Another Dog Bites the Dust

[gljjt]

I worked a LOT of burgular alarm calls, and we never entered without the consent of the owner. 98% of the time they were false or accidentally triggered by a homeowner or someone at the buisness. >1% was no one there on a break-in, and <1% was the one time we found someone in the business and the owner had given us permission to enter over the


I just watched this report. There was a sign up saying there was a rotweiller inside. The cops entered anyway. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ ... work-video" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Based on this fact and per eellis' comment quoted, it was not a good shoot. The officer should be disciplined.

And if there had been a bad guy in the house, beating, raping or worse to the occupants, the police, not knowing what is occuring, should wait outside because there is a sign saying dog inside? Why even dispatch if you aren't going to really investigate? IMHO an alarm with an open door constitutes probable cause to enter. Seattle had 25,000 alarm calls in a recent year, the majority false. For the 3% that were real (750), if there is a dog sticker/sign, we put that above helping persons in potential danger if there is a dog and the owner can't be found? I hope not.

You may want to look back at the thread to see who said what. I didn't say they shouldn't enter. I said there was a sign saying there was a dog inside and they entered anyway. Therefore, they should have been mentally prepared and not surprised to encounter a dog. Just because there is a dog and it's barking doesn't mean it is being aggressive and presenting imminent danger and needs to be shot.

You implied they shouldn't enter. You said "There was a sign up saying there was a rotweiller inside. The cops entered anyway." This is different than "Therefore, they should have been mentally prepared and not surprised to encounter a dog. Just because there is a dog and it's barking doesn't mean it is being aggressive and presenting imminent danger and needs to be shot"

You are adding to your narrative after I commented. That may be what you thought, but it isn't what you originally said, unless I missed something. It has happened before!

[gljjt]

I worked a LOT of burgular alarm calls, and we never entered without the consent of the owner. 98% of the time they were false or accidentally triggered by a homeowner or someone at the buisness. >1% was no one there on a break-in, and <1% was the one time we found someone in the business and the owner had given us permission to enter over the


I just watched this report. There was a sign up saying there was a rotweiller inside. The cops entered anyway. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ ... work-video" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Based on this fact and per eellis' comment quoted, it was not a good shoot. The officer should be disciplined.

And if there had been a bad guy in the house, beating, raping or worse to the occupants, the police, not knowing what is occuring, should wait outside because there is a sign saying dog inside? Why even dispatch if you aren't going to really investigate? IMHO an alarm with an open door constitutes probable cause to enter. Seattle had 25,000 alarm calls in a recent year, the majority false. For the 3% that were real (750), if there is a dog sticker/sign, we put that above helping persons in potential danger if there is a dog and the owner can't be found? I hope not.

When I said the cops may have proceeded differently I was thinking they may have called for the dog to see if it was there, but heck the dog may be half deaf or just strange and ignored the calls so the officers still would of made entry. It's all assumption and we know how that goes. Just because they believe there may be a dog inside doesn't mean they shouldn't enter or that there is some safe way to sweep the house even with a dog there.

I was commenting on mojo84's quote and not yours eellis. Sorry for the confusion.

[EEllis]

I was commenting on mojo84's quote and not yours eellis. Sorry for the confusion.

I got that. It was just that he referenced a comment that I made saying that if the cops knew there was a rott inside they may have made different choices by saying that since there was a "sign" the shooting was unjustified. Not only does one thing not lead to the other but I personally wasn't thinking they should stay out just because a sign. Obviously mojo read my comment differently than I meant it so I thought I would clarify my point when you posted your comment.

[Right2Carry]

In the below article the owner states they have a known problem with the front door. The owner also states that he received an alarm notification on his cell phone and disarmed the alarm. Yet nowhere does he say he called the police to warn them of the dog or to cancel the response. The homeowner must accept responsibility for failing to notify police after receiving the alarm notification on his phone. This could have been prevented. The video also shows how hard that window sticker is to see from the front door. This news story could easily have read " officer responding to house alarmed mauled by family Rottweiler".

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/256544 ... wners-home" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jmra]

In the below article the owner states they have a known problem with the front door. The owner also states that he received an alarm notification on his cell phone and disarmed the alarm. Yet nowhere does he say he called the police to warn them of the dog or to cancel the response. The homeowner must accept responsibility for failing to notify police after receiving the alarm notification on his phone. This could have been prevented. The video also shows how hard that window sticker is to see from the front door. This news story could easily have read " officer responding to house alarmed mauled by family Rottweiler".

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/256544 ... wners-home" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My alarm system works very different from this one. I am contacted by the monitoring company before police are ever contacted. I am told what part of the system was activated and asked if I would like police dispatched. Cameras are also activated during an alarm which I can access through my phone. This type of setup would have prevented the home owners dogs death.

I will add that if I knew I had issues with the front door, 1) I'd get it fixed 2) I'd lock the deadbolt regardless if I had a problem with the door or not.

Again, this whole debate would not be necessary if officers were required to wear cameras on their vests as the public could then see for themselves if the dog was actually aggressive.

[mojo84]

I worked a LOT of burgular alarm calls, and we never entered without the consent of the owner. 98% of the time they were false or accidentally triggered by a homeowner or someone at the buisness. >1% was no one there on a break-in, and <1% was the one time we found someone in the business and the owner had given us permission to enter over the


I just watched this report. There was a sign up saying there was a rotweiller inside. The cops entered anyway. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ ... work-video" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Based on this fact and per eellis' comment quoted, it was not a good shoot. The officer should be disciplined.

And if there had been a bad guy in the house, beating, raping or worse to the occupants, the police, not knowing what is occuring, should wait outside because there is a sign saying dog inside? Why even dispatch if you aren't going to really investigate? IMHO an alarm with an open door constitutes probable cause to enter. Seattle had 25,000 alarm calls in a recent year, the majority false. For the 3% that were real (750), if there is a dog sticker/sign, we put that above helping persons in potential danger if there is a dog and the owner can't be found? I hope not.

You may want to look back at the thread to see who said what. I didn't say they shouldn't enter. I said there was a sign saying there was a dog inside and they entered anyway. Therefore, they should have been mentally prepared and not surprised to encounter a dog. Just because there is a dog and it's barking doesn't mean it is being aggressive and presenting imminent danger and needs to be shot.

You implied they shouldn't enter. You said "There was a sign up saying there was a rotweiller inside. The cops entered anyway." This is different than "Therefore, they should have been mentally prepared and not surprised to encounter a dog. Just because there is a dog and it's barking doesn't mean it is being aggressive and presenting imminent danger and needs to be shot"

You are adding to your narrative after I commented. That may be what you thought, but it isn't what you originally said, unless I missed something. It has happened before!

I said what I meant. They went in to a man's home even though there was a sign/sticker notifying them there was a Rottweiler inside and then shot the dog on or near its bed. Eellis said if the cops were notified there was a dog inside they could have handled it differently. I agreed. If they were concerned about the dog they could have taken other precautions especially since they didn't hear anything from inside such as movement or screaming within the house.

Blaming the homeowner that wasn't even there is ridiculous. If the dog was being aggressive and wasn't slowed by hip dysplasia like its owner said, I doubt very seriously it would have still been on or near its bed with cops coming in the door announcing themselves. It would have met them at or near the door.

[jmra]

If the dog was being aggressive and wasn't slowed by hip dysplasia like its owner said, I doubt very seriously it would have still been on or near its bed with cops coming in the door announcing themselves. It would have met at or near the door.

This is the part that doesn't pass the smell test. Again, if officers were required to wear cameras on their vest there would be no question as to what happened.

[mojo84]

In the below article the owner states they have a known problem with the front door. The owner also states that he received an alarm notification on his cell phone and disarmed the alarm. Yet nowhere does he say he called the police to warn them of the dog or to cancel the response. The homeowner must accept responsibility for failing to notify police after receiving the alarm notification on his phone. This could have been prevented. The video also shows how hard that window sticker is to see from the front door. This news story could easily have read " officer responding to house alarmed mauled by family Rottweiler".

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/256544 ... wners-home" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I see your point but the difference is, it didn't say that. We also know the dog was shot on or near its bed and the owner says it was slowed by hip dysplasia. Doesn't sound like the dog was being aggressive. It appears the officer saw a dog (rottweiller) that may have been barking and took it out to eliminate any potential threat and claimed it was being aggressive to justify shooting it.

I think we've beaten this one to death and now it's getting to the point we are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

[gljjt]

Blaming the homeowner that wasn't even there is ridiculous. If the dog was being aggressive and wasn't slowed by hip dysplasia like its owner said, I doubt very seriously it would have still been on or near its bed with cops coming in the door announcing themselves. It would have met them at or near the door.

A. I quoted you exactly. I go on what you wrote. I don't read minds. I wish I could.
B. Don't imply i am rediculous, I never even mentioned, much less blamed the homeowner.
C. I indicated the officers deserve a fair shake, they aren't getting it from some here.
D. I am done here. This is a waste of my time. I'll be in on other topics where I can learn something.

[mojo84]

Blaming the homeowner that wasn't even there is ridiculous. If the dog was being aggressive and wasn't slowed by hip dysplasia like its owner said, I doubt very seriously it would have still been on or near its bed with cops coming in the door announcing themselves. It would have met them at or near the door.

A. I quoted you exactly. I go on what you wrote. I don't read minds. I wish I could.
B. Don't imply i am rediculous, I never even mentioned, much less blamed the homeowner.
C. I indicated the officers deserve a fair shake, they aren't getting it from some here.
D. I am done here. This is a waste of my time. I'll be in on other topics where I can learn something.

You quoted me but didn't consider the context of my comment. My comment about blaming the homeowner was in response to another poster. Their contention the homeowner was to blame is ridiculous since they werent even there. There are some on here that always claim the officers didn't get a "fair shake" even when there is video evidence showing what happened.

Your time here can be very fruitful and you can learn a lot.

[gljjt]

Blaming the homeowner that wasn't even there is ridiculous. If the dog was being aggressive and wasn't slowed by hip dysplasia like its owner said, I doubt very seriously it would have still been on or near its bed with cops coming in the door announcing themselves. It would have met them at or near the door.

A. I quoted you exactly. I go on what you wrote. I don't read minds. I wish I could.
B. Don't imply i am rediculous, I never even mentioned, much less blamed the homeowner.
C. I indicated the officers deserve a fair shake, they aren't getting it from some here.
D. I am done here. This is a waste of my time. I'll be in on other topics where I can learn something.

You quoted me but didn't consider the context of my comment. My comment about blaming the homeowner was in response to another poster. Their contention the homeowner was to blame is ridiculous since they werent even there. There are some on here that always claim the officers didn't get a "fair shake" even when there is video evidence showing what happened.

Your time here can be very fruitful and you can learn a lot.

Clarification: I am done here on this thread, not the forum. The forum is great.

[philip964]

If you have a Rott you don't need an alarm. You don't need door locks either.

RIP poor puppy.

[VMI77]

I worked a LOT of burgular alarm calls, and we never entered without the consent of the owner. 98% of the time they were false or accidentally triggered by a homeowner or someone at the buisness. >1% was no one there on a break-in, and <1% was the one time we found someone in the business and the owner had given us permission to enter over the


I just watched this report. There was a sign up saying there was a rotweiller inside. The cops entered anyway. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ ... work-video" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Based on this fact and per eellis' comment quoted, it was not a good shoot. The officer should be disciplined.

And if there had been a bad guy in the house, beating, raping or worse to the occupants, the police, not knowing what is occuring, should wait outside because there is a sign saying dog inside? Why even dispatch if you aren't going to really investigate? IMHO an alarm with an open door constitutes probable cause to enter. Seattle had 25,000 alarm calls in a recent year, the majority false. For the 3% that were real (750), if there is a dog sticker/sign, we put that above helping persons in potential danger if there is a dog and the owner can't be found? I hope not.

You may want to look back at the thread to see who said what. I didn't say they shouldn't enter. I said there was a sign saying there was a dog inside and they entered anyway. Therefore, they should have been mentally prepared and not surprised to encounter a dog. Just because there is a dog and it's barking doesn't mean it is being aggressive and presenting imminent danger and needs to be shot.

While I think there are probably some cops who are prepared to shoot dogs at the drop of the hat, a lot of these shootings are due to ignorance. People who fear dogs don't know anything about them and don't know how to distinguish various modes of dog behavior. They can't read the signs and tell the difference between a dog that is excited and running to greet them or running to attack them. They can't distinguish a warning growl from a fear growl or a happy bark from an aggressive bark. They can't tell when a dog's posture is due to his fear or a signal that he is about to attack. Ignorance translates all movement, barks, and growls into fear of attack. It's not an excuse though, for a police officer, whose job is to interact with the pubic and their dogs. Apparently it's easier and cheaper to just kill dogs than to properly train police officers in how to deal with them without killing them, or using other techniques or procedures to avoid or contain them.

[Right2Carry]

In the below article the owner states they have a known problem with the front door. The owner also states that he received an alarm notification on his cell phone and disarmed the alarm. Yet nowhere does he say he called the police to warn them of the dog or to cancel the response. The homeowner must accept responsibility for failing to notify police after receiving the alarm notification on his phone. This could have been prevented. The video also shows how hard that window sticker is to see from the front door. This news story could easily have read " officer responding to house alarmed mauled by family Rottweiler".

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/256544 ... wners-home" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I see your point but the difference is, it didn't say that. We also know the dog was shot on or near its bed and the owner says it was slowed by hip dysplasia. Doesn't sound like the dog was being aggressive. It appears the officer saw a dog (rottweiller) that may have been barking and took it out to eliminate any potential threat and claimed it was being aggressive to justify shooting it.

I think we've beaten this one to death and now it's getting to the point we are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

The owner says nothing about the dog having a hip problem in the article I posted nor in his interview with the news media. There is video in my link that shows the house and there is no way in hell those officers could see that itty bitty sticker in the lower corner of the window. Why wasn't it on the front door?

Homeowner is responsible not the officers responding to an alarm.

[mojo84]

There's more than one article and news report. I didn't make it up that the dog had hip dysplasia. The owner said it.