Re: Officer kills dog after going to the wrong address
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: daybreak1199</div><div class="ubbcode-body">First thing I notice is the officer has tunnel vision and is complacent in his situational awareness. He pulls up directly in front of the address he is responding too, he get directly out of his car, no taking up a tactical position to listen – this is supposed to be a domestic call, stop for 10 seconds and listen, see what you can hear, prepare yourself for what awaits on the other side of the door. Do we respond to a domestic call without a backup? That depends, exigent circumstances, resources available to the officer on that department for that shift, but it is apparent through the video that backup was only a few seconds away. Would backup have prevented the dog from attacking? Hard to say, but having more than one person is just good common sense. I really get sick of hearing other officer talk about how they don’t get paid enough to get chewed on or spit at or hit, kicked, shot, shot at, pissed on, shit on, and the list goes on and on. I could understand this comment from a new officer, after a few years you are doing the job because it is a calling, it is a lifestyle. Law Enforcement should not be perceived as give and take career, it is a give only career. You are constantly giving more than you could ever be compensated for. This should not carry over into how you do your job. You should know that as a Police Officer you may be bitten by a dog while carrying out your duties, either figure out ways to deal with circumstances like this or turn in your badge and take up a desk job. (This goes back to having your backup Officer next to you, he or you could have used the other resources on your batman belt, ie tazer, peperspray, baton…all the while you wouldn’t worry about the threat of the human due to having a SECOND person there covering off on the human threat.) In my opinion if someone makes the argument that they need the same safe and respectable work environment as any other career then you really need to take a long hard look at what you expect from the job of a public servant sworn to protect the liberties, rights, and safety of the public. I served in the Marine Corps and the Army, If I heard or ever uttered bs about not getting paid enough to get shot at then I would rather quickly be told to GTFO and find a different MOS that would support the working environment I required to maintain a safe and comfortable existence. Just my .2 </div></div>
First of all dude, learn how to write in paragraphs, it will make it easier to read your dribble. Second of all, you're Goddamned right, I don't get paid to get bit by a fucking dog or spit on by some mope carrying who knows what disease. Sorry, but it's not in the job description. You can NEVER pay me enough and you can rest assured that I will and have taken whatever measures to prevent myself or my team from getting bitten. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just foolish beyond repair.
<span style="color: #FF0000">This makes me imagine a janitor bitching about not being paid enough to clean up puke in the hallway- yeah, maybe you don't get paid enough for it, but it comes with the job... and if you don't like it, you should likely find a different profession where those hazards do not come with the territory.</span>
Then again, this is coming from a guy who thinks that someone can have tunnel vision while being complacent at the same time. Doesn't one negate the other? Are you a cop? News to you, this IS A JOB. A "lifestyle", a "calling"? What fucking fairytale bubble are you living in? It's a job, a way to earn a living. It doesn't define who I am. There IS life outside the job.
<span style="color: #FF0000">
In addition, I think it could be argued that tunnel vision IS complacency in a round about way. Yes, you are focused on one thing... but you are focused on that ONE thing to the detriment of EVERYTHING else. In other words, you are allowing yourself to be complacent in everything except for that one item you are focused on... thus tunnel vision.</span>
Hopefully you're not one of these guys that eats, shits, breathes and sleeps with the shield, cause if you are, you're in for a long twenty.
As far as the officer in the video goes, I'm sure most of you will be glad to know that he's been pulled from street duty. Wonder if the dispatcher/call taker got the same treatment. This doesn't rest squarely on his shoulders. He had a duty to respond and he went where he was dispatched to. None of us have the particulars of the job he was sent on other than "domestic" so its hard to judge him on his level of response. As tragic as this is and being the owner of two dogs, Cisco's owner shares blame in this as well. Had he had control over his animal, this may have been averted.
<span style="color: #FF0000">The fact that the officer went to the wrong address would appear to not be his fault, or the fault of the dispatcher as the reports say the call in gave the wrong address. There is NO fault on the home owner; there is ZERO requirement that a dog be on leash on private property. The audio tape CLEARLY shows the officer gave the man no time at all to take control of his dog. Don't try to lay this on the guy who is being held at gun point for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON and is given about 1.5 seconds to get ahold of his dog.</span>
Not that any reasonable or relevant points here matter. The Hide jury has already reached it's verdict. </div></div>
Let me make some points of my own now after replying to some of yours.
The officer did not take time to build his situational awareness. Back-up was less than a minute away it would appear. If officer safety is important (and I believe it is), you shouldn't rush into something head first with no idea what you're rushing into. ALL of this could have been avoided with just a few seconds of observation and listening and a less hostile approach. Being a cop isn't about violence of action; the dog responded the way he did because of the actions of the cop... period.
After putting their attention back to the original call, the officers walked to the house fairly casually- no weapons drawn... There are two explanations to this- #1, the initial response of the one officer was far too heavy handed or head strong. #2, Upon moving attention back to the original call, the officers were by far too complacent in their approach. You simply cannot justify both.
As someone else said, back-up was right behind him... We can assume from the response of two patrol units with one officer each, no medical units... the call was not one in which there was a reasonable belief that someone's life is in danger or that there has been a felony crime committed. What does that mean? That means there is not the level of urgency requiring an officer to not be able to await one minute for his back-up. Had his back-up been there, it allows one person to deal with the dog and the other to keep watching the owner. Pepper spray usually does WONDERS on animals who are attacking... and it's very debatable that the dog was attacking anyway.
At the end of the day, one can say this is monday morning QB all they want, but that is exactly how abuses of power are prevented; unchecked power will always grow. It is judgement of an officers actions after an incident that keeps order. Everyone understand mistakes are made, but what some seem to fail to understand is that mistakes like this are not equal to a meter maid putting a ticket on the wrong vehicle; this is serious. A weapon was discharged, killing a living animal that was part of a man's family; the officer should have never been on the property in the first place- that may not be the officers fault, but the officer is still accountable for his actions. It is an officer's DUTY to determine CORRECTLY the level of force required to address the problem... AFTER determining there is actually a problem. The officer failed to make the first determination- that he was at the correct location and there was in-deed a problem; I did not hear one word from him that did not involve yelled commands until after the dog had been shot. This is not how you assess the situation; this is how you needlessly escalate a situation. This first failure directly lead to the second failure; determining the correct level of force to address a problem. Had he been more composed and professional in initiating contact with the individual, the dog very likely would not have felt his owner was being threatened. A barking dog that is not charging you does not require a bullet.
Some people will back up cops no matter what, some will rip on them no matter what. Slapchop, I'm sure you feel I am the later, despite having worked in LE... However, that is a very incorrect assumption. The odd story that comes up that shows LEO's doing the right thing I certainly support. Problem is, those don't get the attention- it's stories like these that get the attention.
The irony to this whole situation is, had the individual shot a K9 who was attacking him through an accident would have been shot dead and it would be called justified. Had this dog owner returned fire on the cop, he would be in jail awaiting a trial. The fact still remains that the officer was on private property without a FACTUAL reason, Brandishing a weapon on an innocent civilian and shot dead a dog who was defending his owner against an unjustified aggressor. This whole "shift the blame society" unfortunately, very much includes the LE community. It's "oh well I just went where I was told", "we were given the wrong address", "the report was incorrect"... None of that shit matters. It is STILL THE OFFICER'S DUTY TO DETERMINE HE IS AT THE CORRECT LOCATION AND THE REPORTED INCIDENT IS FACTUAL AND AT THE LOCATION HE IS GIVEN IS. It really does not get anymore basic than this- we see more and more reports of this first step being totally skipped then when shit goes bad the game of shift the blame starts.