If that is the case then he obviously wouldn't be. However if that is the case I disagree with it.

 

From KRS503 which applies to the use of deadly force:

 

(2) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

 

In Kentucky if a porch has a roof it counts as being in the house.

Yes, but I'd want them to look some place that the 3 year old child might actually be. Not on the other side of a 4-6 foot high privacy fence with brick posts. That is my biggest problem with the officer being in the yard--it really didn't make much sense to believe that the child could be in the yard. If you make an error in judgment you should be responsible for your actions. I'm not really for this officer being fired or prosecuted for this, but he should face some kind of discipline and the homeowner should be compensated for the loss of his dog.

 

A quick note on the officer in question: Brett Olsen was one of the officers that helped take down Sulejman Talović, who opened fire in Trolley Square Mall back in 2007 and killed 5 bystanders. He was decorated for that action and while his poor judgment in this case should be addressed I don't think it should cost him his career. I don't think he did this maliciously, I think poor training is as much to blame as anything, but I do think it was wrong.

 

I would hope the officer looked in that yard if it was my son even if he thought it would be almost impossible to get in that yard.

Maybe they should've looked in the child's own home before hoping fences? :idunno:

 

Maybe there was more than one cop looking and another officer was checking the kids house and yard.

I would hope the officer looked in that yard if it was my son even if he thought it would be almost impossible to get in that yard.

 

So look in a fenced in yard of a house on the street, but not in the child's own home? Doesn't make much sense to me.

So look in a fenced in yard of a house on the street, but not in the child's own home? Doesn't make much sense to me.

 

Guessing you don't have kids? I would look anywhere and everywhere if I thought a neighbors kid was missing. I would assume they checked their own house thoroughly. I think this was a panicky situation. The parents in my mind can be questioned for not checking the house but by the time you've called the cops you are probably panicking. My guess and it's only a guess is there was more than one cop searching and this cop wasn't the one checking the residence. Again if it was my child I would hope there was more than one officer searching and that they would search even a fenced yard.

Guessing you don't have kids? I would look anywhere and everywhere if I thought a neighbors kid was missing. I would assume they checked their own house thoroughly. I think this was a panicky situation. The parents in my mind can be questioned for not checking the house but by the time you've called the cops you are probably panicking. My guess and it's only a guess is there was more than one cop searching and this cop wasn't the one checking the residence. Again if it was my child I would hope there was more than one officer searching and that they would search even a fenced yard.

 

Does a missing child mean everyone else's rights can be ignored? I don't believe it does. Unless there was specific reason to believe the child was in this guys yard, I don't believe he was legally allowed to do what he did.

 

Would you have felt differently if he had knocked on the door, got no answered, and busted in the front door and searched the home? To me there's no difference between the fenced in yard and the home itself. Both are private property.

I'm in awe that there are so many taking the side of the police on this one. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

Does a missing child mean everyone else's rights can be ignored? I don't believe it does. Unless there was specific reason to believe the child was in this guys yard, I don't believe he was legally allowed to do what he did.

 

Would you have felt differently if he had knocked on the door, got no answered, and busted in the front door and searched the home? To me there's no difference between the fenced in yard and the home itself. Both are private property.

 

He didn't. He knocked on the door nobody was home and he checked the backyard.

 

I think yards and homes are different when looking for a small child that wandered off

He didn't. He knocked on the door nobody was home and he checked the backyard.

 

He didn't what? He entered private property without permission of the owner, and without cause. That sounds like trespassing to me.

He didn't kick the door down. I can guarantee you all the people mad about him going in this yard would be outraged if their child was lost and the police didn't look in a neighboring yard b/c there was a fence. I understand the anger and the outrage but I think when looking for a lost child it was justified to look there.

He didn't kick the door down. I can guarantee you all the people mad about him going in this yard would be outraged if their child was lost and the police didn't look in a neighboring yard b/c there was a fence. I understand the anger and the outrage but I think when looking for a lost child it was justified to look there.

 

If the child was found in another yard or at a neighbors house it would be one thing. They had ZERO reason to be in that yard. They had no reason to believe he was in a neighboring fenced in yard. I'm struggling to put myself in their shoes or understand your opinion. It seems so obvious to me.

He didn't kick the door down. I can guarantee you all the people mad about him going in this yard would be outraged if their child was lost and the police didn't look in a neighboring yard b/c there was a fence. I understand the anger and the outrage but I think when looking for a lost child it was justified to look there.

 

A lost child (and can we really consider the kid lost considering they were sleeping in their own home?) does not justify ignoring another person's constitutional rights. I don't care who's child it is. Think about what you're saying? Basically if a child goes missing, rules and laws don't apply if your actions are being done in searching for the child.

If the child was found in another yard or at a neighbors house it would be one thing. They had ZERO reason to be in that yard. They had no reason to believe he was in a neighboring fenced in yard. I'm struggling to put myself in their shoes or understand your opinion. It seems so obvious to me.

 

It seems obvious b/c the child was found in his own house? If he was found in another yard it would have been ok to look in all the yards?

A lost child does not justify ignoring another person's constitutional rights. I don't care who's child it is. Think about what you're saying? Basically if a child goes missing, rules and laws don't apply if your actions are being done in searching for the child.

 

I'm not sure he broke a law by looking in that backyard. If it's proven he did I would agree with you somewhat. I am of the belief he didn't need to get 20 warrants to search the backyards including fenced ones. However if it was my child I would hope he broke said law to search a neighboring yard.

It seems obvious b/c the child was found in his own house? If he was found in another yard it would have been ok to look in all the yards?

 

You might as well have checked every treetop and opened every garage in the area, if you ask me. Ridiculous to just assume the child was maybe in a FENCED IN back yard. Why is it so hard to just yell the child's name before climbing the fence. That way you can check for a dog and the child at the same time.

 

Or just hop the fence and shoot the dog in the head. That seems like the best option huh?