Why are you avoiding the question? No one said shoot-first in how it should be handled. But when you have an animal moving towards you in an aggressive manner only a few feet at way (your words) what real options do you have? If the dog has it in their mind to attack and is only a few feet away you have maybe 1-2 seconds to react. So whats your choice? Use your pepper spray which may not work, your taser which you have one shot and a chance of missing, or your pistol?

 

Which is it? I can tell you what the ups man or the meter reader would do in that situation, get bit.

I have seen no evidence that the dog was threatening to attack. What we know is that Officer Olsen felt threatened and that Chief Burbank said the dog was in close proximity to the officer. In this case, I would rely more on the owner of the Weimaraner as to its demeanor rather than base this solely on what the police say. The owner lamented that he lost his hiking buddy, so that indicates the dog was socialized to some extent.

I am still in the "this is an outrageous, and completely unnecessary" camp.

 

I am a responsible dog owner, and laws require dogs to be confined and not allowed to roam free. However, dogs ARE territorial in nature, and common sense should tell someone that the dog is agitated because I invaded its territory. This officer got himself in a jam and likely felt threatened because of the difficulty there would be if he had to scale back over the wall. A simple stop to look at the yard for signs of a dog, or call out to see if there was a response would have done a whole lot more to help the situation. Dogs run to the source of the disturbance. They don't lie in wait trying to surprise you. Although it's possible, I am pretty sure he had an idea there was a dog in the yard prior to dropping down into the yard. Why not just stop, assess the situation and see if there was another alternative?

We don't know how the officer felt after the incident. My speculation is that he did "feel" threatened and felt that he had to shoot. However, I don't think that he made the correct decision in going over the fence in the first place. There is no mention of holes in the fence or areas in which it was likely that a child could have gotten through. If not, he was not only wasting time finding the child, he was also on someone's private property illegally.

 

I would hope that he felt bad, but I'm sure that it's nothing considering what the owner is going through. Can you imagine coming home and finding that your dog that you left safe and secure in your own backyard had been shot in the head by a police officer? It's just an awful image to me.

Out of curiosity, was there a thread discussing the two police officers and one innocent civilian murdered in Vegas recently? If so...was there anywhere near the level of interest in that thread?

 

I don't remember seeing a discussion on that, but maybe I missed it.

Out of curiosity, was there a thread discussing the two police officers and one innocent civilian murdered in Vegas recently? If so...was there anywhere near the level of interest in that thread?

 

I don't remember seeing a discussion on that, but maybe I missed it.

 

Sounds like a great topic. Why start the thread?

Sounds like a great topic. Why start the thread?

 

You can if you want, I was just curious.

Out of curiosity, was there a thread discussing the two police officers and one innocent civilian murdered in Vegas recently? If so...was there anywhere near the level of interest in that thread?

 

I don't remember seeing a discussion on that, but maybe I missed it.

 

Outside of the politics of the killers, what would inspire a debate or discussion about it? The interest in this thread is driven by the disagreement between two sides of a controversial issue.

 

Your implication seems to be that those of us who believe the Fourth Amendment should still exist are somehow "anti-police" and thus are unconcerned or unmoved by officers being murdered, which I think is revolting.

 

You can if you want, I was just curious.

 

I don't know anything about it.

Out of curiosity, was there a thread discussing the two police officers and one innocent civilian murdered in Vegas recently? If so...was there anywhere near the level of interest in that thread?

 

I don't remember seeing a discussion on that, but maybe I missed it.

 

Probably would have been a lot of interest had you started it. I normally don't ask if people have started threads or if they have interest in a thread topic. I just post it and speak my thoughts on it and the debate begins. Seeing as how I'll be in Vegas soon I'm real curious about this story. Since you haven't posted it I'll see what Google can do for me.

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?

 

I need some clarification.

 

When you say the fact is he had no legal right to be in the yard what are you basing that on? Has there been a case with these specifics?

 

What do you mean by "properly restrained?" Was the dog on a chain? In a cage?

 

I ask because I do not know/have not seen it mentioned.

 

As to your final point/question I'd argue it's of no importance in determining right or wrong.

Outside of the politics of the killers, what would inspire a debate or discussion about it? The interest in this thread is driven by the disagreement between two sides of a controversial issue.

 

Your implication seems to be that those of us who believe the Fourth Amendment should still exist are somehow "anti-police" and thus are unconcerned or unmoved by officers being murdered, which I think is revolting.

 

That wasn't my intentions, but i won't go further into it. Shouldn't have made the comment here.

What if a judge had signed a search warrant and the officer had jumped the fence and felt threatened by the dog...Everyone seems to be caught up on saying he had no right to be there, so what if he did via a signed warrant?

Kill 3 people and get part of a page on BGP.

 

Kill a person's dog and all heck breaks loose.

What if a judge had signed a search warrant and the officer had jumped the fence and felt threatened by the dog...Everyone seems to be caught up on saying he had no right to be there, so what if he did via a signed warrant?

 

Post #6.

Post #6.

That's like 3 years ago...it seems!

 

And you've UN-Common Sense though!