Nws Officer Shoots Dog

[Scruit]

This video is uncensored and show a dog being shot and dying in pain.  Don't watch if you're not ready for that.

 

From what I can see:

 

0:00-2:12  Man with dog is standing on the edge of a large police situation, filming with a cellphone and shouting at the officers.

2:12-2:28  Two of the officers walk towards the man, so he puts in his in a car (windows down).

2:28-2:38  Man approaches officers in a compliant manner and allows himself to be cuffed.

3:00-3:09  Something escalates the situation.  The officers get more rough with the guy and he starts yelling (not necessarily in that order).  Dog starts barking from the car.

3:09-3:11  Dog escapes from car, runs towards the officers/man, but stops about 5' short.  Police move away from the dog.

3:11-3:17  The dog sniff around there the officers were stood.

3:17  The dog lunges towards one officer (Not clear if it snapped or tried to bite)

3:18-3:21  The dog goes back to sniffing around the ground about 5' from the officers.  The man tries to shoo the dog away

3:22 The dog barks / lunges towards an officer's hand, Officer shoots the dog once in mid-lunge.

3:23-3:24  The officer backs up, firing three more times.

3:25-3:35  The officer keep his pistol trained on the dog.  The dog is clearly not a threat and struggles.

 

 

 

 

Discuss.

 

 

 

I'm not going to comment on the legality of the police talking to / cuffing the man as I don't know their reason for that.  I'm discussing JUST the officer shooting the dog.

 

Key questions:

 - Was it reasonable for the officer to believe he was about to be bitten?

 - If yes, was it reasonable for the officer to fire a shot to stop that bite?

 - Was it reasonable to fire the 3 follow-up shots?

 

No holster-sniffers who thing the police never do anything wrong...  No dog-humpers who think that dogs never do anything wrong...   No anti-police types who think the police never do anything right.

 

Stipulating to the fact the the death of the dog is tragic and would ideally never have happened...

Assuming (until we hear otherwise) the the officers detaining the man was lawful...

 

Was this a good shoot or a bad shoot?

Edited July 3, 2013 by Scruit

[Strawboss]

Yes to all 3 questions, my opinion only. Do you wait until the dog bites you to think its reasonable that he's going to bike you? Do you wait until you are dead to think that its reasonable to think that a gun is the proper thing to use against that threat? An injured dog is a very dangerous animal, there are only warning shots in the movies, you don't shoot a threat to your life in the shoulder, you put it down for good, if that means 3 more shots, then I'm ok with that. Ultimately, it was the human owner that put the dog in that situation and that's where the responsibility lies.

[SJC1000rr]

Having never seen this till now. I would view it as the dog charged the officers and then stopped once the officers noticed it (face to face contact) Once the dog had a primal advantage side/rear of the officer it lunged and is uncertain if mouth was open due to the distance and video quality. However, I would consider this an aggressive act if any dog did that to my family. The owner see's whats going on and try's to shoo the dog away knowing how it is acting.

 

Was it reasonable for the officer to believe he was about to be bitten?

The dog and officer do approach each other and the dog lunges again with its mouth open, which can be seen and the officer fires and shoots it.

 

 If yes, was it reasonable for the officer to fire a shot to stop that bite?

Yes, Given the aggressive nature displayed towards the officers and size/bulk of the dog. If it had actually bitten anyone, it would have caused serious physical harm.

 

 Was it reasonable to fire the 3 follow-up shots?

With an imminent physical threat, given the proximity of the dog and being unsure if a single shot will stop the threat... yes. You can't risk the safety and physical well being of officers or pedestrians given the nature of the animal.

Edited July 3, 2013 by SJC1000rr

[Pokey]

Have a pitbull latch onto you and report back.

[Steve Butters]

As much as I love dogs and think cops fuck shit up all the time... The dog lunged at the officer and got shot. Clean shoot. The only one at fault is the dogs owner. Rottweilers are known for being very protective of their family. I don't blame the dog or the officer, just the owner.

Me and my gf were approached by two stray pitbulls the other weekend. I grabbed my gun immediately to be ready. Luckily for the dogs they were nice and sweet and just wanted to steal my fishing bait. But if one had lunged at me or my gf and I felt threatened for her or myself, I would have shot the dog until it was no longer a threat. Dogs can do serious bodily harm if they really mean to

[Scruit]

I don't have a problem with the officer shooting.  There may be discussion surrounding whether they should have detained the man in the first place and I have no information on that - but in terms of responding to the dog lunging I would say the officer did what he needed to do to stay safe.

 

The 3 follow-up shots may cause some heartburn, but to me they were close enough to the first shot to be part of a single defensive action wherein it was reasonable to assume a single shot may not stop the dog.

 

All in all, horrible situation and I feel for the dog and owner, but the dog was placed in a situation where it clearly made a threatening lunge at a person and that person (officer or not) had the right to stop the dog using deadly force.

[Scruit]

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for this still frame - it very clearly illustrates the actions of the dog at moment the officer chose to shoot.

[redkow97]

Rottweilers are known for being very protective of their family.

 

That's like saying "black people are known to be criminals." 

 

You can't stereotype a breed of dog any more than you can stereotype a race of humans.  Your follow-up story about the "sweet" pit-bulls illustrates teh flaw in your logic.

 

In the interest of full disclosure, my Rottweiler is hiding under my bed right now, because the neighbors are lighting fireworks ...but the attorney side of me is pretty objective about this kind of shit. 

 

If I'm representing the police officer:

 

- the man was obstructing justice by distracting officers from their duties.  He was told to stay back (with all the other people filming across the street) and did not listen.  He walked up along the back of the police cars, clearly closer than he was instructed to be.  He wasn't arrested for filming.  Numerous other people who were filming were not arrested.  He was arrested for forcing the police to worry about him, rather than keep their attention on the original call.

 

- The dog lunged at the officer, and without the ability to speak to the dog, it was reasonable for the officer to assume the dog was attacking him with deadly force.  Therefore, deadly force was an appropriate response.

 

- Furthermore, the man knew he was going to be taken into custody temporarily, if not arrested.  He had the opportunity to secure his dog, and failed to do so.  Had he put the dog in the car with the windows closed, or leashed him to a lamppost, fire hydrant, etc., a humane officer would have been dispatched to pick up the dog and hold it until the owner was released.  The owner's failure to control the dog was the ultimate issue.

 

If I'm representing the dog owner:

 

- He never advanced beyond the perimeter of the police cars, and was merely taking video in a public setting where the police have no expectation of privacy.

 

- He cooperated with officers, voluntarily putting his hands behind his back as he approached them, and surrendered.  He also secured his dog in the car prior to the officers approaching, as he wanted to REMOVE the dog from the situation. 

 

- While he could/should have rolled up the windows of the vehicle, doing so puts the dog at risk of heat stroke, and it also makes it look as though the man is attempting to flee. (i'm assuming power windows are standard on a nissan versa, but they are among the cheapest cars made, so that may be a stretch...)

 

- After the dog exited the vehicle, it never acted aggressively toward the officers.  In fact, the dog meanders about for a few seconds before even approaching the officers.  Had the dog wanted to 'attack' anyone in defense of its owner, it would not have waited.

 

- when the dog "lunged" at the officer, it was merely acting in a playful manner, and not an aggressive manner.

 

- Given that the suspect was being arrested for obstruction, and not a violent offense, it would have  been totally reasonable for officers to release him (either one hand, or even let him go with the cuffs still secure) to attempt to gain control of the dog.

 

- Shooting the dog cannot be "self defense" as the officer claims, because self defense is not an available defense for the aggressor.  Any person who responds with greater force than than threatened or used against them becomes the aggressor, regardless of prior actions.  In this case, the dog MAY have bitten the officer.  A dog bite (even from a large rottweiler) is not "lethal force."  And if they police are going to say that any rottweiler lunge or bite IS lethal force, where is the line drawn?  How big or strong or scary looking does a dog have to be for its bite to automatically be considered lethal force?  There are hundreds, if not thousands of dog bites each year in the united states, and virtually no fatalities from dog bites.  Those fatalities that are recorded are generally infants or very young children left unattended with dogs that out-weigh them.  Clearly even a 130 lbs. Rottweiler (which would be pretty big for the breed) is not immediately lethal to a 200+ lbs. police officer.

 

- The police officer has pepper spray and a taser.  Either are equally as effective lesser degrees of force that would have been more appropriate.

 

- Furthermore, both of the options above would have been safer to the public.  There were numerous bystanders filming and watching the scene.  Additionally, the scene itself could have been compromised by the officer's actions of firing a gun - the original suspect, or the officer responding could easily have misconstrued the shots fired at the dog to be shots fired at them.  So again, pepper spray or a taser would have been more appropriate options.

 

 

 

 

My personal take, with all of the above considered?

 

The owner is a fucking moron, who was asking to be arrested.  As noted, others were keeping a respectful distance, and were not harassed for filming.  He had to get closer, and yell at the police. 

 

The owner also should have secured his dog in the car.  But I question what he thought was going to happen.  I'd almost rather have my dog shot than have it die of heat stroke in my car... Dumbass wasn't thinking things through.

 

The officer overreacted to the dog.  That's from what I saw on the video.  I can't hear growling, or see if the fur on the back of his neck was standing up.  But what I can see is that the dog did not immediately charge anyone, nor did he go for the officers taking the owner away.  Both of those things lead me to believe that the dog was not "attacking in defense of his owner."  If our neighbor is outside when I let my dogs out, they don't fuck around and take a piss - they charge over to the fence and bark.  This dog didn't do that.  He acted pretty calmly, then turned and jumped up a little.  If he'd wanted to bite the officer, I don't think he would have failed.

 

But really, I think the bigger issue is discharging a firearm when other options were available, and viable. 

Edited July 3, 2013 by redkow97

[Strawboss]

I always like when somebody is shot and killed who plainly and without a doubt put a cops life and the life of others in danger ask why a different method wasn't used to subdue or diffuse the situation when clearly that person has forsaken all his rights and needs to be stopped when they attack a cop. The same goes for when the police shoot someone when his family cries that he was only carrying a toy pistol. You have a split second to react to a threat, and if an animal or a person is going to attack me, I want the most appropriate weapon to stop that attack forever, not slow it, not wound it, not put it off to the side. You have a man that is being subdued and restrained and his dog lunges and jumps and attacks you. Was he just being playful, is this what this particular dog does when comfronted with strangers? Who knows, I don't want to find out. Want to know how many supposedly "nice" dogs who "never bite" have bitten people. Does the cop wait till he on the ground being mauled thereby causing his partner to stop with the human and help his partner before realizing that using his pistol was maybe a better idea. What are the dept's SOP's concerning attacking dogs? So a cop is going to put his life and the life of his partners in danger simply because people are watching and shooting an attacking dog might appear politically incorrect by using what to subdue this dog? A taser? A night stick?

Edited July 3, 2013 by Strawboss

[Gump]

Stupid owner. Fuck the heat stroke excuse. He Could have rolled them up a bit. Cops saw the dog early on, could have prepared better. If a Drunk crazy dude is witnessed and a possible threat do they pull out the piece or spray or a taser. Closer review,the shooting officer goes towards the dog, even dumber.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Gump

[Steve Butters]

That's like saying "black people are known to be criminals."

You can't stereotype a breed of dog any more than you can stereotype a race of humans. Your follow-up story about the "sweet" pit-bulls illustrates teh flaw in your logic.

Disagree completely. It's not a stereotype, it's genetics. Certain dogs are bread for certain for certain jobs. Not every dog fits the mold, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Dogs bread for herding animals will often try to herd children by nipping at their ankles, terrier breeds are known for chasing smaller animals, etc... Rottweilers are considered a guardian breed, and have been bread to protect their family and domain, same as doberman and German shepherds etc.

Your comment about pits isn't accurate either. "sweet" pitbulls fit their stereotype perfectly. They have been bread to be extremely people friendly, regardless of what the media tries to portray. They were bread to be dog aggressive, which is different than human aggressive. Pitbulls are historically so human friendly they were once referred to as nanny dogs.

Argue it all you want and deny it all you want, but not breed is the same. You need to know the strengths and weaknesses of a particular breed before you own one. My dog is the nicest dog in the world, but because he's a pitbull I know not to trust him with other dogs unsupervised. You cannot undo hundreds of years of breeding.

It's not just "how they're raised" it's how their managed. Don't put your dog in a position to fail.

If an intruder broke in here, my pit would lick them to death. Regardless of what you may believe, there's a much higher chance your dog would go on the attack when confronted with an intruder.

Rottweilers specifically were bread to herd and guard cattle.. They were also used for protection by people who were traveling in the 1800s. They were then adapted to police work and are used throughout the world for police duties and border security.

They weren't bread to sit around on a couch... If every dog was made equal, why do you never see golden retrievers used as guard dogs? Why don't you have huskys used for boar hunting? Certain dogs have certain traits, they are bread certain ways.

Have a read

www.dogchannel.com/dog-breeds/guardian-dog-breeds.aspx

Edited July 3, 2013 by Steve Butters

[BDBGoalie]

I can't figure out how to quote with my crappy phone, but the word is BRED. Not bread. Bread is food (Granted I've eaten dog overseas but...).

Hard to judge the officer's reaction on that one. He could have easily used a non-lethal weapon and achieved the same level of control over the animal. But if he really felt like the dog was going to kill him, then it could be justified.

[Scruit]

I can't figure out how to quote with my crappy phone, but the word is BRED. Not bread. Bread is food (Granted I've eaten dog overseas but...).

Hard to judge the officer's reaction on that one. He could have easily used a non-lethal weapon and achieved the same level of control over the animal. But if he really felt like the dog was going to kill him, then it could be justified.

 

The standard by which you can use deadly force against an animal is much lower than with a human.  If the officer thought he was going to be injured then he was entitled to use any force to stop it.  There is a reasonableness test in there too, but he doesn't have to fear death to use deadly force.

 

Did the officer have OC?  Did he have a taser?  Did he have time to transition from his sidearm to another weapon when the dog lunged the second time?   SHOULD the officer have reached for a less-lethal weapon when the dog lunged for the first time so that he had his less lethal option ready to go?   What if he missed with the taser,or it was otherwise ineffective, given that he doesn't have a second shot?  What if he missed with the OC?  What if he missed with his sidearm and struck a bystander?  Why didn't he release the (compliant) detainee to get control of his dog?  What if he HAD released the detainee only for the detainee to run, or even sic the dog on the officers?  How do you spell "sic" when it comes to ordering a dog to attack someone?

 

All valid questions.

[max power]

I see no problem here. If a dog tries to bite me, dead dog. Period.

Having opposable thumbs and cognitive abilities makes me superior to an animal in a fight scenario.

If I am attacked by an animal, doesn't matter why, and I have weapons at my disposal, I will use the most convenient and effective weapon to dispatch the threat.

[Vulcan_Rider]

A lot of people I have heard saying the officer was wrong are saying it because they are familiar with large breed dogs or more specifically rottweilers so they do not view the lunge as an attack.  This officer probably does not have knowledge of rottweiler behavior all he knows is he has a large dog owned by a man in his custody that is acting aggressive and made an open mouthed lunge.  I am familiar with rottweilers so I dont think I would take the shot, however I do not blame him for doing it.  He felt he was in danger so he defended himself. 

 

 

The only question I have as far as the officers behavior is why did he approach the dog?  Both times the dog lunged it was when the officer approached which the dog probably saw as an act of aggression.  Why not keep distance and try to figure out how to get the dog under control? 

[Kent2406]

I don't see a problem with the shooting of the dog. Obviously he hit him with several rounds, and I couldn't just let the dog lie there wiggling like that. I'd have to put a bullet in it's head to stop the suffering.

[Scruit]

People are issuing death threats against the officer, all police officers, the department etc.  In fact, an unrelated local business who happens to have an employee of the same name as the public information officer (?) at the police department is receiving death threats from people who have obtained their phone number thinking it is the police department.

[r1crusher]

I believe the office approached the dog to get a hold of the leash that was still attached.  Given that I think the office made an honest attempted to diffuse the situation by getting the leash and possibly leading the dog away or back to the car.  The dog saw this as an aggressive gesture on the officers part and reacted as most dogs of this breed would.

 

I see no fault on the officer or the dog.  As others have stated the owner is a tool.

[Steve Butters]

I can't figure out how to quote with my crappy phone, but the word is BRED. Not bread. Bread is food (Granted I've eaten dog overseas but...).

Lol my bad. It was late... First time I typed it, it didn't look right, but the right word didn't come to mind so I just left it

Edited July 3, 2013 by Steve Butters

[redkow97]

Disagree completely. It's not a stereotype, it's genetics. Certain dogs are bread for certain for certain jobs. Not every dog fits the mold, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Dogs bread for herding animals will often try to herd children by nipping at their ankles, terrier breeds are known for chasing smaller animals, etc... Rottweilers are considered a guardian breed, and have been bread to protect their family and domain, same as doberman and German shepherds etc.

Your comment about pits isn't accurate either. "sweet" pitbulls fit their stereotype perfectly. They have been bread to be extremely people friendly, regardless of what the media tries to portray. They were bread to be dog aggressive, which is different than human aggressive. Pitbulls are historically so human friendly they were once referred to as nanny dogs.

Argue it all you want and deny it all you want, but not breed is the same. You need to know the strengths and weaknesses of a particular breed before you own one. My dog is the nicest dog in the world, but because he's a pitbull I know not to trust him with other dogs unsupervised. You cannot undo hundreds of years of breeding.

It's not just "how they're raised" it's how their managed. Don't put your dog in a position to fail.

If an intruder broke in here, my pit would lick them to death. Regardless of what you may believe, there's a much higher chance your dog would go on the attack when confronted with an intruder.

Rottweilers specifically were bread to herd and guard cattle.. They were also used for protection by people who were traveling in the 1800s. They were then adapted to police work and are used throughout the world for police duties and border security.

They weren't bread to sit around on a couch... If every dog was made equal, why do you never see golden retrievers used as guard dogs? Why don't you have huskys used for boar hunting? Certain dogs have certain traits, they are bread certain ways.

Have a read

www.dogchannel.com/dog-breeds/guardian-dog-breeds.aspx

 

 

So you know how every Rottweiler in the world was bred?  You're still stereotyping based on century old breeding practices and purposes.  My dog is at least 10 generations removed from being bred for any particular purpose, be it herding, guarding, or anything else.

 

Every dog has a propensity to be loyal and protective of his owner.  People have the same reaction when they perceive a loved one in danger. 

 

The breed of dog has virtually nothing to do with its temperament.  I would agree that the breed of dog contributes to its potential to do harm, but statistically speaking, all the "guard" breed you described account for very few bites.  Statistically, dachshunds are the most likely breed to bite.

[redkow97]

I still say the ultimate issue is whether or not DEADLY force was justified.

 

In order to invoke the affirmative defense of self defense, the officer cannot respond with greater force than that used against him.

 

"Fatal dog attacks in the United States are a small percentage of the relatively common occurrences of dog bites. while at least 4.5 – 4.7 million Americans (2%) are bitten by dogs every year, only about 0.0002% of these (less than 0.00001% of the U.S. population) result in death."

 

So for this officer's defense to be valid, he has to prove that this dog bite would have been 1 of the 9 dog bite fatalities this year.  And as I mentioned in an earlier post, the overwhelming majority of those fatalities are young children, not 200 lbs. adult men.

[redkow97]

An to clarify, the analysis above is not meant to be an evaluation of whether or not the officer was justified (I should have phrased my post more carefully), but it IS a Bali analysis of whether his "self defense" justification holds water.

There may very well be some police policy that has nothing to do with self defense thy exonerates him.

[Scruit]

In order to invoke the affirmative defense of self defense, the officer cannot respond with greater force than that used against him.

 

 

Questions:

 

1) What hypothetical charge would he invoke "self defense" as a defense against?   Animal cruelty?  Vandalism?

2) Does he have to be in fear of being killed to use self defense, or does he just have to be in fear of "Death or serious injury"?

3) Does he have to allow himself to be bitten to justify the attack, or can he preemptively defend himself?

[Steve Butters]

Whatever guy. Go into denial about it all you want. You're on the defense because you think I said something negative about the breed, which I didn't. It is what it is, whether you believe it or not. That same mentality is what gets dogs killed when their owners set them up for failure because they believe it's all in how a dog is raised. Same mentality as people with pitbulls who take them to dog parks to mingle with other dogs... Sweetest pit in the world suddenly turns and attacks someone's dog and all the sudden it's "Omg look at that vicious pitbull"... It's irresponsible.

I never said anything about your dog's temperament either. Instinct is different than temperament. Your dog is a watered down version of a true rottweiler? Good for you. Doesn't mean the breed in general is. Nobody said anything about Rottweilers biting more than dachshunds. I'm not sure how that even came up.

You're making the same defense a person would make to the comment" Rottweilers are mean and bite people", however that isn't the statement I made, I said nothing negative against the breed at all, you just went on defense for no reason.

I won't argue it anymore... You're set in your ways. But facts are facts, and dogs aren't inherently bad based on breed. But they do all have certain traits and do need to be managed in certain ways.

[Steve Butters]

Also, comparing bites to deadly bites doesn't make sense in your analogy. Can a rottweiler kill a human? Yes. Not often or likely, but it's possible. That makes teeth a deadly weapon, therefore reacting with a deadly weapon is equal use of force.

Your analogy is like knife attacks. Many people survive knife attacks, but if a suspect charges an officer with a knife, he is getting shot. Even if he doesn't feel he will be the 1 in X amount to actually be killed by a knife.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Steve Butters