Online subscriber? Please Log In
  

Need Help? | Forgot Your Password?

Dog owner disputes shooting account

Apr 21, 2012 | 19 Comments


By Paul Daquilante
Of the News-Register


Only online subscribers may access this article. Subscribe online by clicking here. Already a subscriber, please .

Would you like to comment on this article?

Only online subscribers may comment on articles. Click here to see how you can subscribe.
Already a subscriber, please

Note: Some articles do not accept comments at all.

Comments

09:50 am - Sat, April 21 2012
troy prouty said:
What was the search warrent for?

Troy Prouty*
07:01 am - Sun, April 22 2012
Michael Tubbs Sr said:
What was the search warrent for? "

A meth pipe belonging to a man that had entertained the thought of renting a room from Henry., that is if I have read the article correctly. Perhaps Paul might shed some more light on that portion of the story.
08:30 am - Sun, April 22 2012
Michael Tubbs Sr said:
Like who the meth pipe supposedly belonged to, would be nice. That is, if disclosing such doesn't interfere with any ongoing manhunt....
03:00 am - Tue, April 24 2012
mike said:
Wow, Yamhill County's law enforcment at there finest.....I sure hope a meth pipe was worth it! Sound's like they're lucky the dog's owner held himself together. If anyone shot my dog......well, I would most likely be in jail!! & how was the dog doing anything wrong? It was protecting his home & master? I get that there are situations that an officer must protect himself & might need to shoot a dog. However, they better be darn sure that it's necessary that they be there, there information is solid & that the people there are bad deserve deadly force if needed.It jut confirms my opinion that our local law enforcment don't use the best judgement & play by the rules themselves. Kind of like how they will follow me forever late on a Saturday night & just wait for me to not turn my blinker on soon enough or something so they can pull me over to see if I was drinking. They don't follow me forever in the middle of the day on Saturday? My point is....there are plenty of actual drunks on the road & plenty of people harboring meth heads or having something to do with bad stuff....Spend your time on them! Leave us good guys (that pay our taxes, thus paying for your paycheck) alone!! BTW....Leave our pets alone too!!
07:03 am - Tue, April 24 2012
Silencedogood said:
I agree with you Mike. The reason they don't like to spend time and resources chasing down the real criminals is that there's no money in it. There's good money in silly little traffic tickets.
09:32 am - Tue, April 24 2012
ToSea said:
While it is heartbreaking to hear of a dog being shot, she showed aggression when she "began growling and nipping at him." If one has to place blame it would be first with the owner, put your dogs away before you open your door. This is just plain common sense and that these two responded as they did (one ran away who could have been hit by a car and the other sadly ended up dieing). Also, all PDs need to train their officers in how to respond to dogs, they encounter them on a regular basis. This officer also showed aggression (to the dog) by kicking at her so both were to blame. OTOH, if anyone has had a dog growling and nipping at them, it's pretty scary. But bottom line, we are responsible to keep our dogs safe and that includes putting them away before opening a door. It takes two seconds to shuttle them into a bedroom and shut the door. While people are so quick to blame the police for everything, keep in mind they have to respond with little knowledge of how thing may really be. I think this time, it's obvious that the blame lies with the owner for putting his dogs in harms way. This warrant had to do with drugs, not a "silly little traffic ticket", IMO is a real criminal case. I blame the drug dealers also that have set up this public fear of pit bulls (who THEY made aggressive) and drugs together.
09:49 pm - Tue, April 24 2012
Mack said:
This article sounds to me like it was written from a very sympathetic point of view. Perhaps the author is a close friend of the family. I'm not sure what the connection is but it just doesn't seem very objective.
If a pit bull mix snarled, snapped and lunged at me and latched on to me so tight that it tore through my clothes and skin and couldn't even be pulled off by the owner, I would shoot it too.
Don't get me wrong, I feel terrible for the owner...but come on, put yourself in the shoes of the officer. Do you just stand there and let the dog kill you?
I'm not sure why their is so much animosity towards our police on these boards. I have great respect for and trust in our Sheriff's office and Mac PD. It makes me ill to hear them bashed.
07:41 am - Wed, April 25 2012
likearock said:
I am on the dog's side, and yes, there are mean dogs, and not just pit mixes either. Zoey was doing her job in protecting the home! Shame on that policeman and if I'm reading the story right, the owner had ahold of Zoey when the policeman shot her. What if the bullet ricocheted and hit the owner? Do they honestly teach that in a police academy? Not just Zoey, but any dog when confronted with a possible threat will do just what she did. As for the officer in Zoey's situation, I understand the threat, but I have to question as to how they went about performing the search. First of all, the owner should have told the officers that he had his pets in the house and that he needed to close them up. However, even if the owner did close his pets up, the officers' search would have eventually ended up by going to where the dogs were, unless there was a kennel where the dogs could be put. This whole search thing was based on a maybe, right? The possible renter, the meth pipe, and who knows what else. If in if fact the story is right, it sounds like some deductive reasoning wasn't totally used on either side. Be that as it may, Zoey is gone for doing her job. I don't have any issues with officers, I have a great amount of respect for them, and not just because they are policemen. But come on now. Use your heads, guys. Alittle common sense in this situation could have made the outcome totally different. Brester had no business stomping his foot. How stupid is that? Again, come on now! Not really too smart to challenge a pet on their own turf, and certainly not worth getting bit or worse. One other thing, too. We are all on a database, and every officer has the ability to tap into where we live, who's living there, and if we have pets or not. This officer had to know what he was up against, right? Dogs, drugs, people, whatever. He knew..
08:01 am - Wed, April 25 2012
Mack said:
The more I have thought about this the more I wonder if their maybe could have been a better solution.
Too bad the officer didn't think to use a taser or even pepper spray. That's probably what they would do if a person grabbed on to them and wouldn't let go. Easy to be an arm chair, Monday morning quarterback though...
02:20 pm - Wed, April 25 2012
just_a_mom said:
First off I am very sorry for the loss of that man's companion, no matter what the breed. It is hard enough to loose a pet but in that way with, what I am sure he is probably feeling, violence makes it worse.

Second, I understand if the dog is snarling and lunging, but don't they (officers) ask/tell the owner to put their dog away?

I have called several times in regards to pit bulls running loose in my neighborhood, almost attacking children, cornering myself and my baby in a car, and all I have gotten is to call dog control and voice a complaint. Does that mean that in order to have an animal put down the deputy or officer there has to feel endangered? Does that mean that the next time I have pit bulls on my property growling and advancing on myself I can pull out a rifle and shoot them in city limits?

I understand that if the officer felt threatened then he needed to react however, couldn't he have used pepper spray? Was the lethal force of a bullet into the skull of an animal IN FRONT of the owner really necessary?

Where is the training, what if the owner had gotten a body part in the way of the gun first? Oops I'm sorry isn't going to cut it!

Training, it always comes down to training and on going education.
10:13 pm - Wed, April 25 2012
browser123 said:
I would encourage some of you to re-read the article. This is not a factual article, it is the dog owner's story. It saddens me to see all of these negative comments without knowing the facts.

I also read an article about this in the Sheridan Sun, also the owners account of what happened. I have a hard time believing all of it because it seems his story about what happened is not the same as this one.

If an aggressive dog were attacking you would you think of pulling out pepper spray or a tazer if you knew these may not be effective on dogs? Dogs aren't like humans. They don't react to these things like we do.

Police encounter dogs on a daily basis, several are friendly and some are protective. I think if the Officer felt in danger and it actually ripped his pants he was right to protect himself.

So many of you are quick to chime in and bash the Police and their training just by reading an article in the paper.

12:19 am - Thu, April 26 2012
Logic Only-No Emotion said:
Well, Mike should of said SOUNDS like yamhill county's law enforcment at there finest.....because "Browser123" you may be right. All the fact may not be here. However, I would tend to agree with "Mike's" judgement of our local law enforcement. From traffic tickets to drug charges, there additude is for the most part the same. Which is not "innocent until proven guilty", it's "guilty.....I sure hope they don't turn out being innocent". Which means they end up going at things half informed or they already have judged the situation before going in. Yes, the officer has a right to defend themself. But, the dog's enstict says to & also has a right to defend his home & master. the owner didn't lock him up because he most likely didn't think the officer would be grabbing at him or treating him like that once they figured out he was just a law abiding citizen & it was misinformation they had. They main point is that they should have had done better detective work & known the guy & his pipe were never there. or they should of at least called out to the owner & asked him to lock up his dogs before he came to talk to them. I'm not saying all our officers are this way. but more are than aren't. they are there to enforce the law, but to many of them think they are the law & whatever they say....goes. They forget that they are only there to enforce the law if someone is breaking it. They aren't there to say "Jump!" & We are suppose to ask "How high?". I've seen this smug "I am the law in this town" aditude way too much from to many officers, which is why I am also critical of whether proper detective work was done & if they were acting like humble cival servants & treated the man as a innocent man until proven otherwise?
03:21 pm - Thu, April 26 2012
just_a_mom said:
browser123,
I did not bash on the police or their training. What I said was training, could be both for the dog or the police or for the owner for that matter, and ongoing education. You assumed I only meant the police.

As for pepper spray, it is what an officer told me to use. So if it doesn't work why would they tell me that. There are many other ways to get the dog away, tazers are another.

Too many officers are reacting in violent, lethal ways. They may have been provoked or feel that they are in danger, but isn't that part of the job? being in danger? I am grateful that there are those out there protecting our loved ones, but if that was anyone else that had done the same things all you-know-what would be going on and someone would be getting fined.

I am not bashing the force and I don't appreciate you assuming I was.
06:45 pm - Thu, April 26 2012
browser123 said:
"Just a Mom", I don't believe I mentioned your name at all on my post, and I don't appreciate you assuming I was even talking about you.

One thing you wrote on your last post really is pretty ridiculous though,

"Too many officers are reacting in violent, lethal ways. They may have been provoked or feel that they are in danger, but isn't that part of the job? being in danger? "

Are you serious? are you saying just because the Officer chose to place his/herself in harms way to protect the citizens, he/she should not react if someone is attacking them?! It is really easy to sit there and say they should have done this or that but what your not taking into account is the split second decision they have to make in violent situations. They are human with families and children as well...

Have you been trained in Police work? Do you know what it feels like to have someone attack you or threaten you with a gun? Have you been attacked by a dog? If you have answered no to these questions, you really have no room to criticize.



11:34 am - Fri, April 27 2012
TJ111 said:
I think Mack has a good point. Does an officer have the right to shoot a person who is running towards them that they think may be a threat? That person may get tazed or maced but if an officer shot an unknown person simply for approaching them too quickly they would probably lose their job. Is it notable to anyone that most animal control officers are unarmed yet they are asked to deal with actual dangerous animals every day? There's got to be a better way. Check this link out for more information:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/cop-shoots-dog-puppycide_n_1446841.html#s901252&title=Gloria
10:57 am - Sat, April 28 2012
Silencedogood said:
Logic Only-No Emotion, I couldn't agree with you more but until people actually witness for themselves the cop attitude toward innocent people they simply won't believe it.

My Dad was a WWII Veteran. The police wanted to investigate an employee of his, my dad believed that all police officers are "good guys and wear white hats". YC cops told a gullible elderly man lie after lie after lie. He didn't realize that cops don't consider themselves bound to honesty in the process of an investigation. They busted the employee but had no evidence and tried to involve my dad who they know damn good and well was innocent.

If I read this story correctly Mr. Henry tried to go back into his house but they wouldn't let him, they pulled him back by his belt, he didn't have an opportunity to pen up his dogs. Deputy Brewster went in the door without allowing Mr. Henry to "introduce" the officers to the dogs. Of corse the dogs going to do it's job! It's master's outside and some stranger comes in the house without being introduced and stomps their foot.

If the story is true and Mr. Henry had his arm wrapped around the bottom half of the dog while Deputy Brewster shot the dog he discharged his weapon with another human in front of him, downrange, inside his line of fire and inside the city limits!

I'd take a dog bite before I'd pull a stunt like that...

Deputy Brewster; You just flunked you hunters safety course!

05:20 pm - Mon, April 30 2012
browser123 said:
Where does it say Deputy Brewster walked inside of the house, and what does a hunters safety course have to do with anything?

Officers are not hunters.... Their gun training far surpasses that of a hunter. I highly doubt any officer would shoot a dog while the owner is holding it. Plus, it doesn't make any difference whether this was within the city limits or not.

10:20 am - Tue, May 1 2012
ronpaul2012 said:
Another yet unconstitutional act...There for a crack pipe? ooo big bust! Or waste of tax dollars, which be better spent on that so called road between mac and dundee..

Where is the psychical evidence that granted the warrant in the first place ? An assumption that something exists is not enough for a warrant. I'd suggest a lawyer. Wont replace your best friend. But hopefully there can be some justice.

Kill a police dog, gets same charge for killing human.
Kill a house pet(best friend) in guise of a warrant...get away free!


10:40 am - Tue, May 1 2012
ronpaul2012 said:
Police have to follow the same laws we do, in fact the laws they must follow is defending people constitutional rights. Its the only reason we have them. Now days people are conditioned to accept police corruption and believe it is beneficial cause its in name of safety, which allows them to overstep the law.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
-Patrick Henry

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
-Benjamin Franklin
© 1999- News-Register Publishing | © The Associated Press
The News-Register and NewsRegister.com are owned and operated by News-Register Publishing Co., P.O. Box 727, McMinnville, OR 97128.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Web design & powered by LVSYS