http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/07/hells.angels.ap/index.html

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

only in California.

The way they shot the dogs, one in the rear and none a clean kill, and let them bleed to death would have made this costly in any state. This was poor planning or over an overamped team. They said the dogs needed to be shot to acheive suprise, but shot them with shotguns from outside the fences, before the fence locks were cut. In one case, the neighbors who help care for the dog when the owners were away, offered to restrain the dog instead of the dog haveing to be shot.

It's just a shame that the actions of a few overzealous rogues have tarnished the rest of the San Jose PD.

I know there are a lot of LEO's on here, and my hat is off to them. They do a hard job for less pay then the risks they take. But everyone must be accountable for their actions.

Well, they made a tactical decision by using a shotgun which would have limited penetration for the pellets that might missed, so it was a public safety concern. If they had used an AR15 and missed, they could have killed an innocent bystander a mile away.

And I do notice that the media and the courts and juries had no problem with drug gangs using dogs to protect their illegal businesses, but raise Holy H*ll when the police need to dispatch the canine sentry's.

But it's always easy to play armchair quarterback after the smoke clears.

I dont know the details but LEOs have a legal right to perform thier duty. If guard dogs are put in place to obstruct them from doing their duty then they have the right to eliminate the problem. The electric guy has a right to read the meter, the gas guy has a right to read the meter, the mail man has a right to deliver mail, and an LEO has a right to perform a lawful duty.

 Quote:

But it's always easy to play armchair quarterback after the smoke clears.

Yes it is. Two of the dogs were family pets. I would think that a silenced 9mm or .40 would have be more stealthy. There wasn't a plan in place for the dogs that were there and intell said they were there. Sorry that tax payers expect professionals to be professional. Hopefully the lessons learned will benifit other departments.

 Quote:

I dont know the details but LEOs have a legal right to perform thier duty. If guard dogs are put in place to obstruct them from doing their duty then they have the right to eliminate the problem.

Didn't say they didn't. Just said they could have/should have been more humane about it. if the first shot didn't dispatch the dog, shoot again and put it out of it's misery.

the dogs at one of the houses were family pets and the neighbors offered to restrain the dogs.

Like I said, law enforcement has the right to defend themselves. But they don't have the right to be what they're proctecting us from. If their conduct is so commendable, why is the city settling without going to trail?

Frank ,

Do you know much about the biker gangs ?

Do you know anything about the safety concerns or threats a SWAT team member has to deal with on a high risk warrant like this ?

If not here's some information for you . Their clubs and houses are usually heavily fortified . Barred windows heavy steel doors , cameras covering all angles of their houses and booby traps .

It's VERY common for them to get guard dogs to attack intruders . Their specific intent with having guard dogs is to use them against police , rival bikers , and other assorted dirtbags that know they have stuff worth getting . All these purposes are due to their illegal activities . Their dogs buy them time to arm themselves or destroy evidence while the police are dealing with the dogs .

I know SWAT members who have been bitten buy some of these dogs . The dogs put these officers in an even more dangerous situation because the officer is now open to attack by the suspects inside . One of the biker's homes we raided had 6' chainlink fencing , cameras all angles , 2 very aggressive guard dogs , reinforced windows and doors . He also had a special treat for the officers doing the evidence search after the initial high risk entry . Live COBRAS in trash barrels with lids on them .

Their clubhouse was the most heavily fortified building I've every seen a warrant served on in our area . The bikers inside all knew their job on what to do when the cops come and went to work as soon as they saw the team coming . Thanks to some new entry techniques the teams got through the fortified door quicker then the badguys expected and the team members and badguys all came out alive .

These bikers have been responsible for numerous very gruesome murders , drug dealing , extortion , robberies , amongst numerous other violent crimes . They have proven over and over again to be some of the most violent organizations in our country . They are some of the most safisticated and well armed criminal organizations also .

They knew what they were doing with those dogs and knew what the outcome would be by using them that way (this wasn't the first time there dogs had to be shot during a high risk entry). Sueing law enforcement officers is also a VERY common tactic for them in an attempt to deter law enforcement from dealing with them .

In this case they won because the court fell into the trap of a knee jerk reaction to seeing an animal killed . They totally missed who was really responsible and that's the suspects that put these dogs in that position for that purpose .

If these officers would have expended alot of time dealing with these dogs it would have bought the people inside the target house time to arm themselves and detroy evidence vital to putting a dangerous person in jail , serving the purpose they got them for .

I love dogs and do what I can not to harm them but if a dog puts the safety of my fellow officers , civilians or myself at risk then I will do what I have to do to take that dog out of the picture .

Most SWAT teams I know of try to come up with a plan to deal with dogs on high risk wts. without harming them . Most of the time we are successful in dealing with them without harming them . Sometimes we are not and it is very difficult to deal with dogs when the suspects owning them are counting on the Officers dealing with these dogs .


Frank stated;

" The way they shot the dogs, one in the rear and none a clean kill, and let them bleed to death would have made this costly in any state. This was poor planning or over an overamped team. They said the dogs needed to be shot to acheive suprise, but shot them with shotguns from outside the fences, before the fence locks were cut. "

Frank the officers didn't shot the dogs to kill them . They shot the dogs to stop a threat . When the treat(dogs) were stopped they moved on with their task . There's no time to deal any further with the dogs time and speed is important for a safe outcome . Shooting the dogs before dealing with the fence locks seems like common sence to me . Hard to deal with the fence lock with a dog in your face .

Frank , I don't think the SWAT team actually thought they were going to surprise the suspects by stealth but bt SPEED . Like I said these groups are prepared for and expecting the police to eventually come looking for them . Speed was the most important thing and taking out the dogs with a shotgun when they did was the best thing to keep things moving quickly .

Frank ,

Every lawsuit I've seen when an Officer had to deal with a dangerous dog like that they say; " It was a family pet that wouldn't hurt anyone." . It wouldn't be a good idea to say it was anything different if you hoped to win a lawsuit .

Jim,

I'm sure there are a lot of risks. But judges are there for a reason. And they've ruled numerous times that what was done was not called for. My point is that no one is perfect. And just because it was in California, cruelty to animals is cruelty to animals.

And I ride a bike and I've been to events where I've seen the "gangs". And yes, they're not to be taken lightly.

Again, the judges are the ones who have the final say. Evidently, they weren't satisfied with the plan/execution.

If they were right, I hope the judges would have ruled in their favor. If they were wrong, well, no one is above the law. And just because a few may have made mistakes, it should't reflect on the rest of you.