Police shoots dog at DC festival

[Bonefish]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03938.html

Joe, Paul, does this sound like the right level of force to be used? I'm kinda puzzled by this, and I just don't get it. I understand that we don't have the whole story, etc, but I'd like your input.

[UncleJoseph]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03938.html

Joe, Paul, does this sound like the right level of force to be used? I'm kinda puzzled by this, and I just don't get it. I understand that we don't have the whole story, etc, but I'd like your input.

Hard to say. Believe the officer or believe the dog owner? The statements of both parties in the story seem to contradict each other. Certainly, law enforcement has the right to shoot an animal (or person) if he/she feels it is necessary to protect his/her own life and/or the life of another. The dog owner says his dog has never been violent or bitten anyone before, but that doesn't mean it wasn't about to happen. Should the officer have waited until he was bitten, or until the dog bit someone else? Pitbulls have much undeserved notoriety, but that could've contributed to the fear of being mauled/bitten (even though the dog in question appears to have been a shar-pei mix).

I almost shot a dog once...I was responding to an alarm call late at night, and as I entered the yard of the home in question, a bulldog mix charged me at a full run from across the yard. I thought it was going to attack me. It stopped just short of me and just barked and growled as threateningly as possible. But prior to it stopping a couple feet away, I believed that it was going to attack. Everything about its actions suggested it was going to. Its owner later said something along the lines of "oh he's all bark and no bite." Really? He's lucky I didn't shoot the dog. How am I supposed to know the dog is "all bark and no bite," based on its actions. I chose not to shoot (even though I had gun in hand and aimed at the approaching dog), but I very likely would've been bitten a couple of times by the time I fired if the dog had not stopped. The moment between when the dog put the brakes on and stopped in front of me was a few milliseconds. I was lucky, the dog was lucky. I'm sure you'd see a similar story in the news had I chosen to shoot. Other officers might have shot the dog under the same circumstances. While our decisions are supposed to always be 100% correct, fair and beyond reproach, everyone else gets to take as long as they want to decide if we made the right choice. We only get a few moments to make that choice sometimes, and it's usually based on incomplete information. Because of that, we sometimes make the wrong choice or a mistake, but we generally do the best we can.

[Serious Paul]

While our decisions are supposed to always be 100% correct, fair and beyond reproach, everyone else gets to take as long as they want to decide if we made the right choice. We only get a few moments to make that choice sometimes, and it's usually based on incomplete information. Because of that, we sometimes make the wrong choice or a mistake, but we generally do the best we can.

This sums it all up pretty well. Dynamic use of Force situations are each unique, and almost never cut and dry.

[Bonefish]

Thanks guys. I'm not quite happy about this, but I wanted some opinions from guys who do this sort of shit for a living.

[sinsual]

You never second-guess the man on the ground.

[Bonefish]

You never second-guess the man on the ground.

Yup, those cops who turned dogs and hoses loose on blacks in the 60s, they don't deserve no second guessin! The ones who beat rodney king: no second guesses, that nigger had it comin!

Seriously though, with the monopoly of force that is present in our state, that means that those who are given the duty of using that force have to be questioned, thoroughly. We have to make sure, always, that their actions were justified and within the bounds of the law. This doesn't mean that we automatically assume use of force = police brutality, but it also means that their actions are, and have to be, under scrutiny.

Now, another question has been kicking around in my head: why did the cop throw the dog over a bannister, or down a corridor, or set it free in any sort of way? I don't quite understand that: the picture included in the article shows the cop with his knee on parrot's back, apparently restraining him. Why couldn't the cop keep him restrained until animal control or whatever showed up?

It seems to me that by releasing the dog in anyway places the cop in a situation where he may have to fire his firearm, in a crowded city street. That seems like a bad decision to me. I keep saying "seems" and "to me", because all I have to go on is very limited information, and my own opinions. But I'm just not sure releasing an animal that you feel is hostile and dangerous is a smart move. But I could be wrong.

[UncleJoseph]

Now, another question has been kicking around in my head: why did the cop throw the dog over a bannister, or down a corridor, or set it free in any sort of way? I don't quite understand that: the picture included in the article shows the cop with his knee on parrot's back, apparently restraining him. Why couldn't the cop keep him restrained until animal control or whatever showed up?

It seems to me that by releasing the dog in anyway places the cop in a situation where he may have to fire his firearm, in a crowded city street. That seems like a bad decision to me. I keep saying "seems" and "to me", because all I have to go on is very limited information, and my own opinions. But I'm just not sure releasing an animal that you feel is hostile and dangerous is a smart move. But I could be wrong.

I don't know about where he works, but in my jurisdiction, Animal Control could be an hour away or more. Even though it looks like it might be effortless to restrain an animal, (especially in that picture) it is not. Officers do not typically carry equipment to restrain animals like we do humans. You will tire very quickly in a wrestling match with a human or an animal if you have no way to put mechanical restraints on them. Further, I can attest to the fact that just sitting there crouched against the ground, with a crowd standing around you makes you feel very vulnerable when you're in uniform. When you're one of the crowd, you're just part of the mob. When you're the authority figure, you stand out like a sore thumb, attract all sorts of attention, and can feel very threatened. People try to swipe our guns, tasers, pepper spray, etc. often enough that we're always nervous about it in such close quarters. Trying to gain control of a situation, all while an increasingly agitated mob is pushing ever-closer and standing over you can easily throw you into fight or flight mode. The officer trying to restrain that dog was completely at the mercy of the crowd. I'm not saying anything he did was justified...I think we will never know since we're looking into this from long distance with incomplete information. But there are always so many factors to consider.

You're correct that police authority should be scrutinized. I agree completely. However, I also know it's nearly impossible to have someone scrutinize law enforcement objectively, when he or she has never walked a mile in law enforcement's shoes.

[UncleJoseph]

Also, Bone, did you read the police report? And, did you know this was from 2010? If you believe what the officer said in the report, then the amount of force used sounds appropriate to me, given what I know about police procedure and policy. Of course, if he's lying...

[paladin2019]

Hmmm, let's smack Evans, David to begin with. Who is C2? Who is C1? (Is C for complainant and W for witness?) Is C2 the complainant listed on p1? If so, why does the narrative say he was bitten but p1 lists abrasion and scratching as his injury. And a refusal to seek medical attention? Give us a coherent report!

On the report, 12 and a half megs for a 2 page pdf? Seriously? It's not even searchable. Searchable, 500 page, graphic intensive field manuals are less than twice that large.Is this a means to screw with FOIA requests or evidence releases or is there legitimate metadata added to this?

But the main point, lying. Some party clearly has "less than perfect" recall of what happened, otherwise we wouldn't be hearing about it.

[UncleJoseph]

Hmmm, let's smack Evans, David to begin with. Who is C2? Who is C1? (Is C for complainant and W for witness?) Is C2 the complainant listed on p1? If so, why does the narrative say he was bitten but p1 lists abrasion and scratching as his injury. And a refusal to seek medical attention? Give us a coherent report!

This type of report is typical of old-school police departments (like D.C.). Evans, David probably wrote an acceptable report, according to department standards and training. Very little information. Lots of codes and abbreviations. Not surprising, and it's why modern academies teach officers to write in plain English without a lot of "Cop-speak."

On the report, 12 and a half megs for a 2 page pdf? Seriously? It's not even searchable. Searchable, 500 page, graphic intensive field manuals are less than twice that large.Is this a means to screw with FOIA requests or evidence releases or is there legitimate metadata added to this?

My guess is because the hard copy document was simply scanned in as a PDF...this method creates much larger PDF files than necessary, depending on the scanner settings. We have a modern report-writing system, and we still cannot e-mail copies of reports anywhere (the report format is proprietary, and does not exist in a separate digital file)...only hard copies are provided. There is a lot that goes into the fulfillment of FOIA requests. So my guess is that the person who requested the report didn't get all of the officers' reports (or only posted this one), and had to scan this one into a PDF...not likely to be searchable.

But the main point, lying. Some party clearly has "less than perfect" recall of what happened, otherwise we wouldn't be hearing about it.

Given that this is one of the worst-reading police reports I've seen (and I've seen a lot), I'm not surprised things were questioned. The supervisor's notation says that further investigation is recommended. Internal investigations would be completely separate from this report, and sometimes are not subject to FOIA requests.

[Bonefish]

Also, Bone, did you read the police report? And, did you know this was from 2010? If you believe what the officer said in the report, then the amount of force used sounds appropriate to me, given what I know about police procedure and policy. Of course, if he's lying...

I did not read the police eport. This came up on my facebook feed from a friend, and the responses on there make me seem like a "Cop Sympathizer" because I'm asking for more information. Thanks for the Police Report.

I hope you understand that I'm not trying to demonie the officer, or cops in general, with this. I'm trying to understand and asking questions, which is what I feel a concerned citizen should do. I know you guys have a shitty job, and I feel some sympathy, but when there's things that make me go: "hmmm", I gotta say something.

[Serious Paul]

I think Uncle Joseph is like me, a coherent writer who when he writes reports benefits from his grasp of the English language-which is actually better than my own. Writing clearly, and concisely isn't an easy skill for some people to master.

[Bonefish]

I think Uncle Joseph is like me, a coherent writer who when he writes reports benefits from his grasp of the English language-which is actually better than my own. Writing clearly, and concisely isn't an easy skill for some people to master.

Who you callin' illiterate, homie?

[Jeff Hauze]

I hope you understand that I'm not trying to demonie the office

Considering he has a gun, I wouldn't recommend trying to take his Benjies.

[Serious Paul]

Who you callin' illiterate, homie?

A lot of people I work with...

[3278]

As the conflicting witness reports suggest, it's often impossible to judge a situation even if you were there, so being not-at-all-there it's difficult to accurately assign blame or guilt, as I'm about to do, now:

The officer - S-2 - who shot the dog was an animal handler, but I believe there were better ways of restraining the animal that wouldn't have allowed it to be even momentarily uncontrolled. I don't think he necessarily broke departmental policy or broke a law or did anything otherwise wrong - although discharge of a firearm at a music festival isn't a choice I'd like to have made - but I think he could have done better at his job. However, on overtime, having come on a situation involving a crowd at a festival, a bleeding poodle and a pit bull with blood on its muzzle, who then won't submit to your control and then bites you? It's a pretty understandable sequence of events; maybe he could have done his job better, but your target number goes to hell when you've got that many modifiers.

Who's the real idiot here? The dog's "owner." When you're fostering a dog, you do need to take the dog into public situations to socialize them, but when you have a large breed - pit bull has nothing to do with it, although they're often mistreated and thus dangerous - you absolutely should never take it into a crowded situation with other dogs, or allow your dog to get within reach of another dog. If you own the dog, if you've had it for a long time, if you really know it, then maybe yes, you can let it act on its own discretion toward other dogs, but if you're fostering an animal, you don't take it to a music festival on a loose leash. He killed that dog only somewhat less literally than the officer who fired the shot.

[sinsual]

You never second-guess the man on the ground.

Yup, those cops who turned dogs and hoses loose on blacks in the 60s, they don't deserve no second guessin! The ones who beat rodney king: no second guesses, that nigger had it comin!

You were not physically present at the time of the events, even the King tape has been played out to show excessive force.

As for the Watts Riots and other such events, I would rather get hit by a hose then a flying brick or Molotov...you decide which was using excessive force after you explore more what the police were dealing with. Remember, MOB MENTALITY is and has been proven to be lethal force on its own...

[Bonefish]

Yup, those cops who turned dogs and hoses loose on blacks in the 60s, they don't deserve no second guessin! The ones who beat rodney king: no second guesses, that nigger had it comin!

You were not physically present at the time of the events, even the King tape has been played out to show excessive force.

As for the Watts Riots and other such events, I would rather get hit by a hose then a flying brick or Molotov...you decide which was using excessive force after you explore more what the police were dealing with. Remember, MOB MENTALITY is and has been proven to be lethal force on its own...

Sigh. I don't think you're getting the point, Sinsual. I'm not saying that police are all evil, brutal nazis who want nothing more than to shoot and kill people. What I'm saying is that since we, as a country, have monopolized the use of force and made it the sole domain of the state, that those who enforce the state's monopoly should be held accountable and scrutinized, so that we may all rest assured that when force is used, it's use is justified.

Saying "you weren't there, so you don't know", or "you never second-guess the man on the ground" is implying that the police are beyond reproach, that their actions are always justified. And that is not true: police are people,and as people they are subject to the same prejudices and abuses that any person may commit. HOWEVER, as they are intended to uphold the law, they must also be held to a higher standard than a private citizen.

And while you may be right in saying that Mob Mentality can be lethal, that road goes both ways: Lynch mobs aren't so far shrouded in history that I couldn't find one or two people who have been on one, and definitely people whose parents were. This isn't to say all southern whites are racists, but there is a marked difference in opinions between those who are 50 or 60 and those who are 30 or 40, and there are stories from both sides of the lynchings in the south that paint a horrifyingly too recent state of affairs in this country. A distrust and outright hostility to an institution which has seen your nephews, brothers, cousins and sons murdered, well, that's to be expected, don't you think?

Thus the scrutiny and pressure brought to bear on perceived or real incidents of excessive force: we have to, otherwise risk potential abuses of the system that have, historically, happened and which could happen again. These abuses debase the value of our entire system of law, and cheapen the freedom that we supposedly hold dear.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to Justice everywhere.

[3278]

I'm not saying that police are all evil, brutal nazis who want nothing more than to shoot and kill people. What I'm saying is that since we, as a country, have monopolized the use of force and made it the sole domain of the state, that those who enforce the state's monopoly should be held accountable and scrutinized, so that we may all rest assured that when force is used, its use is justified.

Saying "you weren't there, so you don't know," or "you never second-guess the man on the ground" is implying that the police are beyond reproach, that their actions are always justified. And that is not true: police are people, and as people they are subject to the same prejudices and abuses that any person may commit. HOWEVER, as they are intended to uphold the law, they must also be held to a higher standard than a private citizen.

Oh, I didn't have anything to add, I just thought it was worth saying twice. This time with all the extra spaces taken out.