OK, well let me just say this. If you are chasing Jack the Ripper, a rapist, or some crack head who has done something really wrong and you shoot an animal I have raised, cared for, and consider part of my family, well I won't like it, I WILL expect real compensation, and there will be some hard feelings, but I will more likey as not get over it. You come into my yard and shoot my family dog, while chasing a bunch of kids with water balloons and you and I will have a BIG problem.
Having the authority to do something does not mean that it should be done, and to be honest it certainly appears that this is a prime example of the adage "common sense is not so common!"
First of all, no one, least of all me, believes that the dog's owner should be anything but upset. I'd be furious if a cop shot my dog.
Now, on it's surface, the underlying logic of this argument seems sound; cops can chase people, but darnit, if you're going to shoot my dog, it should be for something worthwhile, not water ballooning. This seems quite reasonable. Cops chase axe murderer through yard, and are tragically forced to shoot an innocent guy's dog. This is seems sad, but acceptable. Cops chase juvenile delinquent, tragically shoot innocent guy's dog. Wow, what stupidity. Give me a break guys, it was a juvenile prank!
Alas, the cop did not know he was going to end up tangling with a dog when the chase started. I
assume he didn't realize he was going to be tangling with a dog until he was face to face with it. Now, when you get to that point, there's no do-overs. You can't say, "Whoah, timeout, Mr. Canine. I'm just chasing a juvenile delinquent." Just like there's no crying in baseball, there are no timeouts in foot chases.
The only way to achieve that laudable goal (only ending up in faceoffs with dogs for
serious offenses), is to only chase people on foot for
serious offenses. Are you OK with that? Are you
really?
What's a serious-enough offense? Assault? OK. Burglary? That's a property crime. Yeah, but it's a felony, ok. What about theft? That's a minor property crime. Can we chase people for that?
You catch a guy stealing your lawnmower. You call the cops. The police show up. The guy bolts. Guess what? He runs off of your property (because he's trying to get "away"), and he doesn't run down the road (because he's not a complete idiot)...he heads across yards. The cops refuse to chase, because it is not serious enough. Are you OK with that?
I'll submit to you that you aren't. I'll further submit to you that you shouldn't be.
This is like a pedestrian version of vehicular pursuits. Police agencies nationwide reviewed their pursuit policies a few years back, and generally made them more restrictive. Why? They were chasing people for a lot of minor stuff and tragic wrecks resulted. What happened? There are more pursuits than ever, now, becuase people think that if they run, the police might not be allowed to go after them, so what the heck. Try it and see.
I'm not saying that there is never a good reason to terminate a pursuit, vehicular or pedestrian, but what I am saying is that if you make it a policy to
not chase, the criminals absolutely will make it a point to run. BTW, what are many agencies doing now? Loosening up their pursuit policies, because tightening them didn't work, at best, or was counterproductive, at worst.
Well, I'm glad to know that pepper spray doesn't work on dogs, but it "works" on grizzly bears. Something to remember the next time I go to the mountains
They're completely different animals. Pepper spray works on dogs, just not as reliably as you need, and not as fast. I have no idea how well Bear Spray works on bears, but I gather that one of the arguments in its favor is that handgun rounds don't really work too well on them, either.
Mike