Ya know, the stories about this incident are linked right here in this very thread. It would behoove y’all to read the things before speculating. In this case, however, your speculation is correct, but I still find it very grating when people do this. Especially given the motto of this website and the regularity with which it is repeated here on the boards.
And yeah, I wanna thank Badge, too, for sharing his perspective and training. As always, he has provided good information here.
Badge, thanks for your perspective here. It’s nice to get an officer’s point of view and exactly why you see a firearm as a useful tool.
Cartooniverse, I support your sentiments. Too many dog owners are utterly convinced that dogs are harmless, friendly beasts which would never do anyone any harm, and anyone who thinks they might is an overreacting, paranoid fool.
Forgive the hijack, but isn’t that true of everyone? Not just off-duty cops?
Mauvaise
I certainly agree with you and think that any responsible adult should have a “concealed carry” right. Trouble is, I live in Massachusetts where a concealed carry permit law will be passed the next time the Red Sox win the World Series. (in other words - never).
I don’t know if Badge will be coming back here but couldn’t the police officer have defended himself (and family) in a non-lethal manner? (Pepper spray?) Heck, I’d say no one is in greater danger of canine attack than postal carriers - and they don’t “pack heat”. Sure they carry pepper spray - and rightly so.
As I’ve said before, wouldn’t this have been a lot better for police public relations if the dog didn’t get killed?
Incidentally, there was a thread about dog attacks a month ago. Here it is for those interested:
A domesticated dog that has not been abused, bred or trained to attack will NOT do so. This story makes me sad…for every human and animal involved.
Uncle, sorry that the purpose of my post didn’t come through. That was the whole point. Several posts were asking why the officer had to shoot the dog 8-9 times and I was responding that it appeared they had the facts wrong and that the dog wasn’t hit that many times. For example:
and:
That is what I was answering to. I think you are too but I am not sure why you used my post as an example.
Pepper spray is at best mildly annoying to most dogs. At worst it pisses them off. Personal experience is my cite.
By the way, I almost never carry off duty. I never carry when with my family. I don’t hold it against anyone who does but I don’t see too many good things coming from carrying gun when with my children. Actually the dog attacking is about the most clear cut example of a good reason to pull a gun. If it was a human attacking I would not want to escalate things and have bullets flying near my family. I doknow of agencys that require you carry off duty. Mine does not.
The NYPD does
I may have posted before about an officer who boarded her horse at the same barn I use for mine. We used to trail ride together regularly and she always wore her sidearm. I never thought much of it.
One day I’d saddled up my horse and was waiting for her to join me. Her gelding, who had just come back from teh trainer, and who she KNEW should be lunged before he was ridden, bucked her off when she climbed into the saddle without warming him up first. She took out her gun and fired three shots at her horse. That she didn’t hit him was a miracle - she was on the police pistol squad, or whatever they call it. He was bucking and she was mad. She not only could’ve killed her horse or injured other people out at the barn, I was on my horse, and had to deal with a 1250 lb animal terrified by this loud noise near her.
My point is, cops can lose their cool just like everybody else, but when they do, they’re usually armed when it happens. The officer claims the dog was being aggressive. Without a witness, that’s all it is, an unsubstantiated claim. Unfortunately, at this point we’ll never know for sure what happened. I can’t say for sure the officer wasn’t protecting his children, just as I can’t say for sure the dog wasn’t just romping around wanting to play. I guess my stance would be to drop any charges and consider them both in the wrong.
StG
I’ll preface this by saying 1) that I’m a huge animal person, to the extent that I volunteer several hours a week with a local rescue group and 2) that I’m not inclined to believe that shooting this dog was the appropriate course of action.
That said, your quoted statement? Simply not true. I’m not saying that one should walk around on guard expecting every dog they meet to be a ticking time-bomb, however, there are various health issues that could cause a normally sweet-natured animal to attack. And without being provoked.
If one is going to be around dogs (or any animal), it wouldn’t be a bad thing to learn a little about them - body language, warning signs, behaviour.
Oh. Okay. So, like, you need me to post close-up photos of the ropy scars on her face? This is The Straight Dope. You make a statement like that, I respectfully request a heck of a lot of cite and proof backing it up. Statistical proof that the only animals that attack are trained to do so, etc. Feel free to spend a lot of time gathering proof and cite.
Cause, it just is not the case. At all.
This is a story about a father, some children, and an animal.
An Animal.
Why this is such a difficult concept to grasp is simply beyond me. The kids are fine. The dog is dead.
The nuances of discharging the firearm don’t concern me. A father used a tool at hand to protect his children. This is cause for dismay? Gosh. 
The ( to me ) separate issue of pointing said firearm at the owner of the dog during the fracas is very scary, but it’s a He said/She said thing, I doubt anyone will ever be able to prove beyond doubt if that happened, and how.
[hijack]
Actually, wolf_meister, Massachusetts does have a concealed carry permit law. You need a Class A Firearms License issued for “Personal Protection” or “All Lawful Purposes”. They are issued by the Chief of Police of your town of residence, or if you own a business, by the Chief of the town where your business is. Once you’ve passed the state background check (no felony convictions, no mental health issues, passed a recent state-approved firearm safety class, etc.) it’s totally up to the discretion of the Chief whether to issue it, and what restrictions to apply (like “Target Shooting only”, which would prevent concealed carry). As you may expect, different chiefs have different policies - some will issue an “All Lawful Purposes” to anyone who passes the background check, some won’t issue one at all, some will only issue to people with cash businesses, etc. Here’s a link in case you’re interested:
[/hijack]
Since my quote was used as an example of someone who didn’t “read the article and who had the facts wrong” I’d like to point out the part of my quote that I bolded, I said shot AT the dog, not “shot the dog”. So no, I did not have the facts wrong according to both articles posted. Ironically, I am accused of not reading facts by someone who did not really read my post.
Also, as for the part about the dog being hit twice; that was not in the original article in the OP and it wasn’t my point anyway. I never said the dog was shot 8 or 9 times.
My point was, if warning shots are bad because they can go astray, how is 8 or 9 wild shots at something better? This was not meant as a “ooh, the cop was wrong killing the poor sweet doggie” comment. I just did not see the logic in no warning shot vs emptying your gun all over the place at a park where there are likely to be other people around.
I also find it ironic that because I asked that question and agreed that it seems like police officers are not trained to recognize animal behavior (from many other incidents I have seen) that appears I was included in the “puppy-hugging horseshit” group. I’ve worked with animals for over 21 years, so yes I am a “puppy-hugger” and I will defend animals most of the time **but ** I also know what animals are like. The dog could very well have been aggressive, but this never had to have happened had the dog been kept on a leash. If one did actually read my post I stated that if there was indeed a leash law then the owner of the dog was at fault for his dogs death. It could just have easily have been a car, a bigger dog or someone with a baseball bat that killed his dog because it was off leash, the end result would have been the same - dead dog.
I hope you realized that you were going to get beat up for making such a bold statement without any backup. Others already have so I won’t. I do find it interesting that there are many people questioning the account of the officer but they have no problem taking the dog owners word at face value. We only have his word that the dog has never displayed any behavior like this. Even if the dog is not on record as having bitten someone that does not mean it has never been aggresive. We only have the word of the person who is going to benefit financially by the lawsuit. Even if the owner is 100% truthfull, as was pointed out before this dog was abandoned and rescued from a shelter. We don’t know if it was ever abused. So even if your statement is correct,we don’t know if it applies in this case.
Sorry I was commenting on what I thought you implied and not what you said. I’m guilty of exactly what I was annoyed with. Again I am sorry.
I guess it would depend on how wild the shots were. We have had several days to post to this thread. The incident was at the most 30seconds from start to finish. Probably less. That is why police officers get trained. When something comes up without warning you fall back on your training automatically. A police officer would never fire a warning shot, it just goes against all of your training. In my inarticulate way I will try to explain why a warning is a bad idea. First in general terms, without referencing this incident. A bullet fired from a gun can kill. It can kill anyone, even if you are not aiming at them. That is why a gun may be discharged only when deadly force is justified. Not to wound, and not to scare. You better be justified to kill someone or something if you pull that trigger because that might be the outcome anyway. You ask how can a warning shot be worse than missing the target. Imagine any situation where there is a threat that you may have to shoot something or someone. You are concentrating on the target, you may miss the target but the shots are at least going towards the target. In the same situation you are concentrating on the target but you point the gun in a different direction to fire your warning shot. Where does it go? Who knows because if you are not looking at the threat at all times you are an idiot. Is this ideal in all situations? Maybe not but it works best in most situations. Remember if you fire the weapon its because you are justified to kill something(or you think you are). In the incident with the dog, say you shoot the warning shot and it doesn’t work, The dog might be on the children before you are done reassesing the situation. My opinion anyway.
Obviously I was not there, and don’t know for certain what happened, but I think the purpose of the 8 or 9 shots was to hit the dog twice. Thus they were not “wild” shots, but (in my view) the unavoidable consequence of using the gun at all. It is hard to hit a small, fast-moving target firing one-handed with a child in the other arm.
And, again in my view, once you have made the decision to fire a weapon at something you think is a threat, you keep shooting until the threat is neutralized. You don’t fire once, then stop to see if that is enough. You keep shooting until it is clear the threat is no longer operative.
Under the extremely stressful adrenaline dump of a shooting incident, most people miss most of the time. Even highly trained officers. It is really, really hard to hit something if you think your safety (or that of your 3 year old daughter) is in danger.
So you essentially empty the clip. The idea is to kill or at least immobilize the dog, so it does no harm to shoot it twice (or nine times) as opposed to once. The dog is going to die or be very seriously wounded in either case.
There is something I agree with 100%. This is exactly the sort of situation leash laws are supposed to prevent.
If owners could just get it thru their thick heads that no, your dog is not different, and the laws do apply to sweet little Fifi, who would never hurt a fly.
Or at least, he hasn’t since we found him abandoned on a street, and have no real idea of his history before that.
Regards,
Shodan
muldoonthief
Thanks for the info.
I have a rifle permit that will be up for renewal shortly and so I’ll ask about a concealed carry license. (However I have heard that they are very difficult to obtain here in Massachusetts).
" … Is that a rifle in your pants, or are you just happy to see me? … "
I have nothing against dogs in general, and know that certain breeds are noted for erratic and unpredicatble behavior.
But if it comes down to there being any question between a human child and a dog… I’m sorry Rover, All Dogs Go To Heaven. It’s probably not personal, and I’ll try and make it quick as I detest needless suffering.
I find it ironic that many people who advocate increased gun control often express the opinion that only the military and the police need to have guns, as they are the only ones with the training and mentality to handle the stress of confronting danger and discharging a firearm. It’s even more ironic that they’ll extend that “privelege” to active duty personnel, but not to veterans. :snort:
But I’ll give officer Coco the benefit of the doubt; he was there, none of us were; he was protecting (or thought he was protecting) his kids; the owner was in violation of a simple and common sensical leash law that would have prevented the whole affair.
The dog that chewed up my niece’s face never had a history of being aggressive around children before, either. That didn’t stop its owner from putting a bullet in its brainpan after the attack, though. You see, he had kids, too.
I’m sorry for Mr. Arnold and for Toby, who looks like a sweet, happy dog in that picture. But not to the point that I’m willing, given the information available, to criticize officer Coco, gun owners or firearms.
We do. For now, anyway. There’s a bill still in the house that wants to elminate the permit for concealed weapons. (that is, you’ll still be able to carry one, but no longer need a gun permit. eek).
What I find somewhat surprising is that the article makes no mention of the fact that this is the second incident of this kind in the past three weeks. In the other case a police officer responding to a call decided that a person’s dog- in their home- was threatening him, so he shot it. Later the department offered an apology, saying he acted in haste. Hell of a lot of good that does…
Well many of the posters here feel the officer was justified in his actions.
I’ve owned dogs in a city which has ALWAYS had a leash law. Leashes break, a person’s grip can weaken, a person might fall and lose control of the dog, etc. (ALL of which has happened to dogs I have owned). So, basically, even if a dog breaks away accidentally, it means a police officer can kill the dog ? Wow, and I thought the worst that could happen was your dog ended up in the “dog pound” or maybe you could get fined.
Well since Bedford, NH has a leash law, how about adding to the “Dogs Must Be Leashed” sign, the consequences of having an unleashed dog ? - “lethal force may be used to subdue the dog”
(and I am not being sarcastic about that)
Not a very pleasant sign to have at a park but at least you’d know precisely what your situation is.
As I previously stated, why not some viable “middle ground” approach such as pepper spray? Some say this won’t stop some dogs but there are stronger sprays on the market. Here’s a website for bear spray:
http://www.udap.com/prod_viewProduct.asp?pid=714#bear%20spray
Granted that’s a huge spray can - but it is for bears.
And as I’ve said this would be a lot better “PR” for the police. Had this story ended with the dog getting a snootful of pepper spray, there’d be no dead dog AND the story would never have reached the national news.
It’s a small consolation to the dog owner but at least something good might come out of this to prevent it from occurring again.
I’m definitely on the side of the police officer. In fact I think he exercised remarkable restraint in trying to scare off the dog first.
Threat to child = dead dog.