Sheriff let's k9 die in hot car

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

How can someone forget? It doesn't matter about reminders about how hot it is or how hot cars get, if you have a K9 who is always with you, and is considered a partner, how do you forget to take him out as soon as you get home? It's not liek a dog you just put back there and forgot about.

Just like a child. Why would you go inside without first taking out the dog who is always with you....or your child?

But yeah, charges should come. Probably not.

a reply to: Liquesence

I have forgotten my jacket....I have forgotten a bag of groceries.....I have forgotten bird seed.

But, I cannot imagine forgetting a live plant or a cellphone, let alone an animal or a child.
Not unless I was so drunk I didn't know my name....and even then.

I am thoroughly OUTRAGED at this!!!!!!!!!!!!

originally posted by: crappiekat
This just makes me want to cry.

I feel bad for the human Police officer. He's gotta be tore up.

Sad Day.

And No. I do not think punishing the LEO will do anything.

Maybe more training.

What kind of apologist stuff is this even....

Like; if I leave a dog in my car and it dies, I go to jail for animal abuse. If I kill a police dog, I got to jail for murder of a police officer. Full On Murder charge.

Cop kills his own partner; a police dog, by leaving it in a hot car and you want to give him a hug because he must feel really bad?

Like.....

WHAT IN THE ACTUAL F......

Prison is an absolute must; more training? How about NEVER a cop again. He killed his own partner dude with clear and gross negligence; it's both animal abuse and murder of a police officer, how can prison NOT be in his future?

Punishing the officer sets an example to other K9 Units.

Negligent homicide..thats what Joe public would be hit with.
And what kind of dumbass leaves a dog in a hot car for even 1 goddamn minute, he will probably get no charges..maybe be removed of dog handling responsibilities.

Aquick google search reveals that this is, unfortunately fairly common.

This is a similar example and presents the Officers feelings and punishment.

www.google.com.au...

There are a lot more similar stories ... better education for K9 handlers is obviously needed.

a reply to: NerdGoddess

Okay, here goes (bolded emphasis my own, of course):

originally posted by: NerdGoddess
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.

So, here's where my apparent misunderstanding comes in, just so that you understand my comment:
- When you at "at the very least" after saying it was neglect, this implies that you are open to the idea of it being not neglect as well
- A non-officer is only charged with assault if the actions against the dog were intentionally or recklessly inflicted, not negligently; accidents are not chargeable offenses when it comes to, say, incidental contact or unintentional harm (in most instances). The elements of the statutes do not define negligent harm as a criminal offense in ANY criminal code pertaining to police dogs that I have seen
- By saying "SOME brothers they were," you're implying--at least to me, anyhow--that the handler was intentionally being a poor caretaker of the animal, but that's easily left up to subjective interpretation and you may not have meant it that way.

Now, as you say, maybe I misunderstood your implications in your comment (it's hard to interpret tone and intended meaning via written responses), and you meant none of what I noted. If so, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

As for your question about punishment, I noted earlier that I think that the only punishment should be that this officer should no longer be a K9 handler--I think that he's proven himself incapable of properly caring for a four-legged partner.

TLR version: Maybe I misunderstood your comment. I've seen your responses enough on here to know that you're a good person, so if you didn't mean it the way I took it, my apologies for the misunderstanding.

originally posted by: vonclod
Negligent homicide..thats what Joe public would be hit with.
And what kind of dumbass leaves a dog in a hot car for even 1 goddamn minute, he will probably get no charges..maybe be removed of dog handling responsibilities.

I'm quite certain that you don't understand the law very well.

2903.05 Negligent homicide (emphasis mine):

(A) No person shall negligently cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance as defined in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of negligent homicide, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

I'm quite confident that his vehicle, as pertains to this instance, is not in the list of deadly weapons or dangerous ordnance. Let's not make hyperbolic claims that are false, simply because you want to make it seem that, just because he's a LEO, that he won't get the punishment that a civilian would; for that, we must wait and see.

ETA: My apologies, that is an Ohio statute, and this occurred in Indiana, for which I cannot even find a statute that covers "negligent" homicide, only "involuntary manslaughter." The kicker there is that it specifies that the offense must have happened by a person to another person or persons--animals, including police dogs, do not seem to be included in that.

Indiana laws on Homicide

Furthermore, it would seem as though Indiana does not have a law that specifies that their police K9s be treated the same as human officers in the eyes of the law, at least according to my quick research and policek9.com, which cites only the law of mischief, covering intentionally, recklessly, or knowingly damaging someone else's property as being what covers police K9s.

Indiana 35-43-1-2 Mischief

A person who: Recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally damages or defaces property of another person without the other person's consent; or Knowingly or intentionally causes another to suffer pecuniary loss by deception or by an expression of intention to injure another person or to damage the property or yo impair the rights of another person; commits criminal mischief a class B misdemeanor. However the offense is: (B) a class D felony if (v) the damage is to a law enforcement animal as defined in 35-46-3-4.5. ( 1 1/2 years/$10,000 + or -) We also have 35-46-3-11. Striking, Interfering with a law enforcement animal. This is a class A Misdemeanor (1 year/$5,000 + or -)

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: shooterbrody

I think that the key word (well, I KNOW that the key word) is "purposefully."

According to the reason why he forgot about the dog, this animal was not purposefully harmed, but I guess the investigation is still pending.

I'm with Crappiekat on this one.

No, he should be held to same standard anyone else would, no sugar coating this one bud, he is a cop killer.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think this should be gross negligence. How you don't get permanently removed from law enforcement, and sued like any other situation is beyond me. Even in terms of the officers value who died a stressful death he should be fined or sued.

This is in no way a slap on the wrist accident. He shouldn't be cop at all never mind a k9 cop.


The only excuses being the human cop was injured, he was in a tense live saving situation, or something completely out of his control. Even then a procedure for a dog partner not dying in your squad car should be I place and the dept should also be examined to make sure it's in place. (How about dog squad cars have a temp monitor at the least that alarms the officer, or even keeps the car cool with a system designed for dogs to not die in cop cars)

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Your lack of knowledge of how laws and the legal system works is unfortunate.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Your lack of knowledge of how laws and the legal system works is unfortunate.

The truth is unions/leo's protect these guys like bad teachers.

a reply to: luthier

We'll disagree at this point that he should no longer be a LEO--intent matters a lot to me, as it also does to the law. Now, if there are SOPs in place that he ignored that led to his dog's death (which I would hope that they have K9 SOPs that specifically note that you cannot leave the animals in a non-running vehicle for more than X amount of minutes), then he should face appropriate administrative punishment.

I understand the emotional response to this issue from many in this thread, but I guess that I'm in a relatively unique position to be slightly more objective in these types of matters, which often meets with much disagreement. The bottom line is that this does not, at the moment, appear to be a criminal matter, especially under the laws that I could find in Indiana.

Like I said, though, I definitely feel that this should be a one-strike-and-your-out policy when it comes to the K9 unit--it would be vastly inappropriate to give him another fur partner.

I do agree with the latter portion of your comment--there absolutely should be some sort of fail-safe that alerts the officer that he has left his animal in the vehicle after X amount of minutes. I feel like something that that would be relatively easy to figure out these days.

originally posted by: luthier
The truth is unions/leo's protect these guys like bad teachers.

That's for another thread, as it is a red-herring argument in this one. That said, I agree with you in this comment, for the most part, especially about the unions.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think I have another perspective. I coach wrestling with an ex airborne fella who is also an officer. He is in incredible shape and we are also range buddies.

We have discussed many times the morons he has had to deal with on the force, the people protected by politics and unions and the lazy.

In fact the fbi found 70 percent of police officers are out of shape and are most likely to die frim heart problems.

The fbi has found they are terrible marksman with terrible weapons with heavy triggers because they don't trust the officers as far as accidental discharge.

We do not need an officer with a gun on the street who made a mistake at his job so bad he killed another being. His judgement is that bad.

I personally as you probably know think coos need to be trained and paid far more than they are. Only a community police officer who calls for back up for any danger should have such inadequate skills in their profession.

This is a case of a government official who is terrible at his job getting a possible slap on the wrist. That is a problem.

If this was a private firm you would be fired and probably sued for the cost of the animal.


It's not a red herring because the unions lobby to create the laws and protections around law enforcement.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: NerdGoddess

Okay, here goes (bolded emphasis my own, of course):

originally posted by: NerdGoddess
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.

So, here's where my apparent misunderstanding comes in, just so that you understand my comment:
- When you at "at the very least" after saying it was neglect, this implies that you are open to the idea of it being not neglect as well
- A non-officer is only charged with assault if the actions against the dog were intentionally or recklessly inflicted, not negligently; accidents are not chargeable offenses when it comes to, say, incidental contact or unintentional harm (in most instances). The elements of the statutes do not define negligent harm as a criminal offense in ANY criminal code pertaining to police dogs that I have seen
- By saying "SOME brothers they were," you're implying--at least to me, anyhow--that the handler was intentionally being a poor caretaker of the animal, but that's easily left up to subjective interpretation and you may not have meant it that way.

Now, as you say, maybe I misunderstood your implications in your comment (it's hard to interpret tone and intended meaning via written responses), and you meant none of what I noted. If so, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

As for your question about punishment, I noted earlier that I think that the only punishment should be that this officer should no longer be a K9 handler--I think that he's proven himself incapable of properly caring for a four-legged partner.

TL

R version: Maybe I misunderstood your comment. I've seen your responses enough on here to know that you're a good person, so if you didn't mean it the way I took it, my apologies for the misunderstanding.

Thanks for clarifying what you were thinking when you read my post. Yes I am open to that possibility but only because I wasn't there. Once all the details come out I'm sure it will be clear, I like to assume people don't want to intentionally cause harm to animals though. The Some brothers they were thing, yeah, that's how I felt. Likewise, I thought "SOME MOTHER I WAS" When I turned around in the store to look at something on the shelf we needed and my son fell on his face onto a concrete floor as of course I turned my back just as he decided to crawl out. Some mother I was in that situation, and some brothers these guys were when they forgot about their partner or whatever the cause was.

# happens. I'm not saying oh damn them to hell they are awful in every aspect of life, but in that moment they failed the dog. I stand by that.

But thank you again for clarifying so I could understand better where you were coming from.

-Alee

originally posted by: luthier

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.

Omg that is scary! Again humanity is going the wrong way!

originally posted by: Doxanoxa
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.

Really? He works with children and can't remember his dog locked in a car for 4 hours, I wouldn't trust him with children either.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Your lack of knowledge of how laws and the legal system works is unfortunate.

You know what else is unfortunate, the rose colored glasses you view the actions of police officers through..... There are 2 sets of rules, stop pretending there is not.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Antipathy17

Oh, so you know the officer personally and have discussed the situation with him?

No but it seems pretty obvious that if you leave care about a living creature you don't leave it in a hot car.

a reply to: luthier

I agree with most of what you're saying, especially about the lack of training, both frequency and, IMO, quality. I also believe that anyone willing to help someone by stepping into an unknown situation where they may meet a bullet deserves to earn a better living (plus, it would increase the pool of applicants and we could get a higher median of good LEOs out of it).

As far as this particular officer and the accidental (if his story is accurate) death of the canine goes, I disagree with the needed severity of the punishment. We'll agree to disagree on that, I suppose, but at least we both agree that he deserves some punishment, just differ on the severity.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Right on my friend.

It's the severity of the mistake we disagree with.

In terms of the way things are currently done in many areas I say sure you have a point in terms of the fairness from the employee perspective.

I just think ideally, the nature of his job does not allow him to make mistakes that large even if they are human. Plenty of other officers never make that mistake.

I really hope we make the change and realize it's tax money worth spending. Keep studying what changes are working and give the guys a break. They are not equipped mentally to handle the amount of variables they are asked to do and it will become a closed loop of response by society and police being nervous of the distrust.

I hope you don't think I am anti cop I just want them to be prepared and trained and paid for the amount of risk and training it should take to be in shape and ready if you have deadly force options.

Even ccl folks should think that way. I go months without carrying if I am not going to the range enough.