Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are there any witnesses, other than the dog-killing police officer, who saw the incident, and saw the dog act aggressively enough toward the officer that the officer believed he was in danger of being killed? A dog growling and barking in his own yard does not necessarily mean he intends to kill a trespasser (which is what the dog could have believed the police officer to be). Also, the dog could have approached without barking or growling and the officer could have, out of fear or annoyance, shot to kill and then covered his action by saying the dog was threatening him.
Dogs on their own property usually do not just sit still when a stranger comes onto their turf. They will either approach to greet the intruder with friendly excitement, a more wary but not violent excitement, suspicion, concern, wariness, wary protectiveness, warning growls with the intent to force the intruder to back up, to downright vicious (especially if the dog is chained) intent to commit bodily harm. Most dogs inside their own yards or homes would go through a series of ritual actions and behaviors before they get to the point of committing violence on a human. And a dog that is growling is usually warning; giving the intruder a chance to retreat or slow down before taking further physical action. I think that police officers in general need more teaching and other instructions/alternatives than Kill the Dog If You're Nervous. Pepper spray is better than bullets if the dog's intent is ambiguous. And there was no proof that a child was in danger inside the yard or home. Also, a year-old Weimaraner is not at full emotional and physical maturity, and is less likely to react aggressively towards an intruder than a two-year-old intact male dog of a guarding or fighting breed (especially one who has been poorly socialized or neglected, and there were no signs that Geist was poorly treated by his owner).
Keep in mind, that I have never said the shooting of the dog was justified. I only said the cop being in the backyard was justified. Here are probably the only two things I said about the dog being shot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
Since I wasn't present and don't know the exact details, I can't say if this fits the scenario or not. I'm guessing that if I had been there, there would be no pressing need to shoot the dog, but since I wasn't there I can't say that absolutely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
There simply isn't enough information to say with 100% certainty whether or not this cop acted in bad faith.
So, had the kid NOT been found after Geist was shot, I wonder if the officer would continue his search in all of the other back yards in the same manner (shooting any growling dogs in the process) or would he have approached his search differently? Was it reasonable to expect the officer to anticipate there may be dogs in these backyards?
So, had the kid NOT been found after Geist was shot, I wonder if the officer would continue his search in all of the other back yards in the same manner (shooting any growling dogs in the process) or would he have approached his search differently? Was it reasonable to expect the officer to anticipate there may be dogs in these backyards?
I would doubt it unless there were other incidents of this officer shooting dogs. The only background a found on him was that he was one of the first officers to respond to a crazy person on a shooting spree. I'd guess that after shooting Geist, he'd probably double check the next yards for dogs prior to entering. Keep in mind, he didn't know Geist was in the yard when he entered. Of course, this would also make me think that Geist didn't represent the threat the officer claimed. Most "viscous" dogs would have been going ape crap when they heard someone close by outside the fence.
I think the cops should be trained to call out for dogs when appropriate. I'm guessing they probably aren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4
I will say this...
Reason 876 not to leave your dog outside unsupervised in the back yard.
Some dogs do better in backyards, but there are additional potential dangers of them being there. Probably the biggest would be someone letting them out.
I do hate seeing dogs that are purchased as a novelty and once it has worn off they are left to go slowly mad in those yards.
Tour, if you don't see this incident as one symptom of a much bigger problem, I don't know what else to say to you.
There is always some excuse...legal or not, this never had to happen.
No, it never had to happen, but it did. The police had to go looking for the lost kid. The dog had to bark and snarl and run at the cop because that's what dog's do. The cop shot and killed the dog because he felt he was in danger. It didn't have to happen but it did.
Quote:
Then you support the crap-ass way the department dealt with it.
What was crappy about? Many of you have made it clear that no amount of money is enough. Some of you have said you don't want to see the cop fired. None of you have come to a consensus on what should have been done, just that you want to take aim at me and make summary judgment of my character for not getting emotionally distraught and irrationally angry about it. I think Geist's owner handled the situation in a crap-ass way from his behavior on the video he taped and using social media to convey messages to the cops about the settlement.
Quote:
Nothing you are saying is any more relevant or logical than what most of the rest of us is saying. It is simply your opinion, too.
No, my opinion is that the guy should have taken the money. He could have used it to fund his "Remember Geist" campaign with a website, some flyers, handouts maybe even a commercial letting people know "the story" and rally people up against the SLC PD. Or he could have gone on vacation, or paid off some bills or put a down payment on a new car or new home away from SLC. Whatever.
The facts that can't be argued and that aren't my opinion is that the police were doing what they are within their rights of doing in searching yards and shooting a threatening animal.
No, my opinion is that the guy should have taken the money. He could have used it to fund his "Remember Geist" campaign with a website, some flyers, handouts maybe even a commercial letting people know "the story" and rally people up against the SLC PD. Or he could have gone on vacation, or paid off some bills or put a down payment on a new car or new home away from SLC. Whatever.
Better yet, he could have used the money to fund training events for the police on how to better deal with dogs while performing their duties. Unfortunately, it's too late for Geist, but specific training on how to deal with dogs in the future might save another person's best friend.
Better yet, he could have used the money to fund training events for the police on how to better deal with dogs while performing their duties. Unfortunately, it's too late for Geist, but specific training on how to deal with dogs in the future might save another person's best friend.
If it is legal and policy to go gallivanting around people's yards without permission because of random subjective criteria that comprise "exigent circumstances" (ie, the suspension of your rights as a citizen under The Constitution based on someone's FEELINGS), then why aren't the officers already trained on how to approach back yards or how to handle dogs?
Someone or some animal defending his property (while on his property) against an invading force...not a "threatening animal" IMO.
The cop was the aggressor here.
Which is why they offered him a generous 10 grand instead of telling him to go pound sand. I've seen a bunch of other police killing dog stories on this board where the owners got jack squat.
I would doubt it unless there were other incidents of this officer shooting dogs. The only background a found on him was that he was one of the first officers to respond to a crazy person on a shooting spree. I'd guess that after shooting Geist, he'd probably double check the next yards for dogs prior to entering. Keep in mind, he didn't know Geist was in the yard when he entered. Of course, this would also make me think that Geist didn't represent the threat the officer claimed. Most "viscous" dogs would have been going ape crap when they heard someone close by outside the fence.
I think the cops should be trained to call out for dogs when appropriate. I'm guessing they probably aren't.
My point being that if he subsequently would "double check" then he must have made a procedural error initially.
Is it too much to ask that if the officer knocks on the door of the home and noone answers, they would knock or bang on the backyard fence to see whether the homeowner was there before they enter to search? The noise would surely alert any potential dogs back there. After all, they're not looking for a criminal so there's no need to be stealthy and quiet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
