Police Abuse

Police Officer Shoots at Dog During Welfare Check, Kills Woman Instead

From puppycide to homicide

|

A police officer responding to a welfare check in Arlington, Texas, attempted to shoot a dog on the property. He killed the 30-year-old woman he was dispatched to check on instead.

When police arrived at the scene, they were initially unable to find the woman in question, but they later located her lying in a grassy area next to an unrestrained dog. According to a statement from the Arlington Police Department, the animal allegedly "began to run towards the officer while barking," prompting the man to fire multiple shots. He missed the dog and hit the woman. She was transported to a local hospital, where she was pronounced dead.

A body camera captured the incident, and the video will be included in the investigation.

American police officers have an unfortunate track record when it comes to shooting nonthreatening dogs on the job. The Department of Justice calls puppycide an "epidemic," estimating that 25 to 30 dogs are killed by cops every day. That's almost 11,000 dog deaths per year.

In Detroit, Michigan, 54 dogs were killed in 2017 alone. "The rise occurred at the same time Detroit is trying to fend off lawsuits from residents who say police wantonly killed their dogs during drug raids," wrote Reason's C.J. Ciaramella in September. In St. Louis County, a woman received a $750,000 settlement after a SWAT team killed her dog during a raid on her home over an unpaid gas bill.

And it isn't unprecedented for a cop to inflict a human casualty while fending off a nonthreatening animal. In 2014, Deputy Sheriff Matthew Vickers of Coffee County, Georgia, shot and seriously wounded a 10-year-old child after opening fire on the family's dog. The officer was in pursuit of a fugitive who had no connection to the family and had wandered onto their property. A court recently ruled that the officer is protected by qualified immunity, so the family will receive no compensation for medical bills.

Advertisement

NEXT: Mike Gravel Ends His Unorthodox Twitter Campaign for the Presidency

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. This was inevitable. Firing bullets inside someone’s yard or home is a dangerous thing to do. This fucker should be up on manslaughter charges but sadly won’t be.

    Hey, all of the people who claiming the moron who let his kids roast in a car should be let off because he “didn’t mean to do it” better be in here defending this cop because he didn’t mean to kill this woman. He is just a trigger happy moron.

    1. Is there any thought process behind your posts besides “How can I declare myself morally superior as obnoxiously as possible?”

      Because if there is, it has not been apparent to me in nearly a decade of lurking in the comments here. Season that smug with a little compassion for your fellow flawed human beings. You’ll find it makes it much easier to understand why people do what they do.

      1. this is the internet. Buck up everyone is an asshole on the world wide web.

        1. I only identify as an asshole on the internet.

        2. Assholes: Everyone has one. Without them, we would all be full of shit.

      2. I am not morally superior to you. I am just a lot smarter than you, though that isn’t saying much.

        If the father who was so stupid and forgetful he left his kids to die can’t be charged, why should the cop who panicked when charged by a dog and killed the woman trying to shoot the dog be charged?

        In both cases the person didn’t mean to kill the victim. And in both cases the person is guilty of an ordinary fault, forgetfulness and panic. What, have you never panicked before?

        1. I’m not worried about whether you think you’re morally superior to me. (nor, judging by your limited breadth of vocabulary and syntax, am I particularly intimidated by your intellect). But when I read your posts, your only purpose seems to be to announce that you are morally superior to the subject of the article, the author of the article, or both.

          I can look at any piece in Reason, apply that one simple guide, and predict with 90% accuracy how you are going to respond. It’s a little tiresome.

          As for the two situations, one is knowingly reckless, and one is not. The police officer knew that the woman was in his field of fire and shot anyway. The father (assuming, since this is not a Law and Order episode, that he did not deliberately kill his children) did not realize that his kids were in the back seat. You can argue that he should have known, but you cannot argue that he deliberately took an action that he knew created substantial risk of harm.

          It’s the difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Both are crimes, but the police officer’s is considerably more serious.

          1. “I’m not worried about whether you think you’re morally superior to me”

            “Heedless
            August.2.2019 at 12:42 pm
            Is there any thought process behind your posts besides “How can I declare myself morally superior as obnoxiously as possible?”

            So you’re a liar and a whiny bitch.

          2. “nor, judging by your limited breadth of vocabulary and syntax, am I particularly intimidated by your intellect”

            Methinks Heedless the sockpuppet doth protest too much. And the extraneous use of “breadth” to look smarter is comical in the extreme.

            1. We have a rich and wonderful language. If you used more of it, your life would be more interesting. Your writing certainly would be.

              1. You mean I could use superfluous words like you do in a weak attempt to demonstrate a superiority I previously claimed not to care about?

                1. Nice.

                2. I mean that I think your command of the language is weak, that your writing style is repetitive and dull, and that the fact that you think “breadth” is a particularly obscure or showy word says more about your limited intellectual depth than it says about me.

                  1. Methinks, U is full of shit, Bro!!!!!….You spout off about how John thinks he is morally superior & then you go & do the same thing by claiming you are intellectually superior…Practice what you preach!

                    It’s like Bob Dylan’s song, “Masters of War” where he rails against the weapon makers & war mongers that kill people, but then wishes they would be killed too, thus, becoming just like them!

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEmI_FT4YHU

                  2. “I mean that I think your command of the language is weak,…”

                    Fuck off.

          3. Needless, John made a logical observation supported by facts. You’re just bitching and whining.

            You’re also likely a sock for one of the leftist losers who troll here.

            1. John conflated a knowing and deliberate reckless act with an unknowing and accidental oversight. As I said above, voluntary vs. involuntary manslaughter.

              1. And as has been posted here, your definition of reckless is wrong.

                1. Except the key distinction is knowing and deliberate vs unknowing

                  Reckless, as I’ve used it, is a precise description of the police officer’s act. You could describe the father’s oversight as reckless too, but again, that is not why the acts are distinct.

                  The officer knew that there was a person in the line of fire and shot anyway. That is knowing and deliberate. The father did not realize his children were in the car. That is unknowing and not deliberate.

                  1. Without seeing the video of the cop’s shooting, we do not know if his life was truly in danger from getting attacked by the dog…If it really was, then his actions would be justified & not reckless & the killing purely accidental!

                    1. The video is available now. Based on my viewing (I have terrible vision for shaky-cam footage so take this with a shaker of salt) the dog is running at him, but there’s no way for me to tell if it’s a happy run or an aggressive run. It’s not a particularly big dog. He clearly panics, which probably means he will be exonerated because as a police officer all he has to do is show that he was afraid for his life, and it’s hard to watch the video without believing that he was scared.

                      The question should be whether his panic was reasonable, as it would be for other people. There were 36 people killed by dogs last year, which seems to be about average (and more than I expected). Of those, 42% were under 6 years old and only 1 was in the officers age range. It’s not a particularly big dog.

              2. “reck·less
                adjective
                (of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action”

                Both actions were reckless. Maybe you should stop pretending you’re educated and actually get educated instead?

                1. Read the post again.

                  The key distinction is between knowing and unknowing.

                2. The father didn’t act ‘without thinking,’ idiot. He clearly thought the kids were elsewhere, and it turned out he was tragically mistaken.

              3. Leaving them in the car is a deliberate act just like trying to shoot the dog. The both chose to take an action that resulted in someone’s death. In neither case did they intend the death to result. You don’t know what any of the terms you are using mean.

                1. “Leaving them in the car is a deliberate act”

                  No, intentionally leaving them in the car is a deliberate act. And if there is ever any evidence that the father did that, he will rightly be charged with murder. Accidentally leaving them in the car is not a deliberate act.

                2. Except all accounts agree that the father did not deliberately leave them in the car.

                  Let me repeat that for you one more time. He deliberately left the car in the parking lot, but he did not deliberately leave the kids in the car.

                  You can argue that he was criminally careless. You can argue that he ought to have known. I’ll even agree with you.

                  What you cannot do is argue that leaving the car in the lot and forgetting the kids are there is somehow equivalent to deliberately leaving the kids in the car.

                3. +1,000!

            2. Nice logical conclusion of yours.

        2. Inaction by the father with no malicious intent is quite different than an asshole cop that maliciously fires rounds at one being while ineptly killing another. Your equating the two is very far off and completely ignores intent.

        3. The difference is one is supposed to be a trained public law enforcement official, who has special legal powers that ordinary citizens don’t have.
          Along with those powers must come a heightened legal responsibility, and competency when they fuk up.
          The parent who inadvertently killed his kid in the hot car did not have training, or public legal obligations to others, what he did was tragic and possibly criminal.
          What this officer did was affirmatively invade someone’s private home, try to shoot their dog, and instead shot a human being dead. With a gun that the State gave him, and ostensibly trained him to use in civilian society, and the right to arrest, seize, incarcerate.
          He didn’t accidentally do everything up to the point of shooting the person, which was an accident waiting to happen by all the intentional things the officer did to get to that point.
          With little fear of criminal liability, or even civil liability, the police officer had a cavalier approach to the situation, and did not treat this situation like it was his own home with his own family and dog.

        4. John condescendingly says, “In both cases the person didn’t mean to kill the victim.”

          No, shit. Did the cop shoot his sister? No. Additionally, one person was confronted by a supposed danger while the other failed to recognize a danger. FFS

          Still stinging, huh, John. Next time try an analogy that is not apples and oranges, dumbass.

      3. “How can I declare myself morally superior as obnoxiously as possible?”

        Any moral superiority bestowed by the internet is in your imagination. At best it affirms technical correctness.

        1. the best kind of correct.

        2. Mostly I look at the internet as a place to argue with sharper elbows than is permitted in the real world.

          That and an endless supply on the interesting and the weird.

          1. Well, today you looked like a moron.

            /Randy Savage

      4. Shut the fuck up sock.

      5. Yea for Heedless!!! Amen!!!

        1. So Heedless is YOUR sockpuppet, McGoo.

          1. Squirrely is Jason?

            1. And everyone else is Tulpa. Except, oddly enough, the person currently calling himself “Tulpa”.

              1. Isn’t it fabulous?

              2. That Tulpa, in a surprising twist, is actually White Indian.

                1. No Zeb. Rather. Not White Indian.

              3. By the way Zeb, the call on Tulpa is a good one, his arguments and style seem to be appearing in this thread.

          2. You are one clinically paranoid motherfucker.

            Not that I’m suggesting a psychiatrist would find you a particularly interesting case.

            1. What the hell?

              1. Tulpa. He accuses half the people of being sockpuppets of the other half. I see it as evidence of mental illness.

      6. Is there any thought process behind your posts besides “How can I declare myself morally superior as obnoxiously as possible?”

        Sure, there’s also all the posts where John fellates whomever happens to be the Republican president or presidential candidate at the moment!

        1. Fuck off SQRLSY.

      7. So you pass out in your back yard while playing with your dog; someone calls 911, a cop shows up, and shoots at your barking dog and kills you instead.
        No big deal, just another “flawed human being.” You’re dead but he didn’t mean it.
        You do realize, Mr “lurking in the comments,” that we see these types of stories on a weekly basis, right?

        1. I’m just irritated by John’s vendetta against the dad who left his kids in the car (which he has brought up yet again here) and his general obnoxiousness.

          The cop should go to jail.

          1. I really don’t see why you’re so irritated by John. It’s just like, his opinion, man. That it also happens to be supported by a sound understanding of how jurisprudence applies in such a case, and basic morality, makes you look all the more like a total dunce who just tripped himself up in front of everyone. Your understanding of “reckless” is way off in the weeds and you proved you don’t understand how it’s applied in a legal context, then you keep digging with your creepy, ultra-pretentious shit about prose and using pretty words to distract from the actual content of John’s argument.

            1. Hey DP, try desconstructing both punitive justice and rehabilitative justice. How likely is it that the father will leave his other kids in the car after this verses how likely is it that this cop will shoot someone again in a panic. Which is more likely?

              Be honest and just admit you want your pound of flesh in pursuit of vengeance on behalf of the victim. I’ll bet those 2 girls are not demanding it of their father.

      8. But never any compassion for cops, right? They’re not human beings, right?

        1. Not really no.

          1. They’re better than that.

        2. “But never any compassion for cops, right?”

          Like when a cop leaves his K-9 in the car to die or reaches for his gun instead of his tazer?

        3. My compassion ends when someone to whom we have been paying a salary to handle dangerous situations, turns out to be a coward and a danger to the public.

          And thinking you need to shoot a medium-size dog means you are a coward – unlike postmen and meter readers.

      9. No.

    2. Just because you appear to be incapable of understanding that different things are different doesn’t mean other people are as well.

      1. Then explain how it is different. Sorry but “because” doesn’t feed the bulldog here champ.

        1. Why waste my time explaining things to a self-proclaimed asshole who doesn’t appear to be very bright?

          1. So you can’t explain it. Not surprising since the two situations are very analogous. Thanks for playing.

            1. Sure I can, but you’ve given me no reason to. All you’ve done is demonstrate that you didn’t understand the majority of the posts of people who don’t think the father is liable for negligent homicide and declare that these two situation are very analogous. That’s not even an argument that they are analogous, just a declaration.

              1. In both cases the person was reckless and caused the death of another person. Try learning how to argue instead of emote. It is just pathetic.

                1. I don’t remember the kids in the car incident, but I can think of one likely major difference. This cop is still a danger to other people if he is not at least fired. The father in that case probably is only a threat if he has other dependents.

                  1. Yeah, some guy, agreed, it’s that plain and simple. Good job!

                    1. Cry more Mcgoo.

                2. You’ve killed him John. He is going to have a very hard time arguing that both people weren’t reckeless resulting in a death.

                  It explains why he isn’t trying, and just ran away instead.

                  1. “He is going to have a very hard time arguing that both people weren’t reckeless resulting in a death.”

                    No I’m not, because I actually understand what reckless means.

                    1. And yet mysteriously, you avoid demonstrating it, so tell us what it is.

                    2. “reck·less
                      adjective
                      (of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action”

                      Leaving your kids in a hot car all day with no way out and no supervision isn’t that. Totally. Go with that.

                    3. Did he intentionally leave his kids strapped in a hot car all day?

                    4. It appears that you in fact do NOT know what reckless means.

                      “reck·less
                      adjective
                      (of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action”

                      ” Did he intentionally leave his kids strapped in a hot car all day?”

                      That is currently unknown, and has EXACTLY FUCK ALL TO DO WITH RECKLESSNESS, as per the definition I so helpfully supplied to you, you’re talking about murder.

                    5. Settle down Nancy. We’ll make more progress if you can keep your emotions under control. I’m most certainly not talking about murder. That would be if he left the kids in the car intentionally so they would die.

                      Whether the act was intentional has everything to do with whether it was reckless. You can’t just highlight part of a definition and ignore the rest. “the consequences of an action” is just as important as “without thinking.”

                    6. “Whether the act was intentional has everything to do with whether it was reckless.”

                      Except it doesn’t, per the actual definition of the word you seem hell bent on pretending you don’t have in front of you.

                      Face it. You’re at the point where you’re arguing that your incorrect definition of reckless is the actual definition, because you’re wrong and hate it.

                    7. Except it does, per the actual definition of the word you seem hell bent on pretending you don’t have in front of you. Again, “the consequences of an action” is just as important as “without thinking.”

                    8. “reck·less
                      adjective
                      (of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action”

                      The definition isn’t going to change just because you keep whining.

                    9. “Again, “the consequences of an action” is just as important as “without thinking.””

                      Ahahahaha READ IT AGAIN DUMBFUCK!!! Look for the “or” you stupidly missed.

                    10. By the way, look at the thread and how his argument changed as I kept kicking him in the face.

                      “jph12
                      August.2.2019 at 1:55 pm
                      Did he intentionally leave his kids strapped in a hot car all day?”

                      He asked before his point was eviscerated and he had to rely on not reading the definition.

                    11. “Ahahahaha READ IT AGAIN DUMBFUCK!!! Look for the “or” you stupidly missed”

                      See Sally, when you keep getting so worked up, you make silly mistake like this. I didn’t miss the or. I just understand that it’s “without thinking or caring.” Which is why “the consequences of an action” is just as important as “without thinking.”

                      But see, despite your histrionics, we are making some progress.

                      “By the way, look at the thread and how his argument changed”

                      My argument hasn’t changed a bit. I’m trying, very patiently, to help you understand why it matters that he didn’t leave the kids in the car intentionally.

                      “as I kept kicking him in the face”

                      You’re adorable when you pretend to be a tough girl.

                    12. He thought the children were not in the car. That’s not unthinking, that’s thinking and getting the answer wrong. As in the very similar case also reported from upstate NY linked to here, as the judge said, “A lapse of memory is not negligent homicide.”

                3. What did the father do that was reckless?

                  1. He left his fucking kids locked in the car.

                    Are you actually retarded?

                    1. Tulpa isn’t just retarded; he-she-it is flat-out EVIL!

                    2. No, I just know what reckless means. You clearly do not.

                    3. Then tell us what it is. Because you keep saying “NU UH” but haven’t actually explained why leaving children strapped into child seats all day in a hot car with no way out and no supervision isn’t reckless, you just keep whing that it isn’t.

                    4. Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. I’m trying to teach you to fish.

                    5. No, you’re trying to avoid admitting you’re wrong, by babbling.

                4. The difference is plain and simple:

                  For all we know, quite likely, the kid-roasting dad was just forgetful and absent-minded… It is not a deep dark sin to be absent-minded and-or forgetful.

                  The cop was selfishly careless and evil! One does not “forget” that guns are deadly weapons, and use them carelessly, ESPECIALLY when one is paid (and supposedly trained) using my tax money! The kid-roasting dad did NOT use my tax money, nor was he slinging bullets around, just because some silly dog was barking at him! The cop is a threat to you and me, and the dad is not.

                  Enough differences for you? I doubt it… You have a perfect mind, and a perfect grasp of the facts, so you will never change your mind anyway… At least I may sway others who have more flexible minds, who might otherwise buy your bullshit…

                  1. Shut the fuck up Mcgoo.

                    1. I already have bitch. I made you retire that stupid fucking Mcgoo sock!

                      I win again.

                    2. (And now he’ll be forced to bust it out again, because me owning him makes him lose his shit)

                  2. That one indigent was the product of forgetfulness and other the product of a bad affirmative decision is irrelevant. Both were categorically the result of extreme negligence that had the same end result.

                    This isn’t complicated.

                    1. One is a hazard to the public, and the other isn’t. Now make excuses for THAT! WHY should my tax money go to punishing people who are absolutely NO threat to me? Just so that Last of the Shitlords (and buddies) can smirk in their moral superiority and revengeful version of “justice”? Anything else?

                    2. “One is a hazard to the public, and the other isn’t. Now make excuses for THAT!”

                      Moooove those goalposts Mcgoo.

                    3. “That one indigent was the product of forgetfulness and other the product of a bad affirmative decision is irrelevant.”

                      No it isn’t. That’s very relevant.

                    4. Not to the dead people, and not to the cla that they are both reckless.

                      We get it. You know you’re wrong, and are doing that internet thing where you try to find SOME tangential thing to be right about.

                  3. I am pretty sure being a custodial parent puts just as much of a duty not to kill your children as being a cop puts a duty not to panic and shoot people.

                    The two situations are the same and both of them deserve to go to jail for a significant period. You think this is different because you hate cops

                    1. No, I think this is different because under the facts as presented one behaved recklessly and one did not.

                    2. Idiots – “It wasn’t RECKLESS!!! HE JUST FORGOT!!!”

                      Tulpa – “Sadly, your ignorance of the definition of reckless caused you to make the mistake of thinking an accident isn’t also recklessness. Here is the definition, so you can correct your mistake”

                      Idiots – ” NU UHHHHHHHHHH!!!!”

                    3. I’ve already addressed your misunderstanding of the definition.

                      And of course accidents can be reckless. But that doesn’t make every accident reckless.

                    4. “I’ve already addressed your misunderstanding of the definition.”

                      I covered that

                      Idiots – ” NU UHHHHHHHHHH!!!!”

                    5. If I hated cops would I agree with the judge that the cop who forgot his children in the car and baked them to death 3 years ago also in NY was not guilty because a lapse of memory is not negligent homicide? I do agree. It’s not the cops, it’s the circumstances. If it was someone else shooting at the dog I’d say the same thing.

                5. I’d argue that the father was more negligent than reckless. Which doesn’t excuse him. But does put it in a different category.

                  1. It can be both you know.

                  2. His negligence amounted to recklessness zeb.

                    1. John, you really are an idiot.

                  3. If not for their overt acts otherwise innocent people would still be alive.

                    That calls for a trial. Find the facts and then let a jury decide.

                    IMO the cop was reckless, while the dad was negligent.

                6. There’s a big difference between reckless and forgetful. Failing to check the back seat of your car rarely leads to disaster, failing to follow one of the very first rules of handling a lethal weapon when you have been specifically trained and trusted with the handling of lethal weapons isn’t even in the same ballpark.

                  1. You might put them somewhat closer if the father in this case were a bus driver or somebody otherwise engaged in the business of transporting passengers.

              2. So you can’t, and you’re Heedless, and the multisock shit is obvious.

    3. I’m not convinced the father in that case should be “let off”. But I think if he is guilty, he is guilty of something less serious than this cop is. The father behaved neglectfully. The cop actively, deliberately and knowingly created an extremely dangerous situation and directly caused someone’s death. And while the cop didn’t mean to kill the women, he did intend to do the thing that killed the woman. The father didn’t intend to do the thing that killed his children.

      1. The father is involuntary manslaughter and the cop manslaughter.

        1. Wait, why are we arguing above then? (About the Dad, I mean. Obviously you would be justified in retaliating for my attack on your character)

          I agree with this 100%. Voluntary vs. involuntary manslaughter.

          There’s a joke about libertarians in here somewhere. Something about agreeing in the most disagreeable fashion possible.

      2. There IS a place between intentional recklessness and unintentional recklessness.

        Which is the only relevant difference and should have been the source of discussion, instead of the triggered idiots crying at John because they don’t know what words mean.

        1. Unintentional recklessness is carelessness.

          In the case of the dad it is the difference between:

          Me: “Hey did you know you left your kids in the back of the car?”
          Him: “Oh, shit” [runs to get them]

          vs.

          Me: “Hey did you know you left your kids in the back of the car?”
          Him: “Eh, they’ll be fine…”

          A willful disregard for the safety of others is textbook reckless.

    4. I’m one of those.

      You have a black and white mindset. You have no subtlety, no gradations of gray.

      You also have no comprehension of other people; if something exactly similar didn’t happen to you, it never happened. Hell, you fit the qualified immunity definition to a T — if no court has established precedent for the exact same circumstances, cop gets away with murder. That’s how you act.

      In this particular case, the cop actively acted stupidly. In the kids-in-the-car situation, the guy simply forgot. You rail about kids being the most important thing in the guy’s life, therefore he’s a criminal for forgetting about them. You are wrong about their importance — once he is driving, driving safely is his most important task. Once he gets to work, earning money to support the family is most important. But you will never understand that switching tasks entails risk of forgetting. You have never ever forgotten anything, except for all the times you made a mistake — you’ve forgotten them. Other than being wrong about never being wrong, your are perfect.

      Fuck off. Go watch your kids — they are more important than commenting. Have you forgotten that already?

    5. That you believe the two incidents are remotely similar illustrates just how stupid you truly are.

      1. Exactly this.

    6. It’s most likely he did not intentionally want to kill her. But with that being said. He was negligent to be sure. If the dog had been aggressive that’s one thing.

  2. Another successful Us vs. Them scenario!

    Good job pig.

  3. “You were right to ask us to check on this woman. She was really badly off. So badly off she died.”

    1. They had to kill her in order to save her.

      1. Her welfare has been revoked.

        1. Hunter calls 911 during hunting season:

          911 operator: What’s the nature of your emergency?

          Hunter: My friend had a heart attack and died.

          911 operator: First, make sure your friend is dead.

          Sound of gunshot

          Hunter: Okay, he’s dead.

          1. That was on the brickbat a couple days ago.

        2. I’m picturing you saying that in Schwarzenegger’s voice.

  4. can’t wait to see the body cam footage on this one. 10$ says the threatening dog was terrier wagging it’s tail with it’s tongue hanging out. Also they never mention what happened with the dog, I guess after he missed it shooting it ran up and licked him or something nonthreatening?

    1. He probably let the woman bleed to death while he made sure he killed the dog.

      I think your guess is pretty good. This guy needs to go to jail. You know he won’t but he needs to.

    2. the animal allegedly “began to run towards the officer while barking,”

      I need to know the officer’s race and factor in the systemic racism and unconscious bias of the dog before I make hasty judgments.

      1. Do we also consider the dog’s breed and factor in the systemic breedism and unconscious bias of the officer?

        1. Of course.

        2. It was a pitbull. All dogs barking at cops are pitbulls. Possibly one of the really dangerous pitbulls that disguise themselves as spaniels or poodles or dachshunds or even Siamese cats, but a pitbull nonetheless.

        3. Was the dog wearing a hoodie?

    3. Good point. It really is a miracle that the copped lived to tell the story.

    4. You called it.

      http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2019/08/01/arlington-police-investigating-shooting-involving-officer

      Larry Hamilton, a 64-year-old who often tries to find work outside this Arlington Walmart, said he knew the woman killed by an officer as well as her boyfriend. He said they had a small brown dog and “she was real loving to the dog.” The dog “was her soul,” he said.

      I hope this fucker fries. Stupid son of a bitch.

      1. That article is infuriating…

        A woman died Thursday after an Arlington officer shot her while firing at an approaching loose dog, police said.

        “A woman was shot and killed by an Arlington officer Thursday”.

        Investigators think the woman was hit by the officer’s gunfire, police said, citing preliminary information.

        Who else was out there shooting that day?

        The dog, which officials think was grazed by a bullet, was taken to a clinic and impounded, police said.

        Pics or it didn’t happen.

        One employee at a Walmart in the shopping complex Brooks often visited said she and her boyfriend would rest under a large tree in the parking lot and described the dog as possibly a puppy. He said it looked like a small pit bull mixed with another breed, according to the Star-Telegram.

        A puppy ran to a stranger, barking? You don’t say.

        The shooting was captured by the officer’s body camera, which will be part of the investigation, police said.

        GIFs or it didn’t happen.

        1. The dog, which officials think was grazed by a bullet, was taken to a clinic and impounded, police said.

          Pics or it didn’t happen.

          Of course they impounded the dog, the dog is evidence.

          1. The dog was vicious but somehow than managed to pick it up and take it to the vet despite it being injured.

            1. And I’m sure they will send a vet bill to the deceased family.

              1. They have to also put the dog down first. For safety. That bill will also be forwarded.

    5. The dog probably bolted in terror and was eventually found several blocks over cowering under someone’s porch.

      So why aren’t cops trained to deal with dogs the way they are (supposedly) trained to deal with people. They obviously deal with dogs regularly as part of the job and many cops obviously have never been around dogs before. Or maybe most cops assume all dogs behave like K9 units?

      1. Because they don’t give a shit and enjoy killing dogs. That is why.

        1. Soon they’ll start killing cats that they have “mistaken” for dogs. Pit bull dogs. The kind with the locking jaws.

          1. I’m waiting for an officer to “accidentally” kill a suspect while trying to defend himself from a spider.

          2. Already happened.

            1. RustyDavis
              by
              RustyDavis
              May 16, 2016
              Pennsylvania Cop who Killed Cat that Hissed at Him Cited for Animal Cruelty

              In the normally quiet and small town of North Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, a concerned citizen called police to assist an injured cat named Sugar that had wandered in his yard.

              Police ended up killing the cat.

              North Catasagua police officer Leighton Pursell said the cat hissed at him, which made him fear for his safety, so he pulled out his shotgun and shot Sugar in the neck. He then tossed the carcass in a Dumpster without trying to find its owner.

      2. You mean they’re trained to deal with people differently from dogs? Perhaps there’s a subtle tier system I didn’t notice with the boys in blue at the top, union bosses second, politicians, etc. all finally ending with normal people and dogs in slots 24 and 25 respectively.

        1. Yeah they should have a tier system. You know you deal with someone who is assaulting you or pulls a gun on you differently than you deal with a woman who is unconscious in her bed. You deal with dogs differently than you deal with people just like you deal with people differently.

          This isn’t hard.

      3. Their is a program in Harford County, MD which Reason profiled in a video. It has cops stand in front of a video screen and has different scenarios so cops might learn to identify rambunctious pups from snarling beasts.

        Headline to search: Cops Kill Lots of Dogs. This Simulator Trains Them Not To.

        Damn site won’t let me post links or I am screwing up the HTML.

  5. She was transported to a local hospital, where she was pronounced dead.

    A body camera captured the incident, and the video will be included in the investigation.

    American police officers have an unfortunate track record when it comes to shooting nonthreatening dogs on the job.

    I gotta say, that turn is pretty comedic.

    1. I wonder if the body cam will reveal the victim is another person of color–green… hence invisible in grass. Also, I’ve got five dollars says the killer fired those “multiple” shots as the wounded dog fled to the safety of its human.

      1. The person isn’t even visible but he knew she was there because he tells her to get her dog. The dog is running straight in front of him but she’s further back and to the right. The officer sees the dog and then starts running backwards, yelling all of which just sets off the dog’s prey drive.

        As he’s running backwards, he starts to shoot. If he hadn’t run and even tried on any level to hit the dog by aiming at the dog, he wouldn’t have hit her. His gun would have been point down and in front and he would have hit the side walk even if he missed the dog.

        Only after the shots are fired does the dog run to the right and back towards the woman. It was later found at a business scared but, I’m assuming, unhurt since no one mentioned any wounds on the dog.

  6. I don’t want to hear one more damn word about how only highly-trained and vetted LEOs can be trusted with firearms in tense situations.

    Not only did this idiot apparently blind-panic when faced with an angry dog, he also pulled out his sidearm and started spraying in the general direction of the supposed threat with total disregard for Rule #4. He should–at minimum–be fired and charged with whatever they call unpremeditated murder in his neck of the woods.

    1. Did you see any of the footage of the Boston Marathon bomber manhunt? I mean when they were looking for the remaining brother who was hiding in the boat?

      It was terrifying. It was one scene after another of cops running around with rifles showing absolutely no barrel discipline or concern for safety. Name any bad habit you can have while carrying a rifle and there was some cop out there doing it. It was clear none of them had any idea what they were doing and were more of a danger to themselves and bystanders than any actual threat.

      1. The boston marathon footage was some of the scariest shit I had ever seen in my life. The fact no bystanders were fucking killed by the cops is a minor miracle.

      2. Wasn’t that where one of the SWAT cops had an optic mounted backwards on his AR? If not Boston, it was some other famous incident around that time. Imagine dressing up like an extra from Universal Soldier and running around public streets with a select-fire rifle that you’ve literally never handled before to notice such a simple and obvious thing.

        I’m not one of those eff-da-po-lice dipshits, but I do insist people take their jobs seriously, especially when it might involve having to choose to shoot a person.

        1. Yes. That was Boston. I remember that.

      3. How about when the la cops were looking for a police killer and they shot the newspaper delivery ladies car with over a hundred rounds. They hav no more gun control than a monkey

        1. Honestly I think I’d rather deal with an armed monkey than your typical American cop today.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxqIITtTtU

    2. Technically, we only have the word of the officer that the dog was angry. Unless/until the body cam footage is publicly released and it clearly supports the officer’s story, I shall remain sceptical of everything the officer said about the events in question.

      1. And even if the dog was “angry” (whatever that means applied to a dog), dogs are supposed to bark and act tough when strangers approach their owners or territory. There is no excuse for shooting a dog simply because it approaches you barking.

        1. Real people who are not trying to manipulate use the word “aggressive”. Of course, dogs can be aggressive for many reasons in many ways and it isn’t the best state for them to be in but it doesn’t always mean they’re attacking. And if they are, it can be explained through behavior- resource guarding, survival, conditioned response. “Angry” leads people to think the dog has control over emotions and a morals neither of which are true.

      2. They’re confused. He said, “the bitch was angry and charged me” and they assumed he meant the dog.

  7. Is there some sort of requirement to be a cop that says you can’t ever have owned a dog, or known anybody who did? I know that some dogs can inflict serious injuries on humans, but why are cops so ridiculously terrified of them? Learning how to interact with dogs isn’t that damn hard.

    1. Dog was shot near me. The dog was a German Shepard, sheriff came to deliver a subpoena in the early afternoon while noone was home. Dog was inside the house behind the door, door was unlocked sheriff went inside to see if anyone was home and killed the dog and just left it in the house. Subpoena was for a different house and nothing else happened.

      1. That is horrible. Something has to be done about these assholes.

        1. Here’s a roll of TP.

      2. Moral? Don’t leave your door unlocked, no matter how safe you think the neighborhood is. Especially if you have a dog.

      3. I’d hand-deliver some LP literature and teach the surviving victim the bully-castrating power of libertarian spoiler votes.

    2. Somehow delivery drivers and various other professions who visit people’s homes unannounced manage to deal with aggressive dogs without killing them. The cops are either pussies or psychos.

      1. The cops are either pussies or psychos.

        Embrace the power of “and” Zeb. And your point about delivery drivers, cable guys, and about a hundred other professions somehow managing to go to people’s homes without killing dogs is a very good one.

        1. I use the inclusive “or”.

          1. +13.67 math points.

        2. My step father was a post officer for 30 years. He carried around a small can of mace that he used twice in that time. He was bitten once.

      2. I was a paper boy when I was a kid. Was confronted by many angry dogs. Didn’t shoot any of them. Was never bitten.

  8. Two guys are out hunting when suddenly one of them just falls to the ground. The other hunter starts panicking but manages to get out his cell phone to call 9-1-1.
    Operator: “Hello, what’s your emergency?”
    Hunter: “My friend just collapsed and I think he’s dead.”
    Operator: “OK, just try to stay calm. Before we go on let’s just make sure he’s really dead.”
    Hunter: “Alright, hang on.”
    The line goes silent for a moment then there’s the sound of a shotgun firing.
    Hunter: “OK, now what?”

    1. Someone beat you to it, but I like your version better.

  9. Well no cop has ever been found liable for murdering an apparently unconscious woman while attempting to kill a harmless animal so this is clearly a case of qualified immunity. Case closed.

    1. The law that you can’t shoot an unconscious woman while trying to shoot a harmless dog was not clear. Qualified immunity.

      1. More training is required, no doubt.

        1. Is that not OK?

          1. As long as it involves a lot of overtime (that you don’t technically have to be there for), well- yeah.

  10. the cops shooting dogs thing burns my soul. wear sleeves, carry treats. wtf.

    1. And, as someone noted elsewhere, if you do legitimately have to use force against a dog, a nightstick would be a better choice than a firearm both in terms of public safety and the likelihood that you’ll actually connect with the attacking animal.

      1. But they took away the nightsticks because they were racist.

        1. Taze the dog bro.

          1. Ruutt Row

          2. Or mace/pepper spray.

        2. Most cops still carry collapsible batons. Just as effective as the old nightsticks but apparently less racist.

      2. And, as someone noted elsewhere, if you do legitimately have to use force against a dog, a nightstick would be a better choice than a firearm both in terms of public safety and the likelihood that you’ll actually connect with the attacking animal.

        Even IF you had to use a firearm, for fuck’s sake, make sure your background is safe. These semi-retarded Rhesus monkeys they’re handing badges and guns to need to be drummed off the force.

        1. Do you even know the official procedure for panic fire?

          1. If no one dies, you didn’t do it correctly.

          2. “The cop is a 25-year-old rookie who graduated from the police academy in February and began working in July of 2019.”

            Not surprised he was a rookie. My son went through the police academy and decided not to become a cop after working with them during that time. He also competed in sharp shooting events and worked at a firing range where some departments came in for their yearly qualifications.

            One of his issues is that many of the people in the academy had never fired a gun before and only had the 3 days of shooting instruction. He didn’t want anyone like that backing him up because he knew he had a good chance of getting shot because they didn’t have the skill including how to stay calm while using a firearm. Three days does not prepare you that even if you can hit a target some of the time.

            Connected to that was that the cops didn’t seem to get any better once on the job. The qualifiers were a joke and most of the officers didn’t use their weapon at all during the year.

  11. Today’s lesson, lock up your dog if you want to take a nap in your back yard.

    1. The story I saw elsewhere said the woman was homeless and she was sleeping against a tree in a grassy area on the lot of a Walmart.

      From the linked police statement, this is the area where the shooting happened.

      1. Oh my God. That is horrible. This case makes me want to vomit. And the thought that this cop is likely not going to suffer any consequences makes me want to dry heave.

        I am so tired of this shit.

      2. The woman was homeless. There is no way that dog was mean. It would have bitten people by now if it had been. The dog mostly likely jogged up to the cop and the cop tried to shoot it and killed this women.

  12. The Arlington Fire Department confirmed to CBS 11 that the victim was the daughter of one of its captains.

    Preliminary information leads investigators to believe the woman was struck by gunfire from the officer. The officer is assigned to the North District as a patrol officer.

    http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/08/02/arlington-police-officer-shoots-kills-woman-firing-gun-loose-dog/

    WTF?

    1. The woman is described in the article as the daughter of a fire dept captain. This one may not get swept under the rug.

      1. Let’s hope not. In my experience firefighters are universally great people. They are the positive yin the cops asshole yang.

      2. I’m guessing the Fire Dept. Captain will find himself embroiled in some kind of scandal in 3…2…

  13. The state is death

  14. The militarization of law enforcement is all a reagan-cancer nazi republican issue. They love this country, just hate the people, as Nancy stated, minorities give her the willies. 80+ Bil annually for Nancy’s “Just Say Snort Blow” manditory incarceration program, from 250K inmates nationally in Nov 1980 to 2.5 mil today.

    Arm all dogs, Right to Arm Bears, that will allow them to shoot back, get cops attention.

    Hint US Citizens are not the NVA, which is when this all started. The American War in Vietnam is over, Ronnie is spending time in warmer climates looking up at us. Stop this nazi behavior.

    1. Karmela was getting willies.

  15. Really hard to believe how often we see police make bone headed decisions, no thought about public safety at all. Police should not be protected in cases of death due to personal stupidity.

  16. At least they got a definitive answer on the welfare check.

  17. The video is on the PINAC website. Apparently she was a fire captain’s daughter, and the dog was a tiny beagle / lab mix.
    You can make up your own mind about how negligent this homicide was.

  18. Thank God we have these heroes to protect us. I for one am terrified of the thought of a society without this type of lawn odor, where vicious beasts roam around terrifying our brave Law Enfarcement officers.

  19. 1. If you have a loved one you are concerned about, don’t call the police for a welfare check, go yourself.
    2. If you have a dog, don’t call he police for any reason
    3. Never call the police for any reason, you, your loved one, or your dog will end up dead.

    1. “I can think of no state of human misery that could not be made instantly worse by the arrival on the scene of a policeman.” – Brendan Behan.

    2. As a last resort see if you can get the fire department or EMTs there instead. No police.

      I happen to work with firefighters and EMTs. They are mostly very decent people doing work for the purpose of helping people. FFs are hardly without ego, but it’s fed not by bullying others but by receiving recognition for heroism.

      This suggests to me that it’s possible to recruit cops who have the same attitude, but they choose not to. It’s all part of the tough-on-crime mentality hangover from the 80s. They breed them to be cunts. We could always choose not to do that.

  20. I am making a good MONEY (500$ to 700$ / hr )online on my Ipad .Last month my pay check of nearly 30 k$.This online work is like draw straight-arrow and earn money.Do not go to office.I do not claim to be others,I just work.You will call yourself after doing this JOB,It’s a REAL job.Will be very lucky to refer to this WEBSITE.I
    hope,you can find something,Simply go to the below SITE.GOOD LUCK◐◐
    ★★★★COPY THIS WEBSITE★★★★
    HERE☛ www. amazon78. com

  21. This is very Amazing Website who give me every Week 100 to 120 Dollar Easily ,Thats why i am shering with u this is site give u income at home on doing work your laptop online ,,,

    Click here and check That ….CLICK HERE►► ONLINE WORK

  22. Crazy thought – –
    Maybe unarmed welfare workers should do ‘welfare checks’?

  23. I see a lack of intelligence in many of these comments. The article is slanted for sure as the author is trying to make a point but in this case there seems to be a Body-Cam and since the recording has yet to be released it is MORONIC to assume the Officer is at fault as there currently is no proof. AND as I am sure some of these dog shooting are errors but what about the ones that are not? Are Officers supposed to take DAMAGE or DESEASE in the course of their duty or should they be allowed to protect themselves? I would kill a dog before having it tear me up…

    1. Are Officers supposed to take DAMAGE or DESEASE in the course of their duty

      Yes.

    2. The video is online.

      As a dog trainer and behaviorist, the first think I think is never run from a charging dog. It sets off their prey drive. You back away slowly.

      As a citizen, the first thing I think is how could not hit a dog in front of him but kill someone to the right and further away. If he had been aiming properly (ie not running as a starter), he would have been shooting in front and down and even if the bullets didn’t hit the dog, they wouldn’t have hit someone further away and to the right.

      He panicked and just shot without aiming probably because the only experience he ever had with a firearm was three days training in the police academy where he had to hit a target sometimes in order to get his certification.

  24. Republican partisans from the Nixon fund closely monitor this repartée, so expect Offissa Puppkiller, First Responder™, to receive a stipend and shyster for defense. Dogs, let’s face it, are a citizen’s protection against asset forfeiture looters. It therefore follows that for God’s Own Prohibitionist looter cops there is no bag limit on puppycide–especially within Hoovervilles.

  25. Locally a cop shot a pit bull that was inside a fenced area. He was not popular in social media.

    I had a free running boxer approach me barking and growling when I was retrieving the morning paper in my own front yard. I stared him down until a noise distracted him and he ran off. (I suspect if I had run, he would have bit me.) After that I carried pepper spray when I retrieved my paper.

    I have no sympathy for this irrational fear of dogs justifying a canis-cide epidemic.

  26. I hope the woman gets better ASAP

    خدمات ویپ

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.