This dog was accused of being vicious. She was so vicious that the person she was allegedly aggressive toward was able to chain her up and feed her to await the police. She alleged growled at a child and the woman who chained her. The police arrive, approach her, leash her and walk her off camera. The dashcam is trained on the original location for over 25 minutes that we do not see. Then the cam is turned and we see the dog has been chained to a truck with the truck gate down; presumptively, they intend to get the dog in the back of that truck.
The dog who was fine with being walked on a chain lead is clearly freaked out about the catch pole and being chased with it. Catch pole goes away and the dog sits and then lays down; even turns her head away from the officers. Catch pole comes back and she freaks out again. She doesn’t break the chain until she’s on the catch pole. Dog struggles and then is under control although tense. This is when the dog is shot, while standing perfectly still at the end of a catch pole. The dog is then seen wagging her tail while down on the ground. The officer pulls her head around to shoot the dog a second time.
I’ve watched ALL the videos and this summary video accurately depicts what happened as best I can tell. They shouldn’t have griped about the shortened version as the longer version makes them look WORSE. Seeing this dog skittish but friendly and easily walked on lead by an officer at the beginning, knowing she was kept chained in the road to a truck for half an hour, then the debacle with the catch pole does not make them look better; only worse.
http://www.youtube.com/user/zilla1984x#p/u/5/gbQQUuvR3RM
To the extent that it doesn’t tell the “whole” story, that is because the officers didn’t move the camera to the position it should have been in. Nonetheless, I believe it accurately depicts the slaughter of this dog by police officers.
It appears LaGrange has a breed specific law that declares all “pit bulls” to be inherently vicious and requiring them to be leashed or muzzled; alternately, they fine for finding a dog vicious on a first incident. The dog shot was an American Bulldog. At the trial on the 17th, the neighbors and both officers testified and that testimony was contradictory. Gee, there’s a surprise! I guess they forgot that the neighbors wouldn’t automatically know the lies they were supposed to tell so the judge could convict the dog owner and give the officers a pass. No matter, the judge did so anyway.
After getting the dog into the street and keeping it chained there for nearly half an hour, Howell started in with the catch pole which he clearly doesn’t know how to use properly. The dog tried to escape the pole which Howell interpreted as being lunged at. (Hey, DUMBASS, she was simply flinging herself trying to escape a frightening situation that YOU put her in.) In the process, she broke the wimpy chain they used to incorrectly cross tie her to the truck. (Hey, DUMBASS, with a dog that size, you need 2 catch poles and 2 people. You had the second person but, OMG, he’s a bigger wimp than you!)
“From there, it was on,” Howell said… “I knew I had to end the incident and it had to stop,” he said. WOW, doesn’t that attitude tell you everything you need to know? Howell was offended by the dog’s failure to comply on his dictate so “it was on” and “it had to stop”. Yep, resistance is futile; resist and be shot is the police mantra these days and obviously it’s for dogs as well as humans!
“LaGrange police officers who said they acted in self-defense…” What a load of CRAP. LaGrange police officers acted with vengeance and violence against a frightened dog.
Well I’m damned sure it could have been different. LaGrange is a small place and you’d written him tickets the day before about this dog so your officers knew exactly where the dog belonged, who the owner was. I’ll bet half the men in LaGrange could have handled that dog so the question is why the hell your officer’s couldn’t do so. That Chief McNelly says “it’s never a win situation” would concern me if I were a resident of LaGrange because that’s a set up for abusing residents. Basically, he’s saying they can’t ever win so, well, what the hell, might as well be vindictive.
Mays was cited the day prior concerning this dog and I’m sure some will think “he should have taken care of the escape issues”. Well, I can tell you that some dogs are escape artists and sometimes it takes a few tries to figure out what will work for a particular dog!
One of the truly sad parts of this tale is that the neighbors didn't attempt to know each other and take care of this dog themselves. The neighbor who called the police says she didn't intend for the dog to die but she should have known her police were "that kind". We should all be aware that "that kind" of police abound these days. Never, ever call the police unless you want to incite violence; they'll certainly oblige in that department in the majority of cases.
“LaGrange picks up 2-3 stray dogs a week.” I have no idea who is posting but he/she sure seems to know a lot about LaGrange. I know this much… If you pick up 2-3 dogs/week, you should damned well know how to handle dogs, including frightened ones! Here’s some more by the same poster: “Let's just say, 1 well timed tornado would send half of our town into the Mississippi. Said "half town" happen to all be pit bull fans and generally don't have the best means of containing them. We write a lot of dog at large citations… pittbull's and other vicious breeds...” Nice attitude, huh?
To Bearcat357 and Smackzone116, you’re both full of shit. I’m from Knob Noster, don’t tell me about “rural”! Rural has nothing to do with the excuses you’re making for abusive behavior by LEOs. Luv this jackass: “we arent animal control”. Either you’re the default animal control and should act like it or you’re not animal control in which case you shouldn’t take the call at all. “we’re not animal control” is NOT an excuse to execute animals!
Lastly, City Attorney Jeff “Curl pointed out that Mays had pleaded guilty to animal abuse in 2007 and had been ordered not to own pets for two years. Mays argued that the circumstances did not warrant the punishment and that he had pleaded guilty only to avoid a court fight.” Hanged if I can find anything on that prior case but sure didn’t surprise me to see the City Attorney pointing it out as though it had some relevance. Let me guess, Mays uses tie outs or does something else that’s BS outlawed and y’all have been on his ass for 3 years now just waiting for an opportunity to get even by harming one of his dogs?
A few more links for those who want as many facts as possible: