Community Chat

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

Oh great .... the owner was serving in Afganistan when his dog was killed!   yikes.

There are two important considerations here that I don't see mentioned .....

First, did this cop have a history of killing other dogs?  

Second, how many other dogs have been needlessly killed by all the law enforcement officers in this jurisdiction?   If this was an ongoing problem for this police force,  indicating a lack of training of proper procedure, I can see why the jury decided enough was enough.

This is just speculation on my part .....

---

So you are just fueling the fire rather than dealing with facts of the case.  The jury is not to speculate.

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@Pook wrote:

---

@151949 wrote:

---

SERIOUSLY? The officer had dog prints on her so the dog was actually in contact with her body. It was a large dog - it was snarling and growling - really, what do you think she should do? Please - tell me what her alternative was. DOGS ARE NOT PEOPLE. They don't speak or understand english. You can't just tell them to stop.

---

@Goldengate8361 wrote:

They should have been awarded MORE money and the officer should do some time in prison. Really. I don't think we should treat animals any different from humans. 

---

I have often been confronted with a dog leaving their yard a few feet barking and even growling when I'm walknig by and every one responded to the sit or stay command.  I always try that first (and it has worked every time as most dogs - especially larger - ones are trained in the basic commands) and if that didn't work then I would have given treats but I also carry pepper spray if needed.  You can tell by a dog's demeanor whether the barking and even growling is agressive and I would think the officer displayed no reassuring behavior upon seeing the dog and probably was carrying one of those long flashlights that looked threatening to the dog.  Also the dog may have jumped on the officer in a friendly way and the officer who was a rookie and probably a bit frightened anyway  overreacted by roughly pushing the dog and caused the dog to think officer was the one wanting to cause harm!!   Had the officer said an effort was made to talk to the dog and given commands the dog ignored that might be different.

---

You are  fooling yourself if you think a dog charging/jumping/barking large dog is going to be percieved as well trained and not a threat.  Pepper spray is designed to be sprayed at a distance, not when the dog is close and an aggressive dog will not be stopped by a biscuit.

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

Oh great .... the owner was serving in Afganistan when his dog was killed!   yikes.

There are two important considerations here that I don't see mentioned .....

First, did this cop have a history of killing other dogs?  

Second, how many other dogs have been needlessly killed by all the law enforcement officers in this jurisdiction?   If this was an ongoing problem for this police force,  indicating a lack of training of proper procedure, I can see why the jury decided enough was enough.

This is just speculation on my part .....

---

So you are just fueling the fire rather than dealing with facts of the case.  The jury is not to speculate.

---

@CrazyDaisy

???    No, Crazy, I am NOT fueling the fire.  

I read the article twice and, as I indicated above,  there are TWO IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS that would have influenced the jury decision, but weren't mentioned in the article.   Nowhere did I indicate that I thought the jury should speculate.  Clearly, you either didn't understand or didn't read my post.

[ScarletDove]

Yes, the jury got it right.  I personally have a great deal of respect for the men in blue, but given this situation and the information provided, would I trust this particular officer?

[jubilant]

And we don't think "rookie" cops make mistakes?  For this mistake he should get prison time?  Unbelieveable.

If this particular "rookie" had done this time and time again, I could possibly understand some of the reasoning here.  If he really believed harm was coming to  him ......then  his natural instinct would have been to protect  his (or her) own life.  If in doubt, human life should come first.  Many of these decisions  by the police are "split-second" decisions.  So...for that...he should be kicked off the force and possibly serve a sentence?  I don't think so. 

[Isobel Archer]

---

@Goldengate8361 wrote:

They should have been awarded MORE money and the officer should do some time in prison. Really. I don't think we should treat animals any different from humans. 

---

Well clearly if a human charged the officer and got close enough to put his hands on him, the result would have been the same - so I'm not getting your point.

[itiswhatitis]

Another aspect of this case that needs consideration:

"A necropsy performed at the request of Anne Arundel County police showed that one bullet entered the dog's sternum, and another bullet entered the dog's side, at a time when the dog's body was perpendicular to the gun. Hansel said the evidence contradicted Price's testimony regarding how the shooting occurred.

Hansel said the jury was asked specifically if the dog attacked Price — the jury's verdict said the dog did not."

The $1.26 million verdict includes $500,000 in monetary damages. Reeves works as a defense contractor, Hansel said, and the shooting caused him to miss a significant amount of time from work. The remaining $760,000 in damages was for the anguish caused by the shooting.

Reeves got Vern in 2009 and took one year off work then to train him. Reeves declined comment on the verdict.

"He's very happy to have some justice for Vern," Hansel said.

http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/for_the_record/ph-ac-cn-vern-lawsuit-0510-20170509-story.html

[itiswhatitis]

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@Goldengate8361 wrote:

They should have been awarded MORE money and the officer should do some time in prison. Really. I don't think we should treat animals any different from humans. 

---

Well clearly if a human charged the officer and got close enough to put his hands on him, the result would have been the same - so I'm not getting your point.

---

@Isobel Archer Perhaps what the op is saying here is that if it were a human a lawsuit could still ensue.  We know for a fact that has happened.  So, the same lawsuits and awards should be applied when it comes down to pets (dogs) in this instance.

[itiswhatitis]

---

@ScarletDove wrote:

Yes, the jury got it right.  I personally have a great deal of respect for the men in blue, but given this situation and the information provided, would I trust this particular officer?

---

@ScarletDove the jury didn't believe him.  This was based on autopsy evidence.

[Noel7]

FROM THE REPORT:

"The verdict sends a strong message to the police about ... community expectations," Hansel said in a prepared statement. "The duty to serve and protect extends to our animal family members as well."