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.

herbie_hancock

Agreed. Unless, "its not their fault".

aaa_zzz

SR can't you give this story a rest already?

Matt Westerhold

Thanks for the comment aaa_zzz. There continues to be a great deal of interest in this coverage, but the "story fatigue" you suggest is understandable. The posting here is an editorial viewpoint scheduled to be published in tommorow's Register. The SR editorial board generally offers viewpoints on the editorial page regarding local news events that garner the public's interest.

Mum-of-One

This has certainly garnered much interest. Although all the facts have been published, clearly some readers fail to consider them all. This of course makes the comments more interesting.

BULLISDEEP's picture
BULLISDEEP

MATT I see that the Sandusky Register has a Youtube account/ Channel.
Any reason why your videos aren't published ,in full length on there ?

http://www.youtube.com/user/sand...

pavedparadise

Not wanting to make light of this issue, but due to overwhelming number of comments, six out of the seven stories listed down the right hand side of this page pertain to the dog killing.

Would be nice if commenters would get as riled up about other aspects of how this City is being run into the ground.

Curley

What is it going to be? The SR sticking up for her. The people in this town are getting sick and tired of hearing about the mistake she made.

herbie_hancock

Viewpoints that are completely unbias right?.....pfffft haha. Your paper is about as unbias as a dog turd is square.

BW1's picture
BW1

aaa_zzz, exactly who forced you to read? Do you need assistance understanding how your web browser works?

The Brownie Elf

Why in the world would anyone want to be a police officer in Sandusky? There is SOOOOO much support for them. I have two dogs (which are not vicious) but if they got out of my fenced yard and were threatening somebody, I would be responsible. They have to go home to their families and not have a piece of their arm taken off or their jugular bitten.

Bluto

Double post.

Yellow Snow

As dog owners, are we not responsible for assuring our beloved pet is socialized? This needs to happen at a very young age. Dogs are intelligent. They quickly learn what is acceptable behavior and what is not. But you have to teach this. It's no different than teaching a child what limits are acceptable.

LabMan

Bingo! The dogs as well as humans need to be good citizens and neighbors. Lucy was not a dog I would want for a neighbor. I do not begrudge anyone wanting a big guard dog in Sandusky but do as Yellow says and train it. Take the puppy to Walmart and sit on a bench outside and let everyone pet it for some early socialization.

Mum-of-One

This particular dog owner said Lucy was a "house pet". Who gets a Rottweiler for a house pet? Clearly someone who knows nothing about caring for a dog.

housedog2

Pardon me Mum, but I have a Rottweiler for a house pet. I also have a 125lb Mastiff. My dogs are well trained and socialized. I sent the Rottie to North Coast Canine for 2 weeks to be formally trained. I know how to care for a dog. Just because my preference for dogs happens to be for large breeds does not make me ignorant. My Rottweiler is a very good dog. He is friendly, and loves people. I feel bad for Lucy, but the owner should have kept her under control. My feelings are that when you become the owner of a large breed dog, you should take accountability and get the dog trained properly, otherwise you should not own a large breed. I do not agree, however, that shooting the dog was the answer. Why wasn't the dog warden called? That is what she is there for. Please do not pass judgement on owners of large breeds for pets. Rottweilers are actually more well behaved and friendlier than a lot of small breed dogs. Thanks.

Mum-of-One

My point is that Ms Hansen indicated that Lucy was not taken out on regular walks because she was a house pet. That is like having a fish and keeping it in a cage instead of water.

bored reader

we had a rotti and she was an indoor dog. She went for walks regularly but we don't believe in keeping our dog outside in a cage. Just because it's a rotti doesn't mean he/she shouldn't be a house pet.

housedog2

As mine is currently flipped over on his back on my couch!! He would protect me if I needed him to, but for the most part he thinks he is a lap dog!! Both my dogs have cages but they are in the house (we kennel trained them as pups) They only go in there now if I need to keep them out of the way, i.e. when the painter came over....I just wish this whole thing had not happened.. I can't even watch the video. I really hope that ALL involved learned from it.

nosey rosey

Are you serious? All domesticated dogs should be a house pet. I certainly hope you do not have a dog because you are clearly uneducated.

Mr. Touchdown

The dog would not have suffered if the owner would've been responsible enough to abide by the law & keep the dog tied up! Not to mention the previous dog at large charges & no dog license. This wasn't a one time occurrence.The cop responded to a complaint about an aggressive dog & took care of business when he had to!Sure he could've pumped another round into the dog but shooting a gun in a residential area is not safe.The 1st shot put the dog down & removed the threat before it attacked him or another person. A 2nd shot was unnecessary & could've put a person at risk w/ a ricochet etc. If that was a person instead of a dog the cop would you expect the cop to shoot again to put the person out of their misery? He used reasonable force IMO.

Mum-of-One

As I understand it, keeping a dog tied up also creates "bad dogs". You can't get a dog just because you want one. If you have to leave it tied up and can't walk it regularly, or supervise it properly, don't have one. It is not fair to the animal. So many dog owners on here feel it is ok to tie up their dogs.

Darwin's choice

So, the first shot was made without any "risk of a ricochet etc." , but "shooting a gun in a residential area is not safe" comes into play after officer quickdraw determines that a second shot isn't needed because of his extensive training in determining what a dangerous situation is?

BW1's picture
BW1

Mr. Touchdown, the clear implication of your first sentence is "if your dog gets loose it will be shot."

Now, does that sound like a reasonable position?

Mr. Touchdown

Don't assume I'm implying anything! If your dog get's loose & acts aggressive & threatens another person they can legally shoot your dog too! My point is control your dog & things like this won't happen.

Swamp Fox

Once again the Register displays its excellence in biased anti law enforcement journalism.

wiredmama222

Any time any police officer gets to have more job training its a bonus, but perhaps this story, if anything, should be a warning to individuals to keep their "pets" on leashes, within fences and to get a license for their dogs.

A little training for that dog wouldn't be a bad idea either. Perhaps training for the police officers isn't the only thing needed here, but training for dog owners and dogs as well. Be a little responsible as a pet owner yourself before criticizing those who have to take over when you fail to do what is necessary to control your pet.

BW1's picture
BW1

@wiredmama:"perhaps this story, if anything, should be a warning to individuals to keep their "pets" on leashes, within fences"

THAT'S RIGHT - MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF HER!!!!!!! Let this be your only warning people, if your dog gets out we'll KILL it.

What a charming expression of the relationship between people and their government. And you want to run for office. Wow.

Bluto

Unfortunately for Lucy , Ms. Hansen failed repeatedly to heed the warnings.

BW1's picture
BW1

That is unfortunate, but it's also unfortunate that the officer's first impulse was to go for his gun. Her idea of good dog care is a problem, but his idea of an appropriate response to the situation is a bigger problem. Like I said in another comment, your favorite president isn't getting all worked up about curbing dog violence.

You're very quick to talk about a HYPOTHETICAL child the dog could have threatened, but based on a recent police raid in Sandusky county, said child would be in more danger from the cop's bullet than from the dog (you'll recall the police in that story shot at the dog and hit a person.) If I was a resident of that neighborhood, I'd have a real problem with an officer using a firearm against a potentially fast moving target like that. Go back and watch the video again - he fired one handed, with the gun below his line of sight, from a non-planted stance. That's a long odds shot, with a high powered handgun, in a residential neighborhood. Also in the video, he remarks that the dog "doesn't want me anywhere near him" - not exactly a charging menace to the officer. The dog shows no inclination to leave the area. Finally, in his first encounter he says the dog was "growling and opening its mouth like it was going to charge" - NOT that it was charging.

seeit

Hey here is a thought, how about don't let VERY UNEDUCATED people own dogs! If she was smart she would have figured out that however she was "chaining up" her dog wasn't working. Having her dog get loose multiple times and getting ticketed for it multiple times would give you a clue that you need to change something right?!! Obviously common sense isn't so common with some people! How about educating dog owners to have common sense and not be idiots.

Darwin's choice

Once again, everyone jumps on the owner! The question is "shooting the dog and allowing it to die slowly", not the owner is guilty! Brad Wilson needs some time off, as does Lang for his covering for him! This shooting is disgusting! The new "shoot first" mentality is alarming....who's next?

dorothy gale

I agree. The officer was wrong to shoot the dog. The dog should not have been running loose. The owner gets the blame for not keeping the dog restrained and the officer gets the blame for killing the dog needlessly. Why is that so hard to comprehend?! What is wrong with making an officer of the law accountable for HIS decisions? Cops are NOT infallible and maybe the Register will stop belaboring the point when the SPD accepts responsibility for its MISTAKES and bad judgment!

shbamn1's picture
shbamn1

The dog was dead. It was it's nerves kicking.

SamAdams

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and if Officer Wilson had shot the dog a second time (to put it out of its alleged misery), there would have been a host of people whining here that the dog might have survived if only the evil, dog-hating cop hadn't delivered the coup de grace.

This was a no-win situation for the police. They had to consider the threat of harm to ordinary citizens as well as themselves, and the fact that Lucy was a repeat offender (thanks to her owner) just made matters that much worse. And yet there are those defending the owner! Why? Lucy would be alive and well if her owner hadn't cared so little that she repeatedly permitted her unlicensed and obviously unfriendly (at least with SOME regularity) dog run around! And the truth is that even a usually friendly dog will bite under circumstances IT views as a threat (whether we look at it that way or not).

If this incident serves any purpose whatsoever, it ought to bring to light the appalling number of irresponsible Sandusky dog owners. I agree: If somebody's cited, it's crucial that punishment be enforced. And if somebody's cited more than once, they need to have the animal(s) involved removed to a better and more responsible home.

Meanwhile, just wait. Somebody will be bitten, and then the Register and city residents will be jumping up and down to demand why nobody's done anything. Did it occur to ANY of you that, if you REALLY cared about animals, you'd be advocating for their proper care, including safe confinement?

herbie_hancock

Jackpot there Sam.

BW1's picture
BW1

Wow Sam, here you are playing the statist apologist yet again.

Speakezy

Darwin... you can't have a dog getting shot, run over or hurt someone if the OWNER KEEPS IT RESTRAINED!!! So you goof, this would NOT have happened if she would have paid attention to her animal!!!!!!!

BULLISDEEP's picture
BULLISDEEP

The owner didn't let the dog out,she was at work,the boyfriend let the dog out .

Bluto

If she is the owner , she is still legally responsible .

BULLISDEEP's picture
BULLISDEEP

My comment was to the other person ,it was about who let that dog out, not anything to do with legal .

The owner didn't let the dog out bluto.

Bluto

Doesn't matter who let it out . She was the one charged , or did you miss that?

BULLISDEEP's picture
BULLISDEEP

The comment matters ,and thats all.

BULLISDEEP's picture
BULLISDEEP

We will see in May about the charges.

herbie_hancock

Acually Bruno, legally it is whoever has charge of the dog that is legally responsible, so in this case its the boyfriend. As per Judge O' Brien. But I agree with you, neither of them have stepped up and claimed responsibility.

deertracker

It's a no win situation for the dog owner too. If your obviously well cared for pet gets loose you are a terrible despicable owner. If you chain it in the backyard you are a terrible despicable owner. If you don't buy a license, which is nothing but a rip off, you are a terrible despicable owner. If your boyfriend doesn't give your pet 24hr attention while you are away, you are a terrible despicable owner. Improper care of the pet is things like no vet visits, no feeding and providing water, or just downright abuse. My neighbor's dogs charged my kids in their own backyard. All he did was open the door and the dog took off. He is a very responsible dog owner but things still happen. He handled he situation properly. No harm no foul. You all need to stop judging this lady because she had no dog tags, or has a boyfriend, or a job, or a couple of tattoos. If you really cared you would be advocating for the proper handling of incidents like this one. Ms Hansen appeared like a very level headed adult on BTL. ALL OF YOU JUDGING WOULD HAVE ACTED THE SAME WAY IF YOUR DOG HAD BEEN SHOT DEAD. I highly doubt any of you would have said "oh well,it's my fault sorry about your luck Lucy."

BW1's picture
BW1

Gee thanks, deertracker. Here some of us are trying to be fair minded and acknowledge her error, but still hold that the officer responded inappropriately. In another thread, I said no one is holding her blameless and then you go and make a liar out of me.

Even if everything you say is true, she's guilty of extremely poor judgment in her choice of romantic partners, and leaving her dog in the care of an irresponsible person.

BEHAPPY

Great comment DEERTRACKER

herbie_hancock

...no your right not everyone would say that, just the responsible ones would. They may have to say it through their teeth, but they would say it.

Swamp Fox

deertracker, Do you even have a dog, clearly not a clue of having a pet dog. Any dog can get loose once, this was an ongoing problem. No dog should be chained, they are pack animals, should be with the family if you don't plan on having them in the house with you, don't get them. The boyfriend was to busy hiding due to his warrant, yea one great guy. Personal attention is a important component of pet ownership. License is not a rip off its a means of identifying lost pets and funding the dog warden as a users fee. Did she have renter's insurance in case the dog did bite someone? If this alleged lady would have been a responsible pet owner Lucy would be alive today, you can't change the facts. There should be a special place in hell for those who don't take care of their dogs responsibility.

Bluto

That is an interesting question . If they are renting and don't have proper insurance that would cover a dog bite , does liability then fall back on the landlord ? Anyone know?

starryeyes83

I asked that very same question on one of the other threads.

Okay SR, here's your chance to do an informative article on this subject regarding the legal issues.

BW1's picture
BW1

Any decent plaintiff's attorney would go after the landlord. Since the house is likely mortgaged, he has to have insurance, and thus there's the deep pocket.

Julie R.

@ Swamp Fox: Why do you keep saying the young lady's boyfriend "was to busy hiding due to his warrant"? I never saw anything in the paper that implied that. Are you stating a fact or are you making an uneducated assumption there?

goodtime1212

When being charged with no tags and loose dog, how do you ple not guilty when the dog was lose and did not have tags. The shooting is not what the charges are about. That part of it, is what it is!

FST

deertracker..you make good points here. I have been reading the comments in this paper for a few years along with a few other papers from around the country. People in Sandusky are some of the cold heartest people around and can`t seem to be able to figure out why Sandusky is so screwed up. In Sandusky you are guilty even before you have commited a crime. I grew up in Sandusky and lived most of my life in the city and can`t seem to figure out where things went wrong. How did Sandusky become so full of self rightous know-it-alls that feel they have to right to be judge and jury of everybody? Just like with this story..the whole point is that it should have been animal control handling this problem not a city cop who is not trained to deal with animals. Why did the dogs act aggressive? Could it be because the cop going at it had a long stick in one hand and a gun in the other? I agree that the owner is a lot to blame here, BUT the cop didn`t know the dog was known for getting loose, OR that the dog didn`t have dog tags, OR that the owner had unpaid fines. Why didn`t the cop use his tazer? Why didn`t he use his mase? SOME cops need to realize that killing something or someone isn`t always their only option.

The Brownie Elf

How would a tazer help this situation? Is he going to handcuff the dog after the 5 second burst is through? Let me put you in a situation with a large breed dog and you can try all of the options you just mentioned. Let me know how it goes. I love dogs but humans come first.

BW1's picture
BW1

I'll take that challenge. I've been attacked by a few large breed dogs with no gun, no tazer, no mace. Came out victorious each time.

An able-bodied adult is more than a match for any lone dog, if you keep your wits about you and know a few things about dogs. Note that police officers are required to be more able-bodied than the average person.

The Brownie Elf

Wow, you should start your own reality show. Maybe you could, how about a 7 year old kid riding his/her bike past that house at that time. Good old Monday morning quarterbacking going on with this incident.

BW1's picture
BW1

I seem to miss where the officer was described as 7 years old. Don't you have to be 18 to be a cop?

The officer in the video appears to be bigger and in better shape than I. He should have been able to handle this without a gun. In many jurisdictions, the animal control officer does not carry a gun.

The Brownie Elf

BW1, obviously we are on different sides of this. If you listen he tried calling the dog to get in the cruiser. He didn't wake up in the morning and say, "I want to shoot somebody's dog today." The reason the officer shot the dog was to protect himself and others. No, I did not see a child in the video. But if the dog remained loose, who knows what would have happened. I love dogs, but humans come first. And it is not a police officers job to go toe to toe with a dog.

BW1's picture
BW1

IF...who knows what would have happened. Well gee, Brownie, if they don't lock you up or shoot you, who knows what you might do? Real Americans hold their government to a higher standard than wild speculation in justifying its dangerous or destructive actions.

It's the police officer's job to only use deadly force when it's the only viable option to protect human life. Cops go toe to toe with other humans, a much more dangerous species, every day. Note that when I accepted your challenge I didn't qualify it with a demand to have an asp baton in hand, which is more than adequate protection from such a dog.

As I've noted elsewhere, given the circumstances, a gun was the last thing he should have been using. He fired a high powered handgun, one handed, from the hip, in a less than ideal stance, at a potentially unpredictable and fast moving target, in a dense residential neighborhood. That's a very high risk proposition. Contrary to what you see Clint Eastwood do in the movies, that's not a shot with a high probability of success.

The Brownie Elf

If you are the man or the woman in your avatar, obviously you love animals as much as I do and maybe it is your profession. But I am done arguing. It seems as if your mind is made up and that is that which is fine. But police officers have families to go home to. And if all police officers were experts in the animal field as you are, maybe this would have ended different. Good luck and again, if this your profession, thank you for what you do.

Bluto

Maybe an able bodied adult , but what about a small child or frail elderly person ? So , you've injured or killed a dog with your bare hands , eh ? What a stud . ; )))

BW1's picture
BW1

1.Was it a small child or a frail elderly person who shot the dog? No, it was a big strapping (in the video he looks to be over 200 lb.) police officer, with a baton and mace. Another SPD officer faced a similar situation last year and handled it without drawing his weapon. The article appeared on this website.

2.I've neither injured nor killed a dog, but I have successfully fended off attacks. In one case, after two melees, I shouted to the scumbag owner that if he didn't call of his dog, my next move would be to injure it. There's nothing impressive about it - it's just a matter of keeping one's wits about one and understanding dogs.

3. Bare hands and well shod feet, but then the officer appears in the video to be wearing sturdy shoes.

luvblues2

If he had tazed the dog, he would have been able to slip the noose around his neck and had full control.

The Brownie Elf

Ok, and if he had a big cage he could have put the dog inside. If Sandusky carries the X-26 Taser and carries the 25 foot cartridge, the probes will continue to separate every foot they travel. If you watch COPS enough, you will notice the probes may miss shooting a full size human from close range sometimes let alone a dog which is approximately two feet off of the ground. I'm heartbroken a dog had to die but secondary weapons are not going to be very successful on an animal.

The Brownie Elf

And the thing he is holding is an ASP baton, not a "noose." But if he would have hit the dog when it attacked him, then everyone would be saying he should have got it in a headlock.

dire wolf

nobody would be saying that, just you.

The Brownie Elf

Based on all of your comments, sounds like you feel like you could have done better. So go though police academy, start taking some police entry exams and show everyone how you would handle this situation.

BW1's picture
BW1

I could and HAVE done better.

-Bigger Rottweiler, more credibly aggressive, worse scumbag of an owner, and I was a decidedly UNathletic 14 year old armed only with a bag full of newspapers.

-100 lb. Akita, not even a bag of newspapers, although I was an adult, although not as large as the officer in this story. After the parrying the dog's second attack without injuring it, I shouted to the amused scumbag owner that I he should secure his dog because I would not continue such restraint on the third try.

Furthermore, one of this officer's COLLEAGUES could and has done better. There was a story on this site last year about an SPD officer who subdued a large aggressive dog that was ACTUALLY charging him, without using his sidearm. So, you see, no one's holding this officer to any standard that others in his department haven't already met.

BW1's picture
BW1

Guess again. I'd fully support use of the baton. For starters, the dog would have to actually charge for that to happen, as opposed to speculation that it was about to charge. A well placed thump from the baton would leave the dog injured, but able to recover.

Bluto

You raise a valid question . Why wasn't animal control or the warden called ? Or , were they ? All these articles and did the Register ever get an official answer to that question ? It has come up in the comments over and over . Did the Register even ask for an official response on the policy of how the county or Sandusky handle these type of calls ?

BW1's picture
BW1

Wow, Bluto, why ask those questions now? All week long you've been so sure you knew everything there is to know about this.

Bluto

I still believe he did what he had to do . I am just pointing out the shoddy journalism.

BW1's picture
BW1

Well, since he didn't call the animal warden, that means you claim to know that it wasn't an option, so why ask a question to which you know the answer?

Also, why was another SPD officer able to subdue another large dog last year that WAS ACTUALLY CHARGING, without drawing his sidearm? (the story appeared on this website and I seem to remember you commenting on it.) Was that officer from the planet Krypton?

happyfeet64

Well said Deertracker :)

happycamper01

I am very much in support of all our local law enforcement. I would not want their jobs because they are da**ed if they do and da**ed if they don't but I believe this officer did not handle the situation correctly. However, the owner failed to have the dog leashed and under control so she is very much at fault. Had the dog been properly confined she would not have been shot. I do believe the dog was just protecting her property though plus the officer's body language probably scared her. I watched the video and I did not see real visciousness in the dog. Plus when the officer shot Lucy he was far away, too far to use a taser, so I am not sure why the officer shot her like that but I was not the one in the situation. However, I have been confronted by dogs when walking my own dogs or when I was alone that acted like Lucy but never felt so in danger that if I had a gun I would have shot the dog. But again, I was not there and so it is hard to judge a situation fairly when you are not the one in it. However, shooting a dog and then leaving it to suffer IS WRONG. Once he fired one bullet he should have fired another to put the dog out of her misery. Leaving Lucy suffer was just cruel. That I can judge, even hunters are taught not to leave an animal suffer. If you shoot it and it takes off you track it till you find it, then end the suffering. Leaving Lucy to suffer shows no compassion at all.

Swamp Fox

Domestic dogs regardless of their breed are not born aggressive, its learned from their owners actions towards them and environment. I have large dogs some of them considered "aggressive" breeds, they are just large fur babies because of how they were trained and treated. Its always easy to blame someone else, than to take personal responsibility.

tiptapmom

Isn't it illegal for a cop to shoot again once the threat is over?

BW1's picture
BW1

Police officers often are called upon to shoot animals hit by cars to end their suffering.

BW1's picture
BW1

Police officers often are called upon to shoot animals hit by cars to end their suffering.

Nor'easter

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Personal attacks (including: name calling, presumption of guilt or guilt by association, insensitivity, or picking fights).

Gunner10

I'm always ALL for our Boys in Blue to recieve more training, but how about on things that involve people especially if the city is going to be paying for it. I know if I see a dog running around I don't run up to it to see who the owner is (esp a dog like this) what are they trained for? (I know not ALL of these dogs are trained to hurt or be mean, but....) Would you let your kids run around the yard if you saw a stray ROT, PIT? Esp if you don't know who's dog it is and how it acts? Most of us would say NO! Why? because you love your children enough not to let them get hurt? So, does that mean that just b/c Brad is a police officer means he signed up to get hurt? Don't think so. He is supposed to be protecting people like you, your children and the Postal Worker (who was TRAPPED on someones PORCH B/C the DOG wouldn't let her go!!!!!!!!) Are we failing to see this??? AND if the dog was a house dog, then why was it outside unsupervised? Has anyone asked this and recieved an answer? SANDUSY REGISTER did you ask the dog owner that one? and received a good enough answer? or was it "WELL it was COLD outside and the Dog always goes out by herself".....

Just A THOUGHT!

BW1's picture
BW1

"I know if I see a dog running around I don't run up to it to see who the owner is (esp a dog like this)"

I would, and have done so, and I don't carry a gun. It's also unlikely I could currently pass the physical test to be a police officer. You simply have to understand dogs. The dog most probably tried to corral the postal worker on the porch because Rotts are a herding breed, and they instinctively try to keep everyone in one small area. In that situation, a confident, purposeful approach toward the dog would be very effective in curtailing that behavior.

BEHAPPY

@ GUNNER Just because a dog is a Rot or a Pit does not mean they are vicious. That's part of the problem here, everyone thinks just because the dog is of a certain breed~ they are not good dogs~that is far from the truth. That's all I would own is a large breed, especially nowadays, to protect myself and my family JUST LIKE LUCY WAS DOING, she wasn't charging she was barking!

BEHAPPY

@ GUNNER Just because a dog is a Rot or a Pit does not mean they are vicious. That's part of the problem here, everyone thinks just because the dog is of a certain breed~ they are not good dogs~that is far from the truth. That's all I would own is a large breed, especially nowadays, to protect myself and my family JUST LIKE LUCY WAS DOING, she wasn't charging she was barking!

pavedparadise

Not wanting to make light of this issue, but due to overwhelming number of comments, six out of the seven stories listed down the right hand side of this page pertain to the dog killing.

Would be nice if commenters would get as riled up about other aspects of how this City is being run into the ground.

Gunner10

pavedparadise-
SR doesn't talk about that. Just about SPD and how they do their job!

pavedparadise

Dog tasers from Home Land Security.

www.TheHomeSecuritySuperstore.com

BULLISDEEP's picture
BULLISDEEP

Not home land .

Father of 1

@matt Westerhold: I know you love stirring the pot and causing all these problems by posting this king of stuff but seriously back off. The family has had death threats over this dog. This guy served 15 years in the National Guard. He has been a Police Officer over 10 years. Check his record. He has always done what was asked of him and done it right. I would prefer to have 10 Brad Wilson's serving my city. Unfortunately we have a lot of citizens in Sandusky that don't abide by the laws in place. Then when they get caught they want to blame everybody but themselves. She was in the wrong and everybody knows it. Officer Wilson protected the streets like he was asked to do and did it well. Thank you Officer Wilson!!!!!

Bluto

Yes , Thank you Officer Wilson.

LabMan

Well said Father of 1!

The Hamburglar

I think a lot of us agree with Father of 1 and appreciate the job Officer Wilson and the SPD do.

Rod Farva

Well said

dire wolf

If the officer did what he was supposed to do, then why is the chief stating that there is to be change, and that immediate programs will be developed to handle those situations? Is that his way of saying thank you ? I agreed with you at first to leave it alone, but you are clearly casting stones at her while she was at work at the time, She's not even in the real equation in this issue. Sounds like you may know the officer...What is his thoughts now? is he proud of his heroism, or remorseful? we'd all love know. Thank you Chief for developing programs to train your officers how to better handle this.

BW1's picture
BW1

Yes, why is the chief fixing what you all claim isn't broken?

Advocate For Animals

One Brad Wilson serving this city is enough. He's caused enough damage. Next time he fires his gun it may be at an innocent person. The last thing this city needs is 10 more of the likes of him. I don't want this man serving me.

To Matt Westerhold: I hope you continue to keep this inhumane and cruel act in the public eye.

BULLISDEEP's picture
BULLISDEEP

Then they should post the video on their YOUTUBE CHANNEL, not like the edited versions .

BW1's picture
BW1

Yes, this area has already had one person shot by a stray bullet a police officer meant for a dog. A gun is not an appropriate means for engaging such a fast moving target in a populated area.

BEHAPPY

FATHER OF ONE~This was about a dog that accidently got loose call ( a dog that they have supossidly dealt with in the past without this outcome)~not some horrific crime going on. If what you say is true~I feel bad for Officer Wilson and his family and I thank him and all of the SPD for all they do to protect and serve our city everyday. This was just not handled correctly in any way shape or form.
As for the newspaper stirring the pot. I don't agree this time.

Nor'easter

Case Number: CRB 1201549B
Defendant(s): Likes, Jesse D
05/18/2012
o DEFENDANT PLEAD NOT GUILTY
o CASE WAS FILED WITH COURT
o CASE SET FOR A ARRAIGNMENT ON 05/18/2012 AT 9:00 AM
07/30/2012
o DELAY PAYMENT FEE15.00
o FINE AMOUNT $ 10.00
o CRIMINAL COURT COSTS AS OF 01/18/11 $ 92.00
o DEF. PLED NO CONT, FOUND G, FINE 10.00, SUSP
o COSTS 92.00, SUSP
11/19/2012
o LOCAL COURT COSTS $25.00
o FINE BENCH WARRANT ISSUED ON DEFENDANT
02/21/2013
o PAYMENT - RECEIPT NO. 417364 IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 147.00
o LOCAL COURT COSTS $5.00
o CREDIT CARD FEE
02/22/2013
o WARRANT WAS RECALLED/RETURNED

Case Number: CRB 1201278
Defendant(s): Hansen, Donna D
04/26/2012
o CASE SET FOR A ARRAIGNMENT ON 04/27/2012 AT 9:00 AM
o CASE SET FOR A ARRAIGNMENT ON 04/26/2012 AT 9:00 AM
o CASE WAS FILED WITH COURT
04/27/2012
o DELAY PAYMENT FEE10.00
o CRIMINAL COURT COSTS AS OF 01/18/11 $ 92.00
o DEF. PLED NO CONT, FOUND G, FINE, SUSP
o COSTS 92.00, SUSP
05/11/2012
o PAYMENT - RECEIPT NO. 401448 IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 20.00
06/22/2012
o PAYMENT - RECEIPT NO. 403917 IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 10.00
08/15/2012
o PAYMENT - RECEIPT NO. 406889 IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 20.00
12/28/2012
o LOCAL COURT COSTS $25.00
01/10/2013
o LOCAL COURT COSTS $-25.00
02/04/2013
o LOCAL COURT COSTS $25.00
o FINE BENCH WARRANT ISSUED ON DEFENDANT
02/27/2013
o WARRANT WAS RECALLED/RETURNED
o PAYMENT - RECEIPT NO. 417686 IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 82.00
o LOCAL COURT COSTS $ CONVENIENCE FEE5.00

This is why the dog was left to fend for itself and not called into the house.

dire wolf

To all the people who copy and paste the court records for everybody that makes the newspapers, your weak. no class in your blood, at all.

Pastor Ron

Well if you lowlifes didn't have records.... there would not be anything to post. These records display the character (or lack of). It is clear that the decent citizens of Sandusky are supporting the police while the low life trash in this town have found some way not to place no blame on the trshy owners.

votelibertarian

are you really a pastor? alot of judgement coming from you. Hate the sin not the sinner sir.

Advocate For Animals

"Pastor" Ron? Pastor? Really? Well aren't you just the epitome of Christian values and Jesus' word of love everyone regardless of their sins.

votelibertarian

public record for a reason

BW1's picture
BW1

Exactly - Dire wolf, the records of those involved is relevant, and it's public record.

BEHAPPY

Who cares NOREASTERN........Not about Jesse, about LUCY

dire wolf

right, that must be it. haha. Keep casting stones you phony Pastor, Jesus would be proud.

Speakezy

Jesse don't like to have his record posted! Instead of additional police training why don't we send people to stupid school? Half the people in sandusky don't give a $hit and the other half has to pay for them to live!!!

Pastor Ron

Who is going to take the responsibility to train people on how to stay of the police blotter?

bored reader

Guns don't kill dogs.........cops kill dogs.

votelibertarian

I like reading about people asking for more laws and penalties. More government control over our lives. A bigger prison industrial complex. If the dog didnt bite any one then there was no victim. No victim means there shouldnt be any crime. What ever happen to police using escalation of force. Was there no other option than deadly force? What about pepper spray? taser? batton? We need to police the police as well as ourselves.

crys8271

To all of you that comment on this do you actually own a large dog? Do you know how to read a dogs body language? If you watched the video you could see that the dog was scared. She was protecting her teritorry. And one more question for all of you that know soo much, How can you use a catch poll with one hand? There were plenty of things that could have been done differently. The boyfriend should have came out when the dog was barking for one but all of that is neither here nor there. That cop was wrong for shooting her. They are law enforcement not animal control. We have the Dog warden and the humane society that is what they are here for right?

Mr. Touchdown

Who says he shoulda' tasered the dog? Willard cops tasered a pitbull 2 times & it still ran away. Chased it all over town & it ran inside someone's house & jumped over a 6 month old baby & bit a guy on the hand before it was confined in the basement. I believe this was last summer/fall. Better off having the cops deal with dogs rather than paying a dog warden who won't do his job.

Father of 1

You guys keep posting how much you hate the SPD and don't trust the officers and don't want their help. I wish when you needed them they wouldn't come and help. However even though you have so much hate and say all these things. When you call they will come because they do their job to the best of their ability even for all of the citizens that really don't deserve help. They don't get to pick and choose what calls they go on. They go to protect and serve even when the idiots call. They put their life on the line everyday for all of you no matter who you are. You guys are rude, disrespectful, and don't deserve the rights and freedoms you have. But luckily for you the SPD still helps to keep our city as safe as they can. If we had citizens here that actually could follow the law this city would be a lot better. Shame on you Sanduskians who are part of the problem. Shame on Matt Westerhold for being an instigator who loves to trash the SPD. Thank you Officer Wilson for doing your job. Thank you SPD for backing your officer. Thank you to the citizens who support the SPD. Oh by the way. We are WINNING!!!!!!!

The Hamburglar

Right on!!

BW1's picture
BW1

"You guys keep posting how much you hate the SPD and don't trust the officers and don't want their help."

WOW, Father of 1, talk about reading what isn't there! People here have said that ONE officer made ONE mistake, but that it's a big mistake. There's far more support in your comments for claiming that you believe SPD officers can do no wrong than there is to support your claim regarding other commenters. Maybe you should reciprocate their assumption that your position falls somewhere between those two extremes.

yellitoutloud

bytheby, you should run for mayor. Matt is not the only problem. Emil is also a front runner for stupid.

BULLISDEEP's picture
BULLISDEEP

ALL THESE people putting down the paper ,why do you keep coming back to read and make comments.
Same with the ones that just have to point out a miss spelling ,
you still read it and understood what it said.

yellitoutloud

father of 1, great comment. Glad to see that there are people who still support officers. It seems to be a dying breed.

BEHAPPY

Bottom line here~the dog was unjustly killed. Everyone keeps talking about how many times the police were called on Lucy. Well then, they KNEW the dog, they KNEW the owner, they KNEW where her home was, they DEALT with her previously THEN WHY SHOOT HER, KILL HER, AND LET HER LAY THERE AND SUFFER THIS TIME? Get it yet?? This was uncalled for.....PERIOD.

Pages