Chicago Cops Chasing a Robber Shoot a Dog in a Backyard the Suspect Never Entered



As J.D. Tuccille noted last week, the Justice Department's Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) recently produced a set of five 10-minute videos aimed at police officers who are curious about how to encounter dogs without killing them. Unfortunately, none of the videos addresses a scenario quite like this one: Police chasing an armed robber run into a fenced backyard, where they come across a Italian Mastiff named Castro and shoot it. "It's like I lost a family member," Castro's owner, Terry Taylor, told WBBM, the CBS affiliate in Chicago. "Very difficult." 

The cops were in a hurry, so maybe they didn't have time to notice the "Beware of Dog" sign or to grab something they could have used as a barrier or distraction. We have to assume (don't we?) that they had no pepper spray or Tasers they could have used to ward off Castro without firing bullets into him and that there was no opportunity simply to leave the yard and close the gate. And I'm guessing the cops were not carrying dog treats they could have used to mollify Castro. But here is one measure they could have taken that would have saved the dog's life: Before you go charging into someone's backyard, make sure that's where your suspect is.


It turns out that the robber was actually hiding under the front porch, just a few feet from where the police were standing when they killed Castro. He emerged from his hiding spot a few hours later, startling Taylor's son not only with his sudden appearance but with an unexpected apology. "He came from under the porch," DeMarkus Southern told WBBM. "He had the gun in his hand, he was backing up, talking to me like this, and he is telling me, 'I apologize for the police killing your dog. I seen the whole thing.' He put the gun back on his hip [and] proceeded down the street."

An apology is probably more than Taylor will get from the Chicago Police Department. "I said, 'Why'd you shoot the dog?" said a neighbor, Aaron Thompson, recounting his conversation with one of the officers. "He said, 'I didn't shoot the dog. The assailant shot the dog.'"

[Thanks to Slammer for the tip.]

NEXT: ISIS Reportedly Murders American Journalist

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But the cop is the assailant…oh…I see…

  2. I wonder how millenials feel about this.

    1. 56% agree, but what about the other 40%?

    2. They’re quite tolerant of it so long as it doesn’t threaten their selfish sense of entitlement, participation trophy or require any hard work.

    3. 99 percent will vote for more of the same.

  3. These punk cops are out of control man. Plain and simple, out of control!


    1. http://www.Anon-Surf.tk

      I tried to enter my credit card and checking account information at your site in order to subscribe to your product/service, but I’m having difficulty doing so. Is there someone I might speak to by phone to whom I might provide this information?

      1. Just post it on the PM Links thread, somebody will get back to you.

  4. “He said, ‘I didn’t shoot the dog. The assailant shot the dog.”

    Sadly, the cop probably believes this. When the cops beat someone to death, they didn’t do it. The person beat themselves to death when they failed to obey. Cops didn’t do a thing.

    1. Which is why you deserve the destruction of government property charge for bleeding on their uniforms.

  5. Hopefully the dog robbed a liquor store earlier in the day, otherwise this business could get out of hand.

  6. OT: “Boyhood is the most important thing to happen to cinema since the invention of the camera, and the most important thing to happen to Mankind since the invention of fire.”

    “If the Greats from The Renaissance were alive today, they would kill themselves for being so shitty compared to Linklater.”

    1. “If I could, I would take a shit on every book ever written, because Boyhood is the best f******* thing EVER!”

      1. I found the review. is funny.

        I think the fact that Boyhood ended up being ‘a movie about a kid who grows up to be someone who seems to be imitating Richard Linklater’ is sort of unsurprising given you’re a kid who ‘some guy’ decides to devote himself to make a movie about “you” for 12 years… you will probably end up subconsciously acting like *that guy* in order to appeal to him

        Sort of like the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle of Film = you can’t spend 12 years staring at something without that something starting to be just like you.

        I am glad to know that Boyhood sucks. It means RL will now do something less ambitious that will end up being awesome.

        1. Sort of like when Hudsucker Proxy bombed, the Coen bros. decided to find a script they could shoot on the cheap, thus Fargo.

          1. EXACTLY

            most film-makers actually do some of their best work after their ‘failed epics’.

            I also think Linklaters’ ‘TAPE’ was one of his best films, and it was shot in like a few days in one room with a case of beer.

          2. In my opinion, Raising Arizona, The Hudsucker Proxy, and O Brother, Where Art Thou? are three of the best comedies made since 1980.

            1. The Hudsucker Proxy was great.

              You can’t go wrong remaking Nothing Sacred and The Big Clock

    2. That link fails to link what it seems you wanted it to link

      and i’m a linklater fan, but serious, people can be pretty fucking stupid about getting gushy about indy film people.

      i thought Spring Breakers was shit FWIW

      1. Those are actual quotes from the video I linked. They were talking about their previous “Half in the Bag” review, where they panned “Boyhood”, after which they discovered that the movie had a “99% Fresh” rating at Rotten Tomatoes.

        1. oh.

          I made the error of going backwards and actually watching their actual (negative) review of the film, which seemed on the money

        2. I saw Boyhood and it was…pretty good, not great.

          The professional actors, Hawke and Arquette, are good, but the kid actors are terrible. I’m typically pretty tolerant about movies but I checked my watch several times – the movies was longer than it needed to be. The ending was sweet but not remarkable.

          The gushing is just weird.

  7. OT: David Harsanyi vs. Dalmia & Enkins. Who ya’ got?

    In her piece at The Week, Shikha Dalmia contests my earlier skepticism about the “libertarian moment” and refers to me as “a conservative writer with libertarian leanings” ? a description I protest. At worst, I’m guilty of being a libertarian with conservative leanings.

    Now, I only mention this slight because I’m someone who’s supported the legalization of gay marriage, drugs, and prostitution; advocated for the privatization of about everything government runs; written in favor of immigration and sentencing reform and so on. If I’m considered a “conservative,” how could I possibly believe that millennials who support socializing large swaths of the economy are cut out to be the libertarian foot soldiers of the future? Maybe, we need a better definition for “libertarian.” Or maybe we ? if I may refer to myself as a libertarian for a moment? are engaged in self-delusion.

    1. The smart money is on Ekins. She has the ability to conjure up an army of millennials at the drop of a hat. And they will occupy your ass faster than you can say Obamacare.

      1. Harsanyi’s inbox is about to be flooded with poll analyses.

      2. I definitely don’t want my ass occupied. Nttawwt.

    2. He makes some good points.

      “What irks me most about some of the “libertarian moment” talk, though, is that it rests on the notion that most target-rich group is the young progressive left.

      Actually, the biggest “libertarian moment” in recent history came during 2010 midterms, when voters elected a number of idealistic (if imperfect) economic libertarians who often openly identified as such.

      When I think “libertarian,” I think of Colorado Springs, a conservative outpost south of Denver where, though social conservatism holds the majority back from embracing issues like pot legalization, there is a strong concern for economic freedom, property rights and a skepticism about government power that is often manifested in policy.

      That’s the movement that produced Rand Paul and Justin Amash. Those are the people that have to succeed to ensure the growth of libertarianism on the right. Yet, those voters don’t seem to excite the secular libertarian intellectual as much as the ones that only incidentally agree with them on a few social issues. And that seems like a big mistake.”

      I think the idea that winning over Salon readers is more important than converting and consolidating the massive numbers of people *already sympathetic to most libertarian issues* is a huge mistake

      I say that as a quasi-Cosmo, FWIW

      1. I think the idea that winning over Salon readers is more important than converting and consolidating the massive numbers of people *already sympathetic to most libertarian issues* is a huge mistake

        This reminds me of a Jeff Riggenbach comment that the left are “libertarians who don’t understand economics.” I find this rather dubious since the real problem with the left is their belief that the solution to all problems are that we need the right (i.e. Left) TOP MEN in charge of the State to save us from the corporations. Until libertarians can convince proggies that eliminating regulations won’t cause the corporations to run rampant and poison and enslave us then there can’t really be much of an alliance with them.

        1. “”This reminds me of a Jeff Riggenbach comment that the left are “libertarians who don’t understand economics.””

          The mistake there is thinking that they “don’t understand” economics because of a lack of information…

          …. rather than a *deep-seated predisposition* which prevents them ever wanting to accept basic economic reasoning

          (because if ‘economics’ says that everything has trade-offs… then they’re not interested in ‘economics’)

          Also, just because social policy beliefs happen to align speaks nothing as to *why*.

          (i noted this in my story about protesting the Iraq war a few days ago)

          IOW, i think the Millenials, if they have libertarians among them, will come to the libertarian fold either way. but effort is better spent wooing older people away from the mainstream parties IMO

          1. just because social policy beliefs happen to align speaks nothing as to *why*.

            I agree sadly. The realiz’n came to me a few years before the turn of the century that the “left” had probably never really been for even non-business liberties, and was just arguing to make certain behaviors legal because they didn’t yet have enough support to make a realistic call to make them mandatory.

            Now I tend to be even more cynical than that, and think they don’t even favor the behaviors themselves for their own sake, but only to make other people sad & angry. They’d try to make hitting yourself on the head with a hammer mandatory just to show how much power they have to make people miserable, even if they made their own heads sore in the process.

      2. Now that’s some classic Gilmore concern trolling right there.

          1. ‘He’s really right about how the Right and social conservatives are best for us. And I say that as a cosmo!’

            1. Bo, I know you’re retarded, but you still should be able to read.

              His point was nothing about “what is best ‘for us’.”

              His point is that Libertarianism is more likely to gain converts from people predisposed to underlying economics rather than social issues.

              I happen to agree = people change their minds more readily about social issues than underlying economic thinking.

              You can go back to being retarded now, Bo.

              1. Sure, Gilmore, there’s no prescription there, that’s why he uses phrases like ‘big mistake.’

                1. LOL you win, genius

                2. Hey Bo, you about to become a 3L?

    3. David Harsanyi is one-hundred percent right and Reason is completely delusional.

      1. I haven’t seen a Harsanyi article in these parts in a long while. I thought it was due to him not willing to tow the party lion on Gaza, but it seems it might be due to his pointing out that To Serve Man is the title of a cookbook.

        1. What is the party lion on Gaza?

          as far as I can tell, the dominent FP theme on everything is, “…. and that’s why non-interventionism is ALWAYS RIGHT!… moving on…”

          also, twilight zone reference i grok, its application i do not.

          1. “”…. and that’s why non-interventionism is ALWAYS RIGHT!… moving on…””

            Gilmore wants more *serious discussion* about the merits of interventionism.

            And he say’s that as a quasi-Cosmo.

            1. ‘says’, Bo.

              and re: ‘cosmo’

              the cosmotarian label is generally applied to socially librul Libertarians. Which i am (checklist= gay marriage? pot? mexicans? check x3)

              it has nothing to do with FP

              And Bo – I know you are young, and entirely ignorant of Foreign Policy in the context of world history, but there is in fact no such thing as “interventionism”

              I’ve provided you actual reading material on various schools of Realist FP, but you remain obstinately ignorant.

              But please, continue with your fascinating deconstruction.

          2. What is the party lion on Gaza?

            Well, lately it’s been whatever Richman says it is. Even Feeney has been taken off the mid-east beat. And a few months ago you couldn’t shut him up about it.

            twilight zone reference i grok, its application i do not.

            Just that Harsanyi is possibly being shunned for saying something some people don’t want to hear.

            1. It’s a fairly common stance among the left leaning libertarian movement considering Israel-Palestine of ‘a pox on both their houses, and don’g make me pay for either one.’

              1. Ha, ‘don’t’ not ‘don’g’ (though makes for amusing thoughts).

            2. As far as i can tell, Reason has managed to avoid saying anything particularly controversial about Israel/Gaza in the last few months, what with the clusterfucks all over the rest of the world providing ample opportunity for coverage.

              Harsayani’s last article seems to agree that cutting off aid to Israel is a good idea

              I don’t disagree, although from my perspective re: longer-term diplomacy, doing so when they’re in the middle of a fight is pretty petty politics.

              I’ve always thought since the end of Bill Clinton’s last round of diplomacy that the US should have fully cut ties to everyone involved in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict until they were actually prepared to do a longer-term serious deal.

              Since 2006, the path has been to inevitable fighting. They might as well have it all out ASAP as far as i can tell. There’s no reason for the US to try and either stop or encourage anyone.

            3. Just that Harsanyi is possibly being shunned for saying something some people don’t want to hear.

              Are you suggesting Reason might unperson someone?! Scandalous.

      2. A comment @ the Federalist on ‘reason.com’

        …”Reason has been particularly welcoming of what are often called “lifestyle libertarians (*WHAT UP MAH COSMO BROS!). These are people whose political insight more or less begins and ends with: “I want to do drugs and have a lot of random sex, get rich and not pay taxes”. That is the core of their political philosophy. It’s not a sound, reasoned, logical, consistent political philosophy. Or to explain it a bit more clearly, the magazine has its origin as an Any Rand Objectivist publication. So think of a college stoner who read “Atlas Shrugged” and nothing else. No time for Locke and Hobbes, Thomas Jefferson, people like that. That’s Reason.

        Their desire to be “hip” outweighs their desire for intellectual rigor…”

        Before you get all fussy, it was someone wasting their time talking to Mary.

        I’m not sure where these ‘llectual Liberturrians are all hiding out. Lewrockwell.com?

        1. Isn’t the Rockwellian plan all about allying with the neo-Nazis, Communists, Christian Theocrats, Russian nationalists and Islamic Fundamentalists and being the revolutionary vanguard co-opting them?

          1. No love for Neo-Confederates?

            1. I thought they were the neoconfederates…

              1. They also have written on the glories of British colonial rule.

      3. Nick Gillespie was the same guy who in 2008 said that Obama’s election would end racial strife so delusional is right.

        1. [citation needed]

          for the record, there was a lot of glue-sniffing going on around in the media at the time, so its fair to quote him in context.

          1. https://reason.com/blog/2009/02…..obamas-ame

            [I] have said that one hope for an Obama presidency is that it ends the worst sort of racial discourse in America.

            1. He pretty clearly didn’t say it would end racism, but that he hoped it would end the odious racial discourse (his words from the interview) of the past. Yeah I agree it was unrealistic to even hope for such a thing but he pretty clearly was not under the illusion that it was certain or even likely to happen.

          2. so its fair to quote him in context.

            Isn’t Nick Gillespie, along with other libertarians, not supposed to toe the conventional wisdom of the media?

          3. Another brilliant Gillespian prediction!
            I really hope that we don’t get into a situation where criticisms of Obama’s policies are routinely turned into prima facie evidence of racial animus, coded or uncoded.

            1. That’s not really a prediction, but if it is, it seems to be one that makes Gillespie look good, as he acknowledged the real possibility of that happening.

              1. The fact that he seemed to think it might not happen is pretty stupid.

      4. I think there’s no doubt that the significant libertarian action going on right now is happening on the Right. The Right has since the New Deal had some rhetorical affinity with libertarians, and Obama has been so bad and so much of an libertarian anti-Christ that it has made enough people on the right interested in trying to actually apply that rhetoric in principle. I hope when Obama is off the scene and a Republican is in the White House this continues, but I won’t ‘hold my breath’ as the saying goes.

        But I don’t think this makes Reason delusional Their role in American libertarianism has long been leaning towards selling libertarian ideas to young people and ‘the left.’ Different libertarian organizations target different groups, and that’s a good thing, if only some libertarianism seeps in it’s better than the status quo.

      5. I agree that reason has been a bit optimistic about the libertarian moment or how libertarian millennialist are. That said, while most young people who vote do vote democrat, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson both did better among that demographic than other age groups. So while reason may overestimate how libertarian millennials are, I think a lot of commentators overestimate how libertarian other generations are in relation. If voting for team red over team blue is your big selling point on how relatively libertarian you are, then your argument isn’t that strong.

        1. Gillespie and Welch have been on the “libertarian moment” for six years at least:


          1. Huh I thought McGovern was “a libertarian hero”?

            Which isn’t to say that the Democrats of the time were any less statist: In 1972, their presidential nominee was even more economically interventionist than Tricky Dick. Widely (and rightly) considered the most liberal Oval Office candidate in decades, George McGovern actually claimed that wage and price controls were applied “too late?they froze wages but let prices and profits run wild.”

          2. I’ll start believing in a “libertarian moment” after the federal budget gets cut by 50 percent or so, back to Clinton-era levels when we all thought it was already Leviathan.

  8. Isn’t this a rerun

    oh, never mind….

  9. Puppycide… It’s faaaannnnntastic!

  10. Given 224 people shot and killed in Chicago so far this year, i’m not sure ‘a dog’ is going to get a lot of press coverage.

    I especially appreciate that website’s “Shot in the Ass-o-meter

    1. That’s what we need, except it could measure nut punches. For instance, this dog story, on the nut-punch meter, might register 4 Balkos.

    1. Wait, fine upstanding citizens **don’t** throw rocks at Chris Hayes?

      1. I can’t tell if it was sarcastic or not.

  11. This particular example doesn’t piss me off. They were chasing an armed suspect. They were not thinking about tasers.

    1. Your nuts have grown callused from the punching.

      You need to soak them in cocoa butter

  12. Legal Q: Could the robber testify via special appearance in a tort case re the dog without providing any evidence that could be legally used against him in the robbery case?

    1. No but he’ll be given a plea bargain if he agrees to testify to the fact that someone saw him and let him flee, making them an accessory after the fact.

  13. Dude, sometimes you jsut gotta roll with it.


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.