Cleveland Police chase water ballooners, shoot dog.
- Thread starter Blackfork
- Start date
- Status
budney
member
Note to self: don't store unused water balloons in the freezer.
--Len.
It seems both sides here are prejudging. From the story “facts” available, it is difficult for a gun-toting (not really – I’m in Illinois), dog-loving, anti-vandal person such as myself to imagine how the LEO’s best and quickest and safest response was to shoot at or near the dog. Could happen, though.
Coronach is right to point out the possible exonerating circumstances, but he is obviously in the minority on this. Additional facts might make him right. He assumes facts that appear to me to be unlikely, even if they do turn out to be 100% correct. King Solomon warned against judging a matter before hearing it. In the same situation, it sounds like Coronach would have acted properly in avoiding the problem (post 24).
If the cop was ambushed, shooting could be justified. (He must be an extremely quick draw.) Self-defense should win this argument, if it was self defense. Dog attacks are generally easy to fight off (not always – lots of variables!) and retreat is almost always an option. If the dog was chained, retreat would have succeeded brilliantly.
If the dog prevented the cop from going where he needed to go (to accomplish some greater good), the dog goes down. Good shoot. If it was cop or dog, good shoot. Human life takes precedence. I do not see any evidence of these factors here, though.
If the dog was open and obvious, the cop was extremely unwise to barge into its territory. Full blame on LEO. Avoid the fight. Choose another route. Without extreme circumstances, I cannot imagine chasing water-balloon-throwers with a drawn gun. Could happen, though.
Chained dogs are generally easy to identify as chained -– even if the chain is almost invisible (doubtful), there’s a wear pattern at the end of the rope. Further, if he had time to draw and shoot, he probably was not in the jaws of death and retreat would be an option.
I can imagine how a cop could put himself into a situation that justified such a shooting, but it seems far less likely than the “bad shoot” theory. And to think that it all happened because of neighborhood water balloons! They can be extremely dangerous, but we may never know the facts of these aquatic missiles. (Turney Road sounds like a residential street, but I certainly wouldn’t want to be smacked in the face at any speed. Garfield Heights must be a pleasant place to live if police “continue to investigate” the balloon incident.)
Perhaps the moral is that if there’s a bright line between good and evil or between safe and unsafe, stay on the right side and far away from the line.
Coronach is right to point out the possible exonerating circumstances, but he is obviously in the minority on this. Additional facts might make him right. He assumes facts that appear to me to be unlikely, even if they do turn out to be 100% correct. King Solomon warned against judging a matter before hearing it. In the same situation, it sounds like Coronach would have acted properly in avoiding the problem (post 24).
If the cop was ambushed, shooting could be justified. (He must be an extremely quick draw.) Self-defense should win this argument, if it was self defense. Dog attacks are generally easy to fight off (not always – lots of variables!) and retreat is almost always an option. If the dog was chained, retreat would have succeeded brilliantly.
If the dog prevented the cop from going where he needed to go (to accomplish some greater good), the dog goes down. Good shoot. If it was cop or dog, good shoot. Human life takes precedence. I do not see any evidence of these factors here, though.
If the dog was open and obvious, the cop was extremely unwise to barge into its territory. Full blame on LEO. Avoid the fight. Choose another route. Without extreme circumstances, I cannot imagine chasing water-balloon-throwers with a drawn gun. Could happen, though.
Chained dogs are generally easy to identify as chained -– even if the chain is almost invisible (doubtful), there’s a wear pattern at the end of the rope. Further, if he had time to draw and shoot, he probably was not in the jaws of death and retreat would be an option.
I can imagine how a cop could put himself into a situation that justified such a shooting, but it seems far less likely than the “bad shoot” theory. And to think that it all happened because of neighborhood water balloons! They can be extremely dangerous, but we may never know the facts of these aquatic missiles. (Turney Road sounds like a residential street, but I certainly wouldn’t want to be smacked in the face at any speed. Garfield Heights must be a pleasant place to live if police “continue to investigate” the balloon incident.)
Perhaps the moral is that if there’s a bright line between good and evil or between safe and unsafe, stay on the right side and far away from the line.
Good post, telkontar. Obviously, there are two sides to every story. I'm having a hard time envisioning how a cop could justify shooting a restrained dog unless he ran around a corner/jumped over a fence and both he and the dog was surprised. Hard to believe that the dog wouldn't be barking otherwise.
And you're right - the cop *would* have to be a fast draw.
Biker
And you're right - the cop *would* have to be a fast draw.
Biker
IllHunter
Member
I'm truly surprised...
by some of the elegant logic and some of the emotion in the argument, but most surprising is that in 4 pages of posts, no one commented on the survivability of being shot.
Assuming (forgive me) that the LEO carried minimally .38 to max .45 yet probably 9mm, The +- 80lb dog survived.
Poor shooting/Great shooting? As many have said, we don't have all the facts. Hell we have very very few facts!
by some of the elegant logic and some of the emotion in the argument, but most surprising is that in 4 pages of posts, no one commented on the survivability of being shot.
Assuming (forgive me) that the LEO carried minimally .38 to max .45 yet probably 9mm, The +- 80lb dog survived.
Poor shooting/Great shooting? As many have said, we don't have all the facts. Hell we have very very few facts!The Unknown User
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 712
It's a shame that police officer was never trained in the concept of...taking a step away from the dog. What's it going to do? Chase him?
And normally this is something that would matter quite a bit, but in an instance where someone (LE, CCW permit holder, anyone) is legally allowed to be on that property as well (as it certainly seems the LEO was in this case), it means a whole lot less.
If you reread carefully, they are not justifications, at least not in most cases on THR. They are statements providing perspective. And no, they are not the same thing.
Justification basically means "this act was right and correct, and here is why." Do you get some LEOs on THR doing that? I'm sure you do, but it is the exception, not the rule. What most everyone, myself included, does is admit that we don't know whether the action was proper or not, absent facts, but provide some reasons why it could be correct, based upon our experience, knowledge of the law, the job, how these things usually work, etc. We then usually conclude with acknowledgement that if our assumptions are not met, then the idea that the officer might be justified is not necessarily valid.
What the "other side" does is just jump to conclusions, absent facts, absent experience, absent knowledge of how things are done. Reread this thread. You will see it in action. Poster after poster, with no experience, no knowledge, jumps in the thread making all sorts of wild accusations, unsupportable assumptions and arriving at conclusions. When we see ignorant anti-gunners doing this, we (correctly) jump all over them for drawing asinine conclusions from a dearth of information, bad media coverage, and a wholesale lack of experience. When the LEOs come out and do this to the anti-LE types, who are doing the same darned thing, suddenly everyone is up in arms (so to speak) about how LE is "circling the wagons". No, we aren't (at least not here), we're just providing perspective. Hopefully people learn from this.
No argument.
Could you possibly find a broader brush? I'm sure Home Depot sells them.
I think that many people, on this board and others, have anti-LE opinions, some of which are born from experience, but many of which are formed in a vacuum of real experience but fed by some completely ludicrous rantings of some very ignorant people.
Of course. Self examination is always a good thing.
Again, providing perspective in a debate is not "circling the wagons"
Conversely, if you cannot see how the officer could be justified, you're not in deep enough.
Reread what I just wrote.
The facts and details matter. Can I think of a scenario, matching the known facts that we have, in which the officer was 100% wrong and should be punished? Absolutely. Can I also think of a scenario, matching the facts that we have, in which the officer was 100% right? Absolutely. If you cannot do the same, and many people cannot, because they lack experience and perspective, I submit to you that you don't know enough about the job to adequately evaluate the officer's performance in this instance.
Now, the only person who has experience doing a job (LEO, EMT, whatever) is someone who has done it. Perspective, however, can be gotten second-hand, via discussions like this. Now, I am not saying that the only people fit to judge cops are other cops. That's not how a free society works. However, if you're going to make intelligent, informed decisions about the propriety of an officer's actions, you need to hear from officers- people who have experience doing the job. I'm not saying you take their word as Gospel, but you should consider it in your evaluation.
Now, what MANY people, on this board and others, want to do is NOT hear what the LEOs have to say. They want the echo chamber. They want to preach to the choir. They do not want perspective. They want to read their 8-sentence newsblurb, decide that the officer was a JBT and should be fired, and engage in a five-page rant about the coming police state. When the LEOs come in and say "now, wait a minute, what about-" they start indignantly howling that the "thin blue line" is backing up one of its own, and that the LEOs are stifling debate (that is one of my faves, personally), and they try to dismiss the LEO's input to the discussion. I ask you...why do you think this is?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, in reference to the original topic, but I don't disagree with anything you just wrote. I will note, however, that there has thus far been nothing to indicate that the GHPD officer should not have his job.
It's impossible to say, from here, whether it was a case of poor situational awareness or a case of the dog being out of sight until it was too late. In general I agree, though.
Are you kidding me? Why would you think he had his gun out when he was chasing them? Because he shot a dog?Seriously...how long does it take you to draw from the holster?
I hypothesize that part of it is because people jump to unsubstantiated conclusions like this.
I find this to be a completely even-handed and reasonable evaluation. Frankly, if it was my dog, I'd be furious, too. And I fully agree that the owner needs to be compensated for his loss.
I encourage you NOT to take up a career in jurisprudence. You need a lot more facts than that.
Mostly because you're not legally entitled to be there. The fact that the area is fenced only makes it more apparent (note that this shooting apparently happened in an unfenced front yard).
They aren't allowed to carry guns at work. They get bitten all of the time. The badly mauled person I mentioned in my previous post was a meter reader.
See what happens when the police don't do their job, in your eyes? The person who called them gets angry. "Sorry, not going in there after the badguy. There's a dog. Might get hurt."
This means that all anyone has to do to elude the police is to run into someone else's back yard.
There might be a dog.
They go free. *shrug*
Jeeze, dude. How furious would you be if you were the victim out of the crime and the cops told you that? I'll tell you, you'd be beside yourself with self-righteous fury. And, frankly? I'd probably agree with you.
I'm still at a loss as to what Cleveland PD has to do with this, at all, since it happened in Garfield Heights.
Now, let's look back at the posts from the media.
What I get from this is that they conducted an investigation and concluded that it was a good shoot. I fully agree that the wording in the second newsblurb makes it sound like they did not conduct an investigation at all, but I find it hard to believe that no one in a position of authority asked any questions.
This is, almost certainly, an example of stellar reporting as opposed to a lack of investigation. No, I don't know it for a fact, but I'd wager money that they conducted and concluded the investigation.Dog shoot investigations are fairly simple, and are conducted fairly quickly. You interview the officer. You interview any witnesses. You look at the location. You review any tapes, including the radio tapes. You draw your conclusions. You write your report. This ain't CSI-Cleveland.
What's your basis for this?
They can and are. It's called a "jury" and it happens in a "lawsuit", if you are not satisfied with the results of the administrative investigation. If you don't think you can find attorneys in every town to take cases for nothing but the hope of a piece of the payout, you're mistaken.
Yeah, because the same level of scrutiny is levelled at a dog shoot as is leveled at an officer when a human being is shot. That whole Grand Jury thing? It's a big sham.
You know? I'm inclined to agree that far too much is legislated nowadays. However, hitting a driver in the face with a water balloon, presumably while in motion, should darned well be illegal, and if you run from the police after doing it, you should be pursued. You could have killed someone.
See, what I want people to understand is this: I have no idea of the GHPD officer was justified in shooting the dog, and I REALLY DON'T CARE(outside of a general desire for justice and for cops to do the right thing). I care that people on THR cannot and will not take the time to stop and think about how the officer could be justified. It's OK to assume facts not in evidence to excoriate the cop, but it's not OK to assume them to exonerate him. How is that fair? How does that help ANYONE? What can we possibly learn from reading a newsblurb, deciding that someone was right or wrong, and then shaking our fists about it for 5+ pages? In truth, it is unfair to assume facts not in evidence one way or the other, for ANYONE, be they LEO, CCWer, private citizen.
And, in many of these cases (this one certainly included), it's not like the facts assumed to justify either conclusion (good shoot, bad shoot) are necessarily off the wall. For instance, I'm assuming that the officer was startled by the dog, and had no time to evaluate whether or not the dog was chained, or the length of that chain. That is NOT an unreasonable assumption. Others assume that that the officer was not paying attention. Frankly? Not unreasonable either- he was busy doing a bunch of other things. Which was it, or was it a combination? No idea.
The reason I do this (post at great length and make the anti-LE types foam at the mouth), is because:
1. It is a great opportunity for people to learn some of the realities of the LE profession.
and
2. If LEOs have a great universal failing, it is that they do the right thing, the right way, to the right extent...and then don't take 10 minutes to explain it to people who are wondering why they did what they did. I think THAT tendency, more than anything else, generates animosity towards LEOs. If you take a minute to break down why you did what you did, most people (not all) will nod and understand. But cops, for whatever reason, systematically neglect doing this.
That conclusion does not follow from my statement that you quoted, Coronach, and you damn well know it.
In fact, it's a funny conclusion. If you want to escape from the cops, jump into a yard with a big, mean guard dog? Even if the conclusion did logically follow, it wouldn't mean the end of law enforcement as we know it.
I've never once seen you win anyone over with straw men or hyperbole.
trueblue1776
Member
By reading this I have come to the conclusion that Coronach is really sensitive about the other day when he shot someones dog.
The people with dogs are mad as hell, the people without dogs defend the cop.
The people with dogs are mad as hell, the people without dogs defend the cop.
TallPine
Member
Okay... let's just make some more reasonable assumptions just for fun. Assume that the juvenile miscreants had just run through the yard (somehow evading the dog, btw) and the homeowner steps out into the back yard with a firearm to see what is going on. Officer runs into the yard, sees the armed resident, and shoots him/her dead, because he/she might have been a threat to the officer. Seemed reasonable in the heat-of-the moment, but would it be justified?
Oh, and comparisons of dogs and cars as both being personal property are not quite valid, since cars have no volition and the only reason to shoot at a car might be because of something the occupants are doing (unless it is a Ford, and you're just putting it out of its misery
)Please delete! We were trying to have a fairly reasonable discussion here
No no no. All that anyone has to do is jump a fence into someone else's yard, because a dog might be there. Or, a homeowner with a gun, or little timmy with a BB gun. Or whatever. The vaaaaaaaaast majority of space, even in a city, is someone's private property. Stating that the police cannot go into it to pursue, which is effetcively what you're saying, is the functional equivalent of saying that can't pursue, period. The police, not being endowed with clairvoyance, have no idea what is in someone's yard or over someone's fence...but the job sometimes requires them to go there. As you said,
Emphasis mine. The only way to NOT put yourself in that position, as you say you should not do, is to not go there. I'm taking direct issue with that statement. You HAVE to go there. It is your job, if you're a cop. Can you sometimes take precautions? ("Oh crap! huge dog! Let's run around this one!") Sure. But, more often than not, if you want to do your duty and catch the bad guy, you're forced to charge into unknown territory without a lot of info of what's there.
Good. I don't aim to. I hate hyperbole, and I hate straw man arguments.
Actually, I've never had to shoot a dog. Thank God.
Cops own dogs, too.
This is totally off-course, but I'll play, for a moment. It depends on a number of things, the most critical being "what did the homeowner with the gun do?" I can easily think of a scenario in which the officer would be tragically justified. I can just as easily think of one where he would be facing criminal charges. As I said, the details matter.
Tell you what, if we want to continue this line of thought, let's do it on a new thread.
Well, it is in the sense that, in the eyes of the law, the dog is exactly the same as a car, or a house, or a wallet. It is a piece of property. I understand your point about volition, of course.
Mike (F150 owner...9 years old, and never been in the shop once, except for preventative maintenance)
TCB in TN
Member
Coronach,
So IF you are in "pursuit" of someone completely unrelated to me and having no business being in/at my home, and my dog is in "MY" fenced in yard minding its own business, then you are shooting my dog if it comes at you when you come across onto my property after this individual?
So IF you are in "pursuit" of someone completely unrelated to me and having no business being in/at my home, and my dog is in "MY" fenced in yard minding its own business, then you are shooting my dog if it comes at you when you come across onto my property after this individual?
rlpinca
Member
If for some reason a dog lunges at me I'm shooting it. Doesn't matter where I am. It's damn hard to focus on anything but the dog(certainly not his chain, length of chain etc..) when one is coming at you. ALL you see is teeth moving your direction really fast. Once a dog is within 10-15 feet it would be really hard to be able to do anything fast enough to prevent a bite.
The cop was chasing people who commited a crime. That is what I pay them to do.
If the kids would have not been chased, they would think they could get away with anything just by running. Today water baloons, a few weeks later it could be rocks or bricks. Hell they can get away with it, so why not?
Sucks for the home owner, but the city should have immediately bent over backwards apologizing in every way possible.
For the cops here with the attitudes, get over yourself. The negative opinion most people have towards cops is not from TV or the media. It's almost always from experience. There are a huge number of cops that are full blown heros, but for the most part they can't stand the guys they work with. If you want the pblic's opinion about cops to change, it's up to you.
You slap the fat guy eating a donut in the back of the head and tell him to look like a pro. You straighten out the tough guy attitude having kids that somehow get a badge. You get the other "good cops" to do the same. Otherwise, it's just going to get worse.
Bringing the us vs them attitude to the internet is definately not the way to go. It doesn't matter if it's the "them" that started it.
As far as the usual "if you think you could do better, then you apply" cliche..........whatever. I make 3 times what local cops make around here and I'm just a mechanic. You guys chose the job and you chose to stay in it, so don't be complaining to us.
And for the people that keep saying "why did he have his gun out chasing kids?" Think before you type. Do you really think he was running and hopping fences with a handgun in his hand???? It only takes a second to draw and only a second and a half for a dog that's wound up to cover ALOT of ground.
Doesn't exactly leave alot of time for looking for the dog's chain and thinking about how long it is.
To summarize:
Cop was doing the right thing by chasing criminals, an unfortunate incident happened. That's pretty much it.
The cop was chasing people who commited a crime. That is what I pay them to do.
If the kids would have not been chased, they would think they could get away with anything just by running. Today water baloons, a few weeks later it could be rocks or bricks. Hell they can get away with it, so why not?
Sucks for the home owner, but the city should have immediately bent over backwards apologizing in every way possible.
For the cops here with the attitudes, get over yourself. The negative opinion most people have towards cops is not from TV or the media. It's almost always from experience. There are a huge number of cops that are full blown heros, but for the most part they can't stand the guys they work with. If you want the pblic's opinion about cops to change, it's up to you.
You slap the fat guy eating a donut in the back of the head and tell him to look like a pro. You straighten out the tough guy attitude having kids that somehow get a badge. You get the other "good cops" to do the same. Otherwise, it's just going to get worse.
Bringing the us vs them attitude to the internet is definately not the way to go. It doesn't matter if it's the "them" that started it.
As far as the usual "if you think you could do better, then you apply" cliche..........whatever. I make 3 times what local cops make around here and I'm just a mechanic. You guys chose the job and you chose to stay in it, so don't be complaining to us.
And for the people that keep saying "why did he have his gun out chasing kids?" Think before you type. Do you really think he was running and hopping fences with a handgun in his hand???? It only takes a second to draw and only a second and a half for a dog that's wound up to cover ALOT of ground.
Doesn't exactly leave alot of time for looking for the dog's chain and thinking about how long it is.
To summarize:
Cop was doing the right thing by chasing criminals, an unfortunate incident happened. That's pretty much it.
Last edited:
Yes.
Obviously this is not something that any LEO worth his badge would want to do. It is also something that every LEO that I know would try very hard to avoid. It is also something for which the owner of the dog should be compensated, since (in your hypothetical scenario) the owner didn't do a blessed thing wrong.
Cops have the authority to pursue people through private property, and to investigate crimes occurring on private property. So long as the cop is legally allowed to be where he is, he is allowed to defend himself against an angry dog. Be that as it may, avoiding places that obviously have dogs is a good idea.
Mike
TallPine
Member
Granted that the officer had a right and obligation to enter the property in pursuit of the miscreants. But it is just hard for me to understand - especially in light of the fact that the dog was only wounded and yet apparently the officer was not hurt (folks talk all the time about how hard dogs are to "stop") - that he had any reasonable justification for shooting. Did he not carry OC? Isn't that the first "go to" level of force?
Sounds to me like the officer was(is) trigger happy and shouldn't be a cop, or probably even carrying a gun.
I wonder how how the police would respond if a private citizen with a CCW that had a legitimate reason to be in the yard (say maybe pizza delivery or electric repairman, etc) shot the chained up dog??? I'm guessing he would be arrested, lose his CCW permit, and maybe go to jail for various offences including discharge inside city limits and animal cruelty.
OC is not preferred with dogs for a couple of reasons.
1. Dogs are not as reliably affected by it as people are.
2. Even if it does work, it is not immediate. Running with the assumption that the officer was in such close proximity that he was justified in shooting the dog, he was certainly in close enough proximity that the OC/Mace would not have "kicked in" before he got bitten.
OC/Mace is often used on dogs when there is a standoff; the dog is threatening but not attacking, or the dog is trying to attack but is unable to do so (behind a fence, outside of your car, etc), or in situations where the person has no better weapon. I've maced several dogs before, in order to get them to back off. If I was actually being charged by one? I'm going for my gun.
Mike
1. Dogs are not as reliably affected by it as people are.
2. Even if it does work, it is not immediate. Running with the assumption that the officer was in such close proximity that he was justified in shooting the dog, he was certainly in close enough proximity that the OC/Mace would not have "kicked in" before he got bitten.
OC/Mace is often used on dogs when there is a standoff; the dog is threatening but not attacking, or the dog is trying to attack but is unable to do so (behind a fence, outside of your car, etc), or in situations where the person has no better weapon. I've maced several dogs before, in order to get them to back off. If I was actually being charged by one? I'm going for my gun.
It would depend heavily on the circumstances (just like this case, actually), but you mioght be surprised. In Ohio, assuming the person has a valid CCW, I don't think he could be charged with anything more than discharging within city limits, which is not an arrestable offense unless witnessed by the officer. This assumes that the popo were inclined to even charge him. How it goes down would really hinge upon the details.
Mike
Oh, and of the dog shoots with which I have experience (none are mine), if the dog is killed it is DRT, but it sometimes takes multiple hits. If it is wounded, it invariably runs away, usually afterthe first shot. I don't know if this is a factor of "shoot until the threat is gone" (as in, the dog kept coming until it was shot multiple times and dropped), or not.
LOL i'm surprised the cop could hit the dog. i thought all they did in the heights was write tickets.
i'm glad my commitment here is only 3 years. the city and its outliers treat everyone like crap, especially people who are productive enough for them to get something out of.
i'm glad my commitment here is only 3 years. the city and its outliers treat everyone like crap, especially people who are productive enough for them to get something out of.
TCB in TN
Member
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!"
TCB in TN
Member
1
Last edited:
- Status