Man kills dog, cops kill man.

[280plus]

Chances are, if you're being cool, you won't have a trained police dog charging you in the first place.

Although I do recall a big outdoor busload of cops and dogs raid in my old neighborhood once where they got every single person out on the street face down and went around saying, "If you have any drugs in your pocket you better tell me now because you don't want the dogs to have to find it." indicating their genitals might be at risk. Fairly effective approach from what I was told. 

I was in the house and missed the whole thing.

[Brad Johnson]

Cops order subject to remove hand from shirt.

Man removes hand from shirt, hand is holding gun.

- Immediate threat -

Cops release dog to counter immediate threat.

Subject uses gun in hand to shoot police dog.

Cops are facing armed suspect who is discharging a weapon in their general direction.

Cops shoot armed suspect.

Analysis?

Bad guy.  Good shoot.

Brad

[Hawkmoon]

Good shoot.

The cop ordered the kid to show his hands. The kid drew down on THREE police officers (yes, in most states police dogs are considered LEOs). If one of the officers hadn't been a K-9 officer, both cops would have undoubtedly opened fire on the kid for pulling the gun. Releasing the dog was actually a "less lethal" response than just opening fire. Once the kid shot the dog, the officers would logically expect that they would become the next targets of opportunity. I think the shooting was completely justified.

[Ezekiel]

If you pull a smoke wagon on the Marshal, you get greased.

The dog is ancillary to the result.

[K Frame]

"Add to that that a police K-9 is considered an officer by both tradition and procedure."

Not just by tradition and procedure, but by codified law in many states, as well.

[Ex-MA Hole]

At a bare minimum, they are law enforcement in the truest sense.

[Tallpine]

Sounds justified to me, considering the circumstances.

I agree with LadySmith's analysis. 

[gunsmith]

1st.
Poor doggie.

The only time I have ever thought it would be ok to shoot a K9 is one instance in Florida the cops sent the K9 through an open window of the WRONG HOUSE & it attacked a toddler.
Other then that one rare case, I wouldn't shoot a K9 even if it was chewing on my arm.
I once saved a dog that had been tied to a fence with a slip knot, the more it pulled the more it choked, it bit me as I cut the rope. (it was scared)
Afterward, the dog licked me.

[Jamisjockey]

Because dogs respond to taunts differently than men.

So taunting them should be a felony? And define "taunt". Calling names? Muttering obscenities? Making faces?

Then imagine the cops response. "Tazered suspect while in commission of a felony - taunting my dog". Looks like good intentions gone off the deep end to me.

Not just any dog.  A dog that is trained to track and attack people.  Few laws that are for your own good make sense....this one makes perfect sense to me.  Do not Eff with the trained attack dog, it is for your own good.

Beyond that, I think Hawkmoons assesment of the situation is the most correct.  How do you not shoot someone who just shot the dog in this scenerio?  IMHO, the police should be commended for sending the dog instead of shooting him first.  They had a less lethal alternative and they took it.  Dingus made his own criminal bed, and died in it.

[HankB]

No, not at you, at HankB, who said he'd shoot a known police dog coming towards him.

No. The question posed was about a police dog charging at me, not merely coming towards me. The clear implication in this context is that Officer Fido wants to gnaw on me. Re-read my original post - aww, heck, I'll quote myself here:

. . . But if Officer Fido is "charging" at me, when I haven't made any resistance to an officer, I WILL defend myself.

. . . Uh. You don't know how police dogs are trained, do you?

They won't pitbull-attack you. They're trained to grab on your sleeve and pull you down. If you don't resist and struggle around, they won't do anything but hold on you. They go through a LOT of training to ensure that they don't just bite on suspects.

Trained like this? http://www.theledger.com/article/20080119/NEWS/801190407/1004/RSS&source=RSS

Or this? http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2008/March/police%20dog%20bites%20man%200308.pdf

Or maybe this? http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2008/Feb/police%20k9%20bites%20wrong%20person%200208.pdf

Or even this? http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2008/January/police%20k9%200108.pdf

These are just a small sample from five minutes with Google.

There was also a video going around not long ago about a reporter doing a story about police dogs who had his face bitten without warning even though the dog was sitting next to the handler and on a leash . . . and the lame excuse that he went to pet Officer Fido the wrong way.

Hmmm . . . how are police dogs trained to deal with people wearing short-sleeved shirts, the usual apparel in TX, especially during summer months?

So to re-iterate, yes, I WOULD be inclined to shoot ANY dog that was charging me.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

big shepherd is a force of nature. as building a deck using a paslode gas gun. argus was released in back yard i fired one nail and he treated it like a vgun shot and barked  second nail he got up close and removed any doubt i had about his feelings  i stopped nailing and moved so my helper was between me and the k9   helper still hates me for that

[Jamisjockey]

From reading the story, the guy wasn't shot because he killed a police dog, he was shot because by drawing a gun when two uniformed LEOs in a marked police car confronted him, he made himself a real, immediate threat to a police officer.

I'm licensed to carry a handgun, and I will NOT make any attempt to draw it if an officer hails me on the street, stops me for a traffic violation, or anything else of a like nature. When/if he asks me for ID, I'll show him my driver's license and (by law) my CHL. And take it from there.

The dog's shooting was incidental to the threat to the officers - if the guy had cranked off a couple of rounds and perforated a mailbox next to the cop, would there be an outcry about " . . . being killed over shooting a mailbox?"

Which brings me to this next point:

So you would shoot a known police dog charging at you?

Yep.

I firmly believe the place to fight cops is in court, not on the street, and my inclination is to act peaceably when encountering police. But if Officer Fido is "charging" at me, when I haven't made any resistance to an officer, I WILL defend myself.

Excerpted from the Texas Penal Code, section 9.31:

Hank, you're wrong.
"The suspect had his hand under his shirt. When the officer told him to show his hand, (Jackson) pulled out a gun," Harper said.

"The officer deployed his dog, and the dog did what it was trained to do. The dog was fatally wounded by the subject, and the officer fatally wounded the subject."
Article clearly states that the suspect drew the weapon, and the dog was deployed after that.  Suspect shoots dog, officers shoot suspect.
Based on the information at hand, the guy had no ground to stand on to begin with. 

I, too, would likely take immediate issue with being charged by any dog.  Unlike the suspect, however, I wouldn't have drawn a weapon when confronted by police, and would have serious doubt that I would, as a law abiding armed citizen, end up in a confrontation with police nor thier dog. 

[HankB]

Hank, you're wrong. "The suspect had his hand under his shirt. When the officer told him to show his hand, (Jackson) pulled out a gun," Harper said. . . .

Suggest you go back and re-read my original post with a little more care.

Cliff's Notes Version:

1. Good shoot by police in specific case at hand.
2. Comply peaceably if/when I encounter police. (Don't pull a gun!!)
3. Defend self against unprovoked doggy attack.
4. Cite relevant TX law.

 

[tincat2]

sounds like the dog didn't belong on the scene. two cops should have been able to apprehend this guy without escalating tensions with the presence of a large and intimidating dog. the handler got the dog killed.
now the dead guy may have been willing to turn over the weapon(we won't get his side of it) or he may have been willing to risk a shootout-the cops should be prepared by training and temperament to make that call on the spot under the given circumstances(if they thought he had a gun, they should have approached with guns drawn and locked on target-my bet is on the cops surviving the dead guy's attempt to draw and fire, if that had been his choice).
after all is said and done, i wouldn't charge the cops with anything(unless some unknown and incriminating facts come to light in the investigation), but i would require a review of procedures with an eye towards controlling situations with less damge to all concerned.

[Jamisjockey]

Hank, you're wrong. "The suspect had his hand under his shirt. When the officer told him to show his hand, (Jackson) pulled out a gun," Harper said. . . .

Suggest you go back and re-read my original post with a little more care.

Cliff's Notes Version:

1. Good shoot by police in specific case at hand.
2. Comply peaceably if/when I encounter police. (Don't pull a gun!!)
3. Defend self against unprovoked doggy attack.
4. Cite relevant TX law.

 

Makes more sense.
This case clearly (or at least as told by the survivors) wasn't an unprovoked dog attack, though.

[Perd Hapley]

This case clearly (or at least as told by the survivors) wasn't an unprovoked dog attack, though.

He didn't say it was.  Even if it were, though, let's suppose you were attacked by a berserker police dog for no apparent reason.  Still, drawing a gun is a good way to get shot to pieces.  Seems the better path would be to assume some sort of protective posture, and wait for the bipedal cops to call the thing off of you.  But if the cops see you drawing down on their dog...ouch.

Releasing the dog was actually a "less lethal" response than just opening fire.

  Yup. 

[SomeKid]

OK, everyone is running way off topic. This thread was not originally posted to be about whether it was or wasn't a good shoot.

The thread was about whether we could do the same things the cops did (kill someone who killed our dog), and what you all think of it being a felony (you know, lose gun rights, voting privs, etc) simply to taunt a dog when doing the same to a human cop is perfectly legal.

[Perd Hapley]

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_566397.html

   
The flag outside police headquarters in the North Side flew at half-staff, and some officers wore a black band over their badges to signify they are mourning a fallen officer. Police are planning a memorial service and burial for Aulf on Saturday.

Harper called the shooting "an unfortunate" but justifiable action.

"The officers acted within the guidelines of policy and procedures," he said.

Sciulli and another officer, both in uniform, were driving on Arlington Avenue in a marked police car to respond to a report of shots fired when they spotted Justin Jackson, police said. They stopped because they believed he was carrying a gun, Harper said.

Sciulli ordered Aulf to attack after Jackson pulled a .357 Magnum handgun from under his shirt, police said.

Harper said Jackson began "firing at the officers, and the police officers returned fire."

Investigators initially believed that the officers opened fire after Jackson began shooting at the dog.

"They did not realize that the dog had been shot" until Jackson and the dog lay mortally wounded, Harper said.

The officers and Justin Jackson fired several shots, investigators said.

Aulf was shot in the front legs and chest and pronounced dead on arrival at a veterinary hospital.

"The bullet retrieved from the K-9 was consistent with a .357 (Magnum)," Harper said.

The gun Jackson was carrying had been reported stolen in a 2006 burglary in Elliott, the chief said.

The department has 17 dogs and 12 protective bullet-proof vests that are rotated among the dogs, said K-9 Sgt. Chris Micknowski. Aulf, a 75-pound dog, was not wearing a vest because the dogs normally are outfitted with them only when being sent into situations the officers know are dangerous. A vest weighs about 15 pounds, Micknowski said.

"The vests are very heavy and generate a lot of heat on the dogs," Micknowski said. "They aren't something we put on the dogs and leave on them because it wouldn't be practical. If we know we're sending the dog into a situation that is high-risk, we'll put a vest on them. That wasn't the case here. This happened so quick. There was no warning."

I wouldn't be surprised if the bolded portion is a cover story.  They shouldn't need a cover story, though.  Good shoot. 

[Perd Hapley]

The thread was about whether we could do the same things the cops did (kill someone who killed our dog),

You must have some info that we don't, because from the facts I've seen reported, that's a huge mis- characterization.  They shot the moron because he was shooting at the dog and/or at them.  Whether he was shooting at the dog or the humans is immaterial; the officers were using lethal force in response to an obvious threat to their own lives.  I don't see how this would be different for a non-LEO.  If you threaten me, and shoot at me, my return fire is justified, with or without a dog being involved.

[ilbob]

Shooting at cops or cop dogs is a bad idea. I am not at all surprised the cops returned fire. I don't see the problem.

[Brad Johnson]

The thread was about whether we could do the same things the cops did (kill someone who killed our dog),

If you are a cop, and the dog is a K9, and the subject pulls a gun first?  Yes.

and what you all think of it being a felony (you know, lose gun rights, voting privs, etc) simply to taunt a dog when doing the same to a human cop is perfectly legal.

It isn't a felony to taunt the dog.  It is a felony to menace anyone, least of all a police officer, with a gun.

Your question is laced with venomous intent.  You are proposing a relationship between to unrelated situations, apparently hoping to create a cop-bashing thread.  Well, sorry pal.  The cops did the right thing under the circumstances.  If you want to create a commotion with subterfuge and loaded questions, do it somewhere else.

Brad

[The Annoyed Man]

I'll play SomeKid's game for a moment.

 So... the situation you propose has me out 'n' about with Snuffles, my dog. Someone decides to put a bullet or three Snuffles' way. You question seems to be multi-part:

1)Would you feel justified shooting the BG? Yes: he's presenting a clear and immediate danger.

2)Do I think I would face some sort of investigation? Yes: it's happened before, in similar situations (just like it's happening in this one).

3)Do I think I would "get away with it"? Yes: the justification for use of deadly force (in almost any jurisdiction in the US) is present. Hell, I'd be fine here in Wisconsin (although I'd probably be facing a concealed carry charge)...

 That what you were looking for?

[SomeKid]

Brad, before you whine about a commotion and subterfuge, you ought to read the original news story. Taunting a dog IS a felony.

[Perd Hapley]

SomeKid, have you confirmed that? 

[Ezekiel]

If you possess a deadly weapon, I am within your sphere of influence, and I feel threatened for my life, YOU GET SHOT.

Doesn't matter if I am a cop, or not.

Hell yes, I would have taken the guy down.