Blogs and Stories
Dogs in a Deadly Crossfire
Confronted by the family pet, police often shoot first and ask questions later, reports Radley Balko. Among hundreds of recent victims: Labradors, Wheaten terriers, and a five-pound Chihuahua.
Beginning next year, police departments in Maryland will be required to report to the governor's office every time they kill a dog during a drug raid. That requirement is part of a new law pushed by Cheye Calvo, the mayor of the small town of Berwyn Heights.
Calvo proposed the legislation because police officers conducted a particularly violent raid last summer on his home in Prince George's County after intercepting a package of marijuana at a delivery-service warehouse. The cops then completed the delivery themselves to the address on the package. As it turns out, the house belonged Calvo, who had no connection to the drugs. The package was part of a botched distribution scheme in which an accomplice working for the delivery service was supposed to have intercepted it before it was delivered.
“You’re kicking down doors, barging in with guns, and when animals do what animals do, they become collateral damage.”
The raid made headlines around the world, not only because the police mistakenly busted into the home of a sitting mayor (believe it or not, that has happened elsewhere), but because they killed Calvo's two black Labradors, Peyton and Chase. Peyton was shot four times. Chase was shot twice, once from behind as he fled.
Within days, Calvo and his family were cleared of any wrongdoing, but Prince George's officials have steadfastly refused to apologize. As Calvo later told a local TV station, "The county has defended their actions, saying basically that what they did to us is standard operating procedure. That's the chilling message."
And, unfortunately, it appears to be true—the shooting of dogs by police has become troublingly common across the country. My beat as a journalist includes police misconduct, and I've noticed an increase in media accounts of police officers shooting the family pet—with a notable lack of remorse or disciplinary consequences. This sad trend appears to be a side effect of the new SWAT, paramilitary focus in many police departments, which has supplanted the idea of being an “officer of the peace.”
"I think all of this drug-war imagery has produced a mentality that didn't used to exist," says Norm Stamper, who was police chief of Seattle from 1994 to 2000 and served 28 years in the San Diego Police Department. "It's 'I'm part of a war, I have a mission, and nothing is going to get in the way of me completing that mission.' You're kicking down doors, barging in with guns, and when animals do what animals do, they become collateral damage. Too many officers have gotten rather callous about it, I'm afraid."
The raid on Calvo's home was actually the second in 10 months in which police in Prince George's County burst into a private home during a drug raid, shot and killed the family dog, then realized they had raided the wrong house. But national statistics on police-involved pet shootings are difficult to come by. Randal Lockwood of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals recently told the Las Vegas Review-Journal he sees 250 to 300 incidents per year in media reports, and estimates another 1,000 aren't reported.
The Indianapolis Star reported that between 2000 and 2002, police in that city shot 44 dogs. A recent lawsuit filed by the Milwaukee owner of a dog killed by police found police in that city killed 434 dogs over a nine-year period, or about one every seven-and-a-half days. It's impossible to say how many of those were pets (versus strays), or in how many of those shootings the dog may have actually presented a serious threat to the officer or someone else. But in too many reported accounts of dog shootings, it seems doubtful that lethal force was necessary.
Stars Celebrate the Super Bowl
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Does Wal-Mart Make You Skinny?
Radley Balko is a senior editor for Reason magazine, and maintains a blog at TheAgitator.com.
Obama's Demented Drug Policy
Radley Balko is a senior editor for Reason magazine, and maintains a blog at TheAgitator.com.
Did Obama Wimp Out on a Rape Case?
Radley Balko is a senior editor for Reason magazine, and maintains a blog at TheAgitator.com.
BeastofBourbon
I wonder if one solution to help the law enforcers feel safer and still protect the family pets would be for police departments to issue stun-guns as standard equipment? If stun-guns are capable of incapacitating 200 lb. men, then they should certainly be effective against even the largest and heaviest of dogs.
Of course, a little remedial community sensitivity training for some police departments wouldn't hurt, either.
jkica13
I've worked with dogs professionally and while I know that officers have no other choice at times and certainly do not want them to put either themselves or bystanders at risk, there is no reason they can't be doing more to prevent these shootings. Dogs don't lie, if they are aggressive, they show it. With a small amount of training it becomes very easy to recognize their body language and also to use your own body language to help calm them down. One could literally learn this in a weekend workshop. The fact that police departments aren't already required to this is actually quite scary to me. It demonstrates a lack of respect for life in general that the department would not do everything it could to help an officer to NOT use his weapon - any time an officer is required to shoot, at anything, the situation is automatically escalated to something more dangerous for everyone within that a bullets range. Any type of training that would decrease the probability of having to fire a gun, for whatever reason, would therefore make everyone, officer, pet, bystander, ect, safer. If one knows part of a job is going to require you to come into contact with pets, as a job requirement, you should have to demonstrate a knowledge of how to deal with pets. If the post office can figure this out, why can't cops. At the very least, even just as an interim measure, supplying officers with non lethal means of protecting themselves should also a viable option. We are a litigious society and some department is going to end up paying out a lot of money in a wrongful death suit if more isn't done to prevent these incidents from occurring.
finderj
Do keep in mind that many gang members and drug dealers use aggressive dogs to intimidate others. These dogs are not healthy, well-balanced dogs, but strictly used as weapons, largely because the penalties for using a 'loaded dog' are considerably milder than the penalties for using a loaded gun to commit a crime.
Does seem, though, that police officers ought to be more aware that the family pet is going to defend its people, especially when those people are scared and angry, which is exactly what the dog is supposed to do.
That awarness would be beneficial to both the police, and to any innocent bystanders or even to the potential suspects involved.
exploora
Then the dog should be put on a leash, and controlled by the owner.
The police are only doing their job even if there is a mix up.
Now that computers are doing so much of the "work" people should expect mix ups, especially if they have a common name or live in a rough neighbourhood.
I was almost given another person's bag, at the library which is now in a high crime neighbourhood, because I had the same name as the person who left her bag behind. The time I actually left my bag behind, I had to wait the next day to get it back, and I felt mad too, but that didn't give me the right to yell at the person, she was only doing her job, and my bag was nicer than the other one, so they were really protecting my property.
It is just the way it is now.
I had a strange experience with my credit card once, where a clerk took it and phoned the company, without even asking for my ID, to verify it was me, like they normally do, so I complained to the manager, and got a deal on the mp3 player i was looking at all the time.
Usually when there are mistakes made, something good could can happen.
Another time there was a mix up with an ICBC claim adjuster, and he felt bad and his wife came back and bought some expensive things from me.
So people might make more unfair pre-judgements now then they used to, but at the same time, they seem to want to make up for the hurt they have caused, more than they used to.
From my experience anyway, letting the dog bark leading to a person fearing that the dog could attack them, even if they did make a mistake, is not usually necessary .
sistersuperior
It's nice that you are so forgiving but your personal examples have no relation whatsoever to the subject at hand.
jkica13
Did you not understand the article, this isn't about mistaken identity or a store clerk not following protocol. PETS ARE BEING KILLED!!!!! DEAD! It's not the same thing as loosing a book bag! The fact that there is a higher likelihood of making mistakes in identity should make cops and everyone else that much more reluctant to use their weapons. That's the whole point - these accidents could have been avoided. Are pets still going to get shot sometimes, yes, it's unavoidable in every instance, but more can be done to prevent this from happening, especially when the LIFE of another creature (human and animal) can be affected.
KarlaRose
Did you even read the article. Many of the shootings happen when dogs ARE leashed and otherwise restrained. And excuse me, how is someone mistaking your identity even comparable to having you beloved dog shot?
mathomas
"The police are only doing their job even if there is a mix up."
It is NOT the job of the police to shoot non-threatening dogs. Are you being deliberately obtuse or did you just miss the entire point of this article?
exploora
I think you have to be careful and not let a redneck convince you it is personal, and provoke an angry response. That is what my reply shows. People who make the mistakes, are not the ones you can discuss it with, especially if they are the type that are abusing their power at the same time as making mistakes. Once you take it personally, you can get yourself into trouble, you have to realize, the same thing probably will happen to someone else, if you don't at least make a record that the mistake happened. Sistersuperior types would be better off ignored, and go up to the real superiors, not the ones that are abusing their power, and trying to embarrass a person, in order to provoke a personal response which will get you into trouble. Especially the women. The women with a little bit of power, can be really horrible when serving other women. I think the best thing is to have a hidden cam, so the evidence is there when you seek compensation.
Lucy120
More gibberish ignoring the 2 previous replies to your first.IT'S ABOUT THE DOGS STUP%$!
crngndmhm
This has nothing to do with rednecks women in power or anything else you've been dribbling. This has to do with the fact that police are using to much force when dealing with family pets. The fact is a little bit of training in the tune of a couple of hours for police would help curb the killing of pets.That in most cases have been a family member for years and expected to be for many more.
JDK-JDK
I have never met a cop that I would WANT protecting me.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--charles116al92lt1
I home that's a typo.
Aemsere
I agree with JDK-JDK and finderj. I'm sorry, but risking that an officer breaks a hand or an arm due to the bite of a dog is simply not ok. They're people with a 10 year investment in education...you simply cannot risk that they get maimed or even remotely hurt on their job, even temporarily. Zero tolerance is the only way to go. Police men are not tin soldiers, they're people, and their wellbeing comes before the life of any pet of any member of society.
Presumably, if police are doing a drug raid, dogs found inside are likely to be bloodthirsty bastards kept there to keep police and rival gangs from chasing down the drugs. If it's an unfortunate family who uses a dog for protection, then that's a risk you take: you should be fully aware that if the dog bites an intruder with due reason to be there, it _will_ be put down - whether before or after it attacks, it doesn't matter.
If you want a dog for hunting or as a friend, keep it penned in and away from the front door. If you want to use it for protection, you take the risk that it might get hurt, but that's only fair, since there are cases every year of dogs biting small children and permanently giving them disfigurements, so you also impose a risk on the rest of us.
If you don't want this to happen, then redesign society to minimize the need for raids! Legalize the bloody drugs, prostitution, and gambling so gangs won't be economically viable, and ensure that those things are only available from controlled outlets, and not from thugs and abusers as is the case now.
That way, it will only be available to adults (not to kids!) and the entire point of the war on drugs will vanish (protecting kids from drugs is the reason, after all!).
JDK-JDK
You don't agree with me because you are absolutely wrong. If the police break into my home, shoot my dog, and was they there mistakely in the first place... that cop better not have a dog or it will be dead as well. And if they don't have a dog, something they love WILL be taken from them.
My house is my house... without question. If I am doing nothing wrong in my house, as with the mayor of the small town, and the police make it a point to break in and kill my animals, no matter WHERE they are in my house, they WILL pay whether legally or, more appropriately, personally.
Again... I have NEVER met a policeman I would WANT protecting me. Those who were bullied in school... they are your police. People with an axe to grind against society. And they go on to wield that axe with no forethought... no need to think about their actions. Lives are ruined, undeservedly, because of cops.
Stay away from me and mine or you WILL pay.
nystan
jeez mister jdk---you sound like the guy in high school you are describing...a little psych 101 would do you a ton of good...calm down. you sound a bit foaming at the mouth....sit...good boy, stay, lie down....good boy.....here's a treat.....
b2brian
I just love "blog muscles"..flex away JDK, this is the only place that you can
sistersuperior
JDK, your response is a little on the strong side but I have to say that I sympathize. I would do my level best to make sure that a cop who murdered my dog got punished.
JoshAus
Any cop that comes into my house and shoots my dog is ending up in a coffin.
SwampCow
Amen. If some cop walked onto my property, whatever the pretense, and shot my retriever, I hope I would get a sympathetic jury because that dude is getting a steak knife in the neck (my house, alas, is devoid of anything more dangerous). It never ceased to amaze me how ignorant some ppl are. To grow to adulthood and not know the difference in dog posturing is stunning. Excusing this kind of abuse by stating that drug dealers use vicious dogs is ludicrous. There isn't a police officer alive who cannot tell the difference between a drug guard dog and a pet. If there is, his dept is negligent in allowing him to carry a badge.
jkica13
I agree with you that the well being of the police officer comes first but in many of the cases where the dog was shot and killed, the police officer was NOT in any danger from the animal. That's the point, with a small amount of animal behavior training the officer would be able to quickly assess (within seconds) whether or not an animal is a threat and then react appropriately instead of simple reacting violently. Dogs especially are very easy to read once you know what to look for. And did you miss the story where a civilian was killed and a little boy was shot through the hand? Anytime anyone has to use their gun the situation becomes more volatile and dangerous to everyone involved including the officer him or herself. Not to mention that people will fight to protect their pets making it that much more dnagerous for the officer that has no regard for them.
While you're right that we need to do more to prevent the need for drug raids, raids are not the only time officers come into contact with animals and so training them to handle it would be beneficial regardless of what happens with drugs. Further more, this article talked specifically about cases of mistaken identity so they were entering homes that had no drugs and no reason for the cops to enter in the first place making your theory that they will only find "blood thirsty bastards" on these raids is also wrong.
confused
Nothing excuses police breaking into a law abiding persons home and killing their dogs. How can we teach our kids to be responsible for their actions when we excuse the actions of adults in authority?
billstclair
Maybe the dogs are trying to tell us something. Cops on our property are a threat to our safety. Personally, any cop who kills my dog can expect a bullet in his own head in return. I'll hunt him down if I have to. Sorry, I said "him". A cop who would shoot my dog is no longer qualified to be referred to be any pronoun but "it".
The war on some drugs is a war on peaceful people who hurt nobody. Drug use is not a crime. No victim, no crime. Every cop who has ever arrested anybody for sale or use of a drug should be tried for kidnapping, and, if found guilty by a jury of his peers, hanged by the neck until dead.
JDK-JDK
I agrre with every line of your post.
crngndmhm
I love my dogs but equating an animal with a human being is wrong. The fact that you think killing someone's mother,father,sister,brother,son or daughter is alright tells something about your morals. It also makes you more animal than your dog and you should be reffered to as "it"
The war on drugs has no victims? Are you reffering to all drugs or just certain kinds? Because crack/meth heads who steal and rob to feed their addiction leave victims in their wake. Pot heads not so much.
I don't know maybe I'm biased having a father who's a police officer. But I know my father would never hurt an animal unless neccesary and to think some nutjob would take that personal and hunt him down is unnerving.
Avannh
Some of the shootings look pretty stupid. The idea that a chihuahua or labrador poses any threat let, alone an actual threat is preposterous.
SWAT units are not military of even paramilitary and their use of force guidelines do not need to be very robust. During WWII the rules of engagement allowed the allies to shoot SS soldiers at any time even if they were sleeping and they did not have to give them a chance to surrender. All other German soldiers were given the chance to surrender (if that seemed imminent).
How difficult would it be for the police to simply say rotweilers, pit bulls an other aggressive AND dangerous dogs can be shot on sight. For other breeds it would be required that the officer was actually threatened and the dog was capable of injurying the officer. Its not that difficult to fix this problem.
I worked for my dad ( a veterinarian) when I was a kid and was only bitten once but was threatened many times. The idea of a dog that comes up to an officer's shin or knee even is unlikely to hurt somebody even if the dog is the meanest, nastiest m*****f***er to ever walk the earth
Ottoheinz
"How difficult would it be for the police to simply say rotweilers, pit bulls an other aggressive AND dangerous dogs can be shot on sight"
Very difficult, and wrong. It's not the breed that matters but, rather, whether the officer is in physical danger from the dog. Frankly with your attitude towards breeds I currently and have formerly owned, I'd be in favor of killing you on sight.
jkica13
While I don't want to shoot you for it, I agree with Ottohienz that it is not the breed that makes a dog dangerous. I have also worked with dogs, of all breeds, and while you're correct in saying that certain breeds are more likely to be aggressive, you are wrong to suggest that that makes harsher standards of treatment for them okay. I've been bitten by a few dogs in my line of work but NEVER by a pit bull or rottweiller and I worked with probably 100 of them. Some of the dogs most likely to bite were Chihuahuas, collies and other herders. I've even met some pretty aggressive labs and a golden retriever that pretty much hates everyone. And these dogs can be managed without violence in most cases. If the officer can determine "for other breeds," as you said, whether or not they pose a threat, then there is no reason why they can't do it for all breeds, the body language signals are universal and a life is a life. I reiterate that I do not want an officer to place him or herself in danger or risk getting bitten. I think the officers safety comes first but I also strongly believe that this type of training and policy will make them safer.
Xntrk1
Cops have pretty bad reputations in many communities because they think carrying a gun allows them to do as they please. Some of tyhem are licensed thugs IMO. What would scare me the most would be my own reaction if someone came into my yard or house and shot one of my dogs. I'd go after the bastard with my bare hands!
And don't think I am exagerating. I have Corgis. They are not aggressive, but they will defend both themselves and me. I have 'rescued' a corgi that two rottweilers were playing tug of war with her [she survived]. I have jumped out of the shower and broken up a dog fight between a pit bill and oine of my Corgis, and I have charged Akitas and packs of dogs who were attacking mine.
I am an old lady, but if someone is going to do violence to me or mine, because they are stupid or poorly trained, I won't hesitate. It's not rational, but when the 'fight of flight' adrenaline kicks in - I fight.
My dogs would die protecting me - I would do the same for them. BTW, a Corgi weighs between 25 and 30 pounds, but are fearless. Any dog that will face down a 3000 pound bull, isn't going to back down from some guy they don't know who is threatening their person.
Shooting pets is inexcuseable!
finderj
No, no. I do not think an officer ought to risk being bitten while he is pursuing his duties.
I do think that an awareness of how to handle dogs in stressful situations might be beneficial to all involved, particularly if the persons involved are innocent.
I have friends who are police officers. In my part of the world, the majority of police officers are decent hard-wokring people trying to do an impossibly difficult job.
They are occassionally rude, abrupt, unkind, unsympathetic and angry.
So am I.
And they have much greater cause for occassional lapses in good manners.
I am not saying that there are no corrupt officers. I am saying that those are the exceptions to the rule. Police officers are human, and failable.
They are also doing the most dangerous, unpredictable, unappreciated job in this coiuntry.
They are underpaid, underappreciated, overworked and over-stressed.
If learning about dogs would make doing their jobs easier, they should have the chance to learn about dogs.
MeanDean
"They are also doing the most dangerous, unpredictable, unappreciated job in this country."
Funny, I thought we were talking about police officers, not cab drivers.
"They are underpaid, underappreciated, overworked and over-stressed."
My mistake. We're discussing tech support workers.
Ottoheinz
I've never had a positive interaction with a cop in my life and have no love for the police. That being said, they absolutely have the right to shoot the family dog that is attacking them and/or preventing them from doing their job.
In the article above we shouldn't be mad at the cops for shooting the dog, we should be mad at the fact that our cops are put in compromised positions in their assigned task of fighting the stupidest, most ineffective war ever waged on planet earth: the 'war' on drugs.
Gustaf64
Bullshit. The problem is the cop mentality, particularly among SWAT teams in the bullshit war on drugs. They go in all hopped up on adrenaline, weapons drawn, hoping they can shoot something. If the humans cooperate, well, at least they get to shoot the dog.
crngndmhm
Nice post finderj, I know lots of police officers and agree wholeheartedly. Departments should be putting that extra time in to insure that all possible steps are taken to prevent situations like these.
Demeralda
Equipping cops with tasers is NOT the solution. If they have a mentality already that says that killing a dog is collateral damage, do you think they'll have any qualms about tasering ANYONE (young, sick, mentally ill)?
See youtube for videos of a shopper being tased after being accused of using a stolen credit card (it was hers), and a driver after he passed a sobriety test. Also a story in Bay City, Michigan, of a drunk unarmed teenager being tased for standing up too quickly... it was fatal.
No thanks.
mvtp47
Violence brought into my home will be returned in kind. No exceptions.
parkerchgo
I say let's train and arm all dogs and give them the scent of cops. Scumbags!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
exploora
If cops can kill dogs that scare them when they are doing their job, why not mail carriers.
Mail carriers are hurt all the time by dogs, when they are delivering the mail.
If the owners know the dogs behave in a threatening manner toward "strangers" maybe they should be on a leash when outside.
Dogs roaming around, I find scary at times.
People are getting hurt by dogs all the time.
I like dogs.
I just don't think people should be allowed to use their dogs to frighten other people, which includes allowing their dogs to sniff a person when they are walking around.
orangetwibbit
Allowing anyone to make a split second decision with a gun will produce crappy results on quite a few occasions. Allowing anyone carte blanche to shoot a dog in any situatuion without using sound judgement is ridiculous.
Just as with any accidental or mistaken shootings, police officers should be held accountable for lousy decisions whether they shoot a person or an animal. Shooting a 12 lb dachshund because "it was barking" makes you a fool and puts the lives of law-abiding citizens at risk.
It also makes you a complete douchebag.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.