Police Abuse

Cops Try to Shoot a Dog, Kill a Teenager Instead

Sheriff's deputies in LA kill a teen who was trying to restrain a dog they said charged at them "aggressively."

|

family photo

Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies killed a teenager Thursday morning while shooting at a pitbull they said was charging at them.

It's another example of over-reliance on police response and too much deference to the actions they take. The Los Angeles County sheriff's office said its policy is that officers are allowed to shoot at dogs if they "reasonably believe" they could be seriously injured or killed by the animal.

The Los Angeles district attorney's office considers shootings of dogs that pose an immediate, severe or fatal threat justified, even if a person is injured in the shooting, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The deputies initially responded to a call about a "loud party," at an apartment complex. Deputies said a pit bull charged at them when they arrived at the location. Armando Garcia-Muro, 17, had briefly restrained the dog but it got away again.

Two of the five sheriff's deputies shot six to eight rounds at the pitbull. None of them appear to have hit the dog.

Garcia-Muro was hit in the chest by at least one round about 3:40 am Thursday in Palmdale. Deputies said the bullet may have ricocheted off the ground. A ricocheting bullet fragment also struck the leg of a deputy who was bitten by the dog, according to the police account.

The teen "may have been struck by one of the skip rounds in what we're calling an extremely, extremely unfortunate incident," Capt. Christopher Bergner told the Times. "Our initial impression was [the deputies] didn't even see the individual coming around from the side of the building."

The owner of the dog, who told the Times she didn't want to identify herself because she had "too many things going on with the law right now," said she doubted the deputies' claim that the 3-year-old blue-nosed pit bull attacked them.

"That's not my dog. That's not his personality," she told the Times. The woman also told the newspaper her apartment was used as a hangout for local teenagers who "come over and listen to music."

Deputies did not say whether or not they retrieved or killed the dog. Bergner told the Times any time a deputy fires their service weapon, they are put on temporary desk duty during the subsequent investigation.

From the sheriff's account the shooting appears to be accidental. That doesn't mean it wasn't preventable. Any thorough investigation would attempt to explain why, if Garcia-Muro was able to restrain the dog on his own, even for a brief time, couldn't five trained law enforcement professionals do so without the use of a firearm in the early morning in a dark residential area.

Department and district attorney policies on shooting dogs do not encourage finding those answers. The leeway given to law enforcement officers puts bystanders at risk.

NEXT: Law & Order: P.O.W. Unit

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. If there’s anything cops like more than shooting dogs, it’s shooting kids.

  2. Acquittal and outrage in 10 months. Do you even need to watch the movie anymore?

    1. Correct. As those Fifth Column bros said this week – which is also something I whisper to myself in between bouts of magical wittiness – if it goes to trial the jury will empathize with the fuzz, and they will not be convicted.

    2. I’m so damned pessimistic about these things that I’d consider an acquittal a sort of victory (only because it would require charges and a trial.)

      But there will be no acquittal, because there will be no charges.

      Anyone else would be facing a manslaughter charge at minimum.

    3. Acquittal and outrage in 10 months.

      You can’t acquit someone if they aren’t even charged. The cops will be back on the beat in weeks. The family will file a civil suit. The city will pay out 5-6 figures. And that’s all that will happen. Oh, and that dog will be put down if it hasn’t been already.

      1. try 6-7 figures…someone died. Most likely 7 figures

  3. Christ on a crutch, if they have to go around shooting dogs could they at least practice their marksmanship? Or is that too much to expect?

    1. Who needs marksmanship when you only need to hit your target 1/16th of the time?

      1. Who needs marksmanship when there are no consequences whatsoever for collateral damage?

      2. Two of the five sheriff’s deputies shot six to eight round at the pitbull. None of them appear to have hit the dog.

        This is one thing that’s common in police shootings. They seem to nearly unload their clips without aiming. Lots of shots, not many hits, but when so many rounds are flying someone is getting it.

        any time a deputy fires their service weapon, they are put on temporary desk duty during the subsequent investigation.

        This is another other common factor. Is the reason so many dogs are shot is so a beat cop can take a break from the hassle of noisy parties, domestic disturbances and writing tickets?

        1. And fighting terrorism, and drug dealers, and the brown hordes…

        2. Is the reason so many dogs are shot is so a beat cop can take a break

          I don’t think there’s that much foresight involved. Violent animals react to stimuli without planning.

          1. thugs gotta thug

        3. Hitting a relatively small, fast moving target at close range is not easy. The number of rounds does not seem excessive.

          According to the linked article this was the dog’s second go at the cops. I really don’t fault them for shooting it, I think they might be at fault for shooting in a reckless manner.

          1. Hitting a relatively small, fast moving target at close range is not easy. The number of rounds does not seem excessive.

            According to the linked article this was the dog’s second go at the cops. I really don’t fault them for shooting it, I think they might be at fault for shooting in a reckless manner.

            This makes it so much fucking worse. Inept, un(der)trained, and retarded. The dog was not killed, the number of rounds was insufficient. If your training is so poor you can’t engage a dog with a handgun choose a better weapon/tool. If it’s your second go at the dog and you haven’t trained yourself or selected a better weapon/tactic, the dog deserves to win. If a dog successfully defeats 5 armed officers, the whole lot of them de facto deserve to be shitcanned.

            1. ^ This.

              Our standards about this have gotten a little ridiculous.

              I would err a little the other way and say the dog should be actively injuring an officer before it’s okay to kill it. No dog is going to kill or seriously injure an armed police officer, especially if there’s other armed police officers standing right there.

              But we’re so incapable of evaluating actual risk anymore that we feel it’s justified if the dog just seems hostile and the cop is feeling a little nervous for him to go ahead and in a blind panic shoot every bullet on his person in the general direction of the dog, along with all his partners doing the same thing.

              These people are some of the biggest cowards in our society, and we pay them to protect us.

          2. Yeah, it’s not easy. Hence, they ought to be obliged to sharpen their skills (as opposed to just shrugging it off). Leaving aside the issue of collateral damage, what if the dog was genuinely dangerous? For people whose lives may depend upon their skill with their service weapon, they seem strangely disinterested about it.

            And yet we’re constantly told by some that only policemen should have guns, because of their Jedi-like mastery of them.

          3. Hitting a relatively small, fast moving target at close range is not easy.

            If it’s both fast moving and at close range, you must be chasing it.

        4. Magazines – not clips
          Yes, there is a difference

          1. Yeah, but everyone knows what you are talking about when you say “clip” instead of “magazine”.

          2. You’re right. It was a clip slip.

    2. Two of the five sheriff’s deputies shot six to eight rounds at the pitbull. None of them appear to have hit the dog.

      Relevant.

    3. Every time I read a story about cops shooting wildly into crowds I think of the cross-eyed woman trying to fire a pistol in Devo’s Whip-It Video.

      Though, they are obviously the best trained individuals in the world. Each of them acting under the FACT that every single thing is there to kill them. They are the thin-blue line protecting the police from everyone else.

  4. so a kid who did nothing wrong is dead and these fuckups will keep their jobs if a criminal case tried by a not trying prosecutor in front of a gallery of evil eying cops fails to secure a conviction from a panel of mostly government employees if it even gets that far and it won’t. sounds legit.

  5. “Our initial impression was [the deputies] didn’t even see the individual coming around from the side of the building.”

    But give us a couple more weeks to talk in private, and then we’ll decide what really happened and let you know.

    1. Let me guess – “He was coming right at us!” is going to play some part in the victim-blaming.

      1. going to? Isn’t that the story? “The dog was coming right as us, and this kid was tragically in the line of fire.”

        1. It’ll turn into the kid actively encouraging the dog to kill the officers.

  6. At that moment, the homeowner would have been justified in coming out of the house, guns-a-blazin’ and killed both those cops.

    1. There’s a very slim chance that a jury would acquit the homeowner in that case, but there’s no chance whatsoever that he would live to see the trial.

      1. there’s no chance whatsoever that he would live to see the trial.

        Yeah, backup was probably already on the way. Seeing as 5 cops apparently couldn’t handle a medium sized dog.

        1. Pit. Bull.

          Navy SEALS would have run screaming.

  7. Two of the five sheriff’s deputies shot six to eight round at the pitbull. None of them appear to have hit the dog.

    I believe there is an easy way to count the number of shots that occurred – contact me, LASD.

  8. Five deputies respond to a loud noise complaint? Is Palmdale some sort of wild part of town?

    1. How many deputies usually respond to a disturbance at the back of the pet store?

      1. They don’t go in there anymore.

        1. The furry resident is surprisingly agile and vicious, huh. And the chinchilla is also mean and quick.

          1. A deputy tried to serve a summons on Crusty a couple years back. He’s still in the psych ward, heavily sedated.

            1. Crusty had his liver with a nice Chianti.

              1. Except Crusty pronounces “Chianti” correctly. Which is weird, given how his mouth is shaped.

          2. Ferrets are tubes of muscle and death.

    2. Is Palmdale some sort of wild part of town?

      Palmdale is in LA county, but it’s very far outside the City of Los Angeles. More the sort of place where you expect the guy with the pit bull to be cooking meth in a trailer out in back of his shanty.

  9. “Any thorough investigation would attempt to explain why, if Garcia-Muro was able to restrain the dog on his own, even for a brief time, couldn’t five trained law enforcement professionals do so without the use of a firearm in the early morning in a dark residential area.”

    Ed, if a person known to the dog has it leashed and it still gets lose, it’s a real stretch to presume others could ‘restrain’ the dog.

    1. Why was it even necessary to restrain the dog. Dog was obviously fine with a bunch of people at a loud party. Why wasn’t it okay with the cops? The dog could have been running over, tail wagging, to say hello.

    2. Ed, if a person known to the dog has it leashed and it still gets lose, it’s a real stretch to presume others could ‘restrain’ the dog.

      It’s a dog, not a bear. The injuries at the scene were all or predominantly shooting-related. If they need to take it alive, they’re going to send 1, maybe 2 animal control ‘experts’. You could probably train it not to retreat under any circumstances but my strong suspicion is that, if lives hung in the balance, the dog in question would retreat if not be completely incapacitated by a tasing or pepper spray. Even bears will avoid bear spray.

      If five trained and equipped guys can’t restrain a dog without a firearm, they shouldn’t be serving as officers of the peace.

    3. if a person known to the dog has it leashed and it still gets lose, it’s a real stretch to presume others could ‘restrain’ the dog.

      Pit bulls aren’t large dogs. I don’t think it’s a stretch to expect 5 grown men to be able to restrain a 35-60lb dog without shooting at it. Granted the dog had already bitten one of them, and in attempting to restrain it one or more of the deputies may be bitten again. But so what? The pigs are always going on and on about how “dangerous” their jobs are yet at the slightest hint of danger they go into full panic fire mode. Yet we’re supposed to believe that these “heroes in blue” are somehow highly trained experts at handling dangerous situations. They’re a fucking joke is what they are.

      1. Granted the dog had allegedly already bitten one of them

        Should have said that the first time. As we all know, cops lie a lot.

        1. And to another point, dogs are instinctive. If the dog was cool with a bunch of other people at the party, what did the cops do differently? They came in with a fuck you attitude all bowed up for a fight. Dogs sense that and react to it. Maybe they should approach folks with a more calm demeanor. They’d probably get a different reaction from people too.

  10. First, let me just say that these stories normally piss me off a ton. Balko’s puppycide pieces were one of the things that originally led me to Reason. That said…

    This particular case looks like a tragic, but not particularly good example. Ed’s article mentions, “A ricocheting bullet fragment also struck the leg of a deputy who was bitten by the dog.” There isn’t any context around the last part of that statement and it seems to imply the bite happened during or after the shooting. The first article that I read on this incident provided a bit more narrative. Apparently, when the cops arrived, the dog charged and bit one of the cops. They managed to defuse that situation without shooting the dog. The kid ran out and got control of the dog. Then he took it behind the house to secure it. But, the dog got away and charged back towards the cops. It was on this second charge that the cops shot.

    1. Obviously, that doesn’t excuse the kid’s death. Why did they need 5 cops for a noise complaint? Why couldn’t they show some restraint the second time? Why, why, why?

      Tragic event that I don’t doubt that everyone involved wishes they could take back. But, I don’t think the facts/narrative (assuming they’re reasonably accurate) support lumping this one in with the cases where some shitbag shoots a dog that’s chained up or shoots through a door to kill a dog locked in the laundry room.

    2. “The first article that I read on this incident provided a bit more narrative. Apparently, when the cops arrived, the dog charged and bit one of the cops. They managed to defuse that situation without shooting the dog. The kid ran out and got control of the dog. Then he took it behind the house to secure it. But, the dog got away and charged back towards the cops. It was on this second charge that the cops shot.”

      If this is true, Ed’s being a bit ‘casual’ with the context.

      1. It doesn’t actually change anything.

        1. Nothing? I think it greatly enhances the justification for shooting the dog.

          1. I think it greatly enhances the justification for shooting the dog.

            Shooting *at* the dog – they did not shoot the dog.

            If you had a concealed carrier’s license, went to someone’s house uninvited, got bit by their dog, and then the dog charged at you again, would you shoot it? If you did shoot, and you missed, and a bullet killed the homeowner, do you think you’d be facing charges?

            1. “and a bullet killed the homeowner,”

              Well, since the bullet did it and not me, I shouldn’t be facing any charges.

          2. I’m not sure how a mean dog that someone is valiantly trying to secure justifies spraying bullets around a neighborhood.

            1. I would say that, especially if you are a cop, you should consider the risk to bystanders posed by shooting before your own risk of a dog bite. A dog bit could be quite nasty, but I think with 5 cops there it would be unlikely to be fatal.

              1. Upon reading the linked article: the guy that got bit basically walked it off, and then one of his comrades shot him in the leg while they were trying to hit the fleeing, injured dog. At that point another ricochet killed the kid.

                It’s Keystone Kops as scripted by Kafka.

                1. I hope one of the cops tried a sweet roll maneuver before firing his gun.

              2. I would say that, especially if you are a cop, you should consider the risk to bystanders posed by shooting before your own risk of a dog bite.

                Are shotguns not fixtures in cop cars in LA? Even 1 in 5?

                I’ve had all manner of rabid animal cornered in a barn and shotgun is my weapon of choice for such encounters. I could/would hunt the animal using a handgun and could readily hit him running. But if lives depended on close-quarters, small-target neutralization with one-shot and/or without overpenetration, the shotgun would be my weapon of choice. If I had to hand the weapon to someone else to do the job, unless they specifically requested otherwise, it’s the weapon I would hand them.

          3. bringing a gun to a dogfight seems like overkill…what would Cesar Millan do?

            1. Poke/nip/pinch the guy in the neck, of course.

              1. heel to the hip works too.

      2. I just noticed that the linked article includes the narrative.


    3. The owner of the dog, who told the Times she didn’t want to identify herself because she had “too many things going on with the law right now,” said she doubted the deputies’ claim that the 3-year-old blue-nosed pit bull attacked them.

      “That’s not my dog. That’s not his personality,” she told the Times. The woman also told the newspaper her apartment was used as a hangout for local teenagers who “come over and listen to music.”

      There is a little more to this story than is being reported here, I think.

      1. As in, the police didn’t kill someone while shooting at a dog in a residential neighborhood?

      2. Maybe so, but nothing relevant.

      3. I should have known better, in that someone would inevitably think that this was somehow to be read as a condemnation of the victim somehow.

        Honestly, I’m just curious about what else is going on here. Someone woman says she has too many issues with the law, and her apartment was where teenagers go to ‘listen to music’?

        Combine that with this tidbit:

        The deputies initially responded to a call about a “loud party,” at an apartment complex.

        I’m thinking the police were probably pretty intimately familiar with this place. Take it for what you will, but odd’s are pretty good that they knew there was a pissed dog here and they didn’t bring their issued shotgun. Stupid is as stupid does.

  11. it shouldn’t have to rise to level of a criminal conviction for them to lose their jobs right away. incompetence is a thing. killing someone accidentally while shooting at a dog is at a minimum incompetence.

    criminal charges and continued employment should be two completely separate questions.

    1. ” …killing someone accidentally while shooting at a dog… ”

      In California whether accidentally killing someone is a crime or not depends on the presence or absence of recklessness. Which IMO is only something that can be properly decided by a jury.

      Not that that is going to happen. But it should.

      1. Drawing and firing a gun when you can’t hit the target at point blank range sounds like recklessness to me.

  12. Don’t want to get shot by police? Don’t have dogs.

  13. The Los Angeles County sheriff’s office said its policy is that officers are allowed to shoot at dogs if they “reasonably believe” they could be seriously injured or killed by the animal.

    And as we all know, internal policy [is greater than] law.

    “Our initial impression was [the deputies] didn’t even see the individual coming around from the side of the building.”

    Which would be why you don’t engage in panic fire in a residential area.

    And, just so everyone knows, initial impression [equals] investigation over.

    1. “And, just so everyone knows, initial impression [equals] investigation over.”

      Check Curt’s post, above. You may be responding to an initial impression.

      1. Eugene’s response is no less accurate re: the dog’s second charge than the first: you don’t engage in panic fire in a residential area, full stop.

        The cops were either to scared to assess the situation rationally or they wanted to kill something. Either way they shouldn’t be cops.

        1. you don’t engage in panic fire in a residential area, full stop.

          Again, I say, the proper tools should be used.

      2. As far as I can tell, the context in the linked articles are provided by the shooters. I have more reason to disbelieve than believe their narrative.

        1. Help yourself, but I’m not about to jump on this bandwagon until there’s more info.

          1. The safety and lives of bystanders are more important than the cop’s leg. Police should be willing to risk their own lives and safety for the sake of others. Even if it happened as they say it did, it’s at least reckless and negligent.

            1. Zeb|6.23.17 @ 2:04PM|#
              “The safety and lives of bystanders are more important than the cop’s leg. Police should be willing to risk their own lives and safety for the sake of others. Even if it happened as they say it did, it’s at least reckless and negligent.”

              Glad to see you have all the info.

    2. And, just so everyone knows, initial impression [equals] investigation over.

      I figured it’s like spaghetti against the wall. If it doesn’t stick then the dog smelled like pot, the teen was coming right for them, and somebody somewhere made a furtive gesture.

  14. Weed, doggies…whatthefuck *aren’t* these coppers afraid of?

      1. you *know* Joswiak is a badass by how he holds his pistola

        1. And that “tuff gai” arms held out away from his side to make himself look bigger swagger. What a fucking ape. I hope he gets into a bar fight some night with the wrong guy and gets the shit beaten out of him.

          1. if there’s a yang to the yin…

  15. My pit bull charges people all the time, so he can attack them with his tongue. Nobody died yet. They don’t get violent without giving warnings like growling and snarling.

    Cops are pussies.

    1. ^ This.

      Personally, I’ve never known a pit bull that wasn’t gregarious and mild tempered. Why shouldn’t they be? The only damage I’ve ever suffered from a pit bull was from overenthusiastic affection.

  16. The bitten deputy did not fire but was struck in his right leg by a fragment of a bullet fired by a fellow deputy that bounced off the ground in the shooting.

    Reason missing the real tragedy of the night.

  17. The owner of the dog, who told the Times she didn’t want to identify herself because she had “too many things going on with the law right now,” said she doubted the deputies’ claim…

    That’s all you really need to know.

    1. Yes, if the owner was having trouble with the law, that completely excuses police for shooting an unrelated teenager who was in the area trying to help. Good call.

    2. ORLY? That is all we need to know? So the owner of the dog is a worthless human being not deserving of our sympathies, because of some unspecified troubles with the law? Christ, what an asshole.

      1. So the owner of the dog is a worthless human being not deserving of our sympathies, because of some unspecified troubles with the law?

        Dope-dealing crackwhore sex trafficker or foster home for abused children? Either way, I’m pretty sure the punishment is that you extra-judicially shoot people and animals coming and going from the house.

    3. Actually, I think that part is largely irrelevant. All you need to know is that the cops opened fire on a dog while other people were in the vicinity, downrange. That sounds like involuntary manslaughter, at least. They didn’t have good reason to fear for their lives. They did have good reason to think they might hit a bystander if they started shooting.

      The cop’s own perception of threats to his safety cannot be the only factor in deciding if their use of force is reasonable and justified. They need to consider the safety of innocent bystanders before their own. That’s the job they signed up for (or it should be anyway, they probably signed up for cracking skulls and free donuts). TO do what they can to protect the public.

  18. Cops are like a box of chocolates

    They’ll kill your dog

    1. LOL – This is why I love you guys.

    2. Savage.

  19. “Two of the five sheriff’s deputies shot six to eight rounds at the pitbull. None of them appear to have hit the dog.”

    Since they didn’t hit this vicious dog, I can only assume the dog mauled all five officers to death? Right? I mean, otherwise, that might call into question their judgment about how dangerous this dog really was.

    1. They did hit the dog, apparently, and it was taken to be euthanized.

      1. But if they hadn’t, it surely would have gone on to eat a toddler, sell heroin laced with fentanyl, or cut people’s hair without a cosmetology license, so good shoot.

        1. I haven’t met a pit yet that doesn’t own an illegal hair beading operation.

      2. cue the “Christ, what assholes.” guy…

  20. Worth mentioning: It wasn’t a dog. It was a pitbull. These are living organisms that were bred for bloodsport. Also not a dog… wolves, dingos, foxes, hyenas.

    Not defending the SLords that just murdered a teen, but let’s not try to gloss over the relevant bits.

    1. It wasn’t a dog. It was a pitbull.

      That pitbull killed or maimed everyone at that party before the police arrived.

    2. The breed is utterly irrelevant to anyone who’s not a frightened dumbass.

      Also, to be specific: dingos are feral dogs of southeast Asia and Australia. All dogs are technically a subspecies of gray wolf. Foxes are distantly related to wolves, and hyenas are actually from the feliform branch of Order Carnivora and aren’t related to dogs at all.

    3. they’re all pitbulls. always. every time. even when they are labs.

      1. they’re all pitbulls. always. every time. even when they are labs.

        Hell, even when they’re cats.

    4. Not sure if sarcasm or not.

      If not, go fuck yourself. There’s nothing wrong with pitbulls. I’ve known several people over the years who have had them as pets without incident. They’re not inherently violent, it’s the sociopaths that raise them for fighting that make them that way. In fact, one of their traits that makes them a good fighting dog is that they’re extremely loyal animals. So much so that they’ll fight another dog to the death if they think it’s what their owner wants (and it keeps their owners from beating them).

      1. I knew one pitbull who tried to kill my wife. I had to tell its owner if I ever saw it off leash again I would shoot it (I wasn’t there at the time, or that would have been a moot point). He got rid of it pretty soon after.

        All the other one’s I’ve encountered were very good natured and sweet.

        1. That’s unfortunate, but of course it had nothing to do with the the dog’s breed (as I’m sure you probably know, since all the others you’ve seen are good dogs). Any breed of dog can become aggressive if the owner’s a fucktard.

          1. Pit bull typr dogs are more dangerous than many breeds if they want to rip your throat out. But as a breed I see no reason to believe they are more likely to attack a person than any other breed. This particular dog was either abused or trained to attack by idiots.

    5. None of that makes it not a dog.

    6. everybody *wants* Pitbull at their party, no?

    7. You’ve never actually seen a live pitbull, have you? Just read the Facebook reposts.


  21. Garcia-Muro was hit in the chest by at least one round about 3:40 am Thursday in Palmdale. Deputies said the bullet may have ricocheted off the ground. A ricocheting bullet fragment also struck the leg of a deputy who was bitten by the dog, according to the police account.

    This sounds almost exactly like a scene one could expect of a stoner-cop movie, a la Super Troopers. Ergo it must be true.

    1. Pretty sure the guys from Supper Troopers would find a way to deal with the dog without shooting at it. As long as Farva’s not there.

      1. Heh. “Supper Troopers.”

        Now i sort of want to see a movie called Supper Troopers. Then again, you just know it’ll star Adam Sandler in a fat suit.

        1. That might be one my better “John-isms” in a while.

        2. Instead of a guy eating a bag of weed, the opening scene will focus on a Ramen trafficking ring and a crook destroying the evidence by eating a case of uncooked Ramen. When that doesn’t work, his partners in crime dump the the truck in the East River, which blocks the flow of the river after the Ramen swells, flooding East Village and providing a squishy land bridge to Brooklyn.

          1. Ugh. Ramen? Brooklyn? Never mind, i don’t want to see that movie anymore.

  22. “That’s not my dog. That’s not his personality,”

    Probably wasn’t – I came home last night (really, this morning) to find a pitbull in my garage. Poor thing had been put out for the night and gotten lost. He was so excited to see someone, *anyone* that he ran up to the bike jumping and wagging his tail.

    Was probably really disappointed when I tricked him out of the garage and then shut the door on him.

  23. Ever notice how The Peasants somehow manage to live in a world where dogs bark at them without shooting them?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.