+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/24/2018 12:51 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.652 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
09/28/2008 08:19 AM ID: 73665 Permalink   

Police Officer Shoots Dog when Attacked


A Springfield MO police officer tracking down robbery suspects at a house shot and killed a dog after a woman opened the door and turned the dog loose on him and his K-9 partner.

The rottweiler died as a result of being struck with a bullet from the officers handgun.

The incident is being investigated internally by the police department.

    WebReporter: LeroyJenkins Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  Yeah, I'd say  
this one is justified. Anything with an intent to harm an officer and his/her companion (whether it be human or canine) needs to be put down ASAP.

Unless the dog was a really bad decoy, I doubt the dog wanted to shake hands and paws with them.
  by: The Mad Mule   09/28/2008 08:49 AM     
Yup I agree.
  by: isuzu     09/28/2008 02:01 PM     
i'd have done exactly the same
  by: ProTesTa     09/28/2008 02:26 PM     
the woman should be tried for animal cruelty.
  by: Trevelyan   09/28/2008 03:26 PM     
  @ Trevelyan  
You got it, but I doubt that will even be thought of and the evil cow will not care a hoot.
  by: captainJane     09/28/2008 04:42 PM     
Change of tune from your last police related comment.

Change of heart, maybe?
  by: nyceplaya2002     09/28/2008 08:14 PM     
So the woman opens the door, and the dog runs out, and this suddenly means she "turned him loose" on the officer?
I would like proof from both parties that she had intent to do that, and I would like to know why the police officer didn't know how to deal with an attacking dog?
I mean, did he have to shoot to kill? Why not go for the leg or something? Why not kick the dog and make loud noises to intimidate it?
What about his police dog, that dog couldn't do anything?

I don't like big dogs, but I don't think that shooting to kill the dog was the answer...
What if it was a man? Is it okay to shoot to kill then too?

Excuses excuses...
  by: Vhan     09/28/2008 08:17 PM     
  G@# %*!$?&@  
That was skittles there, not Vhan.
I really wish it would just say "Hello Vhan/skittlesloli" in the corner like all other sites.
I'm sorry I'm sorry, I'm working really hard to check the @*$#% "my short news" before I look at actual news...
  by: skittlesloli   09/28/2008 08:20 PM     
  A Little Nuance Differance Between  
"a woman opened the door and turned the dog loose on him and his K-9 partner."
from your story.

And "a woman inside the house opened the door and a rottweiler ran out,"from the source.

That being said

Welcome to the gang.
  by: ichi     09/28/2008 09:02 PM     
You're kidding right? You never aim for the leg, you always shoot to kill. Obviously you have never fired a weapon before. Oh hell, maybe he should have shot warning shots in the air. Get real man!
  by: noscamman   09/28/2008 09:06 PM     
Now maybe it's because I have never shot a gun before. I think it would be very difficult to shoot a dog in the leg. They are not exactly big targets.

On another matter, is it really worth risking the life of a police K-9 to take down that dog?

I and most people would agree that it is not.
  by: the mobile kid   09/28/2008 10:18 PM     
  Its Part Of The Procedure  
When forcefully entering to shoot the dogs.

The assumption is that the dogs will attack. When challenged on the necessity of killing the dogs the boilerplate answer is to say that they feared attack by the dogs.

That fluffy is a loved part of your family is not considered. Innocent people have had their family pets killed by officers having the wrong address or having been given bad information. The assumption of innocence till proven guilty only seems to apply in court.

  by: ichi     09/29/2008 12:50 AM     
  @noscamman AND the mobile kid  
Maybe you should have kept reading.
That was me posting, but I found out I was on Vhans account.

I have fired a weapon before, what does that have to do with a trained professional? If a professional can't aim at a moving target like a dog, he shouldn't be paid.

I have also fought off dogs before as well, you don't need to shoot to kill to get rid of a dog, just kick him in the face.

I'm sure a highly trained police dog that can take down a raving lunatic can take down a dog of about its size, and to say that the police dog's life would be risked sounds insulting to not only the dog, but the people who trained him/her.

Anyway, yeah, not Vhan, skittles, you know, like I said in the post right after...
  by: skittlesloli   09/29/2008 02:21 AM     
  @ skittlesloli  
What do you have 2 accounts for? First off, I doubt many people are ninja expert and can time kicking a dog in the face. The cop had a right to protect himself and his canine from threats. And where did you get your shooting lessons from? Everybody knows that every time you shoot, you shoot to kill, otherwise the threat is not great enough to use such force. I have shot many different weapons in the Marine Corps and have shot with police officers, I never heard such nonsense before about shooting in the leg. And moving targets are not easy to shoot either.
  by: noscamman   09/29/2008 03:22 AM     
You have got to be kidding me.
You didn't just say that.
Are you really that st-...
I'm his girlfriend Einstein.
I didn't know that two people couldn't share a computer, much less have their own accounts on SN.
After all, it is MY computer, so I would imagine I have the right to have an account on a website with it right?
I've just had issues with double checking if I'm logged in as me or not.
(I can't believe I had to explain that when I've already explained it so many times on this site)

Anyway, I never took shooting lessons since I don't need lessons to shoot. I'm not a ninja, I can just lift my leg more vigorously than others I guess, been kicking since I was born, didn't know it was something only ninjas do.
And if America's police force can't shoot a moving target, they should be sent back to training. I don't want a bad shot protecting me.

Maybe I have high standards for my law enforcement, but I don't see that as a bad thing.
  by: skittlesloli   09/29/2008 03:46 AM     
  @ skittlesloli  
<deleted by admin>
  by: noscamman   09/29/2008 04:21 AM     
" have fired a weapon before, what does that have to do with a trained professional? If a professional can't aim at a moving target like a dog, he shouldn't be paid."

Didn't the officer do just that shoot a moving dog??

Dogs are trained to subdue a person by attacking arms or legs. They are NOT trained to do 1 on 1 fights with other dogs.
  by: the mobile kid   09/29/2008 04:35 AM     
your cops suck, they need a least a little skill, I agree with skittlesloli if they are that inept they should never have been given a police badge in the first place.

and there is very little difficultly shooting a large dog a close range.

and based on the langauge you used towards skittlesloli your a cowardly loser(Men dont speak to wemon like that) so obviouly you think you shoot to kill because your too chicken to take a risk to your own person to prevent a Fatal outcome.

you may want cops to be morally equal to crims but i want my cops to always have the high moral ground, they should set an example.
  by: veya_victaous     09/29/2008 05:51 AM     
  @the mobile kid  
"Didn't the officer do just that shoot a moving dog??"

You're right, he did.
So I'll correct myself; the officers should know how to shoot a moving something without killing it.

"Dogs are trained to subdue a person by attacking arms or legs. They are NOT trained to do 1 on 1 fights with other dogs."
Then they should be.
I mean, why not? If ever a situation arises where that dog has to defend itself against another dog (Perhaps the officer is busy with something else even and can't rescue the dog), he/she should be able to do so.
If anything I'm sure theres a sliver of instinct left that the dog would know to at least bite at the other dog.
  by: skittlesloli   09/29/2008 05:57 AM     
  @ veya_victaous  
Please use spell check before you start posting. Your ignorance is becoming contagious.
  by: noscamman   09/29/2008 06:21 AM     
Yes I am sure the dog does have enough instinct to fight, however its still not worth risking a police dogs life in order to subdue another dog. Police K-9 is more valuable then that dogs life. Is it not worth the risk of letting it fight just to keep the rogue dog alive.


Police are supposed to shoot any armed threat withing 10 feet of them. So if you have a knife and are not letting it go they have every right to kill you at that point. Now most won't because they do have some moral to them but I do not feel bad at all for someone who gets laid to reset for not listening to police in that kind of situation. Police are not angels or jesus. They deserve every right to make sure they go home safe to the family's that love them. Your way of thinking could just lead to more of them being killed.
  by: the mobile kid   09/29/2008 07:30 AM     
I'm sorry, I didn't say thank you for defending me.
It was really nice.
  by: skittlesloli   09/29/2008 08:20 AM     
Ummmm... Did you comment on the wrong article? That would be the only reason to explain how retarded your comment is.

"and there is very little difficultly shooting a large dog a close range. "

Ummm. Hello?!?!?! He did hit the dog. He did a damn good job too.

People with lack of intelligence can't seem to see the bigger picture. They have such a narrow focused mind they can't fathom the realities of the world. p.s. I've seen skittlesloli. I think she is related to the deceased. :-)

Hit the leg of a running dog? You live in a fantasy land. You've watched to much tv and can't seem to differentiate between reality and fiction. What happens to the bullet if he misses? What if he does hit the leg? It's all bone and little flesh? What happens to the bullet next? Maybe into the other dog, his partner or someone innocent? Get a grip on reality and burst the little bubble that you've been living in.
  by: yortap2   09/29/2008 03:45 PM     
I would have shot the dog and then charged the lady with attempted murder at least for my K-9 who is concidered a policeman.
  by: rogeratvfan   09/29/2008 06:32 PM     
  Don't mind me...  
But maybe they SHOULD train K-9 units to deal with other dogs as well as human targets.
  by: saltinekraken08   09/29/2008 07:47 PM     
Police Officers are trained and taught that if they fire their weapon, it is to stop the target by aiming at the center of mass. This is the chest on a human, and the same on a dog.

If the cop aimed at the dog's leg, he would actually be breaking the rules. It is REQUIRED that he aim for the center of mass to stop the attacker. This is the law. It is not his duty to maim the target. Yes, shooting a dog in the leg would maim it, perhaps even take the leg off. How is that better?

Also, how is training a K9 unit to attack other dogs a reasonable argument? You're saying that dog fighting should be a normal ritual with K9s? Last I checked, dog fighting was illegal in the United States. The object of a police officer is to not get himself hurt -- this goes for police dogs as well.
  by: deadtaco   09/29/2008 08:40 PM     
  Boys are cute when they're upset.  
Ah yes, god forbid that bullet is anywhere but in the center. Like I said, the police can't take his big boot and kick it (not hard to do)? The ass of the dog is also the "center" area, why not shoot its ass? Still disables it and doesn't kill the family pet on the assumption that its dangerous. You can rain the personal insults in all you want, I still believe it could be avoided. So you're talking to a wall and may as well stop now.

I'm sure a kid would like his dog alive with 3 legs than dead with 4. The dog was not "turned" on him, he simply ran out, maybe he really had to take a shit?
Rottweilers may look scary, but if you can deal with your own police dog that is actually TRAINED to take down a human, surely you can take on a pet dog that may only have seemed hostile, but really wasn't.

Yeah yeah, you're going to try and turn this into some dog fighting debate, and I wont have any part of it.
I'll just say, if the police are dealing with many dogs, and many humans, and they can't protect their dog against the others, they better damn well pray that their dog knows how to defend himself.

If having high expectations for the men and women "protecting my freedoms" is a fantasy, then I need a country where the law enforcement is actually good.

And thats all I have to say, I'm not going to continue to talk to little boys who like to throw insults to make themselves feel better about their opinion.
  by: skittlesloli   09/29/2008 09:53 PM     
Please tell me where I threw an insult at you. Quote it for me, because by gosh, I certainly can't remember insulting anyone.
  by: deadtaco   09/29/2008 10:22 PM     
Poor Fido, the cute little aggressive, monstrous, vicious rottweiler.

lol, give me a break.

Big dogs are scary, dogs attack, the officer has every right to protect himself, and his partner. If a dog is charging you, your only option for a shot is his head or chest. Would you rather he miss the dog, while trying to aim for his leg, and catch a child with the stray bullet? I didn't think so.
  by: smarta$$     09/29/2008 10:30 PM     
I guess you didn't have a response to my point about the bullet actually hitting the leg and then going somewhere else....

Some people are sooooooooo naive. They will never get out of the fantasy bubble. I blame the combination of TV and lack of parenting skills to teach the children the difference between fiction and reality.
  by: yortap2   09/30/2008 03:29 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: