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

[Redskins Diehard]

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.

I don't know what case you are talking about Riddler. But it doesn't appear to be the Tshamba case.

Dogs are people too:ols: If you are going to shoot a human over a dog then you are an idiot.

[GhostofSparta]

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.

Ok, forget for just a second about all the tough-guy internet hyperbole about "I'd shoot the **** in the face if he killed my dog!" or whatever similar statements are being made. I have a couple of questions that aren't answered by reading the story (not directed at you specifically, but really at anybody who will answer):

1. Did this guy identify himself as an undercover/offduty federal agent before pulling out his gun and firing it in a very public setting with lots of people around?

2. If he didn't, what happens if the story takes a dark turn next time, and some brave (if misguided) citizen on the other side of the park, who has a concealed carry permit and his gun with him, sees a random guy pull out a gun and start firing in said public setting? Does this concerned citizen get shot by a frightened federal agent? Does he get arrested for pulling a gun on a federal agent?

3. What if the other dog owner (or brother of the owner, apparently) attacks the agent because he sees the gun and it worried it's about to be pointed at him? Is that assualt and completely the fault of the guy whose dog got shot?

4. Finally, for those "It's just a dog" guys...why does that not extend to the shooter? He pulled out a loaded gun and discharged it in a public park because his dog was being attacked, but not him? Seems a bit of an overreaction, does it not?

I'm not going to knee-jerk defend or crucify the cop, there needs to be a lot more information released ASAP because this story looks really bad for the shooter.

[Redskins Diehard]

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.

So the last time you jumped to conclusions didn't really teach you anything did it. You know when you triumphantly cut and pasted some evidence you found on google images.

The whole thing happened the night of the 2d right? Give it at least 48 hours before you are outraged over the lack of information.

[Destino]

Did you miss MY post?

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

I missed the source of your post and the explanation as to why a spokesperson said otherwise. Was that person "mistaken" before or after this story made the paper?

[jnhay]

If you are going to shoot a human over a dog then you are an idiot.

There are a bunch of worthless humans out there. I don't know how it can be just black and white.

[Redskins Diehard]

Ok, forget for just a second about all the tough-guy internet hyperbole about "I'd shoot the **** in the face if he killed my dog!" or whatever similar statements are being made. I have a couple of questions that aren't answered by reading the story (not directed at you specifically, but really at anybody who will answer):

1. Did this guy identify himself as an undercover/offduty federal agent before pulling out his gun and firing it in a very public setting with lots of people around?

2. If he didn't, what happens if the story takes a dark turn next time, and some brave (if misguided) citizen on the other side of the park, who has a concealed carry permit and his gun with him, sees a random guy pull out a gun and start firing in said public setting? Does this concerned citizen get shot by a frightened federal agent? Does he get arrested for pulling a gun on a federal agent?

3. What if the other dog owner (or brother of the owner, apparently) attacks the agent because he sees the gun and it worried it's about to be pointed at him? Is that assualt and completely the fault of the guy whose dog got shot?

4. Finally, for those "It's just a dog" guys...why does that not extend to the shooter? He pulled out a loaded gun and discharged it in a public park because his dog was being attacked, but not him? Seems a bit of an overreaction, does it not?

I'm not going to knee-jerk defend or crucify the cop, there needs to be a lot more information released ASAP because this story looks really bad for the shooter.

No, the information doesn't have to be released "ASAP". It needs to be released responsibly.

[Dan T.]

I missed the source of your post and the explanation as to why a spokesperson said otherwise. Was that person "mistaken" before or after this story made the paper?

I think the person was "mistaken" right around the time the **** hit the fan on this story.

[rictus58]

I missed the source of your post and the explanation as to why a spokesperson said otherwise. Was that person "mistaken" before or after this story made the paper?

My source was the chief of police himself on the C4 show on WBAL radio 1090am at approx. 1:45pm.

The also spoke with the father of the dog owner. So yes, I'd say the baltimore sun had an error in reporting. Shocking I know.

[Destino]

So the last time you jumped to conclusions didn't really teach you anything did it. You know when you triumphantly cut and pasted some evidence you found on google images.

The whole thing happened the night of the 2d right? Give it at least 48 hours before you are outraged over the lack of information.

Jumped to what conclusion? I posted a photo from an article that had no importance what-so-ever as far as my position on the situation. If you want to thump your e-chest about being right about a issue of exactly zero consequence, feel free.

Also what conclusions have I jumped to? Enlighten me.

[Southtown]

This is OT but I check out this random line from the article:

--------

Dorothy Pearce, the homeowner’s association manager, was appalled that someone would fire a gun in the community dog park — at dinner time.

--------

Lunch time shooting, no problem. Dinner time shooting? Appalling.

[rictus58]

I think the person was "mistaken" right around the time the **** hit the fan on this story.

I can't deny this is a possibility as well.

the father of the dog owner stated the AA police were not at all sympathetic to the events.

Also, again, this isn't an officer. He's a civilian. he works for the DOJ.

They are also going to be investigating the incident once the AAPD finishes theirs.

[Destino]

My source was the chief of police himself on the C4 show on WBAL radio 1090am at approx. 1:45pm.

The also spoke with the father of the dog owner. So yes, I'd say the baltimore sun had an error in reporting. Shocking I know.

Did they ask him why a spokesperson would have said otherwise? Either it was an error in reporting or things changes once the story made the paper. Wouldn't be the first time political pressure encouraged a more thorough investigation. Either way I'd love for the facts to be clarified.

[mcsluggo]

Ok, forget for just a second about all the tough-guy internet hyperbole about "I'd shoot the **** in the face if he killed my dog!" or whatever similar statements are being made. I have a couple of questions that aren't answered by reading the story (not directed at you specifically, but really at anybody who will answer):

1. Did this guy identify himself as an undercover/offduty federal agent before pulling out his gun and firing it in a very public setting with lots of people around?

2. If he didn't, what happens if the story takes a dark turn next time, and some brave (if misguided) citizen on the other side of the park, who has a concealed carry permit and his gun with him, sees a random guy pull out a gun and start firing in said public setting? Does this concerned citizen get shot by a frightened federal agent? Does he get arrested for pulling a gun on a federal agent?

3. What if the other dog owner (or brother of the owner, apparently) attacks the agent because he sees the gun and it worried it's about to be pointed at him? Is that assualt and completely the fault of the guy whose dog got shot?

4. Finally, for those "It's just a dog" guys...why does that not extend to the shooter? He pulled out a loaded gun and discharged it in a public park because his dog was being attacked, but not him? Seems a bit of an overreaction, does it not?

I'm not going to knee-jerk defend or crucify the cop, there needs to be a lot more information released ASAP because this story looks really bad for the shooter.

I think these are all very good points, and as usual the intelligent points represent shades of grey between the loud screams of anguished protest that most people rush to one extreme or another to start with.

[Dan T.]

This is OT but I check out this random line from the article:

--------

Dorothy Pearce, the homeowner’s association manager, was appalled that someone would fire a gun in the community dog park — at dinner time.

--------

Lunch time shooting, no problem. Dinner time shooting? Appalling.

Nice catch...

[Enter Apotheosis]

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.

You're completely divorcing yourself from the notion of sentimental value here. A vase may cost several hundred dollars to replace in terms of filling the space in a room... but if the original vase is a family heirloom it is effectively irreplaceable because it carries sentimental value that can't be purchased. Now, it's fine if you don't actually place any value on emotional attachment but I'm pretty sure that makes you a sociopath.

Assuming that isn't the case, though, I'd be willing to bet that you value your own life as well as that of your friends and family more so than the lives of people you've never met and have nothing in common with. In that case your rather extreme stance in this thread is somewhat hypocritical, is it not?

I think these are all very good points, and as usual the intelligent points represent shades of grey between the loud screams of anguished protest that most people rush to one extreme or another to start with.

For the record, I strongly agree with this. It just seems to me that you've asserted your opinion thus far in a way that is far more black than gray.

[Mooka]

4. Finally, for those "It's just a dog" guys...why does that not extend to the shooter? He pulled out a loaded gun and discharged it in a public park because his dog was being attacked, but not him? Seems a bit of an overreaction, does it not?

That's not the officer's position (allegedly):

wbal: County Executive Wants Probe Of Fatal Dog Shooting

The officer told Anne Arundel police that he tried to get Bear-Bear off of his dog and that the Husky tried to bite him.

According to a statement from Anne Arundel County police, "the off-duty officer stated that he feared for the safety of himself, his wife and their dog and subsequently shot the Husky with a handgun he had in his possession."

Did you miss MY post?

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

I think the issue here is the initial investigation.

Without the large public outcry the investigation wouldn't still be ongoing and the county exec. wouldn't be demanding further probes.

[GhostofSparta]

No, the information doesn't have to be released "ASAP". It needs to be released responsibly.

Fine, don't rush things and make it worse, make sure it's all correct first. Thanks for not responding to anything else in that post.

That's not the officer's position (allegedly):

wbal: County Executive Wants Probe Of Fatal Dog Shooting

Then he's a complete idiot who knows nothing about dogs. You NEVER break up a dog fight by getting between 2 dogs. Never. That's how you get bit. As a dog person, I can't blame the guy for wanting to protect his dog, but his instincts were totally wrong on that one and he put himself in a dangerous situation, which, if true, in turn made the situation worse.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Then he's a complete idiot who knows nothing about dogs. You NEVER break up a dog fight by getting between 2 dogs. Never. That's how you get bit. As a dog person, I can't blame the guy for wanting to protect his dog, but his instincts were totally wrong on that one and he put himself in a dangerous situation, which (if true) in turn made the situation worse.

That sums it up pretty well. If that little blurb is a fairly accurate indication of events then this guy ****ed up, plain and simple.

[War Paint]

THIS is the sort of context that drives ME nuts.

its a dog. a dog. a dog.

its a dog.

So freakin what? It's absolutely disgusting and anyone who shoots dogs that pose no serious threat or harm deserve all the bad karma they can get.

[generaltso]

and no humans were put in danger from the possiblity of an errant shot

good thing bullets cant ricochet off bone or anything, right?

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6339

"And last May, an officer in Syracuse, New York, squeezed off several shots at a family dog during a drug raid, one of which ricocheted and struck a 13-year-old boy in the leg. The boy was handcuffed at gunpoint at the time."

[pjfootballer]

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

Not that I agree with his position of "it's just a dog," I think what he was responding to was the person who said, "If you shoot my dog, I'll shoot you," implying that he would commit murder of another human being for a dog. Like he said, it was just internet bravado, but I too have seen too many people nowadays who put an animals life ahead of a fellow (assuming the person is good) human being. It is a little ridiculous.

[War Paint]

Not that I agree with his position of "it's just a dog," I think what he was responding to was the person who said, "If you shoot my dog, I'll shoot you," implying that he would commit murder of another human being for a dog. Like he said, it was just internet bravado, but I too have seen too many people nowadays who put an animals life ahead of a fellow (assuming the person is good) human being. It is a little ridiculous.

I agree with that one poster. If some dude shot my dog and my dog wasn't threatening the shooter, it would take every bit of my will power not to kill the guy. I value a dogs life over the life of a cold blooded person. If somebody doesn't like my opinion, they can kiss my you know what.

[mcsluggo]

good thing bullets cant ricochet off bone or anything, right?

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6339

"And last May, an officer in Syracuse, New York, squeezed off several shots at a family dog during a drug raid, one of which ricocheted and struck a 13-year-old boy in the leg. The boy was handcuffed at gunpoint at the time."

please re-read my post. I think you misunderstood it.

(my point was that the IMPORTANT thing was to make sure that no people were put into danger from the gunfire)

[War Paint]

Stories like this just brings up a bad memory from my childhood. When I was around 10 years old, my mentally unstable next door neighbor shot a little house dog in front of me while I was outside playing in the back yard. The poor little dog ran about 100 feet, fell down and died.

The guy was seriously disturbed. He also abused his stepson. Luckily his wife left him and moved back to Maryland. She got the kids of course because the courts were informed on his mental issues. Another story about the guy is he grabbed a cat by the neck at a pet store and began to squeeze it. He didn't kill it thankfully, but the girls working there caught him and stopped him. I can't remember if he got into trouble for that or not.

Moral of the story, if you harm animals like dogs and cats when they don't pose a serious danger, you have mental problems.

[generaltso]

please re-read my post. I think you misunderstood it.

(my point was that the IMPORTANT thing was to make sure that no people were put into danger from the gunfire)

simply by discharging the weapon at the dog in the location, people were put in danger.

either you severely underestimate the distance a bullet can travel, or severely overestimate the training that people receive.