Family sues Cookeville over bulldog's death

Status
Not open for further replies.
"As far as my training, I have been lucky. We trained with Delta after We graduated from the reactive shooting course at FLETC. Additionally we regularly train out at Weapons Training Bn @ Quantico. I don't feel that Gunsite is going to add much to that...not that I wouldn't like to go if the dept would pay for it."

I hate to clutter up this thread but here goes.

I think that you will find that if you take a course at Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, Louis Awerbuck or Randy Cain that there are several options outside the conventional wisdom of the Federal govt that Law Enforcement can employ with a shotgun and a sling.

A sling is to a shotgun what a holster is to a handgun: Clint Smith.

The common and accepted practice of transitioning to a handgun/mace is to have a hasty sling/strap on your shotgun. Next take the strong hand and move it back to the rear swivel stud. Next procedure would be to simply run your support arm through the sling and either let it hang in the pocket of the elbow or run it up to the offside shoulder in a African carry position.Its generally faster to let it hang in the support elbow.

If executed properly a person can transition much faster with a shotgun than they can holster a handgun.
 
I wish the self proclaimed experts here would at least have their facts strait and have knowledge of the situation before posting.

Watchman:


The police never received a call about a possible robbery. That delusion was created by a overzealous dispatcher by the name of Timothy McHood.Read here about the facts in the case.


Dispatcher McHood's interview




Timothy McHood was one of three Tennessee Highway Patrol dispatchers who played roles in the Jan. 1 traffic stop that culminated in the shooting death of a family pet.
McHood was later interviewed about his role in the stop of the James Smoak family by an agent for the THP's Criminal Investigation Division as part of an internal review of the Smoak case.
The following is Special Agent William Farris' report of his talk with McHood, conducted Jan. 6. McHood works for the THP in Cookeville. Parentheses appear where Farris or his typist included them. Information in brackets has been added by editors for ease of reading.
On January 6, 2003, I conducted a non-custodial interview of Timothy Glenn McHood, white male, date of birth 2/26/64, SSN [McHood's Social Security number was obscured on the copy of the report given to The Tennessean by the THP.]
The nature of the interview conducted involved the Smoak felony traffic stop in Putnam County on January 1, 2003.
Operator McHood stated he recalled the events leading up to the traffic stop in the order as follows:
1. Operator Brock took the first (NAWAS) telephone call from Nashville, Tennessee Highway Patrol Operator [Shannon] Pickard, concerning the green station wagon with large amounts of money being thrown out of the windows.
2. Next, Cookeville Tennessee Highway Patrol received a teletype from Nashville inquiring about a recent robbery that could have occurred involving a green station wagon. [The underlining here was done by Farris or his typist.]
3. Operator McHood immediately put the BOLO [''be on the lookout''] broadcast out over radio air. He noted that the green station wagon could possibly have been involved in a robbery. [Underlining is by Farris or his typist.]
4. Operator McHood stated a few minutes after Nashville notified Cookeville by Nextel [a wireless telephone-like device] and advised the green station wagon might have a South Carolina license tag, they (Nashville THP) found an I.D. with the money. Operator McHood stated Nashville THP (Operator Pickard) kept on stressing, large amounts of money. [Italics here are by Farris or his typist.] Operator McHood then broadcast this information over the radio.
5. A few minutes passed when Trooper Bush acknowledged over the radio he might have spotted a green station wagon going eastbound on Interstate 40 that fit the BOLO description.
6. After catching up to the vehicle, Trooper Bush then relayed the vehicle had 2-3 occupants inside.
7. Operator McHood immediately talked to Nashville THP by Nextel and told Operator Pickard he would have the registration information soon. Within five seconds, Trooper Bush relayed the license tag information. Operator Pickard advised Operator McHood that he has already checked the license tag and the identification matches the vehicle information. Operator McHood states that was the end of the Nextel communication.
8. Next communication by Operator McHood with Nashville was on the NAWAS telephone. McHood told Operator Pickard that Cookeville THP units were 10-81 [making a stop] on the green station wagon with the South Carolina license tag at the 287-mile marker, eastbound.
9. Next Operator McHood stated that immediately after Trooper Bush stopped the vehicle, he (Operator McHood) contacted Nashville (Operator Pickard) by Nextel and asked if they (Nashville THP) had determined if the vehicle or person had actually been verified as being involved in any criminal activity. Operator McHood is not certain if Trooper Bush inquired about this information prior to approaching the vehicle. The response from Nashville was that no agency had responded to the teletype inquiry. Operator McHood stated this communication from Nashville to Cookeville was done by Nextel after Operator McHood passed that information by 2-way radio to Trooper Bush. The next thing McHood recalls was the final contact in which Lieutenant Andrews asked that the radio tape log be removed.
Operator McHood stated that it is normal procedure for all teletype information received that involves the Cookeville District including Interstate 40 to be relayed to all cars.
Operator McHood stated that similarly some calls from Nashville THP and/or BOLO information goes without every [ever] being inquired upon, but stressed that Nashville kept on calling and communicating about the vehicle, which seemed to him that this was very important.
He further stated that he did not know that it was only a billfold/wallet with money blowing out of it until the incident was over.
Operator McHood stated that when he receives a teletype with the subject heading ''Recent Robbery'' or anything similar, he relays this information primarily for the concern of officer safety.
 
At some point, are we all just going to say "So What." It was a dog, not a person. I feel for the family and I do think they deserve $ for a new dog, but this seems to be getting very personal for some folks. It was a dog. Dogs die, I hate it too and I have lost a dog to gunfire while duck hunting. It is very Sad, but I don't think it is worth all this. I'm signing out if this topic before it gets ugly.
 
The police never received a call about a possible robbery.

Next, Cookeville Tennessee Highway Patrol received a teletype from Nashville inquiring about a recent robbery that could have occurred involving a green station wagon. [The underlining here was done by Farris or his typist.]

Operator McHood immediately put the BOLO [''be on the lookout''] broadcast out over radio air. He noted that the green station wagon could possibly have been involved in a robbery. [Underlining is by Farris or his typist.]

Gee 1911...
call me simple, but when I get a BOLO that says a green station wagon could have possibly been involved in a robbery, just what I am supposed to think ? Its a fact of life that some communications are in error. Until somebody (yourself perhaps ?) comes up with a foolproof system, mistakes like this are gonna happen.

So far... points 1-9 are standard procedure.

Operator McHood stated that when he receives a teletype with the subject heading ''Recent Robbery'' or anything similar, he relays this information primarily for the concern of officer safety.

Overzealous ? It appears to me that he is simply showing concern for officer safety, a subject that you dont apear to grasp too well. He is in the unique postition of being damded if he cares and damded if he dont. If it was a robbery and the suspects were armed and dangeous and he didnt think it nesscesary to pass on the info to the cops, his head would be the first to roll. He does show concern and all of the armchairIvebeento15shootingschoolrcommandos come out and crucify him as being "overzealous."

End of discussion. See what you wanto see. Nobody is gonna change your mind and nobody really cares anyway. Whatever you decide, be sure not to spill your beer on the keyboard, you might screw up your computer and be unable to respond. What a tragedy that would be eh ?


::scrutiny:
 
Dakota tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.


You are beating a dead horse when you insist on talking about something that cannot be changed. Example: "I'd like to talk with you again about what happened." Reply: "Oh, come on. Let's not beat a dead horse."

Beating a dead horse is an action that has no purpose, because no matter how hard or how long you beat a dead horse, it is not going to get up and run. Example: "Let's not talk about it any more. Okay?" Reply: "You're right. We're just beating a dead horse."

To repeatedly bring up a particular topic with no chance of affecting the outcome is beating a dead horse. Example: "Dad, are you sure we can't get a new computer for the upstairs?" Reply: "Son, we talked about this and the decision was 'no'. You are beating a dead horse."

All the best

TBO
 
Maybe we can now find out the facts behind the other dogs the cop shot (at least 2 at last account) and why he left Metro in Nashville for Cookeville.

TBD, lay off the spamming/trolling/whatever. If you don't want to participate, then don't. Saying dead horse over and over just wastes bandwidth.
 
This thread is useless without a link to the video so we can all see it for ourselves.

If it exists, would some one please post it?

Thanks,
 
Search the Legal and Political forum with the keyword "cookeville", and you'll find plenty of links that may or may not still be active.
 
Uhh, TBO...

We got your hint the first and second times you posted the dead horsey graphic. Which means your third post could be construed as tenderizing equine flesh in and of itself. Now, if you really want to come out and say you side with the LEO on this topic, why not just do so? You've done it before, it should be easy. :rolleyes:
 
Most of the time in cases like this, I will side with LE, despite the fact that I am not in LE myself. In this case, I believe the officers were negligent.

As some other posters here have pointed out, the car had been searched for weapons and other suspects and found to be "clear" of these. There was also a dog in the car that was in plain sight. Using the viewpoint of a reasonable and prudent person here would dictate that the doors of the car be shut so that the dog would be one less thing to be concerned about.

I personally feel that the family's pleas that the door be shut contributed to the problem. Many officers' first response, when asked for something by a suspect, is to ignore it for many reasons. Most of these reason are centered around the " that piece of %&^* is not going to tell me what to do" mentality. Reasonably speaking, this attitude would be exacerbated in a high threat situation like a felony stop. This does not excuse the officer(s) involved from negligence. They refused to close the doors and will now face the repercussions.

FWIW- I do not believe that the officers actions (shooting the dog) were unreasonable given the situation, just that the officers on the scene as a whole were negligent by not closig the doors of the vehicle. If the dog is locked up in the car, there is no threat.

Mino
 
Originally posted by: Gewehr98
Uhh, TBO...

We got your hint the first and second times you posted the dead horsey graphic. Which means your third post could be construed as tenderizing equine flesh in and of itself. Now, if you really want to come out and say you side with the LEO on this topic, why not just do so? You've done it before, it should be easy. :rolleyes:
I figured the photo I posted may not have been all that clear (best I could find) so I thought I'd make sure my meaning was clear. Your statement: "Now, if you really want to come out and say you side with the LEO on this topic, why not just do so? You've done it before, it should be easy", is indicative of your own personal bias. All I've done is remind everyone this topic has been debated "Add Nauseum" previously.

All the best

TBO
 
All I've done is remind everyone this topic has been debated "Add [sic] Nauseum" previously.

Well, thanks for the reminder. I find it better than the usual "copaganda."


"Nothin' to see here, move along."
 
Fed DC, first welcome to the THR.

Permit me to offer a comment on the whole ugly episode. I am not LE. I am not friends with LE. I have utmost respect for LE simply because it is a job that must be done. The risk is high. The pay is low. In short LE is a career path one will pursue because of dedication on principals and not filthy lucre. LE must make decisions in fractions of seconds while members of internet fora and lawyers can pick through over years. And, oh, by the way it is a job most people and their families can not or will not tolerate.

That said the Cookville incident represents all that is wrong with LE. I perceive an increasing militarization. I perceive an increasing tendency to resort to force. I perceive an increasing tendency to hide behind the claim of professionalism. The idea being an officer was performing his job in a professional manner yet without regard to the fundamental rightness or wrongness of the action.

The situation in Cookville was unfortunate yet at the same time as the story was further refined it increasingly failed the smell test. Most American citizens are blessed with copious quantities of common sense and quite often that is only way we can judge an incident. So while internal affairs conducts an investigation to judge the participant's response against procedure Joe and Martha Sixpack judge the participant's actions against common sense. And the judgement gets increasingly rigorous as more information comes in.

In Cookville's case 2 pieces of information smell funny. First, the officer with the shotgun is reported to have had a smirk / grin / smile on his face. Second, the officer had a history of similar incidents in other jurisdictions. Sorry, it doesn't smell right. So how does Joe and Martha get the whole story out? Civil court. I dislike the idea but quite often civil court is the only way details of importance your average citizen gets aired out. And this comment from a guy who has a love-hate relationship with the profession of lawyering.
 
LOL theebadone, at this topic again i see, the one on glocktalk got closed because everyone who supported to cop was a meany poopy head :neener:

i'll say it again, just because you watch COPS, Miami Vice, etc. doesn't give anyone the right to judge how they think a cop should act. you don't watch ER and then go tell a doctor what he should do, do you? the cops don't watch a show about your job and then come bitch at you at your work place about what you do wrong, do they? no, you're not trained to handle the situtation so don't assume you'd know what to do.

i don't like dogs i don't know, and anything bigger than a poodle would get shot. whip out pepper spray you say? when you put a video of yourself on the internet holding a shotgun and while still holding it your whip out your pepper spray from your belt and are able to spray the dog then i'll give that some thought, till then you couldn't do it. :banghead:

good shoot
:banghead:
 
i don't like dogs i don't know, and anything bigger than a poodle would get shot.

Black letter rules like that do a great job by eliminating the need to think or make rational decisions. Of course, they are also one of the reasons why so many come across as anti-LEO.

the cops don't watch a show about your job and then come bitch at you at your work place about what you do wrong, do they? no, you're not trained to handle the situtation so don't assume you'd know what to do.

This assumes that the LEO is trained to handle the situation, or is psychologically able to do so.
 
i'll say it again, just because you watch COPS, Miami Vice, etc. doesn't give anyone the right to judge how they think a cop should act. you don't watch ER and then go tell a doctor what he should do, do you? the cops don't watch a show about your job and then come bitch at you at your work place about what you do wrong, do they? no, you're not trained to handle the situtation so don't assume you'd know what to do.

Well, until Hillary gets in, physicians aren't civil servants; cops are and anyone who is a US citizen is qualified to judge. A resident in the officer's jurisdiction even more so. If you don't like how the officers in your area act, make a complaint to the PD, city officials, as well as county and state and get others to do the same.

Imagine, I have no right to criticize those who are taking my tax dollars. Who'd a thunk it? :rolleyes:
 
With kids???


Sadly yes, Bill. Some vermin have no compunction about putting kids in danger. Even LITTLE kids. So cops can't assume that people with kids are no threat.



I can understand the cops caution in view of the warning given. I can understand guns drawn and I can understand having everyone get out of the vehicle. As long as they did these things politely, I have no problem with any of those actions.


But can someone suggest any good reason for ignoring the family's pleadings (and what would appear to be common sense) and leaving the door open? :confused: I've seen this done on several occasions - either the subject being questioned or bystanders pointing out some perfectly reasonable thing to a LEO, and being ignored. Why is that?
 
You're not ever going to get a good answer to that, Quartus. You're not a cop, you wouldn't understand. The Blue Line and all that. Because they said so.
 
>>But can someone suggest any good reason for ignoring the family's pleadings (and what would appear to be common sense) and leaving the door open? <<

so officer jim initiates a felony stop on mr. thug for armed robbery. mr. thug says "go close the door so my little doggy doesn't get out". officer jim goes to close door and mr. thug's accomplice (unknown to police) is laying down in the backseat with an ak-47. the bagpipes will sound quite nice at officer jim's funeral.

>>Imagine, I have no right to criticize those who are taking my tax dollars. Who'd a thunk it? <<

sure you can criticize, doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. when your house is burning down are you gonna tell the firefighters what water stream to use and where to ventilate? no. why? because you don't know anything about it (assuming you don't, as most people don't, you may, but you still would let them do their job)
 
so officer jim initiates a felony stop on mr. thug for armed robbery. mr. thug says "go close the door so my little doggy doesn't get out". officer jim goes to close door and mr. thug's accomplice (unknown to police) is laying down in the backseat with an ak-47. the bagpipes will sound quite nice at officer jim's funeral.

Didn't THP already clear the car? Seems keeping those big, bad dogs INSIDE the car would've been a way to minimize the threat, had any of the officers in question had enough brains.

But who am I to judge, after all, all I have is a common sense, which is no substitute for rules, procedures and "training."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top