Cop doing a probation check in Dorchester attacked by dog and that was the last thing that dog did

Police are now investigating what happened on Beauford Lane around 7:45 p.m. The officer, apparently not hurt, fired his gun at the dog, killing it.



    Free tagging: 



      It is now SOP to shoot at dogs, aggressive or not. Do I believe this dog "attacked" the officer? Maybe. That said, it's even more likely that this shooting is simply one of the extrajudicial punishments meted out by LEO's as a component of their power-trip compensation.

      How many times did you see "Dredd"? 5? 10?

      You think he told the dog "I am the law" before he blew him away?

      Spend a lot of time in Dorchester, do you?

      Then I'm sure you're aware that dog fighting does go on, so how do you know this wasn't a fighting dog that attacked the police officer?

      In fact, how do you have any idea what went down there other than your first impulse to say that it was a cop on a power trip?

      Digression: why cops lie

      There was an opinion piece in the NY Times about a week ago about why police lie. It was not quite the cop-bashing diatribe you might expect given the title; worth a read here

      Also interesting were the follow-up letters here

      Police lie under oath because they’re cynical. To posit that the average police officer is motivated by some system of “rewards,” or to give credence to the argument by a former San Francisco police commissioner, Peter Keane, that police lie because they can, is simplistic at best. Police officers also lie because they believe, albeit often wrongly, that they’re performing a public service by ensuring that defendants are convicted.

      Ms. Alexander is correct that this is a problem. But to ignore the cynicism created by a legal system, a government and a larger society (think of the Wall Street scandals) where bad behavior is commonplace and very often goes unpunished is to miss the point. And excoriating the police while ignoring the rest is tantamount to treating the symptoms of a disease while overlooking root causes.

      Why not Mace?

      If a Cop is in danger, then he should shoot but I am concerned with the fact that the Cop had no injuries, nothing? Yet he shot the dog dead. (I am not saying he should wait to be bite but if it was charging it most likely would have at least scratch him. Why not mace the dog? Or shoot it in leg? All PO cops visit their charges as soon as they are released (it is required) so unless this was his 1st time visiting (which would be unusual at 7:25 p.m., as the 1st visit is a very business like & usually scheduled) he should have met the dog before. He also would know that there was a dog, what color, what kind, male or female,what kind of temperament, etc. All that data, along with who else lives there is required prior to release. It concerns me that someone, PO or not, MIGHT happen to be afraid of dogs & could have overreacted. Again I am not saying in any way, shape or form that the PO should risk his life, I am just saying that some more investigating should be done, cause everyone make mistake & some people may be afraid, even when it is not called for. This was some one pet, for all we know there could have been a child there when their best friend was killed & a weapon was discharged. Ok long enough post. Have a good night / morning. JMHO

      Hard to fault the guy

      I'm about as pro-dog and anti-cop a guy as you'll ever find, and I have to say: if the officer was really attacked by this dog, (and I haven't seen anything in this story to indicate that he's not telling the truth) then he absolutely did the right thing. The gun is quicker to reach than the mace is, pepper spray is a weapon of unknown strength against a dog, and rule #1 of using a gun is "aim for the center of mass." No police officer, anywhere, ever, is going to try to aim his weapon somewhere that he hopes will just slow down an attacker down non-lethally. It's a much higher chance for an outright miss (against an attacker moving quickly toward you, in this case), and when you pull your weapon, you have announced your intent to kill anything that doesn't immediately stop moving at you.

      It sucks that this happened, but it's really unfair to try to pin it entirely on a parole officer who was almost certainly acting in self-defense.

      For Christ's sake, it's a

      For Christ's sake, it's a damn dog. Everyone loves dogs, but really, if a dog I don't know attacks me I have no problem killing it. I don't understand why everyone gets all up in arms when a cop has to use his/her weapon on a dog. If it was a person coming at the cop with a knife, people wouldn't bat an eye.

      The Cop

      could have sacrificed his live in order to save this kind creature. Because we all know dogs NEVER bite or attack people, people attack and bite dogs.

      You also

      Have no evidence the dog didn't attack the cop! Your point is mute!

      I think any rational person would assume cops don't randomly shoot dogs for sport. You think/believe the cop should have waited until he sustained injury, however most rational humans would have no problem with an individual killing a dog to prevent any personal bodily injury. Especially one checking up on a criminal trying to insure they are not a threat to people like yourself.

      I'm a dog person myself.....

      .....but I don't buy the automatic assumption that a cop whips out his gun and wastes a dog just for the hell of it. Cops have dogs as PARTNERS. Dogs save cops' lives quite often. Every policeman I've ever known is a dog owner who would all but give their own life for their dog. They'd sooner shoot a human than a canine. Only way they'd shoot a dog is if they're being attacked by one large and strong enough to kill or seriously injure them.

      The above is not without exception, of course. Some cops are dirty, some are nuts.

      Not saying the PO should have been hurt

      Again I am not saying the PO should have waited to be hurt, I am just saying there is more to the story. Ok maybe he couldn't shoot it in the leg, I have no experience with guns, so what the hell do I know. BUT this PO should have known the dog was there & it is possible that he/she overreacted. I would never want the person to be hurt or killed but I am having hard time swallowing the lack of details in this story. Were there kids there at the time? Could the dog owner have grabbed the dog, Was the PO inside the house, etc.This was not a case of the Cops breaking down the door & the dog charging, this was PO visit in which he knocks on the door, chats with his charge & then leaves. Its usually easy, peasy, so the dog suddenly charging him is just a little odd. POs are people too & it is possible that this PO was afraid of dogs, long before he walked into this house. BTW Pulling a gun & pulling mace is different how? What makes pulling the gun faster? Ok I am done defending myself. I would just like more information. But I am glad the PO is ok.

      More to the Story

      Yes, you're right, there must be more to the story. I have some unanswered questions also. Could this dog have had rabies? Even worse, had it perhaps developed a taste for human blood after a previous biting incident in which it didn't get shot? Was this dog possibly trained to attack unfamiliar visitors, like police officers? Was this dog actually part coyote or wolf? Was it even a dog at all? It just sounds a little odd.

      No evidence = evidence?

      No evidence that the dog did not attack. That point is MOOT; in fact it is meaningless. It is reasoning that sticks the head up the behind. Worse, relying upon no evidence that a dog did not do something opens the door to charging the dog with everything from biting someone to causing the recent blizzard. There is not evidence that my dog did not cause the blizzard so maybe she did!

      If anyone shoots a weapon at anything that is not a target range they damn well need to prove that there was a reason to shoot. Otherwise anyone in the city could simply claim they were about to attacked and so they fired their weapon.

      Innocent until proven guilty. Not because dogs are human but because power corrupts. Anyone with power (police, district attorneys and judges) are all liable to being corrupted. Not because any of them are bad people but because they are people. There are no morally perfect saints walking this Earth.

      So if a cop pulls the trigger, and worse kills anything, the cop needs to have reason. Even if the reason was a perception that they would have been hurt the cop still has to produce a reason. Otherwise they deserve punishment.

      I wonder what the cop would have done if a human being was about to attack? Because I have due respect for police - including the many who earn thousands sucking up free cash for standing around doing nothing, and the ones who supported the bigoted cop newsletter - I don't give police a higher level of credibility than the typical law abiding citizen. So I don't assume the cop had a good reason.

      No evidence is no evidence

      Right. I have no evidence that there are little green men living on the back side of the moon. I also have no evidence that there are not little green men living on the back side of the moon. The way organized thought works, in general, is to accept the null hypothesis absent evidence to the contrary: to assume that there are no little green men.

      100% of the time, police reports paint the officers' actions in a favorable light. Some high percentage of the time but less than 100% of the time, police officers act correctly and appropriately. Therefore, some percentage of the time, police reports are absolute fabrications intended to exonerate misbehavior.