SLCPD shoots dog... in it's backyard

[Greg]

http://fox13now.com/2014/06/26/graphic-dog-owner-posts-video-of-talk-with-officers-after-dog-killed/

He handled it about as well as I would have.

 

[Skylinerider]

He handled it about as well as I would have.

I thought the same thing. I would have been furious as well.

 

[comingdown]

It is very sad, and no one should loose a dog like that, but the law in many states treat pets like property, and will only compensate a person up to the worth of purchasing a new dog. I think it is still too soon to hang the officer who did this. I hope they investigate as well, and get a statement from the officer involved, as well as the other officers who were there. Perhaps the officer had a traumatizing experience with a dog when he was younger, and didn't even think he just reacted. I guess we shall see. I'll be curious to see how this plays out.

 

[jeeper]

Perhaps the officer had a traumatizing experience with a dog when he was younger, and didn't even think he just reacted.

Well, for my sake, I hope he has never had a traumatizing experience with 30yr old white male. I may end up dead for no reason.

 

[Kiel]

Well, for my sake, I hope he has never had a traumatizing experience with 30yr old white male. I may end up dead for no reason.

I sure hope not, those are my stats also. I think the officer in this case is a joke.

 

[comingdown]

Well, the law would handle that differently, whether you agree or not.

 

[Marsh99]

We have hit the blaze
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...roperty-and-shot-his-best-friend-in-the-head/

 

[ID Bronco]

I feel for the guy, and think it's total garbage, but I don't think the law should look at animals as a part of the family. They are property and deciding what is livestock and what isn't would be a losing battle. I want him to be compensated as well as possible and feel bad for him but changing the laws the way he requests isn't what I think should happen.

 

[reddman]

I feel for the guy, and think it's total garbage, but I don't think the law should look at animals as a part of the family. They are property and deciding what is livestock and what isn't would be a losing battle. I want him to be compensated as well as possible and feel bad for him but changing the laws the way he requests isn't what I think should happen.

Agreed. This cop should be removed, they all should be better trained, and this guy deserves some compensation, but a reclassification of pets would be a can of worms.

What if a regular Joe accidentally hits a dog in the road? Manslaughter or a big civil suit shouldn't be an option available under those circumstances, but reclassifying pets as people will wedge that door open.

 

[jackjoh]

I agree with reddman and bronco but the cop should not be removed. They need to be trained for this kind of situation.

 

[N-Smooth]

A police officer coming into my gated property without my consent and firing off two rounds at anything besides an armed criminal should be enough for them to be forced to seek new employment in my opinion. That's not even coming from the dog-lover in me. The whole thing is beyond ridiculous!

 

[LT.]

There is another issue here. There was no warrant issued for this search. The fourth amendment to the constitution has a bunch of information attached to it but, it covers search and seizure and states that the governing body must secure a warrant to search the premise. The officer did not have a warrant and therefore had no legal right to be on the property. Now, I am unfamiliar if the officer would need to secure a warrant to search the outside of the property but, if he was just searching the outside he would not have needed to gain access through a gate. The officer was as wrong as he could be. No excuse for his failed actions and no excuse for the department not training to this standard. I hope the owner sues for millions of dollars.

LT.

 

[JL Rockies]

There is another issue here. There was no warrant issued for this search. The fourth amendment to the constitution has a bunch of information attached to it but, it covers search and seizure and states that the governing body must secure a warrant to search the premise. The officer did not have a warrant and therefore had no legal right to be on the property. Now, I am unfamiliar if the officer would need to secure a warrant to search the outside of the property but, if he was just searching the outside he would not have needed to gain access through a gate. The officer was as wrong as he could be. No excuse for his failed actions and no excuse for the department not training to this standard. I hope the owner sues for millions of dollars.

LT.

Now let's not muddy the waters with all the constitution stuff. Unless the framers were time traveling aliens, there's no way they could've accounted for this.


BLM... lolz.

 

[Deleted member 12904]

There is another issue here. There was no warrant issued for this search. The fourth amendment to the constitution has a bunch of information attached to it but, it covers search and seizure and states that the governing body must secure a warrant to search the premise. The officer did not have a warrant and therefore had no legal right to be on the property. Now, I am unfamiliar if the officer would need to secure a warrant to search the outside of the property but, if he was just searching the outside he would not have needed to gain access through a gate. The officer was as wrong as he could be. No excuse for his failed actions and no excuse for the department not training to this standard. I hope the owner sues for millions of dollars.

LT.

It's a grey area from what I can find on the law weather or not they could legally enter. IMO the law reads more towards this not being a legal entrance to his property. After reading the laws I will be adding no trespassing signs to my gates.

 

[flexyfool]

What happens if a private citizen shoots a K9 unit dog in self defense?

 

[N-Smooth]

What happens if a private citizen shoots a K9 unit dog in self defense?

Funny that you bring that up. About 5 years ago I was in my front yard and my LEO neighbor let his K-9 unit out of his truck and it bolted straight to my yard and was jumping and barking right next to my face. Luckily I knew better than to panic but he finally called the dog off and walked inside. No apology or anything. Worst neighbor I've ever had.

 

[Spork]

What happens if a private citizen shoots a K9 unit dog in self defense?

Some reading:
http://www.thestate.com/2014/01/06/3192806/man-accused-of-killing-police.html
http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/aug/03/man-sentenced-in-dog-killing/
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96229
From the ABC article:

For those tempted to punch a horse during a demonstration or kick a narcotics dog sniffing at your bag, the U.S. government has a new message: Keep your paws off or you will go to jail.

Harming these four-legged law agents is now a federal offense.

Under the Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act, which went into effect this week, anyone convicted of purposely assaulting, maiming, or killing federal law enforcement animals such as police dogs and horses could be fined at least $1,000 and spend up to 10 years in prison. Previously, the animals were covered by a variety of state, rather than federal, laws.

The United States Police Canine Association and The Humane Society believe the new law will not only provide more protection for the animals they but also deter criminals, particularly in drug stings, from targeting canines.

 

[flexyfool]

Also from the ABC article:

“Maybe that will prevent people from transferring their violent tendencies and actions on other people,” Pacelle said. “Oftentimes, studies have shown violence against animals pre-stages violence against people. It’s important that law enforcement agencies, judges, and prosecutors take these acts very seriously as an indicator of future violence.”

 

[LT.]

It's a grey area from what I can find on the law weather or not they could legally enter. IMO the law reads more towards this not being a legal entrance to his property. After reading the laws I will be adding no trespassing signs to my gates.

I guess it could be interpreted that way. However, I understand it as though since the officer opened the gate (instead of just peering over the gate or the fence) he entered the property or facility. This means he violated the 4th. I will agree the gray area is still there and this is only my interpretation of the amendment.

LT.

 

[Kevin B.]

There is another issue here. There was no warrant issued for this search. The fourth amendment to the constitution has a bunch of information attached to it but, it covers search and seizure and states that the governing body must secure a warrant to search the premise. The officer did not have a warrant and therefore had no legal right to be on the property. Now, I am unfamiliar if the officer would need to secure a warrant to search the outside of the property but, if he was just searching the outside he would not have needed to gain access through a gate. The officer was as wrong as he could be. No excuse for his failed actions and no excuse for the department not training to this standard. I hope the owner sues for millions of dollars.

LT.

I appeal to your expertise, but how does the fourth amendment come in? Isn't there a "hot pursuit" clause, and wouldn't that sort of apply here?