Pretty much every fenced in yard in my neighborhood has a dog in it. To not be
better prepared to meet a dog is weak sauce.
@Mark...Ivy League educated lawyers are not interested with "ambulance
chasing" my friend. However, we are very interested in spreading intellect
to those in dire need of it. Remind me again where you obtained your law degree?
In closing. Obtaining facts prior to making any nonsensical comments is an
absolute in my profession. You might want to begin applying this philosophy
prior to any more elementary posts.
I have yet to hear "facts pertaining to the case" that may have an
significant impact "final" case decision. This fact I speak of and still
seek is that of the height of the gate to which a child of three years old can
or cannot physically reach to open. I have seen insightfulness like this escape
officers time and again as recent as ten days ago. Also, are police
compassionate to the surrounding circumstances to render at least heartfelt
condolence "supported" with an offering of like say a "police
So the fact are: the child was found 30 minutes earlier.The child was
found in his own home, Why didn't the police search there first, before
searching strangers homes and yes your yard is part of your home? He was not in
pursuit of someone fleeing. If the gate was locked could he legally kick it
in?He discharged his firearm without knowing the background and even
though he probably emptied his clip (seems to be policy also) someone could have
been shot by his careless action, and aren't they supposed to exercise
care?Also since when have they ever said it wasn't justified, I
can only think of once in the last dozen years.Not a cop hater, my
brother is a state trooper, insight into the "culture of the police"
would tell you that they protect their own. Shoot a Cop Dog and they
charge you with murder, Cop shoots your dog, for defending your house, it's
Jimmyisliberal, you're funny. And, of course, wrong. The most an ambulance chaser could ever hope for, in this case, is that SLC
would settle out of court so that the ambulance chaser could squeeze a few bucks
into his pocket. What an ambulance chaser would NEVER want would be
to see this inside a court. Take this to court and ambulance chaser looses,
easily. Of course, if you think this is such a good case, why
don't you take it pro bono, counselor? Yeah, that's what I
He was looking for a lost 3 year old in a yard where he, himself, could not see
into the yard and where he had to shoot a dog.Does it sound like a 3
year old would make it in there?This is a baloney situation. Sure
-- maybe he had to go out of his way to find that child, and maybe that required
extraordinary measures (turns out it really didn't but how would he know?).
But with taking extraordinary measures he must also accept extraordinary
responsibility and he must take extraordinary CARE as he conducts his duties.
In this case, that extra responsibility and care was not seen.
@Mark...Obtain an Ivy League law degree and maintain a successful criminal law
practice for nearly 20 years. Once you completely these steps get back with me
and post once again. However, this time when commenting you might actually know
what you are talking about beforehand.
This sounds so much like another government cover up- sweeep it under a rug and
hope it goes a way. If the officer has any real feelings about what he did, he
should leave the police force here, and go look in another community out of
state, so that we might once again perhaps feel safe with our own police again
Once again the Gestapo tactics of our men in Blue has been approved. If He
killed someone it would be okay because it was in the line of duty. Illegal
trespassing, killing a dog and its all okay because he was Threatened? Come on
time to reign in John Wayne and punish him. If it was a civilian the asap would
be down on the person. Their is even state laws for inhuman treatment of
All of you saying this was an illegal search really need to take a law class to
assuage your ignorance. A child was missing, thus exigent circumstances
warranted the entry of private property in order to preserve the safety of that
child. It does not matter that the child was later found in his own home. This
was not known at the time and so has no weight in the argument.Now,
let's spell out a different scenario for you. Suppose the child really was
in the yard with that dog, and the officer chose to not search there because of
it's presence. If the child was later found dead or severely injured in
that yard, I would bet my paycheck all of you would be screaming on here about
the ineptitude of the police officer's decision to not enter. In the
end, the officer did nothing wrong. It was tragic that the dog was killed, but
no dog's life is worth more than the life of a child or an officer of the
Just curious - during the search did any other cop encounter a dog? Did any
other cop enter a gated backyard when there was no answer at the front door?
"To expect that a dog (or human) will never be aggressive is an
overstatement of your expectations of the beast."You are
absolutely right, enviromental. I have a dog that is the sweetest thing, he is
great with kids, let's them hang all over him. Never is aggressive with
people. But. . . But, he is a BIG dog. And he has a BIG bark.
Exactly what I want when strangers come to the door. But I am almost 100 % sure
that he would never bite anyone. But you notice that
"almost"? He is an animal, as sweet, and good natured, as he is. The thing is, if a cop came in my backyard looking for a child (which it
is absolutely legal. Sorry jimmyisliberal, if you are implying it's not you
are wrong. Also if you are implying there is a criminal case here you are
laughably wrong), if that cop came into my yard there is NO WAY he would know my
dog most likely would just sniff him, then want to be petted. Unfortunately. But, good for me, I NEVER leave my dog outside when
I'm not home.
The Real culpret here is the childs parent that called the cops in the first
place, seeing that the child was found in the home all the time. The parents
have a duty to know where their child is, espesially if the child has a
handicap. But,if it was up to me, the family pets of this so called officer
should be seized and given to caring homes as he has shown very publiclly how he
feels towards family animals. A personal law suite against the officer should
now be considered for his lack of judgment.
I stand with the officer and the results of the review board. Judges will as
well. End of story.
It has been reported that the missing child was found in his own home one-half
hour before the police officer entered the Kendall backyard and shot the dog.
Half an hour is, to me, too long a time to elapse before the officers out
patrolling the neighborhood and searching for the child are notified to call off
the search. Geist would be alive today if prompt notification had been given to
the searchers - shouldn't that be Standard Operating Procedure in such
situations? Kids sure communicate with each other instantly - can't the
A judge in Utah will throw this case out so fast that they won't know what
If this officer's actions were within the law and policy, then the law and
policy MUST be changed! There was no immediate danger to anyone that warranted
the officer entering that yard in the first place. Private property rights must
be held sacred and strongly protected! Without such protections, individual
freedoms are meaningless.There was no reason, evidence, "hot
pursuit", probable cause, clue, or justification for that officer to enter
that yard without permission! None. Period.This case needs to be
fought and fought hard to preserve (restore) private property rights.
A well armed, well trained, decorated, veteran detective/police officer shot and
killed a family pet.Was the child found before the family pet was
shot?Reports indicate the child was found before the family pet was
shot.Why did the officer continue to search for the child when the
child had already been located?I respect law enforcement.However, in this case there are too many unanswered questions.The
police department offered a settlement and then rescinded the offer due to the
pet owners social media posts.The SLCPD has come away from this
tragedy looking like they are anxious to protect their own, protect the image of
the PD, first and foremost...end of story.Sad.
I could of guess that the verdict would be when the dog owner rejected the
For those that keep yelling about mace and tasers. Those are secondary weapons
and are not located on an officers belt where they are as easily accessible as
his handgun. The handgun is the primary weapon when some one is (and understand
this) in immediate threat of life or serious bodily harm. If an officer deems he
has time to go to the secondary non-leathal force then he can use pepper spray
or taser. In the incident of a charging animal or criminal you would go to your
most important and most assessable weapon.I have a dog. He had never
been aggressive except of one incident and has never been aggressive since. To
expect that a dog (or human) will never be aggressive is an overstatement of
your expectations of the beast. It can happen no matter how gentle you think
they are.As for Mr. Kendall's attitude, I have pretty much lost
the sympathy I had for him. I wouldn't pay him anything for the dog. I go
get a mutt out of the pound and give it to him and see if he really cares for
"second entrance that could have easily been opened by the missing
child."I would really like to see a picture or a video of a gate
that a 3 year old could easily open!Not that I don't trust the
police report but, oh wait . . .Sorry, but my experience with police
is I don't trust a single thing they say in regards to protecting their
Once again the usual neo-con "freedom fighters" unfazed by this
unwarranted and unconstitutional search of this man's backyard. In closing,
one better possess a law degree prior to lecturing me about law. Especially
Weimaraner would be the correct spelling for the breed, I had one that was too
sweet. He did like chewing on electrical cords, until he found one that was
This is only step one, the lawyers are salivating in the wings. Taxpayers get
out your checkbooks.
I understand that the cop was scared blah, blah, blah. Wasn't
he trespassing in the 1st place? After all, he had no consent to be there. To me, it's the lawlessness that's the problem. If I accidentally
killed a police dog, I could be charged with serious crimes, even if it happened
on my property.This officer could have avoided killing the animal.
He has mace, tasers, clubs, feet, etc. If his intrusion into the property was so
minimal, why couldn't he just run away? The dog was shot dead at least 10
feet from the gate.
Kaladin,Wasn't the child at home when this all happened? So
please explain to me why the police officer had to make a choice between the
neighboring dog's life or the kid's life when the kid was at home and
never in danger.
Danite: "Tragic situation, I'm sure the officer is a fine public
servant but this is unacceptable."Why is it unacceptable? Were
you there? Did you see how it all unfolded? I'm sure that looking back at
the situation with 20/20 hindsight we would all like to see it handled
differently--probably including the officer--I just don't understand how so
many people can be against what the officer did without having witnessed the
action themselves. Is it just blanket distrust of or even hatred for law
Not a police hater or much of a dog lover, but I was struck that the report says
"they looked at any place a three-year-old could possibly have gotten into
or could be located within," but then the officer "knew he would need to
enter the yard due to structures and shrubbery being present as he had zero
confidence he could 'clear the yard' by simply looking over the
fence." That must be some three-year-old they were looking for. My first
reaction is this looks like a white-wash. If the dog could not have gotten out,
what made them think a three-year-old could have gotten in.
@Victory80: So anyone who doesn't think that police should be able to
ransack areas where they have no probable cause to investigate, and then use
indiscriminate deadly force for no reason, is thereby a "police
hater"?If so, count me and anyone else who cares about liberty
and justice in!The SLCPD is going to lose this lawsuit. Big time.
I'd rather have a live police officer than a live dog. Sorry it had to end
that way but human safety first. At all costs.
Live From the Swamp,Why should his back-up have been with him in the
backyard? They were searching for a missing boy, not pursuing a dangerous
The officer did what he had to. It is unfortunate. The life of a child is more
important than the life of a dog. Those of you sitting on your couch typing away
about how the officer should have done this that or the other were not there.
The account says he had little time to react and the dog was coming at him with
a purpose. The department will probably give additional training due to this
incident but the officer was cleared. The end.
The civilian review board may have swallowed the so called "exigent
circumstances" malarky but I don't think a court would. There
weren't any exigent circumstances justifying the officer's intrusion
into the back yard.
I've got a Weimaraner Kendall could adopt!We're looking
for a good home for her.
Of course there is only one version of events that happened this day. The most
effective weapon any police officer has is their pen. With a pen they can send
a person to prison. With a pen they can write a report in such a way that the
desired outcome happens.The only counter to this is the camera. Cameras
only report the non-biased facts.
Turn and run, get out of his backyard or back peddle and shoot, it was a choice.
You don't have to be a "Cop Hater" or a "Dog
Lover" to find issues with this situation. I find it fascinating that so
many people pick and choose what "rights" to advocate for. One could be
all for certain rights like the 2nd amendment for example but have no problem
with other rights clearly being violated as if it's a buffet.
Tragic situation, I'm sure the officer is a fine public servant but this is
unacceptable. Training and policy needs to be changed.
Don't officers carry mace? Pepper spray? A baton? Any other non-lethal
options? His immediate back-up should have been with him or he should not have
proceeded on his own. The officer might have been cleared by the Board and IA;
however, he discharged his weapon in close proximity to people and structures
without consideration for his environment. If such a move is POLICY for SLCPD,
then I'd like them to change policy. This account of the event
is the best I've seen. Thanks, DNews.
Brace yourselves: Police hater comments coming!!!