This might be old news to all LEO's but it struck me so I thought I would share it with the group.

Plainfield cops acted properly in fatal shooting of police dog
09/29/01
BY ROBERT E. MISSECK
STAR-LEDGER STAFF

Two Plainfield police officers were justified when they shot and killed a Union County Sheriff's Search and Rescue dog that was trying to subdue a 12-year-old car theft suspect, authorities said yesterday.

An initial review by investigators in the county prosecutor's office determined the Plainfield police did not see the badge on the 7-year-old German shepherd's collar on Wednesday evening and thought the dog, named Git Ander, was a stray biting a girl.

Sheriff Ralph Froehlich, who oversees the search and rescue unit, said as a result of the shooting the team of dogs, used to sniff out drugs and bombs and subdue suspects, will wear "more obvious and visible identification."

"I am sure the officers involved feel terrible about the situation," the sheriff said. "But they were responding quickly to an emergency situation, and I have to take some of the responsibility for not having my dogs more easily identifiable."

Froehlich said the dog's handler, Sgt. John Gillespie, was distraught over the death of the dog he considered to be a partner, friend and family member.

He said Git Ander and Gillespie had been working eight-hour shifts together every three days assisting in the search and rescue operations in and around Ground Zero at the World Trade Towers since the terrorist attack on Sept. 11.

Gillespie and the dog were on routine patrol at 6:50 p.m. Wednesday when they responded to a report of a stolen car in Plainfield.

Patrol cruisers tracked the stolen car to Brookside Place, where the driver jumped out of the vehicle and ran, but was caught after a brief chase. The girl also ran from the car and was chased by Git Ander while Gillespie initially pursued the driver in another direction, police said.

The dog clamped his jaws on the girl's leg to hold her, but Officer Ronald Fusco, thinking the girl was being attacked, tried to pry the dog loose and was bitten, authorities said.

Fusco and Officer Craig Montgomery opened fire, hitting Git Ander 11 times.

"It is . . . clear that the use of force by law enforcement officers, which unfortunately resulted in the death of the police canine, was justified," David Hancock, investigations supervisor for the prosecutor's office, said.

The driver of the car, Brian Tinsley, 18, of East Seventh Street in Plainfield, was charged with eluding police, possession of a stolen motor vehicle and reckless driving. He is being held on $20,000 bail.

A 17-year-old male passenger was being held in the county juvenile detention center on charges of being in possession of a stolen car and obstructing law.

The girl was treated in Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center in Plainfield and released to her father pending a hearing on juvenile delinquency charges.

Officials said they believe Git Ander is only the second dog to be killed in the line of duty in the past three years. In June 1998, Solo, a German Shepherd with the Monmouth County Sheriff's Office, was fatally shot by a robbery suspect.

Robert E. Misseck is a reporter in the Union County Bureau. He can be reached at (908) 322-0828 or at rmisseck@starledger.com.

Yeah, I heard about this last week also. I'm sure that everyone involved wishes they had acted differently-- seems like a communication problem for the most part.

But its also not clear exactly where the handler was -- or how he lost track of his dog. -- Sigh. Live and learn.

Another oldie that I have finally got to.

I'm absolutely certain that everybody involved wishes things had been different and what I am about to say in no way detracts from these very tragic circumstances.

Reading the comments in the original mail, reported by a journalist?, I have the following reservations.

11 shots struck the dog. How many shots were fired?

11 shots. My mind is reeling.

The young girl was patently in no danger at this particular time otherwise it would have been impossible/inappropriate to fire any shots at the dog for fear of hitting the child.

This does not ring true. David Hancock, the Prosecutor has not properly applied his mind to these circumstances.

Prima facie it is my contention that the officers who fired these 11+ rounds were not in control of the situation, or of their emotions, or of their responsibilities.

A very worrying thought. Something is radically wrong here.

I'm not sure if Mike Brave would be prepared to make any comment but his interpretation of the law, in these circumstances, would be very enlightening.

Regards,

Geoff.

The only thing that this article does is raise more questions. In light of my experience with the media (I no longer use the term "news" because it implies reporting the facts) it is too often uninformed, incomplete, and directed at sales of their product, not fact based but only using fact to initiate their representation of an event.
I would be asking these questions from a law enforcement stand point. Where was the handler?, What was the commumnications situation like?, Had training of field officers included working with a K-9 unit at any time in their career?, Is using a dog as a use of force tool on a juvenile (if they knew it was a juvi?) who was the passenger of a stolen vehicle appropriate?
Also, i have to ask the quoted invstigator why he utilzed the phrase "use of force" in regards to shooting a dog when that phrase implies a Fourth Amendment issue, and last I heard dogs weren't included in the Constitution as persons.
The unfortunate thing here is that the article serves little to shed light on the circumstances involving the incident.

kevin is right on target, don't believe everything you read. i'm a k9 officer in NJ and the sergeant that lost his k9 was my instructor. the article you have read sounds good and makes everyone involve seem correct...except the handler and the dog

Gerard,

Thanks for joining in.

My post did not castigate the handler or dog in any way and nor was that the intention.

Handling mistakes may have been made - I don't know.

The point I was trying to make was that firing 11+ rounds is not "controlling" the situation - it was more like a mini war.

Another issue that came to my mind was that the officers who shot the dog lost control of themselves. I have to ask myself why one, possibly two, well placed shots were not fired at the dog in this "misunderstood" situation.

Also I do not believe for one moment that it was the 11th round that killed the dog. Would you not consider the possibility that the 1st, 4th, 6th round did the killing and all following rounds were fired into a dead dog?

And why was it necessary to kill the dog? The first or second round should have been sufficient to incapacitate the animal.

I note that the report states that one officer was bitten. My mind has to ask the question, did this officer then lose control and literally "slaughter" the dog? Continuously shooting at the dog in a fit of temper?

Then I must ask if the discharge of firearms placed the young girl in any danger. This is a "catch 22" situation.

If the shooting placed the girl in no danger then she was NOT in close proximity to the dog AT THAT TIME. So why shoot at the dog?

If the dog was physically on the tackle at the time then how do I, or you, reconcile that at least 11 rounds were fired at a dog/girl combination who would have been anything other than standing still?

Prima facie there is a cover-up here.

It is possible that there is another plausable explanation, but for the moment I just cannot see it.

You are close to the situation perhaps you can supply the missing information.

Lacking further information I am of the "face value" opinion that the two officers involved acted in a grossly negligent/reckless manner.

I'll go further. Without evidence to suggest the contrary I would say they acted with "malice aforethought".

Prima facie, these two are a couple of idiot cowboys!

I'd be very interested to hear your, your Sergeants, take on this.

Regards,

Geoff.

Geoff,

You sound like a defense attorney or personal injury attorney chasing an ambulance. The most important part of your last post is " I don't know". And calling police officers " a couple of idiot cowboys" is "unacceptable conduct" by my standards because you were not there. By your previously posted standards you said," It would be my contention that the moderator should be ensuring that such unacceptable conduct does not occur. (Yes, I do consider it unacceptable). If it does occur, it certainly should not be tolerated a second time." And in the same post you said, " Am I correct in believing that this list exists to help others with their dog queries and for the sharing of information and expertise?". Which way do you want it???
Lets get back to dog training.

Not to beat a dead horse/ dog
-The Sgt works for the County sherrif, became involved in a pursuit started by a County Police officer (Shared Radio freq). Pursuit ended in a bailout in a local city, with the capability to communicate with the other agencies on a seperate county wide band. As all transmissions would have had to be rebroadcast from the pursuit agencies on the county band....the job would have been over before the initial broadcast.
Very little chance that all players knew exactly what they were dealing with.
- Handler was close enough to see the take down, attempted removal/ shooting of dog. Heat of battle errors worked against him recalling the dog/communicating with Plainfield officers- (Siriens left wailing from police vehs-tunnel vision on all parts).
-the County run Police acad where all parties trained has very little in the way of training on how to work around K-9 (maybe a demo, brief on how to secure a scene) officers from Plainfield had little or no experience of hot calls w/k-9. They don't have any dogs, there aren't any patrol dogs working in the county (SO used on a call out basis)
I haven't sat down and played twenty questions with the handler, just offered my sympathy. But I'm sure that lessons have been learned.
I'm also sure the five little girls that lost a best friend in Git, wished dad had just looked the other way and done the dog chauffeur bit. In police k-9 you are as good as your last job...too bad this team won't get another chance.
I'm very glad Sgt. Gillispie is staying in K-9 getting a new dog.

Thank you Alan...I think you said it for everyone.

One of the problems is the media and hoax emails. The sorry fact is most people view police K9s as a killing machines. I have learned that there is only one case in the United States of a deployed police K9's actions causing injuries to a felony suspect that he would die from.

See case Robinette V Barnes: Interesting ruling. Found that the use of a PROPERLY TRAINED POLICE DOG to apprehend a felony suspect does NOT carry substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm.