Wisconsin police deploy armored vehicle over dog poop dispute, SWAT team executes dog

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Having worked with all sorts of dogs from every size, shape and breed, the ones that were most likely to bite, were the smaller breeds. While they may not pose a serious threat, to where a person could lose their life, however, the damage that they could do, is more of causing a person to be disfigured, if not disabled by them.

Be that as it may, the owner is at fault for letting the animal out, that did charge the police. This is the same owner that threatened people with weapons and ultimately threatened the police. The moment the animal was let out, under the eyes of the law, it ceased to be a pet and is now considered a weapon. And as I stated before, if it had bit an officer or a person and drew blood, there would have been a good chance that it would be put down.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

i am not disputing the fact that the retarded owner letting the dog out was just plain stupid and no doubt he should not have done it....i just think the way the police handled it was completely unaceptable....

if it had bit an officer or a person and drew blood, there would have been a good chance that it would be put down.

but it didnt bite anyone did it ? ....and it was put down anyhow......sure it was inconvenient for the police to see a dog in the yard but it did not even approach the officers...it took one look at them turned around and licked itself....in your mind that may be justification to shoot the dog in my mind that was per-meditated murder to an animal that was clearly no threat

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Was there a fence around the yard? No. Did the dog go out towards the officers, yes.

The law is very clear cut, the moment the owner let the animal out, it ceased to be a pet, and is now considered a weapon and threat. Does not matter if it bit anyone or not, the fact that there is no fencing, makes it a threat.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

the law may be clear cut.....that still does not excuse the actions of the officers.....they shot that dog as because they wanted to be nasty...you can try to justify it all you want...this is the reason police are becoming so hated...and if you are fine with that then carry on

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
I am not defending or saying the police were correct in such. However, I am stating that the fault and death of the dog lies ultimately with the owner.

Did the owner fail to be a good neighbor? Yes.

Did the owner try to correct the fault of his? No

Did the owner escalate the situation by puling a weapon and threatening people? Yes.

Did the owner back down, when the officers show up? No.

Was the yard fenced in? No.

And finally, with the police there, did the owner release the animal out towards the police? Yes.

While the actions of the police could have been better, the owner has to share the greater of the responsibility, and thus the full burden for his animal getting killed.

If this dog was hit by a car driving down the street, who would be responsible, the owner. If this dog bit anyone, it would be the owners responsible.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

In many states, there are laws on the books that cover dog bites. Should a dog bite, during a police confrontation, then the owner of said animal is guilty of assault and battery, along with several other charges. In some states, if a dog bites someone, it is considered to be assault with a deadly weapon, and possibly attempted murder.

The dog didn't bite anyone nor did it attempt to bite anyone. These laws, none of which you've provided sources for, are irrelevant to this situation.

While the police may not be so innocent in this aspect, the facts are and still remain. The police were there, the owner did let the dog out. That takes it from fault of the police to the fault of the owner, as now the owner, is using the animal as a weapon. If the owner had the dog restrained where it did not pose a threat and the police shot it, then the police would be at fault, and that I can see. But this is not the case.

No it doesn't transfer fault from dog killer to dog owner. We might be in agreement had the dog attacked, but the simple presence of the animal doesn't qualify it as a deadly weapon thus possibly justifying defense against it. In case you've missed it I've repeated a couple times, in this thread, a simple hypothetical to show just how ridiculous such an argument is.

The bottom line is this: If you have a dog, it becomes your responsibility to take care of the animal and see to its well being. That means if the police show up, you want to restrain said animals, to where said dog cannot get out.

A better bottom line would be: If police are completely lacking in self control and threat awareness that the mere presence of a dog triggers something inside them to immediately shoot then they shouldn't be in the position they are. If a dog is in a yard, whether they want to claim threats were made or not, it is not a potential weapon until it attacks.

Tell me, are you willing to risk your life or well being over a dog?

Define risk? If you're asking if I plan on shooting any dogs I may encounter while walking through the neighborhood the answer is no. If you're asking if I'd defend myself against a legitimate threat then yes.

I watched as one of the neighbors ended up paying thousands of dollars in medical bills, for the dog causing people on another property getting hurt. And the owners of that animal were facing felony charges, even though the dog was very friendly, but people got hurt due to it. And in most states, have laws that if a dog bites, then the animal can be put down as a prevention and protection of the public safety.

I'm not sure how any of this relates to this situation. This dog bit no one nor did it attempt to. This dog caused no property damage nor did it attempt to. This dog gave into curiosity and promptly ran away. If a dog running off is considered a deadly weapon then it's as I said, these police are worthless cowards.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Almost every country on the planet has it...

Source

a reply to: raymundoko

another reason then they call australia the lucky country......

a reply to: FraggleRock
First: Like many people should, there are all sorts of ways to dig out this information, including use of say google. But if you require a short cut, then here goes:
docs.legis.wisconsin.gov...

If you review the video tape, the police did have a service dog there. By releasing his dog out into the front yard, it could be argued and won that he attempted to instigate a dog fight between his dog and that of a police, thus in violation of Wisconsin state law, on 2 points.

Under Wi State law, in the event that a dog bites a person, the owner of a dog is liable for the full amount of damages caused by the dog injuring or causing injury to a person, domestic animal and property.
dogbitelaw.com...
docs.legis.wisconsin.gov...

The dog being released, while the owner is holding up in his house, with weapons, ceases making the dog a family pet into a weapon, that could cause bodily damage. That is assault in its basic definition.
You can not ask that a police officer wait to see if the dog attacks or not, while there on a legitimate call, which they were. Did the owner not threaten people with weapons? Did he not threaten the police as well with said weapons? The article was very clear on that point, that the suspect threatened not only his neighbors but also the police, escalating the situation.

If the animal comes onto your property and is a nuisance, then by Wi state law, you have all right to shoot said animal, though most would say for being a good neighbor you would not. Even where I live, if a stray dog comes onto my property, I have all rights to either shoo it off, or take a firearm and put a bullet in its head and would not even see a night in the jail for that action.

I am simply stating that the burden and guilt for the death of this animal, lies not with the police but with the owner. He did start this, he was a bad neighbor, who refused to clean up after his animal. He did threaten people with weapons. He did threaten the police with weapons and ultimately he let his dog out in the front yard, which in the video, was not fenced in at all.
Now if I was sitting on the jury, the first question that should be asked, was why did he let the dog out in the front of the yard, when there are police around and approaching the front. Most people would not let their dogs out where the police were, as then they are assuming a risk that either the animal will not bite, or get hurt?

Doesn't matter if it's the law. It was still a cowardly and pathetic act by a bunch wannabe tough guys. They did it to be nasty. And it's also indicative of the S#*$( poor training they get. Anybody with half a brain could have handled that situation better. Yes, including the dog owner. But you simply don't go around murdering things because they inconvenience you. That is a trait of a sociopath. The cop that opened fire if given a real psych exam by somebody not on the payroll would be labeled as a nut. It's unacceptable behavior and alarming that somebody who is supposedly trained adequately for such situation screwed it up so bad. LEO's are in for a sorry awakening when they realize the nation has judged them to be sociopathic and largely incompetent. Here's a hint. you might not want to take a insecure fearful person and put them in the front row where all the action is. You might want somebody a little more levelheaded and in control of their emotions and fear. Ever hung out with an off duty cop. WOW is all I have to say. the pathology doesn't stop when they take off the badge. Seriously try and have a level headed conversation with an of em when they are off duty. You'll be alarmed at their lack of insight to society.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

First: Like many people should, there are all sorts of ways to dig out this information, including use of say google. But if you require a short cut, then here goes:

As a general rule, when having a discussion and the other participant makes claims without support I don't see it as my responsibility to make their point for them. Providing sources is the responsibility of those who make the claim.

If you review the video tape, the police did have a service dog there. By releasing his dog out into the front yard, it could be argued and won that he attempted to instigate a dog fight between his dog and that of a police, thus in violation of Wisconsin state law, on 2 points.

Yes, I saw the deadly weapon the police brought with them among all the other deadly weapons. Surely if the little dog can be considered a deadly weapon than this so called "service dog" is definitely a deadly weapon.

Though I fail to see how such an argument could be made that somehow this dog in the yard was an attempt to instigate a fight and thus in violation of law let alone how such an argument could be won. That is grasping at straws at it's finest.

Under Wi State law, in the event that a dog bites a person, the owner of a dog is liable for the full amount of damages caused by the dog injuring or causing injury to a person, domestic animal and property.

Relevance? No bite took place nor was any bite attempted. These dog bite laws are as relevant to this situation as traffic laws.

The dog being released, while the owner is holding up in his house, with weapons, ceases making the dog a family pet into a weapon, that could cause bodily damage. That is assault in its basic definition. You can not ask that a police officer wait to see if the dog attacks or not, while there on a legitimate call, which they were. Did the owner not threaten people with weapons? Did he not threaten the police as well with said weapons? The article was very clear on that point, that the suspect threatened not only his neighbors but also the police, escalating the situation.

While you've provided irrelevant dog bite laws you've yet to back this claim up. I want to see the source that verifies that once this dog walked out the door it became a deadly weapon thus justifying the shooting.

Yes, I can and do ask that a legitimate threat present itself before police discharge their firearms. Though I'm well aware that there are many who prefer the shoot everything approach over the threat assessment approach.

If the animal comes onto your property and is a nuisance, then by Wi state law, you have all right to shoot said animal, though most would say for being a good neighbor you would not. Even where I live, if a stray dog comes onto my property, I have all rights to either shoo it off, or take a firearm and put a bullet in its head and would not even see a night in the jail for that action.

There is a big difference between shooting a threat and shooting a nuisance. And contrary to your claim, everything that I've managed to find under Wisconsin law would not allow the scenario you've made.

(1)  Killing a dog. (a) Except as provided in par. (b), a person may intentionally kill a dog only if a person is threatened with serious bodily harm by the dog and: 1. Other restraining actions were tried and failed; or 2. Immediate action is necessary.

Source

I am simply stating that the burden and guilt for the death of this animal, lies not with the police but with the owner. He did start this, he was a bad neighbor, who refused to clean up after his animal. He did threaten people with weapons. He did threaten the police with weapons and ultimately he let his dog out in the front yard, which in the video, was not fenced in at all.

And I am simply stating that the burden lies with the individual who fired the bullet. Simply because a circumstance exists doesn't require any specific action. If these officers saw this little dog running away and saw a legitimate threat to them that required them to open fire that's on them. And as I've said, they should be publicly shamed for being such worthless cowards. Because if they saw this little dog running away as a legitimate threat to them in their protective gear, their armored vehicle, or their attack dog, they deserve nothing else.

Most people would not let their dogs out where the police were, as then they are assuming a risk that either the animal will not bite, or get hurt?

I would do my best to prevent pets, children, or any friends or family from being anywhere near law enforcement. Police are far too by the book trigger happy to be trusted to act in an appropriate manner no matter the situation.

I do truly find this totally an example of just what a militarized police state of fascism we live in, and I am in agreement with so many of you all, as well as disgusted by the murder of this little dog! Along these lines, just yesterday the "meter-reader",from our gas company came by. I inquired why he had a large can of mace on a belt, he replied," for any dog that might impede his reading a meter". To me, this was just another example of the apathetic, and absolutist world we are forced to put up with these days. I told him, the "day would not come that my dog would have Mace used on him, without seeing us in court seeking damages". Then I called the gas company in regard to "their right to bring a weapon onto our property to possibly use on our dog. I was so appalled and sickened, I wanted to make certain he truly was allowed this by the company". Their answer was "yes". The shooting of this innocent animal, is yes I agree Road Gravel, a "waste of tax dollars, and a total insanity"! We must stand together to stop the current militaristic trends and theft of our rights, and lives of both humans, and animals! reply to: stosh64

a reply to: cosmicpeace

Maybe keep your dog contained? If the dog bit him you would be liable as the home owner. But hey, way to be a jerk to a guy who's probably been bitten before and is just doing his job.