It seems that lately I can't open my inbox without a note of one kind
or another about a Police Officer using deadly force against a dog.
Loose dogs, pet dogs, big dogs, little dogs-dogs charging, barking,
running away or allegedly simply standing there. Is this on the rise? Is
there an epidemic of the use of deadly force against pets? I am not
convinced either way-I suspect that is may be a result of the speed of,
and breadth by which these stories are
spread due to social media and citizen journalists, bypassing mainstream
avenues-but the jury is still out. The problem is, these cases are
gaining a great amount of attention, not just here in the US but across a
surprisingly global audience. So I want to take a few minutes of your
time and talk about the issue, the perceptions, and possible solutions
to the perceived problem.
First off: full disclosure time. I am
a retired Police Lieutenant. I served 22 years with the Jacksonville
Sheriff's Office, Jacksonville, Florida. I never shot a dog during my
career. I am biased-in most cases I will go out of my way to defend a
brother Officer, even if I may have personal misgivings that the
incident could have been handled better. I understand the stresses, the
pressure, and the need for immediate decision making in critical
incidents. I also have no patience for bad cops. I am not here to
criticize, or defend anyone. I want to look at contacts between officers
and pets and try to get both the pets and the officers home in one,
safe package.
With that out of the way let's look at the
problem. How do we reduce conflict between dogs and Police Officers? In
what situations are these conflicts occurring, and what tools do we have
to reduce these incidents? Where does responsibility lie?
There are several general categories of contact between police and dogs
that seem to encompass most of the situations. I am going to break them
into groups: High-Risk encounters; Emergency responses; Public Safety
encounters; Low Risk encounters; Seizures; and Nuisance encounters.
High-Risk encounters are the easiest to classify, and perhaps the
clearest of the bunch for us to respond to. These are the drug and
violent crime raids. SWAT or another unit is making a fast, forcible
entry into dangerous territory. The bad guys are likely armed, and
likely have little to lose by resisting. The dogs in these situations
are potential weapons. The officers will likely also be confronted by
humans bearing other weapons, like firearms. The potential for officer
injury or death is high. No one in this situation has the time to
conduct a lengthy negotiation with a hostile animal, even if that animal
is acting aggressively due to mistreatment or fear. Perhaps I am a
speciest, but human safety comes first. That said, a High-Risk situation
is not a free ticket to blast away at any animals present, any more
than it is a free ride to shoot any humans out of hand (we will leave
terrorist encounters out of this equation). There are tools that can be
used to reduce risk from animals that are quick and reasonable.
The best of those tools is information. No one raids a location without
at least some advance intelligence about the location and the potential
occupants. Pre-raid surveillance should include establishing whether
there are animals present, and whether those animals seem to present a
valid threat. If the intelligence establishes that the bad guy has
trained, aggressive dogs that are little more than four-legged weapons
those dogs are a clear threat. On the other hand, a hound dog that
spends his days hanging out on the front porch, probably not so much.
Either way, the presence of the animals has been noted, and contingency
plans can be put in place. Frankly, if my intelligence said the dogs
were trained to attack I would be more proactive in removing the threat.
In some cases this degree of information may not be present-yet there
are still indicators. Are there dogs chained up? Can you get past them
without releasing them? Are there less lethal methods, such as OC spray,
that can be rapidly deployed to deter or temporarily disable the dogs
while still allowing the officers to respond safely to the more likely
human threat? Can the entry team, and the suspects, be isolated quickly
and safely from the dogs? Can the dogs simply be taken out of the
equation?
These are High-Risk situations, and as such there are
clear limits to the amount of time and effort that can be devoted to
animals during entry and securing the scene. But most of the situations
in which animals and Police come into conflict are not High-Risk
encounters.
Second on my list is Emergency Response. These
cases are where a human is in immediate danger or has been injured and a
dog is "protecting" the victim. These are survival situations. If the
dog is not removed quickly a human may die. These, like High-Risk
encounters, don't give a responding officer much time. Other emergency
responders, like medical services, may be on scene and trying to get to
the victim. These situations are touchy in that the dog is doing what it
is supposed to do-protecting its owner. Less lethal alternatives should
be on the front burner here. The dog doesn't understand that the
strangers are there to help. Time is of the essence, but compassion for
both the human victim and the dog is a clear consideration.
Of
course if the dog is the source of the injury, or reasonably appears to
be the source of the injury, the game is changed. The dog must be
removed before doing more damage, and the person's injuries addressed.
Even here deadly force is not necessarily the first choice. Depending on
the positioning of the dog and victim, shooting the dog may present a
clear danger to the victim. Disengaging the dog is the first priority,
but sacrificing the victim in the process, or even adding to the
victim's injuries, is not an option. For evidence I personally prefer
the dog in such a case be kept alive if possible, but human safety
reigns supreme. Still, initial disengagement of the dog may better
proceed using less lethal options, if for nothing more than separation
of victim and target for a clear shot, with a safe(r) backdrop.
One factor to be considered in cases where the dog is the source, or
apparent source, of the injury/threat is physical evidence. A dog
destroyed as a result of a serious or life threatening attack is
evidence, possibly of a crime. We do not casually destroy evidence.
Evidence is what we need to hold a human, often the owner, responsible
for their actions, or lack of action. In the rare case that a dog must
be destroyed on scene for immediate safety, any deadly force (gunshot)
deployed should be to the dog's center of mass-the middle of its body.
Head shots are not ideal-not only will the gunshot likely damage the
dog's jaws, a potentially critical piece of evidence, but the head of a
dog is a difficult target to hit. Imagine firing at a grapefruit
bouncing down the street. Additionally, anyone who has examined the
skull of a large dog will tell you that the skull is a very thick chunk
of bone, with lots of angled surfaces. Even a police duty round may have
trouble penetrating, especially if it hits at an odd angle or the head
is moving away at the moment of impact. In an emergency, just like when
defending against people, body shots are the most reasonable and
reliable.
I would remind all readers that the purpose of police
use of force, particularly deadly force, is not to "shoot to kill". The
justification for use of deadly force is to remove a credible and
immediate threat-no more. If, for instance, I am confronted by an armed
subject, I am not authorized to "shoot to kill". I am only lawfully
allowed to shoot until the threat is removed. Thus, if I fire once,
miss, and the bad guy drops his weapon (been there) I have to hold my
fire. I can't "finish him off", no matter how much I might want to. The
legal cause is suddenly no longer valid. If I shoot a person once and
they fall and surrender, or can't continue the assault, then the
incident is over. If I shoot again I have violated the law and used
excessive force.
I would suggest that Officers who have to
deploy lethal force against dogs take the same factors into
consideration-you are shooting to remove the threat. If the first shot
takes the dog down and he is unable to re-engage, the incident is over.
The next proper step is to contact Animal Control or whomever is
responsible for providing, in your jurisdiction, emergency care for a
wounded animal. A decision to "finish him off" or to "euthanize" such an
animal should be left to a Veterinarian and the owner. It is not the
responsibility of the Police to determine the appropriateness of
veterinary care-nor are they trained to do so.
Next time: Part 2; Public Safety and Low Risk encounters.
http://canineaggression.blogspot.com/2013/01/dogs-police-and-use-of-force-part-1-of-3.html#comment-form
No comments:
Post a Comment