Dogs Shot By Police In Kenwick, One Dead

[Keira&Phoenix]

Maybe I'm harsh but I would considering shooting a dog who was literally latched onto the throat of my dog fair.

As a last resort maybe not as a first. I guess it depends on what you have available to you at the time to try and break up the fight and save your dog.

[Rebanne]

Maybe I'm harsh but I would considering shooting a dog who was literally latched onto the throat of my dog fair.

me too

A police dog is a serving member of the police force and such deserves every protection that a human officer would get.

It doesn't bother me that a vicious dog has been killed. A dog that the owner knew was vicious hence his comments.

[sandgrubber]

It would be interesting to know if Tiger and Zena had a history of attacking other dogs.

[Alyosha]

Nice to think these two aggressive crossbreds have been bred together.

[lovemesideways]

Maybe I'm harsh but I would considering shooting a dog who was literally latched onto the throat of my dog fair.

As a last resort maybe not as a first. I guess it depends on what you have available to you at the time to try and break up the fight and save your dog.

This is true, but when a dog is on the throat of another dog. Especially something that would be as powerful as a boxer x pitbull. I think the situation is about as serious as it can get.

It would be interesting to know if Tiger and Zena had a history of attacking other dogs.

I would say so, considering the owner knew they would attack the other dog.

[megan_]

The dog in question is supposedly a pitbull x boxer, so not that big, no bigger than the K9 dog would have been. Photos of the dog shown on the news support this. I'd like to know why the police took a k9 dog onto the property in the first place but if they had reason to do so then I suppose they had to shoot the dog once it went for the police dog, even though the poor thing was just defending its property. RIP doggie.

That's a pretty powerful dog. Trying to justify it with stating the size of the dog doesn't make sense to me.It's not your concern why they had their Police Dog with them....a Police Dog is a Police Officer.

I don't think this is correct. My understanding is that a service dog is normally considered to be equipment, same as a gun, taser, pepper spray etc.

Disabled persons' assistance dogs are legally medical appliances, not humans.

Dogs are territorial by nature and it would be normal for many dogs to challenge another dog coming onto their territory. They do not have the wit to discern the difference between a police dog and an agressive stray.

Nope - you will get charged if you attack a police dog. The officers did what they had to do to defend their dog. People are obliged to provide safe passage to their front door.

[RottnBullies]

I guess we'll never know the true facts, although I do find It odd that the police would release their dog knowing there were unrestrained dogs on the property. I can understand that happening In an emergency case but If this wasn't, then I think they should have forced owners to contain their dogs before they let him out.

Sad for all the dogs Involved In this, more Idiot owners where their dogs pay the price for their owners stupidity!

[tiff-689]

As others have said, the house in question is very well known to the police. The owners have a lot of people (with questionable motives) coming and going from the house and i don't doubt for a second, that the dogs have been raised to be very aloof to strangers.

I do also wonder why the cops would bring and release their k9 dog when they would have had prior knowledge of the aggressive dogs being at the house, but i do whole heartily agree that it is the owners responsibility to ensure dogs are restrained on your property.

[Tempus Fugit]

The dog in question is supposedly a pitbull x boxer, so not that big, no bigger than the K9 dog would have been. Photos of the dog shown on the news support this. I'd like to know why the police took a k9 dog onto the property in the first place but if they had reason to do so then I suppose they had to shoot the dog once it went for the police dog, even though the poor thing was just defending its property. RIP doggie.

That's a pretty powerful dog. Trying to justify it with stating the size of the dog doesn't make sense to me.It's not your concern why they had their Police Dog with them....a Police Dog is a Police Officer.

I don't think this is correct. My understanding is that a service dog is normally considered to be equipment, same as a gun, taser, pepper spray etc.

Disabled persons' assistance dogs are legally medical appliances, not humans.

Police dogs are not "service dogs" - they are K9 Police Officers and as such an assault on a police dog is the same as an assault on a police officer.

I would be interested to see any law that defined a police dog as a sworn police officer, with power to enforce law and arrest persons. As far as I am aware, only a human police officer has such powers and is therefore qualified to be described as a "police officer".

[stormie]

Maybe I'm harsh but I would considering shooting a dog who was literally latched onto the throat of my dog fair.

me too

A police dog is a serving member of the police force and such deserves every protection that a human officer would get.

It doesn't bother me that a vicious dog has been killed. A dog that the owner knew was vicious hence his comments.

Agree.

And size makes no difference here - Orbit had his leg ripped open by a Border Collie less than half the size of him. If it's got teeth, it can do damage.

"He should not have brought the dog out of the car because as soon as he did my dog came flying out the gate and went straight for their dog."

So the Police dog was attacked as soon as it got out of the car. What if this was an innocent person walking by with their dog? The dogs went out the gate and straight for the dog.

Sad for the dog that was killed, but the Police aren't to blame here, the idiot owners are. I say well done to the Police officers for defending their dog.

[RallyValley]

Police don't just casually turn up with a K9 unit. They are there for a specific purpose and since the officers carry guns that purpose is usually tracking and/or drug detection.

I highly doubt police would risk there dog and just pop it out the car with two aggresive dogs right there in the yard, seems there is more to this story then the facts in the media. RIP poor dog who was shot, how unfortunate for the dog to have such an idiot owner.

[trinabean]

Police don't just casually turn up with a K9 unit. They are there for a specific purpose and since the officers carry guns that purpose is usually tracking and/or drug detection.

I highly doubt police would risk there dog and just pop it out the car with two aggresive dogs right there in the yard, seems there is more to this story then the facts in the media. RIP poor dog who was shot, how unfortunate for the dog to have such an idiot owner.

Agree.

Just as children don't get to choose their parents, dogs don't get to choose their owners..

[BJean]

All dogs are not territorial by nature, and there is a large difference between barking to say "Hey this is my space" or trying to drive off another dog, than going to kill another dog that is on your front lawn.

Yes there's a difference between barking and attacking, but you need to understand the 'difference' lies in the normal range.

Dogs dont see our territory marks.

Just like we dont see theres.

I hardly think its at all in any way normal for a dog to try and kill another dog who is on leash and under very effective control. They where out the front of the house, what if someone just happened to walk down that street with their dog? Is it "normal" and ok if their dog gets killed because these other dogs are just territorial?

dogs see a leash and understand "effective control"?

The police where called because there where people fighting, in my understanding they often send K9 officers to these sort of disturbances because they break up a hell of a lot quicker with a dog around? (I could be wrong here). The Boxer X connected with the police dogs throat (where he has puncture marks), he was shot in the head and died instantly. Seems fair enough to me.

It's the steeds they send to break up a rowdy crowd.

They send dogs in when its not considered safe for man or when a dog's senses / physical abilities will be an advantage.

But the canine advantage gets voided pretty quick if there is a resident dog(s) that will defend its territory and take on the police dog; or cause more of a disturbance and escalate the incident.

The Police priority is to PRESERVE LIFE and then to Protect.

Firing off rounds where there are children nearby and causing a bloody canine brouhaha, does not do much to Preserve and Protect.

Edited July 22, 2011 by lilli

[BJean]

being nice

Edited July 22, 2011 by lilli

[geo]

IMO, They should have left their dog in the car, seriously what did they think was going to happen? that the 2 resident dogs would think, "omg it's a K9 officer we better settle down and behave!"

The coppers should've instructed the owner to lock them up, or as in many cases call an ACO to come along to the house and control the dogs before entry.

The internal investigation will only find in the polices favor.

Should they have shot the dogs? to protect their dog, yes probably, but it is their fault that they put the dog in that situation when they could've avoided it with a bit of diplomacy.

[tiff-689]

Police don't just casually turn up with a K9 unit. They are there for a specific purpose and since the officers carry guns that purpose is usually tracking and/or drug detection.

Hit the nail on the head there. I do believe the owners are known to the police for this reason..

[WoofnHoof]

I think that if the police knew there was a risk of their dog being attacked (ie the owner threatening to let his dogs loose) they should not have brought the dog out, it would be different if the dogs rushed without warning but IMO the police dog was purposely placed in danger and I think the whole incident could have been avoided had they left the dog in the car and dealt with the situation without him. This is irrespective of the idiocy and culpability of the owner, in this case I feel that while the owner is undoubtably responsible for the incident, I think there is also an onus on the police to protect their dog by not bringing it into a situation where they know it will get attacked by other dogs.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Exactly. Although I would go a little further and say that any time the police use a dog for the purpose of intimidating, chasing, or attacking a suspect, it is obviously their own fault when the dog sustains injuries. They are the ones putting the dog in danger, they deploy the dog because they deem the situation too dangerous for themselves.

As I have said before, a police officer is compelled to abide by arrest guidelines and a duty of care, the dog understands none of that. If the police sic their dog on someone, anyone, but especially a dangerous suspect, it does not take a genius to work out that the suspect is likely to try and defend him or herself, therefore the police in these cases have wilfully endangered the dog. Defending oneself against an attacking dog might be animal cruelty by the strict definition of cruelty, but is also self defence.

That's not to say I am opposed to the use of police dogs, I'm not, but I am opposed to people suggesting that the police are blameless when the dogs are inevitably injured. As for this particular case, as others have pointed out, if the police were aware that the suspect had large dogs loose on the property yet still chose to attempt to use the K9 they either have a frightful lack of common sense for people in their position or they wilfully endangered their dog.

[BC4ME]

Exactly. Although I would go a little further and say that any time the police use a dog for the purpose of intimidating, chasing, or attacking a suspect, it is obviously their own fault when the dog sustains injuries. They are the ones putting the dog in danger, they deploy the dog because they deem the situation too dangerous for themselves.

As I have said before, a police officer is compelled to abide by arrest guidelines and a duty of care, the dog understands none of that. If the police sic their dog on someone, anyone, but especially a dangerous suspect, it does not take a genius to work out that the suspect is likely to try and defend him or herself, therefore the police in these cases have wilfully endangered the dog. Defending oneself against an attacking dog might be amal cruelty by the strict definition of cruelty, but is also self defence.

That's not to say I am opposed to the use of police dogs, I'm not, but I am opposed to people suggesting that the police are blameless when the dogs are inevitably injured. As for this particular case, as others have pointed out, if the police were aware that the suspect had large dogs loose on the property yet still chose to attempt to use the K9 they either have a frightful lack of common sense for people in their position or they wilfully endangered their dog.

I am aware that the police have strict guidelines which must be followed and they have a duty of care to adhere to but unfortunately the badies don't always follow these guidelines they do anything and everything they can not to get caught, making the life hell for our police officers. It is a life often filled with instant decisions made under duress, then they are put through the wringer when things are over.

The police officers love their dogs just like you and I do ours. They don't like putting them in situations of great danger but if it came down to a human life versus a dogs life I know who's life would be lost.

A police dog to be bred to work and unfortunately their job is to protect their handler and the public at all costs even if the causes injury or death.

I think it's time we gave our police force some support instead of critising every little thing they do.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

It is not necessarily a criticism of police, as I said I do not oppose the use of police dogs, it's just pragmatism. It is not logical to suggest that the police are not responsible when their dogs are injured, that's the point I am putting forward. Although, as I said in this particular case, I have criticized the police for attempting to use the K9 at this particular property given that the chance of it even getting through the front door was nil from the outset.