Off Duty federal officer shoots dog at dog park

[IrishLake]

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.

[Kevin]

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.

[VandalSquirrel]

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.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

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.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

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 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.

[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.

[IrishLake]

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

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

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?

[IrishLake]

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).

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

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.