Good news for Milwaukee PD residents! MPD has
acknowledged the need for canine encounter related training, and the
need to revise current policies regarding canine encounters.
Per the 2012 Milwaukee, WI PD Firearms Discharge Annual Report p.17-20
2012 Milwaukee PD Dog Related Encounter Incident Stats:
- 32 dog-related encounter incidents
- 37 dogs were police targets
- 28 dogs sustained fatal injuries
- 1 dog sustained major injuries
- 8 dogs were unharmed (all shots missed)
- 118 total rounds were fired averaging 3.2 rounds per dog
- 3 of the 52 officers were involved in 2 separate dog encounter incidents (3 officers shot at a dog on more than one occasion)
- SWAT: The Tactical Enforcement Unit (TEU) was involved with 2 of the dog-related incidents
2011 Milwaukee PD Dog Related Encounters Stats:
- 36 dog-related encounter incidents
- 37 dogs were police targets
- 20 dogs sustained fatal injuries
- 11 dogs were injured
- 6 dogs were unharmed (all shots missed)
- 105 total rounds were fired averaging 2.8 rounds per dog
Conclusion
1. The MPD should develop a departmental strategy for the proper
handling of dog-related incidents. This strategy should closely align
with the model protocols identified in the August 2011 U.S. Department
of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services publication,
"The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters." The goal of this
strategy should be to significantly reduce the use of deadly force in
dog-related encounters.
2. The MPD should intensify training on
dog behavior and appropriate use of de-escalation techniques and other
non-lethal tactical response strategies for dog-related encounters.
3. The MPD should closely review every dog-related encounter that
involves the discharge of a firearm to determine if the use of deadly
force was appropriate and whether proper non-lethal tactical responses
were considered and utilized by officers.
4. The MPD should
consider revising the use of force policy to include specific
dog-related protocols consistent with a revised training regimen.
http://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityFPC/Reports/AnnualFirearmsReport2012.pdf
Showing posts with label policy changes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy changes. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Merced police change policy on shooting injured animals
The Merced Police Department no longer will take “severely injured” animals to the department’s shooting range to be put to death by gunfire, said Lt. Bimley West during a news conference Tuesday.
The policy, which West estimated had been in place for more than 25 years, allowed officers to take injured animals to the range on Gove Road to be put down.
The Merced Police Department’s policy was scrutinized after a dog-shooting incident in June was reported by the Sun-Star. Merced resident Payton Sanchez’s pit bull was shot by an officer in the 2600 block of Mira Court. The police officer claimed it had charged at him.
Unable to afford medical care, the family brought the dog back to the police station. A second officer took the injured dog to the shooting range and fatally shot it according to police policy, reports confirmed.
West said Tuesday that the change in policy was prompted by community outcry after another article about the policy in the Sun-Star last week.
“Although there were a number of misconceptions and mistruths that circulated from this article, it did give us an opportunity to revisit our method used in putting down severely injured animals,” West said. “We are going to change our policy.”
The new policy will require police officers to call the nearest veterinarian to come to the scene of an injured animal and evaluate its condition. The veterinarian will determine if the animal should be put to sleep or given medical treatment.
If the veterinarian decides an animal should be put to sleep because of its injuries, he or she will euthanize the animal using an injection.
“The evaluation will be made by a vet,” West said. “Our Police Department officers will no longer dispatch an animal due to the severity of its injuries.”
The only time officers will shoot animals is if they are being attacked, West said.
The Police Department hasn’t signed a contract with a local veterinarian, but West said officers will contact the closest one and stay with the animal until the vet arrives. The 24-hour Animal Medical Center on Yosemite Avenue will be used for after-hours calls.
Merced Mayor Stan Thurston called the policy change a “very positive” one, but expressed concerns about getting local veterinarians to agree to the plan while keeping the city’s costs low.
“I hope we can get vets to do that and work out an agreement to minimize costs,” Thurston said. “We’ll try to keep the costs down as much as possible and not have to burden the police officers with the mental trauma of having to shoot an animal.”
Thurston said he’s working with City Manager John Bramble to start a campaign to get local veterinarians to be on-call on a rotating basis, with a different veterinarian’s office being used every 30 days.
Mayor Pro Tem Noah Lor said Tuesday that he felt the police chief made a good decision, and said it will be a more humane way to euthanize injured animals.
“I think this is a good thing for us to move ahead and make that change,” Lor said. “We’re going to need some future discussion and input from the community, but for now, this is a good step forward.”
Merced resident Jules Comeyne, a former officer for the ASPCA, urged elected officials to consider changing the policy during the City Council meeting Monday.
“I would like to voice displeasure of the police taking animals over to the range and shooting them,” Comeyne said. “This has received a lot of negative publicity from all over the country.”
Several others voiced support during the council meeting that led to changing the policy.
West did not say if the Police Department had been contacted by animal rights groups, but indicated it had received numerous calls from residents who “didn’t like the method” of shooting severely injured animals.
“Our citizens have stated the times have changed and it’s time that we make a change,” West said Tuesday. “They have spoken. We have heard them clearly, and we have made a change in our policy.”
After the news conference Tuesday, West said there was a sense of relief among the police officers who did not want to shoot injured animals at the range. Many of them are pet owners, he said.
“I believe there is a sense of relief because it’s not pleasurable for our officers to do that,” West said, adding that the policy change is effective immediately.
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/09/17/5745151/merced-police-changes-its-policy.html
The policy, which West estimated had been in place for more than 25 years, allowed officers to take injured animals to the range on Gove Road to be put down.
The Merced Police Department’s policy was scrutinized after a dog-shooting incident in June was reported by the Sun-Star. Merced resident Payton Sanchez’s pit bull was shot by an officer in the 2600 block of Mira Court. The police officer claimed it had charged at him.
Unable to afford medical care, the family brought the dog back to the police station. A second officer took the injured dog to the shooting range and fatally shot it according to police policy, reports confirmed.
West said Tuesday that the change in policy was prompted by community outcry after another article about the policy in the Sun-Star last week.
“Although there were a number of misconceptions and mistruths that circulated from this article, it did give us an opportunity to revisit our method used in putting down severely injured animals,” West said. “We are going to change our policy.”
The new policy will require police officers to call the nearest veterinarian to come to the scene of an injured animal and evaluate its condition. The veterinarian will determine if the animal should be put to sleep or given medical treatment.
If the veterinarian decides an animal should be put to sleep because of its injuries, he or she will euthanize the animal using an injection.
“The evaluation will be made by a vet,” West said. “Our Police Department officers will no longer dispatch an animal due to the severity of its injuries.”
The only time officers will shoot animals is if they are being attacked, West said.
The Police Department hasn’t signed a contract with a local veterinarian, but West said officers will contact the closest one and stay with the animal until the vet arrives. The 24-hour Animal Medical Center on Yosemite Avenue will be used for after-hours calls.
Merced Mayor Stan Thurston called the policy change a “very positive” one, but expressed concerns about getting local veterinarians to agree to the plan while keeping the city’s costs low.
“I hope we can get vets to do that and work out an agreement to minimize costs,” Thurston said. “We’ll try to keep the costs down as much as possible and not have to burden the police officers with the mental trauma of having to shoot an animal.”
Thurston said he’s working with City Manager John Bramble to start a campaign to get local veterinarians to be on-call on a rotating basis, with a different veterinarian’s office being used every 30 days.
Mayor Pro Tem Noah Lor said Tuesday that he felt the police chief made a good decision, and said it will be a more humane way to euthanize injured animals.
“I think this is a good thing for us to move ahead and make that change,” Lor said. “We’re going to need some future discussion and input from the community, but for now, this is a good step forward.”
Merced resident Jules Comeyne, a former officer for the ASPCA, urged elected officials to consider changing the policy during the City Council meeting Monday.
“I would like to voice displeasure of the police taking animals over to the range and shooting them,” Comeyne said. “This has received a lot of negative publicity from all over the country.”
Several others voiced support during the council meeting that led to changing the policy.
West did not say if the Police Department had been contacted by animal rights groups, but indicated it had received numerous calls from residents who “didn’t like the method” of shooting severely injured animals.
“Our citizens have stated the times have changed and it’s time that we make a change,” West said Tuesday. “They have spoken. We have heard them clearly, and we have made a change in our policy.”
After the news conference Tuesday, West said there was a sense of relief among the police officers who did not want to shoot injured animals at the range. Many of them are pet owners, he said.
“I believe there is a sense of relief because it’s not pleasurable for our officers to do that,” West said, adding that the policy change is effective immediately.
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/09/17/5745151/merced-police-changes-its-policy.html
MA - New Law Includes Policies on LEO and Dogs
"The new law also includes standards for police chiefs in exercising
discretion in dealing with dogs deemed dangerous or nuisance dogs.
Within those standards are hearing procedures.
Mr. Moore pointed out that the bill also prohibits chiefs from ordering dogs to be removed from a community. "
Highlights of Massachusetts Bill S.2192:
- Standards for LEO exercising discretion when dealing with dogs
- Hearing Procedures of LEO exercised discretion used with dogs
- BSL ban
- Gas Chamber ban
- Pet protection from domestic violence
- Statewide funding for spay and neuter programs in the state animal shelters
SOURCE 1:
http://www.telegram.com/article/20120808/NEWS/108089938/-1/NEWS07
SOURCE 2:
http://www.examiner.com/article/massachusetts-bans-breed-specific-legislation-and-the-gas-chamber
Within those standards are hearing procedures.
Mr. Moore pointed out that the bill also prohibits chiefs from ordering dogs to be removed from a community. "
Highlights of Massachusetts Bill S.2192:
- Standards for LEO exercising discretion when dealing with dogs
- Hearing Procedures of LEO exercised discretion used with dogs
- BSL ban
- Gas Chamber ban
- Pet protection from domestic violence
- Statewide funding for spay and neuter programs in the state animal shelters
SOURCE 1:
http://www.telegram.com/article/20120808/NEWS/108089938/-1/NEWS07
SOURCE 2:
http://www.examiner.com/article/massachusetts-bans-breed-specific-legislation-and-the-gas-chamber
Richmond pays $210K to owners of dog shot dead by cops
Related Stories
2007-05-31 11:12:00 PDT RICHMOND -- The city of Richmond has agreed to pay $225,000 to settle two federal civil rights lawsuits filed in connection with the controversial shooting death of a pit bull.
Cynthia Peters and Mark Parr accused officers of acting in "reckless and callous disregard" of their constitutional rights when police shot their 1-1/2-year-old pit bull, Blu, on July 27, 2005.
The Richmond City Council agreed to pay $210,000 to the couple and an additional $15,000 to Genevia Walker, a bystander who also sued the city in federal court, saying her neck was burned when three bullet casings fired by an officer hit her neck and left her temporarily unable to hear.
"We're happy with the way the case was resolved," Karen Snell, an attorney for Peters and Parr, said today.
Blu was in the couple's fenced yard on Sixth Street when the officers opened the gate to pursue a suspect and shot the dog 11 times with pistols and a shotgun.
When Parr ran up and asked the officers, "Why'd you shoot my dog?" police "pointed their guns at him, kicked and punched him and threw him to the ground," according to the lawsuit filed by the couple in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.
Police arrested Parr on suspicion of obstructing police officers, but no charges were filed.
An internal investigation by the police department found no fault with the officers; the couple appealed. The Police Commission in February 2006 ruled in their favor and attributed Blu's death to insufficient departmental guidelines for handling such situations.
In court papers, the city said "the destruction" of Blu was necessary and therefore reasonable, that the force used against Parr was reasonable and that his arrest was lawful.
In an unusual move, Richmond Police Chief Chris Magnus apologized to the couple. Magnus told The Chronicle last year that his apology doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't support his officers, but that owning up to Blu's death was the right thing to do.
"Being sorry that something happened doesn't mean that your people acted in the wrong way," Magnus said.
Richmond police have since drafted a policy specifying when officers can use deadly force against dogs and provided training on how to deal with dogs in general.
The city paid more than $500,000 in 1998 in connection with a lawsuit over another "unnecessary shooting" of a dog named Champ that belonged to James Fuller. Officers entered his yard in 1991 to speak with Fuller and shot the dog during the exchange.
"They did nothing to change their policy until the new chief came along," said Snell, who nevertheless applauded the city for outlining a policy that bars officers from shooting a dog "if there are nonlethal alternatives."
Attorneys for the city of Richmond did not immediately respond to requests for comment today.
Richmond City Councilman Tom Butt said today, "It is regretful that the city was so slow to learn. The adage 'once burned, twice shy' suggests that when someone has had a bad experience, he or she is likely to shy away from being in the same position again, having better learned to deal with similar situations.
"Previous chiefs did not learn. Magnus made the correction to the policy. I think he did the right thing by apologizing."
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Richmond-pays-210K-to-owners-of-dog-shot-dead-by-2558050.php
Cynthia Peters and Mark Parr accused officers of acting in "reckless and callous disregard" of their constitutional rights when police shot their 1-1/2-year-old pit bull, Blu, on July 27, 2005.
The Richmond City Council agreed to pay $210,000 to the couple and an additional $15,000 to Genevia Walker, a bystander who also sued the city in federal court, saying her neck was burned when three bullet casings fired by an officer hit her neck and left her temporarily unable to hear.
"We're happy with the way the case was resolved," Karen Snell, an attorney for Peters and Parr, said today.
Blu was in the couple's fenced yard on Sixth Street when the officers opened the gate to pursue a suspect and shot the dog 11 times with pistols and a shotgun.
When Parr ran up and asked the officers, "Why'd you shoot my dog?" police "pointed their guns at him, kicked and punched him and threw him to the ground," according to the lawsuit filed by the couple in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.
Police arrested Parr on suspicion of obstructing police officers, but no charges were filed.
An internal investigation by the police department found no fault with the officers; the couple appealed. The Police Commission in February 2006 ruled in their favor and attributed Blu's death to insufficient departmental guidelines for handling such situations.
In court papers, the city said "the destruction" of Blu was necessary and therefore reasonable, that the force used against Parr was reasonable and that his arrest was lawful.
In an unusual move, Richmond Police Chief Chris Magnus apologized to the couple. Magnus told The Chronicle last year that his apology doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't support his officers, but that owning up to Blu's death was the right thing to do.
"Being sorry that something happened doesn't mean that your people acted in the wrong way," Magnus said.
Richmond police have since drafted a policy specifying when officers can use deadly force against dogs and provided training on how to deal with dogs in general.
The city paid more than $500,000 in 1998 in connection with a lawsuit over another "unnecessary shooting" of a dog named Champ that belonged to James Fuller. Officers entered his yard in 1991 to speak with Fuller and shot the dog during the exchange.
"They did nothing to change their policy until the new chief came along," said Snell, who nevertheless applauded the city for outlining a policy that bars officers from shooting a dog "if there are nonlethal alternatives."
Attorneys for the city of Richmond did not immediately respond to requests for comment today.
Richmond City Councilman Tom Butt said today, "It is regretful that the city was so slow to learn. The adage 'once burned, twice shy' suggests that when someone has had a bad experience, he or she is likely to shy away from being in the same position again, having better learned to deal with similar situations.
"Previous chiefs did not learn. Magnus made the correction to the policy. I think he did the right thing by apologizing."
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Richmond-pays-210K-to-owners-of-dog-shot-dead-by-2558050.php
Position Statements on Law Enforcement Response to Potentially Dangerous Dogs
Background
The ASPCA receives regular reports of incidents in which dogs have been shot, often fatally, by police officers in the conduct of their regular duties. Although some of these animals may have been utilized as weapons by their handlers or been involved in attacks on people or other animals, many cases have involved family pets killed on the owner’s property. Police department policies generally grant broad powers to officers to shoot animals if the officers feel that they are in "imminent danger" or if a dog has killed or is in the process of attacking people, livestock or other pets.
Most police departments require detailed reports any time an officer discharges a firearm, even accidentally. Some of these reports reveal a disturbing trend. Our review of public records of firearms discharges by police indicates that it is common for 50% or more of all shooting incidents to involve an officer shooting a dog. Many of these incidents involve multiple shots fired and many do not result in the dog’s swift, humane death.
Policies that require only that an officer “feel” threatened set a very low threshold for justifying the killing of dogs. In virtually all cases we have examined, internal reviews of dog shootings have ruled them to be justifiable under existing policies, even though several cases have resulted in substantial civil judgments against police departments for wrongful destruction. Such incidents not only jeopardize the lives of companion animals, but also undermine the reputation of law enforcement agencies in the community.
Police rarely receive any training that would allow them to rapidly and realistically assess the degree of danger posed by a dog; nor are they routinely informed about or trained to use any of the wide variety of non-lethal tools and techniques available to them as alternatives to shooting. Examples of such alternatives include batons, OC spray, Tasers and chemical capture. Most departments do not have relationships with area animal control agencies, humane societies or SPCAs that could provide training or assistance in responding to calls where dogs are known or suspected to be present. Since more than one-third of American households have a dog, officers are likely to encounter dogs whenever they approach or enter a residence. Although they may encounter truly dangerous dogs in some situations, the majority of dogs they are likely to meet are well-behaved family pets that are legitimately protecting their homes and families from intruders.
ASPCA Position
The ASPCA believes that most instances of police shootings of dogs are avoidable. The Force Continuum concept has been helpful in reducing unnecessary injuries to the public and professionals in encounters with potentially dangerous people. Law enforcement agencies are recognizing that similar benefits can be gained by applying this concept to encounters with potentially dangerous animals.
There are many steps that law enforcement agencies can take to prevent the needless killing of dogs and reduce the high risk of injuries to officers and the general public in such instances:
- Establish better communication between area law enforcement and animal care and control agencies, including sharing of information about addresses with histories of calls for violent offenses or dangerous animals and establishing procedures for enlisting assistance from these agencies in planning responses to situations where dogs are known or likely to be present
- Review existing policies and data on dog shootings and institute administrative review of all such shootings that includes an evaluation of their justification
- Provide officers with training in identifying and assessing potentially dangerous dogs, as well as instruction on how to use their existing equipment (e.g. baton, OC spray) more safely and effectively in situations with potentially dangerous dogs
- Provide officers with additional up-to-date equipment that can be used as an alternative to lethal force (e.g. catch poles, nets, etc.) and proper training on its use
- Enact a Force Continuum policy for encounters with dogs, similar to that for encounters with people, that stipulates an escalating scale of options in which lethal force is considered a last resort
When lethal force must be used, officers should be trained how to do so humanely to prevent or quickly end suffering. The following reflects a policy that is currently in use by several agencies:
“Police officers shall not discharge their firearms at a dog or other animal except to protect themselves or another person from physical injury and when they have exhausted other reasonable means to eliminate the threat. If a decision is made that the animal must be killed, the officer must make every effort to insure that the discharge of his weapon is done as safely as possible. The officer should also try to kill the animal in a humane way to keep the animal from undue suffering or escape.”
http://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statements-on-law-enforcement-response
The ASPCA receives regular reports of incidents in which dogs have been shot, often fatally, by police officers in the conduct of their regular duties. Although some of these animals may have been utilized as weapons by their handlers or been involved in attacks on people or other animals, many cases have involved family pets killed on the owner’s property. Police department policies generally grant broad powers to officers to shoot animals if the officers feel that they are in "imminent danger" or if a dog has killed or is in the process of attacking people, livestock or other pets.
Most police departments require detailed reports any time an officer discharges a firearm, even accidentally. Some of these reports reveal a disturbing trend. Our review of public records of firearms discharges by police indicates that it is common for 50% or more of all shooting incidents to involve an officer shooting a dog. Many of these incidents involve multiple shots fired and many do not result in the dog’s swift, humane death.
Policies that require only that an officer “feel” threatened set a very low threshold for justifying the killing of dogs. In virtually all cases we have examined, internal reviews of dog shootings have ruled them to be justifiable under existing policies, even though several cases have resulted in substantial civil judgments against police departments for wrongful destruction. Such incidents not only jeopardize the lives of companion animals, but also undermine the reputation of law enforcement agencies in the community.
Police rarely receive any training that would allow them to rapidly and realistically assess the degree of danger posed by a dog; nor are they routinely informed about or trained to use any of the wide variety of non-lethal tools and techniques available to them as alternatives to shooting. Examples of such alternatives include batons, OC spray, Tasers and chemical capture. Most departments do not have relationships with area animal control agencies, humane societies or SPCAs that could provide training or assistance in responding to calls where dogs are known or suspected to be present. Since more than one-third of American households have a dog, officers are likely to encounter dogs whenever they approach or enter a residence. Although they may encounter truly dangerous dogs in some situations, the majority of dogs they are likely to meet are well-behaved family pets that are legitimately protecting their homes and families from intruders.
ASPCA Position
The ASPCA believes that most instances of police shootings of dogs are avoidable. The Force Continuum concept has been helpful in reducing unnecessary injuries to the public and professionals in encounters with potentially dangerous people. Law enforcement agencies are recognizing that similar benefits can be gained by applying this concept to encounters with potentially dangerous animals.
There are many steps that law enforcement agencies can take to prevent the needless killing of dogs and reduce the high risk of injuries to officers and the general public in such instances:
- Establish better communication between area law enforcement and animal care and control agencies, including sharing of information about addresses with histories of calls for violent offenses or dangerous animals and establishing procedures for enlisting assistance from these agencies in planning responses to situations where dogs are known or likely to be present
- Review existing policies and data on dog shootings and institute administrative review of all such shootings that includes an evaluation of their justification
- Provide officers with training in identifying and assessing potentially dangerous dogs, as well as instruction on how to use their existing equipment (e.g. baton, OC spray) more safely and effectively in situations with potentially dangerous dogs
- Provide officers with additional up-to-date equipment that can be used as an alternative to lethal force (e.g. catch poles, nets, etc.) and proper training on its use
- Enact a Force Continuum policy for encounters with dogs, similar to that for encounters with people, that stipulates an escalating scale of options in which lethal force is considered a last resort
When lethal force must be used, officers should be trained how to do so humanely to prevent or quickly end suffering. The following reflects a policy that is currently in use by several agencies:
“Police officers shall not discharge their firearms at a dog or other animal except to protect themselves or another person from physical injury and when they have exhausted other reasonable means to eliminate the threat. If a decision is made that the animal must be killed, the officer must make every effort to insure that the discharge of his weapon is done as safely as possible. The officer should also try to kill the animal in a humane way to keep the animal from undue suffering or escape.”
http://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statements-on-law-enforcement-response
Investigation of fatal shooting of dog by Cumberland County sheriff's deputy leads to changes
Investigation of fatal shooting of dog by Cumberland County sheriff's deputy leads to changes
File photo
Gizmo was an 18-pound Pekingese-dachsund mix.
More sheriff's deputies in Cumberland County will carry nonlethal tools to protect themselves from dogs, a change prompted by the recent shooting of a Hope Mills woman's pet.
Deputies also will undergo training on how to deal with animals in similar situations, said Ronnie Mitchell, a lawyer for the Sheriff's Office.
Mitchell said Wednesday the agency had completed its investigation of the May 23 shooting by Deputy Barbara Siau of the Child Support Enforcement Unit. Her status with the department remains the same, he said.
"There's no dismissal, no suspension or no demotion," Mitchell said.
Siau had gone to Dana Anderson's home on Annadale Drive looking for someone else when Gizmo, a Pekingese-dachsund mix, slipped out the door. Anderson said Siau kicked Gizmo, who weighed about 18 pounds, after he ran toward the deputy, and then she shot him. Anderson said she was trying to get the dog when the deputy fired without warning.
There were small bite marks on Siau's pants leg, Anderson said, but it was not known if any bites broke Siau's skin.
Deputies in the Child Enforcement Unit wore civilian clothing and carried a gun as their only weapon. Now they will wear uniforms that include stun guns, chemical sprays such as Mace and ASP batons, in addition to service weapons, Mitchell said.
"In this situation ... there were no tools that could have been employed, such as Mace, a baton or the Taser," Mitchell said. "We just didn't think it was a good idea to have a firearm as the only tool to be implemented."
Anderson said Wednesday that she was pleased to learn deputies will carry nonlethal tools. But she still believes she could have stopped Gizmo before the deputy fired, had she been given the chance.
"The thing that gets me, she should have gave me the opportunity to get him," Anderson said.
http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2012/05/30/1181259?sac=fo.local
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)