fyi...at least for now , the edit function is working...then you'll only look like a little bit of a dork...
My two cents. I am so pissed off right now after reading this. They asked the cops multiple times to close the doors so the dogs would not escape and/or be a threat. That is all they had to do. But, cops being cops thinking all they have to do is what they want to do...didn't do it. Then, dog gets out and runs around. Then, officer shoots dog even though he was told dog was friendly while the dog was acting friendly wagging his tail back and forth. THESE COPS SHOULD BE FIRED AND BANNED FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT! THE DEPARTMENT CAN TAKE THEIR POST-MURDER DOG STATEMENT AND SHOVE IT STRAIGHT UP THEIR ASSES! DO THE RIGHT THING...FIRE THESE JERKOFFS AND ENSURE THEY NEVER WORK AS LAW OFFICERS AGAIN! DAMN THAT MAKES ME MAD! I WOULD HAVE GONE PSYCHO ON THAT COP HAD HE SHOT MY DOG UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES! AND....YES...SUE THE PANTS OFF THAT POLICE DEPARTMENT! AND, FILE A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST SAID OFFICERS! PETS ARE FAMILY. END OF STATEMENT! Surf
<h3>The Cops were standing next to the doors</h3> See second bold text. <blockquote><hr>http://story.herald-citizen.com/newsstory4.htm Officer in dog shooting reassigned Mary Jo Denton Herald-Citizen Staff The Cookeville Police officer who killed a family's pet dog here on New Year's Day has been reassigned to administrative duties, though that is not a punishment, his superiors said today. And a Tennessee Highway Patrol car's video tape of the whole incident, which happened on Interstate 40 at S. Jefferson about 5 p.m. Jan. 1, shows that <b>it was only three seconds after the dog hopped out of the car before Officer Eric Hall killed the dog with his shotgun.</b> To an average viewer, the scene recorded on the video may not demonstrate the aggressiveness or the threat the officer said he experienced as the dog came toward him. That video, which is part of the internal investigations the incident has prompted in both police agencies, was shown to this reporter today and is being released to the public today at a press conference the THP is set to hold in Nashville. Officer Hall, who is already assigned to work the Cookeville Police Dept.'s domestic violence unit, has now been reassigned to administrative duties in that unit, rather than any street patrol or enforcement work, Chief Bob Terry said today. "We are aware there is a lot of criticism out there over this incident, and we want to take him off the road and let him perform other duties while we get this all resolved," Terry said. The incident originated out of the Tennessee Highway Patrol's decision to make a felony stop of a car which was traveling through Cookeville that day. The car, occupied by the James Smoak family of Saluda, North Carolina, had been spotted in Nashville by a passerby who became suspicious after seeing a wallet fly from the vehicle. That was James Smoak's wallet, and he did not know he had lost it after pumping gas and forgetting that he had laid his wallet on top of the car. At some point -- which is expected to be clarified by the THP's internal investigation -- someone within the THP decided that a robbery had occurred and that the vehicle from which the wallet had come must be occupied by the robber. Deciding after that to make a felony stop -- which is a police procedure commonly used in high risk situations -- the THP determined the stop would be made in Cookeville and asked the Cookeville Police Dept. to provide backup. Officers Eric Hall and Mead McWhorter went to provide that backup to State Troopers David Bush, David Roark, Lt. Jerry Andrews, and other THP officers involved in the case. The city officers were not told what the suspected felony was, only that it would be felony stop. The Smoaks, who had been to Nashville on vacation and were on their way home, were traveling along with their two pet dogs, Patton and Cassie, and had no idea why they were suddenly being stopped here. The video tape of the incident shows the troopers making the stop and using a public address system to order the occupants of the car out one at a time. It shows James and Pamela Smoak and their 17-year-old son, Brandon, obeying the officers, coming out with their hands up, walking slowly backwards, getting down when ordered, and being handcuffed by the troopers. It shows Officer Hall with his shotgun trained on the Smoak car, as he and Officer McWhorter were doing to protect the troopers from anyone else or any danger that might remain in the car. <b>The tape shows one trooper standing on either side of the Smoak vehicle at the doors and shows that one car door is standing open. A trooper standing right beside that door looks in and comments that there is a dog inside. The trooper appears to be holding the car door open. The Smoaks have said they repeatedly asked the troopers to close the car doors to keep their dogs from getting out on the highway, but the troopers did not do that.</b> The tape shows the dog Patton (a boxer/bulldog mix) hopping out onto the roadside. He trots around in a circle and comes back toward Officer Hall, who fires his gun at the animal, killing it instantly. It happens so fast from the time the dog hops out -- within three seconds according to the tape's counter -- that perceiving the threat to the officer may be impossible for the casual viewer. The video clearly records the handcuffed Smoak family reacting to the killing. Their shocked cries, the sound of their grief can be heard plainly on the tape, as the troopers continue to control the three. Officer Hall has said the dog was charging at him in a threatening manner and has said he had no other option but to shoot the dog in order to continue to perform his duty of protecting the troopers as backup for the felony stop. He said he thought the dog was a pit bull. It was only later that the THP discovered that the Smoaks were not robbers and that no robbery had occurred. The family was released then. In shock over what had happened to them and their dog, the Smoaks made arrangements to spend the rest of that night in Cookeville, and they lodged formal complaints against all officers involved. Since then, the story has spread to many other areas of the United States, causing a firestorm of criticism for both police agencies and evoking great sympathy for the family. Chief Terry said today, "We once again extend our deepest concerns to the Smoak family for their loss. We know this was a terrible experience for them, and we truly wish that we could undo the events that occurred on the night of Jan. 1." Terry stressed again that the Cookeville Police Dept.'s total role in the matter was "supportive and protective" for the THP. "As a result, our investigation focused on two things: how we served the THP in a backup role and the circumstances surrounding the unfortunate shooting of the family's dog." He said the internal investigation "strictly speaking from a procedural standpoint," indicates that the city officers "performed their duties according to training and policy." He said Officer Hall was forced to make a "split-second decision to use force." "His actions appear to be consistent with officer training when it comes to handling a perceived threat at a felony scene, which should always be considered a potentially dangerous situation," Terry said. But after considering the full internal investigation findings and viewing the THP video, he decided to seek an independent review of the incident from at least two other unrelated police agencies, he said. "Although Officer Hall may have been procedurally correct in his actions, this incident has caused great concern not only for the Smoaks, but for our community," Chief Terry said. "As a result, Officer Hall has been reassigned to an administrative position, where he will serve until an independent agency can provide verification of our internal findings or make suggestions on what different actions could have been taken." The internal investigation, which was conducted by Detective Sgt. Bill Boman, concluded that Officer Hall "was placed in a position that a reasonable person would have believed that he was in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death." "Because of the rapid escalation of the situation, Officer Hall had no other choice but to terminate the threat," Boman's report says. "Officer Hall yelled at the canine to get back while retreating. The canine continued closing the distance of inches before Officer Hall was forced to discharge his weapon." The video tape of the whole incident is expected to be made public and shown on Nashville television news shows today. "I want the community to know that this is all just as appalling to me and others in the department as it is to anybody else," Chief Terry said today. "And it really disturbs me that this video will be shown on television and children will see it. But I keep stressing that it wasn't our stop in the first place. I know that doesn't fix it, but stopping this family in the first place was not our doing. We were only assisting the other agency on a felony stop they had decided upon, and felony stops are complicated. "We intend to take all the elements of this and learn from it," he said. <hr></blockquote> what the ****!!!!!!!!!!!!! btw: anyone want to launch an email campaign if we can find a suitable target email address. The governors is certainly available.
He ordered the dog to back off? What a moron! I didn't know dogs understood english commands coming from officers such as "BACK OFF!" . I'll have to teach my dogs that command in case an officer decides to not shut my doors during an erroneous felony stop. Not to mention that said officer is a big p***y!!! You know an aggressive dog with the intent to bite your head off from just a regular dog approaching you. He made a bad choice and he should be made to pay for that bad choice. Also, why couldn't he fire a warning shot? Usually, a dog is going to run like hell at the sight of a gun and especially upon hearing a gunshot. He should be on unpaid leave for being a wuss who makes dumb decisions. Then, he should be fired. Next thing their going to say is the cops were afraid to close the doors because they thought it would trigger a terrorist device. Give me a break.
<a href="http://www.newschannel5.com/">video here</a> I can see a total of 5 cops on the scene with complete control over hysterical suspects, patting them down and looking in the car before the dog appeared. it was a pitbull. You can see as plain as day that two different cops had the opportunity to close the doors, and the second one actually said, "Yeah, there's a dog inside," and basically let him out. Two different local Cookeville cops immediately draw their shotguns. None of the State Troopers seem to react in this manner.
This is ridiculous. Like Jeff said, if they killed my dog, it would be payback time. A pet is a member of my family to me. FrancisFan, Dogs are not violent creatures, and my family dog definitely doesn't need a leash to be out in public(like our front yard). It is a cute Lhasa Apso who will lick you and play with you rather than bite or venomously attack you. We frequently go outside with her and don't put her on a leash unless we take her around our cul de' sac or across the street to the community pool(a huge grassy area right beside) for her daily morning walk. Dogs just want to be loved, and if they snap at you, a lot of times, like our dog, it's because she is comfortable and we try moving her around. But how is it different than you fighting with your parents or your siblings or getting annoyed when someone disturbs you at an inopportune time? Bottom line: fire these cops, and send them to jail for killing an innocent animal. Yes, it was a mistake, but like a person who kills another by drunk driving, they deserve to pay.
Poor puppy. And poor family, too. That would *totally* have been my dog. She loves everyone, is always running up to people to say hello... sigh.
For starters, I doubt many of us 'snap' at people who irritate us. FWIW, I think your dog is confused about who the 'alpha' is. I don't think she should be snapping at anyone.
I don't think that is necessarily true. If you bother your dog when he/she is trying to rest and/or try to move the dog around, then a dog may get angry and growl at you or worse. It really depends on the dog. Dogs don't like to be bothered when their comfortable and/or trying to sleep. It probably has a lot to do with the type of dog and its instinctive behavior more than the dog being confused about who the 'alpha' is. Try to move me around and I'll bite your head off.
The pack mentallity is insitinctive bahavior. But since I'm no specialist on pack mentallity, apparently you can help me understand. Will lower rung pack animals snap at the higher rungs? Here are some sources re. the described behavior, I couldn't find any that give an OK to snapping. Can you? http://www.gooddogmagazine.com/9909/dogshrink9909.htm It's essential that owners understand that relegating their dog to an inferior status within the family pack is not a form of suppression or disrespect. On the contrary, it's recognition and acceptance of the animal's genetic past. Many owners are unaware of the genetic pack instinct of their dog, and they continue to treat the dog as an equal, while refusing to accept the responsibility of leadership. They don't realize that this practice forces the dog to accept an alpha role within the family pack. This is an unhealthy and unfair position in which to place a beloved family member. Moreover, if the dog has an assertive temperament, he'll develop aggressive behavior patterns, as did Sparky, the Jack Russell Terrier mentioned earlier. These animals will begin to challenge other (lower ranking) family members for privileges, objects, and territorial space which "belong" to the pack leader. Growls become snaps, and eventually bites. Finally, a full-blown attack may result. Sparky's owners didn't have a dog problem. Rather, Sparky had a people problem -- his owners didn't understand his operating characteristics. Making them aware of Sparky's genetic tendencies was the first step in solving the problem. The other problem, already mentioned, is anthropomorphic thinking -- attributing human qualities to animals. It's because of this anthropomorphism that dogs are treated as equals. Viewing our pets as little humans causes owners to baby and coddle their pets. These activities are contrary to the evolutionary history of canines. They're counterproductive and confusing to the animal. http://www.canismajor.com/dog/alpha1.html Your dog will accept you as pack leader as long as you are consistent and fair in your demands. You must never permit him to growl or snap. If he does, a severe scruff shake is necessary, followed by no attention from you for 10 to 15 minutes. http://www.caninechronicle.com/features/misc/agression.html Dogs with dominance aggression will often stare at members of the household without breaking eye contact. Growling or snipping/biting may accompany this staring if the human does not break eye contact first. Dominant aggressive dogs will try to control the use of space in the household. These dogs may growl or bite when the owner tries to move them off the furniture, such as the couch or the bed. these dogs may also block access to areas in the house by laying in doorways or hallways and aggressing against anyone who try to pass. These dogs may also show signs of aggression when they are being petted. Dominant aggressive dogs may growl or snap when people reach towards them; try to pet them on top of their head or try to pet them on the back. These are all threat gestures to the dog. The dog may aggress against a person to reinforce its place in hierarchy, over the human.
I have to admit; after cooling down a bit, I think this is more of a string of unfortunate events rather than blatant police wrongdoing. I still think (sort of) the officer used bad judgement, but I also realize that some people are just scared of dogs. A pit-bull/Boxer mix is definitely the type of dog that could scare someone like this. I also have to say that the police chief (Terry) said all the right things....rather impressive for a po-dunk town police chief. He supported the family, took responsibility, immediately removed the offending officer from street duty, yet also gave a pretty valid explanation for how this situation accelerated so quickly. As it is; from the info we have, we DON'T KNOW who escalated the "wallet flying from the automobile" to "carjacking" story. This may have happened within the Highway Patrol as the story claims, but more than likely, it either happened with the citizens who found the wallet or was aggravated by them. Why else were the police/highway patrol involved anyway? Regardless, it had already happened before the Cookeville police were involved. Regardless, the highway patrol decided that there was a robbery and that Cookeville was the ideal place to make the felony stop. Cookeville police were contacted and asked to assist. They didn't know any details other than that there was a car coming through their town that they had to assist in a felony stop with. they probably had a few minute's notice. It's not like they had time to do an investigation. These guys are trained heavily for these types of situations because they're typically so dangerous. Should the presence of two adults and two teenagers and two dogs make them think there was nothing wrong? I don't think so. Criminals come in all shapes and sizes and ages. These cops were tense, and a dog that attacks you puts you in the worse situation in the world for a police officer: one where your weapon can be taken from you. I love my dog more than anything, and I'd probably do something that would land me in jail forever if this had happened to me, and I'm NOT sticking up for the cop's actions....although I wasn't there, and the video doesn't tell me if the dog was acting in a threatening manner or not. Certainly, the dog's masters were agitated, and that just about ALWAYS agitates a dog. All that being said, as sad as this event is, it's not hard for me to see the string of events that led up to this tragedy. That cop may have been a good cop. He may have made a mistake the other day, or if the dog was threatening, he may have done EXACTLY what he was trained to do. Either way, his career is probably over now.
I'm speaking from my own experience living with two Rhodesian Ridgebacks. I don't have a problem with my dogs snapping at me if I try to move them off the sofa or bed or whatever in most cases. I am the 'alpha' in the pack and my dogs know this. Therefore, that is probably why I don't have a problem getting them to comply. My dogs will not stare me down and growl/snip/bite if I don't break eye contact. Nor do they have any of these other dominant aggressive behavior problems toward me which would lead one to conclude that either one of my dogs is assuming the 'alpha' role. However, if either of my dogs is comfortably resting and/or sleeping in their known spots and I come over and start moving them around, then they will not like it and may growl. If I force the situation, then the growling can pick up and, on rare occassions, I could get one of them to snap. All I'm saying is a dog doesn't have to be in an 'alpha' role to get upset and growl(and if aggrevated enough...possibly snap) if they are bothered. I do, however, know that in the hierarchy of my pack, that one of my dogs exhibits this dominant aggressive behavior to my other dog such as wanting control of the sofa and staredowns and what-not. From my experience, I know my pack hierarchy within my household and I and they know I'm head honcho. Yet, I can bother them when their resting and elicit a negative response such as growling and, if I continue to bother one or the other, then I can get them to growl and in an extreme situation...snap at me. In conclusion, my findings are a dog can still growl/snap at the 'alpha' pack member even though they are lower status in the pack depending on the situation(like bothering their sleep). That is all I'm saying. Also, my two dogs tend to challenge each other for placement in the hierarchy often. So, yes...it could be the dog believes it is the 'alpha' in the pack and exhibits this dominant aggressive behavior. However, it could also be the dog is not the 'alpha' and is just being bothered during a sleep or resting pattern or a special situation led to the aggressive behavior. I don't like to get into all this technical mumbo-jumbo on dog behavior. I like speaking from my own experience.
Pole, I'm the exact opposite. I thought there were only 2 policemen on the scene, so they had to use deadly force, because they hadn't secured the scene; meaning if one cop has a fight with a dog, the other one could lose control of the 3 suspects. But now we find that there were at least 5 cops there. They totally had the 3 people under control and proceeded to secure the vehicle. The couple was hysterical and fully cooperative and was telling them to close the door. They went back to look and chose not to close the doors They showed incredible lack of judgement with more that double the man-power to secure a felony and were fully in the process of securing the vehicle. They had plenty of opportunity to secure the dog, and they chose to allow the situation to escalate. They are not supposed to allow a situation to escalate. Obviously, the cop who looked in the car and said, "Yeah, there's a dog," did not consider the dog a threat by looking at it, or he would have closed the door. bottomline: the dog was no threat, and they allowed it to become an alleged threat, and they used deadly force when they had plenty of manpower to choose another means; they weren't going to lose control of that felony stop with 5 men there vs a man, 17yr old and women, compliant on their knees. btw: you can plainly see that the two who drew their shotguns were the local Cookeville police backing up the scene. The State patrol did not react that way.
I have to back you up on this one. In my younger days I worked with an animal trainer and I have owned dogs my entire life. Making sure the dog knows his role in the family structure is critical to a good long-term relationship within the family unit. I always take responsibility for training our dogs when we first get them. This is important so that he/she understands that they are on the lower rung of the "pack". The only problem that can occur at this stage of the training is if the dog feels that it is higher in status than one of the family members..then the dog may growl or snap at the person that it feels like it is higher in status than. This almost became a problem with my youngest child, she and my dog are the same age...as the years went by, he started growling at her when she did something that disturbed him or when she tried to do something with him when he didnt feel like playing.. The way that I solved this problem was by having her do some additional training with me overseeing...Once he realized that she had the "status" to order him to do something...the aggressive behavior stopped..He realized that the child's status within the pack was higher than his.. This may only be ancedotal evidence, but it backs up what I was taught by a professional trainer..
