Police raid wrong house, shoot dog (again)

[jcow79]

So wait, you're saying you'd support shooting a dog behind a short fence because the dog COULD jump over?

Not only could, but very likely will. Dogs are territorial. And I don't care what breed it is, a high percentage of dogs will turn hostile if you attack their owner. People get attacked by dogs just for hugging their owner. Add this to the fact that drug dealers frequently keep attack dogs and fighting dogs so now you have even more incentive to neutralize dogs. A dog is a knife wielding, very fast, small target, variable in an already dangerous situation.

A raid is about controlling the situation. You go in fast and hard and take control of everyone before anyone gets any stupid ideas. A dog is a very big variable. It's not going to obey your commands and can close distances VERY very quickly. So at that point, if you don't shoot the dog you are leaving the situation up to the dog. I don't know about you, but I don't typically allow strange dogs to make my decisions for me. Here's an example of how dog situations can go badly. Instead of trying to fire extinguish this clearly non-flammable attack dog, he should have just shot it.

Again, it's not the dog tactic that's alarming, it's the wrong houses being raided. As far as shooting dogs behind fences. Well you have to consider what fence the dog is behind. If it's in the backyard, well, any occupants attempting to flee the raid are likely to try and escape through the back. This is a risk you have to consider. The raiders have to be able to cover rear exits as well and it's not so simple with a potentially hostile dog loose in the backyard. So you can neutralize the dog ahead of time, or have to worry about it when your target is making a break for it out the back. Believe it or not, these scenarios aren't unprecedented.

But you raid the wrong house and all of a sudden your solid tactical decisions appear callous and malicious.

[Alphawolf55]

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. You don't get to shoot things because it MAY be a threat, that totally disregards the idea of self defense. You're basically saying that in a raid, killing a dog in any situation in which it's not specifically tied down is justified because it MIGHT become a problem later, in fact you can justify shooting even a tied up dog because hey you MIGHT Need to go near it at some point. A guy is drunk or high? Might as well shoot him in the leg, he might be to incoherent to understand the situation and he might attack you.

Should I be able to shoot and kill a police dog because it MIGHT attack me? Better yet, if a police dog is biting me on the arm and I have a gun, should I be able to shoot it? I don't know if it's going to stop, I can't reason with it. I'm not going to let a dog make decisions for me, I mean I can't shoot a cop because he's a sound minded individual but I don't know what that's dog going to do.

[Uraniun235]

But you raid the wrong house and all of a sudden your solid tactical decisions appear callous and malicious.

It's still utterly callous even if you have the correct home. It does not follow that all persons within a home specified in a search warrant are therefore guilty parties who deserve to have their dogs shot.

[Alyeska]

Insulting an officer...is a crime? A) ever, and B) especially when the aforementioned officer just shot and killed the owner's dog. Do we really have codified laws that exist for the purpose of protecting a police officer's feelings?

EDIT: I'm not saying that insulting an officer is smart, they have more than enough ways to harass you already if you go out of your way to antagonize them, but I can't fathom a single reason for it to be illegal.

No, its not a crime. Every time it hits the courts its been over turned. SCOTUS even adressed one and overturned it. Police don't seem to understand that its not a valid charge and its unconstitutional.

[jcow79]

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. You don't get to shoot things because it MAY be a threat, that totally disregards the idea of self defense. You're basically saying that in a raid, killing a dog in any situation in which it's not specifically tied down is justified because it MIGHT become a problem later, in fact you can justify shooting even a tied up dog because hey you MIGHT Need to go near it at some point. A guy is drunk or high? Might as well shoot him in the leg, he might be to incoherent to understand the situation and he might attack you.

A person is not a dog. You would make this distinction both legally and morally. I think your equivocation of drunk and high people to animals is disturbing.

Should I be able to shoot and kill a police dog because it MIGHT attack me? Better yet, if a police dog is biting me on the arm and I have a gun, should I be able to shoot it? I don't know if it's going to stop, I can't reason with it. I'm not going to let a dog make decisions for me, I mean I can't shoot a cop because he's a sound minded individual but I don't know what that's dog going to do.

This would depend on the situation. If some police dog has gotten out and is roaming around and attacks you and is biting your arm and you happen to have a gun on you, I would say the sound tactical move would be to shoot the dog. However, if you are being pursued by police and you have a gun, the dog biting you is probably related. Since the situation is already elevated to them sending an attack dog after you, I wouldn't suggest you escalate the situation any further.

Dogs are a very serious problem on drug raids. There have been suggestions made already in the this thread and previous threads on how you may choose to deal with them but those arguments have largely been defeated because the solutions create greater risk to humans both criminal and cop. I linked an article where a cop tried to use a non-lethal method to deal with a dog and got himself attacked and accidentally shot by another officer. This is WHY these methods exist. They aren’t pretty, and they aren’t nice but they save HUMAN lives.

The OP story is a headline because they raided the wrong house. People wouldn’t care so much if Joe Methlab lost his prize fighting Rottweiler.

It's still utterly callous even if you have the correct home. It does not follow that all persons within a home specified in a search warrant are therefore guilty parties who deserve to have their dogs shot.

It also doesn't follow that all persons within a home specified in a search warrant are therefore guilty parties who deserve to have the shit scared out of them in the middle of the night, set upon by armed men, thrown to the ground, handcuffed and arrested in front of their family and neighbors. And yet because of the risk to both raider and occupant, these tactics have become increasingly necessary. It sure would be nice if drug dealers never started shooting at the police if they just came to the door nicely and asked them to come to the station with them.

You seem to think I believe these people "deserve" it. Like it's some kind of extra punishment being dished out to people suspected of being bad. It's not. This is a tactic used to minimize injury and death to humans during an operation that is very often dangerous. A drug raid is never going to be a pleasant experience to those being raided whether your dog gets shot or not. But it's the raiders responsibility to carry it out in a manner that has the highest probability of no humans being harmed.

[Alphawolf55]

Even if a dog is not a person, it's a living creature, it has feelings, it's loved by others. What you are suggesting is basically making it official policy to shoot dogs during raids to avoid any further possible trouble. It's inhumane and ridiculous to suggest that we kill things because they may cause problems in the future, it pretty much shows you have no concern for life of an innocent creature. ALso I never said animals and humans are equal but I'm merely pointing out that we're now saying that the possibility that violence could happen justified lethal force, why not apply it to the belligerent? An officer has no idea that a drunk man might attack him, we might as well be safe rather then wind up with dead officers right?

Also why should it matter if the dog is sent by a cop? It's still just a dog, it can't possibly be reasoned with like a police officer, it doesn't have the same restraint, your life could possibly be in danger, you have no idea what could happen.

[Alyeska]

Pets these days are often part of the family. What you are advocating jcow79 is a policy of killing valued members of the family. Do you understand the emotional damage this will cause?

[RogueIce]

Insulting an officer...is a crime? A) ever, and B) especially when the aforementioned officer just shot and killed the owner's dog. Do we really have codified laws that exist for the purpose of protecting a police officer's feelings?

EDIT: I'm not saying that insulting an officer is smart, they have more than enough ways to harass you already if you go out of your way to antagonize them, but I can't fathom a single reason for it to be illegal.

No, its not a crime. Every time it hits the courts its been over turned. SCOTUS even adressed one and overturned it. Police don't seem to understand that its not a valid charge and its unconstitutional.

According to the state of Maryland, he has not been charged with "insulting an officer".

Link

Code: Select all

Charge No: 001Description:ASSAULT SEC DEG-LAW ENFORCMENT 
Statute: CR.3.203.(2)Description:ASSAULT SEC DEG-LAW ENFORCMENT OFC 
Amended Date: CJIS Code:1 1416MO/PLL:Probable Cause:X 
Incident Date From:  09/22/2010 To:  09/22/2010 Victim Age:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charge No: 002Description:ASSAULT-SEC DEGREE 
Statute: CR.3.203Description:ASSAULT-SEC DEGREE 
Amended Date: CJIS Code:1 1415MO/PLL:Probable Cause:X 
Incident Date From:  09/22/2010 To:  09/22/2010 Victim Age:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charge No: 003Description:DISORDERLY CONDUCT 
Statute: CR.10.201.(c)(2)Description:DISORDERLY CONDUCT 
Amended Date: CJIS Code:2 0050MO/PLL:Probable Cause:X 
Incident Date From:  09/22/2010 To:  09/22/2010 Victim Age:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charge No: 004Description:FAIL COMPLY W/LAWFUL ORDER 
Statute: NR.1.206Description:FAIL COMPLY W/LAWFUL ORDER 
Amended Date: CJIS Code:1 0592MO/PLL:Probable Cause:X 
Incident Date From:  09/22/2010 To:  09/22/2010 Victim Age:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charge No: 005Description:RESIST/INTERFERE WITH ARREST 
Statute: CR.9.408.(b)Description:RESIST/INTERFERE WITH ARREST 
Amended Date: CJIS Code:1 0600MO/PLL:Probable Cause:X 
Incident Date From:  09/22/2010 To:  09/22/2010 Victim Age:   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charge No: 006Description:RESISTING ARREST 
Statute: CLDescription:RESISTING ARREST 
Amended Date: CJIS Code:1 4801MO/PLL:Probable Cause:X 
Incident Date From:  09/22/2010 To:  09/22/2010 Victim Age:

[Kamakazie Sith]

I would hope negligent discharge of a weapon would also be included...

Under my state law that wouldn't really follow.

That's the officer's problem, he discharges a weapon he should be able to justify it with actual evidence. At least you're amenable to making the police be responsible for themselves.

Stop dodging the question. What evidence would there be in that scenario, besides the dead dog with sharp teeth? Obviously, if it is behind a tall fence and chained to a tree that would be evidence that the officer acted inappropriately. If it is out in the middle of the street and the officer articulates his reasoning for firing then why do you think he should be charged because the evidence doesn't exist one way or another? Justify this to me, and stop dodging it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Setting aside the dog issue because my own views on the subject are already quite well-stated, I noticed something else on reflection that struck me as quite...unsettling.

But Barlow was arrested and charged with multiple crimes, including insulting an officer. Police say the officer acted appropriately when shooting the dog.

Insulting an officer...is a crime? A) ever, and B) especially when the aforementioned officer just shot and killed the owner's dog. Do we really have codified laws that exist for the purpose of protecting a police officer's feelings?

EDIT: I'm not saying that insulting an officer is smart, they have more than enough ways to harass you already if you go out of your way to antagonize them, but I can't fathom a single reason for it to be illegal.

It's not. I already covered this, White Haven. In fact, I already pointed out that he was not charged with "insulting an officer". It'd be nice if you actually read the thread. Thanks.

[jcow79]

Pets these days are often part of the family. What you are advocating jcow79 is a policy of killing valued members of the family. Do you understand the emotional damage this will cause?

or

Pets Police these days are often part of the family. What you are advocating jcow79Alyeska is a policy of killingincreasing the risk of injury or death to valued members of the family. Do you understand the emotional damage this will cause?

Of course I understand it. I have pets myself. My family would be incredibly distraught if our golden retriever was shot in a raid. But I think the origin of these tactics are being ignored because of the unfortunate incidents where beloved family pets were shot and killed. These tactics are used because drug dealers routinely use savage attack dogs to protect their property and attack police in the event of a raid. The contention is how police should go about drawing a distinction between a sweet loveable “family member” vs an attack dog. Hell, even in the OP video the dog can be heard barking viciously. These agents aren’t the dog whisperer. They have a job to do and unfortunately they have to do it quickly and not so nicely.

Even if a dog is not a person, it's a living creature, it has feelings, it's loved by others. What you are suggesting is basically making it official policy to shoot dogs during raids to avoid any further possible trouble.

I'm not suggesting this. In many places this has become the procedure. I believe it was throughout the 90's the drug raids encountered more and more attack dogs kept by drug dealers. And of course dog fighting has become more prevalent as well. These tactics were adopted because of what agents were encountering in the field. Sadly, because their use has increased, these unfortunate incidents occur as well.

It's inhumane and ridiculous to suggest that we kill things because they may cause problems in the future, it pretty much shows you have no concern for life of an innocent creature. ALso I never said animals and humans are equal but I'm merely pointing out that we're now saying that the possibility that violence could happen justified lethal force, why not apply it to the belligerent? An officer has no idea that a drunk man might attack him, we might as well be safe rather then wind up with dead officers right?

I'm not speaking on the humaneness of killing animals. I'm speaking of the tactics employed in raids to maximize success and minimize casualties. Feel free to actually address my arguments instead of repeating how sad it makes you. I don't like animals being killed any more than the next guy but I at least will look into the complexity and history of these situations to understand how things came to be this way. We've talked about the alternatives to shooting dogs but they created very serious risk to the people involved. Why are you elevating the animals lives and feelings of the owners over the safety and well being of the police who have a job they are required to fulfill and return safely to their own families?

Also why should it matter if the dog is sent by a cop? It's still just a dog, it can't possibly be reasoned with like a police officer, it doesn't have the same restraint, your life could possibly be in danger, you have no idea what could happen.

Well, the cop is acting with authority for one. And for two, the dog is being sent in to preserve the cops life, not yours. At that point there's very little keeping you from a a dog bite or a bullet. Consider the dog a consideration for your life. Because if the dog does his job, you might just survive the night. There's a good chance if you shoot the dog, the next thing the police send at you may be their own bullets.

[Uraniun235]

It's still utterly callous even if you have the correct home. It does not follow that all persons within a home specified in a search warrant are therefore guilty parties who deserve to have their dogs shot.

It also doesn't follow that all persons within a home specified in a search warrant are therefore guilty parties who deserve to have the shit scared out of them in the middle of the night, set upon by armed men, thrown to the ground, handcuffed and arrested in front of their family and neighbors. And yet because of the risk to both raider and occupant, these tactics have become increasingly necessary. It sure would be nice if drug dealers never started shooting at the police if they just came to the door nicely and asked them to come to the station with them.

You seem to think I believe these people "deserve" it. Like it's some kind of extra punishment being dished out to people suspected of being bad. It's not. This is a tactic used to minimize injury and death to humans during an operation that is very often dangerous. A drug raid is never going to be a pleasant experience to those being raided whether your dog gets shot or not. But it's the raiders responsibility to carry it out in a manner that has the highest probability of no humans being harmed.

The validity of a tactic does not alter the callousness of that tactic.

Also last I heard, violent drug raids were not conducted because drug dealers start shooting, they're conducted because the cops are afraid the evidence will be destroyed. I think we had a thread here awhile back on an article that was posted, in which a veteran from Afghanistan was quoted as saying that most American police departments have fewer restrictions on house raids than the US Army; that typically in Afghanistan, the Army would surround a building, wait for sunrise, and ask the people inside to surrender. And it usually worked.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The validity of a tactic does not alter the callousness of that tactic.

Also last I heard, violent drug raids were not conducted because drug dealers start shooting, they're conducted because the cops are afraid the evidence will be destroyed. I think we had a thread here awhile back on an article that was posted, in which a veteran from Afghanistan was quoted as saying that most American police departments have fewer restrictions on house raids than the US Army; that typically in Afghanistan, the Army would surround a building, wait for sunrise, and ask the people inside to surrender. And it usually worked.

It's both actually with safety of the officers being the priority. JCow79 is correct that these tactics were developed from field experience due to the increasing numbers of trained guard dogs and heavier weapons. If we were just afraid of the evidence being destroyed then regular uniform cops could get the job done. Also the destruction of evidence is why your Afghanistan example doesn't really mean anything much. I'm shocked this is such a difficult concept for people of this board, and it is backed by the court system. Do you, Uranium or any other person here, have actual evidence that there is a better way to conduct raids in the US enviroment?

[Bakustra]

The validity of a tactic does not alter the callousness of that tactic.

Also last I heard, violent drug raids were not conducted because drug dealers start shooting, they're conducted because the cops are afraid the evidence will be destroyed. I think we had a thread here awhile back on an article that was posted, in which a veteran from Afghanistan was quoted as saying that most American police departments have fewer restrictions on house raids than the US Army; that typically in Afghanistan, the Army would surround a building, wait for sunrise, and ask the people inside to surrender. And it usually worked.

It's both actually with safety of the officers being the priority. JCow79 is correct that these tactics were developed from field experience due to the increasing numbers of trained guard dogs and heavier weapons. If we were just afraid of the evidence being destroyed then regular uniform cops could get the job done. Also the destruction of evidence is why your Afghanistan example doesn't really mean anything much. I'm shocked this is such a difficult concept for people of this board, and it is backed by the court system. Do you, Uranium or any other person here, have actual evidence that there is a better way to conduct raids in the US enviroment?

You misunderstand what Uraniun was saying, though. His point was that it's not a tactic used to preserve the lives of officers as such, but rather a tactic intended to strike a balance between speed and security in raiding. If the lives of officers were top priority, then the Army method would be used. So saying "this is needed to keep officers alive" with the undercurrent of "do you hate police or something?" is a little incomplete without the context.

[Alyeska]

Of course I understand it. I have pets myself. My family would be incredibly distraught if our golden retriever was shot in a raid. But I think the origin of these tactics are being ignored because of the unfortunate incidents where beloved family pets were shot and killed. These tactics are used because drug dealers routinely use savage attack dogs to protect their property and attack police in the event of a raid. The contention is how police should go about drawing a distinction between a sweet loveable “family member” vs an attack dog. Hell, even in the OP video the dog can be heard barking viciously. These agents aren’t the dog whisperer. They have a job to do and unfortunately they have to do it quickly and not so nicely.

What a load of shit. You can't take my argument and plug your words into it. You advocated a position of shoot first, do little else. You assume I want police to be mauled by dogs. Read my positions in the thread. There is such a thing as a middle ground. There are other options.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You misunderstand what Uraniun was saying, though. His point was that it's not a tactic used to preserve the lives of officers as such, but rather a tactic intended to strike a balance between speed and security in raiding. If the lives of officers were top priority, then the Army method would be used. So saying "this is needed to keep officers alive" with the undercurrent of "do you hate police or something?" is a little incomplete without the context.

But speed is security. That's why the raids are conducted quickly. Make no mistake. The raid is conducted the way it is for maximum safety. The other benefit of a fast raid is you can secure evidence, but the primary reason is for security.

Also, Uranium. Here's an example of lighter military restrictions...

[Kamakazie Sith]

But you raid the wrong house and all of a sudden your solid tactical decisions appear callous and malicious.

It's still utterly callous even if you have the correct home. It does not follow that all persons within a home specified in a search warrant are therefore guilty parties who deserve to have their dogs shot.

Your logic doesn't follow with established use of force laws. Basically, you're pretty much saying that police need an additional warrant to shoot dangerous people or animals. What are you smoking?

[Alphawolf55]

JCOW, your original suggestion was not "Oh we should let cops defend themselves, like Ayeska said, you advocated a shoot first policy. You said that because a dog COULD become a problem, it justifies taking it out before it has any chance to do so. NO one saying that cops shouldn't be able to defend themselves, we're arguing against the idea that a raid should include shooting dogs not because an officer is being charged by one, or one is biting someone but because you think it might in the future cause damage.


"Well, the cop is acting with authority for one. And for two, the dog is being sent in to preserve the cops life, not yours. At that point there's very little keeping you from a a dog bite or a bullet. Consider the dog a consideration for your life. Because if the dog does his job, you might just survive the night. There's a good chance if you shoot the dog, the next thing the police send at you may be their own bullets."

It sounds like you're basically saying a cop's life is worth more then a civilian life since you're saying cops should be allowed to defend themselves against the mere idea that an attack can while a civilian can't. Let me ask you something, lets say an attack dog is sent after me and it's biting me. I have a gun or knife on me, and I decide hey this dog is belligerent and crazy, I have no idea it might stop. It COULD continue and kill me or maim me, if I shot or stabbed it and killed it then proceeded to drop my weapon, get on the ground and surrender to the police in a calm manner, should I be charged with killing a police dog? I mean I was defending my life against an animal that can't be reasoned with.

[Kamakazie Sith]

JCOW, your original suggestion was not "Oh we should let cops defend themselves, like Ayeska said, you advocated a shoot first policy. You said that because a dog COULD become a problem, it justifies taking it out before it has any chance to do so. NO one saying that cops shouldn't be able to defend themselves, we're arguing against the idea that a raid should include shooting dogs not because an officer is being charged by one, or one is biting someone but because you think it might in the future cause damage.

Huh, that's exactly the message I've been getting from some of you. That the police should sacrifice their own safety and ignore the tactics that field experience has developed so we don't shoot family dogs. If that isn't the case then what's your problem with the use of force in the OP video?

It sounds like you're basically saying a cop's life is worth more then a civilian life since you're saying cops should be allowed to defend themselves against the mere idea that an attack can while a civilian can't. Let me ask you something, lets say an attack dog is sent after me and it's biting me. I have a gun or knife on me, and I decide hey this dog is belligerent and crazy, I have no idea it might stop. It COULD continue and kill me or maim me, if I shot or stabbed it and killed it then proceeded to drop my weapon, get on the ground and surrender to the police in a calm manner, should I be charged with killing a police dog? I mean I was defending my life against an animal that can't be reasoned with.

Yes, you should be charged because prior to the deployment of a K9 you are given several warnings. When the K9 is released it is because you ignored the warnings. Now if you're walking down a street and a police K9 suddenly grabs ahold of you and you kill it...then no you shouldn't be charged because there was no warning and you aren't a fugitive.

[Bakustra]

You misunderstand what Uraniun was saying, though. His point was that it's not a tactic used to preserve the lives of officers as such, but rather a tactic intended to strike a balance between speed and security in raiding. If the lives of officers were top priority, then the Army method would be used. So saying "this is needed to keep officers alive" with the undercurrent of "do you hate police or something?" is a little incomplete without the context.

But speed is security. That's why the raids are conducted quickly. Make no mistake. The raid is conducted the way it is for maximum safety. The other benefit of a fast raid is you can secure evidence, but the primary reason is for security.

Do you have proof, though? For that matter, do you think that the FBI and ATF should have simply smashed the doors down at Waco or at Ruby Ridge? Because if this only applies to drug raids, then I don't think you can say that securing evidence is a distinctly lower priority than safety, if the evidence is crucial to the raid.

[jcow79]

Of course I understand it. I have pets myself. My family would be incredibly distraught if our golden retriever was shot in a raid. But I think the origin of these tactics are being ignored because of the unfortunate incidents where beloved family pets were shot and killed. These tactics are used because drug dealers routinely use savage attack dogs to protect their property and attack police in the event of a raid. The contention is how police should go about drawing a distinction between a sweet loveable “family member” vs an attack dog. Hell, even in the OP video the dog can be heard barking viciously. These agents aren’t the dog whisperer. They have a job to do and unfortunately they have to do it quickly and not so nicely.

What a load of shit. You can't take my argument and plug your words into it. You advocated a position of shoot first, do little else. You assume I want police to be mauled by dogs. Read my positions in the thread. There is such a thing as a middle ground. There are other options.

I admit that portion of my reply was somewhat tongue and cheek. I should have added a smiley for clarity. I was really just trying to emphasize that I know that we value our pets lives but we value human life even more. The fact is police do get mauled by dogs. Alternative methods of dealing with dogs would be great but the ideas suggested in this thread and prior threads present real risks to people which have been demonstrated in real life.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Do you have proof, though? For that matter, do you think that the FBI and ATF should have simply smashed the doors down at Waco or at Ruby Ridge? Because if this only applies to drug raids, then I don't think you can say that securing evidence is a distinctly lower priority than safety, if the evidence is crucial to the raid.

Proof of what?

You honestly believe that securing evidence is an equal priority to the lives of officers? I think it is up to you to prove that assertion since if flies in the face of common sense.

[Bakustra]

Do you have proof, though? For that matter, do you think that the FBI and ATF should have simply smashed the doors down at Waco or at Ruby Ridge? Because if this only applies to drug raids, then I don't think you can say that securing evidence is a distinctly lower priority than safety, if the evidence is crucial to the raid.

Proof of what?

You honestly believe that securing evidence is an equal priority to the lives of officers? I think it is up to you to prove that assertion since if flies in the face of common sense.

Proof that adopting this method actually saved the lives of officers. Otherwise, it's common sense, but that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. For that matter, do you think that the FBI and ATF should have done the same at Waco and Ruby Ridge? My point is that (assuming you are talking solely about drug raids) the evidence is essential to the raid, so saying that it's second to the lives of officers is like saying that the raid itself is second to the lives of officers during it. That may well be the case, but that needs substantiation.

[Alphawolf55]

JCOW, your original suggestion was not "Oh we should let cops defend themselves, like Ayeska said, you advocated a shoot first policy. You said that because a dog COULD become a problem, it justifies taking it out before it has any chance to do so. NO one saying that cops shouldn't be able to defend themselves, we're arguing against the idea that a raid should include shooting dogs not because an officer is being charged by one, or one is biting someone but because you think it might in the future cause damage.

Huh, that's exactly the message I've been getting from some of you. That the police should sacrifice their own safety and ignore the tactics that field experience has developed so we don't shoot family dogs. If that isn't the case then what's your problem with the use of force in the OP video?

It sounds like you're basically saying a cop's life is worth more then a civilian life since you're saying cops should be allowed to defend themselves against the mere idea that an attack can while a civilian can't. Let me ask you something, lets say an attack dog is sent after me and it's biting me. I have a gun or knife on me, and I decide hey this dog is belligerent and crazy, I have no idea it might stop. It COULD continue and kill me or maim me, if I shot or stabbed it and killed it then proceeded to drop my weapon, get on the ground and surrender to the police in a calm manner, should I be charged with killing a police dog? I mean I was defending my life against an animal that can't be reasoned with.

Yes, you should be charged because prior to the deployment of a K9 you are given several warnings. When the K9 is released it is because you ignored the warnings. Now if you're walking down a street and a police K9 suddenly grabs ahold of you and you kill it...then no you shouldn't be charged because there was no warning and you aren't a fugitive.

The original video, they merely said the Pit Bull 'Threatened the cops" so they shot it. There's not enough information to know if it was warranted and in this case it sounds like because the dog was barking that they shot it. It specifically walked away then came back, also once they actually hit, THEN it became violent and had to "Defend themselves". Granted once a dog is violent you can't reason for it to stop but there's nothing to suggest there's enough information to justify shooting the dog in the first place other then the fact it's a pitbull and the swat team were nervous.

But who cares if I was warned? It doesn't change the fact that for all I know the dog might kill me or maim me. I have no guarantee the police are going to be able to control the dog.

I should point out that my point isn't; that we should justify shooting police dogs obviously not. I'm merely saying that allowing us to shoot things because it COULD cause trouble, is a ridiculous precedent. You're only allowed to use self defense when you believe that doing so could result in your death or larger well being. Cops aren't allowed to shoot people just cause they're able to because police like everyone else has the right of self defense. The reason why if a cop attacks you, you aren't allowed to defend yourself isn't because they are better then you, it's because you're suppose to know that reasonably if you surrender, no further harm will come to you. But if we establish the mere possibility of an attack warrants violence, you open up crazy rules. Since hey, if it's considered legitimate self defense to kill a dog before it even becomes a problem because it's an animal that can't be reasoned with, shouldn't you as a citizen at least be able to defend yourself against an animal that can't be reasoned with that's actually attacking you? Hell you yourself said it'd be ridiculous for an officer to shoot a dog unless he's being attacked or about to be, shouldn't you be taking issue with Jcow's statement?

[jcow79]

JCOW, your original suggestion was not "Oh we should let cops defend themselves, like Ayeska said, you advocated a shoot first policy. You said that because a dog COULD become a problem, it justifies taking it out before it has any chance to do so. NO one saying that cops shouldn't be able to defend themselves, we're arguing against the idea that a raid should include shooting dogs not because an officer is being charged by one, or one is biting someone but because you think it might in the future cause damage.

Dog attacks can happen very quickly. Especially in a house where a dog has very little ground to cover and obstacles between you and the dog that could impede your line of sight or maneuverability (ie furniture) If you do nothing to the dog then whether that dog is going to attack is up in the air. It's a constant threat. As someone who has owned many dogs and has had experience with many dogs I have seen how territorial a dog can be in it's own home ESPECIALLY if it thinks the owners are being attacked. An otherwise timid dog very often will become aggressive and attack. What are your options? Wait for the dog to charge? So now we are going to be shooting at an extremely fast moving target with people in the house in unknown locations. It's much safer to shoot a dog before it's moving then to try and shoot it in motion. Hell, I even linked an article about a dog that was already ON the cop and shooting that dog injured the cop being attacked.
A policy of shooting dog first apologize later is heartbreaking but quit ignoring that there is real life precedent for it.

It sounds like you're basically saying a cop's life is worth more than a civilian life since you're saying cops should be allowed to defend themselves against the mere idea that an attack can while a civilian can't. Let me ask you something, lets say an attack dog is sent after me and it's biting me. I have a gun or knife on me, and I decide hey this dog is belligerent and crazy, I have no idea it might stop. It COULD continue and kill me or maim me, if I shot or stabbed it and killed it then proceeded to drop my weapon, get on the ground and surrender to the police in a calm manner, should I be charged with killing a police dog? I mean I was defending my life against an animal that can't be reasoned with.

It would only sound like that if you completely ignore when and why police dogs are used. What country are you from that the police loose attack dogs on innocent civilians that aren't presenting a real and present danger to police and others as standard procedure?