Cops Kill Family’s Dog in Front of Kids, Force Dad to Cut Its Head Off Or Go To Jail

a reply to: Meee32


How exactly do you come up with this assessment? He's under no obligation to decapitate it, especially given the fact that two people equipped with deadly weapons were present.

Why couldn't one of them just shoot it again? Or how about doing the job right the first time, and not leaving a living creature laying there to die/get its head cut off?

I will change my opinion though, all you have to do is cite the relevant statutes under GA law requiring destruction of a dangerous animal in this way to be carried out by a non-LEO/the dog's owner.

I do agree that the killing was justified, provided the officer felt threatened. That isn't the issue. When it comes to human beings, no one directs the use of deadly force - it is solely at the discretion (and fully the responsibility) of the person feeling the need to use said force to actually carry it out.

For instance, if the officer felt threatened by the dog, he properly used his weapon to destroy it. However, feeling threatened and telling someone else to shoot/stab/cut the dog is unacceptable. What if the guy would've slipped and cut the officer? What if neighbors would've been around, and he cut one of them? What if he would've cut himself? Fatally? You never direct anyone else to use deadly force. Always do it yourself. You're the one who feels threatened, so you're the one who is taking the legal risks.

Directing someone to use a deadly or dangerous weapon puts a lot of liability on the Sheriff's department as well. In many states, when you're acting under the lawful orders of a LEO you become a state actor and are entitled to the same protections as a LEO. I am sure the Sheriff and the State of GA will appreciate this officer putting that kind of liability on them like this.

Furthermore, you can't arrest someone for failing to follow a lawful order when there is no way they can possibly comply (ie: ordering someone to remove an animal's head who has no knife/shovel/etc to comply). This would be no different than ordering a double amputee to balance on both feet, and arresting him when he can't possibly comply. Put simply, you can't do that.

If this was acceptable, then no one is safe from false or arbitrary arrest. If an officer wants to take you into custody, they need simply to instruct you to do the impossible. This may sound like I'm coming down a little harsh here, but I have no use for someone like that officer. At least the other officer present had the good sense to say "I wouldn't cut my dog's head off either." Clearly at least one person present was being unreasonable: the officer. The homeowner was also being a bit unreasonable, but given the circumstances I can understand why he'd be animated. Whether justified or not, seeing your pet get killed is tough. So you'd expect a bit of animus over that at a minimum. At this point, the LEO was in the "right" and the homeowner was just upset. The officer then takes it a step further, though, with the decapitation stuff which totally validates the owner's actions/words.

After all, people are going to say bad words to you. If they're disturbing people or interfering with your job, then that is one thing. But simply swearing at an officer is generally not against the law. It is no more wrong or against the law than an officer swearing at you out of frustration. Is it professional? Maybe not. Is it human? Absolutely.

a reply to: JBurns

The other weird part is the fact this story is not being covered by media, either locally or nationally. I find that odd given the circumstances and the medias hatred of law enforcement. Even the Sheriff's department website has no mention of the incident.

a reply to: Meee32

Pretty much everything you said was just stupid but I will just respond to this.

therefore he is also responsible for removing it's head.Why should others have to fork out because of his dog?

That is what we pay taxes for .Its animal controls job.

a reply to: notsure1


Great point.

I personally fail to understand why they couldn't simply put a few more rounds into the dog and call it a day.

Clearly the initial shooting was justifiable, and unlike human beings you do not have to stop shooting an animal once the threat is over. Once you shoot them, it is expected that you will finish the job humanely and with respect to the family when at all possible.

a reply to: Xcathdra


That is absolutely weird!

Are you thinking this may be a skit or hoax by this guy? Maybe an anti-LE action?

I realize that is just speculation, but it certainly would at least make sense. As it stands right now, the decapitation part is just plain bizarre. I mean the shooting itself is not only common but it sounds entirely lawful. The part that gets me entirely is threatening to arrest the guy for not complying with an impossible order

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Xcathdra


That is absolutely weird!

Are you thinking this may be a skit or hoax by this guy? Maybe an anti-LE action?

I realize that is just speculation, but it certainly would at least make sense. As it stands right now, the decapitation part is just plain bizarre. I mean the shooting itself is not only common but it sounds entirely lawful. The part that gets me entirely is threatening to arrest the guy for not complying with an impossible order

I for one would love to find out it is a hoax. Cops cant be this bad right? I mean and stilll keep their job..

jsut to add , shoot my #in dog in front of me and you wont even be able to ask me to decapitate it as your head will already be on a pike on my front lawn!

This whole # of killing dogs because they are doing what dogs do ! and that is being territorial and protecting their family !

So of course a dog will bark at anyone that comes into its territory , killing a dog for biting is wrong ! the dog is just being natural

I mean how can you justify using dogs in the police force , when its "ok" for dogs to bite people without getting put down because they are helping to fight crime.
Well dogs barking at people coming into yards without permission are fighting against potential criminals , regardless of whether they have a badge
putting dogs down for biting is #in stupid!

Humans are #in pathetic , wanting to put a dog down for being bitten

Some humans really piss me off.

I mean you dont put a cat down for scratching or biting you.

a reply to: JBurns

I think the dog was dead already, they wanted the head to test for rabies so they say. After reading the news article it seems that it would not be normal procedure to have the pet owner or officer cut the animals head off because it requires special precautions to make sure no one gets infected if the dog did have rabies.

As a retired cop maybe you can shed some insight on why the police would even get involved in a dog bite complaint, wouldn't and shouldn't it be sent to animal control first ? I also wonder what would be the normal procedure if an officer has been sent on private property to investigate a complaint, does the officer automatically have the right to shoot a dog barking at them aggressively, isn't that what dogs do on private property, protect it ?

What if police come to someone's house to investigate a crime the pet owner isn't even suspected of and are just gathering information, does the police officer have rights beyond a private citizen entering someone's property uninvited ? Not trying to be a smart a##, I'm truly curious what your thoughts are ?

After researching GA Animal control laws and rabies laws I found some interesting laws.

**NOTE - the links in question use the Michigan State University Legal and Historic Animal Center which has links to specific state laws**

* - All GA animal laws

Summary:
This section contains all animal control laws, including livestock, for the State of GA

* - GA Animal Control Laws / Rabies Laws

Summary:

This GA statute pertains to the control of rabies. Any person bitten by an animal suspected of being rabid must notify the county board of health. The owner of any animal which has bitten any person or animal, or exhibits signs of rabies, must notify the county board of health. The owner must also confine the animal. A violation is a misdemeanor.

Primary Citation: Ga. Code Ann., § 31-19-1 to 10
Country of Origin: United States
Last Checked: October, 2016
Alternate Citation: GA ST § 31-19-1 to 10

All animals must be vaccinated against Rabies and must have paperwork proving the animal was vaccinated. GA places all liability on the dog / dog owner if it bites someone. This goes for regular bites as well as for animals listed as "dangerous / "vicious" under GA law.

When it comes to euthanizing an animal the only requirements under law apply to animals already in the custody of a designated entity by law (shelter, humane society, animal refuge shelter, etc). Absent that the law dealing with animal cruelty specifically exempts animal control officer / sworn law enforcement officers from this law while in performance of their duties. GA law also allows sworn law enforcement as well as non law enforcement officers to enforce all GA animal control laws. The only exception is making an arrest, which must be done by a person authorized under GA law to make an arrest for violation of law (IE sworn law enforcement only).

If the owner has an animal that is classified as "dangerous / vicious" fails to control the animal (fenced enclosure / on a leash / etc) is in fact a felony punishable by no more than 10 years in prison. That depends on what the animal did and to whom or what the animal did it to.

Each county is required to have laws dealing with animals and rabies control. Counties can combine their resources to achieve compliance with the law. State animal control laws do not apply to municipalities who have their own animal control laws provided they meet the same criteria as state laws. GA law does not prevent a county / municipality from having animal control laws that are MORE strict than the state laws.

Nowhere does it prohibit the action of the officers in question (which is concerning and problematic).

To place the entire matter into proper perspective we need the following info - (as a side note the bite laws specifically spell out a violation. That includes the dog being provoked by a 3rd party).
* - number of times the animal in question has bitten someone or something off its property.
* - number of times the animal in question has bitten someone / something on its property.
* - The property in question and whether it has a proper enclosure / restricted area for the dog in question.
* - Whether the dog is classified as "normal" or "vicious / dangerous" as defined by GA law.
* - The incident that led the police to respond that day, including injuries to the victim.
* - Call history of the location in question.

The law clearly places all burden on the animal owner, including paying for testing / boarding of quarantined animal etc. Considering the way the laws are written I can see (but absolutely do not agree with) how the officer handled this mess.

** Animal control laws spell out the actions of a dog and what constitutes a violation. It also specifically lays out the criteria in which an animal that does bite someone is protected by the same laws if the animal was correctly contained (fenced enclosure / leash / etc) in addition to it being on its own property. The law also takes notice if the dog was somehow provoked into its action where it is still protected under the law **

originally posted by: sapien82
jsut to add , shoot my #in dog in front of me and you wont even be able to ask me to decapitate it as your head will already be on a pike on my front lawn!

This whole # of killing dogs because they are doing what dogs do ! and that is being territorial and protecting their family !

So of course a dog will bark at anyone that comes into its territory , killing a dog for biting is wrong ! the dog is just being natural

I mean how can you justify using dogs in the police force , when its "ok" for dogs to bite people without getting put down because they are helping to fight crime.
Well dogs barking at people coming into yards without permission are fighting against potential criminals , regardless of whether they have a badge
putting dogs down for biting is #in stupid!

Humans are #in pathetic , wanting to put a dog down for being bitten

Some humans really piss me off.

I mean you dont put a cat down for scratching or biting you.

Amen !!

a reply to: MountainLaurel

I know right , it is really ridiculous that we still treat animals like this , let alone how we treat each other.

I mean will dog owners have to train their dogs and get them security guard status so that when they protect their family and property they are covered by law as a they are trained protection dogs!

WTF

#in stupid ass laws and stupid ass people !

Okay, I'm uncertain if anyone already posted this, but I'm going to anyhow in case they did not.

This is an excerpt from the PDF of the Georgia Rabies Control Manual published by the Georgia Department of Community Health:

III. LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS OF RABIES

B. Specimen Collection, Labeling, and Submission

A key factor in obtaining reliable laboratory results is the condition of the specimen when received by the laboratory. Shipping of specimens should be coordinated with the county health department or animal control officer. Containers for shipment are available from county health departments or from GPHL Laboratory Supply (404-327-7904).

• Submission Guidelines


1. Only specimens received in good condition with at least two identifiable brain parts are approved for reporting test results.

2. For a specimen to be accepted for testing, there must have been exposure of a human or domestic animal to the suspected rabid animal.

3. The laboratories are not equipped to handle whole carcasses: only the HEAD is accepted as a specimen, except for bats and animals of similar size, which should be submitted whole. Whole carcasses of any larger animal will be returned to the sender for resubmission of the HEAD ONLY.

So, as you can see in the italicized part, it seem that there must have been exposure of a human to the animal in order for the specimen to be accepted for testing. I would assume, although cannot find a definitive answer, that this would mean that a human would need to have been bitten by the dog. In the video, it is implied that no one had been bitten and that the dog had been shot to avoid being bitten.

In any event, that PDF also has flowcharts showing the process for determining if testing is even necessary, and on that, it says that it's only necessary if the animal in question was showing signs of the illness.

It is pretty apparent that this investigator was overstepping his authority, at least with citing law or guidelines in dealing with this particular instance. Now, this isn't to say that there is no policy for the police department where they must send specimens in for all animal shootings to verify if rabies was present in the animal or not, but I can't find anything like that (although from a CYA legal standpoint, it'd be a good policy, I suppose).

So, yeah, as far as I can tell, this LEO was a complete assh0le in making the homeowner do what he did to his dog, and quite honestly, I would question his mental ability to be a police officer if he's willing to force someone to do this to their own dog right after it was shot.

a reply to: Xcathdra

ty for all of that..

a reply to: SlapMonkey

From your source -

Foreword
The purpose of this manual is to provide current information on the control of rabies
in Georgia. It is designed to be used by county health departments, hospital
emergency departments, private physicians and health care practitioners,
veterinarians, and animal control programs. This manual should serve as an
educational tool for use in all facets of community rabies control. Additionally, it is
hoped that this manual will assist communities in standardizing rabies control
practices within the state.

This document was prepared by Cherie L. Drenzek, DVM, MS, Julie Gabel, DVM, MPH,
and Melissa Ivey, MPH. Credit is also given to authors of the following: 1)
Georgia
Rabies Control Manual
, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Editions (1996, 2001, 2007); 2)
National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians (NASPHV)
Compendium of
Animal Rabies Prevention and Control 2008
, and 3)
Use of a Reduced (4-Dose) Vaccine
Schedule for Postexposure Prophylaxis to Prevent Human Rabies – Recommendations
of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices
(2010)
.
If you have any questions regarding this manual, please contact the Acute Disease
Section, Epidemiology Program, Division of Public Health, Georgia Department of
Community Health at (404) 657-2588.

The laws governing law enforcement are set out in state law supplied a few posts up. Those laws exempt law enforcement / animal control officers from some of the governing laws in question. It also places all liabilities / burden on the owner of the dog. The laws also spell out what entities are required by law to comply with the information you posted. Law Enforcement is not subject to that law.


Also even more posts up it was determined the person who posted the video / involved in the incident left out a key piece of info that came out in his facebook posts (also linked). His dog did in fact bite a neighbor and I am almost certain that was the reason for law enforcement's presence. When he was pressed about that info he stated he was done answering questions and that he already presented his side of the story.

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: Xcathdra

ty for all of that..

Anytime...

and again since it has a tendency to get lost - I DO NOT agree with the actions of the officers, whether covered by law or not.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: MountainLaurel

I know right , it is really ridiculous that we still treat animals like this , let alone how we treat each other.

I mean will dog owners have to train their dogs and get them security guard status so that when they protect their family and property they are covered by law as a they are trained protection dogs!

WTF

#in stupid ass laws and stupid ass people !

I hear you loud and clear ! What amazes me is how "threatened" could any police officer feel to kill a dog , especially when they wear heavy clothes and shoes and have weapons if the dog actually does truly threaten their life. I really do see this in most cases as a sadistic way for cops to assert their power and terrorize people.

What happens to these two sick bastard cops will tell us A LOT , no details yet that I can find.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I also did some digging (see post here), and while there is no apparent "must be" type of language concerning who removes the head for testing for rabies, there do exist guidelines for what one "should" be and do:

The following guidelines are recommended for the removal of animal heads (whenever possible, this procedure should be performed by a person who has received pre-exposure rabies vaccine).

• Rubber gloves and protective clothing as well as face and eye protection should be worn while the head is being removed and packaged.

• Sever the head between the foramen magnum and the atlas. Local veterinarians or trained animal control personnel can assist in this removal.

• Allow fluids and blood to drain from the head. Keep as clean as possible and place the head in a double plastic bag for transport to the laboratory.

• If fleas or ticks are present, spray insecticide into the plastic bag containing the head before closing. Do not send maggots.

• Cutting surfaces and instruments should be thoroughly cleaned with detergent and water and disinfected. Gloves should also be cleaned and disinfected or discarded following use.

So, while there is no mandate for all of this to occur, I think that the existence of these guidelines, at the very least, gives the homeowner cause for a lawsuit. If the investigator truly felt that the animal may have rabies, they should not have forced--or even allowed--a civilian to remove the head, not knowing if he has received a pre-exposure rabies vaccination.

At the very least, they should have had the fish-and-game guy do it, or called for a veterinarian to come do it properly.

a reply to: MountainLaurel

Respectfully know the laws and the job before speaking on behalf of law enforcement in terms of what they should / how they should "feel threatened" by an animal.

The clothes have no impact on an animal bite and i have seen enough to know the damage an animal bite can cause.

Dont speak for law enforcement if you have never done the job, dont know the law, never seen the repercussions of an animal bite.

again respectfully.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
His dog did in fact bite a neighbor and I am almost certain that was the reason for law enforcement's presence. When he was pressed about that info he stated he was done answering questions and that he already presented his side of the story.

Ah, well, that changes quite a bit concerning the narrative of the officer(s) being blatantly over-reactive in the situation. If the dog actually bit someone, I understand the actions a little better of the officer that felt a need to shoot the animal (after it apparently charged him twice).

What I still refuse to accept is that the investigator basically forced the homeowner to remove the dog's head under thread of detainment or arrest. That could have and should have been handled VERY differently, as the guidelines that I shared with you in a subsequent post indicate. Like you, I cannot condone the way that officer acted in regards to the removal of the dog's head for rabies testing. (And yes, I bet that the fact that you disagree with the actions of the LEO(s) will get lost on most people).

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yup and as I pointed out the actual GA law does spell out how rabies control works and what entities are required to comply with the law and what entities are exempt from certain aspects of the law.

Your information does not apply to law enforcement and GA laws clearly spells that out.

GA law sets the basic requirements all counties / cities must comply with. It allows more stringent laws but not more lax laws.

A law / guideline cant be applied to an entity that is already exempted by law from it.

I get what you are saying and understand it but reality in this case is much different. I also keep coming back to the omitted info by the reporting party and his refusal to continue to provide info when he was forced to admit his dog but someone before the police arrived. His description of his action falling along the lines of the Taliban was used to invoke an emotional reaction even though he also left out key info there as well.

I would prefer to see the entire story / report before condemning either side in this.