Jay says:

I agree that the video is not for everyone but the story alone is something that I still can’t believe. A deputy shows up without any documents… does not allow the owner their right to any form of hearing and proceeds to shoot a dog three times on the property in a residential area. Granted this did not involve a human but the facts that I heard would cause me to pull this moron off the road faster than he could say shoot… Hopefully this idiot gets what he deserves and I pray that dog survives his wounds.

Gasbag says:

What the hell. Some asshole deputy shows up then shoots the dog. What the fuck was he thinking? Ok, if the dog had attacked someone, you would at least take it to a vet and have it put down. This after you had looked into the matter. Come on, this so-called cop needs his ass kicked for this.

Mr. Fusion says:

#5, moss,

Well said. I would add that many shouldn’t wear a badge either.

Aaron says:

How much for the dog? Any dog that can take 3 shots and live, would make one hell of a watchdog! (what a badass)

Joven says:

Some cops just like killing dogs. In all those wrong/bad/fabricated information no-knock raids if there’s a dog either on the person’s property, or their even neighbors in some cases if they travel through that property to get around back, they will kill it outright regardless of what kind it is.
Like the beagle or whatever dog it was when Joe Arpio’s goon squad burned that house down they kicked the dog back into the flames and laughed as the owners and neighbors were watching and screaming.

Nik says:

The owner brings the dog out (after hearing the cop say he’s going to kill it), lets the dog be tied to a post, let’s the cop shoot him, leaves the dog bleeding on the ground and (from what it looks like) doesn’t treat the dog’s wounds after he realizes it’s alive. Those people don’t deserve a dog. I don’t even know if they should keep their kid! I’m not saying the cop wasn’t wrong – of course he was! – but there is more than one idiot in this story.

Lawman says:

Each year there are thousands of cases where American Police shoot a family dog because the officer ‘felt threatened’ or the dog was a ‘problem animal’.

The current law is written such that little to no proof of a real threat is required and no actual contact from the dog need be made.

Some Police believe its enough justification to shoot if the dog approaches or growls, even when the dog’s owner is right there and is saying the dog doesn’t bite. Dogs are shot even when they are standing still and acting scared. Even when its a small dog or a breed that isn’t known to have ever seriously hurt a person.

In nearly all cases, the officer has other less lethal ways to prevent or defend against a dog attack. And without exception, if an attack did occur by a single dog, the officer, and his fellow officers, could easily defeat it, non lethally or lethally.

I’m glad these grotesque cases are finally reaching critical mass and making the mainstream media. This may finally lead towards a groundswell of support to revise the law regarding use of force against family pets.

Currently, the burden of proof for what constitutes ‘being threatened’ by a dog is impossibly high. This leaves an officer in most cases free to shoot a dog with impunity, where in the exact same situation, a civilian without a gun would react far diffently and would not be harmed.

This case represents an extreme example of how some Police view ‘perceived problem dogs.’ This officer clearly had no empathy and caring for the dog, that family, the kids around him, or the public. He gave no thought to safety in discharging a high power rifle 3 times in a crowded neighborhood. And he certainly didn’t think about how anyone else would feel about this tragic event.

That alone is enough to fire and convict him. Who would want a man with that character ‘protecting’ the neighborhood.

The Police in this small community decided to execute a family pet based solely on their frustration of having to deal with several complaints in a single week from one woman who was mentally handicapped and may have been making up all her ‘near attack’ stories. That the woman changed her story to the media shows she isn’t a reliable truth teller. That the Police had no warrent, no court order, and no witness statements shows that they acted solely on what was most likely false information. They also clearly violated their own statutes in that this dog was indoors when the shooting event started, and was neither ‘at large’ no ‘a threat’.

We don’t know all the facts in this case yet. But what we do KNOW for certain is NEITHER DID THIS OFFICER or his department. The only chance of justice here is if some other entity investigates. Police tend to protect their own.

America is finally waking up to the fact that its OPEN SEASON on all dogs, even yours, if any morally deficient officer decides he doesn’t like how your dog is growling at him or approaching him (even though this is what dogs do when you are in their territory or when you are scaring them.

This law must be changed. The burden of proof should demand that an actual attack must have occured before lethal force is used. Its not like a dog can shoot you, so an officer does have many options even after an attack has started.

As an ethical, caring, and moral society, lets finally change this law and ‘put down’ this tendency for some officers to shoot as their first reaction to a threatened and threatening dog.

P says:

Stupid schmuck cop a**hole. Although I am a law abiding person this is exactly why I stay the hell away from cops. There are too many lunatics with badges out there. I agree with the person that said he should be removed from the force and NEVER, EVER allowed to own/handle/fire a weapon ever again