Comments about ‘Chief sternly responds to public abuse over dog shooting’

Return to article »

Chris Burbank asks public not to disrespect his officers

Published: Friday, June 27 2014 4:45 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Informed Voter
South Jordan, UT

I do not respect the Chief inasmuch as he has said he will not enforce immigration laws! Disgraceful.

Woods Cross, UT

The Chief is completely correct. And I also wonder about the outcry for an animal when so much human death and suffering goes unrecognized. Threats of violence should never be considered a legitimate form of public dialogue.

Kuna, ID

I'd work under a chief like that any day. I loved my Weimaraner, but if my dog acted bad, and I had a missing child, do what needs to be done.

casual observer
Salt Lake City, UT

Lost child vs. dog. Thanks for putting it in perspective, Chief.

hi, UT

Not impressed by SLC Chief. His arguement seemed to be: officer did good things in the past, so don't criticise him if he shoots your dog.

South Jordan, UT

At last. Someone using common sense to stand up to a popular but knee-jerk tsunami of public opinion. Thanks, officers!

Ivins, UT

Well put chief. If he hadn't gone into the back yard because of the dog, and the child was eventually found back there, the poor cop would have been fired for not doing his job. Its sad that no matter what some do, they cant win. I love my Dog, but my wife and I have always said, that if my dog ever showed her teeth, she dies. There is no place for a vicious dog in a neighborhood, unless you live in the hood :)

Eagle Mountain, UT

I certainly respect his passion

...but why was an officer hopping fences and going on private property without a warrant? That is what concerns me. If we make an exception here, the next one is easier, and easier, and easier. The 4th amendment sadly, has lost a lot of its punch.

Unless the officer had a reasonable suspicion the child was there (e.g. he saw the child, or something that looked like blood on a fence) or had prior permission from the owner, he had no right to enter. None. He should have gotten a warrant, unless he had, again, reasonable suspicion it would endanger the child to wait. Whereas the child was found at home (and I have the benefit of hindsight), it is hard to see such a suspicion being present.

I understand a missing child is of grave concern, and had it been mine I would probably be much more supportive of this dectective; but from an objective point of view, once we corrode the 4th amendment (one whose deliberate purpose was to prevent a police state) we have lost much of our freedom.


How about a sincere apology? There is not even a small trace of an apology in here, at the contrary. there is an abundance of a "my guys can do no wrong" attitude. I understand the urgency of finding the child, but does that warrant entering private property without permission and then killing the family dog on top of that? Like some other poster said the other day, it's a slippery slope. Was it physically possible for the child to open the gate? Logic must be employed, not just "feelings". With that being said, threats to law enforcement are definitely not warranted. There is a legal system, flawed as it may be, that makes this country better than a third world country, barely.

Poplar Grove, UT

What about property rights. To me this is completely different than a loose dog, or a dog in a yard where a crime has occured or is in progress. This man, and his dog, had nothing to do with the missing child. They found the kid in his parents basement. Maybe before they started wandering in people's back yards they should look in the most likely place.

Bountiful, UT

I have a dog I love and this story affected me. I wish it were possible the officer could have seen a way to save himself and the dog.

The chief is right the officer should not be abused by the public. I hope all concerned can forgive him keeping in mind he may not need forgiveness in that he may have acted correctly. In any case, staying mad will not bring the dog back.


I have yet to meet an aggressive weimaraner, not that it isn't possible, just haven't met one. What I have seen is a very vocal animal who tries to intimidate with a very audible bark in order to ward off possible threats to it's family. I don't blame the officer for wanting to check the yard. I do find it hard to believe that the dog wasn't barking long before he entered the enclosed area. It's not their style. If the dog was barking and the officer deemed it a threat, why did he enter, why not call for a professional who could tranquilize the dog? So many questions need to be answered. As far as death threats against the officer? That is unacceptable.

Alpine, UT

If the child is in the back yard with the dog and the dog doesn't have blood on it, why not take the time to call animal control and have them subdue the dog. Better yet, why wouldn't the police have a snare tool to slip over the dog's head like animal control. Or why didn't he taze the dog.

Virginia Beach, Va

The Chief is wrong by his own standards. The Cheif says he tells his officers to be respectful, this is the root of the problem. His detective was not being respectful to the citizens and now the Cheif stands and lectures the public on how to behave. The police have acted as if they are above the law. You cannot allow the police to enter private property and shoot animals. It was wrong to discharge a firearm in someone's backyard and it was wrong to kill a dog in his own backyard. As far as I am concerned the Chief looks worse today then yesterday.

Layton, UT

I completely agree with the Chief and express my admiration for him standing up for his officers. People should always be a higher priority than animals. I support the officer and hope that things go well for him and his use of judgement in a threatening situation is found reasonable and prudent.

Springville, UT

I think there is more than just an officer shooting a dog. There is an officer who entered private property, who THEN shot a dog who was in this fenced yard. I don't agree the officer should receive death threats, or that other officers need to be harassed for what happened, they didn't pull the trigger. I think people can and should be outraged that this officer trespassed on private property, the policies need to be re-evaluated. Yes there was a child missing, but the officer could have looked over the fence and called animal control, or he could have used his mace, or his taser. Instead he used lethal force as his first option. That kind of reaction towards a human would be completely unacceptable, and yes, there would be JUST as much outcry from the public.

Woods Cross, UT


That was not the chief's point. Criticism is fine. But threats against a veteran officer while the investigation is ongoing is crazy.

Ogden, UT

In other words, the chief is saying stop questioning us, we can do whatever we want.

Cedar Hills, UT

people need to be respectful of the officer and the police no question ...however I didn't sense from Burbank in this article that he had much if any remorse over the killing of this beautiful dog. I'm not sure what the dog being "close" has to do with anything ...good grief the officer broke into private property into a fenced back yard and then shot the dog. The dog did NOTHING wrong. The police did EVERYTHING wrong. Where was the pepper spray that the officer could have used instead of a .40 cal to the head? Looking for a lost child is wonderful but everything must be done with common sense and respect for citizens rights and the police showed niether in this case. The police dept owes this man a very large $$$ compensation at the very least along with a heartfelt apology.


Officers shooting dogs in backyards is simply dis-respectful at best. There are countless better ways that situation could have been handled.

We fear the police because they can do what they want, it's no wonder people are lashing out.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments