Fair point but he has already entered your property and he is aggressive nonetheless what do you do?
Cop in America doing a bad job, again
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
Just go inside, probably? His wife was actually trying to de-escalate, but I don't think you can possibly say he was trying. He wasn't specifically trying to escalate either, as he probably realized that this guy meant business, but he couldn't help himself.
You cannot say? It's possible he overreacted? If the dog was aggressive, shooting it would be justified, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the example here would have mentioned it if it were. So it's probably a safe to assume that no, the dog wasn't aggressive or a threat. In which case shooting it, right behind the shoulder blades no less, with a pellet gun was not justified. A pellet gun is also generally not what you use to shoot a large, aggressive dog, as it's unlikely to stop it being a threat to you.
There's now law in Missouri, nor an ordinance in St. Charles, that says a dog must be restrained in its owners yard. It cannot, however, be "at large" off the owner's property. To kill or injure a dog, there needs to be a "reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact." As I said, the cop would, and should, have mentioned it, were that the case.
You shoot someone's dog, you better be prepared to have an angry person show up at your doorstep demanding to know why you did so, doubly so if your reason for shooting it was that it was allegedly in your yard, and not, you know, that it was actively trying to harm you, your family or your family's pet(s).
In any case, I'd let the guy vent, and I certainly wouldn't be antagonizing him further (what you gonna do? i'm proud (to have shot your dog), why wasn't your dog chained up, buddy?). I've illegally shot and killed his dog for non-aggressively being unleashed in the vicinity of my yard, so I'm not in the right here anyway, and him coming to confront me was expected. I also wouldn't have expected his dog to have died from being shot with a pellet gun, so upon finding out I would humble myself appropriately. If his body language suggested he might resort to violence, I would try to maintain a safe distance between us, to give me time to react. The guy with the camera doesn't actually seem like he's looking for a physical confrontation, though, so it's better to just let him rant. I'd probably block him from coming onto my back porch, but otherwise I'd have done just about none of what the cop did in that situation.
Also, note that the cop claims he shot the dog for being in his yard. Owner says the dog was shot in his own yard, three houses away from the cop.
Last edited:
Why go out on a limb?
"At Large" means "strolling, without restraint or confinement, as wandering, roving and rambling at will without restraint." 4 Am.Jur.2d Animals § 50 at 390 (1995).
So it means that the dog was at large for all intent and purposes.
What constitutes "The reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact"?
So let's say the guy has a rabbit, kitten or a small child roaming in the yard and the dog starts acting aggressively towards them. Is the shooting of the dog then justified? Could the dog be easily mistaken for a more aggressive breed?
Was the dog socialised properly?
There is a probability that it was the only weapon he had or the only weapon that was readily at hand. It is not always that you hit precisely where you aim, particularly with a moving target.
There are a lot of unknowns in this situation and I am always reluctant to assign full blame to any one party. I make an assessment on what I do know or what I can reasonably assume to be the truth based on the evidence before me
We know that
- The dog was at large
- The dog owner entered onto the deputy's property in a hostile manner, possibly without permission
- shouted obscenities at the deputy
- threatened to shoot the deputy
- and attempted to enter onto the deputy's back porch
- We can reasonably assume that either the deputy or someone from his household shot the dog
- The deputy was somewhat intemperate in his response to the dog owner
It did work. The cop is under investigation both by a special prosecutor and his own department, both of whom are under heavy public pressure to act. Because of this video.
Absolutely correct, after all, the police have a long history of always telling the truth and never making things up to cover their asses. Just look at the George Floyd murder as an example. The police immediately fired the cops and admitted that their actions caused his death and made no attempt to cover anything up. There was no need for the video.
I will repeat this for the umpteenth time that I am not defending the deputy's action. I have little sympathy for American cops, as a matter of fact, I actively dislike them. However, I like to know all the facts before I rush to judgement. My statement is being taken out of context.
Because it would actually justify his actions? He's willing to admit to doing it because the dog had been in his yard, so you'd expect he'd mention the dog being aggressive were that the case.
Thanks for explaining the obvious to me.
I think you know just as well as me.
That's a lot of hypotheticals. A dog acting aggressively towards another person or a pet, giving you reason to believe it can and will cause serious harm if not stopped, would justify shooting it. But again, when the guy cites reasons, it starts and ends with "it was in my yard."
I definitely don't believe an air rifle is the only weapon an American cop has readily at hand. The use of an air rifle speaks even more to the idea that this wasn't the case of a person fearing the dog would harm them or others, as (outside of extreme circumstances like this) it's not an effective weapon against large animals, nor likely to deter one that is an active threat.
Yes, there are a lot of unknowns, but you don't seem reluctant at all to jump head first into defense of the cop and trying to justify shooting a dog with an air rifle.
1. No, we know that the deputy claims the dog was at large. We don't know if it was at the time it was shot. The owner claims it was not, and the cop doesn't say it was when he shot it.
2, 3. Sure, but to be expected when you unlawfully shoot someone's dog.
4. "how bout I shoot your dumb ass" isn't an advisable thing to say, but I doubt he meant it, nor the cop interpreted it, as a serious threat. Dumb thing to say, none the less.
5. Yes.
6. We can reasonably believe the cop's admission to shooting the dog and being proud of it.
7. Sure.
He handled it very badly in terms of de-escalation, as I've already explained. Literally nothing he did constitutes de-escalation, and you can't claim it as such just because the other person didn't escalate further. That speaks more to their restraint than to the cop's ability to de-escalate. And the dog owner definitely had a reasoned argument, his argument being that the cop had quite literally shot his dog!
I am not claiming you were defending the actions, I was specifically calling out the point you made that filming the actions of the police, even when off duty (but still claiming the role) are not helpful. If nothing else the stories in this thread should point out that filming the police is almost always the right call. They are no different than other people in their desire to deflect blame and avoid consequences, but they are different in that their job conveys to them power and authority to ruin/end others lives.
I do not enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing.
There are many different ways to de-escalate a situation and I am dealing with specifically the dog owner's threat to shoot the deputy before attempting to mount the man's patio steps and enter onto the deputy's property. The deputy did not put his hands on him but did not allow him to enter. Backing away in that instance would have likely encouraged the dog owner to be more aggressive and encroach further onto the patio. There are some instances when one can be conciliatory and others where any attempt of conciliation/placation will be interpreted as a retreat and invite more aggression. Sometimes the willingness/readiness to engage in violence (as a defence) is sufficient to deter/defer a threat. It is not the first port of call but should never be taken off the table as an option. If the aggressor eventually retreats then the situation was successfully de-escalated. It might not look pretty but it worked.
The deputy is not on duty and he is within his rights to be offended at someone encroaching onto his property pointing a camera in his face, hurling expletives and making accusatory statements to him. From the evidence available, the rapidity of the questions and not giving the deputy sufficient time to answer indicate to me that dog owner was not really that interested in hearing the answers but that he simply wanted to get the deputy on tape to admit culpability. The deputy is well within his rights to not entertain the dog owner's questions.
Again I have no dog in this fight( pardon the pun), However, I am not willing to automatically assume that the cops are 100% guilty in all instances. It is a very difficult job and the sheer unpredictability of situations sometime results in decisions made that may seem terrible in hindsight but may be justifiable in the moment given the information available at the time. Therefore, I am reluctant to jump to conclusions based solely on video evidence unless it is clear cut and I think it is healthy to view incidents such as these from the accused eyes to get a semblance of balance.
To be fair if you watch it back he was saying he was proud to be a cop.
Yeah, looking at it again that seems to be what he's actually proud of.
Preventing the guy from coming up onto his porch was the right decision, for the reasons you stated. In addition it makes it harder for the owner to start a physical confrontation, should that be his goal. On the other hand, continuing to argue with the guy as he's walking away, and then deciding to follow him to get up in his face and go "why isn't your fecking dog chained up, buddy?" is the exact opposite of de-escalation. Same goes for the repeated "what you gonna do?" and his constant "or what?" So even if you're right and he successfully de-escalated, he then immediately went ahead and escalated seconds later.
He shot a dog with a pellet gun, there are zero circumstances where this is a correct and sensible thing to do. If the dog's a threat, a pellet gun would be laughably ineffective (outside of extreme edge cases like this. There are puppies and cats that have survived dozens of hits), and you'd expect him to give that as a reason, rather than "why was your dog in my yard?" and "was it a pitbull?" (it wasn't, which could suggest he hasn't even been close to the dog.) No, you shoot a dog with a pellet gun when you're an asshole who hates dogs. And if the owner's claim that the dog was in their own yard when it was shot is true, a vindictive asshole who hates dogs.
Is there another video circulating out there showing the actual live footage of him shooting the dog and the circumstances surrounding it? Do you have an inventory of the weapons that the deputy has at his home? If not how can you speak with such certainty as to the Deputy's motives behind shooting the dog? The dog owner clearly stated that the dog wandered over into the Deputy's yard. The dog owner sees no reason why his dog should be leashed as it is clear from the conversation that the dog was 'at large'.
There is an absence of balance in these threads that I find disturbing. Why is there no censure for the man charging onto the Deputy's property and threatening the Deputy? Grief is no excuse for threatening to shoot someone or trespass.
Ahhh yes, the ‘what happened before the video’ play. Glorious.
I'm just using common sense. This isn't a court of law, there is no standard of evidence, I can look at the information available and come to a conclusion. The cop at no point alludes to any kind of aggression from the dog, but he does complain about it not being chained and it being in his yard. He shot it with a gun that is not fit for taking down, or even hindering, an averaged sized dog, and he shot it once. None of this suggests he was acting in defense of himself or others, but rather that he was annoyed about a dog being in his yard (maybe it has happened before?) and wanted to chase it off by shooting at it with a pellet gun, thinking it'd only give it a scare (when the owner first says the dog is dead, his reaction is "what?", suggesting that's not something he was expecting). This is a thing that happens all the time. It's also against the law.
Also, you failed to address the cop re-escalating the situation mere seconds after you claim he de-escalated it.
Paid vacation for three cops.
"It's my belief the cop did not do badly in de-escalating the situation"...proceeds to ignore all the escalating words used by said cop. 
Yeah dog owner guy was wrong in how aggressive he was and coming there in the first place, could have ended up badly for him. Whereas the cop should know that any kind of escalation could further aggrevate the situation, thankfully it didn't in this case, but we've seen people kill each other for less, so could easily go wrong.
Sure stand your ground, better yet, go back inside your house, and if then he threatens to breakdown your door and barge in, then yeah escalate all your want. But don't tell me the cop is doing any of the above, by taunting and reveling in his actions...that's the furthest thing from de-escalation or trying to diffuse the situation through "aggression".
He had no ounce of care for his actions and he's words and actions expressed exactly that.
Yeah dog owner guy was wrong in how aggressive he was and coming there in the first place, could have ended up badly for him. Whereas the cop should know that any kind of escalation could further aggrevate the situation, thankfully it didn't in this case, but we've seen people kill each other for less, so could easily go wrong.
Sure stand your ground, better yet, go back inside your house, and if then he threatens to breakdown your door and barge in, then yeah escalate all your want. But don't tell me the cop is doing any of the above, by taunting and reveling in his actions...that's the furthest thing from de-escalation or trying to diffuse the situation through "aggression".
He had no ounce of care for his actions and he's words and actions expressed exactly that.
"It's my belief the cop did not do badly in de-escalating the situation"...proceeds to ignore all the escalating words used by said cop.
Yeah dog owner guy was wrong in how aggressive he was and coming there in the first place, could have ended up badly for him. Whereas the cop should know that any kind of escalation could further aggrevate the situation, thankfully it didn't in this case, but we've seen people kill each other for less, so could easily go wrong.
Sure stand your ground, better yet, go back inside your house, and if then he threatens to breakdown your door and barge in, then yeah escalate all your want. But don't tell me the cop is doing any of the above, by taunting and reveling in his actions...that's the furthest thing from de-escalation or trying to diffuse the situation through "aggression".
He had no ounce of care for his actions and he's words and actions expressed exactly that.
So someone killed your dog just because and he was too aggressive? I might punch him in the face to be honest
And you would have all the right to do just that. But then when he shoots you though, which I can imagine, since he so easily did what he did to that dog, he'd then find a way to justify it and there goes your right to be aggressive senselessly.
The "wrongness" I mentioned is more based on what it could have lead to and not necessarily he's response to what happened to he's dog. The again, he got the video and it would seem some reaction for the powers that be, but still could ended far worse that how it did.
A punch would justify a trial not shoot me, because if he would shoot me for a punch, he would go to jail. There is proportional force.
But anyway, the punch was to note that I don't find any aggressiveness on the way the dog owner spoke to the guy as you said he did. I find his tone not aggressive at all due to the gravity of the situation and his tone is protected by his 1st amendment rights as far as I know. I am not sure that shooting a dog is with any right to the policeman even if it was in his yard
That's only in the developed world.
In the US, you can execute anyone entering your private space. All you have to say is that you were feeling scared. Hell, even in some states, you can get shot in the street if you get too close to someone (again, just say you were feeling scared).
How long have you lived in America? That's not true of every state at all. You'd be a fool to do this in some states and get in a serious amount of trouble.
Ok, fair enough, not all. The majority of the country though.
26 states have a "castle doctrine" and 36 states have the "stand your ground" laws.
edit. Even in states without these laws, apparently you can get away with murder. See Kyle Rittenhouse.
Surprised it didn’t escalate…
This is why it is important to always record your interactions. Sorry if you officers dont like that, but your actions have proven you are not, as a group, honest or honorable actors.
Why is black with a capital B?
Is this the one where he had him pinned on the lawn and then just shot him in the back of the head point blank range?
As an aside, it’s fecked up I even have to ask which case this is referencing.
The very one.
Fair enough. Thanks.
SPD apparently had the most J6 participants…
It's Seattle....the cops aren't going to do anything just like in California. The democratic officials in charge have basically removed any and all authority for police to stop criminals.
You're having a laugh, mate. There are far more regulations for policing in some European countries, and yet cops are trained a lot longer and better to work within those frames. American cops are just too thick to adapt. Eating less donuts would maintain a better IQ perhaps.
You're having a laugh, mate. There are far more regulations for policing in some European countries, and yet cops are trained a lot longer and better to work within those frames. American cops are just too thick to adapt. Eating less donuts would maintain a better IQ perhaps.
I bet there are more regulations in literally all European countries, and probably the training/education is longer in all of them too. I'm willing to be proven wrong on that.
Training is truly more extensive outside of North America. The US and Canada are really pale in comparison with many countries like the UK, Germany, Norway and Finland when it comes to the number and the quality of training hours.
How US police training compares with the rest of the world (BBC)
The article was published in the aftermath of the George Floyd incident.