If you can't tell, maybe you shouldn't be carrying. I have had more dogs come at me than I can count, and I have never, ever been unable to tell whether it was coming at me to attack me, coming at me because I was someone to play with, or just doing what most dogs do, chasing me off the property, and once I leave their territory they leave me alone. My dog does that with everything. Rabbits, deer, birds, utility reader. Chases the rabbits, deer, and birds, until the property line, and then stops and watches em till they are no longer a threat to his turf. With the meter reader, or other stranger, he will bark and bark and growl, and intimidate, until the guy gets in his car and starts to back out of the driveway, then he's back his his normal "I'm a 90lb lapdog" self.
You don't like it? Stay off of my property.
If the cops can't tell, maybe they should find a new line of work. Reading animals isn't that hard to do. Taking it to the next level, what happens when someone who doesn't speak english comes running at them screaming hysterically? "I was afraid for my life, so I blew em away." Nevermind the possibility was that they were screaming for help for x, y, or z reasons.
I'm very good at reading animals myself, Ed. When I was in college and for some time thereafter I worked off-and-on doing animal control in Upstate New York. I had a good friend in that business, and it was decent-paying work that no one wanted to do; so I'd do it when I needed some extra cash.
I dealt with everything from chipmunks to bears, although raccoons, bobcats, and so forth were the most common, along with stray dogs and feral cats. After a relatively short time dealing with animals, you do get to understand their lingo; and with this understanding, I believe, comes a certain amount of confidence and clarity of intention that the
animal is able to comprehend. We give off pheromones, too, after all.
On the one hand, I don't know if its completely fair to expect a police officer to have that acquired ability to communicate with animals, because it's not something I suppose they're trained in. In addition, because of a cop's training and job, I doubt that the pheromones they're exuding when they see a dog "attacking" are conveying the message, "Come on, puppy! Let's play!" I have profound respect for police officers, possibly because my own interactions with them have been overwhelmingly positive. But I also understand that cops, like soldiers, exist in a world that requires a certain amount of what in any other job would be considered borderline paranoia.
On the other hand, anyone who deals with the public (including myself) really should learn to deal with the public's dogs. In my case, it's easy. I read the dog's posture, usually let it sniff the back of my hand, and verbally explain why I'm there. I have no idea how much they understand, but it always works. It's a rare thing for me to ask someone to restrain their dog. More often, the dogs sit or lie down next to me while I work, sometimes assuming a watchful posture, but usually not.
I also wonder why police officers don't carry
Halt! or whatever the popular dog repellent is these days. I used to carry it when I did animal control, even though I also carried a gun. The reason was because I would prefer to stun an animal, especially a domestic one, than kill it. I never actually used the
Halt! (nor the gun for that matter, except for putting down a few rabid or seriously injured animals), but I'm told by others that it works very well and is much easier than shooting a moving animal.
The fact that cops don't carry dog repellent, despite being in a job that does require quite a bit of contact with citizens' dogs (and other dogs), suggests to me that their departments have a tacit policy of using lethal means as the
first course of action when the officer is in doubt as to a dog's disposition or intent. Is that a sensible policy? I really don't know, having not been a cop. But in general, I think most people believe it's better not to kill someone's pet unless you really have to.
The other thing I wonder about is along the lines of Ed's earlier question. If I, as a civilian, were to pull up, uninvited, to someone's private property to ask for directions, see their dog running toward me, and fatally shoot their dog when another option existed, I think I would face some sort of legal consequences.
In the video, it's clear that the officer had the option of getting back in the car (or not getting out of it in the first place). Remember that the officer could see the dog before it became visible in the video's field of view. Possibly he could see the dog before he even got out of the car, and certainly he saw it before it got so close that the video picked it up. There were no exigent circumstances that required him to quickly get past the dog and to the house. He was stopping to ask for directions, not responding to an emergency.
When I pull up to a driveway and see a dog on the porch, my SOP is to open the door very slightly, then start to step out of the car, and see how the dog reacts. If I am at all in doubt, I close the door and wait for the owner to advise. That's rare. Most times I just introduce myself to the dog and explain my reason for being there, and the dog escorts me to the door. But the point is that I understand that even a "friendly" dog is still a dog, and is doing his dogly duty by protecting his family's home. So I exercise caution.
Now, I'm not all that smart a guy, so I find it surprising that a police officer wouldn't use pretty much the same sort of procedure in that situation. In fact, I find it hard to understand the way the cop acted in the video. I'm at a loss to come up with an explanation other than a profound lack of concern for a citizen's "property" (which is how the law views pets). He took absolutely no actions -- none at all -- to avoid the use of lethal force against the animal. To me, this reflects an attitude that is cavalier -- at best -- and doesn't speak well of the deputy's fitness for the job.
-Rich
