Is deadly force an appropriate defense against Murray the Malinois or Paco the Presa Canario?
Dave Grossi | From the November 2008 Issue Friday, November 14, 2008
All dogs can be abused and trained to be vicious. However, because criminals are always looking for an edge, they are more likely to choose certain breeds, such as the Presa Canario (above), to get that edge.
When thinking about threats on the street and the assortment of weapons they might face in the field, most officers think first of a gun, or a knife, and then of one of the other instruments, such as rocks, bottles, lead pipes and other items. Occasionally, during your crisis rehearsal exercises, a mental picture of those items or other improvised weapons might enter your mind. If you're like most street-wise officers, I'm sure you've probably planned your responses accordingly. But have you thought about being attacked by a dog?
Just the idea of "dogs as threats" is likely to raise the ire of numerous doggy groups. During my Street Survival Seminar days, we presented a block of instruction on how to survive canine threats. While the content focused on all breeds, the pit bull got the most screen time simply because there was so much film of that specific breed available. And every month or two, depending on where the seminar was held, one or two letters would come into the offices from the local Pit Bull Lover's Club chastising the presenters for even suggesting deadly force as an appropriate defense against an attacking dog.
So, at the risk of offending a few pit bull or Rottweiler owners out there who just happen to be readers of Law Officer, here I go again. Please keep in mind: I'm not advocating shooting every four-legged Tom (Fido), Dick (Rover) or Harry (Hairy) you might encounter during your day-to-day street duties. However, this article will focus on two very important aspects of canine threats. And my intent is that this material will also serve as the genesis for some possible roll-call or range training in this area.
Issue 1: Are you as a police officer legally covered if you have to use deadly force to protect yourself or your partner against an attacking dog? And Issue 2: How do you do the dirty deed quickly and efficiently if that does become your decision?
Let's address Issue 1 first. Is deadly force an appropriate defense against Murray the Malinois if one day he decides that you, Officer Usually Friendly, aren't coming onto his property today to serve that nasty old search warrant on his dope dealing owner? Yes, it can be. Who says? Well, besides your humble author, the courts.
Legal Basis
Case law dating back almost two decades authorizes the use of deadly force by an officer against an attacking dog. One of the earliest cases is from Kansas (and it doesn't involve Dorothy and her dog Toto). In State v. Bowers 721 P.2d 268 (1989), a local court held that a dog used to attack a police officer does, in fact, constitute deadly force.
There are a lot of other cases out there, too, and you should check with your legal beagles (pardon the pun) county DA or state prosecutor for applicable case law in your state. But my legal sources tell me very few courts around the country would hold that an officer has to be bitten before they could dispatch (i.e., shoot) an attacking dog. The reasonable perception of the threat is enough.
Next, as with any officer survival issue, you have to expect the unexpected and have a plan of action in place before the threat presents itself. Remember if/then thinking (what some trainers have started to call when/then thinking)? The same applies to canine threats. What you see, hear or smell could telegraph a potential canine attack. Piles of dog excrement, spots of yellow or dead grass in that fenced-in yard, a visible dog run, worn paths along a chain link fence, water/food dishes or rawhide bones may not be as obvious as a large red "Beware of Dog" sign, but they can be cues that a unfriendly pooch is around. Thus, awareness is your first line of defense.
What about OC Spray?
If you have time, OC spray might be an option. But just like with human attackers, there are some caveats. Studies have shown that goal-oriented people usually finish their task before succumbing to OC's effects. Most less-lethal force trainers, when conducting OC user and/or instructor classes, require a taste test on cops. In other words, they have the student/officers perform an assortment of tasks secure their weapon, radio out their location, etc. before they allow them to decontaminate.
Tests on police service dogs have shown the same thing. When given a task, like taking down a suspect, a well-trained police service dog will not allow itself to react to OC's effects until it has finished its job. Even a marginally trained attack dog used for fence-line or perimeter protection at The Sphincter Brothers' Pharmaceutical Company will probably fight through your OC spray to get at you.
Also, keep in mind that unless your agency has an administrative requirement, no law mandates you use a lower level of force before you resort to deadly force against a deadly threat. In other words, you don't have to attempt OC on an attacking dog before resorting to your firearm.
Delivering Deadly Force
Okay, so you and Rodney the Rotty have met face-to-face, and you've decided to shoot. Where do you shoot to stop the threat fast?
Just as in edged weapon defense, first you have to mentally prepare yourself that you're probably going to get bitten if you're surprised by a sudden canine attack. But just as being shot doesn't mean the fight's over for you, being bitten doesn't mean you're out of the dogfight either.
Most physical countermeasures suggest using your reactionary hand to deliver a distraction punch during empty-hand encounters with humans. That limb (your off hand) might also be the least critical area you want to offer the attacking animal. Most vicious dogs bent on attack will usually go for the first available limb. Better it be your off hand than your neck or gun hand.
Once he's locked on, if you've mentally prepared yourself and haven't panicked, your next concern is where to shoot. Contrary to conventional thinking, it's going to be the chest area, not the head. There are three reasons for this. First, if Fang's got a good grip on your hand or wrist, you might hit your own arm when you take that head shot. Second, the dog's head is probably going to be moving fast back and forth. That's just canine instinct. Finally, the head is also protected by a lot of thick bone.
So think human being, and think center of mass. A lower point of aim (to clear your hand or arm) to the chest area will probably be your best bet. And don't forget double-taps or even triple-taps if you think you're dealing with Rin-Tin-Tin's illegitimate grandson.
However, if Fang has let go of your hand and his mouth is still open, fire right into the mouth. Your best chance of penetration into the brain is via that route.
Lastly, because we're talking about firearms and dogs, let's get down to realistic ballistics. Pit bulls, Rottweilers, Dobermans and other guard dogs are probably going to come up on the short end of the stick when meeting the business end of your .40 S&W or .45 ACP, if you've placed your shots correctly.
However, if Dicky the Dope Dealer has decided to invest several thousand dollars of his hard-earned profits in a 130+ lb. Presa Canario (a Canary Island dog), you'd better be thinking 12 gauge double-aught buck. Purebred Presas are rare; they're usually cross-bred with English Mastiffs. They're the up-and-coming guard dog for meth labs and crack houses, though, and the newest fashion accessory for street punks. Presa breeders have reported that demand for these dogs originally bred to guard farms and cattle, but eventually used by the Canary Islanders for the so-called sport of dog fighting have tripled and even quadrupled. These massive animals have thick skin,very dense bones and, like pit bulls and Rottweilers, very powerful jaws. With heads the size of small refrigerators, they may not even react to 230 grains of lead. But a well-placed ounce of rifled slug may get their attention.
If you're looking for some great firearms training drills for defense against attacking dogs, pick up a copy of Combat Gunfighting (www.combatgunfighting.com) by New York-based firearms trainer Mike Rayburn. His chapter "When Dogs Attack: Winning the K-9 Assault" is chock full of courses of fire for this type of threat. You might think about incorporating some of them into your next range/firearms in-service.
Remember: All dogs can be abused and trained to be vicious. This article is not an indictment of any particular breed. However, keep in mind that criminals are always looking for the edge in furthering their illegal enterprises, and some breeds more than others give them that edge. Your job, as a police officer, is to arrest the offenders. In furtherance of your goal, you may have to stop the threat--even a canine threat.
That's it for now. Stay safe.
http://www.lawofficer.com/article/magazine-feature/surviving-dog-attacks
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Shooting a Suspect’s Pet - Can officers be liable under the Fourth Amendment?
Imagine the following scenario: You and several officers are serving a warrant to a resident on the second floor apartment of a two-flat. Upon arrival, you knock on the door. Immediately after the door opens, you’re unexpectedly confronted by a large dog that’s growling with its teeth exposed and charging toward you at full speed. You only have perhaps a second or two to react. In an instant, the dog is dead due to a fatal shot from your firearm.
Sound familiar? It should come as no surprise that law enforcement officers find themselves faced with animals, both friendly and violent, during the course of their day-to-day activities. And sometimes, officers resort to the use of deadly force against animals. Believe it or not, that use of deadly force can result in a federal civil rights lawsuit.
Can officers really be liable for shooting a suspect’s family pet? It depends.
A Constitutional Violation
Recently, a family was awarded $333,000 by a federal jury after a Chicago police officer shot and killed the family’s nine-year-old Labrador retriever.1 To add insult to injury, the jury awarded $2,000 in punitive damages against the officer who shot the dog, and $1,000 in punitive damages against the supervisor who made the decision to arrest one of the plaintiffs.2 Since when did it become a constitutional violation to shoot at an animal?
It’s one thing that police officers can be liable for the shooting of animals under various state laws. It’s entirely another thing when officers are liable under the U.S. Constitution. Has it always been this way?
It’s only been within the last 15 years or so that federal appellate courts have found that plaintiffs can state a constitutional claim for the shooting of dogs by police officers. The earliest case that I could locate came from the Eighth Circuit in 1994.3 Since then, several other federal circuit courts, but not all, have followed suit. As of this writing, the following circuits have found that plaintiffs are permitted to state a constitutional violation for the shooting of family pets by law enforcement: the First, Third, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth.4–9
Typically, a plaintiff’s claim for the shooting of a family pet by an officer falls under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. No doubt, the Fourth Amendment guarantees that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”10 According to the recent case law, dogs and other family animals are considered “effects” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
A “seizure” of property occurs when “there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.”11 Accordingly, the killing of a pet (i.e., the destruction of property) can constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure. However, more is required for a successful claim under the Fourth Amendment: Surely, to state a claim, and succeed on that claim, plaintiffs must also prove that the “seizure” by an officer was “unreasonable.”
Just like when courts analyze the shooting of a human being, courts must look to the “totality of the circumstances to determine whether the destruction of property was reasonably necessary to effectuate the performance of the law enforcement officer’s duties.”12 Moreover, the “nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests” must be balanced “against the countervailing government interests at stake.”13 Additionally, courts must judge the reasonableness of an officer’s conduct “objectively” and “from the perspective of a reasonable police officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”14 Finally, courts “must account for the difficult and often split-second decisions that police officers must make in carrying out their duties.”15 Thus, unnecessarily killing a pet can sometimes offend the Fourth Amendment.
Shoot, But Don’t Kill
There may also be a constitutional violation under the Fourth Amendment where an officer shoots a family pet, but doesn’t kill it. Several courts have found that the non-fatal shooting of a family dog could violate the Fourth Amendment.16
Yet, while “the bond between a dog owner and his pet can be strong and enduring,” the government’s interest may be heightened where the pet is at large, roaming unsupervised and dangerous, “for at that point the [pet] ceases to become simply a personal effect and takes on the nature of a public nuisance.”17 Courts have held that “the state’s interest in protecting life and property may be implicated when there is reason to believe the pet poses an imminent danger. In [that] case, the state’s interest may even justify the extreme intrusion occasioned by the destruction of the pet in the owner’s presence.”18 Example: One court found that the killing of dogs was reasonable where an officer was charged by a pack of five dogs that had already attacked people in the neighborhood and another officer.19
The Bottom Line
Depending on their jurisdictions, officers must be aware that the shooting of a suspect’s family pet can constitute a constitutional violation under the Fourth Amendment. To minimize that potential, officers should be careful to note all of the circumstances of the shooting of the animal, just as they would in any officer-involved shooting.
Do not construe this column as legal advice. Each police officer should consult with an attorney in their jurisdiction for legal advice on any specific issue.
How to Minimize Your Risk of Violating the Constitution During a Potential Pet Shooting
- At a minimum, officers should document the basis for having contact with the animal. Was the officer called as part of a “dog running at large” report? Did the encounter occur during law enforcement operations—i.e., the execution of a search warrant?
- Officers should also report any known history of the dog. Did the complainant report that the dog had bitten people in the area before? Is the officer aware of previous dog bites or aggressive behavior?
- Officers should describe the dog’s actions before they made the decision to use deadly force. Was the dog growling? Exposing its teeth? “Bearing” down on all four paws? Did the officer observe the dog’s hair on its back stand up? Bark? Break away from a restraint?
- Finally, officers should document the type of dog and its weight, as well as the surroundings. A thorough recitation of the events in a police report will no doubt assist in the defense of these expanding claims.
http://www.lawofficer.com/article/leadership/shooting-suspect-s-pet
Sound familiar? It should come as no surprise that law enforcement officers find themselves faced with animals, both friendly and violent, during the course of their day-to-day activities. And sometimes, officers resort to the use of deadly force against animals. Believe it or not, that use of deadly force can result in a federal civil rights lawsuit.
Can officers really be liable for shooting a suspect’s family pet? It depends.
A Constitutional Violation
Recently, a family was awarded $333,000 by a federal jury after a Chicago police officer shot and killed the family’s nine-year-old Labrador retriever.1 To add insult to injury, the jury awarded $2,000 in punitive damages against the officer who shot the dog, and $1,000 in punitive damages against the supervisor who made the decision to arrest one of the plaintiffs.2 Since when did it become a constitutional violation to shoot at an animal?
It’s one thing that police officers can be liable for the shooting of animals under various state laws. It’s entirely another thing when officers are liable under the U.S. Constitution. Has it always been this way?
It’s only been within the last 15 years or so that federal appellate courts have found that plaintiffs can state a constitutional claim for the shooting of dogs by police officers. The earliest case that I could locate came from the Eighth Circuit in 1994.3 Since then, several other federal circuit courts, but not all, have followed suit. As of this writing, the following circuits have found that plaintiffs are permitted to state a constitutional violation for the shooting of family pets by law enforcement: the First, Third, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth.4–9
Typically, a plaintiff’s claim for the shooting of a family pet by an officer falls under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. No doubt, the Fourth Amendment guarantees that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”10 According to the recent case law, dogs and other family animals are considered “effects” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
A “seizure” of property occurs when “there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.”11 Accordingly, the killing of a pet (i.e., the destruction of property) can constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure. However, more is required for a successful claim under the Fourth Amendment: Surely, to state a claim, and succeed on that claim, plaintiffs must also prove that the “seizure” by an officer was “unreasonable.”
Just like when courts analyze the shooting of a human being, courts must look to the “totality of the circumstances to determine whether the destruction of property was reasonably necessary to effectuate the performance of the law enforcement officer’s duties.”12 Moreover, the “nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests” must be balanced “against the countervailing government interests at stake.”13 Additionally, courts must judge the reasonableness of an officer’s conduct “objectively” and “from the perspective of a reasonable police officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”14 Finally, courts “must account for the difficult and often split-second decisions that police officers must make in carrying out their duties.”15 Thus, unnecessarily killing a pet can sometimes offend the Fourth Amendment.
Shoot, But Don’t Kill
There may also be a constitutional violation under the Fourth Amendment where an officer shoots a family pet, but doesn’t kill it. Several courts have found that the non-fatal shooting of a family dog could violate the Fourth Amendment.16
Yet, while “the bond between a dog owner and his pet can be strong and enduring,” the government’s interest may be heightened where the pet is at large, roaming unsupervised and dangerous, “for at that point the [pet] ceases to become simply a personal effect and takes on the nature of a public nuisance.”17 Courts have held that “the state’s interest in protecting life and property may be implicated when there is reason to believe the pet poses an imminent danger. In [that] case, the state’s interest may even justify the extreme intrusion occasioned by the destruction of the pet in the owner’s presence.”18 Example: One court found that the killing of dogs was reasonable where an officer was charged by a pack of five dogs that had already attacked people in the neighborhood and another officer.19
The Bottom Line
Depending on their jurisdictions, officers must be aware that the shooting of a suspect’s family pet can constitute a constitutional violation under the Fourth Amendment. To minimize that potential, officers should be careful to note all of the circumstances of the shooting of the animal, just as they would in any officer-involved shooting.
Do not construe this column as legal advice. Each police officer should consult with an attorney in their jurisdiction for legal advice on any specific issue.
How to Minimize Your Risk of Violating the Constitution During a Potential Pet Shooting
- At a minimum, officers should document the basis for having contact with the animal. Was the officer called as part of a “dog running at large” report? Did the encounter occur during law enforcement operations—i.e., the execution of a search warrant?
- Officers should also report any known history of the dog. Did the complainant report that the dog had bitten people in the area before? Is the officer aware of previous dog bites or aggressive behavior?
- Officers should describe the dog’s actions before they made the decision to use deadly force. Was the dog growling? Exposing its teeth? “Bearing” down on all four paws? Did the officer observe the dog’s hair on its back stand up? Bark? Break away from a restraint?
- Finally, officers should document the type of dog and its weight, as well as the surroundings. A thorough recitation of the events in a police report will no doubt assist in the defense of these expanding claims.
http://www.lawofficer.com/article/leadership/shooting-suspect-s-pet
In The Line of Duty, What Dogs Try To Tell Cops
This program is provided free to all law enforcement personnel. Contact for a coupon code to download this program for no charge.
FACT SHEET #1
FACT SHEET #2
OVERVIEW
An incident in Cookeville, Tennessee in which a police officer fatally shot
a family’s pet dog during a stop created a public outcry. Although it was a felony stop, critics allege
the officer was too quick to put down the dog.
It was all captured on video. The
dog appeared friendly rather than aggressive.
Complicating the issue is the fact that the owners of the dog had done
nothing wrong and that the felony stop was based on erroneous information. The result was inevitable litigation even
though the shooting was ruled justified.
There have been numerous incidents in which officers have shot and
killed dogs. There is no argument that
killing attacking, or even threatening, animals is justified. This video is designed to help officers
evaluate situations involving animals more intelligently and to take
alternative action when appropriate.
The Approach:
• Anticipate the presence of a dog on any
property. One out of three (now four)
Americans own a dog.
• Look for signs that a dog is
present.
• Contact owner to confine dog. (Some officers carry doggie treats with them
to mollify dogs)
• Assume a dog is on the
premises. Let it know you are
approaching.
• Look at a dog’s body language.
• Don’t approach dogs that seem
afraid.
• Do not back ANY dog into
corner.
• Never exit car when unfriendly
dog or dogs are present.
• Barking does NOT always mean a
dog is aggressive.
• Dogs are highly territorial and
inherently protective. They react to
movement.
• Touching the owner, even the gesture of
handing him something, can provoke hostility from the animal.
• Use lethal force when nothing
else works.
The Do’s and Don’ts When A Dog Is Provoked:
• Keep movement to a minimum
• Show profile
• Don’t extend hand
• Don’t stare
• Don’t smile or show teeth
• Back away slowly
If a dog greets you with hostility, don’t be afraid to retreat and consider
your next course of action.
If there is no time to retreat, use your baton as a “bite” stick, or “feed”
it something like your jacket. Striking the dog will make it more aggressive.
Tools:
There are a number of tools officers usually have at their disposal that
can be used to fend off an attack by a dog.
• Pepper Spray (Note: Pepper spray does not work
on pit bulls.)
• Night Stick
• Baton
• Fire Extinguishers
• Lethal force should be the final option in
the force continuum.
Force Continuum
• Calming behavior
• Commands
• Isolation
• Chemical, electronic, sonic physical
repellents
Pit Bulls and Larger Dogs:
Pit Bulls are the most
notorious of all dogs. They have often
been associated with attacks. They are often used as guard dogs by drug dealers
and many have been trained to fight.
By nature, they are people-friendly and will not challenge, unless not
socialized properly. Their best
qualities are those that make them so suitable for protection. They are
fiercely loyal, tenacious, intelligent, but if they growl, watch out. Pit bulls
often wag their tails before just before and after an attack. When the tail is
held high and wagging in short movements, it may be a sign of dominance rather
than friendliness.
Rottweilers are
not very sociable and do not like to take orders from strangers or even from
their owners. Take it seriously when they growl.
Dobermans often do not
bark or show aggression before they attack.
These larger breeds can be docile or dangerous. They have a fierce protective streak which
can be exploited by those who train them to attack.
How to Protect Yourself:
The follow maneuvers can be employed during an attack.
Turn to the side: That gives an animal a less threatening profile and makes you a smaller
target.
Protect face and throat: Dogs will usually attack the face and throat because that is where the
sound comes from. An attacking dog wants to silence its prey. So:
Do not yell or scream.
Brace yourself: You
want to avoid being knocked down were the animal has easier access to your
throat.
Fetal position: It you are knocked down, assume the fetal
position to lessen the exposure of as much body surface as possible.
Protect throat and ears: Use your hands.
Do not expose fingers: It is best to ball your hands so
the animal cannot bite at your fingers
Review:
Read the dog’s body language: Their intentions are usually clearly signaled.
Avoid Eye Contact: Staring at a dog is interpreted as a threat.
Stand Still: Dogs
are more likely to attack a moving target.
Use Verbal Commands: Dogs that have been trained will
often respond to commands such as “sit!” or “stay!”
Allow Dog to Retreat: Never corner a dog. Allow it to pull back. They are very territorial and
frequently will pull back when they feel their territory is not threatened.
Be Prepared: When
entering a situation in which a confrontation with a dog(s) is likely, have
such equipment as nooses available to restrain the animals.
Train: Work with K9
officers or animal welfare organizations to learn more about dog behavior.
Resist Lethal Force: Resist the temptation to use lethal force unless there is no alternative.
Remember, dogs are someone’s property.
Destroy that property and you are setting up you and your department for
a lawsuit.
If and when you decide on lethal force:
- If you can’t shoot before an attack, try and make the dog bite your weak side arm.
- Do all that you can to stay on your feet.
- Shoot the dog in chest or shoulder until it releases you.
Questions for Discussion
1.
What are your feelings about the Tennessee dog shooting? Do you feel the
officer was justified in killing the animal, why or why not?
2. Do you feel you might have reacted in the
same way?
3.
Is it time for you to personally reevaluate your approach to
confrontations with animals? Discuss it.
4.
Have you been trained to deal with aggressive dogs? If not, do you feel training
in this area would worthwhile?
5. Have you ever been attacked by a dog?
6. How do you deal with aggressive dogs?
7. How well do you think you can read dogs?
8.
Would you call an animal control officer if you were called to a scene where
there were barking dogs?
9.
Do you worry more about confrontations with some breeds more than
others, if so, why?
10. Do you fear dogs? If so, would that
affect your approach to dealing with an aggressive animal?
A police chief in western Kern County has surrendered his guns after local family got a restraining order against him.
A Maricopa resident applied for the temporary restraining order after Chief Gene Fretheim shot and killed her 9-year-old pit bull, and now another woman is considering filing a similar restraining order. The police department says the chief was acting in self-defense.
The temporary restraining order forced Fretheim to hand over his weapons to the Taft Police Department Monday, but a department spokesman said he still is working, just without the weapons.
Lisa Chavez got the order that disarmed the chief. She could not be reached Monday, but her neighbor of 22 years, Lisa Chavez, Rockey Shafer, described what happened the day the dog was shot, and the reaction of Chavez's 11-year-old son, Logan.
"He came up to me that day--he calls me Grandma--and he said, 'Grandma, they killed my dog.'" Shafer said fighting back tears.
Shafer is upset and surprised Maricopa police Chief Fretheim shot and killed the family's pet.
"It was an old pit bull," Shafer said describing the dog. "My sister walks by there every day. She walks her mile in town. The dog just raises up and goes 'woof,' you know just real lazy-like. So the dog was not aggressive."
17 News tried contacting the Chief but was not at the Maricopa Police Department and he wasn't returning calls. Dispatch said they were unable to locate the Chief, however, Sgt. Derek Merritt, who spoke on behalf of the police department, said Fretheim is complying with the temporary restraining order.
"According to the restraining order he can't be in possession,'' of a gun, Merritt said. "So he, from my understanding, has turned his firearms over to the Taft Police Department.''
Yet the case keeps growing. A similar charge is being lodged against the Maricopa Police Department for shooting a different pit bull who the owners say was chained up in the backyard of the house Justin Lewisburch and his girlfriend Heather rent.
"No one left us a permit or anything saying that our dog was to be fined or cited or needed registration or tags or anything like that," Lewisburch said. "It was just one day our dog was dead."
Police say there is more to the story, and told 17 News the owner of the home called them, complaining she couldn't get into the house.
"The people that lived in the house had been evicted and moved out," Merritt explained. "The property owner was trying to make entry into her yard but she couldn't. The dog wouldn't let her in there."
Lewisburch and his girlfriend Heather said they have lived at the home the whole time, and marked up a "beware of dog" sign to the front gate to read, "Beware, they will murder your dog."
Lewisburch and his girlfriend are going to file a restraining order against Maricopa Police.
"I know they illegally trespassed by property illegally and killed my animal," she said.
Meantime, the Maricopa Police Department says the community is going to suffer without an armed police chief.
"The biggest thing is it puts a big strain on the city because in this department, this size the chief wears the uniform on patrol as well as i do and now we are going to be forced to pay officers overtime to cover his shift because you wouldn't want an officer coming to your house without a gun," Sgt Merritt told 17 News.
Chief Fertheim is due in court on October 15, for the initial shooting and current temporary restraining order.
http://www.kerngoldenempire.com/news/local/story/Maricopa-chief-gives-up-his-guns/d/story/0iMsHOhL2Ey5ymHC6Gp5xQ
The temporary restraining order forced Fretheim to hand over his weapons to the Taft Police Department Monday, but a department spokesman said he still is working, just without the weapons.
Lisa Chavez got the order that disarmed the chief. She could not be reached Monday, but her neighbor of 22 years, Lisa Chavez, Rockey Shafer, described what happened the day the dog was shot, and the reaction of Chavez's 11-year-old son, Logan.
"He came up to me that day--he calls me Grandma--and he said, 'Grandma, they killed my dog.'" Shafer said fighting back tears.
Shafer is upset and surprised Maricopa police Chief Fretheim shot and killed the family's pet.
"It was an old pit bull," Shafer said describing the dog. "My sister walks by there every day. She walks her mile in town. The dog just raises up and goes 'woof,' you know just real lazy-like. So the dog was not aggressive."
17 News tried contacting the Chief but was not at the Maricopa Police Department and he wasn't returning calls. Dispatch said they were unable to locate the Chief, however, Sgt. Derek Merritt, who spoke on behalf of the police department, said Fretheim is complying with the temporary restraining order.
"According to the restraining order he can't be in possession,'' of a gun, Merritt said. "So he, from my understanding, has turned his firearms over to the Taft Police Department.''
Yet the case keeps growing. A similar charge is being lodged against the Maricopa Police Department for shooting a different pit bull who the owners say was chained up in the backyard of the house Justin Lewisburch and his girlfriend Heather rent.
"No one left us a permit or anything saying that our dog was to be fined or cited or needed registration or tags or anything like that," Lewisburch said. "It was just one day our dog was dead."
Police say there is more to the story, and told 17 News the owner of the home called them, complaining she couldn't get into the house.
"The people that lived in the house had been evicted and moved out," Merritt explained. "The property owner was trying to make entry into her yard but she couldn't. The dog wouldn't let her in there."
Lewisburch and his girlfriend Heather said they have lived at the home the whole time, and marked up a "beware of dog" sign to the front gate to read, "Beware, they will murder your dog."
Lewisburch and his girlfriend are going to file a restraining order against Maricopa Police.
"I know they illegally trespassed by property illegally and killed my animal," she said.
Meantime, the Maricopa Police Department says the community is going to suffer without an armed police chief.
"The biggest thing is it puts a big strain on the city because in this department, this size the chief wears the uniform on patrol as well as i do and now we are going to be forced to pay officers overtime to cover his shift because you wouldn't want an officer coming to your house without a gun," Sgt Merritt told 17 News.
Chief Fertheim is due in court on October 15, for the initial shooting and current temporary restraining order.
http://www.kerngoldenempire.com/news/local/story/Maricopa-chief-gives-up-his-guns/d/story/0iMsHOhL2Ey5ymHC6Gp5xQ
PO TRAINING: Use of Tasers on Dogs
The Myth of the Taser Proof Dog
We’ve all heard the myths: Pit bulls have locking jaws, pit bulls don’t feel pain, pit bulls bite with a force of 2000 psi. In the modern age when police are equipped with “less-lethal” weapons, the latest myth is the “taser-proof” pit bull.
In Topeka, KS in 2009, two dogs that were originally described as “115 lb pit bulls” attacked and bit 2 cross country runners. (Obviously they were not pit bulls and were later identified as American Bulldogs. This story hasn’t even bothered to make that correction. For more info on the breed ID confusion of this case see this post by KC Dog Blog) One of the responders to the scene was a good friend of mine and he described to me how in the course of the effort, one dog “took two taser hits and just kept going."
After coming across this myth several times over the last year, I decided to look into it.
I do not advocate or approve of needless violence of any kind against anything. But there are times when people (often police officers) need to defend themselves against danger. Whenever possible I support the deployment of “less lethal” self defense options that protect the person in danger and leave the source of danger alive. I do not condone pointless or excessive use of such measures, and I certainly do not condone violent bullies who give good police officers a bad reputation.
To get a grasp on how to properly deploy a taser against a dog, and to understand where the myth of the “taser-proof” pit bull comes from, I talked to Overland Park, KS Animal Control Officer Eric Thompson.
“Most officers are trained to think about the human aspect, but animals react totally different to [a taser].”
Deploying a taser against an animal is complex, and is different than deploying it against a human. It’s not a simple case of point-and-shoot and then go home. The information that Officer Thompson shared with me will eventually be offered in a class he is developing for law enforcement and civilians alike.
Eric Thompson is a graduate of Kansas University and of the Kansas Law Enforcement Training Center. He was a police officer in Westwood, KS and Mission, KS and then was an animal control officer in Olathe, KS. Currently he is employed by the Overland Park, KS police department as the Animal Control Supervisor. He is also an instructor for the Kansas Animal Control Association teaching such things as chemical immobilization, search and seizure tactics, officer safety, handling dangerous and exotic animals, large animal rescue, animal first aid, and is currently developing a cock-fighting awareness class and a course on ice rescue. Thompson is the Midwest Regional Team Leader, the Operations Manager for the Emergency Equine Response Unit and his team is the national first-responders to animal rescues in water disasters for Code 3 Associates. He is also training local Community Animal Response Teams (CARTs).
With a complex scenario such as deploying a taser against a dog, there is always a chance for failure, but those chances lay with the person holding the taser, not the dog and not the breed of dog. According to Thompson, there is a specific way to deploy a taser against a dog. Not following that procedure will increase the chances the taser will fail.
The first difference is how the taser is held. The taser is designed to hit a standing person center-mass. Since people stand upright, the taser is designed to deploy in a vertical spread.
So to shoot a taser at a person, you hold the taser just like a gun, vertically, and pull the trigger.
Most of a dog’s body mass is horizontal, or parallel to the ground. So shooting a taser from a vertical position in the hand will cause the taser to spread perpendicular to the body mass of a dog rather than parallel to it.
To properly use the taser on a dog it needs to be held sideways or “gangster” style so that when fired the probes spread horizontally in line with the body mass of the dog.
The next consideration is the rate of spread of the probes after firing. The older model taser probes have a 12 degree spread from firing giving them about a 15 ft effective range against a person. The newer models have an 8 degree spread from firing giving them about a 20 ft effective range for people. On a person there is anywhere from about 4 feet to over 6 feet of vertical area for the probes to make contact. With a dog there is somewhere along the lines of 1-3 ft of horizontal area for the probes to make contact. If a taser is fired at a dog from effective “people” ranges, even if deployed horizontally, it is likely that only one of the probes could make contact as a matter of simple geometry. By the time they get to the dog they are simply too far apart for both to make contact.
With the smaller area of mass for a dog, the effective range of the taser is greatly reduced. With the newer models, they could technically be effective from 12-15 ft against a rather large dogs, but a more practical maximum range would be 10-12 ft, preferably less than 10. So in addition to firing the taser from a sideways, or horizontal position, the person firing the taser must be closer to a dog than to a person.
These first two steps are important because both probes making contact is essential to the way a taser works. Without two probe contacts, a taser can be largely ineffective against its target, especially against an animal.
“When both probes connect, what happens is an involuntary scrambling of the nervous system. The dog can’t fight it off, no matter how tough it is. The nerves and muscles are just over-loaded and won’t work. The dog is incapacitated." (Regardless of breed.)
“But if only one of the probes connects, it is what I call ‘pain compliance.’ It doesn’t have nearly the same effect. All it does is hurt the dog. Then you’ve got a scared, hurt dog that is in fight-or-flight mode. He is either going to come at you to stop you from doing that again or more likely it will just get up and run away.”
Incidentally, pain compliance is also how stun guns and stun batons work. They don’t have the incapacitating effect that a taser has when deployed properly. A taser only “tases” when both probes make contact.
Once the taser is properly deployed from within a reasonable distance and both probes made contact, the officer must be mindful of the probes and the connecting copper wires. The officer must make sure the wires are not severed during a struggle or a fall, the officer must stay within close proximity, and be mindful of the condition of the dog to assure the filaments remain undamaged. If the filaments are broken, effectiveness of the taser is neutralized.
“I’ve had officers think they can hit a running dog. One probe might make contact in this case, and a lot of the time when the dog falls down, if the officer doesn’t step forward – if he is trying to shoot and retreat at the same time – the motion of the dog and officer together breaks the lead.”
The final step is to have a plan before the taser is deployed if possible. The taser is only a temporary reprieve for the parties in danger. A taser has a “cycle,” meaning the incapacitating electric charge only lasts for a set amount of time. According to Thompson, there is a difference in “cycle” time between law enforcement and tasers and taser models offered to civilians for self protection. Law enforcement models have a 5 second cycle, so the officer can temporarily incapacitate a suspect and then apprehend him. The civilian model has a 30 second cycle. “This is basically so a civilian can deploy the taser, set it on the ground and run away while the target is down.”
A taser is only meant to temporarily incapacitate. It is meant to stop an attack or to prevent eminent harm momentarily. It is not a containment system. A taser is deployed so that a method of containment can be implemented, such as using a net, leash or catch pole. A taser can be re-cycled, meaning if the trigger is pulled again it will re-send the incapacitating current to the dog and allow for more time for the dog to be contained.
Having an immediate plan will minimize the stress on the dog and will minimize the chances of the copper connectors being damaged. If the taser had to be deployed quickly in the case of an emergency, then the officer must continue to cycle the taser until a plan for containment can be formulated.
“With a person, there is a sense of confusion and disorientation for a few seconds after a taser finishes its cycle. With animals, that confusion isn’t there. It’s fight-or-flight and 99% of the time it’s flight. They don’t know what just happened and they just want to get out of there.”
So to properly deploy the taser, the officer must:
1) Hold it sideways or horizontally
2) Be much closer to the dog than a person (10-12 ft max)
3) Protect the copper probe wires
4) Have a plan in place to contain the dog or continue to cycle the taser until a plan can be executed.
If a taser is properly deployed against a dog, the dog will be involuntarily (and temporarily) incapacitated no matter how “crazed,” vicious or determined it is and regardless of the breed. A hit from a taser is not something the dog can “tough out.”
Source: http://www.doggiejustice.com/proactive-measures/general-advice/541-the-myth-of-the-taser-proof-dog
We’ve all heard the myths: Pit bulls have locking jaws, pit bulls don’t feel pain, pit bulls bite with a force of 2000 psi. In the modern age when police are equipped with “less-lethal” weapons, the latest myth is the “taser-proof” pit bull.
In Topeka, KS in 2009, two dogs that were originally described as “115 lb pit bulls” attacked and bit 2 cross country runners. (Obviously they were not pit bulls and were later identified as American Bulldogs. This story hasn’t even bothered to make that correction. For more info on the breed ID confusion of this case see this post by KC Dog Blog) One of the responders to the scene was a good friend of mine and he described to me how in the course of the effort, one dog “took two taser hits and just kept going."
After coming across this myth several times over the last year, I decided to look into it.
I do not advocate or approve of needless violence of any kind against anything. But there are times when people (often police officers) need to defend themselves against danger. Whenever possible I support the deployment of “less lethal” self defense options that protect the person in danger and leave the source of danger alive. I do not condone pointless or excessive use of such measures, and I certainly do not condone violent bullies who give good police officers a bad reputation.
To get a grasp on how to properly deploy a taser against a dog, and to understand where the myth of the “taser-proof” pit bull comes from, I talked to Overland Park, KS Animal Control Officer Eric Thompson.
“Most officers are trained to think about the human aspect, but animals react totally different to [a taser].”
Deploying a taser against an animal is complex, and is different than deploying it against a human. It’s not a simple case of point-and-shoot and then go home. The information that Officer Thompson shared with me will eventually be offered in a class he is developing for law enforcement and civilians alike.
Eric Thompson is a graduate of Kansas University and of the Kansas Law Enforcement Training Center. He was a police officer in Westwood, KS and Mission, KS and then was an animal control officer in Olathe, KS. Currently he is employed by the Overland Park, KS police department as the Animal Control Supervisor. He is also an instructor for the Kansas Animal Control Association teaching such things as chemical immobilization, search and seizure tactics, officer safety, handling dangerous and exotic animals, large animal rescue, animal first aid, and is currently developing a cock-fighting awareness class and a course on ice rescue. Thompson is the Midwest Regional Team Leader, the Operations Manager for the Emergency Equine Response Unit and his team is the national first-responders to animal rescues in water disasters for Code 3 Associates. He is also training local Community Animal Response Teams (CARTs).
With a complex scenario such as deploying a taser against a dog, there is always a chance for failure, but those chances lay with the person holding the taser, not the dog and not the breed of dog. According to Thompson, there is a specific way to deploy a taser against a dog. Not following that procedure will increase the chances the taser will fail.
The first difference is how the taser is held. The taser is designed to hit a standing person center-mass. Since people stand upright, the taser is designed to deploy in a vertical spread.
So to shoot a taser at a person, you hold the taser just like a gun, vertically, and pull the trigger.
Most of a dog’s body mass is horizontal, or parallel to the ground. So shooting a taser from a vertical position in the hand will cause the taser to spread perpendicular to the body mass of a dog rather than parallel to it.
To properly use the taser on a dog it needs to be held sideways or “gangster” style so that when fired the probes spread horizontally in line with the body mass of the dog.
The next consideration is the rate of spread of the probes after firing. The older model taser probes have a 12 degree spread from firing giving them about a 15 ft effective range against a person. The newer models have an 8 degree spread from firing giving them about a 20 ft effective range for people. On a person there is anywhere from about 4 feet to over 6 feet of vertical area for the probes to make contact. With a dog there is somewhere along the lines of 1-3 ft of horizontal area for the probes to make contact. If a taser is fired at a dog from effective “people” ranges, even if deployed horizontally, it is likely that only one of the probes could make contact as a matter of simple geometry. By the time they get to the dog they are simply too far apart for both to make contact.
With the smaller area of mass for a dog, the effective range of the taser is greatly reduced. With the newer models, they could technically be effective from 12-15 ft against a rather large dogs, but a more practical maximum range would be 10-12 ft, preferably less than 10. So in addition to firing the taser from a sideways, or horizontal position, the person firing the taser must be closer to a dog than to a person.
These first two steps are important because both probes making contact is essential to the way a taser works. Without two probe contacts, a taser can be largely ineffective against its target, especially against an animal.
“When both probes connect, what happens is an involuntary scrambling of the nervous system. The dog can’t fight it off, no matter how tough it is. The nerves and muscles are just over-loaded and won’t work. The dog is incapacitated." (Regardless of breed.)
“But if only one of the probes connects, it is what I call ‘pain compliance.’ It doesn’t have nearly the same effect. All it does is hurt the dog. Then you’ve got a scared, hurt dog that is in fight-or-flight mode. He is either going to come at you to stop you from doing that again or more likely it will just get up and run away.”
Incidentally, pain compliance is also how stun guns and stun batons work. They don’t have the incapacitating effect that a taser has when deployed properly. A taser only “tases” when both probes make contact.
Once the taser is properly deployed from within a reasonable distance and both probes made contact, the officer must be mindful of the probes and the connecting copper wires. The officer must make sure the wires are not severed during a struggle or a fall, the officer must stay within close proximity, and be mindful of the condition of the dog to assure the filaments remain undamaged. If the filaments are broken, effectiveness of the taser is neutralized.
“I’ve had officers think they can hit a running dog. One probe might make contact in this case, and a lot of the time when the dog falls down, if the officer doesn’t step forward – if he is trying to shoot and retreat at the same time – the motion of the dog and officer together breaks the lead.”
The final step is to have a plan before the taser is deployed if possible. The taser is only a temporary reprieve for the parties in danger. A taser has a “cycle,” meaning the incapacitating electric charge only lasts for a set amount of time. According to Thompson, there is a difference in “cycle” time between law enforcement and tasers and taser models offered to civilians for self protection. Law enforcement models have a 5 second cycle, so the officer can temporarily incapacitate a suspect and then apprehend him. The civilian model has a 30 second cycle. “This is basically so a civilian can deploy the taser, set it on the ground and run away while the target is down.”
A taser is only meant to temporarily incapacitate. It is meant to stop an attack or to prevent eminent harm momentarily. It is not a containment system. A taser is deployed so that a method of containment can be implemented, such as using a net, leash or catch pole. A taser can be re-cycled, meaning if the trigger is pulled again it will re-send the incapacitating current to the dog and allow for more time for the dog to be contained.
Having an immediate plan will minimize the stress on the dog and will minimize the chances of the copper connectors being damaged. If the taser had to be deployed quickly in the case of an emergency, then the officer must continue to cycle the taser until a plan for containment can be formulated.
“With a person, there is a sense of confusion and disorientation for a few seconds after a taser finishes its cycle. With animals, that confusion isn’t there. It’s fight-or-flight and 99% of the time it’s flight. They don’t know what just happened and they just want to get out of there.”
So to properly deploy the taser, the officer must:
1) Hold it sideways or horizontally
2) Be much closer to the dog than a person (10-12 ft max)
3) Protect the copper probe wires
4) Have a plan in place to contain the dog or continue to cycle the taser until a plan can be executed.
If a taser is properly deployed against a dog, the dog will be involuntarily (and temporarily) incapacitated no matter how “crazed,” vicious or determined it is and regardless of the breed. A hit from a taser is not something the dog can “tough out.”
Source: http://www.doggiejustice.com/proactive-measures/general-advice/541-the-myth-of-the-taser-proof-dog
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)