Posted: 8/13/2007 3:15:30 PM EDT
|
A K-9 left in a car again? Come on guys, it's fricken HOT out there. How do you forget your partner in the car long enough for him to die from the heat? I'm not a LEO, but a dog owner. What a terrible way for an animal to go. 
|
|
I agree this should not have happened, no excuses. The thing that really chaps my ass is the fact the media (sorry to say I work for the media  ) makes a bigger deal of this than the mother beating her kid in the Walmart or any other news story for that matter.I really think Chandler PD should have tried to kept this one under their hat. That might not have even worked, the local PD's have so many leaks it's imposible to keep things internal. They are now almost forced into a position to make an example out of this officer who from everything I've read was a stand-up guy. Not to say there should not be some type of consiquence for what happened. But now that the media knows about it nothing will be good enough short of termination in their eyes. I'm sure the officer has "punished" himself enough. |
| if someone shoots stabs or whatever to a police K-9 they can be charged with attempted murder or murder of a police officer (alot of areas have adopted this policy, and I believe the phoenix area has also).......but this guy is only facing animal cruelty charges for something done to a K-9. is this not a double standard. if a civilan can get charged that way, way cant a police officer get charged that way? this happened in a county island so sheriff joe is handling it, not any local PDs....so we shall see what happens...... |
I'm thinking I'd have to get a little more involved in that situation than taking cell phone pictures and calling 911
 How much of this goes on that the public is not aware of?
I'm sure he feels bad about what happened. How bad is personal based on his relationship with the K-9. It doesn't bring back the dog, the loss of his service, reimburse the taxpayers for the cost of the dog and its training, or lessen the severity of what happened. Note: There is a certain amount of sarcasm in my reply, I know there are coverups in all walks of life, I expect certain people to be truthful and fair. Cops first and foremost. I have known several personally, state, city, county. The officer made a mistake and needs to pay for it the same as any other citizen. |
| I believe he should pay for a new dog and the cost of training the dog ,and do 10 hours comunity service at the local pound. it was an accident and he should have known better but shit happens and he probably fees like shit as it is . time to move foward and try to get over it. no one is perfect. |
This keeps coming up, but I've never had anyone prove it. I'd like to read a case where someone kills a police K9 and receives the same charges for killing the dog as they would had they actually killed a police officer. I just don't believe it, it doesn't make sense and is counterintuitive in the criminal justice system. |
|
In my criminal justice class last semester, I learned that in most cities in AZ, like Prescott where I am, a K-9 officer is police property, not a police officer. Technically an officer can not return fire if their dog is fired upon, not that I know one who wouldn't. Different cities may have different rules, but as far as I know, this goes for most, if not all, of AZ. I'd have to see a specific statute declaring otherwise. Yes, this guy made a mistake, and yes, no one is perfect, but come on, a POLICE OFFICER left his POLICE K-9 in his car for HOURS until it died? Doesn't deserve the privilege of a K-9, hardly deserves the right to serve the public. What else has this guy forgotten? Case details? Arrest information? See where I'm goin with this? |
|
Honestly, with the public attention to this, I'd think it most likely he is going to be charged. Afterall, normal citizens have been prosecuted for this, so I don't know why the officer should be any different. 13-2910. Cruelty to animals; interference with working or service animal; classification; definitions A. A person commits cruelty to animals if the person does any of the following: 1. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly subjects any animal under the person's custody or control to cruel neglect or abandonment. 2. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly fails to provide medical attention necessary to prevent protracted suffering to any animal under the person's custody or control. 3. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly inflicts unnecessary physical injury to any animal. 4. Recklessly subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment. 5. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly kills any animal under the custody or control of another person without either legal privilege or consent of the owner. 6. Recklessly interferes with, kills or harms a working or service animal without either legal privilege or consent of the owner. 7. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly leaves an animal unattended and confined in a motor vehicle and physical injury to or death of the animal is likely to result. 8. Intentionally or knowingly subjects any animal under the person's custody or control to cruel neglect or abandonment that results in serious physical injury to the animal. 9. Intentionally or knowingly subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment. 10. Intentionally or knowingly interferes with, kills or harms a working or service animal without either legal privilege or consent of the owner. 11. Intentionally or knowingly allows any dog that is under the person's custody or control to interfere with, kill or cause physical injury to a service animal. 12. Recklessly allows any dog that is under the person's custody or control to interfere with, kill or cause physical injury to a service animal. 13. Intentionally or knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over a service animal with the intent to deprive the service animal handler of the service animal. B. It is a defense to subsection A of this section if: 1. Any person exposes poison to be taken by a dog that has killed or wounded livestock or poison to be taken by predatory animals on premises owned, leased or controlled by the person for the purpose of protecting the person or the person's livestock or poultry, and the treated property is kept posted by the person who authorized or performed the treatment until the poison has been removed, and the poison is removed by the person exposing the poison after the threat to the person, or the person's livestock or poultry has ceased to exist. The posting required shall provide adequate warning to persons who enter the property by the point or points of normal entry. The warning notice that is posted shall be readable at a distance of fifty feet, shall contain a poison statement and symbol and shall state the word "danger" or "warning". 2. Any person uses poisons in and immediately around buildings owned, leased or controlled by the person for the purpose of controlling wild and domestic rodents as otherwise allowed by the laws of the state, excluding any fur-bearing animals as defined in section 17-101. C. This section does not prohibit or restrict: 1. The taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by or pursuant to title 17. 2. Activities permitted by or pursuant to title 3. 3. Activities regulated by the Arizona game and fish department or the Arizona department of agriculture. D. A peace officer, animal control enforcement agent or animal control enforcement deputy may use reasonable force to open a vehicle to rescue an animal if the animal is left in the vehicle as prescribed in subsection A, paragraph 7 of this section. E. A person who is convicted of a violation of subsection A, paragraph 6 or 10 of this section is liable as follows: 1. If the working or service animal was killed or disabled, to the owner or agency that owns the working or service animal and that employs the handler or to the owner or handler for the replacement and training costs of the working or service animal and for any veterinary bills. 2. To the owner or agency that owns a working or service animal for the salary of the handler for the period of time that the handler's services are lost to the owner or agency. 3. To the owner for the owner's contractual losses with the agency. F. An incorporated city or town or a county may adopt an ordinance with misdemeanor provisions at least as stringent as the misdemeanor provisions of this section. G. A person who violates subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 12 of this section is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor. A person who violates subsection A, paragraph 8, 9, 10, 11 or 13 of this section is guilty of a class 6 felony. H. For the purposes of this section: 1. "Animal" means a mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian. 2. "Cruel mistreatment" means to torture or otherwise inflict unnecessary serious physical injury upon an animal or to kill an animal in a manner that causes protracted suffering to the animal. 3. "Cruel neglect" means to fail to provide an animal with necessary food, water or shelter. 4. "Handler" means a law enforcement officer or any other person who has successfully completed a course of training prescribed by the person's agency or the service animal owner and who used a specially trained animal under the direction of the person's agency or the service animal owner. 5. "Service animal" means an animal that has completed a formal training program, that assists its owner in one or more daily living tasks that are associated with a productive lifestyle and that is trained to not pose a danger to the health and safety of the general public. 6. "Working animal" means a horse or dog that is used by a law enforcement agency, that is specially trained for law enforcement work and that is under the control of a handler. |
I think you are likely right in saying that he'll be charged. I don't think that much will come of it though because both prosecution and defense will focus on the recklessness of the actions, specifically, they will pick apart the portions of the definition highlighted in blue below. 13-105. Definitions In this title, unless the context otherwise requires: 9. "Culpable mental state" means intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence as those terms are thusly defined: (c) "Recklessly" means, with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, that a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard of such risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is unaware of such risk solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts recklessly with respect to such risk. Ultimately, the prosecutor is going to have to sell whether or not this was a conscious decision (and what does "conscious" mean in the ARS?), whether or not he was acting under a series of justifiable circumstances and whether or not leaving a police dog in a police car is a gross deviation. At some point, the following questions are bound to come up: How often are police dogs left in cars? is there equipment on the car? Was the equipment working? Did the officer think it was working? Can habitually leaving a dog in the car under the correct circumstances lead to this accident again should any one of the human or mechanical factors be adversely affected? There are too many legitimate legal ways to see that no charges occur. As stated before, kids and dogs are left in cars everyday in the valley. In the majority of those cases, charges are not filed because of the same type of questions mentioned above. Should be interesting to see how it all turns out. |
For the definition of Reckless, and the associated Mens Rea, would be very easily actually. Knowingly, as well would be very easy to prove. Intentionally would be harder. All the state would need to do is show that the officer would, or should, have known that theire was the POSSIBILITY of injury to the animal if left unattended in the vehicle. If the officer says that he had no reason to believe that a dog left in an enclosed motor vehicle, for 12 hours, during the Arizona summer, would suffer injury, or death, then he has no business being a police officer. Anyone over the age of 5 would be aware of it. He would either be lying or completely incompetent. As a K-9 officer, part of his training is to consider the health of his K-9 at all times. Every time he gets in and out of his car, he has to think about it. In fact, every time he leaves his partner he MUST make a conscious decision on the animals welfare. He may have been distracted, but that doesn't relieve him from the duty and responsibility to his K-9. As a police officer he is expected to be able to make decisions under stressful conditions. He is trained for it, and he most probably was able to act appropriately for his career to this point. The state is going to have an easy time proving at least recklessness. Part of the definition includes the standard of a reasonable person. A judge or jury would see that by default! His defense is going to have a hell of a time proving mens rea didn't exist, if that is their defense. Heck, as the head of his depts K-9 unit, I'm sure it would be easy to document any time he may have corrected a subordinate in regards to their lack of care for their K-9, or provided training to his unit regarding such. I don't think he did it intentionally. At the very least, he was reckless. I don't know where you made the assumption that people aren't charged quite often for leaving kids or animals in hot vehicles unattended. I've seen it happen. |
Not necessarily. Part of that same definition is that the person has to be aware that the circumstance exists. Granted, all the facts are not made available to the general public, but the prosecutor has the burden of proving that the officer was fully/consciously aware of the risk at hand given other events incident to that morning. And further, that in tending to those events, any conscious act or omission was unjustifiable. All I am saying is that this won't be a slam dunk for the prosecutor.
It is not an assumption. I have seen it not happen far more than anyone here has seen it happen...guaranteed. |