It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sheriff let's k9 die in hot car

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Bluntone22

Something almost identical to this happened here in Georgia last summer. That cop was arrested and faced felony charges, and it later came out that one or two other dogs had previously "died" under his care or watch.

I still don't get how people can become so distracted that they leave pets or children in the car.

What should happen? Charges for negligent manslaughter at least, no more K9 duty, and more training.



I have a retired uncle who works part time at a casino, his job is to literally travel the parking lot and save dogs and children in cars. Some of which are running.




posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Bluntone22



Under the Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act, which went into effect this week, anyone convicted of purposely assaulting, maiming, or killing federal law enforcement animals such as police dogs and horses could be fined at least $1,000 and spend up to 10 years in prison. Previously, the animals were covered by a variety of state, rather than federal, laws.


It wasn't done on purpose, I'd expect at least some type of negligent charge as others have stated.
edit on 13-7-2017 by rexsblues because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

:/

Quality reply.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Yes they killed their fellow officer due to neglect at the very least and should be punished as such.
When a non officer harms a K9 they are charged as if they assaulted or harmed a human officer. It should be no different for this dogs "brothers". SOME brothers they were.


-Alee



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Holding these officers to the same standards the rest of us are held to would certainly be good for public relations.

Why should they be above the law that the rest of us are subjected to? Are they at the supreme level of our politicians now?



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Oh my! This is terrible! I feel bad leaving my Sparky in the car to run into the convenience store for 5 minutes let alone 4 hours, but it looks like this was an honest mistake too since he was attending to his newborn... I don't know how to feel about this.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Actually, "the perps" who shoot at or otherwise attack a police dog do willfully and maliciously attempt to or actually does harm the animal.

Regardless, we can agree to disagree, although I do think that some sort of punishment is deserved, even if just removing him from the K9 unit.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Antipathy17

As was yours to which I replied.

But that's a serious question underneath the snarky tone: Are you privy to some information direct from the officer in this matter, or are you just editorializing to editorialize?

Nevermind, I know the answer already.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
This thread is in need of a puppy.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: NerdGoddess

So, let's expand on this logic of yours: In a friendly-fire situation where, say, a Soldier accidently shoots another Soldier, is that the same as intentionally inflicting harm or death?

In the same breath, you also pretend that in a similar scenario, where an enemy is fighting with a Soldier and shoots that Soldier, that this is the same as the friendly-fire incident above, and therefore both the enemy combatant and the Soldier who did the accidental shooting should be seen as and punished the same?

Just trying to wade through the logic, here.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But the K9 officer is not.

Too soon?



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




Actually, "the perps" who shoot at or otherwise attack a police dog do willfully and maliciously attempt to or actually does harm the animal.

I do not disagree with that.
My point is that if the animal is special enough to have a special law written for them, letting the cop off that killed one without some form of punishment is ridiculous. Not removed from service or suspended, some actual real punishment.

Aside from the federal law that protects "working animals" ; I would bet the state has animal neglect laws as well which can be deliberate or unintentional.
I think it would be a double standard for people in that state to be charge with the federal law, then when a cop screws up no charges.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Seems that lots of states are cracking down animals being left in cars on dangerous head index days, such as adding more penalties to animals and children left in them. One being passed is breaking the window to rescue them if there is a distressed child or animal, on a hot day, in a car. Should this apply to citizens when they see/ suspect a K9 is suffering in a hot police car?

Of course, it won't happen but maybe it should be considered, being K9s have died this way before. The new laws also state that it won't be covered for malicious, revenge etc. reasons but for real dire reasons where the subject may perish from the heat. Although, part of the topic of that new law is that it still may leave the action open for abuse.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But the K9 officer is not.

Too soon?


Yeah. No puppies for him.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
A k9 cop in my town Got home from work and leaves his dog in the car.
4 hours later we have a dead dog.

www.google.com...

www.google.com...

So here's the question...s

What's the proper punishment?
Is this killing a police officer?
Does this deserve a harsher punishment because of the offender being a cop?

Thoughts ats?


So, we as civis are required by law to treat them as officers of the law and punished as such if we harm one.
But, some are saying that this sounds like an honest mistake. Would you folks say the same if it was a human? Because under code of law, and especially with the compatibility training these K9s are to be treated as such. 4hours is NOT an honest mistake.

What if it was a detained perp?


I say throw the damn book at him. Period!
edit on 13-7-2017 by essentialtremors because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
ALL Dogs go to Heaven...



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Considering that the police routinely shoot and kill citizens' dogs with no consequences, I'll bet he gets a paid suspension (two weeks tops), put on desk work for a while after that, then back on the street (but probably not on the K-9 unit).

I'd also say that the other officers that did K-9 duty aren't going to have his six anymore, that blue line might start to disappear too.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: NerdGoddess

So, let's expand on this logic of yours: In a friendly-fire situation where, say, a Soldier accidently shoots another Soldier, is that the same as intentionally inflicting harm or death?

In the same breath, you also pretend that in a similar scenario, where an enemy is fighting with a Soldier and shoots that Soldier, that this is the same as the friendly-fire incident above, and therefore both the enemy combatant and the Soldier who did the accidental shooting should be seen as and punished the same?

Just trying to wade through the logic, here.



I'm not responding to your scenarios at this point because no where did I say that he intentionally killed the k9 in fact, I used the word neglect quite clearly. I then used other examples where a k9 is treated like an officer, so even in a situation where neglect or accident caused harm, the dog should still be considered an Officer. Now HOW should they be charged exactly? I don't know, good thing that's not my job.

Just trying to wade through the nonsense, there.

-Alee



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

The police officer involved is a 'Schools Resource Officer', and specifically works in a school environment, in part 'mentoring' the children.

The officer may have to explain what happend to his (or rather 'thier') K9 to a very tough audience, that will not, I suspect, go long on sympathy for the officer.

This is a simple case of neglect. The human was responsible for the animal, and the human didn't take due care.

In context of the 'new born' circumstance, the officer was distracted only after entering his house, and therefore should have released the dog from the car simply as a matter of routine before entering his house.

I guess the key question is around what does the manual say about housing a dog at the end of a shift?

I would bet it doesn't say "keep the dog in the car till you remember to let it out", but I may be wrong.

So I would think $1k and up to 10 years stands - but after the officer explains the K9's absence to the school kids.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   


Emergency or not....it was his responsibility to care for the poor dog.

It is negligence.
It is cruel.
He should receive some punishment.
Or else how can the police enforce laws, when they are treated as if they are ABOVE THE LAW



We have cops, The Weather Channel, and all sorts of campaigns reminding people about how hot cars get.




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join