dog murderers

[Guest guest]

Hello folks,

I would like to report a horrible event that took place this morning and

request advice and help on how to proceed. I am hoping to strip the cops in

question of their badges and sue them.

My report follows:

 

July 5, 2002

~8 am

Oakland Police Officers D. Salcido (badge # 389, serial # 8213) and K. Kaney

(badge # 399, serial # 8235) walked south on Outlook Ave., Oakland, towards

Aaron's (my boyfriend's) house. (He had been at my house last night.)

His two German Shepherds, Roman and Dallas, ran towards them, barking. (They

had gotten out when someone kicked in an upstairs door sometime during the

night.) When the dogs got a few feet away from them, Officer K. Kaney

removed his gun and shot Roman in the neck, killing him. Then Dallas ran

back into the house.

Neither officer attempted to subdue the dogs with any non-lethal force. Nor

did they attempt to determine whether the dogs would bite them, as opposed

to just barking.

 

When asked why he didn't use his pepper spray, which he keeps in front of

him on his belt, this is how he responded:

 

Kaney: I didn't have time to use the pepper spray. I only had time to step

back and shoot him.

Me (D.M.): It doesn't take any longer to spray a dog than it does to shoot

him.

Kaney: Same as the pepper spray.

 

(So Kaney admitted that it takes as long to pull out a gun, step back, aim,

and shoot a dog as it takes to pull out pepper spray and spray the dog.)

 

Kaney also said he didn't want to take any chances that the pepper spray

might be ineffective and the dog bite him anyway. However, he never let the

dogs get close enough to see if they would even bite him or if they would

hurt him at all. He was afraid of getting a little wound, so the coward

killed Roman in cold blood.

 

(Supervisor F. Hamilton (badge # 277, serial # 7825) arrived on the scene

after the murder , along with an evidence technician (badge #31) who refused

to expose her name tag or state her name.)

 

 

Cops these days are so trigger-happy and can so easily get away with killing

individuals (humans--especially minorities, and non-humans alike). We can't

let them get away with this. Their first choice method of self-defense all

too often is lethal. They are rogue killers in blue.

 

Thank you in advance for any help and suggestions.

 

Sincerely,

Diana M.

 

_______________

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

[Guest guest]

First off all, I am sorry to hear about your loss. I hope you can get

all the help and comfort you need during this difficult time.

 

However, I do not think a legal action against the police officers is

advisable. Please let me explain (and, yes, I am a lawyer).

 

 

>His two German Shepherds, Roman and Dallas, ran towards them, barking.

(They

>had gotten out when someone kicked in an upstairs door sometime during

the night.)

 

From the officers' perspective, they saw two dogs (of a breed known to be

[sometimes] vicious) charging them. In light of the horrific death of

Diane Whipple, people (including officers...they're people as well) have

become heightened to dog attacks. While you may know the dogs to be

harmless, the officers did not, and they only had seconds to react. What

officers do know is that German Shepards are often used in K-9 units, so

they know the potential for lethality that such dogs have.

 

 

> Kaney also said he didn't want to take any chances that the pepper

spray

> might be ineffective and the dog bite him anyway. However, he never

let the

> dogs get close enough to see if they would even bite him or if they

would

> hurt him at all.

 

Again, the officers only had seconds to react. People, including

officers, make mistakes. In the law, there's something called " qualified

immunity. " It means that if an officer made an honest mistake (but only

realized as a " mistake " with 20/20 hindsight), then the law acknowledges

that officers (even highly trained ones) are forced to make difficult

decisions in very stressful situations and in an incredibly short amount

of time, and sometimes they get it wrong.

 

So the officers didn't make the best choice, but no one ever always make

the best choice. And as it has been pointed out, two dogs charging is a

threatening situation. If the pepper spray was ineffective, the officers

(from their perspective) thought they might not have had the opportunity

to then draw their guns and safely take a shot. That's not an

unreasonable belief.

 

 

> He was afraid of getting a little wound, so the coward killed Roman in

cold blood.

 

Again, in the light of Diane Whipple's death, I think the fear of two

unkown, charging dogs is not cowardly.

 

 

So, yes, you could file a lawsuit or make a report to the police review

board. But I do not think it will have any effect other than delaying

your grieving process. I know you have suffered a loss, but I do not

think this avenue will provide you with any solace, but rather only more

frustration and hurt.

 

Peace.

--eric.

[Guest guest]

> Perhaps the pepper spray might not

> have frightened the other dog away JUST as easily --

> but unless I read correctly, neither dog endangered

> the officer at the time in any grave way.

 

What I was trying to explain that the law will likely give deference to

the police because they were forced to make a very difficult decision.

That doesn't mean the officers did they best thing possible; rather, the

law will likely deem their actions reasonable under the situation.

 

This is a statement of the realities of the situation. I mention this

just not to let any hopes get too high; that doesn't mean it is

necessarily correct or just. The dog owner deserves to know what they

will be up against, that's all.

 

This has nothing to with a pro-cop mentality or blind patriotism (of

which I have neither), but rather as suggesting that perhaps a better

method to begin the grieving process would be to look beyond what the

police did/didn't do.

 

I've seen my share of injustice as well, but I also know that doesn't

mean the police are always wrong. I'm just agreeing with the suggestion

that the person(s) who let the dogs escape are more culpable than the

police.

 

And the reference to Diane Whipple is not an analogy, but to point out

that public sympathy is not currently with owners of dogs perceived to be

vicious.

 

 

--eric.