Quote: Aaron Myracle

 Quote: AdrienneDube

The fact that this man was carrying a gun to the dog park shocks and appalls me, maybe intensifying this is the fact that where I live this is entirely illegal.

There are members of this board, myself included, who carry a concealed weapon virtually everywhere they go.

I'm pretty sure that Canadian Police are permitted to carry concealed weapons, just as American Police are. Further, Canada actually does have concealed carry permits. There are about 50 people who have them.

There's a reason our violent crime rate is dropping faster than yours.

Yeah, we were doing pretty good til Quatermain went to the dog park.

 Quote: ross rapoport

I have a brother in law enforcement and I know that he would not enter a public park with his gun, especially not if he had his wife and dog (also a GSD) with him. "Too many things to go wrong," he would say.

He draws a very clear distinction between the guys who leave the violence at work vs. those who don't. This officer seems to belong in the latter camp, which unfortunately gives LEOs a bad rap as trigger-happy, just itching to be put in a situation where they need to use lethal force.

He should have at least fired a shot in the air to scare the dog, but that doesn't look like it was part of his plan.

EDIT - I took my late GSD to a few dog parks and I never had a bad experience. In fact the pets and owners were all quite well-behaved and I never saw any violence of any kind. Maybe it's just my area (although Ft. Belvoir isn't far from me), but my experiences have not mirrored the horror stories on this site and I was very lucky in that regard. I'm going to be much more careful when my Mal arrives.

Ross,
But what happens when the officer that *doesn't* carry his gun off-duty runs across a crime happening? He had an opportunity to protect someone, and he blew that chance, possibly with a tragic outcome.
Criminals will be armed, regardless of laws. Society benefits when trained law abiding individuals ( both LEOs *and* CCW holders ) are armed.

 Quote: ross rapoport

I could have taken offense to something you said earlier about my brother being the only LEO on the planet not to have read that neat little book, and taken it to be some kind of knock. I did not, so I hope you'll reconsider the offense you've taken here.

Not a book. Just an essay. It used to be required reading in a lot of places.

A good book to read is "On Killing", by the same author, however.

"I took my late GSD to a few dog parks and I never had a bad experience. In fact the pets and owners were all quite well-behaved and I never saw any violence of any kind. Maybe it's just my area (although Ft. Belvoir isn't far from me), but my experiences have not mirrored the horror stories on this site and I was very lucky in that regard. I'm going to be much more careful when my Mal arrives."


Good.

It doesn't have to be even close to what the rest of the world would call a horror story. All that has to happen to affect your dog (often forever) is to have some other person's dog attack yours. And it doesn't matter where you live, how nice the dog park is, how much fun many dogs have had there ....

I have zero reason to believe that the other owners, all strangers in a public place, have control over their dogs. Or even know what that means. Why would I ever take my dog into that situation deliberately? Well, that's easily answered: I wouldn't.

There are miles of threads here about people working with their post-attack dog-reactive dogs.

 Quote: Will Rambeau

Ross,
But what happens when the officer that *doesn't* carry his gun off-duty runs across a crime happening? He had an opportunity to protect someone, and he blew that chance, possibly with a tragic outcome.
Criminals will be armed, regardless of laws. Society benefits when trained law abiding individuals ( both LEOs *and* CCW holders ) are armed.

Agreed, which is why I'm not harping on the guy's decision to carry all that much. The general principle behind constantly carrying is sound, and we've seen where it helped (that church shooting) and where it could have helped (VA Tech).

Guys like this officer put all that in jeopardy and scare the shit out of the non-carrying crowd.

We can justify his actions and motivations all we want. What if the husky had rabies? What if the husky's previous owners were Islamic terrorists? Fact is, there were NO injuries to the officer, his wife, or his dog. That suggests to me that he likely got carried away and was looking to open fire to begin with.

If I had been in his position, even if I had a gun I would not have used it. I would have risked injury to myself in order to get between the attacking dog and my family. A swift kick to the husky's head probably would have done the trick. Doesn't seem like this guy stopped to think about anything short of fragging something. But, I'm just a sheep.

Very, very experienced handlers and trainers have made clear, on this thread and others, that breaking up a dog fight is dangerous.
Breaking up a dog fight in a safe manner requires two people.

The Officer states that the other owner was not cooperating by getting his dog when asked.

Was he supposed to be mauled before he was allowed to take more decisive action?

And no, we *don't* actually know that the GSD's owner, wife or the GSD itself did not sustain injury.
We only know that initially, when charges were not being filed, the Officer did not report any injuries. That is not the same as having no injuries.

What exactly was the crime scene lab testing on the ground in the park? We know Bear Bear was shot, and we know by whom, so obviously, we don't need to test for *his* blood.

Until last night, we didn't even know how many witnesses there were.
We now know with some degree of certainty, based on a statement by one of Bear Bears owners at the memorial service, that there were three witnesses, all of whom were children, and only one of whom has given testimony to Police.

 Quote: Ross Rapoport

Guys like this officer put all that in jeopardy and scare the shit out of the non-carrying crowd.

They do scare me at least. I don't want to meet this guy anywhere, dog park or not.

The police officer is the most scrutinized, criticized and objectified of all people. I would say jobs instead of people, but even when they are off duty they are STILL all of those things as a civilian… Police officers are human, just like you, and if one makes a mistake, everybody claims it is BECAUSE he is a cop that his mistakes are evil and not human. The worst part (to me) is that the ones who voice their prejudice about police the loudest are the same ones that expect the police to come save them, risking and even giving their their own lives , when the sh!t hits the fan.

But assuming that a man who shot a dog that was fighting with his dog does not translate to him accidentally shooting a child or anybody else. It does not mean that he would shoot an innocent bystander or that he was going off the deep end. It means he did what he felt he needed to protect his dog, right or wrong. Projecting it out to slaughtering humans is quite a reach. And when an off duty officer uses his personal handgun that he is carrying concealed is able to protect your child from an attacking dog, or your spouse from a holdup situation you would be grateful then for him carrying a concealed weapon, and using it.

This is a horrible situation that occurred. There were mistakes made on both sides… The husky was not under control, and the GSD was leashed. The GSD owner asked the husky’s owner to come get his dog, and he was unable to get the dog under verbal or physical control. The GSD owner likely could have tried other means to break up the fight, but none of us were there and in the heat of the moment made a decision. Crappy deal no matter how we look at it…

 Quote: aaron myracle

Very, very experienced handlers and trainers have made clear, on this thread and others, that breaking up a dog fight is dangerous.
Breaking up a dog fight in a safe manner requires two people.

If the officer is truly a "sheepdog" in the context of that essay, then risking some physical harm to himself should be preferable to risking some more serious harm to the people nearby in the form of a stray bullet (as you've said, some were children).

 Quote: Aaron

The Officer states that the other owner was not cooperating by getting his dog when asked.

Was he supposed to be mauled before he was allowed to take more decisive action?

Forgive me, but you seem to be taking the officer's lawyer's word for it. I think I'll wait. This guy has a lot at stake and I don't just assume that officers of the law are any more immune to covering their butts than private citizens.

And he's 'allowed' to do whatever he wants. He did, in this case.