Kroger Security Guard Shoots Homeless Man's Dog

A Nashville-area Kroger security guard got into a scuffle with a homeless man he says was stealing firewood and then shot and killed the man’s dog.

Witnesses told WZTV that the man, Charlie, was on the ground when the guard, an off-duty sheriff’s deputy, shot his dog, Axle. The guard is not talking to reporters

axlepic.jpg“We are just all so worried and saddened in our community,” local resident Eartha told Consumerist. She said a memorial service was held Tuesday for Axle in the Blockbuster parking lot next to the Kroger where the incident occurred, “just yards away from the still visible and huge blood stain where Axle was murdered in front of Charlie.”

It’s a frightening trend when we imbue private corporations with discretionary use of deadly force against citizen’s and their property, or pooches.

Public Outcry After Homeless Man’s Dog Shot And Killed [WZTV]

Follow Ben’s posts by RSS.
Follow Ben on Twitter.
Email this reporter: ben@consumerist.com

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. MerlynNY says:

    If the dog wasn’t posing a threat then the security guard should be held liable for his actions. Simple as that.

  2. tedyc03 says:

    This is why rent-a-cops shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns.

    • gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|* says:

      what about an off-duty sheriff’s deputy, should they be allowed to carry firearms?

      • tedyc03 says:

        He wasn’t acting in a police capacity, he was acting as an employee for a private company. So no, he should not have carried his weapon.

        And, if he used his service weapon (issued by the police department) he should immediately be fired for misuse of government property, regardless of whether or not the shooting was justified. I’m sick and fucking tired of cops who think that government-owned cars, guns and equipment is their personal plaything or a benefit of the job that they can use to make extra money on the side.

        • Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ã‚œ-゜ノ) says:

          Would you feel differently if the headline instead was “off-duty sheriff’s deputy mauled by dog”?

          • Shadowman615 says:

            According to the witnesses in the video, the dog wasn’t threatening anybody.

          • CountryJustice says:

            I would, but that headline doesn’t exist, so I don’t.

          • Gulliver says:

            Would you feel differently if the headline read my aunt has two testicles, therefore she is my uncle?
            The arguments needs to be made based on the facts presented, not the ones you wish or hope for. Move along now and let the grown ups take over

            • Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ã‚œ-゜ノ) says:

              The argument is the claim that an off-duty officer, who really is just a citizen, shouldn’t be allowed to carry a gun. tedyc03 feels this way and provides no response. Being able to conceive and evaluate hypothetical abstractions is essential to, you know, communication of ideas and concepts.

              Perhaps you should head back to reading class in elementary school, grownup.

              • Gramin says:

                Correct in most of your comments. However, an off duty cop is not just a regular citizen. Try shooting an off duty federal agent (or even a postal worker) and then going before a judge and saying that he was just a regular citizen. And don’t forget that you’ll be in Federal court since you attacked an employee of the federal government.

              • kujospam says:

                I think you need to learn to read better. He said that he shouldn’t be using government property. If he owned his own gun and used it for his own job, he wouldn’t care less. At least that is how he worded it.

          • dolemite says:

            Highly unlikely a trained law enforcement officer would be “mauled” by a dog. A 5 year old child, or 95 year old woman: yes.

            Police need to gauge their reaction based on the circumstances. A dog growling at you? Doesn’t warrant firing shots. At most, the guy may have been bitten.

            If someone punches a cop, does that mean he has the right to unload a clip into them? Hell no.

            Now, if he is being beaten senseless by 5 men…yes. But in this instance, it’s obvious his reaction wasn’t warranted for the situation at hand.

        • Gramin says:

          Actually, he’s always “on-duty” even if he’s not in uniform and off the clock. As a sworn officer of the peace, he has a responsibility to protect the public at all times. While he might have misused his power in this instance, had this been a case of an armed robber, then the police officer has the duty and the authority to draw his weapon.

          Do a quick Google search and you can find several instances of off-the-clock cops doing their sworn duty to protect the public.

          I’m not justifying his actions, but I refuse to allow you to villify all officers of the peace.

          • Velifer says:

            Sorry, the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no affirmative duty to protect.

            I don’t think we should vilify all law enforcement officers, but I don’t think we should absolve them from all responsibility for their actions either.

            • BlisteringSilence says:

              affirmative duty != moral responsibility

              Sorry, but one is a legal definition, and the other is a philosophical and ethical one. And despite what some people think, the vast majority of law enforcement officers DO take their ethical duties seriously.

            • mcgyver210 says:

              Davidson County Sheriffs are not even allowed to have Emergency Lights because they are Mostly Jailers & warrant processors. You don’t even have to pull over for them if they get behind you.

              • It's not my baby, baby! says:

                Sheriffs are not the only LE officers in the world, BTW.

                What you mention is only their primary responsibility, but they do, in fact, have all of the LE powers of a police officer as well.

                • mcgyver210 says:

                  Davidson County Sheriffs went thru a major political shakeup a few years back & all their cars had to have the emergency colored light lenses removed because they are not authorized to use them to pull people over. Now other areas still recognized full LE enforcement of a Sheriff just not Metropolitan Davidson County.

                • mcgyver210 says:

                  WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN NASHVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE DAVIDSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE?
                  The DCSO is different from most Sheriff’s Offices in the state. Our law enforcement duties, as set forth by the Metropolitan Government charter, are to house inmates and serve civil warrants. The MNPD is the primary criminal law enforcement agency in Davidson County.

            • MaxH42 thinks RecordStoreToughGuy got a raw deal says:

              First responders and public safety officers are often not covered by “Good Samaritan” laws, and may have an affirmative duty to act. (If not, department policies often make it a condition of employment, in order to protect against liability for negligence.)

        • BlisteringSilence says:

          Except that, in many places, the cars, uniforms, and equipment are a “benefit of the job that they can use to make extra money on the side.”

          I can’t speak for Nashville, but around here, an officer HAS to work off duty to make a decent living. A take home car and authorization to wear your uniform and duty belt while off duty are part of our contract with the county. We check in 10-8 at any location where we’re working when we get there, and 10-7 when we leave.

          And fear not, little consumerist tedyc03. The county get reimbursed for the gas and wear and tear on the cars by the locations that hire us. That’s part of the cost to the location, and I’ve yet to meet anyone who questioned it.

          Now, as to this comment:
          “And, if he used his service weapon (issued by the police department) he should immediately be fired for misuse of government property, regardless of whether or not the shooting was justified.”

          Who are you, exactly, to judge whether he misused “government property?” Are you a prosecuting attorney? Special investigator? Or did you just watch a Law and Order marathon over the weekend, and therefore think you know more those of us who do this for a living?

          I think it’s time to take a deep breath and relax, as you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking (not that a lack of actual knowledge has ever stopped anyone in the past from commenting on a Consumerist article.)

          • Gramin says:

            You and I think alike :) If only you were female…

          • tedyc03 says:

            I had decided to leave your comment alone, at least until I read more of your comments here.

            As a taxpayer, I am qualified to judge whether or not my tax dollars are spent appropriately. And I can say based on your callous and heartless comments further down on this page that you are NOT the kind of person I want deciding whether someone should be arrested or not.

            This is where people who work in public service forget something important: they SERVE the public. That means not killing people’s dogs just because they feel like it. Cops seem to think they’re somehow in a better place than everyone else; they’re not. They’re sworn to serve the public, and by the way some of them act we need to make them easier to fire and prosecute.

            • BlisteringSilence says:

              “This is where people who work in public service forget something important: they SERVE the public.”

              See, this is the fundamental flaw in your argument. I don’t serve the public. I protect the public, often from from itself. I serve the governments of the United States, the state of [redacted], and the county of [redacted].

              Now, I have a beef with this:

              That means not killing people’s dogs just because they feel like it.

              I have never taken a life just because I felt like it. My actions are always justified in some way or another. Whether you agree with my justifications is another issue entirely. But I have yet to meet an officer who just does things because he feels like it. I can’t speak for other departments, but he’d never make it out of FTO here.

              Cops seem to think they’re somehow in a better place than everyone else; they’re not.

              Better place? Absolutely not. Different place? Absolutely. The fact that you don’t know the difference is likely the most telling sub-textual clue you’ve revealed thus far.

              They’re sworn to serve the public…

              Actually, again, we’re not. We’re sworn to uphold the laws and the Constitutions of the United States and the State of [redacted], and to protect the public at large from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

              …by the way some of them act we need to make them easier to fire and prosecute.

              And this again just shows your lack of knowledge of the real world. If officers were easy to fire, the hard investigations would never even be started, let alone completed. Not to mention the pressure that elected officials would be able to bring to bear on those of us who have dedicated our lives to protecting and serving the law.

              • BubDBuilder says:

                Is that a pork sausage in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?

                • NebraskaDan says:

                  Take your anti-cop attitude and shove it, bud. I hope some shit goes down near you, and no cops come when you call. You’d probably sue.

              • SixOfOne says:

                By protecting the public, you are serving it. In your specific case, both terms are exclusively mutual.

              • nightmage61 says:

                @BlisteringSilence- Based on your reply I’m fairly shure YOU don’t serve the public. That would be the public who pay you your salary.

                While you folks debate over the letter of the law the simple fact is the guy shot a nonaggression dog over a bundle of fire wood. What might a normal person with a job do if they see a homeless guy walking off with some wood, maybe reach in their pocket and pay for it. but no a cop’s first response is violence.

          • AI says:

            “those of us who do this for a living”

            You shoot homeless people’s dogs for a living? I don’t think people who shoot dogs for a living should be the only ones allowed to have an opinion on an asshole rent-a-cop shooting a dog.

            • BlisteringSilence says:

              That particular modifier was attached to a paragraph structure that implied that my line of would would justify my judging whether the officer had misused government property. However, as you know the difference between “a” and “an” and know how to use them correctly, I’ll just take this opportunity to point out that you are not, in fact, as clever as you think you are.

              However, I do have a question for you:

              “an asshole rent-a-cop”

              Are you acquainted with the officer in question? Have you know him long? Upon what actual evidence or experiencing are you judging his character and demeanor?

              I only ask this because you seem to be making a rather huge jump to get from a single local news station human interest story about a homeless dude and his dog to judging the life, character, and personality of a man you’ve never met.

              • AI says:

                Discharging a firearm in a public place is illegal. Cruelty to animals is illegal. Nobody is disputing that the guard shot the dog, so that is my actual evidence.

                Unless you have evidence that the dog was acting in an aggressive manner, then all we can go on are the facts. The facts are, that this guard discharged a firearm illegally, which caused cruelty to an animal (and property damage, as dogs are property), and people who do illegal things are in my opinion, assholes.

                You seem to be making a rather huge jump yourself to assume that someone who would shoot a dog at a grocery store isn’t an asshole.

                • BlisteringSilence says:

                  Discharging a firearm in a public place is illegal.

                  From the local code:

                  11.12.080(C)
                  Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, nothing in this section is intended to prohibit the discharge or firing of any firearms by anyone:

                  1. While in the lawful performance of duty as an officer of the law; or
                  2. Within a legally established shooting range or shooting gallery where precautions have been taken to insure the protection of human life and property; or
                  3.Lawfully engaged in hunting, as permitted by the state, upon any property located within the urban services district of the metropolitan government; or
                  4.Legally defending person or property.

                  As I believe the facts of the case support the assertion that the officer was in the lawful performance of his duty as an officer of the law (misdemeanor theft that turned into felony assault), there goes that one.

                  Cruelty to animals is illegal.

                  From the state code:

                  39-14-202. Cruelty to animals. —
                  (a) A person commits an offense who intentionally or knowingly:
                  (1) Tortures, maims or grossly overworks an animal;
                  (2) Fails unreasonably to provide necessary food, water, care or shelter for an animal in the person’s custody;
                  (3) Abandons unreasonably an animal in the person’s custody;
                  (4) Transports or confines an animal in a cruel manner; or
                  (5) Inflicts burns, cuts, lacerations, or other injuries or pain, by any method, including blistering compounds, to the legs or hooves of horses in order to make them sore for any purpose including, but not limited to, competition in horse shows and similar events.
                  (b) A person commits an offense who knowingly ties, tethers, or restrains a dog in a manner that results in the dog suffering bodily injury as defined in § 39-11-106.

                  So your assertion fails here as well.

                  Personal property damage of this sort is a civil matter, not criminal.

                  So, based on your logic, as this officer has not been proved, and likely will not even be charged, to have done illegal things, he is no longer an asshole, and you owe him an apology. And I think some flowers too.

                  Before you pretend to play lawyer, you might want to fire up those internets and make sure you’ve got some fact behind your fancy.

                  • UniversalRemonster! says:

                    Please tie your facts together,

                    “As I believe the facts of the case support the assertion that the officer was in the lawful performance of his duty as an officer of the law (misdemeanor theft that turned into felony assault), there goes that one.”

                    He was not acting as a officer of the law, he was acting as a private protection/enforcement for Kroger. Unless you are saying that no officer anywhere anytime can ever be charged with illegally discharging a firearm because they are always serving.

                    Your second fact towards cruelty to animals is actually a counter to what you are stating.

                    “(5) Inflicts burns, cuts, lacerations, or other injuries or pain, by any method, including blistering compounds, to the legs or hooves of horses in order to make them sore for any purpose including, but not limited to, competition in horse shows and similar events.”

                    I do believe a gunshot wound is an injury, and I would imagine it hurts. I honestly have no idea why you posted that, I can’t see how it would defend your viewpoint at all.

                  • UniversalRemonster! says:

                    Please tie your facts together,

                    “As I believe the facts of the case support the assertion that the officer was in the lawful performance of his duty as an officer of the law (misdemeanor theft that turned into felony assault), there goes that one.”

                    He was not acting as a officer of the law, he was acting as a private protection/enforcement for Kroger. Unless you are saying that no officer anywhere anytime can ever be charged with illegally discharging a firearm because they are always serving.

                    Your second fact towards cruelty to animals is actually a counter to what you are stating.

                    “(5) Inflicts burns, cuts, lacerations, or other injuries or pain, by any method, including blistering compounds, to the legs or hooves of horses in order to make them sore for any purpose including, but not limited to, competition in horse shows and similar events.”

                    I do believe a gunshot wound is an injury, and I would imagine it hurts. I honestly have no idea why you posted that, I can’t see how it would defend your viewpoint at all.

                    • BlisteringSilence says:

                      Tying facts together:

                      1. As the firing of his weapon was secondary to the apprehension of a violent felon, the officer was in the lawful performance of his duty as an officer of the law.

                      The entity that was paying his salary is irrelevant to the witnessing of a crime, and then apprehending the criminal. In the course of the apprehension, the criminal made the exceptionally stupid mistake of taking a bullshit B misdemeanor and elevating it to a D felony (that’s what the charges would be here, I’m not really sure what they are in Tennessee).

                      2. The bit of code that you cited only applies horses. Based on the wording of the statute, the officer did not commit any violations of the cruelty to animals statutes of the state of Tennessee.

                      3. The property claim is civil, not criminal, and is likely nullified by the fact that it was incidental to affecting the arrest of a criminal.

                    • UniversalRemonster! says:

                      1. I believe in order for an officer to use deadly force there needs to be a certain level of danger present. I have no problem with the officer working a seperate job, or even intervening. I DO have a problem with him discharging his firearm at, from what witnesses describe, a non-threatening animal in a defused situation. (Accused is on the ground, with dog laying next to him) I’m also curious if the off duty officer identified himself as such before apprehending the suspect.
                      2. It’s funny that you comment it only applies to horse, if that is the case then why in the hell did you post it to begin with. As far as shooting an animal if it is not displaying aggression, im pretty sure that counts as animal cruelty and I doubt it would take much digging to find case-law to support that. Going off just the article, witnesses state the the dog was not displaying aggression. Regardless if he is an officer or not, he has no right to kill it in a docile state. Otherwise people who have free reign to kill other animals just for the hell of it…
                      3. No argument on that point, agree 100%.

                  • ktetch says:

                    ok, since you think section 5 applies only to horses (the phraseology is ambiguous) how about…

                    39-14-202. Cruelty to animals. —
                    (a) A person commits an offense who intentionally or knowingly:
                    (1) Tortures, maims or grossly overworks an animal;

                    I’d say it fits with maims. It did after all leave a permanent injury (the bullet entry wound) that will not heal.

                    Of course, you were very selective in your law reading. the very next section is….
                    39-14-205 Intentional killing of animal.
                    (a)(1) A person who intentionally or knowingly unlawfully kills the animal of another, with the intent to deprive the owner of the right to the animal’s life and without the owner’s effective consent commits theft of that animal and shall be punished under § 39-14-105.
                    (2) In determining the value of a police dog under § 39-14-105, the court shall consider the value of the police dog as both the cost and any specialized training for such police dog.

                    (b) A person is justified in killing the animal of another if such person acted under a reasonable belief that the animal was creating an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to such person or another or an imminent danger of death to an animal owned by such person.

                    By all accounts, there was no such imminent threat from the dog. and 39-14-105 gives the seriousness scale
                    A Class A misdemeanor if the value of the property or services obtained is five hundred dollars ($500) or less;
                    A Class E felony if the value of the property or services obtained is more than five hundred dollars ($500) but less than one thousand dollars ($1,000);

                    There’s more, but thats the relevant two.

              • BubDBuilder says:

                Is that pork chop cologne you are wearing or just your natural scent?

                • NebraskaDan says:

                  Were you there? A shooting of a dog isn’t really cruelty to animals unless there is intent to be, well, cruel. Who knows what happened.

                  I’m gonna just blame the asshole who was stealing from the store (you know, breaking the law) for putting himself and his pet into a bad position.

              • Dalsnsetters says:

                “…structure that implied that my line of would would justify my judging whether the officer had misused government property. However, as you know the difference between “a” and “an” and know…

                Bwahahahahahahahaha. Good job, Grammar Nazi.

                Proofreading…it’s your friend.

                If you hit reply, please be sure to take note of the “preview” button slightly off to the right, mkay?

          • OnePumpChump says:

            This is one of the most unsettling posts I have ever read.

          • nightmage61 says:

            Wow, one cop defends another cop. What a surprise.

          • smo0 says:

            I believe Bradley Nowell had it right the first time in “April 29th 1992.”

            Suck it copper.

        • Gramin says:

          Oh… and to your comment about working for a private company. Many (maybe even most) municipalities permit their officers to work for private companies whill off the clock… and they allow them to carry their firearms.

          In my city, Chicago, it’s very common to see off-duty officers working at movie theatres and bars on the weekends. And they always have their firearm. Doesn’t bother me. I actually feel a bit safer. And it makes someone think twice about being an asshole.

        • GrandizerGo says:

          Actually almost all law enforcement officers are capable to carry at all times. While not ON duty, they can return to duty if they see a crime being committed and if they need a weapon they have their service or personal weapon available.
          At least in MA, and I know about 20 officers who carry off duty.

    • wutname1 says:

      “when the guard, an off-duty sheriff’s deputy” it was not a “rent-a-cop”

      • Mom says:

        In the role of security guard at a grocery store, yes, he was a rent a cop.

      • c!tizen says:

        I think this actually fits the bill pretty well… they were renting a cop, literally.

      • sonneillon says:

        I think it was more alarming that this guy was a sheriff. He should know better. If it were just some jackhole with a gun his lack of training would account for something like this. But this was a trained officer of the law who panicked and shot a dog. That is more disturbing.

        • common_sense84 says:

          Panicked? He had to tackle the stupid shop lifter who was going to try to escape, and the guy’s dog was barking while he was doing this. Thus he is definitely going to put that dog down. No one has to take the risk that the dog is only going to bark and not attack.

          Maybe next time homeless people stealing shouldn’t bring their animals with them while they commit a crime.

          • elysse says:

            “Maybe next time homeless people stealing shouldn’t bring their animals with them while they commit a crime.”

            Yeah, maybe next time leave his dog at ho- oh.

  3. HogwartsProfessor says:

    Oh no! That’s awful. I used to know homeless folks where I lived in Cali and there were at least two I can think of right off the bat who had dogs. They were protection and companions. That is so sad. The poor man.

    • Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ã‚œ-゜ノ) says:

      It is. :(

      If I’m ever homeless, I intend to get a pet velociraptor for protection instead, though.

      • Gramin says:

        Psh… you dream small. I want a pet T-Rex. He’ll double as my environment-friendly transportation. Zero emissions baby!!!

        • Matzoball says:

          Dude, Dino’s had emissions.

        • bdcw says:

          You can hop up on a velociraptor much easier than a T-Rex and velociraptors run faster in traffic.

          • Gramin says:

            I have this debate with myself all the time. Living in Chicago, would I rather own a 911 Turbo or a military issue Humvee? Yes, the 911 is uber-fast and I love speed. But, on the other end, that Humvee will run shit over. I get road rage and I’d rather destroy the offender than run away from him. So, give me the T-Rex so I can eat your Velociraptor for breakfast. :)

          • raydee wandered off on a tangent and got lost says:

            Except that a velociraptor is not even waist-high to a human, if you tried to ride one, it would be all “I am squished, why did you do that to me, Master?”

        • dbeahn says:

          I suspect that a T-rex has LOTS of emissions ;)

    • common_sense84 says:

      “They were protection and companions”

      It’s damn funny that you admit the dogs will harm others if they hurt the owner.

      This is why cops are allowed to shoot unsecured barking dogs. Because they are not required to take the risk that the dog is going to attack.

  4. VOIDMunashii says:

    I find It hard to fault the guard here. If the dog was acting threateningly towards the guard, and if there was really a physical altercation between the guard and the dog’s owner then it likely was, then the guard did what he felt he needed to for his own safety.
    To me the bigger question is how bad of an area is this Kroger in that it needs armed security?

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      Prove the dog was agressive toward the guard. Also, prove the dog wasn’t justified in protecting his owner who was in danger.

      Since neither can be proven from this article, Shhhhhhhh.

      • pecan 3.14159265 says:

        For the record, I love animals…but in the legal system, dogs are property and as such, there’s no “justification” in actions – even if the dog hadn’t been killed, it’s not like it gets the same treatment as a person wherein you can launch some kind of legal defense to explain a person’s actions and intent. Even if the dog hadn’t been killed, it might have been put down if it had taken a bite out of the guard.

        • clarkins says:

          Police dogs get the same kind of treatment as humans. There are any number of stories where people are sentenced to jail etc, for killing a police dog.
          Why is their dog more important than this homeless man’s dog?

          • jesirose says:

            Same applies to service dogs such as guide dogs for the blind. In most states, even threatening to harm a service dog is a crime.

          • BlisteringSilence says:

            Why is their dog more important than this homeless man’s dog?

            Well, first and foremost, a police dog is expensive. By the time you (the taxpayers) have a working dog on patrol, you’ve spent right around $15,000 on the dog and it’s training.

            Next, because the police dog serves the city/county/state/country in a fashion that is unable to be duplicated by either it’s human handler or anything else, the dog has intrinsic value. Whether it’s a bomb dog, a drug dog, or a tracking dog, it fulfills a function that cannot be fulfilled by anyone or anything else.

            Finally, it’s more important because you have informed your legislature that you want it to be more important. They, in turn, passed laws making it so.

            Don’t like it? Call your representatives, and let them know.

            • RosevilleWgn says:

              “Whether it’s a bomb dog, a drug dog, or a tracking dog, it fulfills a function that cannot be fulfilled by anyone or anything else.”

              That isn’t exactly true you know. There are many methods, but the animal is often times the cheapest option.

            • sagodjur says:

              If the police dog is important because it’s more expensive than a homeless man’s dog, then the homeless man can be shot since he’s worth less than it costs to train the police dog.

              Or are you saying that someone should go to jail longer for shooting a highly skilled medical doctor than someone who shot a homeless, unemployed man?

              The charge for killing a police dog is murder, not property damage. Cost does not imbue property with humanity. Therefore other dogs should either be treated like humans in the case of murder or police dogs should be treated like property in the case of such “property damage.”

              The monetary cost of training a police dog can’t be compared to the emotional cost of losing a close friend, regardless of that friend’s species.

            • mcgyver210 says:

              I know for a fact people spend more than what you quote as expensive on their dogs so you assertion that Police Dogs are more important than regular dogs doesn’t hold water.

              All Animals should have equal protection under the law & especially against Trigger Happy LEOs.

              • BlisteringSilence says:

                Don’t you think that maybe we need to get all people equal protection under the law first?

                Sorry, but any equation linking the value of the life of a human being with anything else is just wrong. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue? Every driver that hits a deer or a dog being charged with vehicular homicide?

                And I’m sorry, but as police dogs serve a purpose to society at large, society has chosen to protect them with a more stringent set of laws. I personally believe that’s a good thing. Your belief that it’s not is one of the things that I get paid to uphold.

                Hell of a world, isn’t it?

                • mcgyver210 says:

                  Sorry to once again disagree with you but you make it so easy with your Socialistic Views.

                  Also just so you fully understand with people like you supposedly protecting us I am thankful for the 2nd Amendment. It may sound cruel but I firmly believe an animal most likely has more humanity than you & people like you. Again my opinion is based on all you have written here & I could be wrong you may only be a uncaring Jerk on a board & not face to face.

                  As I said before dogs that wag their tails need to be protected against Trigger Happy LEOs

                  Also I don’t remember any public vote for Police K9s to be worth more than a Family Pet. Politicians agreeing on anything doesn’t mean anything since that are all really Humans with their on agendas. How much you wanna bet how a public vote would go?

          • yurei avalon says:

            Police dogs are considered officers as I understand it, and to injure, shoot or attack one will result as being charged as if you did the same to its human partner. I could be mistaken though.

      • Griking says:

        Actually a person is innocent until proven guilty. Prove that the dog wasn’t acting aggressively.

    • Sparty999 says:

      According to the witnesses, that wasn’t the case. The fact that he, Kroger or the Sherrif’s department is silent means someone is going to be making a pretty sizable apology.

      • Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ã‚œ-゜ノ) says:

        Not speaking publicly is ALWAYS the right answer if there are legal ramifications. ALWAYS.

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      I’ve read interviews with Cesar Milan, and one of the things he has said is that dogs look to humans to gauge reaction and mood. If you’re tense, dogs can get the indication that they need to be as well. It wouldn’t surprise me that a dog would start acting reactionary or make a lot of noise if its owner was in a conflict with the guard, and that this would be interpreted as threatening. Many dogs defend their owners quite readily.

    • zibby says:

      Oh, stop with your sense-talking and such. Don’t you realize a dog died here?! Be sure to register your impotent rage via a comment on the internet!

    • common_sense84 says:

      Well bad enough that a homeless guy tries to steal wood with a guard dog.

  5. RayanneGraff says:

    Oh HELLmotha-@#$%in no!

    Someone please beat the shit out of that asshole. Here, I’ll do it.

  6. Sparty999 says:

    I don’t think there is a situation where any grocery store security guard should be entitled to draw his weapon… unless a gun was drawn on him.

    This guy won’t be protecting the peace in that town for much longer.

    • Scrutinizer says:

      But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Are you going to pay for that grape you ate in isle six? Well, are ya, punk?

    • purecajn says:

      Don’t bet on it. In my city there is a deputy that shot a child in the police station while playing “quick draw” with him. Yet he is still on the force. Westlake, Louisiana

  7. gparlett says:

    Sweet holy crap! Who lets a rent a copy carry a gun?

    • Doubts42 says:

      The 2nd amendment?

    • JixiLou says:

      Um, the law? The 2nd Amendment? The Constitution? The founders of our country? The basic human right to self-defense?

    • common_sense84 says:

      Rent-a-COP. He was a real rent a cop. An off duty officer doing private security for probably 20-30 bucks an hour.

      They usually do these jobs while wearing full uniform and are full police officers. They will detain you and do everything a police officer will do up to the point of reading rights. They will call someone on duty to do that part and take you to the station. But if they wanted to make the full arrest, they have the full legal authority to do so. Except they will have to take the guy down the station and book em essentially while not being paid. And the store will be out a security guard while he handles it.

      The walgreens by me in kansas city always has a full uniformed officer there. They are paying that guy 20 bucks an hour to do that. He is technically off the clock, but that doesn’t mean he is not a full active officers with all the powers of an officer.

      This is standard for many places. Cops can earn cash on the side, and the town or city gets more police on the street for free.

  8. Portlandia says:

    WTF was a grocery store doing with ARMED guards?

    • Portlandia says:

      And before I get all the RTFA, I see he was off duty sheriff but still why the gun?

      • Gramin says:

        Because he’s a sheriff’s deputy. No RTFA from me, but on-duty or off-duty, he can still carry his firearm. Off-duty cops working as security guards is actually quite common. In fact, I bet Kroger even arranged this through the police department. Kroger is responsible for his wages and the police provide an armed guard. Very common in Chicago.

      • Dover says:

        You sorta answered your own question there. All the cops I know (okay, I only know two) keep their service weapons on them at all times. I sure would.

    • eddikat says:

      I was thinking the same thing!

      I know that banks and other businesses that handle lots of valuable merchandise in bad areas may have them, but KROGER? REALLY?

      How bad of an area is it when you need to hire a guy with a gun to watch your produce?

    • BlisteringSilence says:

      Grocery stores are a high cash business. It’s not uncommon for a grocery store holdup to net the thief more cash than a bank job. An average Kroger takes in something like $50,000 a day in cash.

    • Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

      I’ve only seen armed guards in grocery stores, in the South. The ones I’ve seen were not there only to prevent armed robberies, they stood by the front door and were basically receipt-checkers.

      Cops shoot dogs all the time without provocation, it goes along with the mentality required to become a cop. It’s quite common.

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      Our local Kroger contracts off duty Sheriff Deputies for security. I live in an OK neighborhood but the ‘hood is right across the railroad tracks behind the store. Having an officer in the lot has cut down on the vehicle break ins and keeps skuzzy people from hanging out in the lot (it used to be used for drug deals).

      They originally brought in the security after an elderly woman was severely injured when a druggie grabbed her purse from a moving a vehicle.

  9. Vogue007 says:

    Is that an actual photo of the dog/victim??? So this homeless man could
    1. Afford a camera 2. Pay to have the film developed or if it was a digital camera, he had the image stored somewhere. 3. Clothed the dog in clean apparel (he also looks well fed)…just wondering…
    In any case the man that did this should be held accountable even if the dog was threatening him (if he was an off duty deputy then one would think he could aim somewhere else,not a KILL shot, to at least immobilize the dog).

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      Cause no one else could have been kind enough to take a photo of the dog for the homeless guy?

    • backinpgh says:

      Considering the outcry from the public, i’m willing to bet this was a homeless man and dog that people in the community were well-acquainted with, which would explain the existence of photos and clothing of the dog. As we know, our society tends to take much better care of homeless animals than homeless people.

    • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

      Homeless does not always entail that they have zero funds.

      • mulch says:

        I know a homeless man who boards his dog at a (really nice) doggie day care while he goes out and does day labor. He’d starve to death before he would let his dog suffer.

    • youbastid says:

      Yes, because people that are homeless 1. Have always been homeless their entire lives, and 2. Never have a single dime to their name, not even to pay 70 cents for a digital printout from a $20 7-11 prepaid cellphone.

      • Vogue007 says:

        I didn’t make any of those assumptions you have just listed

        • jesirose says:

          Yes. You did. You’re questioning if a homeless man had a camera, paid to print a photo, and paid to clothe his dog. The reasonable answer to that is he did those things BEFORE he was homeless.

          If I lost my home, my photos of all my pets would still be stored on the many websites I have put them on. If someone happened to one of them, the photos would be easily available for a website such as Consumerist to access.

          A majority of people in the US are about 1-3 checks away from being homeless. And 60% have pets. I’m sure most of those have photos of their pets.

          • Vogue007 says:

            wondering and questioning are two different things in my opinion. my real concern is that the cop shot to KILL.

            • Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

              No. The real question is why he shot at all. But the answer to that is probably, it’s just a dog. He can say he felt threatened by it, even if it was asleep, shoot it, and nobody can do anything to this guardian of the public. Only his opinion matters when it comes to his safety. All the witnesses can say the dog was completely relaxed but they are but mere mortals. So what if the cop shot the dog out of a desire to punish the alleged shoplifter’s friend? It’s just a dog and can be quickly replaced with one from the local shelter. “All better now?”

    • Dieflatermous says:

      Homeless does not mean starving or incapable of caring for a companion animal. Seriously, what’s wrong with you?

    • BlisteringSilence says:

      “In any case the man that did this should be held accountable even if the dog was threatening him (if he was an off duty deputy then one would think he could aim somewhere else,not a KILL shot, to at least immobilize the dog).”

      This comment simply shows how little you know. There is no such thing as shooting to immobilize. If you shoot, you are shooting to kill. Period. Quit watching movies, and welcome to the real world.

      I don’t know where all this BS is coming from. It’s a dog. I’ve shot dogs before. I’ll shoot them again. It’s an animal, not a person, and the minute it starts threatening myself or someone I love, it’s getting put down. I really don’t care that it’s some homeless guy’s companion. I mean, it sucks for the homeless guy, but come on. It’s just a dog. The homeless dude was going to outlive it anyway.

      I feel compelled to put this in here: in no way am I an animal hater. I have two awesome yellow labs, and two more Brittany spaniels. I love my dogs very much, but should I ever have cause to have to put them down, I’m not going to hesitate. I guess I’m just a little to realistic to live in this happy world of colors and flowers and rainbows flying out of people’s asses.

      • Vogue007 says:

        WELL THEN … You sure sound like a sociopath. Of course I only know this from watching too many Law & Order SVU episodes since I don’t live in the real world.

      • c!tizen says:

        so you’d have no gripes with me if your dog growled and I blew it’s head off? In front of you or one of your family members?

        The witnesses said the dog wasn’t acting aggressively, so is it cool if I bring your kids outside so they can watch me murder their dog, and then I can leave while you explain it’s just a dog… no harm no foul?

        • BlisteringSilence says:

          “so you’d have no gripes with me if your dog growled and I blew it’s head off? In front of you or one of your family members?”

          Depends on the situation. If it’s on a leash and I’m walking from my truck to the vet’s office, yeah, we’d have a situation. If you’re walking down a dark street at night, and it were to come charging up to you, I’d be pissed, but I’d get over it.

          My point, that was perhaps missed, is that you and I have no idea what happened in that parking lot. Peoples on the internets LOVE to see any story that bashes the police, and as a result, news stations and blogs LOVE to print them. Realistically, there’s no news here. The odds are very high that this sad human interest story will never be heard from again, because the dog’s owner ATTACKED THE COP WITH A WEAPON and the officer defended himself. The dog, being a dog, tried to defend its owner, and got shot.

          Again, it’s sad, but not unexpected.

          “The witnesses said the dog wasn’t acting aggressively”

          First off, witnesses are about useless in a criminal proceeding. They lie, are unreliable, get confused, and are otherwise useless. The only actual witness (sorry, the other angry homeless dude doesn’t count) interviewed said that the dog wasn’t acting aggressively. I just don’t buy it. My labs are as laid back as they come. If someone broke into my house, the thief would be able to make off with all my stuff so long as he stopped every couple of trips to scratch them on the belly. HOWEVER, should someone act aggressively to me or my family, they go from fat and happy to the guard hounds from hell, and will act like they would rip you limb from limb. It’s their instinct.

          Like I said, it’s sad. But before I run to a snap judgment, I’d like to see some actual facts. Security footage, the police report, the shooting report, etc.

          • c!tizen says:

            I’m confused how you think a witnesses statement is useless, but a police report is full of fact. After all, a police report is just the police reporting what they witnessed, and cops are people too. In fact, in situations like these I’d be far less inclined to believe the police report. Security footage, yeah, I’d like to see that as well, but I’m willing to bet that if that witness said “yeah, the dog looked like it was going to attack the cop” you and every other officer would be all over it like it was god himself testifying.

            Second, you’re right, the press is eager to print stories like this, just like the cops are eager to keep the story quiet when they fuck up. A few years back COPS, the show, was filming in El Paso. During a foot pursuit an officer shot and killed someones dog because the officer jumped into the dogs yard while chasing the suspect. The El Paso Police Department refused to let them air that episode, and the show in turn left El Paso to never return due to a breach of contract.

            Look, I have a lot of respect for good and honest cops. It’s a shit job to have to do day in and day out and the pay is horrible for what is expected of them, but even you have to admit that there are too many cops that think they are not only above the law, but above the people they are employed to protect. It’s too easy to fall into a god complex when you’re not kept in check so I think it’s really important that when cops do fuck up, they are held to a much higher standard and a more severe penalty.

          • maggiemerc says:

            Aren’t you kind of weighing your own experience over that of the actual witness?

            Dogs are fickle things because they’re living creatures. They’re unpredictable. That’s one of the reasons they’re dangerous.

            But as they’re unpredictable that means it is perfectly within reason that this dog was behaving exactly as the witness claims it was.

            And different people have different relationships with their dogs. You sound like you use your dogs as working animals and that relationship is going to be VERY different from that of someone who maintains a pet as a companion. Compassion for that person and their relationship is kind of important.

            I’m still curious to see video footage (I suspect there is some). If the dog was acting aggressively then sadly the guard/officer had no choice. If the dog wasn’t? If he lost his cool or shot the dog out of spice? Then he absolutely needs to be held accountable. As he was an off duty officer and apparently used his service weapon I expect he’s under investigation and cannot talk about the subject.

            Also I totes agree about the “there are only kill shots.” Guns are for killing. Not winging or threatening or anything else. Folks really need to understand that.

          • Xero says:

            You are an incredibly sad excuse for a human being. How unfortunate it is that there are people in the world like you to class things up a bit with your ‘real-world’ views. I really hope you live far, far away from anyone else as I’m pretty sure you’re a psychopath.

          • CookiePuss says:

            “First off, witnesses are about useless in a criminal proceeding. They lie, are unreliable, get confused, and are otherwise useless.”

            That’s actually pretty funny. For a law enforcement officer I figured you would realize a large amount of crimes that are solved is a direct result of witnesses. Catching a suspect while the crime is in progress is rare. Witness accounts, license plate numbers, descriptions, accomplices that flip, etc. is what helps in solving the majority of crime. If there were no witnesses, snitches, or informants a large amount of crime would go unsolved.

            Its amazing how you discredit such a valuable tool in law enforcement when the witness testimony is against an officer. I understand defending your profession but it sounds incredibly biased when you make blanket statements like that about witnesses.

            • mcgyver210 says:

              He wouldn’t discredit a witness statement if it said the LEO was justified.

            • BlisteringSilence says:

              For a law enforcement officer I figured you would realize a large amount of crimes that are solved is a direct result of witnesses.

              Sorry, but the facts don’t back you up here. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Psychologists have studied this over and over, and the results all agree: the untrained observer is essentially useless.

              Now, snitches, LPNs, accomplices, etc. are awesome. But the nice lady that was standing there when the crime happened that caused the dog to be shot likely doesn’t really know what happened.

              I know it seems counter-intuitive, but that’s the way that it works.

              What makes it even scarier is that a well trained lawyer or interrogator can actually convince many eyewitnesses to modify their memory to what he or she desires them to remember. It’s why we tape interviews, to make sure that our biases aren’t influencing the answers we’re looking for.

              • mcgyver210 says:

                You know something else with the use of the same types of technology LEOs use more LEOs are being caught lying & fabricating evidence that makes me wonder how many aren’t caught.

                Now I know all LEOs aren’t bad since I associate with some very good ones daily but you sound you don’t sound like one I would want to encounter without a recorder. I could be wrong since I can only judge you based on your actions here but actions speak volumes.

          • Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

            I’m really glad you are discussing this. I feel your comments represent the opinions the vast majority of cops. It’s good to have both sides of the story. We here, of course, were not there to watch it unfold. All we have to go on is the witness’ testimony. You made up a completely plausible and more likely scenario, then dismissed the only thing we have to go on by saying “witnesses are about useless”.

            I have 50 years of experiences with cops and your description of witnesses describes them to a T. People always dismiss police misconduct by saying it’s only a “few bad apples”. Well, a few bad apples spoil the barrel. I consider perjuring yourself to cover up the misdeeds of another cop makes that person a ‘bad apple’, too. I rarely meet a cop that doesn’t outright lie to me or give me attitude. We need police, and a lot more of them, but we need to raise the quality level first. If there is one thing we could do it would be to get the ‘good’ cops to reign in the ‘bad apples’.

            • mcgyver210 says:

              Well Said

            • BlisteringSilence says:

              The reason I dismiss the eyewitness report is that they are unreliable. In particular, the only witness interviewed for this story would be influenced by the weapon focus effect.

              I’ve been doing this for a few years now, and my experiences are going to modify my beliefs. The situation I posited is actually pretty common (except for the outside of Kroger part), and one that warrant service teams encounter on a regular basis.

              Now, as to the bad apples part of the conversation, in some ways I agree with you. However, I think that where you miss the point is that department cultures are set from the top down. If you have leadership that condones misconduct, then misconduct will be the tone of the department. If you have leadership that demands AND EXHIBITS ethical behaviors, then that is what you will get.

              I work in criminal investigations, and I will be the first one to tell you, I’m rarely 100% honest when interviewing suspects and witnesses. I want them to think that I know more than I do, and I want to test them to see if they know more than they’re giving up. I want to catch them in the lies they’re telling me. My years in this job have made me suspicious of everything that anyone says. I have to test them. At this point, it’s habit.

              That being said, I have never lied in any legal proceeding. I’ve never had to. I’m good at my job. To this point in my career, I’ve never had a convection overturned because of something that was my fault. I’m either extremely lucky, or just that good.

              Either way, I would agree that the bad apples need to be reigned in. But without a culture change in many departments, I would argue that you’re just going to replace them with more bad apples.

              • Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

                Thank you for those words of wisdom. Now I know where to focus effort for fixing things. I’d like to point out that 100% of criminals are bad apples.

                I think the ‘habit’ of telling lies to test suspects and witnesses changes the perspective of “truth” to “provable in court”. In this case, proving the dog did not in some way show a sign of aggression is nearly impossible, even with hi-res security footage.

      • Gulliver says:

        And I would have no problem putting you down either. You’re just an asshole. There are millions more in the world so its not like it is a big loss. I guess if you get annoyed at the noisy dog, or the rabbit who eats your garden, or the bird who shits on your car you feel manly just shooting them. You are a pathetic loser who should be shot. Randomly shooting animals is NOT legal. This security officer broke the law, he should be punished
        There is no right to shoot somebody’s animal EVEN if you suspect the owner is doing something illegal. In fact, any officer who discharges their weapon must do so based on the thought there could be danger to them or others. Nobody is taking his side in that argument.
        I hope you are put down soon loser

        • BlisteringSilence says:

          Wow. Vitriol at it’s very best. Time to pop an Ativan and relax, man.

          First off, dogs != people.

          Second, there is nothing manly (or feminine, to cover both bases), about shooting an animal. Sometimes it just has to be done. Out where I live, feral dogs (and feral pigs, and feral cats, and coyotes, etc.) are a problem. They attack livestock and domestic pets as well as people. They tear up fences and destroy property. I realize that it’s a hard pill for you (redacted) city folks to understand, but animals are just that. Animals. Sometimes they have to be put down. It’s a sad but true fact of life.

          Third, I partially agree with you here:

          Randomly shooting animals is NOT legal.

          For you to be deciding what is and is not legal, you really need more information, but I do agree that if the officer in question was random or capricious, he does need to be punished. However, I find it hard to believe that you have learned all of the facts from a single news report on the subject.

          Now, as to this:
          And I would have no problem putting you down either.
          You are a pathetic loser who should be shot.
          I hope you are put down soon loser

          I don’t know where you live, and don’t really have the time or inclination to track you down, but down here where I live, these kinds of threats are a crime. Should you wish to head down this way, I welcome you to. I’m not that hard to find.

          • AI says:

            “And I would have no problem putting you down either.
            You are a pathetic loser who should be shot.
            I hope you are put down soon loser”

            Nothing said above constitutes a direct threat. It’s all opinion.

            And you’re damn right about dogs!=people, most dogs aren’t assholes like you.

          • mcgyver210 says:

            Classic LEO mentality if no law is broken make one up You are a Disgrace to a once respected profession.

            There was no THREAT in the statement just a Hope that you get yours. I definitely don’t think you want people to know who you are because you are not representing LEOs well & need to be reported for misconduct not becoming an officer.

            • BlisteringSilence says:

              First of all, I jealously guard my privacy because there are actual bad people (as opposed to name callers on the internet) that wish very much to cause me harm.

              Second, the statements in the post that I referenced are absolutely the definition of terroristic threatening. Direct threats, as opposed to implied, simply elevate the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony.

              I have never in my career had to “make up a law.” Generally speaking, the prosecuting attorneys frown on that. I don’t know where you live or what your experiences are, but I’m going to apologize on behalf of all law enforcement everywhere for whoever you think caused you harm in the past.

              Finally, the I think the accusation you’re trying to make is either “misconduct” or “conduct not becoming an officer.” Either way, best of luck with that.

              Also, since you’ve taken it upon yourself to respond several other places, I’d like to take this opportunity to address this particular comment:

              “With your attitude you aren’t a LEO what you are is ?????? & you don;t deserve to wear a Badge period. LEOs that MURDER Animals is happening to often & it needs to be punished so they know to think twice before Murdering a animal. I would love to see one of them pay for a change.”

              First off, you can’t murder an animal. You can kill it. Murder is the intentional taking of another human life.

              Second, while it is unfortunate that an officer might be placed into a situation where he or she has to shoot someone’s dog, it happens regularly. We do take great pains to avoid those situations, but I’m going to be totally honest with you here: if the choice is me shooting the dog, or me getting bit and injured, I’m going to shoot the dog.My safety is of higher importance than that person’s pet.

              Now, to head off the impending ad hominem attack, this doesn’t apply to some moron’s yappie Yorkie that bites my ankle when I’m walking down the street. My weapon doesn’t leave my holster until I am in genuine concern for someone’s well-being. But about 3 years ago I had to shoot a guy’s pit bull that got loose after it attacked a jogger, and it came after me. I felt bad for the guy, but there’s a reason we have leash laws and dangerous dog laws.

              Also, and I think this bears being written, if a dog attacks a police officer, its death is simply a question of manner and timing, not of whether it will happen. Dogs that attack others are dangerous, and get put down.

              • mcgyver210 says:

                Quote by BlisteringSilence*****First of all, I jealously guard my privacy because there are actual bad people (as opposed to name callers on the internet) that wish very much to cause me harm.*****

                You really should consider your actions as a reason for the hatred towards you. Let me clarify I don’t hate you since I don’t even know you but I do disagree with most of what you post.

                Quote by BlisteringSilence******Second, the statements in the post that I referenced are absolutely the definition of terroristic threatening. Direct threats, as opposed to implied, simply elevate the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony.*****

                Terroristic Threats is the new way BAD LEOs & Government make up the laws as they go. Since you like to correct people so much you should be able to figure out he wasn’t threatening you but maybe that is giving you too much credit if so I am sorry.

                Quote by BlisteringSilence*****I have never in my career had to “make up a law.” Generally speaking, the prosecuting attorneys frown on that. I don’t know where you live or what your experiences are, but I’m going to apologize on behalf of all law enforcement everywhere for whoever you think caused you harm in the past.******

                Now that is a FUNNY Statement ROFL LOL ROFL

                Actually I have never been harmed by LEOs (also I respect a Good Honest LEO) but I have personally seen abuse by LEOs on others & have seen LEOs break the laws they are supposed to be enforcing so you will forgive me if I don’t just trust a LEO without some reservation since they are automatically trusted by the legal system first until they are caught in a lie, cover-up etc. This is also why I firmly believe when a LEO crosses the line they should be held to a higher standard of the law

                Quote by BlisteringSilence*****Finally, the I think the accusation you’re trying to make is either “misconduct” or “conduct not becoming an officer.” Either way, best of luck with that.*****

                Thanks for the correction since you are so superior & I know you could never make a mistake.

                Quote by BlisteringSilence******Also, since you’ve taken it upon yourself to respond several other places, I’d like to take this opportunity to address this particular comment:

                “With your attitude you aren’t a LEO what you are is ?????? & you don;t deserve to wear a Badge period. LEOs that MURDER Animals is happening to often & it needs to be punished so they know to think twice before Murdering a animal. I would love to see one of them pay for a change.”

                First off, you can’t murder an animal. You can kill it. Murder is the intentional taking of another human life.******

                It is Murder in my eyes & many others in the USA & someday it might be changed in the laws with enough pressure with so many senseless murders (yes I still said MURDER) of animals by LEOs in the news.

                Quote by BlisteringSilence*******Second, while it is unfortunate that an officer might be placed into a situation where he or she has to shoot someone’s dog, it happens regularly. We do take great pains to avoid those situations, but I’m going to be totally honest with you here: if the choice is me shooting the dog, or me getting bit and injured, I’m going to shoot the dog.My safety is of higher importance than that person’s pet.

                Now, to head off the impending ad hominem attack, this doesn’t apply to some moron’s yappie Yorkie that bites my ankle when I’m walking down the street. My weapon doesn’t leave my holster until I am in genuine concern for someone’s well-being. But about 3 years ago I had to shoot a guy’s pit bull that got loose after it attacked a jogger, and it came after me. I felt bad for the guy, but there’s a reason we have leash laws and dangerous dog laws.

                Also, and I think this bears being written, if a dog attacks a police officer, its death is simply a question of manner and timing, not of whether it will happen. Dogs that attack others are dangerous, and get put down.******

                The problem with your logic is there are just too many cases of LEOs killing dogs with as you say unreliable witnesses not backing them up. There are even cases of LEOs injuring animals on inclosed private property. Lets not forget for everyone case made public how many could be swept under the rug.

              • Dalsnsetters says:

                Oh you are a true piece of work. Let’s look at exactly what you are calling a “terroristic threat.”

                And I would have no problem putting you down either.
                You are a pathetic loser who should be shot.
                I hope you are put down soon loser

                Again, I see someone stating their opinion and expressing their hopes (and perhaps dreams) for the future. A terroristic threat would be “if I ever see you I’ll shoot you” or something like that. That was used as an example of a terroristic threat; it was not directed at you. (Just stating that herein because this asswipe seems like the type who sees/hears things that support his own position and ignores the rest…..).

                And a very good point was made by another rational Consumerist poster…..if you weren’t such a dick you wouldn’t have to be concerned for your life and/or safety. I used to be a cop, but at no point in my life have I ever worried that someone would ever come after me and kill me or hurt me–respecting others goes a long way towards goodwill (and it is possible to respect others without being something of a pushover). Police authority != being a dick. You can still exercise your authority without being a flaming dickhead.

                You create your own reality, asshat. Don’t be such a flaming douchewad and you might feel a little safer….bet you’d sleep a lot better. And most of the folks in this thread wouldn’t think you are an enema bag.

                Oh, and I feel sorry for your dogs. If someone does kill you for being a dick, I sincerely hope they are able to find new homes. Whoops, my bad. Better homes. FTFM.

                • BlisteringSilence says:

                  And a very good point was made by another rational Consumerist poster…..if you weren’t such a dick you wouldn’t have to be concerned for your life and/or safety. I used to be a cop, but at no point in my life have I ever worried that someone would ever come after me and kill me or hurt me–respecting others goes a long way towards goodwill (and it is possible to respect others without being something of a pushover). Police authority != being a dick. You can still exercise your authority without being a flaming dickhead.

                  You know, I don’t know that I necessarily buy that you used to be a cop. If you were, I can’t imagine that you ever made it out of patrol. Obviously you never worked CI or Narcotics. When you do the groundwork that results in people going to prison for 10, 20, 30, 40 years, they tend to hold a grudge. Many of them have friends and connections on the outside. My concern for my safety has nothing to do with the people I pull over working DWI Task Force, and everything to do with the Meth distribution ring I busted, or the biker-run chop shop ring that we took down, or various other “real criminals,” if you will.

                  Ironically enough, I have received quite a few awards from my community for my work. Then again, the folks down here are kind of country, so they still views animals as, well, animals.

              • smo0 says:

                I don’t wish anyone harm… if there’s anyone out there who actively wants to hurt you IT’S BECAUSE YOU DID SOMETHING TO WARRANT IT!!

                STOP BEING A FUCKING ASSHOLE AND MAYBE PEOPLE WON’T WANT TO KILL YOU!

                To quote a favorite movie – “And your whole attitude makes people want to kill you. It makes people -try- to kill you.”

          • Dalsnsetters says:

            I didn’t see any threats there. I see wishful thinking and hopes, but no direct threats, Mr. Lawman.

            At this point, I’m reading your posts for general amusement. I was LAPD for five years in the early 90s. If I had a fellow cop like you, I woulda thrown the towel in a lot sooner. You are an asshole. From the reports, the dog was NOT acting in a threatening or aggressive manner. The witness statements are important (just because they don’t support your argument doesn’t make them any less important.

            You are reinforcing the public’s perception of cops as assholes as a general rule. it really doesn’t have to be that way. If you expect us to respect your position, you’d better make a better effort to understand our position.

            Respect, heard of it? Learn it, live it, love it.

            Douchebag crotchspawn.

            • mcgyver210 says:

              This is the problem now days all the REAL LEOs like you are retired & all the public is left with is the Bottom Feeders like BlisteringSilence.

        • goodfellow_puck says:

          Okay, I admit the threats are not necessary, but I did laugh at the first couple sentences.

      • Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

        Q.E.D.

      • runswithscissors says:

        Listen, man, I know you’re trying here but you should realize that you’re coming off as:

        - disdainful of the general public
        – instantly and completely siding with a fellow Cop no matter what (the “thin blue line” code of silence thing that people fear Cops do)

        People calling for violence to humans in this thread are straight up wrong for sure, whether to the Sherrif’s Deputy in the story or to anyone else. So I understand you getting your back up as a Police Officer when some commenters do. But if you want to help show people that Cops are the good guys you might want to exercise more patience and understanding.

        None of us know the truth about this situation, but I think most of us can agree that if the dog was a threat to the off-duty Officer then he had to shoot, sad as it is. But if the dog was no threat, then he was in the wrong to shoot it.

        Your apparent dismissal of witnesses as useless is a little alarming too, as I thought most Officers relied on witnesses for most cases. And I’ve been a witness before, thought I was doing the right thing…

        In this thread you represent Policemen and Policewomen everywhere, so you’ll reach people much better if you understand their fears about the Police and explain with understanding, patience, and a sense of mutual respect.

        • BlisteringSilence says:

          Those are some fair points.

          I guess to start, I should explain that I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to an officer, and always will. I am pretty much the same way with doctors who are accused of wrongdoing, and a couple of other professions. It’s my built in bias, and I recognize it as such.

          I completely agree with this statement:

          …if the dog was a threat to the off-duty Officer then he had to shoot, sad as it is. But if the dog was no threat, then he was in the wrong to shoot it.

          Most of the commenters here took the comments of a single witness and two of the criminal’s friends at face value. I’m not that way. I am inherently suspicious of “news” stories like the one referenced in this post.

          My point, as always, is that people are jumping to conclusions without any independent verification or justification. If the officer was in the wrong, I will be happy to condemn his actions. However, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Or, in other words, consider him innocent until proven guilty.

          • NebraskaDan says:

            Don’t let the flower children get you down. They live in a fantasy world where things like “consequences”, “responsibility”, and “common sense” don’t exist.

        • Verdant Pine Trees says:

          Perfect elucidation here of how his comments come off.

      • mcgyver210 says:

        With your attitude you aren’t a LEO what you are is ?????? & you don;t deserve to wear a Badge period. LEOs that MURDER Animals is happening to often & it needs to be punished so they know to think twice before Murdering a animal. I would love to see one of them pay for a change.

      • tsukiotoshi says:

        You lost me at “it’s just a dog.”

      • SixOfOne says:

        The problem comes in when you (and I don’t mean you personally) shoot the animal, and the animal is not threatening you in any manner at all, as it seems to be in this case. That situation you haven’t addressed yet with the comments you’ve posted. The animal was on the ground with its owner, according to several witnesses and the officer shot it. How is that not misconduct?

    • NotEd says:

      A homeless man in the city my wife works in had his own Flickr page.
      Anything is possible with public, donations and libraries with free Internet access.

    • I wumbo. You wumbo. He- she- me... wumbo. Wumbo; Wumboing; We'll have thee wumbo; Wumborama; Wumbology; the study of Wumbo. says:

      Yeah, because being able to afford a camera and develop pictures from it cost nowhere near as much as having a home does.

      We’re gonna ignore the fact that the photo of the dog is a screen shot from the news report and that ANYONE could have taken the picture.

    • GrandizerGo says:

      Wow… Put down the computer and back away from the Internet please…
      Wow…

  10. El_Fez says:

    Yet again, another example of police abusing their authority. Way to go, Mr Officer, sir – make sure that we ALL know that you have the gun and we don’t.

    Fuck the pigs. Fuck them all.

    • NotEd says:

      Thank jebus you didn’t just make a wide sweeping assumption about an entire group of people doing a needed job and providing the security that allows you to continue living in relative peace every day of your life.

      That would be as ridiculous as me saying every poster in this thread is a dick just because you are.

      • NotEd says:

        I’m sorry. That read much harsher than intended.

        To make it it up I would like to point out that I like your Tardis.
        Have a nice day.

      • El_Fez says:

        Bllsht – cps lv bsng thr thrt, lrdng vr th cmmn mn. Th lv th pns xtnsn, th lv th pwr. Yh thr mght b gd cps ccsnll, bt th r fw nd fr btwn. Mst f thm r bsv jrks wh nl r n t fr th pwr trp. S ys, stnd b m sttmnt: fck th pgs.

        • NotEd says:

          Now see, I was trying to be nice.

          To sum up, I agree some cops are dicks are a power trip.
          Some aren’t.

          Ifd you think they all are maybe you should go somewhere where you don’t ever have to worry about the law or authorities or societal norms. I’m all up for hearing how your anarchist’s paradise goes and wish you the best of luck.

          And I think it sucks they shot the guy’s dog.

          • DoktorGoku says:

            I hear people say horrible things about a lot of professions, only to completely forget about all of it when they need that profession.

            Cops? Pigs! Wait, I’m being robbed! Somebody Help!
            Surgeons? Arrogant bastards! OMG, I’m dying, somebody save me!
            Lawyers? Scum! Hey, I need legal advice!

            etc., etc.

            Personally, I take solace in the knowledge that after receiving said help, these people will always have that nagging bit at the back of their mind that tells them that they’re simply wrong.

            • DD_838 says:

              You (actually the both of you) have obviously never been violated by a police officer. It’s a horrible feeling. Whats worse is that there is nothing you can do about it

              • NotEd says:

                I will completely admit I have not. And, once again, I am not saying there are not bad, abusive police out there and I can certainly understand someone you have been subject to this behavior to be wary or afraid on them.

                I also don’t believe that the comment I responded to ever referred to having such an experience. I think the officer in the actual story was being a complete dick and may have violated his bond with the community and definitely committed animal cruelty.
                And I still refuse to judge all police by this poor example. To do so would be ignorant and prejudiced on my part. I am not saying being suspicious or wary of a member of a group that has caused you harm is unreasonable, merely that to assume all members of that group are as bad as that one is the same sort of thinking that can lead to the exact kind of behavior that can cause the violence and abuse in the first place.

              • DoktorGoku says:

                1. It’s not a good idea to assume, because you’ll often be wrong. In this case, your assumption about me is entirely incorrect. I’m quite familiar with the internal affairs officers in NH, so I know that I, at least, was definitely able to do something about it. Try harder next time.

                2. Are you actually able to respond to my point, or just with the “OBVIOUSLY you don’t know!!!111one” emotional fallacy (which was wrong, anyway- by the way)?

  11. Dover says:

    That officer should be punished with paid administrative leave while the issue is investigated or until it blows over, whichever occurs first.

    /Yes, it’s sarcasm.

    • common_sense84 says:

      The fully uniformed officer was right though. The homeless guy should not be committing crimes if he doesn’t want bad things to happen as a result of his actions.

  12. clint07 says:

    Why did security feel the need to unholster his firearm at all while apprehending a homeless shoplifter?

    • zibby says:

      Erring on the side of caution, of course. You think a homeless person would never try to hurt someone? I know we live in times where people with jobs are viewed with suspicion and the downtrodden are demi-gods, but seriously – bums can be as dangerous as anybody, perhaps more so.

      • RvLeshrac says:

        There is no “erring on the side of caution” in drawing a firearm. You draw a weapon because you intend to shoot someone until they are dead. That’s it. You don’t draw it for any other reason, ever.

        You may not have to shoot anyone, but you don’t draw the gun “just in case” you have to shoot them – you draw it and then hope that, by some stroke of luck, you don’t have to shoot anyone.

        If you don’t intend to kill someone, you draw a taser, baton, or pepper spray.

    • BlisteringSilence says:

      Perhaps because the homeless shoplifter had just attacked the officer with a cane?

      R (or really, W) TFA.

      • clint07 says:

        Yes but an officer should only get their gun out if they intend to use it, so unless he felt that he needed to shoot the man instead of grabbing him he only got it out for intimidation purposes, which leads to accidents.

  13. Talisker says:

    My first thought when I read that the rally was held in the parking lot of the Blockbuster next door was they they probably held it there because it was empty.

  14. Fett101 says:

    Enter text…”a memorial service was held Tuesday for Axle in the Blockbuster parking lot”

    As sad as this is, that line made me laugh.

  15. oldwiz65 says:

    Untrained Security guards with guns? Next thing you know they will shoot shoplifters at the mall. Maybe Forever XXI will be the first to have executed an alleged shoplifter.

    • 99 1/2 Days says:

      No, sheriff’s deputy.

    • Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ã‚œ-゜ノ) says:

      Don’t know about shoplifters, but all those kids working at Abercrombie & Fitch simply HAVE to be guilty of something, hopefully?

    • ttw1 says:

      Another reading comprehension FAIL

      • oldwiz65 says:

        I saw perfectly well that the dog got shot, not the homeless man. However the point is security guards for stores have no business with guns.

        • LadySiren is murdering her kids with HFCS and processed cheese says:

          Um, still a reading fail. He was an off-duty Sheriff.

    • common_sense84 says:

      He was a uniformed police officer working a private security job within his jurisdiction.

      He is the same as any on duty officer. The only difference is that he is being paid by the store to stay at the store. These jobs are set up through the police department. It is a service they officer. Most places offer service like this.

      In kansas city, every walgreens has a uniformed officer at the front door at all times. Walgreens is paying 20-30 bucks an hour for this service. The entire area benefits because more officers are working at a time, and the ones paid for by businesses are free to the city.

      Usually, they will not be the ones whf o read rights or book ‘em. They call someone on duty to do that part. They will do everything on the scene up to the point of reading rights. Although if they wanted to, they could read the guy their rights, throw him in the back of the squad, and do all the work to book ‘em if they want. Except that would mean the store would not have security while they do this and the officer would be off the clock, so they would not be paid.

  16. novajosh says:

    Isn’t Tennessee where a cop pulled over a family and let the dog out of the backseat, a friendly dog, and then just shot it and killed it because it was running around? This was quite some time ago, but what is it with cops shooting dogs.

    • Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

      Just search on YouTube and get a bunch of cops shooting dogs for little reason. The only time I know of where the owners fought back was Waco.

      • jbandsma says:

        We had a cop here who was finally let go for killing dogs. Shooting them in their yards. I almost lost mine to him…stepped out the door to find him with his gun out the window of his patrol car aiming at my big girl. My yard, by the way, is fenced and the gate is padlocked. And, while both dogs would bark a few times, if you just stood there they would soon shut up and ignore you. It wasn’t long after that he pulled into a driveway, hitting 2 German Shepherds and then backing up over one of them, killing both. He said they were threatening him. Yeah, right. He was in his car the whole time.

        • dolemite says:

          People like that need to be locked away. Not having regard for life (not just human life) is a pretty heavy indicator of sociopathic tendencies.

          • ellemdee says:

            Totally. And they know very well that animals are property under the law and they would likely actually be punished less for shooting a dog (just by claiming it was threatening) than they would for willfulling destroying someone’s car or couch or BBQ grill without reason. Sad world.

          • RvLeshrac says:

            It should be a capital crime, for the stated reasons.

            Anyone who tortures and/or murders animals with no legitimate justification is clearly psychopathic at best. Their remaining on the street serves no one, and it is simply a matter of time until they move up to humans.

      • zibby says:

        Ruby Ridge?

  17. huygensbyer says:

    Private security personnel should NOT be allowed to carry guns. Period.

    • evnmorlo says:

      It’s probably a bad idea in terms of liability, but a sheriff’s deputy isn’t going to put up with being a “security” guard who is more like a decoy to be beaten stabbed shot and bitten.

    • Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

      All kinds of people are allowed to carry guns. Amendments 2 & 14

    • RosevilleWgn says:

      The security for the facility I work at uses armed guards. They are contracted, but I think it’s because this is technically a government site.

    • common_sense84 says:

      This is not private personal security. Usually when off duty officers are working at stores, it is a service offered through the department itself.

      For 20-30 dollars an hour you can have a full uniformed police officer that has all the powers of any on duty officer to stand at your front door. Every walgreens in Kansas City pays for this. Many places in bad areas do this.

      The officer is not a security guard. But a full fledged officer with all the same powers/responsibilities as any officer on duty.

      The consumerist needs to fix it’s title. Since too many people are idiots and don’t realize this is a full fledged officer, not a shitty store security guard.

  18. RadarOReally has got the Post-Vacation Blues says:

    What a beautiful dog! It’s heartbreaking to think of.

  19. sheldonmoon69 says:

    Sucks that the dog got shot and yeah, the guard definitely got carried away, but let’s not get all teary-eyed for a homeless guy that got 5 months in jail for lifting firewood… You don’t get that kind of time for shoplifting unless you’ve had some priors.

    Shooting a non-violent dog is wrong, but so is THEFT. I’m guessing the homeless guy (convicted criminal) isn’t an “angel”.

    Would the guy get as much sympathy if he was stealing from YOUR home or YOUR business?

    I feel bad for the dog, not the asshole stealing shit.

    • common_sense84 says:

      A barking dog not secured while you are arresting the owner will be shot every time.

      A dog can do serious damage in a short amount of time.

      Anyone saying the fully uniformed police officer was wrong is an idiot.

      The dumbass should not have brought his guard dog with him while he shop lifted.

  20. banmojo says:

    dog was threatening, guard made the threat go away. end of story and he will be found innocent.

    • AstroPig7 says:

      How do you know the dog was threatening? Being tense around a dog can make it tense, but that doesn’t make it violent.

    • dolemite says:

      Do you honestly think he would have been killed by the dog? That his life was in danger? Somehow, I don’t see the *possibility* that he may have been nipped on the leg or bitten on the arm as justification for completely destroying an innocent creature that may have annoyed him.

    • Dalsnsetters says:

      OMG, were you really there? Please do give us the real story. I mean, judging from your statements, it sure sounds like you obviously saw it all….and hey, since you saw it all and know exactly what happened I bet the cops wanna speak with you. Don’t tell BlisteringSilence (below), though. He thinks witnesses are worthless.

      /sarcasm

      • common_sense84 says:

        A barking dog is the same as threatening.

        You people need to wake up to reality. An officer cuffing a guy is not going to let a dog bark at him a few feet away hoping that dog does not decide to pounce.

        I would imagine there would be a strict policy to shoot dogs, as the amount of damage they can do in a few second is great. No one doing their job has to take a risk like that. And anyone asking them to is a f**king *sshol*.

  21. evnmorlo says:

    Homeless guy should have protected his dog. And who steals firewood from a grocery store? Just tear down a fence.

    • AstroPig7 says:

      How do you protect a dog from a bullet? Do you jump in front of it? Do you freeze time and move the bullet or the dog?

    • jeff_the_snake says:

      how exactly do you protect a dog from a man with a gun? I agree there are probably better ways to scavenge some wood if he was actually stealing but fence pickets and other treated lumber is pretty toxic if you burn it.

      • AustinTXProgrammer says:

        Not to mention the monetary damage of tearing down a fence is much higher than theft of firewood.

  22. humphrmi says:

    Now I can’t get the song “Mr. Bojangles” out of my head.

    Sad.

  23. Boo LaRue says:

    I can’t help but wonder if people would be just as outraged if the HOMELESS MAN had been killed for whatever reason…

  24. Harmodios says:

    It’s not murder, it’s a stupid dog. It’s property damage.

    • AstroPig7 says:

      Go away, troll.

    • AI says:

      So you admit then, even in your trollish asshole way, that what the rent-a-cop did was illegal?

      • common_sense84 says:

        I am not sure what you think you mean by rent-a-cop. But this was actually a rented fully uniformed active police officer. With the full rights, powers, and responsibilities of any police officer on patrol.

        Many towns and cities have programs where local businesses can hire active officers to stand at their front doors during business hours to provide real legal security. I live in kansas city, and every walgreens has a uniformed officer at the front door. Walgreens probably pays 20 bucks an hour for the service. While the officer is there he is the same as any on-duty officer, but he is paid to be in the store.

        Usually if they have to arrest someone, they will call an on-duty officer to come and perform the actual arrest. Because the officer at the store would have to leave the store in order to complete the arrest if he was going to do it. And the store was paying him to stay. Some areas are bad enough that without the officer at the front door, the employees are literally at risk of being harmed.

        This was technically no security guard. The consumerist needs to change the title, because it is clearly confusing people.

        This was a uniformed police officer that while detaining a suspect was being barked at by an unsecured dog. So he did was any officer would have done. Put the dog down to protect himself and the public. No officer has to take the change that the barking dog is only going to bark and not attack. Anyone asking an officer to take that chance is a sick demented individual. A dog can do very serious damage in a matter of seconds.

  25. Can't Buy a Thrill says:

    This story sure brought out the emotional responses! A couple of notes. Where I live there are frequently armed security guards that are actually off duty police. Sometimes these police are hired through their union office. Its seen as a perk for police to earn extra income and society sees it as a way to save on police salaries. That’s probably the case here.
    The guard shot the dog because he said it was acting agressively but witnesses dispute that. I’d imagine there will be an extensive investigation and this cop is probably in a bad way. It’s VERY SERIOUS to discharge your firearm in a public area. A 9 mm bullet can travel over a mile. The police department has to take into consideration that a bullet shot by a policeman could end up somewhere unintentional, like an innocent bystanders head.

    • JiminyChristmas says:

      One might like to think that an armed sheriff’s deputy shooting someone’s companion animal for no good reason would result in an investigation and the deputy suffering some consequences but that is very, very unlikely.

      In practice, the worst thing that could possibly happen to this deputy is a written reprimand in his personnel file. He’s not going to be suspended without pay or lose his job, much less face real civil or criminal penalties.

      • common_sense84 says:

        The problem is the dog was probably barking. Which is more than enough reason to put it down.

        Growling would be the other reason to do it.

        You never know when an animal barking at you is going to attack. A dog can do serious damage in seconds and can kill a person. No officer has to take that risk. This is just their day job.

        The by standers who said the dog was not threatening don’t realize the risk the dog posed nor do they understand that barking and growling are signs of aggression.

  26. BeFrugalNotCheap says:

    Who cares? It’s just a fucking DOG. J/K! Seriously, this sucks. Poor guy, that dog was his companion and probably only friend.

  27. H3ion says:

    I couldn’t get the video to open so some of these questions may have been answered. Every police department I know of has specific rules on when an officer can draw his weapon and when he can fire his weapon. I know officers who have served for over 20 years and never unholstered their weapon other than at a firing range. Usually when an officer does fire a weapon, he/she goes on automatic administrative leave while the use of deadly force is investigated. In most cases, it’s proved to be within the rules and there’s no problem.

    In this case, all I could see is witness testimony to the effect that the dog was not acting aggressively. I don’t see how the sheriff’s deputy could justify shooting in the absence of a threat. More to the point, if the homeless guy attacked the officer without using a weapon, the officer would not have been authorized to use deadly force. Presumably, the officer would have had the training to subdue the man without drawing a weapon.

    I don’t have all the facts but in the absence of video, all we generally have to go on is witness testimony and the testimony here is that the dog was not acting aggressively. Under these circumstances, I think the community is more than justified in requiring that something be done beyond a wrist slap.

    • common_sense84 says:

      Barking is a threat. Growling is a threat. The dog touching the officer in any way is a threat.

      Essentially if the dog does anything but runs away, it is a threat to the officer. It is an unsecured dog seeing it’s owner violently struggle with a stranger(the officer).

      There is almost nothing about the situation that suggests the dog was not a risk that the officer had to address. I just cannot believe it wasn’t at least barking. Thus I don’t think witnesses understand that a barking dog is dangerous. Which happens. Many many people are naive when it comes to dogs. They will say a barking dog is not a threat because it was just barking.

      Well officers don’t take risks like that. A dog can do serious damage in a matter of seconds.

      It will never be possible to restrict officers from shooting dogs in cases like this, it’s barbaric to force them to risk being mauled while doing their day job.

      The solution is responsible dog owners, keep your dog on a leash and don’t commit crimes with your dog with you.

      • mcgyver210 says:

        A witness that is not a friend of the Homeless guy said the dog did nothing so it seems the real Threat to anyones Safety was the LEO who was protecting a small bundle of wood with deadly force.

        From recent NEWS LEOs are rapidly becoming the bigger safety threat using Deadly force too frequently with no real over-site unless there is public pressure which is the case in the Fed Murdering Bear Bear in the dog park.

  28. Warren - aka The Piddler on the Roof says:

    Listen, I love animals as much (probably more so) than the average person. And it’s sad that someone without a home was his owner. But I have seen homeless dogs that were severely malnourished and/or beaten by the owners, which gives the animals a very short fuse. One time a pit bull attacked me as I was walking down the sidewalk — the owner was sleeping on the same sidewalk and apparently the dog didn’t like me walking on it.

    So, if the dog WASN’T a threat (just lying there showing no aggression), the guard deserves to be fired and/or brought up on charges. If the dog WAS a threat (growling, bearing teeth, moving forward), then the guard was within his right to shoot it. I love dogs and I’d shoot it rather than be mauled or infected. And before anyone flames me, consider this: most homeless people use dogs to play on your sympathies so you’ll give them money. Period. Some use wheelchairs, crutches or walkers. Others use cats and dogs. I see it every day. If you’re still on the side of the homeless guy, invite him to stay at your house.

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      I’ve seen one homeless dude use a rabbit. Kids were petting the rabbit, touching it and putting coins into the homeless guy’s cup – I felt really bad for the rabbit because homeless animals aren’t fed that well to start with, and you can’t feed rabbits the scraps you can feed dogs. Rabbits need fresh vegetables.

  29. Sgdogwalker says:

    The stupid security guard might have as well shot the homeless person because Axle is his only friend in the world. I hope this cretin gets more than just a fine. And pricey Kroger better come up with an official apology on this matter. This incident is an affront to all their dog-loving customers!

  30. Eartha says:

    Thank you so much for sharing this story. I have spoken with many witnesses who saw the entire incident and they say wholeheartedly that the dog, Axle was doing nothing but wagging his tail nearby. The security guard shot him FOUR times in the HEAD. It is obvious from all accounts that the dog nor Charlie were doing anything wrong and that the security guard’s account was made up just as an excuse for taking out his aggressions on a homeless man and his dog because he did not want them on store property. Let me add that the security guard pursued them OFF of store property where he then beat Charlie while he tried to fight off the guard with his cane and then shot the dog point-blank. Not a single witness can say that they saw firewood or either victim being aggressive.

    Blockbuster was kind enough to let the memorial be held there because the employees there knew both Charlie and Axel and liked them both. And because at least one of their store employees saw the whole incident (and also admits that neither were doing anything wrong). Thanks again for posting this story. Kroger has only made one statement and that was on their Facebook page where they said that it is just “an unfortunate incident involving an off-duty Sheriff’s deputy”. They will not admit that he was acting no behalf of their store as a guard NOR will they make a statement saying that they are sad for what has happened. Many of the employees in the store know Charlie and knew Axel and they liked them.

  31. segfault, registered cat offender says:

    Tennessee is basically a smaller version of Texas–very large, egotistical redneck idiot population–so this chain of events is unfortunate but unsurprising.

    • gman863 says:

      A few notes about Texas…

      * Texas’ requirements for a concealed weapon (handgun) permit are among the strictist in the US: Besides the background check, applicants must take an approved 8-hour class and pass both a written test and range shooting test.

      * The mayor in Houston (Texas’ largest city) won the election in a landslide. Besides having a great track record in her years on Houston’s City Council, she is openly gay and can be seen with her life partner at major city functions.

      * If you want to see cases of rouge cops exposed, fired, and prosecuted, go to the “13 Undercover” archives of http://www.abc13.com (KTRK-TV, Houston). What you’ll see makes “60 Minutes” investigations look like Sesame Street. KTRK’s legacy in this area goes back over 35 years to when reporter Marvin Zindler broke the story of a crooked sheriff who also acted as a pimping consultant for a local brothel. Now you know where ZZ Top’s “Lagrange” and “The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas” came from.

      My only question: Is “segfault” an alias for Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly?

  32. mcgyver210 says:

    My opinion is that if this so called LEO will Murder a innocent non aggressive (according to witness which I would believe over the killer) Dog he would also Murder a person & lie about it. He needs to at minimum loose his job. Also the laws need to be changed animals are not property.

  33. gman863 says:

    In the 170+ comments so far, nobody has touched on a major issue: Why did the off-duty deputy immediately use deadly force?

    It’s my understanding most uniformed officers also carry pepper spray, a baton (“billy club”) and a Taser on their gun belt. If the officer felt threatened by the dog, pepper spray would have been the logical first step. It rarely (if ever) causes long-term damage and is standard issue for every USPS mail carrier.

    Use of the Taser (although unlikely unwarranted) may have allowed the dog to live (I’m not sure of the effects on a 40-pound dog versus a human). As noted in a previous post, it would have also been far safer for any customers around in the event the bullet richoceted, missed or went through the dog and into a human.

    Law Enforcement is like any other profession: The 1% who are dishonest or totally stupid get all the attention and cast a shadow on the other 99% who do their job well.

    Given he did not attempt using non-lethal force first (especially in a misdemenor level shoplifting incident), this officer’s judgement puts him in the 1% class. With Barney Fife’s judgement skills plus with Dirty Harry’s trigger finger this officer is an accident waiting to happen again. A dog is bad enough – if the next time involves a slug taking out an inncoent citizen both Kroger and the Sheriff’s Office had better be damn sure their liability insurance limits are huge.

    • gman863 says:

      Correction to the beginning of paragraph 3:

      Use of the Taser (although LIKELY unwarranted)…

    • mcgyver210 says:

      He used Deadly force because he knew nothing would happen but PAID (Vacation) leave. This mentality will not change as long as animals are considered property & there are Trigger Happy LEOs.

    • common_sense84 says:

      You are wrong on all fronts.

      There is no requirement to use non lethal force on an animal. I would not doubt if they are specifically told to shoot the animal and keep their attention on the suspect.

      Cops are not required to risk being mauled or killed by a dog. If a dog is not leashed, near them, and growling, advancing, barking, etc, it will be shot. This is the only thing a cop can do to protect himself.

      You seem to be forgetting that he was arresting the dog’s owner who was most likely struggling and yelling. That dog was definitely a serious threat. Dog’s don’t understand that their owners are trash. They will protect the owner no matter how wrong their owner is.

      There is nothing about this story that suggests the cop did anything wrong. It’s mind boggling that so many people for some reason thing the officer did something wrong.

      • gman863 says:

        “Dog’s don’t understand that their owners are trash. They will protect the owner no matter how wrong their owner is.”

        These two sentences indicate an extreme tendency on your part towards prejudging (prejudice). Unless you were an unbiased eyewitness or were able to review clear CCTV footage of the entire event, quit the “Blue Code of Silence” bullshit before the incident has been independantly investigated.

        Speaking of CCTV, the Kroger I shop at has security cameras all over the parking lot. If the firewood is in the same location as the store I shop (outside the doors under the canopy), the whole incident should be saved in Hi-Def living color.

        The cop claims the dog attacked him. Others say the dog didn’t. Either way, Kroger should release a copy of the security footage for the public, the department’s Internal Affairs Division a grand jury to review. Individuals can make a personal decision, IAD can review if the department’s written procedures were followed and the grand jury can decide if there is sufficient evidence of criminal behavior on the officer’s part to issue an indictment.

        Last time I checked, this is how the United States Legal System works.

  34. Mark says:

    I was amazed at the restraint, and amusement, of these cops as dogs eat their cop car.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm0fN0WUGes&feature=related

  35. zibby says:

    There’s no real information here beyond, “Poor bum, poor dog, boo hoo.” Look at that thing. Would you let yourself be bitten by that? Not sure what I’d do, but if it was threatening I’d be inclined to blast it.

    And, of course, the age old question: What does this have to do with the price of laptops at Best Buy?

  36. -Slap- says:

    Cowardly scum. Many cops and rent-a-cops seem to get off on killing people’s dogs. Every time one of these DEA raids go down on the wrong house, the invading officers invariably murder all the dogs in the house.

    • common_sense84 says:

      This was not a rent a cop. This was a fully uniformed active police officer detaining a suspect who was most likely struggling that had a situation where the suspects dog was a huge risk.

      The officer did the standard procedure of putting the threat down. That dog was a danger to the officer and bystanders. You don’t seem to get that dogs can do serious damage in a matter of seconds. No officer has to risk being mauled while arresting the dog’s owner. They are most likely trained to shoot the dog. Dogs can be replaced, human lives cannot.

  37. -Slap- says:

    Meanwhile, the NFL is doing their best to encourage people to worship a sick freak like Michael Vick again.

    • common_sense84 says:

      Philly is the perfect town for Michael Vick. No one will care about his past. That town is accustom to things much worse than dog fighting.

  38. andre nickatina says:

    Maybe it was self defense?

  39. BomanTheBear says:

    Yeah, maybe, and I cordially invite you and BlisteringSilence to go fuck yourselves.

    @BlisteringSilence: If you insist that cop are not for serving the public, but for protecting it, consider yourselves relieved by me. I don’t want the goddamn protecton of someone who claims to be in a “different” place than everybody else. Familiar with Animal Farm? Specifically the phrase “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?”

    There’s a reason the term “police state” has the word “police” in it. Your arrogance and condescension toward what you deem be the ignorant public shows that the only way you can convince yourself that you’re good at your job is through your undeserved superiority complex and belief that no one else could possibly ever understand how hard it is.

    I can’t fucking believe I pay your salary.

  40. Urgleglurk says:

    This is disgusting. And sonneillon is wrong, too. Dog or homeless human, it’s horrendous. I agree with sparty999. Why does a grocery store rent-a-cop even HAVE a gun? WTF??

    The rent-a-cop needs to be tossed out on his a$$ for endangering the public, since he fired a gun and endangered bystanders for no good reason.

  41. purecajn says:

    Aren’t all police officers, not just rent a cops taught to automatically shoot the family pet if they suspect it will inter-vein? All these poor animals murdered “for justice”, yet let a police dog get shot and you receive a charge for murdering a officer of the law.

  42. common_sense84 says:

    The people standing up for the homeless man are disgusting.

    He was stealing from a store and his dog got mad when his owner was attacked. Shooting it was 100% justified.

    The lesson is to not bring your dog along when you commit your crimes.

  43. ouijabored says:

    Unless the dog was threatening the security guard (which he might have been, seeing his owner on the ground), then the guard needs to be held fully liable for his actions.

  44. gman863 says:

    What the newscaster who broke the story needs to do now is shame Kroger into releasing all of their security camera footage of the incident for review.

    Given the number of cameras covering a typical Kroger (inside and outside), there should be at least 2-3 different angles available for review. The footage will prove or deny the officer’s claim the dog was attacking him.

    If the officer’s story doesn’t match what the camera caught, the department’s Internal Affairs Division shoud investigate to see if the officer violated procedure. Even if they only give him paid leave/suspension, it will be on the cop’s record and there is a possibility public pressure may result in his resignation or termination.