Dog killing spurs change

Anonymous
Mar 2, 2013

It seems to us the question must be: Is shooting a dog and allowing it to die slowly the proper and appropriate way to respond to a loose dog call?

It's not.

*
Click here for previous stories about the incident and follow the links.
*

Sandusky police chief Jim Lang said on Thursday he is developing a training program for officers in how to handle loose dog complaints. That's good, but there are legitimate questions whether it's appropriate to even have police officers in charge of loose dog complaints, given the enormity of the usual and important responsibilities officers already have. In the past, dog wardens and animal control officers were assigned these responsibilities, and were trained in the tasks.

Sandusky city commissioners are likely to claim budget constraints forced them to eliminate the job. But the city has a $15 million annual budget, and we're convinced there are still responsible ways to spend taxpayer dollars that have not been explored, given the waste that is ever present in the city budget.

We're glad Lang has decided to develop better animal control response practices. This incident should be viewed as an opportunity to correct bad practices; not endorse them.

*
Click here for the e*Paper or get the Sunday Register at a newsstand near you for the rest of this editorial plus coupons and advertiser specials that could save you hundreds of dollars on your next shopping trip.

Comments

BytheBy

Oh SR, perhaps if we had a newspaper more supportive of the men and women of our local police departments and less supportive of the lowlifes, thugs and lawless citizens of this town we could turn this city around.

Matt, you are part of the problem! You are now devoting more stories to Donna's law breaking than you did to Andy Dunns murder. Shameful and disgusting!

Curley

If the SR would have checked the police records they would have found out that Donna was arrested more than once because of this dog. And I agree Matt is part of the problem with this case.

JUST US FOR LIBERTY

Thank you Sandusky Register for keeping our public employees accountable for their actions. Quick Draw McGraw is a risk to the citizens of Sandusky. I see this as law enforcement intimidation of the general public.

reporter54

Even though the dog owner was in the wrong, there should be some accountability regarding the officer. He did not have to shoot this dog and let it suffer. The only real victim here was the dog.

MBR

Exactly. There is no right or wrong side here with the police vs. the owners. They were BOTH wrong. Those who insist on supporting one side over the other miss the main point--the ONLY real suffering that has taken place was by the dog, which was shot and left to die alone on a cold, hard sidewalk.

The owners have gone before a judge--although I believe that part of their sentence should be that neither adult can own a pet in the future. What I want to know is when the officer will be reprimanded.

The Brownie Elf

If your saying there is no wrong side here, then why would the officer be reprimanded? If you work, are you reprimanded when you do your job? Just curious.

MBR

I did not say that. You missed this part: "They were BOTH wrong."

And the officer did not "do his job"....he did it incorrectly. Therefore, he should be reprimanded. I am 99% positive that SPD's policy does not state, "Shoot first when in a residential area, when there is no immediate risk to yourself or citizens, even when there are other options available."

herbie_hancock

(A) Subject to divisions (A)(2) and (3) of section 955.261 of the Revised Code, a dog that is chasing or approaching in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, that attempts to bite or otherwise endanger, or that kills or injures a person or a dog that chases, threatens, harasses, injures, or kills, can be killed at the time of that chasing, threatening, harassment, approaching, attempt, killing, or injury. If, in attempting to kill such a dog, a person wounds it, the person is not liable to prosecution under the penal laws that punish cruelty to animals.

Regardless of what you all think, what he did was completely legal and within the guidelines of department regulation. Hence he didn't get into any trouble. If you don’t like his decision, become a certified VOLUNTEER dog warden (because Sandusky doesn't have the money to pay for one).

The Brownie Elf

Thanks for posting that Herbie.

somethingaboutmo

You are right, reporter54... The dog was a victim... A victim of an irresponsible owner. The real victim here is Ofc. Wilson. He is a victim of the SR's agenda against law enforcement. Too many of these people fall for the SR's nonsense. So many have said that they would have handled this differently. Here is what we know... It was handled the way it was and no one was bitten. That is the extent of experience the reader can and will have, regarding this issue. The average SR reader is not qualified to comment on or even understand how that situation goes down.

Pterocarya frax...

Just had to milk this story a little bit more...didn't ya Register?

goodtime1212

I am with yea PTEROCARYA.

Bluto

There is nothing wrong with more training , but neither would it be wrong to raise the fines on the owners of dogs who continually ignore the law and their responsibilities as pet owners . Perhaps doubling or tripling repeat offenses.

Mum-of-One

It might be an idea to actually collect the fines. No point imposing fines on dog owners who do not comply, they need to be collected. Ms Hansen's previous fines were unpaid.

Bluto

If they don't pay the fine then take the dog and give the owners jail time . I agree enforcement is key .

dire wolf

jail time?? really? was the the best you came up with? your losing credibility fast. Btw this issue isn't even about the fines or the owner. It's about the use of lethal force on a dog that is loose. what do the fines have to do with anything?.... Jail time? come on now, wake up Bluto.

Bluto

Lethal force was the direct result of the owners negligence . You can't have effect without cause. They were breaking the law , and have a history of ignoring it as well . Letting a potentially dangerous animal roam free has possibly fatal consequences for people . As for jail time , just ask the lady whose three Rotts mauled a child to death about that . She got prison time. I think you need to wake up.

BW1's picture
BW1

No, it was the indirect result of that, combined with the officer's lack of training and/or judgment. It's a CHAIN of events, and the officer had the last chance to effect a positive outcome.

If someone turns left in front of you, clearly violating the right of way laws, and you have the ability to avoid hitting them, the law requires you to do so or bear fault.

You can't simply pin everything on the first event in a chain of cause and effect. That's like terrorists saying it's all Mohammed's fault.

Bluto

Look up the difference between " affect " and " effect " please . It will make your first statement actually make sense. ; )))

BW1's picture
BW1

and yet, you understood the meaning despite the error.

dire wolf

bluto wants her in jail, lose the dog, via bullet to the head while sitting on it's own driveway, and her fines tripled. Is it possible you have an axe to grind with this woman from something else? At first i thought he just wasn't thinking. You can't be that bitter in life. it's not healthy. her crime was being at work? and some small fines? Who was harmed, where are the injuries, nobody even came in physical contact with the dog. Who makes that a death sentence, without using all other options first? That's what you are taught as a policeman. The gun to the head is a last resort. This is about the punishment fitting the crime. The dog wants her appeal heard. The Chief is right, his department needs immediate training to all his staff, and procedures policies need reviews. Mistakes do happen all the time, that's fine, but this mistake cannot happen again, the situation will come up again. Maybe someday a dog will have already attacked and/or attempt to kill and harm, and the cop really does have no choice. this wasn't that case. The SPD has a hugh black eye over this, and no words or blame can make that go away anytime soon. Quit throwing stones, move forward as a lesson learned, and let's not see this happen again, or destroy this community any furthur. It's bad enough already. I pray my kids finish college and move to a better community, which is sad to have to say. This stuff makes you realize who your neighbors really are.

Bluto

No personal grudge against her . Just would like to see her take responsibility for her lack there of . Too many people in this town think they can do whatever they please without regard to others . She lost her dog , but it could have been a very different headline if her dog had killed a child playing nearby . She and anyone else who ignores the law should be held accountable.

The Hamburglar

Accountability is a dirty word around here. Shame on you Bluto!

Bluto

LOL !!! You got that right .

BW1's picture
BW1

Where is Bluto's zeal for personal responsibility and accountability when it comes to all the people he wants the taxpayers to feed and shelter because of their poor choices in life?

bored reader

Yeah, accountability is a very dirty word to liberal democrats!

dire wolf

right, make it about politics. please shut up.

DGMutley

Bluto,
You're making it very clear about accountability for loose dogs in Sandusky. If your dog gets off the lease in Sandusky your dog is dead unless you get there before the cops get there. I wonder how this SPD policy stacks up against other departments?

Bluto

If my dogs threatens a person because of my negligence then so be it . It would all be on me.

herbie_hancock

Agreed. Unless, "its not their fault".

Pages