VA: Beagle Shot and Killed by Animal Control Officer

I have a 10 year old Beagle. She is a great pet. Luckily we don't live in Chesterfield, VA:

Chesterfield police say an Animal Control officer was in the area and in the middle of putting a pit bull in his truck when Clifford [10 year old Beagle] came up to the officer. Davis [the Beagle's owner] said her dog has never bit a person or an animal. But Chesterfield Police Captain Steve Neal said Clifford was aggressive and attacked the pit bull. Attempts to separate the two said Neal were unsuccessful.
[...]
"He pulled the gun out and shot the dog. Shot him in the hip. The dog fell in the street. He couldn't get back up and then bent down, and put the gun to the dog's head, up against his head, and pulled the trigger," said Davis.

So I guess, after the first shot, which apparently left the senior Beagle unable to get up, the AC officer perceived him as a continuing threat to the Pitbull and felt compelled to shoot him in the head too. Right in front of the family, including a 13 year old girl who had grown up with the dog.

[A]n internal investigation is underway to determine whether the Animal Control officer [...] followed the law and procedure.

Well gee, I hope not.

Cincinnati Dog Shot by Police

What is the criteria for a police officer to use lethal force against a dog? I don't know the answer to this question but having a guess, I'd say something like "Threat of grave bodily harm or death". IOW, an officer trying to subdue a dog would first try some sort of reasonable approach, such as calling animal control, or if circumstances dictate he secure the dog himself, he might try a leash. If peaceful methods failed, I'm guessing some sort of improvised "out of the box" thinking might be employed. Depending on the size of the dog, the officer could possibly don some thick gloves or maybe drop a box over the dog for example. If things escalated to the point of "threat of grave bodily harm or death", I'd guess the officer might use a weapon such as a nightstick, taser or gun - whatever it took to prevent the dog from causing that grave bodily harm the officer believed was imminent.

All this is a long way of saying, I don't get wtf happened here:

A Blue Ash family is outraged after returning home to find their dog had been shot and killed by a police officer.

The dog was a Chihuahua-mix named “Jack” that Scott and Sharon Bullock had given to their 12-year-old son for his birthday a few years ago.

When the Bullocks returned home from a family member's funeral on Friday, they found blood and three bullets on their front porch – along with a note to call the Blue Ash Police Department about their dog.

The Bullocks were shocked to learn that Jack had gotten out of the backyard and two officers who tried to catch him, ended up shooting and killing him right on the family's front porch.

"He was cornered on the porch and scared," said Sharon Bullock. "The officer bent down bare-handed to pick up Jack, and Jack bit him."

??????

Anyone?

The way the article reads, it sounds as if the gun was the first option once the officer deemed the dog was potentially deadly. I can't help but think that any number of alternate, non-lethal methods would have successfully subdued this dog. But here's my question, was the dog still a potentially deadly threat after the first bullet? And after the second? Cos that is truly hard for me to imagine.

I would suggest this officer take some lessons from his local shelter volunteers and staff who likely handle biting Chihuahua mixes regularly. I own one myself - a shelter dog - and I can't imagine the profound loss and outrage I'd feel if a public servant put three bullets in her because she bit a stranger trying to pick her up on her own porch.

What's Going on at the Charleston, MO Dog Pound?

Lots of online chatter about this story as well as a local news piece:

A local animal rescue group says their eye-opening investigation could put Charleston City leaders in the hot seat.

In the wake of that investigation, Charleston Police shut down the city pound.

[...]

Here's what members of the group say about conditions inside the pound:

"They were horrendous. They were soaking in their urine, two small dogs were in the cage together covered in feces."

Alanna Downey heads the group, and says she posted the photographs she took online, raising cries of protests from animal lovers across the country. 

"There were multiple slabs of meat in the large dogs cage. Raw meat. They had a bluish purple tint to some of them," Downey said. 

"We feed the dogs dog food. But we have been giving them raw meat on and off for years as a treat," Police Chief Robert Hearnes said. 

For now the pound is empty, shut down pending an investigation by the Missouri Department of Agriculture. 

Authorities there say the city did not have a license to operate the pound and that is a violation of state law. 

Another Charleston resident says it's about time someone's stepping up to speak up for the animals. 

He says he found his dog in a pit, one day after the animal went missing. 

"He had been shot," Jesse Alexander said. "You could see scratch marks where they throwed the dog in the hole and shot him." 

Chief Hearnes said earlier in the day the city buried the dogs they shot. However he would not return calls to confirm if the junk pit Heartland News found is where the dogs are tossed into, but we did spot two partially burned dog carcasses inside.

What is shocking to me about this situation is the apparent casual stance the police chief has regarding the allegations.  I don't see any denials, just sort of a vague *shrug*.  Presumably an officer of the law is familiar with the law and aware that it applies to him too:

Authorities at the Missouri Department of Agriculture say once they wrap up their investigation it will be up to the Mississippi County prosecutor to decide whether to file charges against the city. 

Under Missouri law, those who operate shelters, pounds, kennels must euthanize animals under guidelines governed by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

The law says they also have to provide their animals with proper shelter, food and healthcare, as well as pay an annual license fee and be subject to inspections at least once a year.

They must also hold the dogs for at least five days before deciding what to do with them.

More blog coverage here and a Craigslist posting here.

If these allegations are true - and again, I'm not reading any denials - what part of "animal shelter" does this police chief fail to comprehend?  Stray pets are completely reliant upon the human caregivers who get them off the streets to provide them with quality care, food, clean and safe shelter as well as every possible opportunity for adoption into a loving home.  Homeless pets are part of the community we pay you to protect and to serve.  Personal responsibility, anyone?   

Two More Reports of Police Killing Family Dogs

In Pennsylvania:

“There is no misunderstanding,” said Mangan. “He shot my dog maliciously."

Mangan said the deputy's story that Lincoln tried to attack him doesn't add up.

"The leash doesn't go past where he shot him at. He can't go any farther; he was in his own back yard, secure, on a leash," said Mangan.

The deputy said he couldn’t see the leash. [emphasis added]

Allegheny County Sheriff’s Chief Deputy Joseph Rizzo said in a statement, "If, in any event, a Sheriff’s deputy goes to a house and there is an aggressive animal, they make every effort to get out of harms way. If a dog is going to attack the deputy, they have no recourse."

No recourse except maybe to outfit the officer with a pair of glasses. This story reads like perhaps the officer was too quick to shoot. I guess we'll know for sure when the police get done investigating themselves and determine if they acted appropriately. Stay tuned.


In Illinois:

Officer guns down family dog

Park Forest police chief says detective had no choice

There are many things a 10-year-old boy should not see. Police officers gunning down the family dog during a burglary investigation is one of them.

No kidding. These officers are not equipped with any means of fending off a dog other than a revolver? No pepper spray even? That sounds irresponsibly dangerous.

I want to support our public servants as much as anyone but honestly, when some officers conduct themselves in this Wild West manner, it's hard to stand by those kinds of actions. And although I haven't read about it happening yet (and I hope I never do), it certainly seems possible that one day, an officer might shoot the beloved companion of someone who is also a gun owner, quick to shoot, and in need of glasses. Or maybe a stray bullet from an officer's gun will miss the dog and hit a kid. I don't know but the police are contributing to a reckless environment when their position on dogs seems to be shoot first.