Police Officer Shoots Dog, Thinks it is a Mercy Killing

The headline of this article reminded me of a story we discussed here a year or more ago. The story I am referring to is when the police wrongfully pulled over a family, treated them like shit, and killed their dog who was doing nothing aggressive.

This one is different, however. The dog got hit by a car and the police officer thought it was a mercy killing. Turns out he might have been wrong and that the dog was not severely injured.

The owners are, of course, not happy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...019616,00.html

In cases like this, I often find myself thinking the cop was out of line and just not considering the animal a create whose life mattered.

In this situation I think the cop just made a mistake. The dog was very old after all (15 years old) and had been hit by a car. The cop made efforts to find the owner as well as a nearby veterinary clinic.

I still think he screwed up, but ruining his career seems excessive.

When the mistake is a dog's life, I have to admit it doesn't really trouble me to the point where I think the cop's career should be ruined.

Your thoughts?

I could never put a living animal out of "supposed" misery unless I can actually see it in agony by it squealing, yelping and howling with innards spewed about. Even then, it would cause me alot of emotional pain to have to put a bullet to its head to end the suffering.

I think it was a bad judgement call, maybe a bit cold hearted. I think he jumped the gun a bit and didn't consider his options seriously enough. His assumption was that the dog was suffering and he made efforts in the right direction, so I don't think he was being malicious at all and I certainly don't think he should lose his job over the incident.

I didn't read anything about the officer having a family with children to support or anything, but it's just mind-boggling that he lost his job over this unfortunate incident. There has to be something more with this cop than just this one incident. Maybe they've been wanting to can him and now they have what they feel is sufficient cause.

Who knows, it's bizarre.

I can't even begin to imagine how I would come to terms with my anger if something like this happened to Gretchen or Whiskers. Honestly, I probably wouldn't. I wouldn't rest until every single person even remotely involved with the town AND its police department were fired or quit because I was making their lives miserable.

The officer clearly showed poor judgement, and should get in BIG trouble.

Having said all that, the police officer shouldn't have lost his job. I think the town is just trying to find an easy scapegoat for the whole mess.

HOWEVER: I don't understand why the municipality didn't already have an agreement in place with a local Vet for cases like this. Assuming the dog was severely injured (it wasn't, I realize, but for the sake of argument), the police shouldn't be assessing such and euthanizing the dog. Even if this was East Bumblefuck, there would be vets available for the cow country farmers, so I don't buy that there was no vets around for the town to make a standing agreement with. I live in suburban NJ now, and all the towns around here have such agreements. I grew up in rural MO, and all the towns around had such agreements there. So, in this regard, although I don't blame the officer, the town was negligent. I mean, what is their overall strategy of animal control? They apparently have no plan, or the officer would have known what to do. I would assume the plan isn't "shoot them all." I get that there may be no local animal shelter, but still if my childhood hometown had such agreements in place, where as I recall the nearest animal hospital was 45 minutes away, and the same was true of shelters, certainly any town in PA can do so. There HAD to be local vets, and as I said above, I have NEVER EVER heard of a town that didn't have arrangements with local Vets for emergency calls in animal control situations.

Moreover, the response of the town in the person of the solicitor was so apalling it merits a smackdown in and of itself. THAT is the man who should be fired, ran out of town bleeding and naked while being pelt with rocks. The police officer just made a mistake, at least he was a cold, unfeeling idiot like the solicitor.

Whaaaat? That's crazy. I'm tempted to make jokes referring to the 'eating dogs' thread someone else posted. But I won't. But you know what I'm thinking!

What kind of a distraught dog owner leaves their dog outside on a leash, exposed to the elements, on a "frigid January evening" while she goes out and has dinner? It's obvious grandpa wasn't on the ball/concerned about where the dog was, or he would have followed the tracks or gone out to look across the street, called the police...something.

Furthermore what kind of dog owner lets their dog run loose, sure, she CLAIMS he was on a leash and 'slipped out of it' but was he really? I dunno, sounds like somebody needs a fine, don't they have any leash laws there? Animal neglect!

There are records, I assume, showing that the police officer did indeed call around asking for a hospital, 911 collar ID, knocking on doors, etc. to no avail. So what was he supposed to do, pick up an injured (and therefore dangerous) animal and lug it around with him all night long while it was in pain and he was trying to do his real job, which is not animal caretaker? Or the other option, should he just leave it for dead and have it freeze to death slowly, or something else? What good was he supposed to do for the animal that would have satisfied this woman, given the options available to him? Whatever.

I think he did the right thing by shooting it, he did what he thought was best and tried to do his job as well as he could. This is not the same as mercy-killing a person. It was a 15-year-old dog that had already lived a very long life and was probably better off dead than trying to get along with injuries sustained from the accident which could have been avoided if it did not have an owner that left it outside, alone, and unsupervised in the dead of winter.

Here, Here, Enosekel!! I totally agree. Ruining the poor cop's life over a dog that obviously wasn't really THAT important to the family is completely disgusting in my opinion. I have no idea when pets became more important than people, but I have a huge problem with that.

However, having said that, I couldn't imagine someone like Graeblyn having tied his pet outside in sub-zero weather and allow it to go missing for quite some time before I contacted someone. In addition, where was the dog's collar? The police would have been able to contact the family if the dog had had a collar on. I've NEVER had a pet that didn't have a collar on with identification.

Actually, the dog DID have tags, but there was an error in the 911 system which prevented the officers from finding the name of the people tied to the number and they were not around when the officer called. I'm guessing she was out searching for the dog.

Considering I live with one of the great escape artists of all times, rivaled only by Houdini, I can't agree with Eno that the dog mostly likely wasn't tied. My Franny has escaped from a chain within a fenced-in-yard. I never leave my dogs unsupervised in the yard for an extended period of time, but, if _I_ run in to pee quickly while they're out, yes, it's quite possible for me to come back two minutes later and find... escaped convicts. It's rare, but, yes, it does happen, even to good, responsible, dog owners. Luckily, I can usually round everyone up within 5-10 minutes but... one time my cat slit the screen and escaped and was missing for a week!

And, who's to say the grandfather didn't notice the dog was missing? If my grandma's dog ran off, she would have to wait for my mom to get home to go look for it because my grandma is too frail to go running about, herself. But no one suggests my grandma shouldn't have her dog! (that furball is the only thing that keeps her alive some days)

Finally, I just don't believe the bit about not getting the dog to a vet. I don't know a single vet who won't do an emergency call, even if it is 3 in the morning. The officer reported he petted the dog as it died, so, that kills Eno's claim that it was vicious. I just don't understand why he didn't try harder. Then again, I'm the person who stopped for a groundhog that had been hit by the car in front of me and drove it to a wildlife rehab center (after being told at the nearest vets they didn't do wildlife but pointed me there).

Now, all that said, while I believe the officer was slightly callous, I don't think this incident should ruin his career, either. It seems he did have good intentions, overall. It doesn't sound like he got some kick outta killing the dog under pretense of "mercy", but, that he honestly believed he was doing the best thing for it. Basically, I don't want a sadist on the police force, but, this guy doesn't sound like one in the slightest. He shouldn't have lost his job over it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dalaena
However, having said that, I couldn't imagine someone like Graeblyn having tied his pet outside in sub-zero weather and allow it to go missing for quite some time before I contacted someone. In addition, where was the dog's collar? The police would have been able to contact the family if the dog had had a collar on. I've NEVER had a pet that didn't have a collar on with identification.

---

Enosekel and you raise a valid point. The owners do bear some responsibility for this. Incidentally, people aren't allowed to keep their dogs chained up outside around here, but even if we could, I can't imagine someone doing that to a beloved pet, let alone during the winter.

Nonetheless, I still stand by my post, with the qualification that the owners don't deserve to make money off the dog's death, given their own role in the events leading up to the shooting.

This caught my attention because it happened in PA, so I snooped around for a couple more articles. Here is some additional information that I discovered:

1. None of the articles that I read referenced any tape or record of the phone call that the officer alleges he recieved informing him that the dog had been hit by a car.

2. The autopsy report showed no fractures or signs of trauma, and the county pathologist concluded that it did not appear that the dog had been hit by a car.

3. The 911 Center was unable to identify the owner, because the officer incorrectly read the dog's license number three times.

4. In part of the 911 tape, the officer could be heard laughing with a 911 officer about shooting the dog.

5. The officer left the corpse of the dog where he shot it. It lay there until it was discovered two days later by a neighbor.

6. After being suspended for shooting the dog, the officer took the 911 tapes (on which he was heard laughing) without permission from the police office. (The tapes were eventually returned.)

One last point about the dog owners: this occurred in rural Pennsylvania. Rural dogs are frequently kept outdoors (with dog houses, of course). This isn't particularly inhumane, and it certainly doesn't mean that the owners loved the animals any less.

Note: The articles that I read were all in the Morning Call (Allentown, PA).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Damieux
One last point about the dog owners: this occurred in rural Pennsylvania. Rural dogs are frequently kept outdoors (with dog houses, of course). This isn't particularly inhumane, and it certainly doesn't mean that the owners loved the animals any less.

---

It was common where I grew up, too. But, I never understood it. What's the point of a pet if it doesn't even live in your home? I can understand such a living arrangement for a work animal, but not a beloved pet. That is, however, a side topic.

What you have uncovered does seem to explain why the officer lost his job, but it still doesn't explain why the municipality was so lacking in proper animal control procedures. The fact that "no 24 hour animal hospitals to call" is cited as a valid excuse is troubling to say the least. As I said, even in the tiny weeny podunk midwestern town I grew up in, they had a vet on contract with the town who would respond to calls. Many times he did indeed have to put the animals down, but he was qualified to make the determination of whether he could take care of the animal until it could be transported, and he was also qualified to kill it humanely if need be. Your added information only adds to the town's overall negligence, by tending to exonerate the owners somewhat. I still am seeting about that solicitor's idiotic remarks, too.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Graeblyn
It was common where I grew up, too. But, I never understood it. What's the point of a pet if it doesn't even live in your home?

---

It lives in your home, just not your house. It has its own house, right outside of yours. You love it and cherish it and play with it. You just do it outside. I grew up in an agricultural area where pets where allowed to roam free. Keeping a dog pent up in a house always seemed more inhumane to me that allowing the dog its freedom. Of course, I was happiest when my parents also let the dog inside, but when an animal is allowed to freely romp through creeks, mud and underbrush to its delight, that isn't always feasible. The dogs who were chained outside always seemed sad to me. However, I wouldn't say that their owners didn't cherish them as pets.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Graeblyn
The fact that "no 24 hour animal hospitals to call" is cited as a valid excuse is troubling to say the least.

---

Well, the officer claims in the Guardian article that he asked the 911 dispatcher if there were any 24 hour animal hospitals in the area and that he was told there were not. However, if this is a rural area like where I grew up, there might not be a "24 hour animal hospital" but you can still call your local vet when there is an emergency. One of my uncles is a vet in rural PA. I doubt his clinic is advertized as a "24 hour animal hospital", but I am certain you could get in touch with him or one of his partners if you had an emergency after hours.

Yeah I've been reading about this incident through westlaw and Im quite shocked by a number of statements the police officer has made. Someone above commented that he "petted the dog as it died". Having grown up in a very rural part of new york, on a farm for the first part of my life, I know what it's like to have to put down a family pet. I've had to do it myself after my first dog was more or less crushed, broken pelvis, legs, ribs underneath one of our harvesters. I just take the "I petted him as he died" comment to mean, he didn't put the dog away as 'gently' as possible by shooting it through the head. The facts Damieux posted are basically the same things I've read, and it really pisses me off that people have such a low threshold of respect for life. If the dog was seriously wounded the officer probably was in his rights by putting it away. But if the dog wasn't wounded at all the cop went way over the line, not just a little bit, but way over the line. Taking the 911 tapes from the station further exacerbate the situation.

Also, all of my dogs have been dogs that lived predominately outside year round - except during the cold of winter when the temp dropped way below freezing. I never saw this, nor did anyone around me, as being cruel. To echo what Damieux said, the only thing I ever thought of as cruel was the chaining a dog to a tree and leaving it with no water at all, no shelter, etc. Those people were generally lazy, selfish, and undeserving of pet type people that had a lot of issues.

This is just a sad incident that shouldnt happen again.

Yikes. In light of more info that Damieux posted instead of just the original article, I'd agree with that officer being fired and I take back everything I said about there being no evidence to support the fact that he's a sadist. Indeed, it sounds like he is. And who wants that kind of person "protecting" the rest of us?

No kidding. I was wondering about that, when he said he petted it, why he didn't shoot it in the head.

I didn't say the animal was vicious, however anyone who isn't a trained professional who handles injured animals is putting themselves at tremendous risk. Animals are animals and if one is hurt they may bite or claw out of fear, I don't care how domesticated they are. I would not recommend anyone pick up wounded animals for this reason.

As for it slipping loose, I also had a dog that got loose when I chained him outside, which is why, after it happened a couple times, I couldn't do it anymore, since we lived in the suburbs and I had a responsibility to my neighbors. But he pulled off his whole collar. Not unhooked/untied the chain from the collar. Quite a good trick for an old, presumably weak and little schnauzer.