The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 164

Thread: Utah Police that shot dog - Now Public Outrage

  1. #61
    Senior Member Wayne Nutt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ft. Worth, TX
    Posts
    4,221

    Default

    I don't think the police sgt. had any first hand knowledge and felt very uncomfortable even being there by all the looking down and avoiding eye contact , etc.
    Wayne Nutt
    Go Nutts with dog training

    HRCH Patton's Parker Co. Shadow "Shadow"
    HRCH Clineline Hijacker "Jack"
    HRCH Marks a Lot Midnight Hudson, SH "Hudson"-retired
    Castile Creek's Rawhide, SH "Rowdy"

  2. #62
    Senior Member .44 magnum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MooseGooser View Post
    Just like the discussions here, there will be differences of opinion from both sides. Thats what representation (legal) and the court system is about..
    I think the cops are in for a gigantic lawsuit... Joe Taxpayer loses again.
    “I like one-shot kills where possible and prefer to do all my hunting before I shoot.” ..... Elmer Keith



  3. #63
    Senior Member .44 magnum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Nutt View Post
    I don't think the police sgt. had any first hand knowledge and felt very uncomfortable even being there by all the looking down and avoiding eye contact , etc.
    Funny thing is I've seen videos like this and most Police to not wish to be recorded. Utah must have some leeway on taping...
    “I like one-shot kills where possible and prefer to do all my hunting before I shoot.” ..... Elmer Keith



  4. #64
    Senior Member 480/277's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Conn
    Posts
    163

    Default

    Closed room, gag order, no omission of wrong doing ,fade away...

    For me, no amount would be acceptable . For me it's not about money.

  5. #65
    Senior Member MooseGooser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,338

    Default

    This is what the police communicated after the incident!!!

    Its not just "Jon Q Public" with "No Clue" of the law commenting.

    Local attorney voicing many of the same comments voiced here.

    According to police, the officers were in the area going door-to-door while searching for a missing 3-year-old boy. Because the child had difficulty communicating, authorities were concerned he would not respond if they called out to him.
    When no one answered the door at Kendall’s home, the officer felt he should still check the yard, which is where he ran into the dog. In the brief encounter, the officer reported he felt threatened by the animal, so he shot him.
    “Something like this is hard for everyone involved. One minute you’re out looking for a 3 year old, and the next minute you find yourself in this situation where you’ve shot somebody’s dog. And now we need to investigate that and make sure everything was done right,” said Sgt. Robin Heiden of the Salt Lake City Police Department.
    Internal Affairs is investigating the incident, but local attorney Robert Sykes believes it’s obvious the officer was out of line.
    “Going into the backyard, a fenced backyard, it’s like walking in someone’s home without a warrant: It’s illegal, it’s a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights,” he said.
    In his view, the officer should be charged with trespassing, as there was no reason to believe the missing child was in the home.
    “If they saw the kid go in, yeah,” Sykes said. “But you see, if that were OK, that there’s a kid’s missing, why couldn’t they go in everybody’s home on the block? Why couldn’t they actually open the door and go in? I think very few people would say that’s OK.”



    Last edited by MooseGooser; 07-04-2014 at 08:27 PM.
    It is far easier to spit on the work of others than it is to produce something better yourself.
    Brynmoors Prairie Sage JH ​(Sage) Just a dang fool huntin Dawg
    HRCH Calypso Seven Bales High SH (Bailey)
    HR Calypso Zoomin Loosies Mad Hader (Maddi) We loved you baby. R.I.P.
    FlatLanders Broken Pistol Ricochet SH (Flinch)


    My Christian Name is Michael Baker..
    I have gone by "Gooser" since I was a "gossling"

  6. #66
    Senior Member MooseGooser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .44 magnum View Post
    I think the cops are in for a gigantic lawsuit... Joe Taxpayer loses again.

    But this is really the only way we can fix this ,Isnt it?
    It is far easier to spit on the work of others than it is to produce something better yourself.
    Brynmoors Prairie Sage JH ​(Sage) Just a dang fool huntin Dawg
    HRCH Calypso Seven Bales High SH (Bailey)
    HR Calypso Zoomin Loosies Mad Hader (Maddi) We loved you baby. R.I.P.
    FlatLanders Broken Pistol Ricochet SH (Flinch)


    My Christian Name is Michael Baker..
    I have gone by "Gooser" since I was a "gossling"

  7. #67
    Senior Member DarrinGreene's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Souf Joisy
    Posts
    2,819

    Default

    I don't know Utah specifically, but in most states dogs are chattel, meaning property worth what you would pay for it.

    You all realize that trespassing is maybe a $250 ticket and the dog might be worth $1500 if purebred...

    So all this over $1500?

    It'll cost more than that for a lawyer to file the case to begin with.
    Darrin Greene

  8. #68
    Senior Member Ken Bora's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Burlington, Vermont
    Posts
    11,388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarrinGreene View Post
    .....You all realize that trespassing is maybe a $250 ticket and the dog might be worth $1500 if purebred... ....So all this over $1500?.....
    It'll cost more than that for a lawyer to file the case to begin with.
    or you could say it will cost more, in the looooooooooooooong run, if let slide.
    What founding father said... "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"
    "So what is big is not always the Trout nor the Deer but the chance, the being there. And what is full is not necessarily the creel nor the freezer, but the memory." ~ Aldo Leopold

    "The Greatest Obstacle to Discovery is not Ignorance -- It is the Illusion of Knowledge" ~ Daniel Boorstin

  9. #69
    Senior Member Migillicutty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Aubrey, Tx
    Posts
    289

    Default

    Imagine that another cop defending this cop who shot the dog.


    Then to lecture everyone on the 4th amendment as if being a cop makes you a Constitutional scholar. One problem is you don't quite understand it, which I am sure isn't your fault. I doubt they thoroughly explained it in your "How To Get Around The Comstitution" class at the the Academy. The 13 exceptions to the 4th amendment are born out of case law which is used as precedent in helping future courts make interpretations of the law. None are law. None supersede the Constitution. They are cases in which it has been found by the courts that warrants were not needed. Now I'm assuming you know all 13 exceptions since you cited the number. I also know that you know that bringing up any of the other 12 would have been quite futile as border crossing, probation searches, search after arrest etc really don't apply. You brought up the one that could possibly apply, the big trump card for cops because "hey it's an emergency people". The problem is that probable cause is still needed in Exigent Circumstance cases dealing with missing persons. This police officer would need to have probable cause to believe that this child was not only in that yard but also that it's life was in imminent danger. Most reasonable persons would not believe so and that is the standard. So it doesn't really matter what his "department policy" or "operational assignment" happened to be. None of that gave him the right to illegally enter the property.

    That all being said, after his illegal entry he then shot a dog. I find it very, very difficult to believe that shooting the dog was necessary. He went somewhere he shouldn't have been. He then reacted poorly and shot a dog that had every right to be there. He should lose his badge.

    BTW lots of punctuation and use of caps to shout people down won't work in here, though I am sure you are used to being able to bully your way through a conversation in other situations.
    Last edited by Migillicutty; 07-05-2014 at 08:36 AM.

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Migillicutty View Post
    Imagine that another cop defending this cop who shot the dog.




    Then to lecture everyone on the 4th amendment as of being a cop makes you a Constitutional scholar. One problem is you don't quite understand it, which I am sure isn't your fault. I doubt they thoroughly explained it in your "How To Get Around The Comstitution" class at the the Academy. The 13 exceptions to the 4th amendment are born out of case law which is used as precedent in helping future courts make interpretations of the law. None are law. None supersede the Constitution. They are cases in which it has been found by the courts that warrants were not needed. Now I'm assuming you know all 13 exceptions since you cited the number. I also know that you know that bringing up any of the other 12 would have been quite futile as border crossing, probation searches, search after arrest etc really don't apply. You brought up the one that could possibly apply, the big trump card for cops because "hey it's and emergency people". The problem is that probable cause is still needed in Exigent Circumstance cases dealing with missing persons. This police officer would need to have probable cause to believe that this child was not only in that yard but also that it's life was in imminent danger. Most reasonable persons would not believe so and that is the standard. So it doesn't really matter what his "department policy" or "operational assignment" happened to be. None of that gave him the right to illegally enter the property.


    That at being said, after his illegal entry he then shot a dog. I find it very very difficult to believe that shooting the dog was necessary. He went somewhere he shouldn't have been. He then reacted poorly and shot a dog that had every right to be there. He should lose his badge.


    BTW lots of punctuation and use of caps to shout people down won't work in here, though I am sure you are used to being able to bully your way through a conversation in other situations.



    What I'm against is people calling for this guys job and screaming foul from the rooftops when they aren't privy to all the facts. I don't have all the facts either as I have admitted earlier. Ive said when alllll the info is made public and the investigation is done if he is found to be in the wrong then I would back the investigations finding. I have only said I can relate to the officer because I've been in two similar but in some ways different situations. Just because I can relate doesn't mean I'm backing him and doesn't mean I'm not. I don't know all the details. But I am willing to pass on judgement until I have all the facts avail.


    In order for a court to decide whether this officers actions were warranted they have to look at the entire picture. I repeat the entire picture. It's called "the totality of the circumstances". What is upsetting to me is the courts use this to determine if the warrant less entry exigent circumstance exception applied..yet some of the public isn't looking at it through the same eye. It's not possible right now for the public to do so, we don't know all of the facts. We don't know all the details and info this officer had. We have a mere skeleton of the info without any flesh. Until it is all known I don't think anyone can form an truly educated opinion.


    The courts will consider the child's saftey or threat to vs time (I.E the time it would have taken to obtain a search warrant for the back yard) vs property owners rights. With a reported missing child would it have been more or less reasonable to wait the lengthy amount of time (usually several hours) it takes to get the search warrant. I find it very hard not to consider a lost/missing child, especially one who is "non-verbal", not an emergency.


    Flip the coin. What if the cop didn't search the backyard because he didn't consider it an emergency. What if the child was found dead in that back yard and the public found out the cop chose not to search or he choose to wait the lengthy time for a search warrant. What if the medical examiner determined the child died while the search warrant was being written? If we answer this honestly I'm pretty sure we would agree that the cop would be crucified, just as he is being now. People would cry foul and demand his badge. They would say "that's why we have exceptions to the search warrant rule...for emergencies like this!" Darned if u do and darned if u don't.


    As for the bully comment. Really? I'm arguing my opinion not bullying. People argue against mine and I argue back. Saying I'm use to bullying in my conversations was a cheap shot from behind a keyboard.


    U capitalized "BTW" in your post. Please stop bullying and yelling at me. Your not the only sensitive one on this thread.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •