Off Duty federal officer shoots dog at dog park
 

By Radley Balko

I've been to many a dog park. I've seen lots of dogs scuffle at those parks. It happens. Most owners pull the dogs apart and, if they can't get along, one or both dogs leave the park. The possibility of someone pulling out a gun and shooting a dog has never really even crossed my mind. But maybe that's because I'm not a cop.

Stunned dog owners and residents of a Severn neighborhood are shocked that authorities won't be charging a federal police officer who shot and killed a Siberian husky Monday night at a community dog park.

Bear-Bear, a brown and white husky that was about 3 years old, was playing in the Quail Run dog park at about 6:30 p.m., running off leash inside the fenced-in area, when the officer and his wife arrived with a German shepherd, who was kept on a leash. When the dogs began to play roughly, the federal officer asked Bear-Bear's guardian, his owner's brother, to call off the dog. But before he could do anything, the officer pulled out a gun and shot Bear-Bear, according to the husky's owner.

Bear-Bear, who belongs to Rachel Rettaliala, died of his injuries a few hours later. County police did not name the federal officer.

The article points out that huskies have a rough style of play, so it's likely that this cop, like plenty of others, mistook non-aggressive behavior for an attack. (Huskies are also an especially gentle, non-aggressive breed.) The fact that the cop had his dog on-leash at an off-leash park is more evidence that he doesn't know much about how dogs behave. That's never a good idea (most parks don't allow it). It invites an altercation.

But that's all really beside the point. I'm certain that if I (or anyone else who isn't a cop) pulled out a gun and shot a dog at a dog park in a residential area, I'd be facing criminal charges. And rightly so. Even if the dogs were fighting, there's no justification for shooting one of them, particularly around other dogs and people. It's reckless, trigger-happy, and dangerous. It's also safe to say that if this had been anyone other than a cop, the local police department would have no qualms about releasing his name to the press.


link

I am just kind of blown by this article because a few weeks ago, at the park where I take my dog to, a lady was caught in the middle of 3 dogs that was roughhousing and although she was a bit shaken up, she was ok and everyone managed to work it out. These kinds of things happen but rarely does anyone or the dogs get hurt.

This right here bugged me.

This post made me sad ... poor Bear-Bear!

Aww :-( Poor Bear-Bear.
I love dogs... huskies are one of my favorites. I don't know what this guy was thinking.

This absolutely makes me furious, and heartsick. The federal officer, by keeping his dog leashed, broke a cardinal rule of dog parks. You don't do that.

My Belgians play hard and I know the difference between play and aggression. I also know how to manage my dogs, who are always under control and command when we are out and about. Sibes are an amazing breed; I've taken my Belgians carting with local Sibes and everyone gets along great.

People do NOT understand dog behavior. There are a lot of false beliefs being circulated.

My six month old Belgian Tervuren puppy was attacked by a full grown Rottweiler. Both dogs were leashed. The Rottie broke away from his owner. It took four adults to separate the dogs. During the entire altercation, no one screamed or yelled at the dogs.

Why? Because it would have incited the dogs to fight harder. It is a very difficult thing to do, since it is instinct to scream and yell. That is the worst thing you can do.

Unless the dog was viciously attacking a human being I can't understand how this could be considered ok. He should face some repercussions, certainly. If it were my dog that were shot I would sue.

I'm also looking at the thought of suppose he MISSED and hit someone? There was no reason to pull out his sidearm.

I'm thinking there is more to this story than what is written here. I can't imagine a dog owner just so heartlessly killing another dog so easily.

Also, although Siberian Huskies are generally friendly, even the AKC says that their "predatory instincts run strong," so you have to watch them when they play. Some can actually be very standoffish to strangers. Years ago in the neighborhood where I grew up, two huskies mauled a woman who came to their front door (the back gate was apparently open).

Anyway, I have taken a dog to an off-leash area on leash before. A lot of people think of a leash as a restriction for a dog, but a leash is also meant for the dog's protection. I took one of my dogs to our huge dog park on a leash the first time we went there, because I wasn't sure how he would react and I wanted to be able to get control of him quickly if something went wrong. We had no problems with the other dogs attacking him.

It drives me absolutely nuts - no, actually it angers me - when people don't have control of their dog at a dog park. Just because it's off-leash does not mean owners can check their responsibility at the gate. I have had SO many dogs play far too rough with my dog for her taste, and I WILL and HAVE defended her against some dogs that take "playing" too far. "Oh, he's just playing!" the other owners always say, and I say back, "Well, mine's not! Look at her body language - she's running to me for protection, practically trying to hide between my legs!" People just don't get it. Maybe your dog plays rough, but not all dogs do, and my dog doesn't have to put up with it. Furthermore, some "playing" is not playing at all, but is actually more of an aggressive cat and mouse game. I can tell whether my dog is enjoying playing with another dog, or whether that dog is stalking and preying on her, trying to exert his/her dominance. I have had to kick some dogs off of my dog when they *clearly* were preying on my dog, not playing, and yet their owners were still clueless when I yelled at them to control their dogs.

I'll admit, if my dog was being attacked - I mean, outright attacked, yelping, blood, etc. - and I had a gun, I would be tempted to fire a shot. Maybe not to kill, but to wound it if I thought it would release its grip on my dog.

you post makes sense. however, if what was stated above in the article is true, then his behavior is still unacceptable- he fired the shot before anything could be done. it says that the dogs were playing roughly, and not that either was injured. i'm sure if the officer's dog was, they would've released that information to further justify his actions.


i hope she sues him or something.

I saw another article claiming the dog tried to bite the officer as he tried to separate them. I'll have to see if I can find it again.

Even if the owner (or guardian, in this case) wasn't responding quickly enough, that doesn't mean the officer needed to shoot the dog.

I hate it when dogs get punished for their owner's (or whoever's) stupidity.

My friend has a pug, and he was attacked one day by a Pit Bull. The Pit Bull was "conditioned" or whatever for fighting. Unfortunately, because his owners were idiots, he had to be put down. :(

This article makes this guy seem psychotic but if it's true that he was attacked I can see how he can make the justification for the shooting. My old roommate had a huskie/German Shepard and that boy was a brute! Just his little playful nips broke skin and drew blood and we had to keep him away from guests for fear of him accidentally hurting them. I couldn't imagine dealing with that dog if he was ever in "attack" mode, I'd at least need a baseball bat to defend myself against him.

Ok..this gets a little more interesting.

the officer was carrying his PERSONAL sidearm and not his service weapon.

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/24530406/detail.html

Yes he was off-duty, so that makes sense actually.

That story also had this quote: And honestly, I'm up in the air. I know too many people who think their dog is precious but have a pretty violent dog. I also know that huskies can be aggressive. It's also true that you shouldn't try to separate dogs fighting for this very reason. And it's also possible it was an overreaction on the officer's part.

Odds are it was plausible for him to be concerned, even if the Bear-Bear wasn't being truly aggressive and was just play fighting. Tragic no matter what.

I know this makes me sound crazy, but if someone shot my dog at the dog park, they'd have to shoot me next, because I'd probably try to kill them (ok, not kill them, but I'd lose my mind with rage).
As a frequent dog-parker, I too know that your dog is going to get extra-bothered if it's on a leash in an off-leash area. IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. Yes, Huskies aren't the most docile of breeds, but it didn't sound like it was really a fight that was occurring at the time. It sounds like a nervous, armed owner kept his dog on a leash, got overly concerned when another dog approached and had some mouthy play, and when the situation didn't immediately dissipate, he took out his handgun and shot the other dog! Disgusting!
As someone who's seen and helped treat dogs that have been abused, even shot at, I can tell you that you also worry about the owner and his pet! If he would so quickly shoot another dog, how is his own pet treated?!
I'm sorry, even if you're off-duty, even if it's a dog, you fired your sidearm and killed something! You should face some sort of punishment! Hopefully the owner can go after him in civil court or something.
I hate people sometimes :mad:

Charges filed against officer



This morning the Anne Arundel County State’s Attorney’s Office will file misdemeanor charges against Keith Shepherd for the shooting of a dog at the Quail Run Dog Park in Severn earlier this month. Mr. Shepherd is a Civilian Police Officer with the Department of the Army. The charges are based upon a review of the entire report of the County Police Department and supplemental interviews conducted by prosecutors who specialize in animal cruelty cases and firearm cases.

The office also conferred with JAG, the Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Defense regarding the legality of the weapon. Those discussions resulted in the conclusion that as an officer with the Department of the Army, the defendant was allowed to carry his handgun.

The charges against Mr. Shepherd are both misdemeanors. They are:

Misdemeanor Animal Cruelty – Inflicting Unnecessary Suffering and Pain to an animal ($1000/90 Day Maximum Penalty)

Discharging of a Firearm within 100 yards of an occupied structure ($1,000/6 month maximum penalty)

The charges will be filed and handled in the Annapolis District Court. No trial date has been set. The Charges were filed by the State’s Attorney’s Office as a District Court Information. Mr. Shepherd will be issued a summons (not an arrest warrant) to appear for court.

Sadly, he won't serve the jail time. At least he'll get a fine, provided he pleads no contest.

I hope the owner sues him.

Wow.

I hope the A.D.A. who gets this case uses it to make a name for him/herself and throws the book at this SOB.

I have past and recent experience with Huskies, and they can be jumpy and excitable, but if trained will follow commands. Even when carrying salmon I haven't had one bite or nip at me, they just jumped and barked. I'm sorry but this guy had a dog of equivalent size, a German Shepherd, . Even if this was Pomeranian v. Husky, a reasonable dog owner would attempt to separate the animals, especially when there were multiple adults there. Why didn't he shoot in the air or into the ground with a warning shot to startle the dogs and break them up?

At least he's on admin. leave and won't be able to repeat his lack of firearm discretion on any people. I'm all for people having the right to bear arms if they are licensed and trained, but this moron is going to ruin it for the rest of us who learned to not use a handgun as a first response. I hope the owner and the owner's family sue this guy for the emotional distress and destruction of a companion animal.

Now I'm curious, if Mr. Trigger Happy has been working in law enforcement, I wonder if his German Shepherd is a retired police dog. If it is it could change the dog dynamic, but still doesn't justify shooting another animal.

I agree with most of this other than the warning shot thing. That's as Hollywood as shooting out the tires of a speeding car or shooting a gun out of someones hand.

I'd recommend pepper spraying the dogs to get them apart.

Well that's your opinion, and that's one way to handle a bear (black bears being the size of a husky) that has worked for me and other people in that situation. I have no idea of the set up of this dog park, and neither do you, but the one in my town it is completely possible to shoot into the ground. It also depends on the fire arm, as they vary widely. We don't know those details. I do know that this was a dog park with pets, and not a situation with wild animals that would be better served by not killing an animal, where a warning shot would have worked.

Back to what I said, for a person who has training and a license to carry a firearm, this guy sure didn't know how to use it. If the USPS carries pepper spray for dogs on their route, it could have very well worked here.

I have a law enforcement background and I don't know of a single academy or local agency that trains or allows their officers to fire warning shots. I would lose my job if I was in a situation and I fired a warning shot. I'm sure you are familiar with the term "muscle memory", well that's what's used to train officers with their firearms. Same drills over and over until drawing out and hitting the target becomes almost natural. Firing a warning shot would never cross my mind because of the "muscle memory" I acquired during my training.

I'm bringing this up because he is a police officer and he most likely has been trained in the same methods.

I'm in no way trying to excuse what he did, just trying to explain why he probably didn't fire a warning shot. It just doesn't come natural to police officers.

You'll note that the second charge involves discharging his weapon (blah blah etc.). It doesn't say "shooting someone" it says "discharging weapon." I would think that a warning shot would fall under the same charge.

Yeah, he'd still be in hot water even for a warning shot.

He should of left his gun at home.

Our methods are definitely of the last resort, and the majority of the time with our animal encounters we never have to fire for any reason, but we still have a firearm. Trust that you don't want to take anything out in a remote area, because you ave to salvage the animal and bring it to the proper authorities. When you're in the bush huge pain in the ass, and killing an animal is an option of last resort for serious attacks and maulings/tramplings.

I'm not up on the regulations for Maryland, do they have concealed carry? He may have had the right to bring it along, but he obviously didn't have the smarts to know when to use it. He'd probably be able to explain away a warning shot discharge a lot easier if he hadn't killed a dog, but he didn't make that choice.

Doesn't matter. IIRC there is a federal law on the books allowing current and former LEO to carry a concealed weapon regardless of local and state laws.

LEOs can carry their duty weapon concealed while off duty. Their badge would act as their concealed carry license. I'm not so sure about the former LEOs being able to though.

I don't necessarily think that would be the case for him. It doesn't matter the circumstances, any kind of firearm discharge is going to be investigated and heavily scrutinized. If he can get them to believe that he was acting in self defense, the fact that he killed the dog won't matter. This guy is in more trouble for actually firing his weapon than he is for killing a dog, if that makes any sense.

In regards to owners, he would of been much better off not shooting the dog because now they can file suit against him.

It wasn't his duty sidearm though, it was a personal one.

Didn't they say that he was carrying legally?

And by They I mean the State's Attorney after conferring with relevant authorities?

I'm sure he was carrying legally. Just pointing out it wasn't his service weapon. For whatever reason, the dumbass felt the need to strap on his personal weapon. Maybe I'd better start wearing mine to the dogpark too (I have an Ohio concealed carry permit), never know when you're gonna have to off another dog. (Rolling my eyes at this asshole).

Ah ok. I don't really feel the need to own a gun, myself. And I'm in Illinois which is like the last state to prohibit conceal carry (or something similar). So it's not really an issue for me. But that just means I don't get why someone would want to carry at all, not just to the dog park.

I can see it being a habit (comfort? reliance? not sure the word I want here) for someone whose job involves carrying though. I may ask some of the parole officers at work.

One of my brothers is a police officer at Cedar Point. (He just graduated form academy this past spring). He does not carry any weapon when he's not working. Yes, he has personal weapons, but doesn't feel the need to carry when going grocery shopping. I have my CC permit simply based on my former job. I used to do some environmental remediation work is some BAD areas of Cinci, Indy, Columbus, and Charleston WV. Even the times I or my co-workers had police escorts, bad things would happen. I think I've carried twice. But, better to have it (IMO) just in case, than to need it and not be permitted for it. My step-dad has his as well (we went through the classes together), and he carries his in his car all the time.

Boyfriends dad is a State Police Officer, but he does not carry a gun off duty.

Asked my boy as well who is currently working on being accepted to the academy and has obviously grown up around that line of work, and he says he wouldn't. He is also certified to carry a gun and has one, for when he needs it for his job, but he doesn't carry it around.

We do not live in a dangerous area however.

My brother the cop always carries his gun. He's never, to the best of my knowledge, had to draw it while off-duty.

After the Killeen Luby's massacre, Texas passed a concealed carry law. When my boys are older, I'll get my license. Right now, they are too young and I don't want weapons around them.

Doesn't TX have an open carry law? (or has had for longer than the concealed carry one)

/just not remembering, I should just go wiki it

I think it depends on where you live and work. Most of the Detroit cops I know carry 24/7 and I don't blame them. Some LEOs are highly encouraged by their management to carry off-duty, but I've never heard of anyone being required to carry while off duty.

I can also see how a cop in Sandusky feels that it isn't necessary to carry off duty. From what I've seen driving through it seems like a quiet little town.

^^^ It used to be, not so much anymore. The last few years has seen violent crime increase. This year alone there are multiple unsolved shootings, a few resulting in injuries and deaths. what makes it worse is that the city has laid off a ton of officers in the last 9 months or so.

But I digress. The asshole who shot the dog had better be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, peace officer or not. If my german shepherd gets into a fight at the dog park, I regulate in the safest way possible. It's a risk you take when going to a place like that.

That's interesting since violent crime nationwide has taken a dip in recent years, that even includes Detroit. I guess people are probably doing Cedar Pointe on the cheap now, not staying at the hotels and packing their own food. I think the last time I was through there was 2007. Is Put-in-Bay getting scurry too?

Nah, PiB is still full of yuppie drunks just out to have fun. Thank goodness!!!!

Theory is some of the crime from Detroit is migrating to sandusky. A friend of the family is a SPD detective (who is also working patrol shifts due to the shorthanded staff) says a good percentage of arrests are of people with michigan addresses. Not the usual tourists either, unless the tourists are making a habit of committing drive-bys.