptions to the search warrant rule under the 4th amendment. 

*#1. Exigent circumstances. Situations where immediate action is necessary. If the officer takes the time to get a warrant, evidence will be destroyed, life couldbe lost, or the suspect could escape. It is time consuming to get a warrant. First, the officer has to get the physical description of the place to besearched. A detailed affidavit, describing all the elements required by thecourt including the probable cause information, has to be crafted. In many jurisdictions, the District Attorney’s office has to review the affidavit. A judge then has to be contacted for his approval and signature. During normal business hours, this can take two to three hours. At night, or on weekends or holidays, this can take much longer.*

*Emergency conditions.** Those circumstances that would cause areasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.*
*
Common sense clearly dictates that if someone’s life was in danger, any delayincreases the likelihood life will be lost. *
*
**The practical application of exigent circumstances is that the officer canenter a home or business without a warrant.** The officer is limited to taking steps inending the emergency. The officer can retrieve and secure any evidence found inplain view, but cannot conduct a full search. Once the situation is stabilized,the officer is required to obtain a search warrant to continue searching forevidence. *

How do we know or not know if the officer had intel giving him the exigent circumstance/emergency condition exception??????? Isnt a lost child in itself an emergency????What if it wasy our child??????Would you want the police sitting on their hands while your child is lost and on the loose?

WE HAVENT READ THE REPORT AND DON’T KNOWALL THE FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And…..from the comments most of you have saida bout the police officers “unlawful search” *how can you know what lawful is or isnt because you don’t even know the 13 exception to the search warrant rule under the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] amendment.*Thus you don’t really even know how you or the police are even covered in the 4th amendment. Thus you don’t really even know your 4[SUP]th[/SUP] amendment rights.

Now, if ALL the facts come out and it is decided by an agency or court that the situation didn’t meet the exigentcircumstance/emergency condition exception and had no right to go into that back yard…..well then the officer was wrong. But we as outsiders DON’T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO MAKE AN EDUCATED OPINION.


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

Educated opinion? This is not hypergolic fuel technology. 
And math and connecting dots are not my weak point.
Warrant or not, justified entry or not, does not mean destroying 
private property, because you can.
Facts:
The kid wasn't there .
The cop killed the dog. 
The dog , confined in his private property is now utterly destroyed.

The kids parents get a pass.
The cop will get a pass.
And the only person to pay any consequence is the guy who had nothing
to do with it.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

goldieretriever50 said:


> Seriously. How on earth do you know that .44 mag?
> 
> 
> There are 13 exceptions to the search warrant rule under the 4th amendment.
> ...


If you choose to live in a Police State Vs. the Good old USA reasonably minded citizens understand that this Police officer over stepped his duty entering a closed gate. 

Reasonably minded citizens understand when Police overstep their powers and enter into tactics not in compliance of search and seizure of private property..... 

What you are doing in protecting another officer by arguing this point is telling America Police decide the Constitution. I would tell you they do not. Your job is to protect everyones rights. You can take this case to the Supreme Court if you wish... but entering Private Property where ZERO evidence existed that a lost child was there is over stepping reasonable police action. 

Honestly.. it makes me sick when these shootings happen because some fearful, poorly trained officer over reacts... You treat these Pets as something that is not loved by their families... Where is your humanity?

The missing kid found in his own home... my God.. How can anyone defend the Police in this case?


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

I think there has to be a reason/cause to search that particular house/yard. I don't believe under these circumstances Leo's have the right to search every house within a two block radius. An alarm
was sounded that turned out to be false. So every time a less than competent parent sounds an alarm you start searching everywhere without any specific reason or suspects.
And I think it would have been prudent to do a lots of things differently:contact the home owner, enter the backyard with lots more caution.
We managed to raise two kids without loosing them.
How long will it be before the police report is issued?


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

Wayne Nutt said:


> How long will it be before the police report is issued?


Report:
The officer, in the line of duty,while searching for a lost child, was confronted by a aggressive
100 lb dog. The officer in fear of great bodily harm or death defended himself according to police
protocal. While a tragic, unfortunate incidence the officer was justified in using deadly force.



when it comes out , I told ya so....


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

You may be right but the Leo better address his reason for suspecting the child was in this yard. I suspect the city lawyers are already in discussion in this matter.

If the police had checked with the homeowner he would have known about the dog. And if the police had checked with city attorney , the search would have probably been denied. In either case this incident would have been avoided. 
How long does it take to make two phone calls?


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

This video makes the whole thing worse.. the Smirk on the Sargent's face tells it all... they could care less about the man's beloved pet... 

you could tell the other officer sympathized by his demeanor .. 






The video has eveyone upset... and you can see an officer could have looked over this fence... the "lost"kid being in his own home means absolutely there was no evidence the kid was in the dog owners yard... 

sounds more like an officer had a grudge he settled...


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Goldenretriever50!
So from the official statement from the police, Did the officers tresspass through a locked gate, meet ANY of the conditions of the 13 exceptions,?

Tell me which one?

Tell me why the police labeled it a door to door search knocking on doors? Isnt the reason they knock on the door is to get permission to look around?? Or do you think they dont need that permission.. If they dont need that permission, why knock on anyones door????????

Just going by what the police stated!



They didnt say, the officer had reason to believe the child was there. They didnt say they had a witness tell them the child was inside the home, or had been seen in the area of that house. They didnt say they chased some suspect or suspicious person into the backyard,,did they??



Read the police report.


Very different story if the report said officer saw or heard child in trouble in the backyard, and needed help, decided to enter property to protect child, and dog got aggressive, and police shot! Very different.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

I don't think the report is out yet. I think 480 was just kidding about what the report will say.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

MooseGooser said:


> Goldenretriever50!
> So from the official statement from the police, Did the officers tresspass through a locked gate, meet ANY of the conditions of the 13 exceptions,?
> 
> Tell me which one?
> ...


The only thing that would make any sense would be that the property was listed as having a sexual predator living at the address with a prior history of child abduction... . If so why hasn't the Police said so?


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Just like the discussions here, there will be differences of opinion from both sides. Thats what representation (legal) and the court system is about..


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

.44 magnum said:


> The only thing that would make any sense would be that the property was listed as having a sexual predator living at the address with a prior history of child abduction... . If so why hasn't the Police said so?



EXACTLY!!! and if there was ANYTHING they could use to warrant them trespassing,,, They would have stated that reason in their statement, IM SURE!!

alll they said was "Just doin my job ma'am"


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

I don't think the police sgt. had any first hand knowledge and felt very uncomfortable even being there by all the looking down and avoiding eye contact , etc.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

MooseGooser said:


> Just like the discussions here, there will be differences of opinion from both sides. Thats what representation (legal) and the court system is about..


I think the cops are in for a gigantic lawsuit... Joe Taxpayer loses again.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

Wayne Nutt said:


> I don't think the police sgt. had any first hand knowledge and felt very uncomfortable even being there by all the looking down and avoiding eye contact , etc.


Funny thing is I've seen videos like this and most Police to not wish to be recorded. Utah must have some leeway on taping...


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

Closed room, gag order, no omission of wrong doing ,fade away...

For me, no amount would be acceptable . For me it's not about money.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

This is what the police communicated after the incident!!!

Its not just "Jon Q Public" with "No Clue" of the law commenting. 

Local attorney voicing many of the same comments voiced here.

*According to police, the officers were in the area going door-to-door while searching for a missing 3-year-old boy. Because the child had difficulty communicating, authorities were concerned he would not respond if they called out to him.*
*When no one answered the door at Kendall’s home, the officer felt he should still check the yard, which is where he ran into the dog. In the brief encounter, the officer reported he felt threatened by the animal, so he shot him.*
*“Something like this is hard for everyone involved. One minute you’re out looking for a 3 year old, and the next minute you find yourself in this situation where you’ve shot somebody’s dog. And now we need to investigate that and make sure everything was done right,” said Sgt. Robin Heiden of the Salt Lake City Police Department.*
*Internal Affairs is investigating the incident, but local attorney Robert Sykes believes it’s obvious the officer was out of line.*
*“Going into the backyard, a fenced backyard, it’s like walking in someone’s home without a warrant: It’s illegal, it’s a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights,” he said.*
*In his view, the officer should be charged with trespassing, as there was no reason to believe the missing child was in the home.*
*“If they saw the kid go in, yeah,” Sykes said. “But you see, if that were OK, that there’s a kid’s missing, why couldn’t they go in everybody’s home on the block? Why couldn’t they actually open the door and go in? I think very few people would say that’s OK.”



*


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

.44 magnum said:


> I think the cops are in for a gigantic lawsuit... Joe Taxpayer loses again.



But this is really the only way we can fix this ,Isnt it?


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

I don't know Utah specifically, but in most states dogs are chattel, meaning property worth what you would pay for it. 

You all realize that trespassing is maybe a $250 ticket and the dog might be worth $1500 if purebred... 

So all this over $1500?

It'll cost more than that for a lawyer to file the case to begin with.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

DarrinGreene said:


> .....You all realize that trespassing is maybe a $250 ticket and the dog might be worth $1500 if purebred... ....So all this over $1500?.....
> It'll cost more than that for a lawyer to file the case to begin with.


or you could say it will cost more, in the looooooooooooooong run, if let slide.
What founding father said... *"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"*


----------



## Migillicutty (Jan 11, 2014)

Imagine that another cop defending this cop who shot the dog. 


Then to lecture everyone on the 4th amendment as if being a cop makes you a Constitutional scholar. One problem is you don't quite understand it, which I am sure isn't your fault. I doubt they thoroughly explained it in your "How To Get Around The Comstitution" class at the the Academy. The 13 exceptions to the 4th amendment are born out of case law which is used as precedent in helping future courts make interpretations of the law. None are law. None supersede the Constitution. They are cases in which it has been found by the courts that warrants were not needed. Now I'm assuming you know all 13 exceptions since you cited the number. I also know that you know that bringing up any of the other 12 would have been quite futile as border crossing, probation searches, search after arrest etc really don't apply. You brought up the one that could possibly apply, the big trump card for cops because "hey it's an emergency people". The problem is that probable cause is still needed in Exigent Circumstance cases dealing with missing persons. This police officer would need to have probable cause to believe that this child was not only in that yard but also that it's life was in imminent danger. Most reasonable persons would not believe so and that is the standard. So it doesn't really matter what his "department policy" or "operational assignment" happened to be. None of that gave him the right to illegally enter the property. 

That all being said, after his illegal entry he then shot a dog. I find it very, very difficult to believe that shooting the dog was necessary. He went somewhere he shouldn't have been. He then reacted poorly and shot a dog that had every right to be there. He should lose his badge.

BTW lots of punctuation and use of caps to shout people down won't work in here, though I am sure you are used to being able to bully your way through a conversation in other situations.


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

Migillicutty said:


> Imagine that another cop defending this cop who shot the dog.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





What I'm against is people calling for this guys job and screaming foul from the rooftops when they aren't privy to all the facts. I don't have all the facts either as I have admitted earlier. Ive said when alllll the info is made public and the investigation is done if he is found to be in the wrong then I would back the investigations finding. I have only said I can relate to the officer because I've been in two similar but in some ways different situations. Just because I can relate doesn't mean I'm backing him and doesn't mean I'm not. I don't know all the details. But I am willing to pass on judgement until I have all the facts avail. 


In order for a court to decide whether this officers actions were warranted they have to look at the entire picture. I repeat the entire picture. It's called "the totality of the circumstances". What is upsetting to me is the courts use this to determine if the warrant less entry exigent circumstance exception applied..yet some of the public isn't looking at it through the same eye. It's not possible right now for the public to do so, we don't know all of the facts. We don't know all the details and info this officer had. We have a mere skeleton of the info without any flesh. Until it is all known I don't think anyone can form an truly educated opinion. 


The courts will consider the child's saftey or threat to vs time (I.E the time it would have taken to obtain a search warrant for the back yard) vs property owners rights. With a reported missing child would it have been more or less reasonable to wait the lengthy amount of time (usually several hours) it takes to get the search warrant. I find it very hard not to consider a lost/missing child, especially one who is "non-verbal", not an emergency.


Flip the coin. What if the cop didn't search the backyard because he didn't consider it an emergency. What if the child was found dead in that back yard and the public found out the cop chose not to search or he choose to wait the lengthy time for a search warrant. What if the medical examiner determined the child died while the search warrant was being written? If we answer this honestly I'm pretty sure we would agree that the cop would be crucified, just as he is being now. People would cry foul and demand his badge. They would say "that's why we have exceptions to the search warrant rule...for emergencies like this!" Darned if u do and darned if u don't. 


As for the bully comment. Really? I'm arguing my opinion not bullying. People argue against mine and I argue back. Saying I'm use to bullying in my conversations was a cheap shot from behind a keyboard. 


U capitalized "BTW" in your post. Please stop bullying and yelling at me. Your not the only sensitive one on this thread.


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

goldieretriever50 said:


> your first post:
> It's very very easy for John Q. Public to Monday-morning quarterback the police officer involved in this shoot. I've heard all kinds of people imputing their shoulda/woulda/coulda opinions about what took place during that call.
> 
> Your last post:
> Flip the coin. What if the cop didn't search the backyard because he didn't consider it an emergency. What if the child was found dead in that back yard and the public found out the cop chose not to search or he choose to wait the lengthy time for a search warrant. What if the medical examiner determined the child died while the search warrant was being written? If we answer this honestly I'm pretty sure we would agree that the cop would be crucified, just as he is being now. People would cry foul and demand his badge. They would say "that's why we have exceptions to the search warrant rule...for emergencies like this!" Darned if u do and darned if u don't.


Woulda, coulda , shoulda, bad

What if, good.


----------



## dorkweed (Apr 14, 2009)

I believe there are some LEO's and elected persons at all levels of government that want us, "We The People" to fear the police and what they may do and how they do it.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

I think the easiest solution keeps being ignored. The homeowner was present 15 minutes after being called. Not by the police by the way. The whole incident could have been avoided by calling the homeowner. Permission could have been sought. Police would have been made aware of the dogs presence.
How long does that take? Maybe 3 minutes. Would that have been viewed as prudent. I think so.


----------



## sunnydee (Oct 15, 2009)

Just another story of a trigger happy over zealous cop shooting a dog that was just doing what comes naturally, most any dog would bark or grow at a stranger that was intruding on his masters property. Not only did the cops actions of discharging his firearm in the inclosed space of the backyard and killing the dog but also put anyone else in danger of being hit by a bullet including the lost child if he was in the yard. The internet is filled with stories of cops shooting dogs, some of them even tied up or on a leash, they do this without a second thought because they know that they can get away with it. The number of cops killed by a dog is zero, the pepper spray on your duty belt is there for a reason, use it!!!


----------



## Tony Marshall (May 15, 2013)

Wayne Nutt said:


> I think the easiest solution keeps being ignored. The homeowner was present 15 minutes after being called. Not by the police by the way. The whole incident could have been avoided by calling the homeowner. Permission could have been sought. Police would have been made aware of the dogs presence.
> How long does that take? Maybe 3 minutes. Would that have been viewed as prudent. I think so.


I'm sorry but I have to disagree with this argument. A person can bleed to death in a 30 seconds. A person cannot maintain life without a patent airway after 3 minutes. Total scene time for trauma should not exceed 10 minutes. These are international standards for trauma care as stated in the ITLS standard. In your example, 18 minutes is too long. He would have been wrong for waiting too. We can all agree that it would have been preferable if the dog were not shot but he couldn't wait to search either.


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

Tony Marshall said:


> I'm sorry but I have to disagree with this argument. A person can bleed to death in a 30 seconds. A person cannot maintain life without a patent airway after 3 minutes. Total scene time for trauma should not exceed 10 minutes. These are international standards for trauma care as stated in the ITLS standard. In your example, 18 minutes is too long. He would have been wrong for waiting too. We can all agree that it would have been preferable if the dog were not shot but he couldn't wait to search either.


I agree, IF the cop KNEW the kid was there and was in imminent danger....
but the pesky fact is, the kid wasn't there...


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

I have to admit, I'm also concerned the parents are not being scrutinized .
Why the free pass on what could be considered neglect.

Parents here in a nearby town , recently, had their child (a toddler )removed by DCYS for
allowing him to roam the street. They didn't realize he got out....


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Tony, my point was a phone call and my thought was an outside time of three minutes to get valuable information. I wasn't suggesting waiting until he arrived. My point about that is that he was available.
The police were apparently canvassing/searching all homes within a two block radius. What made this one more critical than others?


----------



## Migillicutty (Jan 11, 2014)

Tony Marshall said:


> I'm sorry but I have to disagree with this argument. A person can bleed to death in a 30 seconds. A person cannot maintain life without a patent airway after 3 minutes. Total scene time for trauma should not exceed 10 minutes. These are international standards for trauma care as stated in the ITLS standard. In your example, 18 minutes is too long. He would have been wrong for waiting too. We can all agree that it would have been preferable if the dog were not shot but he couldn't wait to search either.


That's just ridiculous, at no point have any facts lead anyone to believe the child was even in the yard much less bleeding to death. Horrible fallacious leap. 

Still doesn't reconcile the fact that he shot the dog when most anyone else and certainly someone not armed would have just backed out of the yard. I think this is part of the issue as well. We can argue about his "right" to enter, how about his duty to respect the life of the dog properly secured on private property. I think the standard needs to be raised by which these officers can just shoot a dog that is barking growling at them. If they can't handle encountering a dog on its own property without shooting it they need to find another line of work. 

To goldenretriever50: "BTW" is an acronym and therefor correctly capitalized. You are the only one doing any shouting.


----------



## Tony Marshall (May 15, 2013)

Migillicutty said:


> That's just ridiculous, at no point have any facts lead anyone to believe the child was even in the yard much less bleeding to death. Horrible fallacious leap.
> 
> Still doesn't reconcile the fact that he shot the dog when most anyone else and certainly someone not armed would have just backed out of the yard. I think this is part of the issue as well. We can argue about his "right" to enter, how about his duty to respect the life of the dog properly secured on private property. I think the standard needs to be raised by which these officers can just shoot a dog that is barking growling at them. If they can't handle encountering a dog on its own property without shooting it they need to find another line of work.
> 
> To goldenretriever50: "BTW" is an acronym and therefor correctly capitalized. You are the only one doing any shouting.


I don't believe that it is ridiculous. If your dog got out you would go look for him. Why? Because you fear that he might become injured ie. trauma. If you weren't worried the dog would get hurt then you would do the logical thing and put a bowl of food on the back porch and wait for him to return. The parents obviously were worried that harm would come to their child or they would have just left a pop tart on the back porch.


----------



## Migillicutty (Jan 11, 2014)

Yes and if I went looking for my dog and trespassed on someone's property and shot their dog in the process I would go to jail.

It is about the balance between emergency and prudent actions. Why would a prudent person reasonably believe that a 3 yr old was in this securely enclosed yard and in imminent danger? I argue those most reasonable persons would not.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

I am not a proponent of making judgement in ANYTHING until all the facts are in. To do so is speculation and requires one to "fill in a lot of missing blanks" which we then feel we must later defend. That goes for everyone, including cops. 

However, painting a picture from the information you posted ..... :



goldieretriever50 said:


> .....
> 
> Ive read a lot of people say the officer should have turned and walk/run away from the dog, yet, I'd like to know if any of those people know anything about the science of what is called in law enforcement as the *"reactionary gap"*. Basically, studies show on average *when a person "threat" is running at you....they can move approximately 28 feet before you can process and fully react to their actions*. Now imagine the reactionary gap when dealing with a dog. That dog may be chewing on your leg...or worse...tackle you and chew on the rest of you before u can react. *In this case....the dog was within feet*.
> 
> .....


..... prompts me to ask if you believe the officer had his weapon drawn when he entered through gate?

After all, he was not anticipating an arrest or a confrontation or any other danger ... he was looking for a lost 3-year-old child ... yet he was able to draw his weapon (aren't they usually in a "snapped-shut" holster?) and fire accurately at a charging dog.

Seems to me, he would have recognized the perceived "threat" immediately, while he still had his hand on the gate and would have easily been able to step back to safety. I could be wrong but THAT sounds "as simple as it gets".

JS


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

goldieretriever50 said:


> What I'm against is people calling for this guys job and screaming foul from the rooftops when they aren't privy to all the facts. I don't have all the facts either as I have admitted earlier. Ive said when alllll the info is made public and the investigation is done if he is found to be in the wrong then I would back the investigations finding. I have only said I can relate to the officer because I've been in two similar but in some ways different situations. Just because I can relate doesn't mean I'm backing him and doesn't mean I'm not. I don't know all the details. But I am willing to pass on judgement until I have all the facts avail.
> 
> 
> In order for a court to decide whether this officers actions were warranted they have to look at the entire picture. I repeat the entire picture. It's called "the totality of the circumstances". What is upsetting to me is the courts use this to determine if the warrant less entry exigent circumstance exception applied..yet some of the public isn't looking at it through the same eye. It's not possible right now for the public to do so, we don't know all of the facts. We don't know all the details and info this officer had. We have a mere skeleton of the info without any flesh. Until it is all known I don't think anyone can form an truly educated opinion.
> ...


All you are doing is making people angry who love their dogs and hope this never happens to their dogs. I can understand saying something like ," I bet the officer feels terrible and wishes it never happened. I made a mistake ... " 

But you keep arguing this officers right to break the law. How can we accept this attitude you present.. It is terrible to think that communities hire people with your attitude. You never mention the poor search of the child's house, how many times has this happened? Kids find the weirdest places to crawl into... 

As I mentioned before, if you were to tell me this homeowner was a registered sex offender, I'd call it good Police work... I take it he isn't. Just an unlucky man to live in a community with Officers who shoot first and ask questions later. The average citizen would be sitting in a jail cell if he walked into someones yard and killed their dog... Why not this officer ?... he not only should lose his job, but be behind bars as a threat to his community. The Chief is not much better with his comments... he is most likely the reason why his men act in such behavior.


----------



## sunnydee (Oct 15, 2009)

JS said:


> I am not a proponent of making judgement in ANYTHING until all the facts are in. To do so is speculation and requires one to "fill in a lot of missing blanks" which we then feel we must later defend. That goes for everyone, including cops.
> 
> However, painting a picture from the information you posted ..
> 
> ...


I agree with you completely. The cop either came into the yard with his weapon drawn and killed the dog as he approached or the dog was standing in one spot barking or growling and the cop had the time to draw his weapon and killed the dog in cold blood.


----------



## Migillicutty (Jan 11, 2014)

JS said:


> I am not a proponent of making judgement in ANYTHING until all the facts are in. To do so is speculation and requires one to "fill in a lot of missing blanks" which we then feel we must later defend. That goes for everyone, including cops.
> 
> However, painting a picture from the information you posted ..... :
> 
> ...


Excellent point


----------



## Dan Storts (Apr 19, 2011)

DarrinGreene said:


> I don't know Utah specifically, but in most states dogs are chattel, meaning property worth what you would pay for it.
> 
> You all realize that trespassing is maybe a $250 ticket and the dog might be worth $1500 if purebred...
> 
> ...


"Man's best friend." The story of "Old Drum" and the maximum fine was $50 but he received $500. Pain and suffering opens a lot of doors.

https://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/education/olddrum/StoryofBurdenvHornsby.asp


----------



## GaryJ (Jan 1, 2013)

JS said:


> I am not a proponent of making judgement in ANYTHING until all the facts are in. To do so is speculation and requires one to "fill in a lot of missing blanks" which we then feel we must later defend. That goes for everyone, including cops.
> 
> However, painting a picture from the information you posted ..... :
> 
> ...


Great point. Along that line was it established the missing child only wandered away and was not taken? Would the public reaction be the same for a child that was known to have been taken?


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

.44 magnum said:


> But you keep arguing this officers right to break the law. How can we accept this attitude you present..


Problem is you all think the cop broke the law when in fact, he has every right due to 4th amendment exception to enter the yard in search of the child. 

I'll say this once more and you can all attack me (even those of you whose comments I didn't read).

Had your child been lost you would expect the cops to search every square inch of every yard and even every home in the neighborhood to find him or her.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

DarrinGreene said:


> Problem is you all think the cop broke the law when in fact, he has every right due to 4th amendment exception to enter the yard in search of the child.
> 
> I'll say this once more and you can all attack me (even those of you whose comments I didn't read).
> 
> Had your child been lost you would expect the cops to search every square inch of every yard and even every home in the neighborhood to find him or her.


What in the world are they teaching you at the academy ... that is not the law... and if my child was missing I'd want you to respect everyones constitutional rights. My child does not give anyone the right to have our Bill of Rights trampled on... 

*The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[SUP][a][/SUP] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
*

You could argue it your right to enter said backyard if there was any evidence the missing child was seen in the neighborhood by a witness, or if someone saw said child enter or climb over the fence.

You could enter the yard if you heard a child crying for help, or saw a blood trail, or if on looking over the fence, you saw the child... 

What you can not do is enter a property without consent or without a warrant issued by a judge who heard the facts on probable cause to issue said warrant. . 

If you believe otherwise it is a sad state of affairs for a free country, because what was taught to you is something out of a Police State.

Nothing is going to bring this mans dog back, but the officer should be suspended pending investigation and be put on paid leave. He could be suffering from some type of mental illness that makes him unfit to perform his job in a safe manner.


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

.44 magnum said:


> If you believe otherwise it is a sad state of affairs for a free country, because what was taught to you is something out of a Police State.



Dont confuse the issue with facts, it was for a missing child.
How could a reasonable person think otherwise???
Fall behind, and get in lock step...


----------



## Migillicutty (Jan 11, 2014)

.44 magnum said:


> What in the world are they teaching you at the academy ... that is not the law... and if my child was missing I'd want you to respect everyones constitutional rights. My child does not give anyone the right to have our Bill of Rights trampled on...
> 
> *The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[SUP][a][/SUP] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
> *
> ...


Another excellent post


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

JS said:


> I am not a proponent of making judgement in ANYTHING until all the facts are in. To do so is speculation and requires one to "fill in a lot of missing blanks" which we then feel we must later defend. That goes for everyone, including cops.
> 
> However, painting a picture from the information you posted ..... :
> 
> ...


im not going to make a preliminary judgement so I'm definitely not going to speculate how if at all he was holding his gun. We don't know if he walked through the gate and the dog was right there immediately. We don't know if the dog ran to him from the otherside of the yard once the officer was through the gate. We don't know what kind of holster the officer had. We don't know if the officer did or didn't have a gun drawn. We don't know.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/0...nching-woman-on-la-freeway/?intcmp=latestnews

Offered without comment regards

Bubba


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

https://news.yahoo.com/video/shocking-video-shows-cop-pushing-130458224.html

This one also... regards..


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

.44 magnum said:


> All you are doing is making people angry who love their dogs and hope this never happens to their dogs. I can understand saying something like ," I bet the officer feels terrible and wishes it never happened. I made a mistake ... "
> 
> 
> But you keep arguing this officers right to break the law. How can we accept this attitude you present.. It is terrible to think that communities hire people with your attitude. You never mention the poor search of the child's house, how many times has this happened? Kids find the weirdest places to crawl into...
> ...





I'm making people angry because I'm against a judgement of this officer without all the facts? This is a public forum and I commented on a public thread. I didn't interrupt a private party here. 


Im in a dog lover, trainer, and waterfowler just like everyone else here. I hope my dog, your dog, or anyone else's dog never gets shot. Where did I say otherwise. The difference is I see this situation as not cut and dry and know through my trsining and experience that a lot of factors can or could have played into what happened. And a lot of those factors are unknown to you and I. So where your quick to make assumptions and grab the pitch fork I'm not. 


As for me arguing the right for this officer to break the law....and here's me yelling I guess...IT HASNT BEEN DETERMINED YET THAT THE OFFICER BROKE THE LAW. ITS STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION. You and the others on retrievertraining.net have held your own jury trial and deemed it such. The real justice system is and will go about it the right wat. If the officer is found in that system to have done wrong then by golly ill support their decision.


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

IAD will be the real justice system......

Judgement: officer justified
nothing to see, move along now....


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/crime...family-dog-candy-texas-farm-article-1.1768851

http://m.kltv.com/#!/newsDetail/25335952


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

Bubba said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/0...nching-woman-on-la-freeway/?intcmp=latestnews
> 
> Offered without comment regards
> 
> Bubba





.44 magnum said:


> https://news.yahoo.com/video/shocking-video-shows-cop-pushing-130458224.html
> 
> This one also... regards..


these two posts are nothing but two smoke grenades. When your all shot up and looking for a way out you throw smoke to cloud the air. Absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand....merely spewage. 

Assuming your both dog trainers, if I find a video about a dog trainer somewhere beating and abusing his dogs, does that make you both abusive dog trainers by association? 

Keep throwing smoke. It's making your arguments look even more creditable.


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

Wayne Nutt said:


> http://m.nydailynews.com/news/crime...family-dog-candy-texas-farm-article-1.1768851


All the facts of that particular incident were looked at and the investigation made its findings; I have no problem with that. It's a case by case thing. Some may be similar and some may be different. Just because the officer was determined to be wrong in that instance doesn't mean the officer in Utah was wrong in his.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

The more I see and read about these abuses of authority it makes me wonder what testing is done to see if an officer is mentally fit to handle a stressful job... we all see the movies made by Hollywood and the weekly TV shows depicting burn out from the stress. Police do not have it easy, and maybe shooting a dog is somehow a stress relief for some... 

Many of us as hunters have taken the life of a bird or mammal, and you do so with respect and thank God for providing the meat so your family can eat. These Police shootings seem so detached from the pain and suffering it will cause a pets family... it's like these officers are closed off to their emotions, which is a form of mental fatigue. 

They use the words... The dog was charging me... my life was in danger... but I think it is really all about ego and always having to be in control... Eventually these officers crack under stress. 

Like in the first thread that disappeared... I guess we all have to live in fear from these crazy cops... because it is happening more and more..


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

New spokesman for the Police Dept has some compassion.... but if you watch the entire video would you really be in fear of this pet? 
<br>[video]http://fox13now.com/2014/06/23/dog-owner-wants-officer-fired-after-pet-is-shot-killed/[/video]


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

.44 magnum said:


> The more I see and read about these abuses of authority it makes me wonder what testing is done to see if an officer is mentally fit to handle a stressful job... we all see the movies made by Hollywood and the weekly TV shows depicting burn out from the stress. Police do not have it easy, and maybe shooting a dog is somehow a stress relief for some...
> 
> Many of us as hunters have taken the life of a bird or mammal, and you do so with respect and thank God for providing the meat so your family can eat. These Police shootings seem so detached from the pain and suffering it will cause a pets family... it's like these officers are closed off to their emotions, which is a form of mental fatigue.
> 
> ...



My sister recently retired from the PD. She is now an ER nurse. One BIL is a detective . One a SWAT cop with three tours of duty to the sand pit as an interrogator for SF's. You will not find three finer human beings, with intelligence, common sense and compassion.

Let's hold individuals responsible and not paint with a broad brush.


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

480/277 said:


> My sister recently retired from the PD. She is now an ER nurse. One BIL is a detective . One a SWAT cop with three tours of duty to the sand pit as an interrogator for SF's. You will not find three finer human beings, with intelligence, common sense and compassion.
> 
> Let's hold individuals responsible and not paint with a broad brush.


I'm clapping.........


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

.44 magnum said:


> What in the world are they teaching you at the academy


they aren't teaching me anything at the academy but I was curious enough to look up the exigent/emergency circumstance exemption to the 4th amendment. It was also posted here in the thread. you might want to look into it also.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

DarrinGreene said:


> they aren't teaching me anything at the academy but I was curious enough to look up the exigent/emergency circumstance exemption to the 4th amendment. It was also posted here in the thread. you might want to look into it also.


Yes I have... and it becomes an excuse any PD can make up.. The Patriot Act saw to that. My General point in any of this discussion is about restraint under pressure. 

If this is the society you want I guess it makes sense for cops entering private yards and shooting the family dog. 9 out of 10 dogs are going to confront anyone not belonging there. So I guess all the outraged people just better get a grip on this new "Cowboy" out on our streets protecting us. 

I have great respect for the Police and the job they do... but I also feel those who think their lives are in danger from a family pet may serve the public better being behind a desk. Or at least not go onto private property. 

I also think if this case were to ever go to the SCOTUS , even they would not find this an "emergency" being so far from the missing child's home. The Salt Lake PD is stretching the intent of the variables of the Fourth Amendment. 

A proper use of such would be what I said prior.. a neighbor or witness see child entering that backyard where a dog lives, and child could be in danger... Too much time would be needed to get a warrant.. the owner not being home to grant consent would then become exigent circumstance to enter the yard.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

was not the dog killed like 30 min after the "Missing child" was found in the home?
I know I readed that someplace.
and was not the dead dog a 110 pound wimer?
are not they known as the gray gost? Sleek and fast? 
not this dog. if the doughnut lugger had pulled a Glazed instead of a Glock the dog would still be alive and he would have been able to do the snoopy snoop under the rouze of lost kid he was trying to do in the first place.
Fry the goof ball!


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

480/277 said:


> Woulda, coulda , shoulda, bad
> 
> What if, good.


u made your point but failed to answer the question.


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

Bubba said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/0...nching-woman-on-la-freeway/?intcmp=latestnews
> 
> Offered without comment regards
> 
> Bubba





.44 magnum said:


> https://news.yahoo.com/video/shocking-video-shows-cop-pushing-130458224.html
> 
> This one also... regards..




tossed back at ya.


http://www.godvine.com/Police-Offic...-a-Fence-The-End-Will-Blow-You-Away-1052.html

http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/police-officer-dives-deep-save-dog-submerged-car/

we can play this game all day on the internet.


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

goldieretriever50 said:


> u made your point but failed to answer the question.


by your own words the officer had one chance to get it right, IMHO he failed.
Your argument is flawed in that you only gave 2 scenarios in your hypothesis.
I don't like the what if game, but just for an example. 
What if the parents were not negligent.
What if the police searched the house effectively.
What if the LEO looked over the fence..... 
If , ifs and buts were candy and nuts, oh what a fine Christmas we'd have.


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

480/277 said:


> by your own words the officer had one chance to get it right, IMHO he failed.
> Your argument is flawed in that you only gave 2 scenarios in your hypothesis.
> I don't like the what if game, but just for an example.
> What if the parents were not negligent.
> ...


I get your point it's not fair for me to combat the what if game if I'm gonna play the what if game. Valid point and I agree with you. That being said do you think there would have been any reprocutions for failure to act? I'm just interested to hear your opinion. Not looking to use it an ammunition. 

Side note. I'll have to watch the video again to see how high the fence was. I believe I saw it to be of some height. But if the fence was high enough were he couldn't see into the back yard, and he climbed the fence to peer over, he would be doing the exact same thing as if he opened the gate and walked through. The fenced in portion of the yard is considered "curtilage of the dwelling" and the owner would have the "expectation of privacy". If the officer couldn't see into the backyard from a public place or public eye, this can be a roadway or neighbors house etc etc, due to height of the fence, he can't climb and peer over it without a search warrant or under one of the search warrant exceptions. If heard people ask why he just didn't look over the fence. Well, if he did, depending what you could see if u didn't, it could be considered the same sort of action that he took by walking through the gate. 

Ill check the video later it may not even be a question. 

But, what do I know. I'm just a dumb donut lugging non-constitutional lawyer bossy corrupt good-old boy system dog hating dog shooting cop (did I miss anything)who wasn't taught anything in the academy.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Did anyone read what the Rains Co. TX Sheriff had to say about his deputy shooting a homeowners dog? He sounds like a good ole country boy but I think he got it right . See second link in post 97.


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

goldieretriever50 said:


> I get your point it's not fair for me to combat the what if game if I'm gonna play the what if game. Valid point and I agree with you. That being said do you think there would have been any reprocutions for failure to act? I'm just interested to hear your opinion. Not looking to use it an ammunition.
> 
> Side note. I'll have to watch the video again to see how high the fence was. I believe I saw it to be of some height. But if the fence was high enough were he couldn't see into the back yard, and he climbed the fence to peer over, he would be doing the exact same thing as if he opened the gate and walked through. The fenced in portion of the yard is considered "curtilage of the dwelling" and the owner would have the "expectation of privacy". If the officer couldn't see into the backyard from a public place or public eye, this can be a roadway or neighbors house etc etc, due to height of the fence, he can't climb and peer over it without a search warrant or under one of the search warrant exceptions. If heard people ask why he just didn't look over the fence. Well, if he did, depending what you could see if u didn't, it could be considered the same sort of action that he took by walking through the gate.
> 
> ...



You also neglected to answer my first question to you...
"Did you try pepper spray first, or a taser, baton, or was your first instinct to pull your service weapon ?"


As for your question on failure to act, that all depends on circumstances, ie he heard a child , saw blood, neighbor told him he saw a child enter, etc. I believe it's safe to say that didn't happen. 

As far as the legality of looking over a fence being the same as opening the gate, that may be true. But from a common sense stand point one action puts both officer and dog in jeopardy the other does not . One gets it right the other ends up FUBAR.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

goldieretriever50 said:


> reprocutions


Try ​repercussion .

It is difficult to take someone seriously who fails to proof their point .


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

480/277 said:


> You also neglected to answer my first question to you...
> "Did you try pepper spray first, or a taser, baton, or was your first instinct to pull your service weapon ?"
> 
> 
> ...


I disagree that's its safe to say since we don't know all the details but we can move on. 

Were u asking about the two situations I was involved with? I took it as you were speaking in the third person. If you were asking about my two encounters I am not going to get into the details. Using my firearm was the correct action. Both situations were investigated and I was cleared. Both sets of owners understood why I took the action I did and actually agreed with both my actions and the outcome of the investigations. 

We we don't carry batons. As for pepper spray, it doesn't always work on dogs. I've sprayed dogs before and some looked at me and asked for more. Pepper spray can also affect the person deploying it. It can take you out of the fight. If the pepper spray doesn't work on the dog but works on you now you are even more handicapped and the dog isn't....your in big trouble. Also, distance and wind direction are factors. This distance issue ties into what I explained earlier about reactionary gap. If the dog is within that gap and one of your less lethal tools fail, by the time u transition to a different less lethal tool or gun you are already being bitten and or mauled. At that point you aren't preventing anything. You are a chew toy in a uniform. 

As for tazers. Since u have law enforcement in the family who I'm sure are privy to tazers and have had tazer training, talk to them about the accuracy capability of tazers. Not only are they hard to shoot accurately at a human who is moving now imagine a smaller and much faster target; dog. The barbs are shot out at different angles. Top straight out and bottom at a downward angle. This angle increases as the barbs travel. After 10-15-20 feet, depending on which cartridge you have, the barbs can be several feet apart from each other as they travel through the air. Plus, you have to have BOTH darts/probes stick in the skin or clothing for it to even work. Just one probe in won't work...the circuit isn't complete and nothing happens. Id say the average dog is what.....3-4 feet from the top of the back to its chest. So unless your within 5-10ish feet from the dog you might have the chance to get both probes into the dog. Your still more than likely shooting at a fast moving target. What is the chance the dog is going to sit still and pretty for you to take the shot. Most dogs confront something head on. I don't think I've ever seen a dog confront something broadside. So even if the dog is 5-10-15ish feet away it's more than likely facing you giving you an even smaller target. If your lucky and it's broadside you still may be shooting at a target smaller than the spread of the probes. 

Let's talk for a moment about what tools the officer had available to him. Do you know if he has less lethal tools? Do you know what tools were issued to him? I don't. Not all departments have baton, pepper spray , and or tazers. As I said I don't have a baton. So how can anyone say this officer was wrong when he didn't use less lethal options? Maybe all he had was a gun. Maybe he was issued a tazer but it was being repaired. We don't know. And back to my original main argument....how can you make a judgement call without all the facts?

We have in law enforcement what is called the "force continuum". Basically it's a ever moving and adjusting scale of what force an officer can use when presented with an opposing force or threat both real or perceived. It's not necessarily a "climb the ladder" system such as : commands, then spray, then tazer, then strikes, then gun. An officer is allowed to not only match the threat or perceived threat but be one step above the threat. The caveat is his/her actions and or being one step above has to be justified. Thus the issue at hand. When threatened or faced with a perceived threat a police officer doesn't have to start his/her actions below or at the same level as a threat he/she is facing. 

Look im all about less lethal tools. But they aren't the cure all and they most certainly have handicaps. And when used at the wrong time can lead to a officer being harmed which could have been prevented if the threat had been addressed with the appropriate response in the first place.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

It's true that we don't know all the details. And it's true that everything we discuss about the details that we do not know, is only speculation.

However, there isn't a detail, or number of details, that I could possibly speculate supplying justification for an Officer of the Law entering a law abiding Citizen's private abode, and killing his dog.

There isn't the possibility of a detail, or extenuating circumstance, excusing that.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

If confronted by a dog where does it become life threatening? That is what I have trouble understanding... you can take that big old service weapon and use it as a club... you could carry treats.. You could retreat and call animal control. Stand still ... talk the dog down... 

Some of these shootings have to be about no experience or training.. basic fear. Good training takes fear away. When a cop panics the Gun goes boom. The old adrenaline rush... fight or flight...

The military has rules of engagement. I think the Police Dept's across America must know 50% of homes may have a dog... it is not good public relations to go around shooting family members. As that is how most dog owners see their pets.

Have a plan that if you confront a dog, that non-lethal force will be tried first... a gosh darn cookie in your pocket , a can of bear spray that shoots far out... just please do not shoot the poor dog as a first choice... that is all we ask.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

Wayne Nutt said:


> Did anyone read what the Rains Co. TX Sheriff had to say about his deputy shooting a homeowners dog? He sounds like a good ole country boy but I think he got it right . See second link in post 97.


That poor dairy farmer.. returns home to find it was burglarized , call Police and they send out an officer to investigate. He shoots the cattle dog because it is barking. Most likely just herding instinct... owner can't get there in time and has to dispatch his dog with his bare hands because the officer would not finish off the suffering... 

The officer was terminated.by the sheriff. This should happen in all these cases. it sends a message you can not shoot dogs on their own property. The dogs are just doing their job. 

This interview is so heart breaking.... 

http://www.kltv.com/story/25302236/east-texas-man-says-deputy-shot-his-dog


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

As mentioned in the deleted thread, this whole incident seems precipitated by poor protocol or a breach of protocol. In the case of a lost child the most logical place to search is in the house. The whole incident would have been avoided if a thorough search of the house was performed prior to checking elsewhere.

What is protocol for entering private property regardless of legality? A simple announcement of "police" and a knock or rattle of the gate would seem to be the bare minimum. A "vicious, dangerous" dog would most likely make itself known. It is then the officers duty to assess the situation & proceed. Either the officer incorrectly assessed the situation or went into the yard with the intent of shooting the dog. 

The more likely scenerio is officer rushed into yard without knocking or announcing himself, ran into dog & shot it.

There is no scenerio that reflects positively on the officer in question. He was IMHO trespassing & destroyed property without any probable cause. The wild west school of law enforcement.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Goldieretriever said: "We we don't carry batons."

Gotta ask why- Why would an Officer not carry a good defensive/offensive tool? The police around here all carry them....and use them if need be. -Paul


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

goldieretriever50 said:


> I disagree that's its safe to say since we don't know all the details but we can move on.
> 
> Were u asking about the two situations I was involved with? I took it as you *were speaking in the third person*. If you were asking about my two encounters I am not going to get into the details.Using my firearm was the correct action. Both situations were investigated and I was cleared. Both sets of owners understood why I took the action I did and actually agreed with both my actions and the outcome of the investigations.
> 
> ...



1:You also neglected to answer my first question to you...
"Did you try pepper spray first, or a taser, baton, or was your first instinct to pull your service weapon ?"

How is this third person?

2 : if he just looked over the fence all your points are moot ... Just saying common sense would had gone a long way..

Nice to know an officer just needs to perceive a threat.... How convenient .
How much is a perceived threat of a dog on the other side of a fence???

Fact is (IMHO) he screwed the pooch ..... Pun intended.

I wire complex power plants , industrial facilities, hospitals etc.
No matter how many terminations I do correctly, if the owners flip a 
switch and 28k goes boom, will I get a pass .....


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Goldie, I don't know you and you don't know me, so what I am about to say is not directed at you personally. I mean that. 

You are of course correct that nobody knows what went on in that backyard other than the officer in question. You asked for forbearance with respect to judgment on him, and I am with you on that, at least in theory.

Where I think you are missing a great opportunity is in reflecting on what posters on this thread are saying about their perceptions of LEOs in general. Keep in mind that this forum is largely populated by law-abiding citizens who are not out selling drugs or committing other crimes. Look at what they are saying to you. 

This group of mostly law-abiding citizens is saying they are unhappy with some of the current trends in law enforcement. In particular, the seemingly prevailing attitude that the most important thing is that we all go home at the end of the day, and the seeming corollary to that premise that the famed "Blue wall of silence" will be used to ensure that result wherever possible.

I was taught from an early age to respect authority, and I mostly did. Until I got pulled over one night in my hometown for "weaving within my own lane." Unfortunately for me, my eye allergies were acting up, so I was quite obviously drunk or stoned. In fairness, the officer who pulled me over doesn't know my medical history, so he should have checked me out. Whether he should have done 4 separate field sobriety tests when it should have been obvious after the first one that there was nothing wrong with me is another question. Perhaps he was showing off for the other person with him who refused to identify himself when i asked. I finally had to dare the officer to arrest me by purposely "failing" the last test and telling him to arrest me and give me a blood test or turn me loose, and he let me go. It seems clear that he was just messing with me, but then again he has the badge and the gun, right? You can be right or you can go to jail. This officer is now a detective in the same department. 

Fast forward a couple years to the Thanksgiving Day parade in NYC. Get up at 4AM, get out to the curb around 6 when the temperature is around 14 degrees, but I do get a front-row seat for my wife who wants to see the parade. Everything is going well until about 10, when I can hear the parade coming and the temperature is up to about 20, and I get a shove in the back and an excuse me, to which I don't respond. I get another, I again don't respond, and then I get a third. Now I turn and ask if I can help him, and I am told that I can get out of the way and let the 4 of them get to the front. Are you kidding me? I have been here since 6 AM - and then I was staring at an NYPD badge and being told I can get out of the way or I can go to Riker's Island jail, my choice. Once again, he has the badge and the gun - which his hand is on despite being in the middle of that parade crowd - and I can either be right or I can go to jail and enjoy the general population in NYC. I am sure I would have been arrested for disorderly conduct, whatever that is other than "I am a police officer and I don't like your attitude".

Perhaps my favorite LEO experience occurred when my house was burglarized. After waiting on them for almost two hours, I get to watch them go through the motions for about 30 minutes. Look, we all know the chances of them getting my stuff back, let alone catching who did it, are slim to none, but at least act like you are interested. The highlight was having to actually talk one of them into fingerprinting around the window they busted out to get into my house. Again, I know this is not CSI, but at least act like you have some interest in building a database for when these guys screw up and get caught. 

I stand corrected on my favorite experience. Came home late one Saturday night to find about the police cars busting up what appears to be a massive party at the student rental house next door. The LEOs appear to be very excited to see me, and I am immediately being questioned - in my yard, where the party is not - about my giving the OK for this party. Seems that when the three kids next door got busted for, among other things, actually having no more sense than to sell alcohol without a license to minors, their response was that I told them it was OK. They did come over and tell me they were going to have a party and to let them know if they got too loud. They neglected to mention the live band, beer sales, and an estimated 200+ people in a residential neighborhood. In any event, what in the world difference would it make if I had told them all that was OK? But he has the gun and the badge, so I have to stand there and answer questions on a subject I know nothing about. I wasn't even there. 

I know these are all anecdotal, but I think what you and your LEO brethren might spend some time reflecting on is what happens when you lose my support. At this point, I am squarely in middle age, but I expect any interaction with law enforcement to be adversarial in nature. To be fair, part of it is a self-fulfilling prophecy on my part because I expect it. The question you might want to spend some time on is why I have come to expect it. 

Last point. I live in a college town with all the attendant problems. Underage drinking, general immaturity and lack of respect, etc. I have seen it all. We seem to have a high incidence of "disorderly conduct" arrests in and around the campus bar areas. I am sure some deserve it in addition to being publicly intoxicated. But a stand-alone DI arrest? I guess I wonder whether these officers ever think about whether it is worth it to tag somebody who is mouthing off a little with an arrest. I also wonder how they would want it to go down if it were their kid.

I will also say that I expect to hear that these were isolated incidents and I should not tar all LEOs with the same brush. You should know that I am a lawyer (no criminal work) and I have very little sympathy for that argument for obvious reasons.


----------



## hackwusa (May 29, 2014)

...and we could go on and on about tarring lawyers as well. I think we have beat this to death. Move on.


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> It's true that we don't know all the details. And it's true that everything we discuss about the details that we do not know, is only speculation.
> 
> However, there isn't a detail, or number of details, that I could possibly speculate supplying justification for an Officer of the Law entering a law abiding Citizen's private abode, and killing his dog.
> 
> There isn't the possibility of a detail, or extenuating circumstance, excusing that.


This is exactly the point. 

The officer had answered a call requesting aid in the search for a special needs child who was believed to have wandered off. 
There were no reports of abduction or foul play, they were not pursuing a criminal and there was no immediate threat to public safety. To try and claim exigent circumstances is at best a rather large stretch. 

The shield a police officer carries is not a "do anything you want and get away with it" badge. The officer made a series of poor decisions that resulted in a home owners constitutional rights being violated and his property willfully destroyed. The wheels of the political process at City Hall are no doubt turning already and the embarassment to the City and financial burden associated with this screw up will cause termination of employment for some in the police department.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

I now consider myself properly chastised and I am moving on. 



hackwusa said:


> ...and we could go on and on about tarring lawyers as well. I think we have beat this to death. Move on.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

RookieTrainer said:


> I now consider myself properly chastised and I am moving on.


 I'm glad that you learned your lesson.


----------



## Pam Spears (Feb 25, 2010)

I just have to comment. Clicked on one of the video links, this one I think. http://fox13now.com/2014/06/23/dog-owner-wants-officer-fired-after-pet-is-shot-killed/ Of course there's a commercial to be viewed first. An All-State commercial about home security, where the All State spokesman is standing there with a dog on a leash, burglar sneaking up to the house in the background. The burglar sets off the alarm, the All State spokesman releases the dog, who barks and goes after the burglar. The spokesman says "oops! as the dog and burglar disappears off screen." *What irony* that the commercial is showing a dog as a defensive method against burglary prior to a video about a dog who was shot by a policeman guarding his own yard.


----------



## Migillicutty (Jan 11, 2014)

hackwusa said:


> ...and we could go on and on about tarring lawyers as well. I think we have beat this to death. Move on.


You are LEO correct?

Case in point regards


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Steve made a valid point. I'm sure the Rains Co. Sheriff gets it. I don't think the SLC Police Ch.seems to understand why/how anyone can even be upset. I think the mayor will explain.


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

paul young said:


> Goldieretriever said: "We we don't carry batons."
> 
> Gotta ask why- Why would an Officer not carry a good defensive/offensive tool? The police around here all carry them....and use them if need be. -Paul


the boss doesn't like them so we don't carry them. Prob because a baton can turn into a deadly weapon very quickly even when it wasn't intended to be. One strike to head of human or dog can be lethal.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

goldieretriever50 said:


> the boss doesn't like them so we don't carry them. Prob because a baton can turn into a deadly weapon very quickly even when it wasn't intended to be. One strike to head of human or dog can be lethal.






Not as lethal as a bullet.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Steve Shaver said:


> Not as lethal as a bullet.


there are degrees of lethal? well crap, I had no idea


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

Steve Shaver said:


> Not as lethal as a bullet.


No your absolutely wrong. A bullet doesn't guarantee a kill nor does a blow to the head.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

goldieretriever50 said:


> No your absolutely wrong. A bullet doesn't guarantee a kill nor does a blow to the head.


and the blow to the head puts the threat within arms reach...


----------



## Tony Marshall (May 15, 2013)

Steve Shaver said:


> Not as lethal as a bullet.


You may not die but getting coloring books for Christmas the rest of your life ain't a good situation either.


----------



## Migillicutty (Jan 11, 2014)

DarrinGreene said:


> there are degrees of lethal? well crap, I had no idea



Really? Maybe this will help. 


From Websters

_1_
_a : of, relating to, or causing death <death by lethal injection>_
_b : capable of causing death <lethal chemicals>_

Lots of things are capable of causing death, some much more so than others. A butter knife is lethal, a Barrett .50 cal much more so. 

Just so you all don't double down on the idiocy and try to continue this absurd argument, here is an excerpt from an article in Police Magazine titled "Less-Lethal Weapon Options" 

_The whole less-lethal concept is flawed in the sense that there is no right way to describe it. "Less-lethal" does not mean "not lethal," as any less-lethal weapon has the potential to be deadly. Even a strobe light can cause someone with epilepsy to have a seizure and then fall and hit his or her head and die._


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

dead is dead, lethal is lethal... 


who let the liberals into Texas?


----------



## Migillicutty (Jan 11, 2014)

You did it anyway. You doubled down in the face of facts showing you are wrong. That tells me all I need to know about you. You got the first part right, dead is dead. Lethal doesn't not equate to dead. Words matter. I am amazed you are actually arguing that a baton is not a less lethal weapon than a gun. Pretty sure that goes against all the police manuals and training but you got caught making a dumb statement and you won't let it go. Please tell me you don't have a badge. That would just be scary.


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

Migillicutty said:


> You did it anyway. You doubled down in the face of facts showing you are wrong. That tells me all I need to know about you. You got the first part right, dead is dead. Lethal doesn't not equate to dead. Words matter. I am amazed you are actually arguing that a baton is not a less lethal weapon than a gun. Pretty sure that goes against all the police manuals and training but you got caught making a dumb statement and you won't let it go. Please tell me you don't have a badge. That would just be scary.


If I hit u in the head with a baton could you die? Yes you could. I have seen people shot in the head who lived. I have seen people who have shot themselves in the head and lived. A bullet or gun or baton in themselves aren't lethal, they are objects. It's the manner in which they are used and when they are used the destruction that is caused in the particular instance of their use. 

Have u read police manuals or are you "pretty sure". If so which ones? There are prob as many police manuals out there as there are articles discussing force fetch.


----------



## Migillicutty (Jan 11, 2014)

You are a master at red herrings. This whole lethality discussion being one of them. I have found it amusing playing it out and letting you guys show your true colors. Just to be clear, our astute and all knowing LEOs who are trying to lecture us all on 4th amendment and rationalize the actions of the officer in question killing a dog on private property think there is no difference in the lethality of a baton and a gun. On top of that they would have us all believe that training is not different in the use of the aforementioned. I am sure we can all "move on" with the warm fuzzy feeling that these are the folks "protecting and serving" our communities.


----------



## sunnydee (Oct 15, 2009)

It is very clear to me after reading some of the replies on this particular thread that most of the time I prefer the company of dogs over people. When I am hanging around with them I don't have to deal with arrogance, stupidity, self-centeredness, heartlessness, self-righteousness, etc, etc, etc. And the really sad part about this tragic and senseless killing of this beautiful animal is that he would be much more willing to except you as his friend then I ever would.


----------



## Socks (Nov 13, 2008)

goldieretriever50 said:


> If I hit u in the head with a baton could you die? Yes you could. I have seen people shot in the head who lived. I have seen people who have shot themselves in the head and lived. A bullet or gun or baton in themselves aren't lethal, they are objects. It's the manner in which they are used and when they are used the destruction that is caused in the particular instance of their use.
> 
> Have u read police manuals or are you "pretty sure". If so which ones? There are prob as many police manuals out there as there are articles discussing force fetch.


I'm pretty sure I'd rather be hit in the head with a baton than be shot in the head. Just sayin'


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

I don't know if I'm just saying what I'm thinking wrongly or what. There is a major disconnect somewhere in this conversation. I was asked about using a baton. I said is considered a less lethal tool when used in the less- lethal way. However, if it isn't it can be lethal. Such as, your fighting with a person or dog and during the fight the baton hits someone in the head , it could cause death. If your hitting the dog with it and the dog jumps as the strike is being administered and gets hit in the head it could die. Same as if two people were fighting and a baton was being used. A less lethal tool can be as lethal as a gun. I agreed with your quote from the police mag. 

A baton and a gun are different, but, both can be lethal as well. Depends on how they are used and the destruction caused from their use. Obviously there is a bigger chance that a gun will be lethal. Unless I'm gravely mistaken I don't think anyone has said otherwise. I've argued that less lethal isn't a cure all, has limitations, and in some instances can cause death, and if used and doesn't work can cause the person injury. 

As for 4th amendment lecturing. I'm sure you all knew what was granted to u under the constitution. But I was merely pointing out how those rights can be limited or set aside in certain situations I.e. The exceptions to the search warrant rules. I doubt many people here knew about that, but maybe everyone did. Great. We all know what our cars engine can do but do we all know what it can't? Do we all know it's limitations? Just because the speedometer says 140 doesn't mean it will go 140. 

Sir. Simmer down please.


----------



## Tony Marshall (May 15, 2013)

So.....is the previously feral carnivore with pointed teeth and prey instinct that is not currently under the full control of the domesticator lethal?


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

Tony Marshall said:


> So.....is the previously feral carnivore with pointed teeth and prey instinct that is not currently under the full control of the domesticator lethal?


To each his own opinion. 

There are several database websites. 

http://www.dogbites.org

http://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/all-dog-bite-statistics.html


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

Socks said:


> I'm pretty sure I'd rather be hit in the head with a baton than be shot in the head. Just sayin'


cant nessessarily disagree with u there.


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

sunnydee said:


> And the really sad part about this tragic and senseless killing of this beautiful animal.


Sunnydee I used part of your quote but in no way is this directly solely at you nor is it attack on what you posted. I merely used it for context and a introduction. Please take no personal offense. 


I agree it's sad when a pet is killed. I wouldn't wish it upon anyone. 

Where is the publics national outcry for the tragic and senseless killing of this beautiful human being. An engaged father of four who was shot in his parked patrol car on his birthday. 

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Gary-Officer-Killed-265945981.html

Why haven't protesters around the nation taken to the streets with their signs "shake hands not shoot" and demanded the heads of those responsible. Why isn't the public crying foul and conspiracy theory if those involved get anything less than the death penalty? Why aren't Facebook pages being created and tweets being shared #stopshootingcops. Why isn't there a thread on retriever.net talking about how sad this is and everyone wished the public would stop shooting cops with guns? Why aren't people saying "if your going to hurt a cop please use something less than lethal. Throw a donut at them from your pocket or something, use a stick, but please avoid using a gun and shooting right away". Aren't cops part of families just like dogs? Do we need to have a cellphone video posted online by the family to get the public as fired up about this as the Utah dog shooting? Why aren't u crying out that the officers constitutional rights have been violated? He has a right to live doesn't he?

I got involved in this thread because the Utah cop was being cut down, judged, and crucified without all the facts being known and a jury trial was taking place on this forum without all the evidence presented before the court. Why arent you all doing the same with the Gary, Indiana incident? Maybe because the investigation hasn't been finished and you don't know all the facts? Or maybe you haven't even heard about this incident. You had to have. I can't imagine a dog getting shot by a cop in Utah would get more news media, internet, and social media attention than a cop being killed on duty and found dead in his patrol car with shell casings scattered around. Ok ill concede to the fact that the Utah incident took place several days ago and the Gary incident happened this weekend. So we should see a change in focus once more people hear about the Gary incident right? Certainly the public will consider the Utah incident second rate to Gary right?

If the investigation finds the Utah cop was wrong then he was wrong and he will have to face the music. I've said that all along. But really....we have bigger problems to deal with people. And there are certainly other issues that are more deserving of the attention and our time.


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

goldieretriever50 said:


> I agree it's sad when a pet is killed. I wouldn't wish it upon anyone.
> 
> Where is the publics national outcry for the tragic and senseless killing of this beautiful human being. An engaged father of four who was shot in his parked patrol car on his birthday.
> 
> ...


First this is a dog forum. So yes dog news would probably get some play here.
Second the dog was shot by one whose duty is to protect and serve, not a bad guy.
Third no doubt the cop killer is a bad guy. And he will be pursued with more vigor than every JQ public killed on the same day. Where is the link to every person killed then. Oh that's right, an assault on the kings men is the same as an assault on the king.
Forth the investigation will most likely be IAD and color some people skeptical .


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

480/277 said:


> First this is a dog forum. So yes dog news would probably get some play here.
> Second the dog was shot by one whose duty is to protect and serve, not a bad guy.
> Third no doubt the cop killer is a bad guy. And he will be pursued with more vigor than every JQ public killed on the same day. Where is the link to every person killed then. Oh that's right, an assault on the kings men is the same as an assault on the king.
> Forth the investigation will most likely be IAD and color some people skeptical .


your point about dog news getting play on this forum...totally understandable in fact expected. The Utah incident getting more play from the rest of the nation....not so understandable in my opinion. 

Isn't looking for a non-verbal lost/missing child protecting and serving in itself?


----------



## jhnnythndr (Aug 11, 2011)

I ran out of gas one night enroute to an out if state hunt test. Side of the highway 1230 at night 2 miles from an exit. Lock down the dogs and hump out with my 10 year old son. There is a cop at the gas station. I tell him what's up and ask if he can take us and the gas can to the ride. "Look son,I'm not here to serve you, it's a holiday weekend and things are about to get busy." Failing to note the ominous foreshadowing I set back out on foot walking the highway with a 10 year old, who apparently be deemed in no need of protection, either... 3 am back at the truck with 10 year old and dogs are ok. Her comes the blue lights "what's going on here?" ID and insurance check. Could this be the things finally "getting busy" as alluded to earlier? Dogs flipping out about getting the mag light in the face while the cop "looks in plain view." 430am 3 hours from trial grounds back on the road. How bout it. 

2 "positive" outcomes in as many interactions in a single night. Gotta be a record. 

Anyway. For get all the protect and serve. There job is revenue generation. Sometimes you pull cops from there daily affairs of generating money for municipalities and they- like any other human- don't do well. Looking around for a toddler just isn't the kind of thing that cops are actually trained to do. Poor cop was just out of his element. Had the job been to door to door writing citations for tall grass he probably wouldn't have shot anything. Just kept on trucking. Safely ensconced in indifference and familiarty. 

In your department Goldie- would a cop experience any repercussions for shooting a dog locked in Someone's backyard shortly after a missin child search had concluded?


My wife's car has a Purple Heart liscence plate because rats what I got when I registered it for her. Never gets pulled over. Never gets a ticket. I'm putting a bronze star liscence on my truck to see if it works as well. Ill keep whichever proves more effective as a deterrent to police interaction.


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

goldieretriever50 said:


> your point about dog news getting play on this forum...totally understandable in fact expected. The Utah incident getting more play from the rest of the nation....not so understandable in my opinion.
> 
> Isn't looking for a non-verbal lost/missing child protecting and serving in itself?


As I said before, the LEO 's line of duty doesn't supersede property rights.

I also agree with the poster who said this horse has been beat to death.....

we will just have to wait for IAD to clear this LEO and we can all move along, nothing to see here.....


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> there are degrees of lethal? well crap, I had no idea





Don't be a dumb ass you know what I mean. You have much more control over the baton than the bullet as to whether it would be lethal or not. I don't care what anyone says that dog didn't need to be shot. 
I know of two labs that were chasing domestic geese in an off duty highway patrol officers yard. Both dogs were shot and killed. Did he have the right to do so, probably but should he have. I say no same as the dog in question in this thread. Like someone else said this incident and this thread are why I like my dogs, they are not idiots like people, if the shoe fits wear it!


----------



## freezeland (Nov 1, 2012)

There is a statistic out now that say's cops are killing dogs every 98 minutes on average http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/police-take-horrific-action-every-98-minutes/


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

goldieretriever50 said:


> Sunnydee I used part of your quote but in no way is this directly solely at you nor is it attack on what you posted. I merely used it for context and a introduction. Please take no personal offense.
> 
> 
> I agree it's sad when a pet is killed. I wouldn't wish it upon anyone.
> ...


I want to repeat my earlier remarks that don't like a rush to judgement without all the facts of the story. BUT:

You ask why the public outcry over the killing of a family dog while there is not similar outcry over the senseless killing of a cop sitting in his patrol car. Possibly it is because there is no one rushing to the defense of the cop killer and speculating on his possible “right” to do so, as in the case of the dog in Utah.


This whole conversation has spun WAAAY off the point, from the original question of good/poor judgement, to the *legality* of entering the yard, to the “*right*” of the cop to defend his life and limb. *Keep it real.* You are trying to make the situation sound like a swat team drug bust in inner city Detroit. *It was not*. I cannot imagine why there would have been the slightest degree of fear or tension on the part of an officer searching for a missing child.


I have been in similar confrontations with dogs more threatening than a fat Weim on numerous occasions, as I’m sure others have as well, and have always been able to diffuse the situation with no harm to myself nor the dog. This was not a pack of Rots in the backyard of a crack house. I can’t believe the cop did not have a chance to back away. Even with the possibility of a bite on the ankle, there was likely no justification to react as he did.


As to the 150+ posts on RTF, it could be the result of 2 or 3 folks turning the question into one of the cop’s life being in danger and his “right” to defend himself. Had that not occurred, this thread would have had a couple dozen posts and been done.


The cop’s taped comments did not help either … “simple as it gets”, business as usual.


How long have you been a cop, if I might ask? In my experience, I have found those with your attitude are the young, gung-ho rookies out to be a hero. Those with more time on the street have usually become wiser and more adept at handling domestic situations, which this was.


JS


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Thanks Freezeland. I hate that our law enforcement agencies are receiving such nasty and hateful emails. But unfortunetly it also appears that is the only way to get their attention. Maybe the SLC Police Ch should be sent to Rains Co. TX for a lesson on policing from the Sheriff.
I remember when my kids were little and we were in a small town , the police were proactive in trying to be a part of the community . Officers in patrol cars would stop and talk to the neighborhood kids and handout Pokemon cards. 
Now I get the impression that the police view the citizens in an entirely different manner.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Wayne Nutt said:


> .....I remember when my kids were little and we were in a small town , the police were proactive in trying to be a part of the community . Officers in patrol cars would stop and talk to the neighborhood kids and handout Pokemon cards.
> Now I get the impression that the police view the citizens in an entirely different manner.


Ayup,


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

goldieretriever50 said:


> Sunnydee I used part of your quote but in no way is this directly solely at you nor is it attack on what you posted. I merely used it for context and a introduction. Please take no personal offense.
> 
> 
> I agree it's sad when a pet is killed. I wouldn't wish it upon anyone.
> ...



Ok! Back to enforcing and honoring the consttution. Some low life thug that takes a criminlaly takes the life of another human being, needs to be QUICLY prosecuted, because he deprived that innocent person, their right to LIFE , liberty and the pusuit of happiness.

Thte problem many times, are the folks that want to get in the way of that constitution.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Wow, this thread has really spun off in a direction I didn't anticipate. Personally I have never had a bad experience with any LEO, I have a few friends that were or are cops, Highway Patrol even a training buddy who is a retired police chief, so I don't tend to jump on and believe every perceived police brutality story I read. That said, just like any profession, I'm sure there are bad apple police that get more attention than they deserve. I also understand a cops need to instantly react when their life is threatened. My wife and I took a concealed carry handgun course a few years ago. I remember it being drummed into us that when you make that fateful decision to use lethal force to protect yourself you can't go halfway. We were taught that if we were going to shoot, we should shoot to kill and empty our gun, no trying to shoot the gun out of the hand like Roy Rodgers and Hopalong Cassidy did.

Now as much as I tend to stick up for law enforcement, I have to say that my perception is many of them seem rather tone deaf on how people feel about their dogs. I also think that they seem to feel rather beleaguered by the uproar and fall back on an "us against them" back to the wall blind support of brethren. As to my tone deaf comment, I know in general dealings with people at large, people possess varying degrees of dog sense. Many people can't read dogs, some see any dog as a very frightening animal, some see a barking dog with a wagging tail and are unsure what it means, maybe a big (100 pound) Weim looked like a Doberman to this guy. Most people on RTF understand dogs way better than the average person and would be fairly comfortable with a big Weim running toward us. Also non-dog people don't understand how people feel about their pets. I shouldn't put this in print but if anybody shot my dog in front of me on my own property I would probably be up on murder charges because I don't know if I could control myself.

I know I wasn't there, but it just seems very-very wrong for someone to enter a private yard and in the course of events kill the family pet. I'm not going to get into the legality of entering the property, I'll accept the fact that the cop was trying to do the right thing, he didn't know the child had been found, but I can't forgive him for shooting that dog. Did he fear for his life or a dog bite? I really think police departments around the country need to educate their personnel on dogs, that Heeler story is even more tragic with the owner bawling his eyes out begging the officer to finish the job.


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

huntinlabs said:


> This s the same thing we face while deployed except a lot bigger if a price it's a humans life until you are out in the situation where you feel threatened and have 1.5 sec to make a call you will never understand what goes on through someone's head at that time. I personally think the officer was in the right u feel threatened you have a split second to protect yourself. Kill the dog or possibly be killed by it what would you do??





480/277 said:


> so how many USPS, UPs , FedEx, plumbers, electricians, etc are killed by dogs every year?


And how many are killed by Silver Labs...er, I mean Weims? Seriously, in fear for you life from a damn Weimaraner? Not enough cajones to be a police officer if you are in fear for your life from a Weimaraner.


----------



## Migillicutty (Jan 11, 2014)

HuntinDawg said:


> And how many are killed by Silver Labs...er, I mean Weims? Seriously, in fear for you life from a damn Weimaraner? Not enough cajones to be a police officer if you are in fear for your life from a Weimaraner.



Now now, we don't know all the facts. That Weimaraner could have been wearing a suicide vest with his paw on the detonator.


----------



## jrrichar (Dec 17, 2013)

Migillicutty said:


> Now now, we don't know all the facts. That Weimaraner could have been wearing a suicide vest with his paw on the detonator.


Or brandishing a baton, which is apparently just as lethal as a gun! How dare we come to the conclusion that the officer was an idiot based on the facts of a fenced yard, closed gate, officer who entered said gate and upon seeing the dog shot it instead of closing the gate. We must protect all officers from using their brains and in the face of a dangerous Weim. fire our service gun.


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

Folks, some of the comments are getting way out of line. Please think about what you are going to post before hitting the button to submit it. 

This thread is close to being closed for future comments.


----------



## goldieretriever50 (May 5, 2014)

freezeland said:


> There is a statistic out now that say's cops are killing dogs every 98 minutes on average http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/police-take-horrific-action-every-98-minutes/



And if you would report information accurately and not with a bias you would have added that there is NO DATABASE THAT KEEPS ACCURATE TRACK AND THIS STAT IS CLAIMED BY ANIMAL CRUELTY ACTIVISTS.


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

Tony Marshall said:


> You may not die but* getting coloring books for Christmas the rest of your life ain't a good situation either.*


I take O-fence to that, Santa brings me Halloween coloring books and freshly sharpened crayons each year.


----------



## truthseeker (Feb 2, 2012)

goldieretriever50 said:


> Well I've sat on my hands long enough and it's time I chime in. I am a police officer and unfortunately had to shoot two dogs so far in my career. Though both shootings were justified I still felt extremely bad afterward and sorry for the owners. I'm as much of a dog lover as the next guy around here and have been my whole life. I also wont say the breed of the dog because I don't think that's fair to the owners of that/those breeds.
> 
> 
> It's very very easy for John Q. Public to Monday-morning quarterback the police officer involved in this shoot. I've heard all kinds of people imputing their shoulda/woulda/coulda opinions about what took place during that call.
> ...


Welcome to the jungle Goldie.

From your posts on this thread you don't spend much time on here. So I am thinking that you are just trolling this thread because, you are a cop.
From the post that I have read you give me the impression,that you are part of the problem not the solution. You kill two dogs, and say that they are justified because some of your buddy cops says they where. You try to argue a situation, that has no defense but, that's as simple as it gets. You try to throw in a comparison to a cop killing that in no way is the same situation. A cop goes into a closed privet yard and kill a dog and the 3 year old is found in the families own home. If I was you it would have been better to be a little humble.

Keith


----------

