Sunday, April 22, 2012

"Poorly trained police are a hazard to dogs, their owners, themselves, and three year old girls".

Seems to sum it up.
The couple's three-year-old daughter was eating breakfast at the kitchen table in the Humboldt Avenue North house when police entered the front door on a warrant. As soon as the officers entered the house, they shot and killed one dog, Kano, in the living room, then moments later fired "multiple, hollow-point rounds towards the kitchen table, killing another of the Keten's dogs," Remy, that was lying beneath the table, the suit alleges.
...but it admits that Officer Chad Fuchs was aware that a three year old girl was sitting at the table even as he fired multiple, hollow point rounds in her direction.
A: Then why does Officer Fuchs(up) still wear a badge?
B: What the HELL is wrong with so many cops that they have some compulsion to shoot every dog in sight?
Note Austin PD edited the recording to remove a critical portion; about the level of dirtbagginess we've come to expect in such cases.


Glenn B said...

I was in federal LE for 32 years. I only once heard of a dog being shot by anyone in my agencies while on LE operations. That means that during hundreds (the high hundreds at that, maybe even thousands) of operations, by my agencies, only one dog was ever shot as far as I am aware. Believe me when I say, had someone shot a dog during execution of a warrant, I would have known about it. The only other dogs I heard of ever being shot were strays, acting strangely, during a rabies epidemic in and around Calexico, CA.

Throughout the years of my career, we were trained - over and over again - that we had to justify the use of deadly force and that the justification was needed whenever we fired a shot, pretty much except for at the range. We were trained that a dog, that was not showing aggressive behavior, was not enough to justify such. A dog, crouching under a table, within the same room as the officer, growling, barring its teeth, might have been enough depending on the situation.

I can say this though, if I was performing my duties, and a dog presented a threat of serious bodily harm to me, I doubt that I would hesitate to use deadly force against it if feasible, I know that because I have already done so (though not by way of shooting it and I did not kill it or even seriously injure it but I did deter its attack). It is the same as a dirtbag threatening me with serious bodily harm or death. If a dog does likewise, then too bad but I will do what I reasonably believe is necessary to protect myself without hesitation. Would you hesitate, do you think police should hesitate when faced with such danger? Would you give that dog a couple of seconds to calm down before and if it did not would you then shoot? If so, would you give a guy with a knife, 15 feet away from you, a couple of seconds, how about a guy with a gun who was menacing you? Me, I likely would take defensive action immediately and the amount of force used, if any, would be determined by the threat level against me. If I reasonably beleived I was about to be seriously injured then deadly force could be justified even with other people nearby, so long as I also reasonably believed that that they were not in the line of fire.

As far as shooting a dog under a table, with a child sitting at that same table, that would be a hard call to make but possibly would have been one that needed to be made dependent upon the actions of the dog. A lot of split second decision making would have to go into the decision to shoot in a situation like that. When it comes right down to it, the decision to shoot may have been fully justified or not. You cannot possibly truthfully tell me or the world that you objectively know the shots taken by the officer were not fully justified, at least not without knowing all of the facts first, can you? Doing so not knowing all of the facts first would be an emotional based response as much as it might alo be one based on partial facts. That is the same as would be me judging you, too have been wrong because you shot a bad guy who you deemed a threat to you, while I did not know all the facts.

I am not saying the officer was right. He may well have been wrong. What I am saying is that you cannot possibly know either way unless you are in possession of all of the facts and that goes for LEOs just as it goes for folks who are not LEOs. As far as believing the media reports or the statements of those whose house was entered or even of the police, I much prefer to base my decisions to believe anyone on an examination of the facts relative to the incident and not on the fact that I am a dog lover or on the fact that another officer also recently shot a dog. Each case must be determiend on the facts involved and not on how they make you feel.

All the best,
Glenn B

Anonymous said...

I am glad that the standards of professional behavior were so high during your time with Federal law enforcement. Unfortunately, in view of daily stories of LEOs executing chained up, confined, or non-hostile animals on a weekly basis, I have to come to the conclusion that this is no longer the case.

As far as appropriate ways to deal with an excited animal...were you not taught the sure-fire fail safe for dealing with a dog attack?
We were in the feed the eager animal one forearm, wrap the other around the back of it's head, and push. The dog will die. Quickly. If you are wearing forearm protectors under your Ninja Suit of Doom (C), you won't even be may pull a muscle, but the dog will be dead, and you will still have a full magazine. The other 4 officers in you stack can be quickly rejoined.

This is a training and attitude problem...