“The same can’t be said for police killing dogs,” seattletimes.com opines. “According to the National Canine Research Council, up to half of the intentional shootings by police involve dogs. Sometimes, the animals have been injured and need to be put out of their misery. Sometimes, they are vicious and killed for reasons of public or officer safety. But mostly, they die tragically and needlessly, victims of misunderstanding, prejudice or simple convenience, according to animal-rights and behavior experts.” I wonder if the cops’ hit ratio is as piss poor as it is for two-legged perps. [Although not in this case above.] Mike Carter’s story is decidedly pro-dog and anti-cop, based on a deeply disturbing August 2011 Department of Justice report The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters. To which Carter adds the local angle . . .
The Seattle Police Department requires a Firearms Review Board to convene and formally review any incident involving an officer shooting at a person. However, it allows for a less stringent “summary review” of incidents involving dogs, said Becky Roe, a Seattle attorney and the civilian auditor of the SPD’s Firearms Review Board.
Roe said she has not seen a Firearms Review Board report involving a dog shooting in the six years she’s held the job, but that she has no information about the summary reviews. Sgt. Sean Whitcomb said he had no information about dog shootings outside the shooting-review process.
King County sheriff’s Sgt. Cindi West said it has been difficult for her office to track shootings involving animals, since up until just recently, deputies were not required to write a separate report about such incidents. She said all of the shootings are reviewed by command staff.
“It certainly happens,” she said.
Well that’s reassuring. In a nation of dog lovers, training cops to safely deal with dogs makes an awful lot of sense. Because failing to do so is just plain awful.