for that to happen, bad, the deer would have had to mouth off to the cop or argue about a speeding ticket.

It sure sounds like she’s suggesting that they need a “no fast food within 1000 feet of a school” style rule.

If a law aimed at dealing with political activity would make criminals of the Founding Fathers, chances are, it’s a bad law.

Now, while I have some sympathy with animal rights causes, it certainly looked like killing the deer was an appropriate action: it was injured and freaking out on the side of a busy street, and could have run out into traffic again to cause another accident. But what sort of bothered me about the choice of method was that the sidewalk the deer was on was separated from residential houses by a high wooden fence. Bullets, especially fired off in quick succession, are not exactly the safest things to have flying around in a residential area, and the officer was basically shooting horizontally at the deer’s head such that anyone who might have been standing on the other side of the fence would have been shot. In an ideal world, there would be a lot safer of a procedure for such a killing: heck, even tazing the deer so that the officer could get close enough to shoot downwards.

Likewise, part of what’s shocking about this dog incident, aside from the sheer cruelty, sadism, and incompetence is that an officer would unnecessarily choose such a dangerous killing method with all sorts of civilians, including a child, standing around. Bullets fly long distances. Bullets ricochet. If there are other options available, discharging a weapon should never be your first choice. If the dog was posing no immediate threat to anyone, there are countless other ways to put it down that aren’t so frontier execution style.

This is why real animal control officers never just kill an animal on site unless someone’s health or safety is threatened. They capture it and take it to a facility where it can be killed safely and humanely… and successfully. This officer failed on every single count.

Allow me to quote something from that article that’s I think is relevent.

“The release, issued Monday, said the shooting was in accordance with Section 8 and 11.4 of the Teton County Ordinances. According to the release, Section 8 says “that if any vicious animal so found at large cannot be safely taken up and impounded, such dog may be destroyed by the Animal Care and Control Officer or Teton County Sheriff’s Office.” ”

“The release’s reasoning included references to the dog as a pitbull – a breed deemed too dangerous to be accepted by the Idaho Humane Society – and previous allegations of aggression, all made by a neighbor. It also highlighted the Barboza family’s response to the shooting.”

Then there is 25-2805 Section 2 of the Idaho Code:
“(2) Any dog which, when not physically provoked, physically attacks, wounds, bites or otherwise injures any person who is not trespassing, is vicious. It shall be unlawful for the owner or for the owner of premises on which a vicious dog is present to harbor a vicious dog outside a secure enclosure. A secure enclosure is one from which the animal cannot escape and for which exit and entry is controlled by the owner of the premises or owner of the animal. Any vicious dog removed from the secure enclosure must be restrained by a chain sufficient to control the vicious dog. Persons guilty of a violation of this subsection, and in addition to any liability as provided in section 25-2806, Idaho Code, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. For a second or subsequent violation of this subsection, the court may, in the interest of public safety, order the owner to have the vicious dog destroyed or may direct the appropriate authorities to destroy the dog.”

First off, it appears that this dog did not “physically attack, wound, bite or injure” any person. Secondly, it would also appear that this dog would have to go through some declaration process conducted by the issuing authority and allowing for appeal by the owners.

As a former animal control officer, we took statements from the victims, any witnesses, collected evidene, photographs, veterinary reports (if applicable) and impounded the dog during the course of our investigation. If the dog was declared dangerous or vicious (vicious was extremely rare) then the owner had X amount of days to appeal the determination.

Lastly, this deputy was completely in the wrong in the interpretation of the ordinance. If any vicious animal cannot be taken up and impounded it may be destroyed. The dog could’ve been take up as the owner had control of the animal and could’ve released the dog to animal control to be impounded.

The Humane Society states that they cannot take in pit bulls based on their determination the breed is too dangerous. This dog is not a pit bull and any person with an ounce of dog identification knowledge can plainly identify the dog for what it is; a lab mix.