Police Abuse

Georgia Cop Forced Man to Decapitate His Own Dog—To Find Out If It Had Rabies

The sheriff says the cop shouldn't have done that. The incident is being investigated.

|

family photo

James Hollis, an investigator for the Crawford County Sheriff's Department, arrived at the home of Joe Goodwin after Goodwin's dog allegedly bit two people. After a deputy sheriff shot the animal—"to put the dog down," as Sheriff Lewis Walker later explained to WMAZ—Hollis took it upon himself to "investigate" whether the dog had rabies. He decided to do this by ordering Goodwin to cut his dog's head off.

Goodwin asked Hollis and the deputy with him to leave his property. Hollis told him he was either going to cut his dog's head off or be taken to jail.

Goodwin acquiesced and decapitated his dog.

"That shouldn't have been done on the scene, from what I gathered," Walker told the station. The sheriff says Hollis should have merely informed the health department that it needed to come pick the dog up.

Hollis has been placed on administrative leave while the department investigates the incident, but there isn't much to investigate. Someone who believes it is appropriate to ask a person to decapitate his own dog to find out whether it has rabies is decidedly not fit to serve in law enforcement.

It doesn't, and shouldn't, matter whether he's been specifically trained or told not to tell dog owners to decapitate their pets.

The story is so incredible that Snopes fact-checked it. (Rating: true.)

You can watch a video of a portion of the incident below:

Advertisement

NEXT: Net Neutrality Vote Expected Today, Disney Buys Fox, Salma Hayek Says Weinstein Threatened to Kill Her: A.M. Links

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. “That shouldn’t have been done on the scene, from what I gathered,” Walker told the station.

    Way to take the hard line, sheriff.

    1. Of course it shouldn’t have happened that way. Usually Deputy Fife would make you decapitate the dog BEFORE he shot it.

      1. The type of people who aspire to become cops are psychopaths. If you have cop friends, something is wrong with you.

        1. The type of people who identify as libertarians are degenerates. If you have libertarian friends, something is wrong with you.

          1. The type of people who post on a libertarian blog merely to denigrate libertarians are degenerate psychopathic losers whose mothers have long since kicked them out of the basement for failure to pay rent.

            1. Or maybe if you’d chill and think with your upstairs brain rather than your emotions, you’d realize you’re collectivizing a group of people, which is supposedly anathema to libertarians.

              Apparently trying to reflect your lunacy back at you flew right over your head.

              1. The commenters here are well aware of how to treat disingenuous trolls. Begone Tulpa.

              2. So you don’t grok double reflectionz? Are you too good for your own medicine?

              3. Ahhh, the ole strawman “this is what you all think” argument. So upstairs brain.

            2. I’m afraid I’m not Tulpa. He/she/they were before my time. No matter how much you scream it doesn’t make it true.

              1. Jesus, Tulpa, we can tell. No matter how much you scream, we can tell.

            3. …or are Reason interns assigned to the least appealing duty at Reason HQ.

          2. How exactly are libertarians immoral or corrupt?

        2. Moreover, the type of people who defend cops are psychopaths.

          1. Actually, I think that’s kind of true.

        3. My nephew, who is a cop, has said several times that police department hiring is looking for candidates who score as borderline sociopaths on psychological tests. He says he’s only half joking. His explanation is that police departments want to hire people who would be willing to use a firearm on their fellow human beings.

          1. That’s how you become a cop, fail the psych exam.

        4. I know a couple guys who used to be cops. Key part is “used to be”.

          Since they are nice and decent people, they didn’t last.

          1. Same here. They quit because they didn’t enjoy spreading pain and misery. Which says a lot about those who stay.

  2. Hollis has been placed on administrative leave while the department investigates the incident, but there isn’t much to investigate.

    This will give time for everyone to forget and move on, however. It’s a good thing the dog didn’t have rabies, or the owner would likely be undergoing treatment for it himself, starting a necropsy on a possibly infected animal without training or protection.

    1. PLEASE keep this secret from ALL dogs, or they’ll be fit to be dog-tied!!!

      They’ll be losing their heads over this!!!

      This is the kind of thing that feeds anti-human doggy terrorism! (Prepare for the USA to “have to” occupy Doggonia for the next several decades; Do NOT say I didn’t warn ya!)

      1. That was a pretty good Hihn impression…

  3. Hollis made two very egregious errors. A public servant may not order another man to do anything. Unless a man has been arrested for committing a wrong, the LEO has no authority to issue any orders. Does anyone remember the 13th Amendment?
    Secondly, when Hollis threatened Joe Goodwin with reprisal for not doing what he, Hollis, ordered, Hollis committed, if i’m not mistaken, a felony. No government official may threaten a man under any circumstances. If it is not a felony, it does, at a minimum, require serious consequences for the perpetrator.
    Hollis should be discharged from Sheriff’s department and prosecuted. His actions reflect his attitude that he, as a public servant, is superior to his master, the citizen.

    1. The job of a police officer is to ensure two things. Total officer safety, and total compliance. As in the officer may not do anything that might put his safety or the safety of another officer into question, and the officer may not allow a citizen to get away with failure to obey. In this case the officer could have shot the dog owner on the spot when he refused to cut the head off of his pet, and nothing else would have happened. Obey or die.

      1. I bet is ze Russian Federation, they make mock-English accents & say shit like, “In the Land of the Free, you decapitate yourself _before_ the cops shoot you”, and everyone has a good laugh.

      2. I’d like to know how this cop would know if the dog had rabies from its decapitated head.

    2. His actions reflect his attitude that he, as a public servant, is superior to his master, the citizen.

      He has a union, we don’t.

      Duh.

      1. He also has another thing: faux libertarians who think that cops should have a place at the table.

  4. Perhaps the Honorable Investigator Hollis was angry that a he found black dog that had been spoiled by a white dog’s genes. White dogs are the devil, after all.

  5. Hey, there was nothing in our procedures and training that said we COULDN’T do that.

  6. I’m know that cops have a job to do and every profession has it’s percentage of bad seeds… but this motherfucking pig needs to choke on his own dick. Sick.

  7. Someone who believes it is appropriate to ask a person to decapitate his own dog to find out whether it has rabies is decidedly not fit to serve in law enforcement.

    Frankly, they’re barely fit to serve as the bad guy in a low-budget Saw knockoff.

  8. There can only be one alpha dog.

    Need more info though. Was the dog’s owner an anti-vaccer?

  9. “An investigator for the Crawford County Sheriff’s Department, arrived at the home of Joe Goodwin after Goodwin’s dog allegedly bit two people.

    Did the dog have rabies?

    Did the bite victims have a right to know?

    Did whether the dog have rabies have any bearing on probable cause for an arrest?

    Were the bite victims children, and, if so, were their parents immediately available to consent to treatment?

    Was this cop aware of any former problems with this particular dog?

    1. What were the dog’s and owner’s religious convictions and/or sexual orientation?

      Does Goodwin have the right to perform only straight, Christian decapitations if he so chooses?

  10. Good Lord that’s disgusting and horrifying and awful.

  11. Can someone explain how cutting the dog’s head off would determine whether it had rabies?

    1. The only way to know if the dog had rabies is for a vet to examine the brain of the dead animal.

      1. I see. So if there wasn’t a vet on the scene, this whole exercise was useless? In fact, probably worse than that since it risked infecting this guy with rabies blood and contaminating the sample?

        1. So if there wasn’t a vet on the scene, this whole exercise was useless?

          Arguably worse than useless as the brain structures can and do remain in tact longer in an attached head. But, again, in the modern era, we have viral and immunology testing to indicate an infection pre- or peri-mortem. Brain biopsy is cheapest and most definitive, but that wasn’t the point of this particular exercise.

          1. but that wasn’t the point of this particular exercise.

            True. It was an exercise in sadistic power. The fact that the officer said that he had no charges for the guy but would arrest him anyway is very telling. I’m guessing that it is standard procedure to arrest people for failure to obey, and make up the charges later. By law cops must inform you of the charges when they arrest you. But we all know that those who enforce the law are under no obligation to obey it.

            1. But….all the things these unappreciated and still heroic men go through every day! They face death from a thousand different directions, and yet all we ingrate citizens do is second guess them!

        2. The cop knows just enough about diagnosing rabies in an animal to order someone to do something both stupid and cruel.

      2. Right, a brain biopsy. Which doesn’t necessarily require decapitation.

        Decapitation is traditionally done with cattle and horses where transporting the whole animal is a considerably different proposition than transporting just the head. Of course, all this mainly applies to the era before or without copious battery power, indoor electricity, and refrigeration.

  12. (sigh) It’s the two-legged sonofabitch – the one with the badge – that needs to be checked for rabies.

  13. So I go to the vet with my daughter’s cat. The vet says, “I’ve got some good news, and I’ve got some bad news. The bad news is that the cat has some serious problems that require surgery–it’ll run you about $3,000. The good news is that it’s just a cat”.

    H/T Norm Macdonald.

  14. Seriously though, who cuts their dog’s head off instead of going to jail?

    1. Cucks and bacon worshippers.

      1. You watch your mouth. Nobodies touching my puppy.

    2. Seriously though, who cuts their dog’s head off instead of going to jail?

      This was my first thought. However I’m exceedingly dubious that, once I’d made clear that I’d chose ‘got to jail’, what would’ve followed would’ve been a nice quite ride to jail to sort this whole mess out. Or that the ‘sorting of this whole mess’ out wouldn’t proceed in kind.

    3. I hope I would have looked at him incredulously and said “Go ahead. That’ll be a false arrest lawsuit and you won’t get qualified immunity. Why don’t you add a felony beatdown while you’re at it, and then even your union won’t get you your job back.”

      1. The problem with that is he did have probable cause to arrest the guy.

        Still, cutting the dog’s head off is over the top.

        1. what probable cause?

          1. The guy’s dog bit 2 people. He is responsible for that. Further, if he knew the dog was dangerous and it got loose, he’s going to have additional charges related to that.

            This doesn’t make him guilty, but it is probable cause for the arrest.

            1. Is your dog biting someone not at your direct order even an arrestable offense?

            2. I don’t know Georgia law, so I can’t say specifically in this situation.

              In my state you are strictly liable for your dog’s damages. You are also criminally liable. If your dog bites someone or kills another person’s pet you can be arrested, you will have to go to court. In addition to criminal proceedings–should the police choose to charge them–you are financially responsible for the damages, plus a $1,000 fine on top of it. This is the case for first time offenses, without knowledge of viciousness.

              A friend’s son in law bought his kids a pitt bull a couple of years back. Dog got loose and killed a neighbor cat, then bit the neighbor. He faced misdemeanor criminal charges for the dog biting the neighbor and for it killing the cat. I’m pretty sure he was arrested, booked and released on his own recognizance when it happened.

              1. To add to this, in my state, the only defense a dog-owner has is:
                1) they provoked the dog; or 2) The “victim” was not invited on to my property and was trespassing

        2. When the guy asked what the charges would be for an arrest, the cop had no answer. When a cop arrests you they must tell you what the charges are. “I’ll make something up later” doesn’t cut it. So it would have indeed been a false arrest.

          1. Like it or not, he’s got an entire ride to the police station to decide which charges he’s going to place on you.

            The guy’s dog bit 2 people. He’s responsible for it.

            1. Like it or not, he’s got an entire ride to the police station to decide which charges he’s going to place on you.

              By law a cop must tell you what the charges are at the time of the arrest. “I’ll make something up later” is a false arrest. At least in this state they have to. Maybe Georgia law is different.

            2. In the federal system, they don’t. The rules vary from state to state as to how police like Officer Hollis must act, but in general they don’t have to tell you the charges, but they may be required to tell you the reason.

              The reason for an arrest had almost assuredly been announced at this point: your dog bit 2 people.

              The charges don’t have to be announced until either booking (rarely) or at arraignment in the next ~48 hours. (more common)

            3. “The guy’s dog bit 2 people. He’s responsible for it.”

              Yes, he is, but its a civil issue not a criminal issue. Don’t you watch Judge Judy?

              And why didn’t the cop just have him put the dead dog in the trunk and take it to the vet? Oh yeah, because he was a power hungry moron.

              1. Dog attacks are more Judge Joe Brown’s bag, FYI. He’s got a chart he uses and everything.

            4. In my state you are criminally and civilly liable for your pet. There is a good chance the guy would be arrested here if anyone was injured and wanted to press charges. May be different in Georgia.

    4. “Seriously though, who cuts their dog’s head off instead of going to jail?”

      considering we have seen cops shoot people while begging for their life while crawling on the floor of a hall way I’d say most people are to scared to question anything leo’s say or do. Sheep through fear of force is not unfounded.

    5. Seriously though, how does one even go about cutting off a dog’s head – ANY dog’s head. Do you have to go get a kitchen knife or an axe or a saw or what? I wouldn’t begin to know how to do it. So I suppose I’d get shot for disobeying immediate orders to cut that dog’s head off NOW!!! Or you MIGHT NOT SURVIVE!!

  15. “He says Investigator Hollis met the deputy at the scene.

    “They did get someone on the phone with the health department that made an attempt to tell the gentleman what he would need to do,” says Walker.

    He says it is standard protocol to call the Crawford County Health Department when they think a dog could be rabid

    —-WMAZ link

    So what happened is this: Several people have been bitten by a dog. Officer arrives at the scene, and the dog charges him. Officer shoots dog.

    There is an open question as to whether a crime has been committed. Letting a vicious dog out of your yard that hurts people is not simply a strict liability case in civil court. You are both morally and legally obligated to respect other people’s rights. If the dog killed a child, God forbid, because you left the gate open, then you’re facing a negligent homicide charge. From what I gather, the evidence seems to have suggested that however this dog got loose, it looked like a crime may have been committed.

    It appears that what the officer did was give the guy a choice: if you can show me the dog had rabies, I won’t arrest you. Otherwise, I’m taking you in.

    Seems to me the cop may have given the guy a break here. Unless you can show me a reason why this probable cause I have should be ignored, I’m arresting you and taking you to the station. I don’t suppose giving the guy no option would have been better from a libertarian perspective.

    1. Oh right, yes, of course, and if the cop had said “Shoot yourself and I won’t arrest you” or “suck my dick and I won’t arrest you”, you’d be ok with that.

      If the dog did have rabies, the cop and the owner could have been splattered. Is that acceptable to you?

      Fuck off, slave-excuser. Just fuck off and die.

      1. The guy didn’t have to do it.

        Standard procedure probably would have been to arrest him.

        He wouldn’t let the guy go to the health department with the dog–because he was a criminal suspect as far as the cop was concerned–and maybe rightly so.

        1. He wouldn’t let the guy go to the health department with the dog–because he was a criminal suspect as far as the cop was concerned–and maybe rightly so.

          This was the part I was not shocked about. I’d have probably refused to cut my dog’s head off and insisted that the whole dog be transported the health department.

          The only part of the situation that seems off is “cut your dog’s head off”. Everything else seems in proper order. The dude’s dog got out and bit 2 people, then behaved like it was going to bite the responding deputy. The deputy killed the dog, bringing and end to the unfortunate incident. The owner, being responsible for the dog very well need to be arrested, processed and charged.

        2. Sorry Ken but standard procedure is to impound the dead dog to be tested at by qualified vet and you give the owner a ticket to appear. the only reason to arrest is if there were several previous warnings to the owner to keep the dog secured or the owner actively ordered the dog to attack people. None of which I’ve seen reported on other than a single one time bite.

          If there is more to this story then please share it.

        3. If my dog (a black lab) escaped my back yard and bit someone I am not guilty of an “arrestable” crime. I am liable for the dog’s action as I am responsible for the dog. And I have become open to being sued by the person who got bit.

          But the cops can’t come an arrest me. What would the charge be? Failure to control an animal? There is probably a statute or ordinance for that. But it most likely is a fine at most. I’d get issued a ticket.

          And if I continue to do this (not control my dog) and my dog bites another person again, the city/state will probably deem my dog a menace and put the dog down. But in a humane way, not shoot it in my backyard.

          1. SMOD this really depends on jurisdiction. In your state, maybe that is the rule. In mine they can charge you criminally if a victim wants to press charges. The charges can vary from vicious animal charges to assault to destruction of property depending on the circumstances, and they add a $1,000 fine on top of all other punishments in my state.

          2. They can, as always, choose not to charge you. And often that happens. But many states have successfully prosecuted criminal cases against owners. Texas, Kansas, Minnesota, California all come to mind. I’m sure there’s a lot more than that.

            1. Georgia is a simple negligence liability state for dog bites and other animal-caused injuries.

              O.C.G.A. 51-2-7 (2010)
              51-2-7. Liability of owner or keeper of vicious or dangerous animal for injuries caused by animal

              A person who owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal of any kind and who, by careless management or by allowing the animal to go at liberty, causes injury to another person who does not provoke the injury by his own act may be liable in damages to the person so injured. In proving vicious propensity, it shall be sufficient to show that the animal was required to be at heel or on a leash by an ordinance of a city, county, or consolidated government, and the said animal was at the time of the occurrence not at heel or on a leash. The foregoing sentence shall not apply to domesticated fowl including roosters with spurs. The foregoing sentence shall not apply to domesticated livestock.

              1. So it sounds like this will depend on whether or not the dog was required to be on a leash or behind a fence. Right?

    2. According to the owner, he offered to get the papers to prove his dog had been given rabies shots, and couldn’t have it. Which I suppose actually would have been worse for him from a criminal liability perspective.

      According to the original stories, the deputy on scene and the dog owner were getting along just fine, working through the situation and what needed to be done, until Hollis showed up and lost his marbles. Of course, there may be more to the story.

    3. God forbid, the dog gets loose and mauls a kid, do we cut the guy a break because the dog had rabies? Is that the law?

      Sounds like the dog has been a nuisance (multiple bites to multiple people) and the owner knew/knows it. Certainly not a ‘behead your own dog’ offense but rabies as a ‘get out of jail free’ card seems unequal and/or capricious.

      1. It was a crime investigation.

        I’m not saying they did the right thing here.

        I’m saying it isn’t as bad as it’s being portrayed.

        It looks like they were going to arrest the guy–unless he showed them there was a reason not to.

        One time the cops came banging on our office door in the middle of the night. It was 3:30 in the morning. I was pulling an all-nighter. Someone had called in saying there was apparently an ongoing burglary–it was just me. My company. My office. Once I showed them evidence that I wasn’t a burglar, they decided not to arrest me.

        That’s how things should be.

        1. Once I showed them evidence that I wasn’t a burglar, they decided not to arrest me.

          That’s how things should be.

          Normally, I’m on your side. But this is fucked up. You’ve effectively equated a victimless non-crime with what you admit was at least one crime with potentially multiple victims.

          I’m saying it isn’t as bad as it’s being portrayed.

          Even if so, it’s pretty clear you’re not steering things towards greater accuracy.

          1. “You’ve effectively equated a victimless non-crime with what you admit was at least one crime with potentially multiple victims.”

            I don’t know whether it was a crime. There was a crime under investigation. The cop wouldn’t let him take the dead dog to the health department to see if it had rabies–apparently because the dog owner was under suspicion of committing a crime.

            I also don’t know that because this guy says they were going to take him to jail if he didn’t do what the cops said, that this is exactly what happened.

            When the cops came to my office, they didn’t say I had to show them mail addressed to me at that office or they’d take me to jail. They asked if I could show them evidence that I belonged there. I didn’t go around suggesting that the cops would arrest me for the crime of not showing them my mail. That would be inaccurate.

            Legally, the choice was his. If you want to talk about accuracy, telling the guy that without any evidence that the dog had rabies, they’re going to arrest him, and telling him that IF HE WANTS to cut the dog’s head off, he can–are too different things. Just because it seemed to the guy like he had no choice and the cop was making him do it isn’t necessarily so. That may just be the way it seemed to him.

            1. When the cops came to my office, they didn’t say I had to show them mail addressed to me at that office or they’d take me to jail. They asked if I could show them evidence that I belonged there.

              Did you provide them with vaccination records? No? Was it because vaccination records don’t have any bearing on whether you were robbing the place or not?

              What if they asked you to turn out your pockets and to make sure you weren’t stealing office supplies? Could you prove to them that you didn’t have any office supplies in your car or at your home?

              Lemme know when this starts to sound like a fishing expedition and crosses into the very reason why we have 5th and/or 8th Am.

              1. Whether a dog has rabies is material to the question of whether the ssspect was criminally liable for what his dog did.

                If the dog got rabies from messing with a raccoon in the backyard, and the dog went completely nuts, then that’s like an act of god situation.

                ‘My dog is a threat to kids in the street, but I forgot to to turn the latch–sorry your kid got her face torn off’, may be consistent with a criminal charge. On the other hand, ‘My dog has never been a threat to anybody, but I think he has rabies’ might be something that doesn’t even merit an arrest.

                Dog bites are typically strict liability–you’re responsible for your dog. Rabies doesn’t and maybe shouldn’t protect you from civil liability–that’s probably for a jury to decide.

                Whether your negligence led to someone being criminally harmed is a question for the police to decide. You’re legally obligated to respect other people’s rights–as well you should be. But if your dog was crazed with rabies, then you probably shouldn’t be held criminally responsible. That was beyond your control.

                Once again, the fact that the investigator didn’t want to let a suspect leave the crime scene with the evidence makes a ton of sense.

            2. What’s unclear is why the health department didn’t pick it up. There may not have been any symptoms of rabies. No foaming at the mouth, etc. If the cop told the health department that there weren’t any obvious signs of rabies, they may have said they weren’t allowed to waste resources on this guy’s excuse–without any apparent evidence of rabies. Maybe that’s why the health department wad telling the suspect how to do it.

              Regardless, letting a guy show evidence that the dog had rabies was probably a mistake, but for all we know, he was giving the suspect a break. Sure, then maybe he turns around and tells the cameras, “They were gonna take me to jail if I didn’t cut off my own dog’s head”!

              That doesn’t seem to be an accurate characterization to me. Sounds to me like they were going to book him–if he hadn’t cut the head off. Giving him a chance to show he shouldn’t even be arrested may have been giving him a break.

          2. At any rate, my take is more like accuracy. The story makes it sound like the guy was forced to cut his dog’s head off or be thrown in jail–for not cutting the dog’s head off. Doesn’t look to me like that’s what happened. The accurate story–consistent with the facts–is that the guy was under suspicion for why his dog got loose, went around, and hurt people–including charging a police officer.

            If he were arrested and taken to jail to await an arraignment, it would have been for that–not for refusing to comply with a cop’s order to cut off his dog’s head.

            Here’s accuracy: Every day thousands of Americans are properly arrested–just like they should be–and properly not charged–just like they should be. The cops don’t and shouldn’t just arrest guilty people. If the system is working correctly, people who shouldn’t be indicted get arrested anyway. That’s accuracy.

            1. The accurate story–consistent with the facts–is that the guy was under suspicion for why his dog got loose, went around, and hurt people–including charging a police officer.

              Rabies and the subsequent decapitation aren’t required to justify or explain these facts. If the officer was conducting an investigation, it’s his job to collect evidence, not force the suspect to provide it.

              Here’s accuracy: Lots of places have police departments with longstanding traditions of fabricating evidence and even forcing confessions. If we had a government that was so light that one dog decapitation was at the pinnacle of the list of grievances it would be one thing. Instead, it’s just another story right behind making an innocent man grovel for his life before shooting him and finding no one guilty.

              I pretty regularly call a good shoot as a spade. This was not a good shoot.

    4. Incidentally, I’ve seen people (properly) charged and convicted for letting their dogs out of the yard to bite the police as they’re coming up to the door.

      Since the dog charged the cop (did it run out a door the owner opened or past the owner to get to the cop?), the cop may have wanted to arrest the guy for what amounts to assaulting a police officer.

      When I was jogging once, this chick, who had her dog on a leash, did nothing to restrain her dog, and it bit me. Even after it latched onto my leg, she refused to pull on the leash to pull the dog away.

      She starts yelling at me saying that I shouldn’t be running on the sidewalk because it might spook her dog. I’d have had her charged with assault after that remark–there were kids running around all over the place. If she refuses to restrain her German Shepherd–even while it’s biting someone–then she has no business taking it out in public–and guess who’s responsible for what her dog does?

      It sure as hell isn’t random joggers.

      Good thing for her I don’t jog with my cell phone.

      1. I had a similar situation once to your “let the dogs out to bite someone”. Used to deliver pizzas years ago, and this woman lets her labrador out. I’ve never met a mean lab… it comes straight for me and bites into my leg. I start trying to back up, while it is holding on, and the woman starts laughing. My response was to start punching the dog square between the eyes.

        She starts yelling “Hey that’s my dog! I’m gonna call the cops!” So I offered my phone and told her I’d be glad to press charges and see her dog put down. She balked at that. As soon as I left she called the corporate office and said I had intentionally attacked her dog.

        I had been content to just let it go until corporate called wanting to know why I had attacked some girl’s dog…

        1. Did you show them the bite marks on your leg?

          1. Yep. Then I had to get the cops involved, because it was go to the police and document that her dog attacked me or lose my job since she was filing a complaint against me.

            Some people suck.

            1. I have some inside knowledge of the circumstances you describe and I don’t believe you.

            2. Really, and what inside knowledge is that?

              1. I believe you. Some dog owners are narcissistic assholes. I hope they DID put her dog down.

      2. Incidentally, I’ve seen people (properly) charged and convicted for letting their dogs out of the yard to bite the police as they’re coming up to the door.

        Oooh! My turn to tell a story!

        On more than one occasion, I’ve “handled” a neighbors’ rabid animal (as well as wild ones). As far as I’m aware, no one was bitten. It’s somewhere between possible and likely that other animals contracted the disease before the afflicted animal was dealt with. No decapitations were required. No police officers were involved.

        The rabies issue was largely resolved once the dog was shot. The only remaining question was the punishment, at which point, ad hoc amateur beheadings (arguably for show) fall well into the ‘cruel and unusual’ category.

        1. The officer was called because the dog had bitten a couple of people.

          The dog charged the officer.

          That isn’t “my story”. That’s what happened.

          The dog charged the officer.

          That’s what cops are supposed to do in these situations–people got hurt? Were any crimes committed?

          1. You were there and saw this?

            1. He’s confusing his pointless recantation of a vaguely similar incident with what actually happened.

              In any event Shultz’ version of the story doesn’t exactly matter. What he’s saying is ultimately unlawful, counterfactual, whimsically cruel and unusual, or a combination of the three. Even if the officer had the rabies detector in the back seat of his car that required exactly 1 head-sized sample, the asserted reasonable outcomes are still capricious and unlawful.

              If the dog’s body was part of an investigation, the owner/suspect beheading the dog isn’t just cruel and unusual, it’s destruction of evidence. If the dog wasn’t part of an investigation, the arrest is straightforward and the beheading is unnecessary. An officer can’t just use “It’s part of an investigation.” as a means to any arbitrary end much less compel suspects to support him in that end.

              1. Yeah, if removing the head is part of the investigation, then the investigators should do it. Having the subject of the investigation participate in it like that doesn’t seem kosher.

            2. “You were there and saw this?

              Excuse me, am I dealing with children, here?

              I’m not trying to be rude, but with some of you, I swear, it’s like I’m dealing with high school kids or something.

              Even if you didn’t read Ed’s link, didn’t see where I quoted it?

              Go read the story!

              Fuck.

              Read the fucking story.

              P.S. No, I’m not making it up. That’s what happened. Go read the story.

    5. This makes no sense at all. Neither the owner nor the cop had any way to determine whether the dog had rabies. They aren’t trained vets.

      1. The health department explained to them what to do.

        The guy who cut his dog’s head off was told how to do it by the health department over the phone.

        There may have been some concern that the health department wouldn’t even bother.

        Read the story.

        1. Wonderful. Now they have a dog with no head. What’s that going to tell them? They aren’t vets- they have no idea what to look for. They might as well have thrown the dog in a lake to see if it would float.

          1. What’s that going to tell them?

            Not guilty.

            The dog tested positive for rabies so the owner, despite being legally obligated to have and keep the dog vaccinated, gets to go free and the people that got bitten by the dog have no legal recourse. I know this may sound crazy, but this is Ken Shultz’ Georgia.

            1. “no legal recourse”

              uhhhh, yes they do. He would get sued and lose.

            2. According to what Ken is talking about, rabies would likely absolve the owner of criminal liability because the guy couldn’t have known. It wouldn’t absolve him of civil liability–maybe.

  16. In short, it does not appear that they threatened to arrest the guy for refusing to cut the head off his dog.

    They were going to arrest the guy for some charge related to his dog biting people–unless he could give some credible reason why he shouldn’t be arrested.

    We’re listening to one side of the story here, and the guy telling the story may not have understood what the investigator was telling him.

    1. “Hollis told him he was either going to cut his dog’s head off or be taken to jail.”

      Do you even read the articles?

      1. Do you understand how the justice system works?

        They were going to arrest him.

        Not convict him.

        People get arrested for probable cause.

        The phrasing is the way the guy whose dog charged the cop and whose dog bit people described it.

        The were going to take me to jail if I didn’t do it!!!

        They were going to arrest him and place him in a holding cell while the DA decided whether to charge him with a crime.

        P.S. I quoted the source article. Can you read?

        1. People get detained for probably cause. There need to be charges for an arrest.

          1. *probable*

        2. Christ, what an asshole.

    2. They threatened to arrest him if he didn’t cut the head off his dog. Which is effectively the same thing. If they had a charge of reckless dog-keeping or whatever it would be, then they should have just arrested him.

      I don’t really know what the laws say, but I’ve known a few people who had dogs that bit people and had to be destroyed. There was no mention of charging the owner with anything in any of the cases.

      1. I don’t really know what the laws say, but I’ve known a few people who had dogs that bit people and had to be destroyed. There was no mention of charging the owner with anything in any of the cases.

        I do know that Federal Law says that, in the absence of local law, you can’t just make shit up no matter how cruel and unusual. I don’t know for a fact that Georgia law says the owner of a (newly-deceased) rabid dog must cut their own dog’s head off but, if it does, it’s probably overdue for a challenge.

      2. “They threatened to arrest him if he didn’t cut the head off his dog. Which is effectively the same thing.”

        They were never going to arrest him for not cutting the head off his dog.

        If they arrested him, it would have been because he let his dog bite people.

        It doesn’t surprise me that you have a hard time seeing that. You’re easily confused.

        1. This is not incompatible with the statement, “They threatened to arrest him if he didn’t cut the head off his dog. Which is effectively the same thing.”

          Why did you become this way, Ken?

        2. No, they weren’t going to arrest him on the charge of failing to cut the head off the dog. But they threatened to arrest him if he didn’t. So, while they weren’t going to arrest him on the charge of not cutting the dogs head off, they were, in fact, threatening to arrest him as punishment for failing to do the absurd thing they demanded he do.
          If they had good cause to arrest him for letting his dog bite people, they should have just done that without some bullshit and potentially dangerous rigamarole about cutting the head off right there. They weren’t going to determine if the dog was rabid right then and there.

    3. “Arrest me then.”

      and before you ask, I’ve taken a ride for what I thought was right. I’d do it again here.

  17. From what I remember of the original article, the first cop on scene–the one who shot the dog–actually was doing his job, and trying to not be a complete faggot about the situation. He was talking with the dog’s owner, and trying to be civil, then Hollis showed up, freaked out, and demanded the owner cut his own dog’s head off–in front of the guys kids no less.

    My question is: What happened with the first officer? The one who was by all accounts trying to deal with the situation as professionally as possible? What the fuck was he doing while Hollis was doing this?

    1. Turning green with envy.

      1. Yeah, if he had wanted to behave like that, he would have. He chose not to. So what was he doing while Hollis was demanding some guy cut his own dog’s head off in front of his kids? Was he just staring dumbstruck? Was he calling for a supervisor? Was he telling Hollis to cool his jets?

        1. If he attempted to interfere he would have lost his job and never worked in law enforcement again. Good cops are not tolerated in today’s police forces.

        2. So, just staring dumbstruck then? Jesus.

    2. Ever seen those videos of cops kicking the shit out of someone proned out on the ground? Ever notice the cops standing around not stopping the beat down?

    3. What the fuck was he doing while Hollis was doing this?

      This is why good cops exist only in fiction and mythology. Because no police officer will interfere with another police officer, no matter how unprofessional or illegal their conduct is. Not only that, but they all lie in court and on official documents. The only people they serve and protect are each other.

      1. I know good cops, you’re full of shit.

        1. If you’re not turning in the bad cops, you’re not a good enough cop.

  18. When two stupid a-holes meet: one with an unruly dog, and one with an unruly badge.

  19. If you have a dog and have a notion that the police are coming to your house [often without such prior knowledge I know] get that dog outa there! Send him to doggy day care, grandma’s, your kid’s, your ex, any where but where you live because it sure seems cops and [your] dogs do not mix well.

  20. Someone who believes it is appropriate to ask a person to decapitate his own dog to find out whether it has rabies is decidedly not fit to serve in law enforcement should have his own damn head removed.

  21. So, will the handler of that police dog that bit some random woman recently have to cut off his police dog’s head to get it tested for rabies?

  22. What the fuck is wrong with these cops?

  23. Hollis needs to be castrated so he can’t produce any little Hollis’.
    That is one massive pile of regressive genes.
    He ranks right up there with that AZ cop who killed that pest exterminator – garbage ranks higher.

  24. I would have told him to put on the cuffs or shoot me in the face before I would do anything to one of my pets. What a piece of shit.

  25. What a sad end ding for a dog. These people are evil

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.