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.

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.

Does that behavior rise to the level of an immediate death sentance?

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.*

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.

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.

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?

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. :)