Happy Atheist Forum

A story that I've been following locally just made the AP wire and has a featured link on the MSN home page.  

I'll summarize, and provide links for anyone who is interested in delving deeper.  

A few weeks ago, it was announced that a local officer accidentally left his K9 partner in the car for 12 hours.  The dog must have died a horrible, excrutiating death.  People were calling for the officer's head on a platter...kick him off the force, throw him in jail, etc.  There was a candle-light vigil in memory of the dog, Bandit.  He was a beautiful, highly trained K9 officer.  

Yesterday, Sheriff Joe Arpaio arrested the police sargeant and charged him with misdemeanor animal cruelty.  The officer was released, and I believe he is still on leave from the local force.

I don't understand how the officer could have forgotten about the dog.  I've left books and packages in the car by accident, but never a living thing.  

The only reason people know he killed his dog is because it wasn't his dog...it belonged to the police force.  If it had been his family pet, he could have quietly disposed of the body, which is what I would do if I were ever stupid enough to accidentally kill a pet.

Police animals are killed and injured in the line of duty every year, but I don't remember ever hearing an uproar like this one.

I'm sure the man feels terrible, and I believe he should be punished in some manner, but to face a possible 6 month jail sentence seems a bit harsh to me.

Comments anyone?

Linkage:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... o0906.html (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0906mcso0906.html)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20622619/?GT1=10357 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20622619/?GT1=10357)

That second link states that he was running errands, napping, and out to eat with his wife while the dog was stuck in the car....I think he should be fired and I'm not so sure 6 months is too harsh.  It is almost impossible to forget about a dog for that long if you care about it...and on a day that hot, it shouldn't have been left in the car for 5 minutes.

Yikes - this is horrible!  One problem with being a cop is that if you ever screw up nobody is going to take pity on you.  They're going to think about all those tickets they ever got, and all the times they said "look, officer, can you give me a break on this one?" and got "No" as an answer.  That sort of thing.

Leaving the dog in the car is a really horrible thing to do, I agree, but ... animal cruelty?  Doesn't cruelty imply that you knew what you were doing?  Is it possible to be "unknowingly cruel"?  If there is such a law for animals, wouldn't the appropriate charge be negligence, or unlawful death, or something?  I mean, he didn't intend to kill the dog (presumably).  So his action could be judged irresponsible but is it really cruel?

6 months in jail for this seems really harsh to me, also.  I was shocked that the charges against Michael Vick could involve so much jail time as well.  I don't condone these actions, but the punishments seem somewhat severe to me.  The thing about dogs is, well, they're dogs.  Should you fight them for sport or treat them cruelly?  Of course not.  But --- try to reason with a dog one time, and explain that you're going to walk around his yard so he doesn't actually have to bite you --- didn't work did it?  I can't possibly respect the "rights" of an animal that has no concept of granting me any "rights" in return; or at least not to the same extent that I can respect this right in other people (because they have the capacity to reciprocate).

Well, if he did indeed leave the dog in the car while he was just running errands, lunching with his wife, etc., then he must have known the dog was in there because he was in and out of the car.  In that case, I believe firing him is appropriate, but no jail time.  Police are held to a higher standard and are supposed to look out for things like cruelty to animals as well as people.  

Let's ask The Defuser what HE thinks!  :-D

Police dogs can be considered police officers in legal cases where you've attacked or killed the dog. That's negligent cop killing as far as I'm concerned. I'd say kicked off the force, and 2 years in prison.

Just to clarify:  The dog was in an official police vehicle parked at the officer's home.  The officer left the house several times in his personal vehicle.

The officer is on limited desk duty for the time being.  He is the seargant in charge of the K9 unit, for now.  Hopefully he will lose that position.  I wouldn't trust him to be in charge of duty animals (or any other animal).

Follow-up: I certainly agree with the firing business, and I'm not condoning this guy's actions.  Its just that, well, I'm a little bit hesitant about putting people in jail for accidentally killing animals, is all.  I don't think police officers should be held to higher standards or, on the other hand, given special privileges.  I think we should all be regarded equally.  Our actions are a valid thing to judge us on --- given the fact that he was farking around (i.e. not responding to calls or something) when the dog died, I think he should most certainly be held accountable for that action.  The fact that the action involves a serious measure of negligence is important in determining the punishment.  But people do some relatively nasty things to each other and don't spend 6 months in jail as a result, so I'm just saying this seems excessive.  Isn't loosing his job as a police officer and being convicted of a crime a serious punishment in and of itself?  What the hell is he going to do now?  Ex-cop turned convicted criminal.  I really don't envy his position, regardless of whether he cools his heals in jail or not - do you?

Will: doesn't that seem like a sort of a neat trick the police have pulled on us?  Kill one of our dogs and we will treat it as though you killed an officer.  I understand why that's good for the cops - but does it really make sense?  Would the person who killed the dog "officer" have always likewise killed the "officer" if it was a human?  Isn't there some reasonable distinction?  I just don't understand how equating the dog with a human being makes sense.  The prosecutor pushing this one better hope I'm not in the jury box  :wink:  .

To expound on this, I discussed this story a little bit with my wife - she's a serious animal lover - throw him in jail, hang him, the whole bit.  I asked her the same question, "is the dog really an officer"?  She said yes - the dog will attack and help apprehend "bad guys", so it does the same thing an officer does, so its an officer.  But, my response is that I don't think the dog knows its attacking a "bad guy" (presumably the human officer does  :wink:  );  its just doing what it has been trained to do.  If the officer in charge of the dog commanded it to bite me, wouldn't the dog do as commanded, even if I wasn't bad?  The dog appears, to me, to lack an ability to use rational thought, or analytical awareness, to guide its behavior; and without that distinction how can I treat the dog as though it were human?  Its not.

QuoteThe dog appears, to me, to lack an ability to use rational thought, or analytical awareness, to guide its behavior; and without that distinction how can I treat the dog as though it were human? Its not.

SteveS, you just reminded me of a thought I had:  Was the dog so well-trained that he didn't bark to be let out of the sweltering vehicle?  

I think the answer is yes.  These animals are trained to do what they are told and not to behave in their "normal" manner.  It's very likely that the training the animal received contributed to his death.  How sad.

I agree, MommaSquid --- and the fact that the officer in question was the Duty Sgt. responsible for the animals makes the negligence even harder to overlook.  It doesn't seem like anyone will, though (overlook it, that is).

Interestingly enough, on this same day, a mother accidentally forgot her child was in her car and the two year old died.  She is not being charged with anything, as it is believed to be an accident.  She is a school vice principal, and will return to her job.  She had been previously warned in the past about leaving her kids in the car, too, apparently had forgotten before!!!

And the cop is losing his job and may go to jail?  (i skimmed, been gone, wanna catch up!)  wow.  strange contrast, doncha think?

Quote from: "tigerlily46514"strange contrast, doncha think?

To put it simply, "yes".

 

Yes it is a strange contrast and frankly in the case of the mother leaving her kids in the car she should be charged too imo.  Seriously neglect is neglect no matter how you try to dress it up.  The officer was clearly negligent.  At least that's what i'm choosing to go with, i'd rather think that than that he was just a mean bastard who didn't give a rat's ass about the dog.  Loss of job and some jail time for this guy definatly.

I do believe the death of this dog, maybe not ALL dogs in cars but THIS one, should be treated differently.  Yes, he should be fired and should serve time (this is a change from what I said before... have since read more about it).  

And the mom... same thing.  She should not be responsible for children in any way, shape or form if she can FORGET her own child in a car!  As a mother, I can't see how that can happen unless she was on drugs or was drunk.  I just can't see it.

Why not some good Old Testament justice?  An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth!  I say we lock the cop in the car for 12 hours!  If he survives, then good on him.  If not - justice is served!  Maybe we could televise the "trial" --- a new reality show offering, call it "Survivor: Chevrolet" or maybe "Cops: The Heat is On"?

Nah, you're right, too much trouble - let's just stone him!  That's easy, cheap, and effective!  The all-purpose biblical punishment!

ROFLMAO SteveS you crack me up!!

Even if the dog had lived, the cop should've been fired for incompetence.

I wonder how many times he's had to call a fellow officer because he locked his keys in the car.

Well he should clearly be fired for this, and if it was on purpose, he should be prosecuted.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"I wonder how many times he's had to call a fellow officer because he locked his keys in the car.

Many times.  It usually went something like....

Deputy Dewey: (on radio) Officer requests assistance from partner - I've locked my keys in the car.

Sergeant Pepper: Dufus, you don't need the radio, I'm standing right next to you!

Dewey: Oh.  I locked my keys in the car.

Pepper: Yeah, I know.  I heard you the first time.

Dewey: Well?  Then get your keys out and get us back in!

Pepper: Can't.

Dewey: Why not?

Pepper: I locked mine in there too.

Dewey: Dispatch, officers require assistance, please send backup.

Pepper: Dufus, you have to use the radio to talk to dispatch.

Dewey: You just told me not to use the radio!  Make up your mind!

 :wink:

Update on officer status:

QuoteLovejoy was arrested Sept. 5 by Maricopa County Sheriff's deputies on suspicion of reckless animal abuse after he left Bandit, a 5-year-old Belgian Malinois dog, in his patrol car on Aug. 11 for more than 12 hours, deputies said. The dog died.

Chandler Police Chief Sherry Kiyler said Friday that the department decided to remove Lovejoy, who was Chandler's K-9 unit supervisor at the time, from the police-dog unit and suspend him for two days without pay.

He is also working with Blue Force Dynamics on a device that would keep K9 patrol cars running when the dog is in the car.

Full story linkage:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... e1025.html (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1025EVdevice1025.html)

I think him being a cop with an animal partner means the world.  I think it absolutely matters in this case.  It was part of his job, I think being fired and jail time is not too much too ask.  The dog was his responsibility as part of his job, it's not even close to the same as a normal person forgetting about their dog...which a normal person would get into trouble as well I've seen animal planet's Animal Cops.  It would be like a mother accidentally giving her child the wrong cold medicine vs. a doctor prescribing the wrong thing.  The mother would more than likely be forgiven where the doctor would and should get the third degree because it's his JOB.

For what its worth - sounds like a fairly reasonable outcome.  I still can't figure out what good locking him in prison would serve.

I'm not trying to be harsh here, but ..... seems like its always so much easier to forgive ourselves for our own mistakes than it is to tolerate mistakes made by others, right?

a_jaynepayne - if a mistake by the doctor writing a prescription is intolerable because that's his job, but the mother grabbing the wrong bottle is different --- what is the mother's job?

I was thinking about this last night and knew that I was gonna get that question in some form.  Would a better analogy  have been if I were to cut and screw up my husband's hair vs. a professional screwing it up?  

I do agree with your statement about it being easier to forgive ourselves than to forgive someone else...

I still think though, with all of my crappy comparisons aside, the fact still remains that twelve fricken hours is a ridiculous amount of time to have forgotten about an animal in your car.

I saw two women get into an argument in the post office yesterday because of a dog left in a car.  The dog's owner claimed the dog was fine while the other woman swore up and down that it was panting and near death.

Is it wrong that I was hoping it would come to blows?

Quote from: "MommaSquid"Is it wrong that I was hoping it would come to blows?

Hehe - of course not - without guilty pleasures life would be no fun.  Watching a few women brawl it out at the post office sounds like fun to me....

a_jaynepayne - I was thinking it was wrong that we find it easier to forgive our own mistakes.  This is a problem to me - if we're honest, I think we'll recognize that a very fine line separates ourselves from some of the people we condemn - especially in the case of accidents.  If there was no intention of wrong-doing, this is a whole different category to me from intentional harm.

The problem with the hair cut analogy is that your husband would presumably have a choice --- if he wanted to risk an amateur haircut, then he would be doing so of his own accord.  Also the consequences of a bad haircut aren't very bad (unless a person is incredibly vain).

My only point is that I'm not sure why the mother would be less negligent than the doctor.  If we're focusing on what a person's job is --- isn't it a mother's job to care properly for her children?  Didn't she receive instructions on which medicine, and how much, to administer?  The doctor is human and can make a mistake --- this is why the pharmacist and the parent should double check the medicine and be sure its okay.  Of course the pharmacist and the mother are human too.  Which is why I wouldn't advocate throwing either the mother or the doctor in jail; but my point is that if making a mistake is criminal for a doctor, it should be criminal for the mother as well.  I don't see the distinction.