Off Duty federal officer shoots dog at dog park

[Drolefille]

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.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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

He should of left his gun at home.

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.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

I'm not up on the regulations for Maryland, do they have concealed carry?

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.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

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.

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.

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.