Lawyering up, doggie style
By Gina Spadafori
October 13, 2007
How is it that someone who isn’t smart enough to keep a “playfully aggressive” dog away from other dogs has two brain cells close enough together to call a lawyer?
By the way, there’s no such thing as “playfully aggressive.” I’ve been around dogs long enough to know what every dog is pretty much born knowing: You’re either playful, or you’re aggressive. This, by the way, is a lesson unlearned by all the chuckleheads in dog parks, who allow their animals to bully and then blithely tell the other people, “Oh, he’s just playing!”
No, no and no, he’s not.
So where do the lawyers come in? A man’s “playfully aggressive” dog jumps another dog. Problem for the dog is that the owner of the animal being attacked is an off-duty police officer, who pulls his service revolver and kills the man’s dog.
Now, before I go any further, please note I am most emphatically not recommending this particular way of ending a dog fight. But I have had my dog on the business end of these “playfully aggressive” dogs often enough I have myself screamed at the owners and taken a stick to a dog who was hell-bent on hurting my own. (By the way, this is why I never take — nor recommend taking — small dogs into dog parks. By the time you can react to a predatory or “playfully aggressive” dog attacking your little guy, it may be too late.)
So the police officer shoots the man’s dog. Does it end there, or maybe after a routine investigation into the firing of the service revolver? No, it does not. Instead, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, the owner of the “playfully aggressive” dog sues:
A grieving dog lover has filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit against South San Francisco police, saying an off-duty sergeant wrongfully shot and killed his boxer named Angel after it grappled with the sergeant’s dog in a park last year.
Ray Halteh, 28, said Sgt. Mike Remedios shot and killed Angel on Sept. 25, 2006, in Zamora Park after the dog was “engaged in aggressive playful interaction” with another dog named Buddy that happened to belong to the sergeant.
Remedios was coming home from work and heard his wife screaming as she was walking Buddy, said Halteh’s attorney, Eric Safire.
Halteh separated the dogs, and no one was in immediate danger, Safire said. But Remedios then identified himself as a South San Francisco police officer and said “step aside” before shooting Angel, the suit said.
Remedios “instantly came to the conclusion that plaintiff’s dog was out of control and deadly force was initiated,” said Halteh’s lawsuit, filed last week in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.
The sergeant’s dog, Buddy, received “little, if any, medical veterinary treatment and displayed no visual evidence of injury,” the suit said.
Police Chief Mark Raffaelli and City Attorney Steven Mattas said Friday that the city conducted an internal investigation into the shooting and found no wrongdoing on the part of Remedios.
Mr. Remedios Halteh, I’m sorry your dog is dead. Really, I am. But instead of suing, I think you would be better off learning something from the experience. A dog who likes to mix it up with other dogs should never be allowed to do so. Should the officer have shot your dog? There likely was another way to handle the situation, but without being there … hard to say. It is the suing lawyer, after all, who’s saying there was “no immediate danger.” The officer may have a different take.
If you think your dog will pick a fight, don’t give him the opportunity to do so. And find a trainer or behaviorist to help.
***
Thank you to all who’ve sent us links to the horrible story coming out of Puerto Rico about pets taken from people and thrown from a bridge to be killed. I’m sad to say this news surprises me not. People can’t be counted on not to do horrible things to other people, much less to animals. I’m also not surprised to read that the first official’s reaction was to say no one could prove anything.
You’ve lost your mind. The fight was over, the dogs were separated, neither dog was hurt, and the officer takes it upon himself to execute what he perceives as the aggressive dog? There’s a procedure to follow to investigate aggressive dogs in San Francisco, and insta-judgement and execution by revolver isn’t it. For all we know, the Sargeant’s dog may have started it and the other dog may have been defending himself. Two wrongs here do not make a right. I hope the guy wins his suit.
Comment by John — October 13, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
I’m sorry, but this is a case where I agree with the guy whose dog was shot. If the news article is to be believed, and the officer shot the dog after the fight was broken up, that’s totally out of line. Yes, he should have had better control over his dog, but that does not give anyone an excuse to kill his dog—not unless there was no other alternative (which doesn’t sound like it was the case, here).
My dog is not dog aggressive, but if she were to get in a fight and someone (let alone a police officer) shot her, then I’d be pissed too. Using sticks or other objects to hit the dogs to break up the fight is fine with me…deadly force is not, unless there is absolutely no other alternative.
Comment by Janine — October 13, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
“Now, before I go any further, please note I am not recommending this particular way of ending a dog fight.”
Did you miss that?
My point — please don’t miss it — is that people are always, always letting their “playfully aggressive” dogs bully or attack other dogs. I can’t tell you how many e-mails I get from people whose dogs were injured by known problem animals (or should that be problem owners?) at dog parks.
When I’m at a dog park and some clueless chucklehead walks in with his “he’s just playing” aggressive dog, I whistle up my dogs and go home. Because I no longer believe my dogs are safe there.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 13, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
I didn’t miss that, Gina, and I agree with your point. But you also said that he shouldn’t be suing, which in turn implies that the cop was in the right—which I don’t agree with. I’m not saying that the guy was totally innocent, but killing his dog right then and there is not the right punishment for this sort of “crime”.
It’s also hard to tell from the article if it really was playing or aggressiveness. I agree with you that it’s either one or the other, but some dogs definitely are more pushy with their play then others. I know some dogs that bark and growl while playing—and they’re definitely playing. For people who don’t know them, it can seem aggressive, even though it’s not.
I guess my problem is that even though you’re not recommending this way of ending a dog fight, it does seem like you’re at least somewhat condoning it. Like the guy should treat it as a lesson learned and do better next time, instead of fighting back against something that (in my opinion) was a very wrong decision on the part of the cop. Of course, you’re allowed to have any opinion you want on the topic, but I don’t agree with you in this case. :)
Comment by Janine — October 13, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
Ya know what? I’m going to agree with you both.
I was trying to make a point about people who their dogs bully other dogs and think it’s OK because the dog is “just playing” when he’s really not.
This may or may not have been the case here, and no one who wasn’t there will ever really know.
Fair enough?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 13, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
“Mr. Remedios, I’m sorry your dog is dead.”
Did I read the story wrong? - I take it that Remedios was the off duty police officer and Halteh was the owner of the dog that was shot.
Comment by cheryl — October 13, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
Yup, fair enough. And in case I wasn’t clear, I do totally agree with you about people who say “he’s just playing” when he’s really not. I’ve run into more than one person who thinks this way—especially people with small dogs. Recently there was a rat terrier at the dog park who was attacking and biting other (and much larger) dogs…and yet the owner thought it was funny. I guess they figure since the dog isn’t capable of doing lasting harm it’s okay? Luckily for that dog, the dogs it was fighting weren’t fighting back.
Comment by Janine — October 13, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
Corrected. I think I should go back to bed and start over. Or maybe John’s right. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 13, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Im afraid I have to agree with Janine here…
Yes, the agressor dog was in the wrong. But as you pointed out, this happens all the time. Should deadly force be used - all the time? I think not.
The dogs were seperated and no longer fighting (if that is what it was). The officer did NOT have the authority to act as judge jury and executioner at that point. A ticket for failure to control the dog was certainly in order or some such citation but NOT instant death!
I have become increasingly concerned with what I see as excessive force on the part of police followed by an all too automatic vindication of the officer(s).
Here in Green Bay we recently had an incident where a guy who had in fact been misbehaving (drinking for certain) and ran from police and was shot THIRTYSEVEN TIMES when he got out of his car and took out his cell phone. A crowded nightclub was in the line of fire and a bouncer working there was shot twice and most of the club’s windows were shot out.
I understand that police put themselves in danger every day and some do get killed in the line of duty. But, the Dodge City mentality has gone too far even when there is no immediate danger to anyone.
In this case, the event was over and it was a deliberate killing with only the thinnest of justifications.
I had to kill a dog once. It was a huge St. Bernard (ironic, no?) that had been raiding my heifer pasture and the owner refused to controll it. When a dog almost as big as the stock it is attacking cannot be controlled in any other way then at some point you have to take severe action. It was a very regretable situation that lead to hard feelings in the neighborhood for years but I only did it after every other option had been exhausted.
It should also be pointed out that in my case the police had already been involved and they made no rush to have the dog put down. They preferred to have it resolved peacefully first which I think was the right thing to do.
I dont care what the department says. The officer was in the wrong and was mostly likely angry because it was his dog and his wife involved and overstepped good judgement.
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — October 15, 2007 @ 7:31 am
I did not in any way, shape or form read that Gina was condoning the police officer’s actions. What I read was that she was *trying* to emphasize the damage that can result when clueless owners with aggressive dogs don’t keep their dogs under control and away from other dogs.
Suzanne Clothier wrote an article about this entitled “He just wants to say ‘Hi’”:
http://www.flyingdogpress.com/sayhi.html
Although her article focuses more on the error of blaming the aggressed-upon dog for reacting defensively to the intrusion, the central point is still this: A responsible owner does not allow their dog to inappropriately invade the personal space of another dog.
That’s the point I believe Gina was trying to make, and that got lost in the shuffle here. Just to be clear, I’ll say it again:
*A responsible owner does not allow their dog to inappropriately invade the personal space of another dog.*
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 15, 2007 @ 9:13 am
Pat, I agree wtih everything you said but…
Does that behavior rise to the level of an immediate death sentance?
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — October 16, 2007 @ 6:56 am
No, it doesn’t. And I don’t believe that Gina ever even hinted that it does.
But if the clueless owner had kept his dog under control in the first place, the question never would have had to even be asked.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 16, 2007 @ 7:28 am
As the owner of a boxer (who lives within a few miles of where this incident took place!), I’d also like to throw out that there is a great misconception about the breed. Many people assume boxers are vicious, just from the way they look. Boxers tend to growl, bark, and jump when they’re playing, so if someone was unaware of that, they might assume the worst.
That said, I also know that my dog *is* a bit temperamental with other dogs, so I’m always right on top of her if we’re somewhere with other dogs, so that I can quickly intervene if something happens.
Given that there were no injuries to the other dog, I’m guessing that if there was a fight, the owner was able to step in quickly to separate the dogs, so I can’t imagine that this was a situation where the police officer was justified in killing the dog. Instead, Animal Control should have been called to determine whether or not the dog was a threat to public safety.
Comment by Allyson — October 17, 2007 @ 4:07 pm