It's not confusing for me. You always assume the worst when police are involved :lol2:

 

And you think they walk on water, so I guess we cancel each other out. :lol2:

Obviously the officer had options or the Salt Lake police chief would not have said on Friday that the department would reassess the way it trains officers to deal with aggressive dogs. Which begs the question of where on the ladder of options is "putting a bullet in dog's head"? Obviously, in this case, the lethal option took precedence before vacating the area or using a non-lethal option, i.e., baton, pepper spray or Taser. We still don't know how close Geist was to Officer Olsen, who killed the dog because he "felt threatened."

We don't much of anything in the way

of details but that didn't stop you from claiming he had options. IF a dog is attacking you, shooting it is the safest option. You have one shot with a taser, very easy to miss a small target like a dog especially when it's moving. Spray might not work. He may not of had a baton.

^Where did he say the dog was attacking him? Everything I've read has said he felt threatened. Big difference IMO.

And you think they walk on water, so I guess we cancel each other out. :lol2:

Or maybe he just gives them the benefit of the doubt until facts are known.

 

And you think they walk on water, so I guess we cancel each other out. :lol2:

 

Riiiiiiight, cause I defended this guy or the jay walking officer and plenty others on here.

Edited June 30, 201412 yr by True blue (and gold)

^Where did he say the dog was attacking him? Everything I've read has said he felt threatened. Big difference IMO.

That's why I put if in caps. Again, until we know details you can't say he had better options.

If the officer violated privacy rights then he should be held responsible. If he did not violate privacy rights then it's just an unfortunate situation.

 

Unfortunate would be if the dog jumped at the officer and his gun, in its holster accidently discharged killing the dog. What happened here is not unfortunate..it was deliberate and caused by the officer's irresponsible actions. I appreciate the fact that they are looking for a child, but apparently the officers do not have a lick of common sense.

Or maybe he just gives them the benefit of the doubt until facts are known.

 

All the facts necessary are known here IMO. He was somewhere he had no legal right to be (that's trespassing, is it not?), he then shot and killed a dog who was properly restrained, not because he was attacked, but because he felt threatened by the dog. What other facts are necessary?

 

And I'll ask a third time, since no one seems to want to give an answer....Why would the responding officers not check the missing kid's own home and property before going out to the rest of the neighborhood?

Or maybe he just gives them the benefit of the doubt until facts are known.

 

No way, all cops are evil and ukmf is out to prove it :lol2:

We don't much of anything in the way

of details but that didn't stop you from claiming he had options. IF a dog is attacking you, shooting it is the safest option. You have one shot with a taser, very easy to miss a small target like a dog especially when it's moving. Spray might not work. He may not of had a baton.

 

I believe the police chief stated that Geist was a few feet away from Officer Olsen when slain. If Geist had made contact with Officer Olsen, that fact no doubt would have been made public by the police.

I would recommend to government and law enforcement that they invest more in and work more closely with their animal control officers who are trained to handle and control animals as well as have the tools for it. (At least I would hope they are.) Not that I would want the officers invading my yard and "controlling" my dog (s), it would be a better outcome than shooting the dog (s) on sight because they were inconvenient, AND doing their job.

All the facts necessary are known here IMO. He was somewhere he had no legal right to be (that's trespassing, is it not?), he then shot and killed a dog who was properly restrained, not because he was attacked, but because he felt threatened by the dog. What other facts are necessary?

 

And I'll ask a third time, since no one seems to want to give an answer....Why would the responding officers not check the missing kid's own home and property before going out to the rest of the neighborhood?

Maybe no one has answered because no one knows the answer.

 

What we know is he jumped a fence looking for a kid. Was he trespassing, yes. Does that mean he forfeits the right to defend himself? And when does threatening behavior by an animal cross over into attacking behavior?

Maybe no one has answered because no one knows the answer.

 

What we know is he jumped a fence looking for a kid. Was he trespassing, yes. Does that mean he forfeits the right to defend himself? And when does threatening behavior by an animal cross over into attacking behavior?

 

Since you seek an answer...I can only answer for myself and not the law: if anyone came into my yard and injured any of my family members including pets, this person forfeits many rights - according to me. And, like the officer, I will be unconcerned about the consequences.

I believe the police chief stated that Geist was a few feet away from Officer Olsen when slain. If Geist had made contact with Officer Olsen, that fact no doubt would have been made public by the police.

 

So he should wait until the dog makes contact before shooting it? If a dog is growling and coming at you is it attacking your or threatening you?

Sometimes there are just unfortunate situations with unfortunate outcome. If only everyone could be as perfect as those who demand perfection...