TheAgitator.com
Puppycide
Thursday, January 22nd, 2009Garland, Texas police officer responds to a noise complaint. Instead of knocking on the front door, he walks around to the back of the house. There, he claims the leashed dog, while in its own yard, “attacked” him, so he shot and killed it. The police department now says the officer wasn’t aware that the dog was on a leash.
I wonder if that excuse would fly if someone other than a police officer shot and killed someone’s leashed dog while on their property. By going around to the back, the cop didn’t really give the owners a chance to notify him of the dog, or to call the dog to restrain it.
Also, when we’ve seen these sorts of stories in the past, the police department is quick to point out that the dog wasn’t properly leashed. This time, we get this:
When it comes to aggressive canines, Officer Joe Harn said that Garland officers “are allowed to do what they feel is necessary at the time.”Harn also said that according to city code, an animal is not allowed to be leashed to a “stationary object,” which could endanger the animal or any people.
Seems like a strange law. It makes sense if it’s referring to public areas (you can’t tie your dog to a telephone pole while you run into the post office, for example). It makes much less sense if it applies to private residences, too.
Via Trey Garrison.
So a stranger goes into a fenced back yard, without permission or notice to the owner. Without a good reason too-this is a potential code violation at worst, not a fire or someone collapsed in the back yard needing medical attention, or hot pursuit of a bad guy.
The leashed dog barks at him.
Stranger shoots dog.
Sounds pretty justified and proportional use of force to me. Bring on the new professionalism!
Common entry to the residence?
Front door, folks.
The “leashed to a ’stationary object,’” codes are pretty common in Texas. Austin just passed one last year to protect dogs from owners who leash them in the yard all day under the hot Texas sun. The logic is that if they are leashless inside a fenced yard, they have a chance to find some shade.
re: leashed to a stationary object.
So, a law designed to protect dogs is justification for the police to kill the leashed dog?
More like an execution than a puppyside. Didn’t see the leash? I’ve heard LEOs boast many times that they were “trained observers.”
“Harn also said that according to city code, an animal is not allowed to be leashed to a “stationary object,” which could endanger the animal or any people. ”
The point of even mentioning that eludes me. Is this an attempt to shift blame to the dog’s owner?
“
When I was young, I would jump fences and cross yards when playing games with friends. If I encountered a dog than looked threatening, it was SO easy to go back the way I came. I just don’t understand that cops do not know how to climb back over a fence or go back out a gate. I never got bit, not even close.
Again, its a timing thing, and since these asshats aren’t competition shooters, he most likely had his gun drawn already…
The lies are very blatant, the logic is very tortured, and the “cops are never to blame” game continues. The only way to correct this behavior is with an attack on the system that allows this to occur with nary an acknowledgement of impropriety.
Does anyone have numbers on how many dogs are killed by police?
It would be interesting to have a website and keep a running tally of these incidents broken down by county or city.
Maybe use the numbers to guilt local politicians into pretending to do something about it.
But he did something wrong too! Look he may have not been in total compliance with this leash law! How childish.
From TFA: “Garland police said that the officer arrived at the home and was headed towards the back, where he thought the music was coming from.”
If he actually believed the noise was coming from the yard, then going into the yard seems like a pretty reasonable thing to do. Cops go to where the law is being broken.
And maybe the leash law was mentioned because the cop might have assumed the animal was able to move around because the law says it should be able to move around. Not much of a defense, but not absurd.
It makes perfectly good sense when you realize that a macho cop isn’t going to feel like he needs to back down and walk away from the dog since he has “a legitimate reason to be there.” Nevermind the fact that he did not actually have a good reason to go around back since he hadn’t even knocked on the front door.
Nope, just playground arguing. “Well, maybe I did something wrong, but *he* did something wrong, too! Waahhh!
Typically not used by mature adults, but, we’re apparently dealing with neither here…
You should also realize from this that law enforcement generally doesn’t believe that this sort of casual use of a firearm in a residential setting has any real chance of maiming or killing an innocent person. This is also explains why they can argue with a straight face that all drug dealers are potential seriously violent offenders, and that it makes perfectly good sense to risk a brazen shoot out with them by a raid on their home, rather than trying to catch them off guard where they don’t have a chance to arm themselves.
I’ve mentioned this before but a month or two ago the local PD managed tore down a section of my folks privacy fence while they were in pursuit of a nice gentleman who stabbed someone in a nearby neighborhood. My 70 yr old father let their largish australian shepherd out when he heard the commotion not realizing it was 4-5 cops and a police dog. If they could manage not to shoot that dog while it was bearing down on them at such a fast pace maybe they could give lessons for other cops not to freak out just because they see another dog.
As a side note, they were very polite. I know, I was surprised too. Especially given their reputation in this town.
R.I.P. Harley
Section 22.18(I) of the Garland Code of Ordinances provides:
The bracketed numbers correspond to the elements of the “crime.”
It does not appear that they violated the statute (it would be clearer if the back yard had a fence around it). I wonder whether the officer’s presence within the curtilage of the house was even permissible. We’d need to know about that fence, whether one could see through it, whether the officer’s belief that a crime, the noise violation, was being committed gave him an exception to the warrant requirement, etc. Hooray criminal procedure hypotheticals!
Maybe people need to replace “Beware of Dog” signs with “Don’t Shoot the Dog” signs, so the inevitably thick fellows who become police officers can get some on-the-spot guidance.
I’m calling bullshit on this. If I were to do this I’d likely be arrested on a number of charges.
Also, how come this excuse doesn’t work for the bleary eyed guy at 2 AM shooting the cops who very well may have obtained their warrant under dubious or even illegal circumstances?
“I didn’t know they were cops, my ears were ringing from the grenade they lobbed into the house. I couldn’t see them because they were shining flashlights strapped to the ends of their guns. I was half-asleep still in pajama bottoms and a t-shirt.”
Nope, arrested and charged with murder (if one of the macho idiots dies) or attempted murder.
I’m so sick of these bastards getting away with this.
These cops are douchebags, IMO. If tethering your dog in your backyard qualifies as being a danger to any people then tethering is completely outlawed.
And tethering a dog is not necessarily cruel of bad treatment for a dog. A moderately long tether (say 10 feet) in an area that has shade and where the tether cannot become entangled actually can be better than keeping a dog in a dog run or other enclosure. A 10 foot tether gives the dog an area of over 300 square feet in which to move about. A 10′x10′ run on the other hand will have less than a third that room.
Now if someone tethers a dog in a manner that is dangerous for the dog or the public, then take the dog on those grounds. I’m sure most if not all cities have ordinances about cruel treatment of/dangerous dogs.
Here is my theory on police behavior, it is called the Nixon Theory. President Nixon famously quipped ” when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.”
Justifications by police for their wanton and depraved behavior usually at bottom amount to “if the police do it, it means that it is not illegal.”
My dark side is wondering when a fed up citizen is going to shoot a cop on sight and turn the standard LEO defense on its head…
“The officer approached me in a threatening manner, and I felt my civil rights and/or physical safety were under immediate threat so I preemptively shot him/her.”
My even darker side fantasizes about a day when the average grand jury would find that sufficient evidence to decline pursuing charges.
It seems we need leash laws for the police.
@ Scott #19: I doubt you would live long enough to testify before the grand jury.
an animal is not allowed to be leashed to a “stationary object,” which could endanger the animal
maybe the dog died of irony
The bracketed numbers correspond to the elements of the “crime.”
How does the sentence following (3) affect the elements of the crime? If an animal that is not in an enclosure is tied to a fixed object in a manner that does not endanger any person or animal (including the one that is tied), does that constitute an offense? It wouldn’t satisfy a plain-language reading of all the elements, but if it isn’t an offense the last sentence would seem meaningless.
Perhaps the legislators meant to say something like “An unenclosed animal which is tied to a fixed object shall be presumed to be in danger”, but if that’s what they meant they should have said so.
Radley –
Is there any interest from the mainstream media – ANY of them – about making more of a nationwide stink about the increasing frequency of these killings?
How many millions of dog owners are there in the U.S. ?
Are any dog fancier sites/ AKC / other dog enthusiast sites becoming aware that this problem will NOT just go away unless a stink is raised and action is taken to force police departments to drastically change their methods and attitudes ?
I now own 2 dogs and due to my daily reading of your website (enjoyment is not quite the word I want to use, due to your usual subjects) I am probably overestimating the risk to my pets – but at least I am aware of the situation.
It looks like the cops are going to have to start shooting babies before there’s much public outrage.
“A spokesperson for the police department has stated that there will be no investigation, because the officer was unaware at the time that the infant was restrained in a car seat.”
here’s an odd cop/dog story-
we’re on a firetruck helping an ambulance on a call for a guy having a heart attack- the cop’s on the scene to help. As the ambulance is leaving with the patient, the cop says to me, ‘Did you see that? That guy has 3 dogs- city code only allows 2.’ The cop said he was going to address this with his lieutenant. These were small, well-mannered house dogs living in a very well-kept house. I guess the odd part is that he didn’t shoot one of the dogs to help the owner become compliant with the ordinance.
Two months ago, the county dog catcher went into my girlfriend’s back yard and tore down a stack of firewood lining the bottom of her deck. Her dog slept under the deck in this ‘cave’. The dog catcher left her a note that he didn’t feel that was adequate shelter and that the dog didn’t have any water (the dog knocked his dish over). This wasn’t a nuisance dog that doesn’t get attention. He’s in a fenced yard, obviously well cared for.
I was fined for not having current vet-administered vaccines for my 2 labs. I’ve been giving them their vaccines for years and keep the receipts (same meds MUCH cheaper). The county no longer ‘recognizes’ this. Many times, code enforcement officers, cops, etc are driving around looking for violations. With all the ‘no aggressive breeds’ and other laws being passed, dogs aren’t just being assaulted by cops…
My heart goes out to Harley’s family.
@#22: The second sentence isn’t part of the declaration of what shall be a violation. Since it uses the imperative, it could support a second violation, but you would still be subject to punishment under the first sentence even if the animal were in an enclosure.
I’ve been wondering for some time if the County Animal Code Enforcement Idiots go to vets in the county and demand records, and the vet hands over records under the veiled threat of “your business will start having problems if you don’t comply, even though you are violating privacy laws and general common decency”. I will be asking my vet next week, and I’m not sure I will believe the answer I get.
27- in our county, if a dog’s picked up off the owner’s property, they check to see if it has a microchip. If not, the dog’s chipped. You’re automatically charged a boarding fee, whether the dog’s kennelled 10 min or overnight. They check to see if there are records for vaccinations. If not, they add the fees for the vaccinations and the fine for not having your dog vaccinated into the package. When you pick up the dog, you have a short time to make an appt with a vet. The vet has to be on the approved list, because the county reimburses the vet for the vaccinations from the fees you paid. Of course, the vet also tacks on the fee for the physical. The vets have a vested interest in the govt requiring vaccinations to be registered with the govt and not allowing citizens to vaccinate their own pets. Check out the cost of vaccinating them yourself vs paying the vet- what a racket!
I live in the town just north of Garland. I had just moved into my house and was within my 30 day period of registering my vehicle, so I had out of state plates. One reason or another I had left my vehicle unlocked, and my cellphone was in the car. I happened to be in the bathroom and my wife was elsewhere in the house. Then my wife gets a phone call from my cellphone, answers and assumes it is me, and asks why the hell I am calling her from my cellphone when I’m in the next room… only to hear a stranger’s voice. Turns out it was a cop who thought my vehicle was suspicious, and took it upon himself to root though my call and use my cellphone.
She didn’t tell me until the cop had left… otherwise I probably wound have wound up in jail that night for verbally abusing a police officer.
I’m pretty sure the whole reason for that law is to make illegal to have pit bulls tied in the front yard, the rest is window dressing.
#23 | Tom G | January 22nd, 2009 at 8:37 pm
“Radley, Is there any interest from the mainstream media – ANY of them – about making more of a nationwide stink about the increasing frequency of these killings?
How many millions of dog owners are there in the U.S. ?
Are any dog fancier sites/ AKC / other dog enthusiast sites becoming aware that this problem will NOT just go away unless a stink is raised and action is taken to force police departments to drastically change their methods and attitudes ?
I now own 2 dogs and due to my daily reading of your website (enjoyment is not quite the word I want to use, due to your usual subjects) I am probably overestimating the risk to my pets – but at least I am aware of the situation.”
Excellent questions and points, Tom. I have raised these same questions and offered a solution about 2 months ago on this very blog.
I suggested a national organization of dog owners dedicated solely to acting as a liaison between dog owners and local police, for the purpose of educating police and dog owners on the issues involved to mitigate the number of incidents where an officer feels justified in shooting.
2 months has gone by, with “puppycide” articles appearing several times a week on this blog, and the only responses to my idea from readers here have been ridicule, dismissal and obliviousness.
I have never owned a dog and apparently I care more about doing something for all dogs and dog owners than they themselves care.
95% of respondents to “puppycide” articles here engage in hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing ad nauseum, posting the same “outraged” comments over and over and over again. It’s so f’en predictable, and such a waste IMO.
Then again, maybe the lack of action on the subject speaks of a false premise. Perhaps if “puppycide” were as rampant as these sensational stories make it seem, such an organization would already exist. Perhaps there is no “puppycide” problem after all.
@ Cynical: I think we’ve discussed the problem before. The occurrences of puppycide are spread in space and time, so the costs of associating are greater than the marginal benefit to the individual members. (Coase FTW!)
It’s further complicated by the fact that some fraction (I have no idea what) of dogs killed by police really are a danger to the officer. The danger imposed by a large dog on a person is non-trivial, after all.
I think you’re on to something when you say the occurrences are not as widespread as one might believe. Remember, if it’s reported on the news, it is by definition not the normal course of events, thus the “man bites dog” idea.
Thank god I leash my dog to the Hindenberg.
“Man bites dog.” That’s clever, John. I’m beginning to suspect you’re right.
So, what are we left with now?
Yellow dog journalism?
Thanks for the economics lesson John. I guess the emotional pull of the story isn’t enough to overcome the economic factors.
From wikipedia:
“Coase coined the well known, but often misquoted adage “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess.” Still kicking at age 98.
Charlotte Twight, Boise State professor, wrote Dependent on DC, which explores some of the same ideas of opportunity costs (transaction costs), etc., as related to political organization.
[...] nur 007 die Lizenz zum Töten, sondern auch ganz gewöhnliche Polizisten. The Agitator – Puppycide [↩] « Coming Soon: Salzprohibition Dieser Eintrag wurde von Benjamin B. geschrieben, [...]