http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/38493146/man-in-critical-condition-after-overnight-standoff-shooting

dog was ineffective
gun was effective in stopping the threat

Glad the K-9 Police Officer will recover (dog's are Cops, too).

Sounds like they tried all the measures the lay-public usually cries should have been employed. Still ended with the man dying.

Suicide by Cop?  More than likely.

At the risk of getting roasted for saying so, I'll go out on a limb here and say that based on what the article says and what I've heard on TV, I don't believe the shooting is justified. Sure, the officer (Department?) involved has said the magical words to cover himself (i.e., fearing for the safety of the dog and officers) but the description of the incident doesn't support his statement...at least not sufficiently for the taking of a life. I will concede that the incident may have actually been different from what was reported and that the process of information gathering and reporting is far from perfect, but what I read was that the man  was going back into his house with bow and arrow in hand and refused orders to stop. HPD then sent the dog in and then the man attacked the dog to defend himself. HPD then shot him to death.  There is no indication that the man approached the officers, pointed his bow and arrow at HPD or anyone else. What the article suggest to me is that if you are agitated, make threats to harm your neighbors and yourself, won't listen to orders to cease and desist for several hours and you attempt to defend yourself against an attacking animal, HPD can and will shoot the crap out of you and justify the shooting as a measure to protect the dog. Perhaps dogs are considered to be an extension of  the officer and resisting arrest by a dog using deadly force justifies the use of equal or greater force to stop the attack.  Am I missing something here?

At the risk of getting roasted for saying so, I'll go out on a limb here and say that based on what the article says and what I've heard on TV, I don't believe the shooting is justified. Sure, the officer (Department?) involved has said the magical words to cover himself (i.e., fearing for the safety of the dog and officers) but the description of the incident doesn't support his statement...at least not sufficiently for the taking of a life. I will concede that the incident may have actually been different from what was reported and that the process of information gathering and reporting is far from perfect, but what I read was that the man  was going back into his house with bow and arrow in hand and refused orders to stop. HPD then sent the dog in and then the man attacked the dog to defend himself. HPD then shot him to death.  There is no indication that the man approached the officers, pointed his bow and arrow at HPD or anyone else. What the article suggest to me is that if you are agitated, make threats to harm your neighbors and yourself, won't listen to orders to cease and desist for several hours and you attempt to defend yourself against an attacking animal, HPD can and will shoot the crap out of you and justify the shooting as a measure to protect the dog. Perhaps dogs are considered to be an extension of  the officer and resisting arrest by a dog using deadly force justifies the use of equal or greater force to stop the attack.  Am I missing something here?

This is bad and potentially sets a nasty precedent should the killing of the suspect be deemed justified.

Now, all HPD needs to do is send the dogs in and shoot you should you attempt to defend yourself from being bit.     

At the risk of getting roasted for saying so, I'll go out on a limb here and say that based on what the article says and what I've heard on TV, I don't believe the shooting is justified. Sure, the officer (Department?) involved has said the magical words to cover himself (i.e., fearing for the safety of the dog and officers) but the description of the incident doesn't support his statement...at least not sufficiently for the taking of a life. I will concede that the incident may have actually been different from what was reported and that the process of information gathering and reporting is far from perfect, but what I read was that the man  was going back into his house with bow and arrow in hand and refused orders to stop. HPD then sent the dog in and then the man attacked the dog to defend himself. HPD then shot him to death.  There is no indication that the man approached the officers, pointed his bow and arrow at HPD or anyone else. What the article suggest to me is that if you are agitated, make threats to harm your neighbors and yourself, won't listen to orders to cease and desist for several hours and you attempt to defend yourself against an attacking animal, HPD can and will shoot the crap out of you and justify the shooting as a measure to protect the dog. Perhaps dogs are considered to be an extension of  the officer and resisting arrest by a dog using deadly force justifies the use of equal or greater force to stop the attack.  Am I missing something here?

Thats a good point.

This is bad and potentially sets a nasty precedent should the killing of the suspect be deemed justified.

Now, all HPD needs to do is send the dogs in and shoot you should you attempt to defend yourself from being bit.     

totally plausible scenario:
SWAT team 1: Brah, I like go home already. let's just pop dis guy.
SWAT team 2: Nah, that's not a clean shoot.
SWAT team 1: OK, let's get the K9 unit to have his dog rush him and allow the dog to get stabbed, then it's justified.
SWAT team 2: Chee-hoo!

Doesn't this sound like the katana girl shooting?
Just from news reports, I'm leaning towards the arrow guy.
But not by much. Here is why....

I like my dog, but it's not a human. Some people equate a dog life with a human life.
Clearly, the officer who shot equates a dog with a human.
But not everyone thinks the same way. I wouldn't kill someone for killing my dog.
I think most people would say the same thing.

Here's another example.
This weekend there was a story about a guy convicted of animal abuse.
The dog was crippled horribly and only has 3 legs now. The creep is sentenced to 30 days in jail.

If it was a human instead of a dog, that creep would be in a prison for years.
Clearly, the court does not equate dog life with human life.
I think if the family files a lawsuit for wrongful death, they would win.

This is bad and potentially sets a nasty precedent should the killing of the suspect be deemed justified.

Now, all HPD needs to do is send the dogs in and shoot you should you attempt to defend yourself from being bit.     

You have finally figured it out!
Thanks for writing it down for all to read.
In many places K9's are considered to
be the same as a human cop. Mostly blue
states like Hawaii.

Dont harm this guys dog.
So what is the use of force with a canine?

Doesn't this sound like the katana girl shooting?
Just from news reports, I'm leaning towards the arrow guy.
But not by much. Here is why....

I like my dog, but it's not a human. Some people equate a dog life with a human life.
Clearly, the officer who shot equates a dog with a human.
But not everyone thinks the same way. I wouldn't kill someone for killing my dog.
I think most people would say the same thing.

Here's another example.
This weekend there was a story about a guy convicted of animal abuse.
The dog was crippled horribly and only has 3 legs now. The creep is sentenced to 30 days in jail.

If it was a human instead of a dog, that creep would be in a prison for years.
Clearly, the court does not equate dog life with human life.
I think if the family files a lawsuit for wrongful death, they would win.

It's a federal crime to assault, maim, or kill federal law enforcement animals such as police dogs and horses.


The Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act was signed by President Clinton in 2000.

It has nothing to do with equating humans and animals.  It's about resources that are expensive and time-consuming
to train, raise, and replace when injured or killed, and about the partnership bond that's formed between the working
animals and their handlers.

If you maim or kill the dog, you can get up to 10 years in federal prison on top of any other crimes you were charged with.

Under the Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act, which went into effect this week,
anyone convicted of purposely assaulting, maiming, or killing federal law enforcement animals such
as police dogs and horses could be fined at least $1,000 and spend up to 10 years in prison. Previously,
the animals were covered by a variety of state, rather than federal, laws.

The United States Police Canine Association and The Humane Society believe the new law will not only
provide more protection for the animals they but also deter criminals, particularly in drug stings, from
targeting canines.

And, as Russell Hess, the executive director of the U.S. Police Canine Association, notes, the new law
recognizes the law enforcement animals as more than just a piece of police equipment and property.
The stronger punishment recognizes the animals as partners who are valued by human officers.

“If it protects the animal then that’s great. But if it doesn’t, then at least now the punishment will be
more in line with the violation,” said Hess. “We’re hoping that once people hear about the new law
and the punishment they will face, that they will be deterred from hurting a federal law enforcement
animal. Before, the animals were classified as a piece of equipment, like a computer, or a police car.

“Well, the law recognizes that an animal is not like a computer and is a living thing that has to be taken
care of. Though the animal’s not a person, the bond [with the human officer] is still there.”

https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96229&page=1

So how does a suspect be in compliance with a dog? The dog will keep biting till ?

Not saying this shooting was reasonable or not, but this sounds way more reasonable than the katana girl shooting to me. I don't particularly like dogs, but if I liked a dog, to me it would be worth infinitely more than a random human's life, someone that I don't know, someone who may be an asshole or a bad guy.

If someone deliberately hurt any animal that is my friend I would be happy to kill him, and probably suffer the consequences for my actions afterwards. I'm not a cop though. If I were, I would follow the requirements of the job. The police sent the dog in, the dog also has a job and putting his life on the line is part of it. If there was any improper action here it was probably the choice to send in an attack dog in that situation.

I never knew about such a law. I'll bet most people don't know about it either.
Guaranteed,  the arrow guy didn't know...and was summarily executed for his crime.

I never knew about such a law. I'll bet most people don't know about it either.
Guaranteed,  the arrow guy didn't know...and was summarily executed for his crime.

Penalty = Death + 10 years in prison.   

I never knew about such a law. I'll bet most people don't know about it either.
Guaranteed,  the arrow guy didn't know...and was summarily executed for his crime.

From my reading, Clinton passed the same type of state law while AK Governor. Drug gangs were actually putting out bounties for any police dog killed. The dogs were so disruptive to the drug trade, they were targeted for execution. When that started, dogs were considered equipment, like a car or radio, so the penalties were worth risking to take them out of the equation.

These new laws were intended to make the cost of getting arrested for killing a dog not worth the risk.

From my reading, Clinton passed the same type of state law while AK Governor. Drug gangs were actually putting out bounties for any police dog killed. The dogs were so disruptive to the drug trade, they were targeted for execution. When that started, dogs were considered equipment, like a car or radio, so the penalties were worth risking to take them out of the equation.

These new laws were intended to make the cost of getting arrested for killing a dog not worth the risk.

....
I think the law is fine. Problem is somebody has to inform the drug dealers and crazy people before sending in the dog.

On a personal level, I do love my little mutt like one of my children. If someone hurt him, I would exact some swift justice to the fullest extent that I felt that I could get away with.

....
I think the law is fine. Problem is somebody has to inform the drug dealers and crazy people before sending in the dog.

On a personal level, I do love my little mutt like one of my children. If someone hurt him, I would exact some swift justice to the fullest extent that I felt that I could get away with.

I've asked myself many times what my immediate reaction would be if someone pointed a gun at my dog. I've decided if they are willing to kill my dog, nothing is stopping them from killing me.

Afraid for my life.

Self defense.

A lot of ignorance here, as well as judgements without all the facts.  Not surprising and expected.

A lot of ignorance here, as well as judgements without all the facts.  Not surprising and expected.

...
Enlighten us mere mortals

I have no idea how canines are employed. May have listened to some presentations by local LE and MPs on canines but can't remember how or why they are employed. In the military they have rank and are treated as soldiers. So if someone stabbed my canine I'd react as if they stabbed a human soldier and defend the canine by stopping the threat.
Anyhoo
Are beagles good dogs? Want one for indoor with my elderly parents and sometimes take the beagle out for a walk. I don't want a dog that would raise my insurance. Anyone own a beagle?