Many things pertaining to law enforcement have occurred because of this incident and the facebook page that has been created for it. First and foremost, a law enforcement officer shot and killed a dog while apprehending a man that wasn't even who he was looking for. Is this a normal error? The police officer responded to the wrong address, and these are the events that unfolded because of that. Man walks out of house, officer draws weapon, man leans obediantly against his car, dog comes running and barking from backyard, officer fires one shot, striking the dog in the chest and instantly killing him. What are the issues with this?
It is mentioned that the Chief of Police himself apologized to the dog's owner after a great amount of public outcry. The facebook page has generated a lot of positive support for the owner, but it has also generated a lot of negative feedback for the police department. In the news article addressing the issues of threats on the police department, the Chief mentions the death of a police officer on April the 6th. He explains that the whole department is still reeling from the death. I personally believe this is a negative way of responding to the issue. The underlying implications are that high nerves in the police department are what caused the incidental death. I don't think that is the proper way of responding to an outraged public about the death of a dog. Now, I do agree that a human death is very important, I'm not downplaying that. I just think there could have been a better way of speaking to an animal loving community on the issue.
The main point of my article is supposed to be about facebook and the type of postive/negative feedback it can fuel in certain circumstances. I feel for the man who lost his dog, and I also agree that the officer acted too harshly in shooting the animal. It didn't help his case that he had responded to the wrong house. The facebook page has generated so much publicity that the officer has been reprimanded, the department has received may threats from the public, and the owner has been all over the news because of this. Sad thing is, these types of incidents happen more often than you think, BUT because of facebook, thousands of people know, a department has been harrassed, and an officer has been reassigned because of the amount of attention the case is getting.
Sources:
http://austin.ynn.com/content/top_stories/284248/apd-reviews-policy-in-wake-of-dog-shooting
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/austin/acevedo-vile-threats-aimed-at-apd
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/austin/chief-apologizes-for-ciscos-death
I think that this is a terrible thing that has happened. After reading this blog I went onto Facebook to search for this so I could read more and I still can't believe something like this actually happened. Not only did the officer have the wrong house but he shot and killed an animal that presented no immediate harm to him. He has a taser, pepper spray, and the training to be an officer yet he decided to use his gun to control the situation and killed an innocent dog. I feel bad for this man who lost his pet for absolutely no reason. He was being completely compliant and told the officer that the dog would not bite yet the officer decided to use deadly force which is completely unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteWell this is very interesting, I need to know more facts about what happened but several things went wrong here. First the owners dog should have never been running around by its self(running at large), all city's have a leash law. Now I am sure that the owner knew this and just did not care. Next the police officer I sure that they were scared for their life but could have done several different things in order to not kill the dog. Like pepper spray a good defense, and MAYBE the taser? Yes the officer did not need to kill the dog and the owner has their responsibilities as well, but the facebook pages blow this up like a bomb in IRAQ. Really we all need to police ourselves with these facebook pages REALLY.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI think its a horrible thing to happen to the dog and his family but you have to think of it from the officers prospective you have a dangerous animal charging you with intentions of hurting you and you need to take action to protect yourself.
ReplyDeleteI think this is an unfortunate situation and I have dogs myself so I can sympathize with the owner. It was his house so I see no problem with the dog not having a lease on because he clearly didn’t expect the situation that occurs. Of course I can see where the officer was coming from with being scared but I also think he could have done other something other than killing the dog. I think that this whole thing could have been avoided if he had double checked where he was supposed to be, because I’m sure the man indicated that he wasn’t the one who called.
ReplyDeleteIt's an unfortunate and for the most part of everyday police procedure unlikely to happen again.With social media news can be spread like this in a matter of minutes which creates quite the public relations nightmare for the police department involved. I feel like its a knee jerk excuse for the shooting to say the police officers were on edge due to one of their own going down, but what were they supposed to say when 10 thousand people where looking for an answer.
ReplyDeleteThis just solidifies the ideas of social media having a huge impact on society. For the good? I dont know. What i do know is that by the punch of a few buttons, a message can be displayed to the entire world. The impact of these social media sources and even the instant access to news and current events show to have both positive and negative effects. Society is able to make assumptions or explain their opinion in a matter of seconds.
ReplyDeleteAlthough departments would probably turn it down, I believe that some sort of training for situations should be presented in other ways. More times than none, a dog is not going to outright attack a person. People are substantially larger than a dog and a dog obviously knows this. Personally, I know of a time when a police officer did use a stun gun on a dog, but left the gun's barb in the animal's eye and is now blind. Obviously this is much different than using lethal force on an animal, but these situations could definitely be avoided.
ReplyDeleteThis is something that I would be very upset as well. I have had my dog for years now and the thought of someone shooting him makes me very angry. The fact that the officer only apologized after the public response shows that he was not genuine. Officers need to be way more efficient in their jobs and when mistakes are made they need to be addressed. This was not even the person he was looking for according to this article. The police department may have wanted to minimize the issue because it was a dog and not a person. However the officer could have easily been startled and shot the man mistakenly. However I do not believe the department should receive threats from the public. The owner in my opinion should seek a civil law suit against the department.
ReplyDelete