Shoot First…No Consequences Later…Apparently
Visitors to this site have frequently noted the alarming frequency with which law enforcement officers shoot dogs first and apparently have to answer no questions later. For instance, if a law enforcement officer feels threatened by a dog, s/he apparently has the “right” to use deadly force against the animal. But are these officers trained in reading canine warning signs so that they know when a dog is actually a threat? Or are they simply taking out any and all dogs that could potentially be “pit bulls”? Do law enforcement officers have “pit bull” shoot-to-kill orders…or is it just “pit bull” shoot-to-kill allowances?
And I shouldn’t even limit it to “pit bulls” (though I should clarify that “pit bull” is not a breed). Earlier in the month, a federal officer who works at Fort Myer in Virginia apparently shot dead a Siberian Husky at a dog park because the officer misread the Husky’s playfulness with his German Shepherd. Charges are pending, and rightfully so, against the officer for animal cruelty and improper discharge of a firearm. Ok, so what makes this situation any different from all the reports we frequently hear where police officers indiscriminately shoot “pit bulls”?