Police Officer Kills K-9 Partner

[W.Oliver]

With this news story, I may have now heard it all.....

Witness Testifies Officer 'Hated' Police Dog - Miami News Story - WPLG Miami

Seems hard to believe, but its on the internet so it must be true, right??

[Dainerra]

well, that's the purpose of the trial, to find out if it's true or not.

I do find it believable, though. I know a guy who beat his K9, breaking a couple of ribs, for chasing/killing chickens. He was demoted from K9 officer, but he is possibly going to be re-instated. The dog is still on duty, but has serious human aggression issues. Esp towards his handler.

[Lucy Dog]

If the guy hated his dog so much and was so uncontrollable, why did he continue to work with him? Doesn't really make sense, but these kind of stories never do.

[ChristenHolden]

Sick Just Sick. This is supposed to be the people that protect us

[arycrest]

This was on our news the other day - that so called officer is one sick puppy!

[Rerun]

Did anyone even read the article? You are assuming the officer did what was stated out of malice or ill handling and that it caused the death of the dog. Both points are being disputed and thus the trial.

The officer did not say he hated the dog, someone else stated that he did. It's interesting that one is automatically given the presumption of truth and fact, while the other who has years of experience, training, and a good solid reputation as a K-9 handler is given the presumption of guilt, based on one persons testimony who may or may not have any experience in dog handling at all, much less handling a malinois with high drive that may or may not have been coming up leash on its handler. 200 stitches to his face the last time a dog come up leash on him, according to the article. Let a dog do that to you and see how you react the next time it happens. That is assuming that the information presented in the article is "the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth," which of course, it never is. It's always slanted, and usually slanted in the way the public prefers to see.

[dOg]

Stuff happens. We weren't there, don't know what he's done since, how he feels about now, 4 years later... there is way more not said in this report than what is,
and it's not fair reporting, it's sensationalism.
That he may face 6 years is prison seems absurd to me. Perps murder people in cold blood and get lighter sentences. This guy was a 25 yr veteran with no issues 4 years ago, so he's likely going to retire soon, but you have to go past this last post to know that. We should not judge what we know next to nothing about.

[Dainerra]

I don't know if he did it purposefully because he "hated" the dog. If he was frustrated and lashed out at the dog. Or if he felt the need to defend himself from the dog and the death was an accident.

However, if he felt that the dog was too strong-willed or was afraid of the dog coming after him, then he shouldn't have been working with the dog.

The idea that a K9 officer would beat their dog into submission is believable, though.

[Jessiewessie99]

No one should beat their dog ever. Thats just wrong and just shows how much respect some has for a life.

[W.Oliver]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Did anyone even read the article? You are assuming the officer did what was stated out of malice or ill handling and that it caused the death of the dog.

Originally Posted by W.Oliver

Seems hard to believe, but its on the internet so it must be true, right??

Yes, I read the article and not only questioned the believability, but seasoned it with some sarcasm regarding the quality of information on the internet.

An aspect of this circumstance that I have often pondered without specific regard to this incident is the handler/dog relationship. In a broader context, the bond....puppy vs. older dog with a handler or owner.

Governmental organizations and some competitive sport folks have a common attribute in the working of subadult dogs rather than raising a puppy. I fully understand why, in that time is money, and puppies offer too many unanswered questions. Subadult dogs identified as appropriate for the work eliminate the risk of investing time on a pup that may not be of correct temperament/nerve. However, I question the depth, quality or strength of the bond between dog & handler in starting with a subadult? It may be my misconception, but I believe I can cultivate a richer bond by raising a puppy.....asuming the risk of ending-up with a less than ideal dog for the work.

The fact that the handler in question has had 200 stitches from a previous incident lends a case in point that supports the notion.....and lets spice the pot with the additional notion of handler, and what that is not, a trainer. I am of the view that there is a difference between handlers, and trainers.

Thoughts?