GSD shot, officer went to wrong home

[Draugr]

Originally Posted by wildo

Jax08- depends on the state. In Indiana, there is a castle law which means you have the right to use lethal force to protect you and yours. However, I did hear that a law was recently passed allowing police officers to enter your home without cause in Indiana. I'm not sure if that's true or not, but that's what I was told.

EDIT-

• Castle Law in Indiana
• Police may UNLAWFULLY enter...

From what I read of that situation, that's how it's always been - it was just codified to say that you can't assault police if they unlawfully break into your home - that needs to be hashed out in the courts, later. You won't be justified for fighting police due to an unlawful break-in. It wasn't so much a law being passed as it was the courts saying "okay, this is what you can and can't do when a cop comes into your home." Which, given our hybridized common law system - is basically the same as passing a law, but, still.

So, police are still not allowed to unlawfully enter your home. You are just not allowed to violently resist if they do. The courts take care of that, later.

That may have been another case I was reading about, but I think that was the Indiana situation, IIRC.

Originally Posted by Seer

The sadist part of this story is that Mr Currie would have lost even more had he done the right thing and returned fire on this oh so brave officer.... Your at the wrong house you are murdering someones chained pet... The officer will receive a slap on the rest because its policy to open fire with the most minuscule amount of justification and kill everyones pet here on this forum and every other. Thats wrong. Period

How on earth is this the right thing??? Why would you even say that???

Killing a human being won't bring back the poor dog. And you won't ever be owning another one any time soon, either, unless your prison has a fostering system in place.

Might does not make right, and revenge is not the answer. Violence is necessary only when protecting life/limb...vigilante justice is never the answer.

~

Bottom line is...police forces across the country really need to have mandatory training on how to handle dog-related situations. Reading canine body language, etc, things like that. There are what - 80 million owned dogs in this country? Something like that? I can't remember the ASPCA's most recent statistic on that. That's one dog for every 4 people (slightly less than 4, I rounded up).

[Seer]

I and you and everyone else has the right not be killed in error and or on purpose in error. If Im in your house in error and firing weapons at you and yours, in error, and you get the drop on me to protect yourself, I would haunt from the grave anyone that tried to vilify you. You had the right to stop me from hurting you and yours, I was in error.... Simple as that.


RE: Might does not make right, and revenge is not the answer. Violence is necessary only when protecting life/limb...vigilante justice is never the answer.

Adorable and right on with my views but not even close to what my point was. Only the middle sentance applies.
~

[Seer]

Correction take the only out. Seems fair that if your in my house trying to steal my TV that the right to break a couple bones as your escorted to the curb seems to be a fair trade, but that me be just me...

[GregK]

Originally Posted by Seer

Correction take the only out. Seems fair that if your in my house trying to steal my TV that the right to break a couple bones as your escorted to the curb seems to be a fair trade,

Right! Both hands.

[hobbsie711]

Originally Posted by Draugr

Bottom line is...police forces across the country really need to have mandatory training on how to handle dog-related situations. Reading canine body language, etc, things like that. There are what - 80 million owned dogs in this country? Something like that? I can't remember the ASPCA's most recent statistic on that. That's one dog for every 4 people (slightly less than 4, I rounded up).

Here is the problem. I have owned dogs all my life. I understand the body language. In a dark garage on a hot call when you suddenly hear barking and realize that your in the same space with a dog who may be angry, vicious, diseased and perfectly capable of inflicting serious injury. You have a few seconds to identify A. Where is the dog and B. Is it a threat. All the while having to make sure Mr Bad Guy isn't sneaking up on you. I would have been well within my rights to kill many dogs that I have not. Including one that was chained in a back yard (I was in a foot chase with a guy who had jumped out of a car I pulled over). Would the department have bought somebody a new dog? Probably. Would I have been punished? I sure hope not I was doing my job at the end of the day it's a crappy outcome but my well being comes before the welfare of that dog. I would have felt horrible about it down the road.

A little perspective to explain why it seems we're quick on the trigger. If a human has a knife and is 21 feet away. The average human can close the distance on a person with a holstered gun and stab them before the other person can draw and fire their gun. Google the Tueller Drill. Now think about a dog instead of a human. It's safe to say the majority of dogs that would cause you to fear for your safety are faster than humans on their feet.

Remember it's easy to sit here with 20/20 hind sight and judge what happened. I love my job and look forward to work most days but I spend the bulk of my time on a call making sure I don't get killed or maimed.

This guy will probably catch some discipline if it was his fault for being in the wrong house (see my previous post for why it might not be his fault). The department will likely get the family a new dog or the money for one and I'm sure the officer will likely give the family an apology. I go back to however we don't know enough about this situation to make an informed call.

[juliejujubean]

what a terrible mix up.. my heart goes out to the family

[Gwenhwyfair]

There are two problems with line of thought below...

One the presumption that people are blaming the LEO profession, entirely.

Two the presumption that there is NOT some type of systemic problem (at least with some depts) wrt how officers handle dogs.

A good LEO friend of mind told me his job would go from many hours of pure boredom to pure adrenaline in a matter of seconds. That's hard, not knowing what you will be facing from one second to the next, no doubt. I don't think anyone in their correct mind would presume that being a LEO is an easy job.

I also have a client who is a recently retired LEO and a dog lover. We chatted about this issues a year or so ago and he himself told me there are ways to handle situations with dogs that some officers just don't want to be bothered with. So that reality does exist.

In other words there maybe ways to help prevent situations like this by using less lethal methods (such as a taser) and as such the discussion shouldn't be dismissed as some kind ad hominem attack on the LE.

(I'm not even going to touch a third aspect which alludes to something that treads to closely to pure politics for this forum IMO).

Originally Posted by Seer

Our brains align with that.. And its probably a good thing your brain does not relate to most in this world right now.. look around. Right

Originally Posted by idahospud49
Punish the individual, not the profession (or whatever) as a whole. Does that make sense? Makes sense in my head, but I have come to realize my brain doesn't relate to everyone else the same!

[wildo]

I was wondering why the officer didn't pull his taser over his gun. I wonder if that's a regional practice or something?

[Seer]

[QUOTE=Gwenhwyfair;2374102]There are two problems with line of thought below...

Two the presumption that there is NOT some type of systemic problem (at least with some depts) wrt how officers handle dogs.

Im not sure if you read the entire thread here. So to be clear once again let me state for may be my third or fourth time.

The Problem Here Is Bad Policy. I think its clear from my posts on this topic that I believe there is a prolific problem meaning most depts, not just some, indicating a few.

In most homes, Im willing to bet for most readers of this forum, shooting one our pets is very close to pointing your weapon at one of our teenagers and pulling that trigger. This is the point I wish to make to the boots on the ground. The ones that can have an immediate effect to bad policy.

@hobbsie711

nervous to throw this out... because it looks like you get it, but the Tueller Drill the 21 yard rule, I don't believe is the right headset. If I have a knife as a human and Im moving towards you as an officer sure as **** its my intent to to end your life. If your not chambered theres a good chance Im wining that fight.

If you are poising this to illustrate the distraction that may get an officer killed from his/her attention being moved to a scuffle with a dog rather then the threat ...then, right this may be in my mind.

"it's a crappy outcome but my well being comes before the welfare of that dog"

This statement is a toughie for me. For me it brings up the double standard that you LEO and me non LEO have to live with. If I put a dog down by firearm and you answer that call, and I tell you the dog barked and growled at me then lunged so I drew my weapon and shot it in the head.

Im pretty sure we are not filing an incident report, shaking hands and Im on my way. Not to mince words but well being and life threating are very different and especially in the use of deadly force.

Again thanks for what you do. Thanks for the insight. End to hobbsie711


To be clear again.. If in the coarse of doing what you have to do... LEO's have to put something that has a mother, down, f'n tragic as it may be, if its mine, I have to try and forgive you. If you screw the pooch and blow the call and make the wrong one in the coarse of a high stress sit.... again, i have to try to forgive you.

The policy that my pets life are of no value or little value and should be shot for convenience and move on, this to me is not forgivable and must be corrected. This is the pervasive policy as I see it right now.

[hobbsie711]

Originally Posted by wildo

I was wondering why the officer didn't pull his taser over his gun. I wonder if that's a regional practice or something?

Taser is a one pop shot. You fire and many times you don't have a second cartridge on you to try for a second shot. Not to mention even if you do have a reload it takes several seconds to reload. Additionally hitting a small (smaller than a human anyway) moving target with both prongs (only works if you hit with both) on a downward shot is extremely difficult. Essentially it's the same reason I don't taze a guy who is advancing on me with a knife. If I miss I get stabbed. If I miss I get bit and then I have to shoot the dog anyway and the dog is able to continue to attack until I can get my gun out. Bare in mind all of these option need to be weight, an option selected, and action taken inside of a couple of seconds. Everyone here has days to think of alternatives.

The department this officer works for may not issue tasers or may just not give them to all officers. Perhaps his was out for repair. An X-26 runs about $1000 last I checked

Originally Posted by Seer

@hobbsie711

nervous to throw this out... because it looks like you get it, but the Tueller Drill the 21 yard rule, I don't believe is the right headset. If I have a knife as a human and Im moving towards you as an officer sure as **** its my intent to to end your life. If your not chambered theres a good chance Im wining that fight.

If you are poising this to illustrate the distraction that may get an officer killed from his/her attention being moved to a scuffle with a dog rather then the threat ...then, right this may be in my mind.

"it's a crappy outcome but my well being comes before the welfare of that dog"

This statement is a toughie for me. For me it brings up the double standard that you LEO and me non LEO have to live with. If I put a dog down by firearm and you answer that call, and I tell you the dog barked and growled at me then lunged so I drew my weapon and shot it in the head.

Im pretty sure we are not filing an incident report, shaking hands and Im on my way. Not to mince words but well being and life threating are very different and especially in the use of deadly force.

Again thanks for what you do. Thanks for the insight. End to hobbsie711

The policy that my pets life are of no value or little value and should be shot for convenience and move on, this to me is not forgivable and must be corrected. This is the pervasive policy as I see it right now.

My gun is always chambered on duty the situation addresses a holstered gun. As for how I'm posing the situation, I'm posing it as if the dog gets to me before I kill it, it's possibly going to inflict great bodily injury upon me.

You are right if I respond to a scene where you have shot a dog in what you say is self defense I will take a report and then conduct an investigation if during the course of the investigation I determine that your use of force was not justified you may be charged with discharging a firearm in city limits and cruelty to animals. In this case the officer was in the wrong house (we still don't know why) and shot a dog presumably because he felt threatened by it. In my department if this happens I'm sitting in internal affairs inside of the next couple of hours being interviewed by a detective.

When I referred to my well being before I was implying the possibility of me being bitten the dog and being injured.

As for your pets not having any value. This is a broad statement and you are painting the LE community with a broad brush. Are there cops that would just assume shoot a dog as find an alternate means? Yep. Are all or the majority of cops like this? Not the ones I know.

I don't agree that a dog is just property. Unfortunately in the eyes of the law in most places this is the case.