To Protect and to Serve...

[Gannon Goodson]

How many departments have been sued over far less than violating public law (see previous post) and not conducting a search for said child?

However, your Warren vs DC case doesn't apply here since it deals with public duty as an individual rather than the community as a whole.

Public-Duty Doctrine Law & Legal Definition

Departments get sued for everything under the sun. So you expect me to believe a judge would toss out a case where the officers failed to conduct even a cursory sweep of the immediate area?



Yeah, that certainly would have made matters better.

If one of the local yokels didn't, the Supreme Court would.

The "Public Duty Doctrine" is already on iffy legal standing. It's not codified, and as your article points out, many states don't recognize it.

 

[Grand Vol]

Let's say I'm a supposed criminal who has had a police dog let loose on me. If I shoot that dog, will I be treated as though I had killed an officer of the law? Yes or no?

Actually, that depends on the State you happen to be in. I'm unaware of Georgia's specific statutes along those lines so I can't give you a good answer. However, you can't be tried for murder if that's what you are asking.

Now, if a dog comes off the deck in his own back yard and charges the officer that has let himself into a fenced in area, how will the officer be treated once he shoots the dog? My suspicion is that a civilian's dog is just a disposable animal, while the police dog is a distinguished officer of the law. Is that incorrect?

Again, depends on the State. I can't give you a clear answer since what applies in Georgia might not apply in Nevada for example.

As for "disposable" I don't disagree. And again, circumstances would depend on a lot of things. Here we have police looking for a missing child. Goes in to check a yard, encounters a dog. Maybe the dog gets violent and attacks said officer and he has no room or way to retreat. But of course the officer didn't have to be there in the first place because of "property rights" and who cares about a missing child, right?

So why are we blaming an officer for shooting a dog while they were trying to perform a good deed? If this cop was in the backyard searching for evidence of a crime without a proper warrant, do you honestly think I would be disagreeing with any of you at this point? And this seems to be the point that you all are missing. If you have a missing child, do you think police, fire department and other emergency responders shouldn't check to make sure that child isn't lying in that backyard injured? Is there any violation of rights by checking to make sure there is no stone unturned? Would you continue standing on "property rights" if it was YOUR child that had been in that backyard injured?

Beat up my strawman. I want to see your answer.

 

[Grand Vol]

If one of the local yokels didn't, the Supreme Court would.

The "Public Duty Doctrine" is already on iffy legal standing. It's not codified, and as your article points out, many states don't recognize it.

Still wouldn't matter as the case would still end up costing the taxpayers a lot of money in the long run taking it to the SCOTUS.

But no matter what, the missing child act I linked to applies in this case since there is no timeline on when to report. Missing kids are taken pretty seriously so a search should be conducted.

If you want to use the whole "probable cause" argument, I'd suggest some reading in "exigent circumstances" for searches. It probably would be the most technical application in this instance.

Legal Definition of 'Exigent Circumstances'

Exigent circumstance in United States law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While a missing child probably wouldn't fall under this, it's probably the most accurate description of what was going on in the legal sense.

 

[SamRebel35]

Actually, that depends on the State you happen to be in. I'm unaware of Georgia's specific statutes along those lines so I can't give you a good answer. However, you can't be tried for murder if that's what you are asking.



Again, depends on the State. I can't give you a clear answer since what applies in Georgia might not apply in Nevada for example.

As for "disposable" I don't disagree. And again, circumstances would depend on a lot of things. Here we have police looking for a missing child. Goes in to check a yard, encounters a dog. Maybe the dog gets violent and attacks said officer and he has no room or way to retreat. But of course the officer didn't have to be there in the first place because of "property rights" and who cares about a missing child, right?

So why are we blaming an officer for shooting a dog while they were trying to perform a good deed? If this cop was in the backyard searching for evidence of a crime without a proper warrant, do you honestly think I would be disagreeing with any of you at this point? And this seems to be the point that you all are missing. If you have a missing child, do you think police, fire department and other emergency responders shouldn't check to make sure that child isn't lying in that backyard injured? Is there any violation of rights by checking to make sure there is no stone unturned? Would you continue standing on "property rights" if it was YOUR child that had been in that backyard injured?

Beat up my strawman. I want to see your answer.

I'm not saying anything about property rights or any other legal mumbo jumbo. I'm simply saying that dogs get defensive over their turf. They shouldn't be shot just because the police officer feels he has the urgent need to let himself into an unfamiliar place to investigate a missing kid case. I don't care what the dog did or didn't do because they are not self aware entities with the capacity to think rationally. People are. The person screwed up, and the dog got shot for being a dog on his own property.

 

[Grand Vol]

The National Child Search Assistance Act is the best you can do? That law does not require that police find missing children.

You're right, it doesn't require them to locate missing children, but it does bind them legally to initiate searches and report data as stated right in the text of the act.

You of all people should know the federal government cannot co-opt local law enforcement.

That depends greatly on situation. There are instances where local LEO can (will) be co-opted to federal control.

Secondly, I do know what probable cause is, and it definitely relates to this case. It's what gives police the right to search or arrest absent a warrant.

Umm, no. See my post above for "exigent circumstances" for a more accurate description.

Probable cause | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

If the cop heard a child scream from the backyard, he would've had probable cause to enter said property. It's called exigent circumstances in your former line of work.

Yes, thank you.

The fact remains this idiot had no reason to be in this man's backyard. The child could've wandered into an unlocked home. Do the police have the right to just walk into your home because a child is missing somewhere in the vicinity? You know the answer.

Does that pass the reasonable test? Is it more reasonable that a child might have wandered into a backyard as opposed to a house?

 

[Grand Vol]

I'm not saying anything about property rights or any other legal mumbo jumbo. I'm simply saying that dogs get defensive over their turf. They shouldn't be shot just because the police officer feels he has the urgent need to let himself into an unfamiliar place to investigate a missing kid case. I don't care what the dog did or didn't do because they are not self aware entities with the capacity to think rationally. People are. The person screwed up, and the dog got shot for being a dog on his own property.

So what's urgent in your world Sam? A hour? Day? Week? When should the cops start thinking realistically about checking yards for missing kids?

You're right Sam, the cops should have avoided the place. They were entirely wrong and should have gone back to the doughnut shop and collected the taxpayer dime.

 

[SamRebel35]

Does that pass the reasonable test? Is it more reasonable that a child might have wandered into a backyard as opposed to a house?

You were the one that brought up the story of the kid walking half a mile and letting himself into a building with a door handle he could barely reach. Fence access latches are usually much harder to access than door knobs.

 

[Grand Vol]

You were the one that brought up the story of the kid walking half a mile and letting himself into a building with a door handle he could barely reach. Fence access latches are usually much harder to access than door knobs.

Yep, I sure did.

So is it more reasonable to check the areas that are more likely to be accessed first, like maybe backyards, as opposed to houses themselves?

Which is pretty much what we did...of course, we didn't end up shooting a dog, so everyone was happy when we located the child.

 

[SamRebel35]

So what's urgent in your world Sam? A hour? Day? Week? When should the cops start thinking realistically about checking yards for missing kids?

You're right Sam, the cops should have avoided the place. They were entirely wrong and should have gone back to the doughnut shop and collected the taxpayer dime.

A situation being urgent shouldn't require the abandonment of precautions. A cop entering an unfamiliar place ought to have anticipated the possibility that there could be an entity on the premises that might not take kindly to the intrusion and should have had a procedure in place to handle it that doesn't involve killing somebody's house pet. What if it had been a ten year old kid with a pitchfork charging the officer because he was afraid of the intruder? Kill the kid? No ramifications after killing the kid?

 

[Grand Vol]

A situation being urgent shouldn't require the abandonment of precautions. A cop entering an unfamiliar place ought to have anticipated the possibility that there could be an entity on the premises that might not take kindly to the intrusion and should have had a procedure in place to handle it that doesn't involve killing somebody's house pet. What if it had been a ten year old kid with a pitchfork charging the officer because he was afraid of the intruder? Kill the kid? No ramifications after killing the kid?

Well, I'd really hope that parents are responsible enough to teach their kids not to charge a policeman with a pitchfork. Not a real strong argument there.

But you do nothing but confirm my argument in this whole matter. We don't know the facts here. We don't know if the officer had a plan and got overwhelmed by the situation at hand. We don't know what specific events led up to shooting the dog and whether it was necessity or self preservation. Are you saying that cop should have just stayed there letting a dog eat him up because he strayed into a backyard looking for a missing child?

And again, I ask the question you keep avoiding. Do you honestly think that cop was there to execute your pitiful family pet that you know nothing about? Or was he there attempting to do a good deed in finding a missing child?

 

[hog88]

When it comes to LEO defense, GV = LG in defense of Obama.

Sorry Bro but truth is truth.

 

[Grand Vol]

When it comes to LEO defense, GV = LG in defense of Obama.

Sorry Bro but truth is truth.

No, I think I've maintained the steadfast argument that until all the facts are known, perhaps we shouldn't be damning all LEOs and wishing they would burn alive.

If this was unprovoked, and I don't want to hear this "private property" nonsense because that argument is asinine when we're talking about a child potentially in danger, then said officer should be held into account.

Just like the thread from the other day about the Craigslist ride along thing, until all the facts come out, it's probably better to reserve judgment.

So where do you stand Hog?

 

[SamRebel35]

Well, I'd really hope that parents are responsible enough to teach their kids not to charge a policeman with a pitchfork. Not a real strong argument there.

Ok, so it is fine to kill a kid because he had bad parents?

 

[SamRebel35]

But you do nothing but confirm my argument in this whole matter. We don't know the facts here. We don't know if the officer had a plan and got overwhelmed by the situation at hand. We don't know what specific events led up to shooting the dog and whether it was necessity or self preservation. Are you saying that cop should have just stayed there letting a dog eat him up because he strayed into a backyard looking for a missing child?

Ok, in this situation, the police officer is still at fault. Maybe he had not feasible options but to kill the dog at that point. Still the cops fault. Needs to be held accountable.

 

[Grand Vol]

Ok, so it is fine to kill a kid because he had bad parents?

Are you using this instance as a particular case law? Did this happen?

Did you know what a cop looked like at 10 years old? And furthermore know the difference in right and wrong as chasing someone with a pitchfork? Would you have attacked a cop with a pitchfork at 10 years old?

And yet, you avoid the question I asked yet again.

Your argument is weak. You talk about my debate skills and if this is the best you've got, you probably don't need to respond.

 

[hog88]

No, I think I've maintained the steadfast argument that until all the facts are known, perhaps we shouldn't be damning all LEOs and wishing they would burn alive.

If this was unprovoked, and I don't want to hear this "private property" nonsense because that argument is asinine when we're talking about a child potentially in danger, then said officer should be held into account.

Just like the thread from the other day about the Craigslist ride along thing, until all the facts come out, it's probably better to reserve judgment.

So where do you stand Hog?

Haven't watched the video or anything.

I will say from experience that the first thing a LEO does when approached by a barking dog is reach for his weapon. Thankfully I was there and it saved him and my dogs.

 

[Grand Vol]

Ok, in this situation, the police officer is still at fault. Maybe he had not feasible options but to kill the dog at that point. Still the cops fault. Needs to be held accountable.

Would you say that for any emergency responder in that situation? As I stated before, fire department helps, sometimes EMTs, concerned citizens, etc.

So if a firefighter went into that backyard and ended up having to defend themselves while looking for this child, would your opinion change?

 

[SamRebel35]

Would you say that for any emergency responder in that situation? As I stated before, fire department helps, sometimes EMTs, concerned citizens, etc.

So if a firefighter went into that backyard and ended up having to defend themselves while looking for this child, would your opinion change?

Let me know next time a fire fighter shoots a dog and we'll talk.

 

[Grand Vol]

Haven't watched the video or anything.

I will say from experience that the first thing a LEO does when approached by a barking dog is reach for his weapon. Thankfully I was there and it saved him and my dogs.

You'll get the outrage-itis that's swept a few folks here. Of course, they still have yet to present a valid argument to the contrary that the cop shouldn't have been there in the first place.

It's been my experience that one can't be too careful in that kind of situation, especially if said dog is coming at you in a menacing manner. It's one of those things that I can't say is wrong especially if the officer happens to be there on legitimate business. (I'm assuming in your case they were)

But once that dog gets a hold of anyone, it's not always easy to get them to stop unless they are trained to out on command. We go back to the discussion we were having the other day about pit bulls. Some could be friendly as the dickens, others not so much. So a little precaution would certainly be in order.

 

[Grand Vol]

Let me know next time a fire fighter shoots a dog and we'll talk.

Okay, let me know when you found out for certain the circumstances behind this and we'll continue.

 

[SamRebel35]

Are you using this instance as a particular case law? Did this happen?

Did you know what a cop looked like at 10 years old? And furthermore know the difference in right and wrong as chasing someone with a pitchfork? Would you have attacked a cop with a pitchfork at 10 years old?

And yet, you avoid the question I asked yet again.

Your argument is weak. You talk about my debate skills and if this is the best you've got, you probably don't need to respond.

In this hypothetical, perhaps the kid had been taught that cops would knock on the door before entering a premises. Not an unreasonable thing to teach your kids. Thus it would be logical to deduce that a person entering without permission with a police uniform must be an imposter. His charging with a weapon would be out of fear. Is it OK to kill the kid?

 

[Grand Vol]

In this hypothetical, perhaps the kid had been taught that cops would knock on the door before entering a premises. Not an unreasonable thing to teach your kids. Thus it would be logical to deduce that a person entering without permission with a police uniform must be an imposter. His charging with a weapon would be out of fear. Is it OK to kill the kid?

This is a horrible strawman, but I'll play along.

Originally you said coming onto property, which I took as a yard or whatnot. So now it's in a house? Okay, why wouldn't the cops knock on the door? Why would they just bust right in?

It's not outside the realm of possibility of a home intruder wearing a police uniform. It's actually happened more than a few times I can remember.

But to clarify, specifically what parameters are in place that a cop would just barge right into a home, an internal structure at this point, without announcing themselves?

 

[SamRebel35]

You'll get the outrage-itis that's swept a few folks here. Of course, they still have yet to present a valid argument to the contrary that the cop shouldn't have been there in the first place.

It's been my experience that one can't be too careful in that kind of situation, especially if said dog is coming at you in a menacing manner. It's one of those things that I can't say is wrong especially if the officer happens to be there on legitimate business. (I'm assuming in your case they were)

But once that dog gets a hold of anyone, it's not always easy to get them to stop unless they are trained to out on command. We go back to the discussion we were having the other day about pit bulls. Some could be friendly as the dickens, others not so much. So a little precaution would certainly be in order.

Enough with the strawman arguments. I'm not saying the cop shouldn't have been there. I'm saying he should have exercised much more caution when entering into unfamiliar turf. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume he killed the dog in self defense. That doesn't mean he didn't completely screw up by putting himself in the situation. If we find out that the owner opened up the door to let the dog out specifically to attack the officer, my opinion will change. Absent that revelation, the cop is responsible for killing the dog and should be held accountable.

 

[SamRebel35]

This is a horrible strawman, but I'll play along.

Originally you said coming onto property, which I took as a yard or whatnot. So now it's in a house? Okay, why wouldn't the cops knock on the door? Why would they just bust right in?

It's not outside the realm of possibility of a home intruder wearing a police uniform. It's actually happened more than a few times I can remember.

But to clarify, specifically what parameters are in place that a cop would just barge right into a home, an internal structure at this point, without announcing themselves?

A cop entering a premises without making his presence known. A yard is a premises. He didn't "knock" aka make his presence known prior to entering. The kid is on the deck playing. Fearful of this intruder that has entered without permission, he grabs the nearest gardening tool for defense and attacks out if fear.

 

[Grand Vol]

Enough with the strawman arguments. I'm not saying the cop shouldn't have been there. I'm saying he should have exercised much more caution when entering into unfamiliar turf. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume he killed the dog in self defense. That doesn't mean he didn't completely screw up by putting himself in the situation. If we find out that the owner opened up the door to let the dog out specifically to attack the officer, my opinion will change. Absent that revelation, the cop is responsible for killing the dog and should be held accountable.

You do know the owner wasn't at home, right?

And again, we don't know exactly what level of caution he exercised. We're talking about a missing kid here, not some cop who was out for a stroll and decided to check out the guy's pool. I can tell you, again from personal experience, that the one thought on your mind is find that kid no matter what.

I have no doubt he will be held into some sort of account. And I have no doubt the Salt Lake City PD will likely end up settling this out of court. But does this situation justify firing said cop as others have stated? Or really the completely irrational responses by a couple of the members here? Are the circumstances, as known at this time, worthy of firing said officer?

And again, unless the revelation that the officer went into that backyard with the express intent of shooting that dog comes out, I'll remain on my stance that the extenuating circumstances surrounding this situation warranted further investigation and events were set into motion that ended up with the dead dog.