Judy
I have never heard so much rubbish, Did the Cop have 'Bite Marks'
So' he has to get bitten or someone else has to before he can stop this dog, What planet are you from. Let me put it another way
You are that Cop and you have a small child with you. you also carry a gun, What are you going to do wait for the dog to bite you or the kid before you act,None of your Dog Training Skills will help you in this instance once it attacks.
I know i was attacked by a dog when i was around twenty eight years old, at the time i was carrying a ladder and had been working on this house for a week then one day this dog bull dog + bred decided he was going to have a go, 10 stitches in my right leg and arm, after dropping the ladder to defend myself result was one dead Dog,
the owner was going to take me to court but decided he would not win As much as i love Dogs this dog was Chasing the Cop and with intent to attack, Myself i would have shown it no mercy as i did not that dog all those years ago

Here's a link to a little more info. Apparently, this incident happened in May. It seems that they are now, in July, thinking about pressing charges on the officer. Someone may have been doing some more research. And caveat, as usual, it IS the media, and it IS an animal abuse website, so take the info with more than one grain of salt.
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/11569/NY/US/

Has anyone determined how far away the dog was when he was shot? There's an awful lot of speculation involved to have such heated opinions and debate. I've yet to have a dog run at me that wasn't merely the over-friendly, unruly pet of a careless neighbor. Unless a dog was showing aggressive posture to me, I most likely would not shoot it in the head, unless I was in a very bad mood that day.

I think, again, that people are misunderstanding each other. If you're "being attacked," that implies that you have had at least one point of aggressive contact already made. If he'd said that he was "ABOUT to be attacked," or he "thought he was about to be attacked," perhaps his story wouldn't be second-guessed. How often will the Sherriff come right out and say that an officer SAYS one thing, but the evidence points to another, unless there was, in fact, reasonable doubt? LEOs keep yelling at us civilians to quit second-guessing their decisions, but the guy was CHARGED-not just accused. Can't a person be wrong, LEO or not? I don't think everyone would be so down on him if he admitted what is probably the truth: he over-reacted out of fear of a charging dog, whose intentions he did not know, and he's very sorry if the dog was not going to attack him (we'll never know). Human error is understandable; it's the infallibility attitude that is annoying folks.

Edit-Just saw Janice's post. I'm not sure how much to believe abou this story (30lbs, 1 yr vs. 3 yrs, etc.) so if it's to be believed that the dog was 110 feet away, IMO, he could've waited a second or two to analyze the dog's posture/body language and determine if he REALLY thought he was about to be attacked. Who jogs with a gun anyway? And who in a few year period, is really justified in shooting 3 dogs? What are the odds?

My best friend's fiance is a fireman. He works in one of the worst suburbs of Chicago. It's common for people to tie Rotts and Pits on top of their roofs to prevent rival gang members to break into their homes from chimneys. He says that many dogs are killed by fireman in self-defense when they get called to fight a fire, and can't because there's a barking dog on a chain. They kill them with axes, usually. He also says that 9 out of 10 times, the dog just wanted the hell off the roof, so what he does is cut the chain. The dogs almost always take off. The other guys were shocked the first time he did it; they'd just assumed that the dogs were going to attack them, when in fact they were just terrified of being tied on top of a burning building. My point is that very few people are qualifed to judge a dog's intentions; therefore, assuming every dog running in your direction is going to maul you is a little paranoid, and shooting first, asking questions later is a bit dangerous.

Edited by Jenni Williams (07/16/2007 03:33 PM)
Edit reason: read Janice's post

Well, if all that is true in the article Janice posted, then he was way out of line! I'll keep an open mind, of course, since there's always more than we can know as news readers as opposed to witnesses...but wow! How sad.

Thanks for that info Janice. WOW, so a killer 30lb dog huh? Vs. a man who has killed at least 1 other dog in the past? "Police said deadly force was unwarranted and they had been unable to establish that the dog was attacking Sheehan as he has claimed.

"It just seems like there was a lot more things he could have done other than shoot the dog. There are other ways and I don't think jogging with a gun is the answer to taking care of the dogs," said animal control officer Lin Benway."

I still say the owner had a huge role in this sad story, but as Judy said, it could've been handled differently. The shooter's judgment looks like it's getting worse.

Steve -

My take on what Judy is trying to say is what we have discussed 100 times before on this forum. What do you do when you are charged by a loose dog. Now granted the discussion was referring to how to protect your dog from a charging dog, but I have heard things like, carry a walking stick, stun baton, yell and scream to ward the dog off, stand your ground as an alpha dog would.....my interpretation of her strong objections to the methodology used by this Officer is based on what appears to be a very loose reporting of the facts. Perhaps he did yell and scream, perhaps he did confront the dog as a strong leader and the dog kept coming.....but if the dog was charging and no other attemps to disuade the dog from attacking were used, other than a fatal and what has been reported to be a dangerous method she appears to have issues with that. My point is I understand what her objection is, and it seems to be rational, based on some other discussions here on this forum. I make no judgement either way because I think the press are pathetic...the only thing that would have made this story even better is if the authors had misrepresented the breed of the dog as a Pit Bull...YUKKKKK

The way you noted it was a boxer caught my attention is all Judy. It gave me the impression you thought he should have taken that into account.

Here's more info:

"In this particular instance, it appears that Sheehan, 36, intentionally went to the owner’s property on Summit Road in Hague, north of Lake George, wearing a holstered handgun to shoot Zeus, the year old boxer. He claimed that the dog had harassed his girlfriend the day before and he obviously went to the property for a showdown with the dog. It’s inexplicable to us why he felt the need to carry a handgun in Hague, not known to be a high crime area. This is the second time since 2005 that he has shot and killed a dog in northern Warren County. The first time he wasn’t charged.

While the dog’s owner and a child reportedly looked on, he waited for the dog to leave the owner’s property and enter into the roadway before he shot the year old dog in the head, wounding it so badly that it had to be euthanized. But instead of bringing reckless endangerment charges against the cop, Cleveland says he’ll be charged with animal cruelty and discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling, both misdemeanors. A conviction involving firearms should insure that Mr. Sheehan’s pistol permit be revoked and ensure that he find a new job outside of law enforcement.

There should be no plea bargains allowed in this situation. According to Cleveland, Sheehan claims he shot the puppy in self defense. In our view, that’s pure baloney. He’s admitted that he was “irritated” because the dog had harassed his girlfriend the day previous and it’s pretty obvious he went there to get even with the dog which he did with deadly force instead of simply calling the dog control officer and filing a complaint or attempting to contact the dog’s owner. That kind of demeanor and judgment is dangerous in a police officer.

This whole situation is exacerbated by the fact that this is the third time since 2001 that he or his father, a retired police officer, have shot a dog in the residential area of Route 8 in Hague in northern Warren County, at all times during the reign of Larry Cleveland as county sheriff.

Finally, maybe Sheehan will be held accountable if he’s criminally charged." - North Country Gazette


Edited by Alex Corral (07/16/2007 03:47 PM)
Edit reason: spelling

Maybe this guy is a dog-hating jerk. Maybe he's not.

Two possibilities here:

1.) The guy is a dog-hating jerk and the dog was loose and the dog was shot.

2.) The guy is a decent person who felt threatened and the dog was loose and the dog was shot.

The end result is the same, regardless of whether he's a good guy or a bad guy: The dog was shot.

The one hyper-clear thing that I see that would have saved this dog's life...good guy or bad...is if the dog was not loose. He was clearly not in his owner's control...verbally or physically.

Since we, as owners, can't predict who is or isn't going to turn out to be someone who wishes our dogs harm...WE CONTAIN AND CONTROL OUR DOGS.

Maybe this guy was baiting the dog so he could shoot him, maybe he wasn't.

But I don't care if there's a parade of people trying to bait my dog...he's not in a postition to take off after them. I take the containment of my dogs VERY seriously. Not just because they could possibly hurt someone. It's also because they could be hurt.

Here's the thing...if the dog was on a leash or otherwise restrained...he would not have been shot and this whole debate wouldn't have happened, regardless of the debatable character of this particular guy.

Wasn't there, can't say. But, I have to wonder, why is this guy jogging with his gun? Yeah, a p/o can do this, but it is not considered usual behaviour in a low crime neighborhood. Evidently this same gentleman shot another dog, and his father shot one too? Hmmm. That goes to character. The fact that the dog had harrassed his girlfriend the day before is highly (not) co-incidental in my opinion. This guy was said to be baiting the dog, and I believe based on his previous history of shooting dogs, that this is what he was doing. There is such a thing as reasonable force. Shooting a dog in the head- thus having the time to aim, is not reasonable. If you felt the dog was a true danger based on your girlfriend's experience, then you handle it through channels- you don't take matters into your hand. The other big thing is that this person is VERY lucky to have not hit someone with that bullet. VERY. I believe this guy was on a mission the moment he stepped out of his house. Just because you have a license to use a firearm, does not mean you should- unless you, or another person's life is in danger. And, fwiw, I don't believe a 30 lb dog constitutes those circumstances. Now, before everyone goes off half cocked- sorry, for the pun, just had to..
I support p/o's wholly and completely, my brother is a NYPO. But, I don't support this p/o's behaviour
Julie