About 100 people gathered on a ball field in the tiny town of Berwyn Heights last night to rally in support of the town's mayor and in memory of his two dogs who were shot and killed by law enforcement officers during a drug raid last week.
Residents, many accompanied by their own dogs on leashes, recalled 7-year-old Payton and 4-year-old Chase, black Labrador retrievers, as dogs who would stop and greet them on walks.
Members of a Prince George's County Sheriff's Office SWAT team shot the dogs Tuesday while bursting into the home of Mayor Cheye Calvo. The raid, conducted jointly with county police narcotics officers, took place after officers saw Calvo bring a package containing more than 30 pounds of marijuana from his front porch into his house. They had been tracking the package since police dogs sniffed out the presence of drugs at a shipping facility in Arizona.
The package was addressed to Trinity Tomsic, Calvo's wife. But law enforcement sources said last week that they are now investigating the possibility that the mayor and his wife were unwitting recipients and that a deliveryman might have intended to intercept the package as part of a drug smuggling scheme.
The package landed on Calvo's doorstep after police posing as deliverymen brought it to the door and Calvo's mother-in-law asked that it be left on the porch. Police recovered the unopened package from the home Tuesday night but made no arrests. Calvo has said he was interrogated for hours while handcuffed and surrounded by the bloody bodies of his dogs.
A spokesman for the sheriff's office has said that the department regretted the shooting of the dogs but that deputies felt threatened by them. The spokesman did not return a call for comment yesterday.
I don't have really any negative experiences with retriever dogs... esp Labs. I've never seen one of our dogs go after a person... raccoons, of course, are another story.
They should have just grabbed a pop bottle and smacked the dogs' noses if they felt threatened.
Shooting a dog is despicable, shooting a dog in the back, IMVHO, should get you an immediate expressway ticket to hell.
To play Devil's Advocate here... When I've done house raids, you're on edge like a MF-er. Everything is a threat until proven otherwise... so I could see two dogs running to the front door as being, in an initial snap-decision assessment, threatening.
On the other hand, interrogating the homeowner with his dead dogs around him... Cruel and Unusual Punishment?
The whole thing reeks of over-zealousness. And this comes from an Infantryman... so that might (or might not) be saying something...
I would never shoot a dog in the back but one running at me with teeth showing might just catch one in the heat of the moment. I can recall passing a few trucks at local hunt test where I knew there were dogs in the back but there bark slash lunges were enough to make me reach. did not shoot any though I may have "touched cotton" AKA allmost **** myself!!!
PG County is right on the outside of Babylon on the Potomac(D.C.) and has an horrific crime rate. Law enforcement in the county has a shoot first and ask questions later mentality, not totally unjustified all things considered. Pit bulls and other aggressvie breeds have been used quite a bit by dope pushers to guard their stash. BUT some advance scouting might have told the S.O. if these dogs were guard dogs or pets. 25 years in Law enforcement and the only dog that ever bit me was a mop dog that snuck out from under the couch, it didn't weigh 10 lbs soaking wet.
Why not get a warrant (which they must have had anyway) and show up to search the house if they know the package is in there... Especially considering its the mayor, rather than tear his house apart....ridiculous.
Why not get a warrant (which they must have had anyway) and show up to search the house if they know the package is in there... Especially considering its the mayor, rather than tear his house apart....ridiculous.
Obviously they had a warrant. Just because it was "the mayor" why should he be treated differently than any other drug dealer ? I don't see where the information provided says they tore his house apart.
Armchair QB's shouldn't judge an officer's decisions based on a news report. But I agree Paul, there are many who shouldn't be wearing a badge and unfortunatley they are the ones we most often see in the limelight in situations like these.
there are definitely people wearing badges that shouldn't be.
they already had the place staked out and the package couldn't leave on it's own. why the urgency to break in and hold people at gunpoint? it was the MAYOR'S house-not a crack house in D.C.
TOO MANY HOTHEADS NOT THINKING THINGS THRU!!!!-paul
you know, Bob, i was thinking this could happen to you and yours.....
drug dealer sends package via carrier company and has it delivered to your address, intending for their connection on the other end to pick it up before you get home. either your wife or daughter come home and bring the package into the house.....
still feel like defending the "shoot first" mode of operation? i bet your Chessies would be a lot less than friendly towards people pointing their guns at them and your family.
A dog shot in the back is not presenting a threat to the officer. What it sounds like to me is that the dogs were shot just to get them out of the way.
Hopefully there is soon to be a vacancy in the dept. I would suggest also that the PG County Sheriff place a bit more emphasis on common sense in the leadership of the dept. They are lucky this cowboy didn't kill someone.
Leaving the package on the stoop? How dumb can you be? Why not deliver it to hand? This smells even if the dogs weren't killed.
A dog shot in the back is not presenting a threat to the officer. What it sounds like to me is that the dogs were shot just to get them out of the way.
Hopefully there is soon to be a vacancy in the dept. I would suggest also that the PG County Sheriff place a bit more emphasis on common sense in the leadership of the dept. They are lucky this cowboy didn't kill someone.
Leaving the package on the stoop? How dumb can you be? Why not deliver it to hand? This smells even if the dogs weren't killed.
I am not defending PG county law enforcement, but I kind of understand the mindset. Mind you I never popped a cap on another human while I was cop, just rabid raccoons and a couple of not quite dead deer that were roadkill.
Years back I met an officer from the PG County PD. He told me about a shooting that had taken place there. Officers were dispatched to a call regarding a man with a gun in the parking lot of a local beer joint. Officers responded and found an individual in said lot who fit the description to a T. His back was turned to the officers. When they told him to turn around, he complied, an officer saw a black object in the mans hand, thought it was a handgun and opened fire. When the smoke cleared they found out that the shootee had been urinating at the time. Thats just the kind of place PG can be. Its an urban area with a high population for the most part and a very high crime rate. Do I think the cops behavior there is justified, NO, but I haven't really walked a mile in their shoes.
BTW The former mayor of DC, now a city council member WAS busted by the FBI in a sting operation for possession of crack cocain a decade or so ago, so politicians using dope is not exactly an unknown circumstance around the national capitol.
thanks for the reply, Bob. i was very happy to hear that from you.
i have lots of respect for the police. they have a very difficult job most of the time. but i don't have much respect or patience for morons with a badge.-paul
You missed the point. A dog running away is not likely to be a threat. The dog didn't need to be shot.
I seem to remember that a gun discharge policy commonly used is that an officer doesn't discharge a weapon at a fleeing suspect. However, now they do shoot fleeing dogs? They could just as easily killed someone with the indiscrimant use of their firearms.
I know of no conceiveable defense for this. They can't even plead self-defense or "threatening behavior." If the officer is afraid of dogs, especially if they are running away, he needs a new line of work anyway.
You don't know what the dog was doing you weren't there and obviously, neither was I. However, your broad sweeping assumption that the officer was a "cowboy" and that he acted improperly and should be terminated is an outlandish and unfair assumption. Just because a dog is not facing the person shooting it, doesn't preclude the possiblity that it could have posed a threat to someone else.
Now since we know that none of us were there, we are also basing this discussion on published news reports of the incident. I can tell you first hand how inaccurate those reports are following such incidents.
Granted we are intitled to our opinions in these matters and we are free to read between the lines and evaluate what the officers did. I think we as a society should think twice before jumping too quick to call for the end to someones career just because we perceive a news report as being gospel and our uneducated backgrounds may lead us to believe that the officers did wrong. With over 6,000 registered users of this board we never know who is reading it and we should be mindful to support the officers who are there to protect us.
Yes the situation was unfortunate and based on what little information is presented about the investigation, it could have been handled better. But lets not be too quick to judge those that stand to protect us until we've been in thier shoes.
Gotta chime in here. I've been on a SWAT team, and I've made building entries, where dogs were involved. No big deal, but I've been there.
In law enforcement, there is no such thing as 'acceptable casualties'. Every SWAT team member wants to go home to his family when the day is over. Consequently, safety for everyone is paramount - yes, even the 'bad guy' when you can give him a break without jeopardizing yourself - or, very importantly, without jeopardizing your fellow team members.
On a building entry, it's very important to establish control very quickly for everyone's safety. Having dogs creating havoc, even if they are not actually going to bite you (and you have no real idea), inhibits your ability to establish control. The situation is chaotic, and a threatening dog is a threat. There's an old military adage that says 'Always honor a threat!' That means take it seriously.
As for the dog shot in the back. Well, maybe the dog was turned away from the shooter, but threatening another officer who had no ability to respond because he was busy trying to control another person?
I've read newspaper accounts of situations where I was a real, up front in person, part of. And, they are rarely comprehensive, and are designed to sell papers. Although, I've met some guys in 'blue' who shoudn't have been there - they were not on the SWAT team. These guys take very big risks - so, they at least deserve that we withold the lynching until all the facts are in - IMHO.
So, why didn't the SWAT team take someone from animal control along on the raid? That is standard practice in some jurisdictions around here. The dog catcher and a catch pole can prevent this kind of trouble.
Bob, respectfully, we don't that animal control wasn't there. But, during the initial entry an animal control officer, who has no tactical training, is a bigger liability than an asset (someone else to worry about getting in the way) . It's a dirty, dangerous business.
Let me add another question. Would there be any questions if the dogs were pit bull? Everybody loves Labs, and we often forget that Labs bite people too. In my opinion, these Labs died doing their duty - protecting there territory. They should be honored, but not martyred.
Bob, respectfully, we don't that animal control wasn't there. But, during the initial entry an animal control officer, who has no tactical training, is a bigger liability than an asset (someone else to worry about getting in the way) . It's a dirty, dangerous business.
Let me add another question. Would there be any questions if the dogs were pit bull? Everybody loves Labs, and we often forget that Labs bite people too. In my opinion, these Labs died doing their duty - protecting there territory. They should be honored, but not martyred.
Let's review- the LEO's patiently tracked this package from Arizona to a residence in Maryland where it was delivered (only God knows what that exercise cost you and me). Assuming that there were no overt actions to grab the dope and head for the hills, what would be the harm in just walking up to the dang door and ringing the doorbell? How could the dope have magically disappeared before morning when the "Mayor" would normally emerge on his way to work? Why was it necessary for a full blown SWAT team to conduct a no knock raid? We ain't talking about fissionable material here- it's just a relatively small box of dope.
I'm not inclined to criticize the folks that I count on to protect me from the bad guys, but........... it sure seems like we are killing ants (or Black Labs in this case) with some pretty impressive (excessive?) firepower.
It would seem to me that it would be to the teams advantage to have an animal control officer available, and trained, to assist them on raids. Not only could that lower the chances of a dog attack, but it would be far better for PR than is the current situation. The other question I have is why was the SO involved at all? In the larger counties in MD., the SO is the keeper of the jail, responsible for court security, and the process serving agency, while the county PD does the majority of law enforcement stuff. PG Co PD has a SWAT team so why was there a multi agency raid, and did this gactor into the problem?
You are probably correct about the Pit Bulls, but, from my experience, I have seen VERY few protective/ aggressive Labs.
The story llinked here, from the Washington Times, not the Compost, states that the 4 yr old dog was"running away" when shot by an officer. I am generally totally pro police in incidents of questionable actions and tactics. I am not trying to fire up the bus, but I do believe that there is something fishy about this whole incident.
It would seem to me that it would be to the teams advantage to have an animal control officer available, and trained, to assist them on raids. Not only could that lower the chances of a dog attack, but it would be far better for PR than is the current situation. The other question I have is why was the SO involved at all? In the larger counties in MD., the SO is the keeper of the jail, responsible for court security, and the process serving agency, while the county PD does the majority of law enforcement stuff. PG Co PD has a SWAT team so why was there a multi agency raid, and did this gactor into the problem?
You are probably correct about the Pit Bulls, but, from my experience, I have seen VERY few protective/ aggressive Labs.
The story llinked here, from the Washington Times, not the Compost, states that the 4 yr old dog was"running away" when shot by an officer. I am generally totally pro police in incidents of questionable actions and tactics. I am not trying to fire up the bus, but I do believe that there is something fishy about this whole incident.
It's not feasible to have animal control train enough to make them a ivable asset. As fritz said, it's a down an dirty business and the guys making that entry are there for a specific purpose and that is to establish control of that environment as quickly and safely as possible. PR is way down on the list of concerns during such a time. Waiting on a partially trained civilian to run around with a noose on a pole doesn't fit into that equation.
There are alternatives on how to handle and deter dogs when encountered during dynamic entries but unfortunatley not every agency can know every trick in the book. I'm sure they did the best they could with the skills and tools available and I'm sure they will learn something from the operation and will make adjustments in the future just like any other tactical unit should.
As far as why the SO was involved, I don't know but it's not at all uncommon around here to have different agencies working on one operation. Many areas with limited resources perform this way and this investigation in question may have crossed several jurisdictions so they needed outside assistance.
And just because the news says the dog was running away when it was shot does not make it true!! Remember they are in business to get ratings and sensationalizing such incidents is what brings viewers and sells papers. The old saying of "never let the facts get in the way of a good story", is still practiced everyday in jounalism.
I will agree with you Bob that there are several "gaps" that aren't filled in on this one. And I agree that there is something "fishy" about it, but we all see sloppy work everyday in all our professions and police aren't perfect by any means. I know here in our area it would have been handled differently but everyone's laws and policies are different so it's hard to make an out and out judgment on this without having all the facts.
Let's review- the LEO's patiently tracked this package from Arizona to a residence in Maryland where it was delivered (only God knows what that exercise cost you and me). Assuming that there were no overt actions to grab the dope and head for the hills, what would be the harm in just walking up to the dang door and ringing the doorbell? How could the dope have magically disappeared before morning when the "Mayor" would normally emerge on his way to work? Why was it necessary for a full blown SWAT team to conduct a no knock raid? We ain't talking about fissionable material here- it's just a relatively small box of dope.
I'm not inclined to criticize the folks that I count on to protect me from the bad guys, but........... it sure seems like we are killing ants (or Black Labs in this case) with some pretty impressive (excessive?) firepower.
Assumptions like you have made can, and have gotten people killed. Walking up and ringing the doorbell, is not a good idea where drugs are involved. But, regardless, the tacticians on the SWAT team normally would have little to say about the overall strategy. They were given a mission they have trained for, and they executed that mission with, at least, no human casualties. Grunts frequently dont' get to decide. But, the grunts just may have agreed with you if they had the opportunity.
Its the frickin mayor. Do you really think the mayor is a huge threat? Do you think the enforcement people didn't know whose house they were at, especially since he no doubt has influence over their employment...
FWIW, I have seen another source on this story and it bears out the Wash Times.
I suppose they could do an autopsy on the dog. However, you raise the point that the dog could have been attacking someone else and that explains why the dog was going away from the shooting officer. Would this not infer that in the "fog of war" that the officer shot generally towards another officer or person?
One would presume that a little bit of research was done from the time the addressee was identified. The package would have taken hours to get from AZ to MD and be delivered. The LEO's are quoted as saying that they were on the case from there. Surely they had time to do a little bit of investigation to pin down the situation?
Finally, why did a police officer not act as the delivery person to reconnoiter and perhaps ease access to the house?
Bob's idea that AC should have been there is spot on. Any dog would likely act defensively in the case of an armed entry. The dogs' behavior should have been expected. Did they perhaps not know of the dogs. So much for recon.
Finally, one of the better critiques of this situation comes from the local police chief. He's quoted as saying that this was handled in a highly unprofessional manner. <shrug>
Not necessarily. The officer could have been shooting directly at the dog, and been perfectly justified in doing so.
The 'fog of war' is actually the whole story about the dogs. Smoke and sensationalism! The real story, with all of its alleged 'fishiness', is that the mayor's house was the subject of a 'drug raid'.
There is the possibility of political intrigue here. It's not unusual for the Sheriff and a Mayor to be political enemies, at least to the point that the Sheriff would love to embarrass the Mayor. So, what if a dog gets hurt?
Am I just speculating? Of course I am! How did you know?
Not necessarily. The officer could have been shooting directly at the dog, and been perfectly justified in doing so.
The 'fog of war' is actually the whole story about the dogs. Smoke and sensationalism! The real story, with all of its alleged 'fishiness', is that the mayor's house was the subject of a 'drug raid'.
There is the possibility of political intrigue here. It's not unusual for the Sheriff and a Mayor to be political enemies, at least to the point that the Sheriff would love to embarrass the Mayor. So, what if a dog gets hurt?
Am I just speculating? Of course I am! How did you know?
Nice post snicklefritz. Sometimes we have to shoot towards others officers to save a life, been there done that. And no matter how you train, it won't always work out perfect.
If we could just get the crooks to attend training so they would know what they're supposed to do !!!
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF
1.4M posts
32.1K members
Since 2003
A forum community dedicated to retriever owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about breeding, training, health, behavior, housing, adopting, care, classifieds, and more!