Settlement in dog shooting case reached, then rejected

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 12:03 p.m.

    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.

  • well informed Salt Lake, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    "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.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    July 31, 2014 2:12 p.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 31, 2014 1:23 p.m.

    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.

  • Duthenator Taylorsville, UT
    July 31, 2014 10:49 a.m.

    @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 the law.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 31, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    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?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 31, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    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.

  • roberto Moses Lake, WA
    July 31, 2014 9:53 a.m.

    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 trade.

  • Duthenator Taylorsville, UT
    July 31, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    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 dog issues.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    July 31, 2014 8:13 a.m.

    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.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    July 31, 2014 7:45 a.m.

    Sounds more like greed than love for a pet is at work here.

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    July 31, 2014 1:08 a.m.

    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.

  • Mack2828 Ft Thomas, KY
    July 30, 2014 10:36 p.m.

    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.

  • environmental idiot Sanpete, UT
    July 30, 2014 10:14 p.m.

    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.

  • oddman ,
    July 30, 2014 6:50 p.m.

    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.

  • SLC Grandma Salt Lake City, UT
    July 30, 2014 6:25 p.m.

    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.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    July 30, 2014 5:08 p.m.

    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.

  • giantfan Farmington, UT
    July 30, 2014 4:29 p.m.

    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.