Post by: SomeKid on May 08, 2008, 10:43:55 PM
There are actually a couple of things that made me go WTF in this story. That said, I am curious as to what the reaction is from those of you who like animals more than people. Seemed better written than most, thankfully.
Quote
Officer shoots, kills man who guns down police dog
By Michael Hasch
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Buzz up!
Post to MySpace!
StumbleUpon Toolbar
A Knoxville man shot and killed a Pittsburgh police dog Tuesday before the canine's handler returned fire, killing the man in what city police Chief Nate Harper called "an unfortunate" but justifiable action.
The shooting outraged and angered the family of the 19-year-old man, Justin Jackson. He was pronounced dead by a passing paramedic almost immediately after the shooting that occurred at 6:53 p.m. in front of the UPMC facility on Arlington Avenue on the border of Knoxville and Mt. Oliver.
Harper said the dog's handler ordered the canine -- a 6-year-old German shepherd named Aulf -- to attack after Jackson pulled a gun from under his shirt. Both the officer, an eight-year-veteran Harper did not identify, and Jackson fired several shots, the chief said.
"They shot my son in the head. The officer told me, 'Our dog got shot so we shot him.' They killed my son over a dog," said Donald James Jackson of the West End.
story continues below
"My 19-year-old son is lying there dead, shot in the head, execution-style. My son's brains are laying on the street. This is crazy. I'm going to do whatever I have to do, file charges against the officers, for my son. It's terrible, the mentality they have," Jackson said as he tried to comfort his wife.
"We are not going to let them get away with this!" Anna Jackson screamed. "They will pay for killing my son. They are going to pay for shooting my son over a dog!"
Harper said the dog's handler 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. They stopped because they believed he was carrying a gun, the chief said.
"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."
The dog's handler was placed on paid administrative leave, which is normal procedure, while investigators from Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr.'s office and county police investigate, Harper said.
The district attorney investigates all shootings involving police in the city. County officers were called because Jackson died on the Mt. Oliver side of the street.
Aulf, who was shot in the front legs and chest, was pronounced dead on arrival at a veterinary hospital.
Police dogs are protected under state law that makes it a felony to even taunt them.
"Preliminary indications are that the officer acted appropriately," said Harper, who spoke briefly to Donald Jackson near the shooting scene.
"I told him it was an unfortunate incident. Anytime a life is lost, it's unfortunate. I offered him the services of the department's chaplain," Harper said.
Roni Glass was walking along Arlington Avenue between Amanda Street and 18th Street at the time of the shooting. She knew Jackson, who worked for a Green Tree cleaning company.
"He shot the dog, and they shot him," said Glass, 15.
Bishop Otis L. Carswell, senior pastor of Potter's House Cathedral in Mt. Oliver, was driving on Arlington Avenue about the same time.
"We saw the officers. One officer was talking to the young man. The young man was casually sitting on the wall. The other officer who had a dog was standing about 10 feet away. The dog was barking and trying to get at the young man," Carswell said. "As we drove by, it looked like the cop who had the dog was going toward the young man with the dog.
"No more than 60 seconds later, we heard four or five shots, so we backed up. We saw the young man laying on the ground and the dog laying on the ground. Nobody paid any attention to the young man while we were there. (Police and paramedics) were working on the dog. They left the young man laying there.
"I'm very disturbed by this whole thing. I don't believe it had to happen that way. The cops just began clearing the scene, telling everybody to get away. Nobody asked if there were any witnesses. My wife had to alert the cop and tell him, 'You're running the witnesses away.'
"We want to extend our condolences to the young man's family. We're very hurt by this. We want to do everything we can in the community to curb the violence. I don't think it had to happen this way."
City police called for officers from the Port Authority of Allegheny County to help control the crowd and secure the scene. Officers patted down at least one young man overheard saying that he had a gun, but they found no weapon and did not detain him.
"I think people should be able to go to the bus stop without being shot," said Stephanie Bibey, 15, echoing a statement made by several bystanders.
Others saw the shooting as a tragic reminder of the general decline in the neighborhood.
"I think it's kinda scary. You can't come out at night. I think a lot of it is the drugs and guns and violence," Sue Carroll said.
"We gotta get out of here," agreed Lisa Fehr, who still lives a few blocks away on the South Side Slopes where she was raised. "As soon as my two daughters graduate (from high school). People are walking around with guns. We can't live here."
Michael Hasch can be reached at mhasch@tribweb.com or 412-320-7820.
Back to headlines
By Michael Hasch
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Buzz up!
Post to MySpace!
StumbleUpon Toolbar
A Knoxville man shot and killed a Pittsburgh police dog Tuesday before the canine's handler returned fire, killing the man in what city police Chief Nate Harper called "an unfortunate" but justifiable action.
The shooting outraged and angered the family of the 19-year-old man, Justin Jackson. He was pronounced dead by a passing paramedic almost immediately after the shooting that occurred at 6:53 p.m. in front of the UPMC facility on Arlington Avenue on the border of Knoxville and Mt. Oliver.
Harper said the dog's handler ordered the canine -- a 6-year-old German shepherd named Aulf -- to attack after Jackson pulled a gun from under his shirt. Both the officer, an eight-year-veteran Harper did not identify, and Jackson fired several shots, the chief said.
"They shot my son in the head. The officer told me, 'Our dog got shot so we shot him.' They killed my son over a dog," said Donald James Jackson of the West End.
story continues below
"My 19-year-old son is lying there dead, shot in the head, execution-style. My son's brains are laying on the street. This is crazy. I'm going to do whatever I have to do, file charges against the officers, for my son. It's terrible, the mentality they have," Jackson said as he tried to comfort his wife.
"We are not going to let them get away with this!" Anna Jackson screamed. "They will pay for killing my son. They are going to pay for shooting my son over a dog!"
Harper said the dog's handler 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. They stopped because they believed he was carrying a gun, the chief said.
"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."
The dog's handler was placed on paid administrative leave, which is normal procedure, while investigators from Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr.'s office and county police investigate, Harper said.
The district attorney investigates all shootings involving police in the city. County officers were called because Jackson died on the Mt. Oliver side of the street.
Aulf, who was shot in the front legs and chest, was pronounced dead on arrival at a veterinary hospital.
Police dogs are protected under state law that makes it a felony to even taunt them.
"Preliminary indications are that the officer acted appropriately," said Harper, who spoke briefly to Donald Jackson near the shooting scene.
"I told him it was an unfortunate incident. Anytime a life is lost, it's unfortunate. I offered him the services of the department's chaplain," Harper said.
Roni Glass was walking along Arlington Avenue between Amanda Street and 18th Street at the time of the shooting. She knew Jackson, who worked for a Green Tree cleaning company.
"He shot the dog, and they shot him," said Glass, 15.
Bishop Otis L. Carswell, senior pastor of Potter's House Cathedral in Mt. Oliver, was driving on Arlington Avenue about the same time.
"We saw the officers. One officer was talking to the young man. The young man was casually sitting on the wall. The other officer who had a dog was standing about 10 feet away. The dog was barking and trying to get at the young man," Carswell said. "As we drove by, it looked like the cop who had the dog was going toward the young man with the dog.
"No more than 60 seconds later, we heard four or five shots, so we backed up. We saw the young man laying on the ground and the dog laying on the ground. Nobody paid any attention to the young man while we were there. (Police and paramedics) were working on the dog. They left the young man laying there.
"I'm very disturbed by this whole thing. I don't believe it had to happen that way. The cops just began clearing the scene, telling everybody to get away. Nobody asked if there were any witnesses. My wife had to alert the cop and tell him, 'You're running the witnesses away.'
"We want to extend our condolences to the young man's family. We're very hurt by this. We want to do everything we can in the community to curb the violence. I don't think it had to happen this way."
City police called for officers from the Port Authority of Allegheny County to help control the crowd and secure the scene. Officers patted down at least one young man overheard saying that he had a gun, but they found no weapon and did not detain him.
"I think people should be able to go to the bus stop without being shot," said Stephanie Bibey, 15, echoing a statement made by several bystanders.
Others saw the shooting as a tragic reminder of the general decline in the neighborhood.
"I think it's kinda scary. You can't come out at night. I think a lot of it is the drugs and guns and violence," Sue Carroll said.
"We gotta get out of here," agreed Lisa Fehr, who still lives a few blocks away on the South Side Slopes where she was raised. "As soon as my two daughters graduate (from high school). People are walking around with guns. We can't live here."
Michael Hasch can be reached at mhasch@tribweb.com or 412-320-7820.
Back to headlines
Summary: Possible scumbag (innocent till proven guilty) shoots police dog. Cops kill the guy. I wonder if it would be legitimate for us to act accordingly, and should we? What do you think of the whole thing?
Lastly, I bolded part of the story. How can it be illegal to taunt an animal? A felony no less! Last I checked it was perfectly legal to give the police your middle finger, and hate them as much as you want. Why are dogs given such special protection?
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 08, 2008, 10:52:40 PM
Post by: SomeKid on May 08, 2008, 10:59:13 PM
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.
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 08, 2008, 11:12:02 PM
Hell it was already justified to shoot the guy as soon as the threat was there. Shouldn't have turned the dog on him first.
Post by: Regolith on May 08, 2008, 11:13:43 PM
Quote
"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."
"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."
Sounds like a good shoot to me.
Police order guy to ground, guy pulls out gun and starts shooting, guy gets shot. Fairly standard procedure.
Post by: SomeKid on May 08, 2008, 11:30:47 PM
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 08, 2008, 11:33:38 PM
The man pulled a gun prior to the dog being turned loose.
I have worked along side K-9 units and it is habit for a dog to be barking and pulling at a leash in a tense situation.
None of us were there and only have the news report to go on, but IMO it was a good shoot.
Post by: SomeKid on May 08, 2008, 11:36:41 PM
The man pulled a gun prior to the dog being turned loose.
I have worked along side K-9 units and it is habit for a dog to be barking and pulling at a leash in a tense situation.
None of us were there and only have the news report to go on, but IMO it was a good shoot.
I have worked along side K-9 units and it is habit for a dog to be barking and pulling at a leash in a tense situation.
None of us were there and only have the news report to go on, but IMO it was a good shoot.
I consider it a questionable shoot, based on the differing accounts. Maybe he was scum, maybe he wasn't. I don't know, I think it ought to be investigated the same way it would be if it involved us mortals. That said, we disagree, fine.
Care to respond to my first response to you (post 3)?
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 08, 2008, 11:41:13 PM
I would hope you would be smart enough to know what will rile up a dog.
Yes there are going to be differing accounts. But at the sametime how many people besides the officers in question would have been close enough to see the "victim" pull a gun first?
And where is it stated that it isn't going to be investigated? All police shootings are investigated more throughly than one that would involve us mortals.
Post by: LadySmith on May 09, 2008, 12:48:49 AM
Quote
I am curious as to what the reaction is from those of you who like animals more than people.
You rang? 
Just kidding. I like animals, but I like people, too. Well, some of them.
My reaction is that this is a good shoot.
The guy was being investigated by the police for gun possession.
He pulled out a gun in front of the investigating officers.
This could be seen as a threat.
Police dogs are trained to go after threats.
The guy shot the police dog.
The cops shot the armed and threatening person.
Quote
I wonder if it would be legitimate for us to act accordingly, and should we?
I think it depends on the circumstances.If your dog is out in the yard and some guy walks up to the fence or drives by and shoots it, you probably wouldnt be legally justified in chasing him down and killing him.
But lets say Im at home and my dog is my first line of defense. Some guy comes onto my property and shoots my dog. In this case, hes trespassing, plus hes demonstrated that hes armed and destructive. Hes a serious threat and will be handled accordingly.
Im not sure where the law would come down in that scenario.
Quote
So taunting them should be a felony? And define "taunt". Calling names? Muttering obscenities? Making faces?
Ive read of instances where people were charged for making faces and pointing their fingers at police dogs.According to the article, thats the states law.
Its no longer a matter of should it be a felony. It is.
I wonder how many people were stupid enough to taunt police dogs before they made it a felony to do so?
Police dogs are tools and weapons in the line of service, just like squad cars and firearms.
They shouldnt be messed with.
Post by: 280plus on May 09, 2008, 01:27:51 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 09, 2008, 02:10:45 AM
Quote
They didn't shoot him becasue he shot the dog, they shot him to protect their own lives.
Yeah, that kind of jumped out at me, too. Stupid, whiny people...
Of course, there is also the conflicting account given by the pastor at the end of the article. Read the whole thing before your next response.
Nothing he says conflicts with the police version of the shooting itself. They may take issue with his assertion that the paramedics let the guy die while they worked to save the dog. I hope that is not the case.
Post by: K Frame on May 09, 2008, 02:46:21 AM
Your mother was a bitch.
As for whether it would be legal for us to respond in the same way...
Couple of different points.
1. The guy has already fired shots. Given that he's just shot my dog, I'm NOT going to wait to see if he turns the gun on me before I return fire.
2. In many states, it is perfectly legal to use deadly force to protect personal property from damage. My dog is worth somewhere between $2,500 and $5,000 on the open market. Yes, I'm going to use deadly force to protect him.
Oh, and point three...
Regardless of points 1 and 2 above, my dog is far better and more worthy of life than anyone here, myself included.
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on May 09, 2008, 03:09:20 AM
Quote
They didn't shoot him becasue he shot the dog, they shot him to protect their own lives.
Yeah, that kind of jumped out at me, too. Stupid, whiny people...
Of course, there is also the conflicting account given by the pastor at the end of the article. Read the whole thing before your next response.
Nothing he says conflicts with the police version of the shooting itself. They may take issue with his assertion that the paramedics let the guy die while they worked to save the dog. I hope that is not the case.
Actually, being an EMT, I'd like to respond to the "let the guy die while they worked on the dog" assertion.
A) We're not vets. We don't work on animals. So even if they were clustered around the dog, I highly doubt that they were "trying to save the dog." That being said ,they may have been trying to save the dog. Not being there, I can't truly speculate.
B) The shooter was clearly and obviously dead. When we see gray matter, that is a clear indication of death to us. In our system in Oregon, we don't try to resuscitate trauma-induced cardiac arrests. One of the guidelines we have is that if there is gray matter outside the skull, they're permanently dead, and nothing we can do is gonna save them. As is indicated by this line in the story:
Quote
He was pronounced dead by a passing paramedic almost immediately after the shooting
I'm also really bothered by this line in the story:
Quote
My 19-year-old son is lying there dead, shot in the head, execution-style.
So apparently the father witnessed the officer force his son to his knees, put a gun to his head, and cold-bloodedly pull the trigger. RIIIIGHT
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 09, 2008, 03:27:20 AM
hard to decide which is more ludicrous pulling a gun while being confronted by 2 cops and a dog ot trying to defend someone who did. wheres darwin when you need him.wheere i live the young man would face the same charges as if he had killed a human cop. hows it work in your alternate reallity?
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on May 09, 2008, 03:46:16 AM
The guy has already fired shots. Given that he's just shot my dog, I'm NOT going to wait to see if he turns the gun on me before I return fire.
Forget the fact that I like animlas much, much more than people. Forget the fact that my Border Collie is the best animal to ever grace this earth.
Mike's one line sums it all up.
I'm not even sure why there is a question?
Post by: Manedwolf on May 09, 2008, 03:51:00 AM
"define taunt"
Your mother was a bitch.
As for whether it would be legal for us to respond in the same way...
Couple of different points.
1. The guy has already fired shots. Given that he's just shot my dog, I'm NOT going to wait to see if he turns the gun on me before I return fire.
2. In many states, it is perfectly legal to use deadly force to protect personal property from damage. My dog is worth somewhere between $2,500 and $5,000 on the open market. Yes, I'm going to use deadly force to protect him.
Oh, and point three...
Regardless of points 1 and 2 above, my dog is far better and more worthy of life than anyone here, myself included.
Your mother was a bitch.
As for whether it would be legal for us to respond in the same way...
Couple of different points.
1. The guy has already fired shots. Given that he's just shot my dog, I'm NOT going to wait to see if he turns the gun on me before I return fire.
2. In many states, it is perfectly legal to use deadly force to protect personal property from damage. My dog is worth somewhere between $2,500 and $5,000 on the open market. Yes, I'm going to use deadly force to protect him.
Oh, and point three...
Regardless of points 1 and 2 above, my dog is far better and more worthy of life than anyone here, myself included.
Add to that that a police K-9 is considered an officer by both tradition and procedure. Ask any cop. Especially a K-9 partner whose life has been saved by the dog, which happens quite often.
Good shoot.
Quote
"We are not going to let them get away with this!" Anna Jackson screamed. "They will pay for killing my son. They are going to pay for shooting my son over a dog!"
Her son was street trash who was already breaking the law by having and carrying a concealed weapon at 19, and would have killed innocent people sooner or later. She should deal with it, and face the fact that she was probably a lousy parent.
Post by: HankB on May 09, 2008, 03:58:18 AM
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:
Quote
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 09, 2008, 04:02:16 AM
This police dog was charging for reason.
Post by: cordex on May 09, 2008, 04:04:07 AM
I'm definitely no police apologist, an I certainly don't have Mike's view of the relative worth of people to animals (in all cases, anyway), but I'm not seeing any big problem here. Perp drew down on a police unit, police unit responded appropriately. If anything, I'm thankful that the only innocent victim here was a dog. Could have gone down a lot worse.
On the other hand, I've never felt particularly comfortable with the idea that in many jurisdictions, killing a police dog is tantamount to killing a human police officer. Laws against taunting police dogs are likewise a little silly. I think such a law should say only: "If you taunt a police dog and it gnaws your face off, you probably shouldn't have taunted it." No need for a felony. However, in this particular case, the police officer would have been justified in shooting even if the perp had been firing into the dirt in front of them - whether there was a police dog there or not.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 09, 2008, 04:05:00 AM
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.
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.
If you shoot a police dog, you deserve to be shot, IMO.
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 09, 2008, 04:08:18 AM
If so I am quite aware of the training that police dogs receive.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 09, 2008, 04:11:45 AM
Maned was that directed at me?
If so I am quite aware of the training that police dogs receive.
If so I am quite aware of the training that police dogs receive.
No, not at you, at HankB, who said he'd shoot a known police dog coming towards him.
I knew YOU knew about K-9's.
I think a lot of people think that police dogs are just mad dogs unleashed on suspects, instead of highly trained animals who are trained to take down and restrain suspects with their jaws, not ravage them. Most of the time, if a suspect gets a cut, it's because they were struggling and literally cut themselves by dragging their arm against the dog's teeth.
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 09, 2008, 04:14:04 AM
Pulling a weapon would be a good one.
Post by: xavier fremboe on May 09, 2008, 04:29:00 AM
Post by: 280plus on May 09, 2008, 04:35:44 AM
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.
Post by: Brad Johnson on May 09, 2008, 04:38:10 AM
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
Post by: Hawkmoon on May 09, 2008, 05:18:44 AM
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.
Post by: Ezekiel on May 09, 2008, 05:41:48 AM
The dog is ancillary to the result.
Post by: K Frame on May 09, 2008, 05:57:17 AM
Not just by tradition and procedure, but by codified law in many states, as well.
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on May 09, 2008, 05:59:01 AM
Post by: Tallpine on May 09, 2008, 06:07:43 AM
I agree with LadySmith's analysis.
Post by: gunsmith on May 09, 2008, 06:32:57 AM
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.
Post by: Jamisjockey on May 09, 2008, 07:10:12 AM
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.
Post by: HankB on May 09, 2008, 07:16:41 AM
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=RSSThey 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.
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.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 09, 2008, 08:33:03 AM
Post by: Jamisjockey on May 09, 2008, 08:51:53 AM
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:
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:
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.
Post by: HankB on May 09, 2008, 09:21:10 AM
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.
Post by: tincat2 on May 09, 2008, 09:22:46 AM
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.
Post by: Jamisjockey on May 09, 2008, 09:23:17 AM
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 09, 2008, 12:08:35 PM
Quote
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.
Quote
Releasing the dog was actually a "less lethal" response than just opening fire.
Yup.
Post by: SomeKid on May 09, 2008, 12:12:50 PM
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 09, 2008, 12:15:11 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 09, 2008, 12:20:39 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: ilbob on May 09, 2008, 12:32:22 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on May 09, 2008, 12:41:02 PM
Quote
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.
Quote
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
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 09, 2008, 01:42:14 PM
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?
Post by: SomeKid on May 09, 2008, 01:53:09 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 09, 2008, 01:53:41 PM
Post by: Ezekiel on May 09, 2008, 01:55:38 PM
Doesn't matter if I am a cop, or not.
Hell yes, I would have taken the guy down.
Post by: 280plus on May 09, 2008, 02:06:05 PM
Quote
The gun Jackson was carrying had been reported stolen in a 2006 burglary in Elliott, the chief said.
I thought this could use some emphasis. It's not like we lost a model citizen here. I know I don't miss him.
Post by: SomeKid on May 09, 2008, 02:14:41 PM
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/007/chapter21/s21.4.html
Quote
(iv) Taunting law enforcement dogs. Consistent with section 602(a) of the act (3 P. S. § 459-602(a)), it is unlawful for a person to willfully and maliciously taunt, torment, tease, beat, kick or strike any dog, including a search and rescue or accelerant detection dog, used by any municipal, county or State police or sheriffs department or agency, fire department or agency or handler under the supervision of the department or agency, in the performance of the functions or duties of the department or agency or to commit any of the stated acts in the course of interfering with a dog used by the department or agency or any member or supervised handler thereof in the performance of the functions or duties of the department or agency or the officer or member or supervised handler. A person convicted of violating any of the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree.
For once the media told the truth. It is a felony. Taunting an animal is a felony. Doesn't that sound a bit absurd to anyone else?
Post by: 280plus on May 09, 2008, 02:22:52 PM
Post by: SomeKid on May 09, 2008, 02:24:45 PM
In my state a K9 is considered to be just as much an LEO as it's human counterparts. Making it a felony to taunt or otherwise harm them is a deterrent that will keep most honest people honest. I think that's the idea. Most peeps would be less apt to eff with the dog if they know they face a felony charge for doing so.
But is it right to make nonviolent acts like taunting or teasing a FELONY?
Post by: xavier fremboe on May 09, 2008, 03:52:56 PM
In my state a K9 is considered to be just as much an LEO as it's human counterparts. Making it a felony to taunt or otherwise harm them is a deterrent that will keep most honest people honest. I think that's the idea. Most peeps would be less apt to eff with the dog if they know they face a felony charge for doing so.
But is it right to make nonviolent acts like taunting or teasing a FELONY?
Hmmm. Well, in this case having it as a felony statute didn't do any good, but if the deterrent effect keeps some other rocket surgeon from getting himself shot, perhaps it does some good.
Assuming it's 'good' to keep people stupid enough to draw on uniformed police alive... I'm sure that the officers would have preferred the encounter ended with no deaths.
Post by: taurusowner on May 09, 2008, 03:56:02 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 09, 2008, 05:21:02 PM
I honestly don't think that "tease police dog = felony" is meant to bust kids calling a dog names, but rather to safeguard both dog and citizen. Some seem to think it's funny to come just shy of abusive behavior with an animal: when the animal reacts badly to this (by attacking to defend itself from a perceived threat), the citizen gets hurt and the dog (often) gets put down. By making it a felony to engage in this behavior with a police dog, the state protects it's interest (costs a fair amount to train and keep a police dog), and protactes it's citizens ("Dude... doing that's like a felony! Leave the dog alone!").
Any other games you'd like to play?
Post by: SomeKid on May 09, 2008, 05:24:22 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 09, 2008, 05:40:15 PM
There are lots of laws on the books that have no other purpose than protecting governmental interests. In this case, there are MANY interests that are being protected: the government's investment, the emotional investment of the dog's handler, the safety of the public...
Which of those do you think should be thrown under the bus?
Post by: Josh Aston on May 09, 2008, 05:50:32 PM
Strings, so protecting a government investment is an acceptable reason to strip people of their rights to you?
Consider it protecting your tax dollars. The dogs aren't cheap to begin with and their training certainly isn't either.
If it was me though I wouldn't make it a felony, I'd just write a law saying that if you taunt the police dog you are responsible for whatever happens to you. You get chewed up, you don't get to sue.
Those dogs are already wound up way too tight, provoking them is not a smart thing to do. They will attack you if they think you're making a threatening gesture toward their handler, so keep your distance when talking to a K-9 handler, even if he does have the dog on leash.
Post by: SomeKid on May 09, 2008, 05:55:44 PM
When it's combined with protecting them from their own stupidity? To my eyes, yes.
There are lots of laws on the books that have no other purpose than protecting governmental interests. In this case, there are MANY interests that are being protected: the government's investment, the emotional investment of the dog's handler, the safety of the public...
Which of those do you think should be thrown under the bus?
There are lots of laws on the books that have no other purpose than protecting governmental interests. In this case, there are MANY interests that are being protected: the government's investment, the emotional investment of the dog's handler, the safety of the public...
Which of those do you think should be thrown under the bus?
So, it is acceptable to pass laws, for your own good. Is that a good summary of what you are saying?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 09, 2008, 06:04:16 PM
Post by: Hawkmoon on May 09, 2008, 06:15:50 PM
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.
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.
"Kill someone who killed our dog"?
Even setting aside for the moment the minor factoid that the two homo sapiens present were both police officers approaching a suspect ... even setting that aside, if the guy who "just killed my dog" is standing there with a smoking and presumed loaded gun pointed in my direction, you'd better believe I'm going to draw and open fire. Whether or not I "kill" him will be a function of how well I hit what I'm aiming at, but you can pretty well figure I'm going to be aiming for center of mass, possibly followed by a head shot (Mozambique drill).
Post by: Hawkmoon on May 09, 2008, 06:18:39 PM
Strings, so protecting a government investment is an acceptable reason to strip people of their rights to you?
Please point me to the clause in the U.S. or any state's Constitution guaranteeing any citizen a "right" to taunt a plice dog ...
Post by: SomeKid on May 09, 2008, 06:42:06 PM
Strings, so protecting a government investment is an acceptable reason to strip people of their rights to you?
Please point me to the clause in the U.S. or any state's Constitution guaranteeing any citizen a "right" to taunt a plice dog ...
Please point to me the clause that allows the government to regulate facial expressions. In case you forgot, the constitution limits the government, it is not supposed to merely allow us certain things.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 09, 2008, 07:10:08 PM
Post by: SomeKid on May 09, 2008, 08:05:49 PM
was there some federal law i missed? and did they overlook the section about all powers not enumerated here go to the states? been a while since i studied the constitution they still teach it?
Or to the people. Do try to quote the entirety of the 10th next time, won't you?
That said, since you think the states have the power to do it, do you think it is right that it is a felony to taunt or tease a certain animal?
Post by: K Frame on May 09, 2008, 08:18:12 PM
Strings, so protecting a government investment is an acceptable reason to strip people of their rights to you?
OK, that's more than just a little hyperbolistic.
What "right" is being stripped?
Your "right" to be a complete and total pratt to an animal?
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 09, 2008, 08:21:58 PM
But to answer your question SomeKid in this instance to tease a Police Dog or others in that catagory to be a felony I agree with.
The animals are not to be F***ed with and to tease them could get you hurt. Sort of along the lines of assault on a Police Officer. That will get you hurt and felony charges also.
Post by: SomeKid on May 09, 2008, 08:23:30 PM
Strings, so protecting a government investment is an acceptable reason to strip people of their rights to you?
OK, that's more than just a little hyperbolistic.
What "right" is being stripped?
Your "right" to be a complete and total pratt to an animal?
Peaceful assembly, just to grab an easy one. If you aren't attacking the dog, and are only making faces, it is peaceful.
wm, assault and teasing are two very different things. Do you think they deserve the same punishment?
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 09, 2008, 08:27:44 PM
Post by: K Frame on May 09, 2008, 08:28:34 PM
Post by: SomeKid on May 09, 2008, 08:32:24 PM
At the point you being trying to intimidate or threaten another individual or entity by taunting them in a manner designed only to elicit a negative response, you can no longer claim "peaceful assembly."
I think that is a stretch, simply being offensive does not constitute assault, at least not here, but so be it. What of free expression (or whatever excuse artists have used even when creating filth that offends half the country)?
Post by: K Frame on May 09, 2008, 08:41:25 PM
The law isn't in place to protect idiot humans, it's in place to protect the dog, it's handlers, and the police against idiot humans who are compelled to act like idiots and get themselves into a situation that won't end well for them. Normally with such idiot humans the first response after they've discovered the error of their ways is to sue.
However, to put this to a test, I would be more than happy to allow you to taunt my dog to see just how far you can exercise your "rights" before he turns your face into tomorrow's pile of feces.
On the other hand, I'm getting really tired of these types of "arguments."
Don't like the law? Stop being a whiny little punk and being a crusade to change it to your liking.
When you have succeeded, come back and we can revisit this discussion.