These days, anyone who does their job while wearing a uniform is a
"hero," and will remain such for the duration of their mortal existence.
"What is the worth of the life of a human being vs the life of a dog?"
I think you are missing the point Mike. It didn't have to come
to that, this wasn't a "my life or your life" situation. The
officer easily could have ran back out of the yard, but he was probably too
prideful to do so. A lot of arrogant cops out there who aren't going to be
laughed at because a dog chased them out of the yard. Suppose the
cop misses when shooting at the dog and the bullet goes through the fence and
injures or kills one of the kids next door? Then what? Police officers should
not be firing their weapon with kids and innocent bystanders around, unless
it's an absolute emergency.
Base ball ya get 3 strikes, foot fall 4 downs, basket ball 5 fouls. I think most
can handle 3 strikes. The guys who seem to be touchy are who seem to be who to
watch out for. Especially the guy that warns you don't touch. I stay clear
of. There is the apology and there is the forgiveness. Every one has their
fences, lines, and boundary. I don't want to pay bubble, but it seems that
that price I pay when I mess up.
What is the worth of the life of a human being vs the life of a dog? A police
officer entered property that was being "guarded" by a dog. Is that
police officer suppose to stop his search for a human being just because of a
dog?If it were your child, what would you say? The
police officer was correct. A vicious dog was put down while the officer
searched for a child.
@Happy Valley Heretic - To understand why an officer would go into a
person's backyard during a search for a child, you'd need to
understand the law that governs exigent circumstances. I'd encourage you
to read about it as you'd have a greater understanding how is applies to
actions of police and ordinary citizens alike. Also understanding the
limitations and sometimes ineffectiveness of pepper spray and tasers may help
you understand why an officer would use a gun on a dog rather than another
weapon. An officer (at least in any court) would be judged based on whether his
actions were reasonable under ALL the circumstances that existed and if another
officer would reasonably make the same decision. Based on several comments from
self-declared current and former police officers, many would have made the same
decision. With what has been reported so far, the officer's reason for
being in the yard and actions to defend himself were within the guidelines of
When a child is missing shouldn't the child's home be searched first,
since this has happened before.If the child couldn't possible reach
the latch, to search there isn't warranted anymore than opening all the car
trunks on the street. Police carry tazers and pepper spray why always go for the
lethal, G Gordon style?
Re: ". . . there is a requirement that the police d[e]partment . . . offer a
public appology plus provide substantial mon[e]tary compensation for the stupid
and careless actions of the officer."No, there isn't.First off, people who keep vicious dogs are responsible for their
attacks, not their victims.Second, there's not the slightest
evidence his actions were either stupid or careless. This is a proven hero, with
a track record of protecting us from bad stuff. He was where he was supposed to
be, doing what we pay him to do for us, and was attacked without provocation.Why would he or his agency owe an apology to someone who chose to keep a
dangerous animal in a place where he could be exposed to police, children, meter
readers, mentally handicapped individuals, etc. etc?Granted, the dog
was just doing what comes naturally to dogs of a certain breed, and we
don't blame him. But it's proper to blame irresponsible pet owners
that fail to ensure we're kept safe from their dangerous obsession, then
try to blame their irresponsibility on their victims.
I can understand why the police officer went into the back yard to look for the
kid. He is in a no win situation. Had he not gone into the yard and the child
would have been there, whether by mistake or kidnapping, the situation would
have been worse, and everybody would still talking what a lousy job the police
did. I'd trade the life of the dog any day over that of the child.
It's a dog, let it rest in peace and let the child grow up safe. Fair
The officer had full legal right under exigent circumstances to enter the yard
looking for the child. If he is in the yard and feels the dog is going to
attack him he has the right to stop the dog from being a threat. Everything
that followed is at the direction of the police department. They don't want
him to stay at the scene or speak publicly. I doubt he wanted to shoot the dog
or would have if there was a better option. He made a split second decision and
others have a chance to scrutinize that decision for weeks and months on end
based on limited information. The police department on the other hand should
have handled it better. They should defend the legal actions of the officer but
acknowledge it was a sad outcome for the dog owner and work in a sensitive
manner to provide restitution to the owner, even though the office did nothing
wrong. The dog owner, even though he suffered a loss, should realize policies
and laws will not change because those laws are in place for reasons bigger than
there is no need to fire the officer but there is a requirement that the police
dapartment and or the state of Utah offer a public appology plus provide
substantial monitary compensation for the stupid and careless actions of the
officer. Allowing a police officer to burst into a private back yard and kill a
beloved family dog is really an invitation for future police abuse.
Sounds more like greed than love for a pet is at work here.
Unfortunate situation that has gotten out of hand. It appears the officer was a
veteran with a good record. Fired, I think not. Mr Kendall should take the
settlement and move on. I haven't seen this much publicity when a human
has been taken by law enforcement.
What bothers me about this whole thing is that the police officer who shot the
dog didn't even have the courage to stay at the house and apologize to Mr
Kendall. He made other police officers do it for him. How hard would it
have been for him to just stay there and say "Here is exactly what
happened....and I am so sorry." Nope. Instead he just runs and hides behind
an "internal investigation." That just feels wrong to me.
I have dogs, and I love them. But I can't guarantee how they will act when
I'm not around. Nobody knows what happened in that backyard except the dog
and the officer. I don't believe any rational officer with as many years
and this one would discharge his weapon in a city without a reasonable cause. I
had some sympathy for both parties in this case, however in watching the actions
of Mr. Kendall I'm convinced he is nothing but a media hog and is milking
this situation not out of love for the dog, but for the maximum personal and
financial gain he can get out of it. The court of public opinion on this is not
out and Mr. Kendall is now losing his popularity as his true colors start to
show. He might think his dog is worth more than $10G. But I wouldn't give
him any more that the fair market value at PetSmart... $200.
I am sorry for the loss of the dog. Doesn't anyone understand that we all
have to make decisions, some on short notice, like instantly. The police
officer made a decision based on the circumstances at the moment. Is the world
so skewed that every thing that happens is some one's fault based on
cursory facts and information? Sounds to me like this officer has made plenty
of good decisions in a matter of nanoseconds. The world doesn't owe every
one who feels they have been wronged a cash sum to settle the matter.
If it had been our dog that was shot under these circumstances, I'd sure
want to ensure that police policies were changed in such non-emergency
situations (there were alternatives to the officer's entering a fenced yard
through a latched gate that would be very difficult for a three-year-old child
to open), more education given to police officers concerning non-lethal methods
of dealing with animals (which has been offered by the Humane Society), and
otherwise ensuring that other pets are not harmed in similar situations. I
don't believe Mr. Kendall was publicity seeking or grandstanding - he lost
his great friend and is trying to see that it doesn't happen to others.
I think the SLPD should be very careful about offering any kind of a settlement.
In my opinion Mr.Kendall has not acted in good faith, he has been quite
dramatic and bellicose but not very constructive. I can see that there might be
some consideration for a small settlement but after all the police officer was
acting in self defense (apparently) and just trying to do his job which Mr.
Kendall wants removed from the officer. If Officer Olsen were to lose his job,
I suggest he sue Kendall.
So Kendall was going to begrudgingly take the settlement offer because his
lawyer told him to? Well sure, his lawyer wants to get his 40% but I don't
believe it for one second. He's thoroughly enjoyed his day in the sun with
all the media attention he's got. Fame and money go hand in hand.