Baltimore Sun : DOJ Officer Shoots Dog... While Fenced In at a Dog Park...

[Kosher Ham]

With all of the crap that happens in Baltimore this is a story ?

[rictus58]

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/mutts/blog/2010/08/cop_kills_bearbear_at_arundel.html

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the cop just gets away with it.:mad:

According to Anne Arundel County chief of police, the investigation is still on going. The shooter is a DOJ employee. Not a cop. Don't let that stop many from jumping the gun.

[mcsluggo]

That makes me so angry...you shoot my dog and i will shoot you back

THIS is the sort of context that drives ME nuts.

its a dog. a dog. a dog.

as people get more vehement in their defence of their canine "members of their family" i get driven more and more into the "its a piece of personal property" camp. I am much more concerned that someone is looking to make sure that correct firearms procedures were followed (and no humans were put in danger from the possiblity of an errant shot) than for the dog.

its a dog.

[TheGreatBuzz]

My GUESS would be that the cops dog responded aggressivly to the huskys aggresive play and the cop thought they were fighting.

Why was the cops dog on a leash? Most owners know that you take the leash off before going in the park. A leash on the dog in that situation makes a dog feel vulnerable. they are more likely to respond violently

[Heisenberg]

THIS is the sort of context that drives ME nuts.

its a dog. a dog. a dog.

as people get more vehement in their defence of their canine "members of their family" i get driven more and more into the "its a piece of personal property" camp. I am much more concerned that someone is looking to make sure that correct firearms procedures were followed (and no humans were put in danger from the possiblity of an errant shot) than for the dog.

its a dog.

To you maybe.

Obviously, you don't get it - and that's fine. But it goes far deeper than "it's just a dog".

[Drop]

THIS is the sort of context that drives ME nuts.

its a dog. a dog. a dog.

as people get more vehement in their defence of their canine "members of their family" i get driven more and more into the "its a piece of personal property" camp. I am much more concerned that someone is looking to make sure that correct firearms procedures were followed (and no humans were put in danger from the possiblity of an errant shot) than for the dog.

its a dog.

you're really that cold that you can't recognize the loving bond that a person establishes between themselves and their pet(s)? this wasn't a stray dog or a wild dog. this was a family pet.

you do know they're called "man's best friend" right? How would you feel to see your "best friend" gunned down by some ********?

[rictus58]

also, according to the father of the girl who owned the dog (he was a guest on WBAL radio this afternoon), the DOJ will be conducting their own investigation on the employee once the AA county police finish their investigation.

So to those who cry "cops get away with it":

1. He's not a cop.

2. he hasn't gotten away with anything yet.

[jnhay]

THIS is the sort of context that drives ME nuts.

its a dog. a dog. a dog.

as people get more vehement in their defence of their canine "members of their family" i get driven more and more into the "its a piece of personal property" camp. I am much more concerned that someone is looking to make sure that correct firearms procedures were followed (and no humans were put in danger from the possiblity of an errant shot) than for the dog.

its a dog.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you here. You're more concerned about how the gun was used rather than whether it was okay to use it in the first place?

[Destino]

THIS is the sort of context that drives ME nuts.

its a dog. a dog. a dog.

as people get more vehement in their defence of their canine "members of their family" i get driven more and more into the "its a piece of personal property" camp. I am much more concerned that someone is looking to make sure that correct firearms procedures were followed (and no humans were put in danger from the possiblity of an errant shot) than for the dog.

its a dog.

I don't understand this stupidity. It's not "a dog" it's "someone's dog". A dog they invested time, money, and emotion into. Who gives a damn what you're concerned about? The bottom line is what is the victim concerned about. Yes I used the word victim because if you or I shot that woman's dog that's the word they use. She wants to know why an off duty cop/DOJ employee/whatever he is, decided to shoot her dog in a fenced in dog park and frankly she has every damn right to have that question answered.

[Drop]

I don't understand this stupidity. It's not "a dog" it's "someone's dog". A dog they invested time, money, and emotion into. Who gives a damn what you're concerned about? The bottom line is what is the victim concerned about. Yes I used the word victim because if you or I shot that woman's dog that's the word they use. She wants to know why an off duty cop/DOJ employee/whatever he is, decided to shoot her dog in a fenced in dog park and frankly she has every damn right to have that question answered.

absolutely.

[skinsfan07]

Just another example of unequal protection under the law. If anyone of us did the same thing, justified or not, there would certainly be an investigation just into exactly what happened.

Exactly. The law gets away with anything, anytime they want. Such hypocrites.

[Forehead]

Here's my question. I'm assuming this person is one of the officers that guards the front of the DOJ federal building, much like we have here at DHS. While they are officers, they are not the same as county/state police etc. and I don't believe they have jurisdiction beyond their job.

So why was he packing his gun to go to the dog park?

[Redskins Diehard]

Exactly. The law gets away with anything, anytime they want. Such hypocrites.

Yeah. Yeah. Just like the last Baltimore cop that shot the guy. remember everyone saying the same thing about him? He was indicted on murder and weapons charges.

I guess this DOJ guy should have clearly been dragged to the center of town and publicly executed by now.

[Redskins Diehard]

I don't understand this stupidity. It's not "a dog" it's "someone's dog". A dog they invested time, money, and emotion into. Who gives a damn what you're concerned about? The bottom line is what is the victim concerned about. Yes I used the word victim because if you or I shot that woman's dog that's the word they use. She wants to know why an off duty cop/DOJ employee/whatever he is, decided to shoot her dog in a fenced in dog park and frankly she has every damn right to have that question answered.

Okay, when in your world should that answer be required to be given. 10 minutes? 15? Maybe you could grab a photo of the cop off of google...that worked well last time something like this happened.

[ABQCOWBOY]

For the record, I love the worst dog more than the best people, generally speaking, but there's no attempt to be objective here.

Without question, one of the best opinions I've ever run across in a public forum.

You are wise.

[mcsluggo]

I don't understand this stupidity. It's not "a dog" it's "someone's dog". A dog they invested time, money, and emotion into. Who gives a damn what you're concerned about? The bottom line is what is the victim concerned about. Yes I used the word victim because if you or I shot that woman's dog that's the word they use. She wants to know why an off duty cop/DOJ employee/whatever he is, decided to shoot her dog in a fenced in dog park and frankly she has every damn right to have that question answered.

you might want to remember the post i was responding to....

That makes me so angry...you shoot my dog and i will shoot you back

and yeah... at the end of the day, its still just a dog.

[Destino]

Okay, when in your world should that answer be required to be given. 10 minutes? 15? Maybe you could grab a photo of the cop off of google...that worked well last time something like this happened.

Did you miss this part:

"A spokesman for the Anne Arundel County Police Department said no charges will be filed and investigators found no evidence of criminal activity."

They already arrived at a conclusion. You think maybe around that time they could let this woman know why exactly they don't think he should be held responsible? I imagine other members of the community would like to know why this man was allowed to do something no "civilian" would ever get away with.

If you think it's too soon to have answered any questions than you I'm sure you have you're doubts about the accuracy of their investigation. Right? Of course.

[mcsluggo]

I'm not sure I'm understanding you here. You're more concerned about how the gun was used rather than whether it was okay to use it in the first place?

I was lumping the two of those together, but in the context of public safety.

there are two main issues here:

1) a dog fight was broken up in a way that resulted in the death of a dog.

2) a weapon was discharged (whether or not it had to be used, and wheter or not it was used in a safe manner)

i consider the second item to be much more important.

[kubstix]

Yeah. Yeah. Just like the last Baltimore cop that shot the guy. remember everyone saying the same thing about him? He was indicted on murder and weapons charges.

I guess this DOJ guy should have clearly been dragged to the center of town and publicly executed by now.

Yeah, lets use an example of something that happened which was caught on tape by numerous cellphones. Would you be saying the same thing if this were caught on video? Riddle me this, you just watched a video of two dogs playing and then it starts to get rough. The guy says yo, call off your dog, and within that span of 5 seconds he pulls out a pistol and shoots the dog. Is your stance going to be different? There is a HUGE difference when two people give there side of the story as compared to having the entire thing caught on video. If this were my dog, my .45 would of came out and shot this piece of garbage right in the face. I keep hearing, it's a dog, it's a dog. IT'S family. Dog's have feelings, dogs listen, dogs can feel pain, dogs can sense pain.....the only thing a dog doesn't do is talk.

[Destino]

at the end of the day, its still just a dog.

then why point out who you were responding too? You don't like dogs, we get it.

[codeorama]

I am a big supporter of law enforcement and the right to bear arms. But, this doesn't seem right. IF joe schmoe has a gun permit and is legally packing, but shot a dog in a dog park, I can guarantee that the results of this would be different.

At what point does the officer's judgment get questioned? It looks like it doesn't. Very sad.

[mcsluggo]

i do like dogs. I just don't elevate them ridiculously as has happened in our society in the last decade or so. all of this talk of shooting people over DOGS is mostly just internet bravado, i know.... but it is still disturbing sounding to me. And to the extent its NOT just internet bravado, it is downright idiotic.

Yes, its just a dog: Somewhere above a treasured several hundred dollar vase (or whatever item of comprable value to the cost of a dog) but WAY THE HELL BELOW the human rights that people here and everywhere have begun to implicitly confer to them.

[Huly]

This isn't gonna make Huly happy.

I think I am going to plead the 5th on this thread MTH. If I keep reading it I will probably be banned within the next hour!

[jnhay]

I was lumping the two of those together, but in the context of public safety.

there are two main issues here:

1) a dog fight was broken up in a way that resulted in the death of a dog.

2) a weapon was discharged (whether or not it had to be used, and wheter or not it was used in a safe manner)

i consider the second item to be much more important.

I think I almost see your point, but the first question I would ask is why did this person find it necessary to shoot the dog? Then I would find out if the gun was discharged safely. You can't just go around killing other people's dogs whenever you feel threatened.

[rictus58]

Did you miss this part:

"A spokesman for the Anne Arundel County Police Department said no charges will be filed and investigators found no evidence of criminal activity."

They already arrived at a conclusion. You think maybe around that time they could let this woman know why exactly they don't think he should be held responsible? I imagine other members of the community would like to know why this man was allowed to do something no "civilian" would ever get away with.

If you think it's too soon to have answered any questions than you I'm sure you have you're doubts about the accuracy of their investigation. Right? Of course.

Did you miss MY post?

The Chief of Police for AA county said they are STILL investigating.