Police Respond To Call Of A Dog Off Leash . . . And Proceed To Shoot The Animal In Front Of Family Home

09d12f7841ecaa8d24955a68ee7b1777Village of South Holland police Officer Chad Barden and other unknown officers are being sued in federal court over another dog shooting.  In this case, the police arrived at the scene of a report of a dog off its leash in a suburb of Chicago. While they had dog catching poles, one of the officers shot Randy Green’s Cane Corso dog, Grady, who was sitting on the front porch of his family home when they arrived.  Green says that a videotape shows that the dog did not threaten or lunge at the officers before they and Barden shot him three times.

Police were at the scene for 20 minutes before the shooting. Grady reported got up and walked past them a couple times. There was no report of the dog being vicious or threatening people. At no point did the officers alert the family or use the dog catching poles according to the complaint.

Grady ran wounded into the back yard where Green found him and rushed him to the vet where he was treated. The complaint references an expert report finding that “video surveillance footage from the Green family residence revealed the absence of any charging, lunging or showing of teeth by the dog Grady and instead showed the dog Grady seeking ‘greater distance between the officer and himself,’ displaying ‘calming [body] signals’ by ‘looking away from the officers and showing his [Grady’s] flank,’ and moving in a ‘trot.'”

A month after the shooting and the complaint of Green, the South Holland police delivered a letter accusing Green of harboring a dangerous dog.

The presence of the alleged dog poles and the existence of the dog catching poles make this a promising case for the family. We have repeatedly seen dog shootings where lethal force seems the first response of officers.

Source: Courthouse

Kudos: Michael Blott

36 thoughts on “Police Respond To Call Of A Dog Off Leash . . . And Proceed To Shoot The Animal In Front Of Family Home”

  1. Woosty,
    Please be careful about using ‘concentration camp’ as an analogy. Just don’t go there, please. When I wrote about the lost airmen of Buchenwald, I left out a lot of stuff I could have included. Things you don’t want to know. That is a touchy subject with me.

  2. Otteray Scribe
    1, July 2, 2013 at 8:47 am
    Increasingly, the best defense for the general public is the increasing use of video cameras.
    ——————
    That may well be but I can barely go into a restroom without checking behind the doors for all the ‘surveillance’. You know I really don’t think all the cams have done what they state they are for….the crime rate isn’t dropping off and the police aren’t becoming more effective or responsive that I can see, I’d love to see the studies that support their use (other than the ones that show they are a nifty income stream generator….)….everybody’s just having to get used to being watched all the time. Those who are in power and commit crimes still are not held to accountability…those with property to protect still lose it….in fact I think it probably makes people more vulnerable to those in power who use ‘surveillance’ like a shopping catalogue….

    This is no longer a Country, it is a concentration camp.

  3. maxcat06,
    Several stories have been posted on this blog about civilian use of dashcams, as well as nannycams and security cams. The home invader in Milburn, New Jersey last June 21 was caught so quickly because his crime was recorded by a Nannycam.

    I don’t want to get into a product review, but those products are well worth researching to find the features that fit your needs. The good thing about some of them is they switch to a night vision FLIR mode when it gets dark. They enable the video recorder to see in the dark, just like some of the combat helicopter videos we see coming out of the Middle East conflicts.

  4. I cannot imagine the outcome of this trial being anything other than the city losing, it’s just a matter of how much.

    First, the police encountered the dog on its owner’s property. So there was no evidence (I would assume) to back up a complaint the dog was running around the neighborhood. Second, even if it was true, the officers would risk taking a shot at a dog that was not attacking anyone. Every gunshot made in a residential area is risky. It can be minimized but it is not completely foolproof. To risk injuring someone over a dog at large call? Dumb.

    And I am not even addressing the outrage this type of shooting would generate, which it certainly earned.

    These guys could never hack working for a rural sheriff’s office where having to deal with cattle or horses at large happens every month or two.

  5. Too bad that autistic people, of whom I am one, have no actual civil rights under law in its present form and function.

    ****** ******

    The following three excerpted quotations are from University of Massachusetts-Amherst psychology professor, Robert Feldman, “The Liar in Your Life,” Twelve, Hachette Book Group, New York, 2009, and are used with written permission from the publisher.

    Quotation #1, from page 258: “There’s a dirty secret I’ve been trying to avoid emphasizing in this book, but its about time we faced it. All of us are liars. Yes, that means you. And yes, it means me, too.”

    Quotation #2, from page 73: “Parents of children with autism often report that their children are simply incapable of lying. While at first glance unrelenting honesty might be seen as a virtue, in fact it is at the heart of the social difficulties children with autism experience.”

    Quotation #3, also from page 73: “Consider the irony of the situation. Honesty in children with autism is viewed as a manifestation of their disorder. Subsequently, autistic children who were originally unfailingly honest but have begun to show signs of lying effectively are considered to be showing improvement in their condition.”

    ******

    The following excerpt is from neurologist Robert C. Scaer, M.D., P.C., “The Trauma Spectrum,” W.W. Norton, New York – London, 2005, page 58, and is used with written permission from the publisher:

    Trauma As Imprisonment of the Mind

    In Chapter 1, I defined the mind as “a perceptual experience, generated by a complex set of synapses, neurons, and neurochemical states, determined by genes, instincts, and experience, that is capable of developing and directing novel behavior.” In the brain of the trauma victim, the synapses, neurons, and neurochemicals have been substantially altered by the effects of a unique life experience. Not surprisingly, the perceptual experience that constitutes the mind has been equally altered. This alteration more than anything else is a corruption of procedural memory, that part of our intrinsic memory that is most involved in acquisition of survival skills. We depend on learned cues in our environment to distinguish positive versus negative survival-based information. If we have not learned to distinguish between these types of cues, we lose our edge in the survival game. In trauma, cues to an event that is over and done with are stored in procedural memory as if the event had never been completed.

    Trauma thus represents a time-based corruption of learning. The brain in trauma has lost its ability to distinguish past from present, and as a result it cannot adapt to the future. This confusion of time further immobilizes the trauma victim, who still remains immobilized by a thwarted freeze discharge. Procedural memory is bombarded by environmental and internal cues that represent old, unresolved threat. Declarative memory is assaulted by intrusive thoughts, memories, and dreams that repetitively warn the person of potential danger. Furthermore, the constant activation of brain circuitry related to threat alters and suppresses structure and function in the verbal and thinking brain. Trauma indeed is a state of imprisonment.

    ****** ******

    I find that I am one of those social contract violating profoundly classically autistic (having a form of impossible-to-overcome language delay) people who, in the manner of that Feldman Quotation #3, supra, is manifestly incapable of ever showing any improvement in my autistic condition.

    Given my observation that almost every, but not quite every, police officer I have encountered during my 74 plus years of living believes,as though an eternal fact of objective reality, that everyone is a liar, much a as in the manner of Feldman Quotation #1, supra, I have found that, whenever I have encountered a police officer who has (always, to me, mistakenly) deemed me to have done some wrongdoing, whatever I say to any police officer that is not trivially insignificant, I find police officers tend to impute my telling them falsehoods, and the tragedy of this for profoundly classically autistic people who are much like me, is that I am automatically deemed to be engaged in the obstruction of an officer, and doing a mens rea and actus reus misdemeanor or felony.

    I happen to be licensed as a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, and I earned a B.S. in Engineering (High Honors), bioengineering major, from the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle in 1970, and Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1998.

    My doctoral dissertation, “Mental Health and Mental Illness: Cause, Purpose, Cure, and Prevention; A Bioengineering Perspective,” is on the University of Illinois at Chicago Indigo web site under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License, at:

    http://hdl.handle.net/10027/8816

    The centerpiece of my dissertation is the observation, in the form of a null-hypothesis/alternate-hypothesis pure dichotomy wherein the null hypothesis is that it is actually possible to actually demonstrate the actual happening of one or more actual mistakes or accidents, and the alternate hypothesis is that it is actually impossible to actually demonstrate the actual happening of any actually avoidable mistakes or accidents.

    I have never, not even once during my 74 plus years of life, come upon anyone who has been able to actually demonstrate the actual happening of one or more actually avoidable accidents or mistakes. However, to me, every accident is a form of mistake and every mistake is a form of accident.

    In the total and absolute absence of one or more actual demonstrations of an actually avoidable mistake or accident, and given the millions upon millions of people who have been incarcerated, including being incarcerated in war and crime driven imposed death, I am rather certain that the only reason that no one has ever been able to refute the core notion of my thesis and dissertation, that no mistake (or accident) that ever actually happened either could, or should, have been avoided.

    Absent any actual demonstration that the (foundational?) precept of adversarial law, that people make avoidable mistakes or cause avoidable accidents, seems to me to be, in the best and most profound sense I have been able to grasp, a form of social contract biologically psychotic delusion that is both horribly socially contagious and horrifically personally addictive.

    The manner in which I am autistic allowed me, in the usual time of infancy (before I learned to talk using two or more English words together) to understand that teaching a toddler that the toddler had been told what to do or not do and was disobedient or defiant and meritorious of being punished was an absolutely dastardly falsehood.

    Of course, I did not have those words the,, however I have never had need of words for thinking; I have never learned to think in words or think in pictures. I only think in thoughts. Words and pictures are, for me, useful communication tools, useful for sharing thoughts with other people, yet are also dreadfully horrid when used for thinking purposes.

    Why? I have come to somewhat favor my understanding of the perspective of the late French psychoanalyst, Jacques Lacan, who I understand modeled human experience as being comprised of the “Real” (which is decidedly NOT any social construction of consensus or any form of social contract reality), the Symbolic, and the Imaginary.

    I observe the Adversarial System of Law and Jurisprudence, in its present form in the United States of America, to be almost entirely of the imaginary, which helps me to make some sort of not-quite-intelligible sense of why courtroom argumentation depends far more on hypotheticals than on tangibles.

    I can, with scarcely any effort, dream up more hypotheticals regarding avoidable accidents and avoidable accidents than I would ever care to count, all of which are, if restrained only to the realm of the purely hypothetical and forbidden from the realm of the tangibly Real, can make flawless delusional sense.

    I never muddle what is only imaginary with what is only symbolic with what is only Real with what is only imaginary.

    Because my inborn, and never touched by human society, conscience relentlessly informs me that:
    If it is helpful, it is right, and if it is right, it is helpful;
    If it is hurtful, it is wrong, and if it is wrong, it is hurtful; AND
    It is helpful to learn what is hurtful as there is no other way to actually learn what is hurtful and to learn how to avoid what is hurtful;
    Therefore, no actual wrongdoing is ever actually possible, and no actual wrongdoers can ever exist, this being the simple consequence of the structure of the evolution of existence itself, within which evolution the human species is inextricably embedded.

    I repeat herewith my offer to be shown, through an actual demonstration of an actually avoidable accident or mistake, that one or more actually-avoidable accidents or mistakes have ever actually happened.

    In talking with thousands of people over my life ever since I managed to learn to talk, I have never found anyone who has been able to do that actual demonstration.

    In putting my thesis and dissertation on the Internet and telling many people of it, no one has come to me with any example of any actual event which would refute my thesis and dissertation.

    Please, please, if you can, demonstrate that my thesis and/or dissertation is actually wrong regarding no mistake (or accident) that ever happened having actually been avoidable through any actually achievable process whatsoever.

    Indoctrinating into toddlers the mistaken belief that avoidable mistakes or avoidable accidents actually happen imposes on human brains such a massive departure from the Real (in the Lacanian sense) as to result in catastrophic physical brain damage that is brain-scan-observable neurological damage that is socially-observable moral injury that functionally destroys the inborn conscience with which find all infants are, in diverse ways, actually born.

    Teaching a toddler any form of, “You were told and you were disobedient, therefore, you need to be punished until you learn to do as you are told…” is the most biologically abusive social developmental traumatic event I have ever come to recognize. I find that it commonly renders most people stunningly (to me, at least) insensitive to horrible forms of destructive harm.

    Successfully teaching a toddler to genuinely believe that the toddler made an avoidable mistake, when no avoidable mistake is ever actually possible, results in what I am inclined to think of as a “drawn and quartered brain.”

    It may be useful to model a human brain as having a back part which is the procedural brain, at the back of the brain, the part of the brain most directly connected to the brain stem, and a declarative brain part, at the front of the brain, the part of the brain most remote from the brains stem.

    The back of the brain, the procedural brain, is involved in tangibly concrete experiences, the front of the brain, the declarative brain, is involved in intangible, hence imaginary, experiences. And the concrete “the Lacanian Real) and the imaginary are both represented only symbolically.

    Sufficient coercive punishment as the method of indoctrinating toddlers into the social contract of deception, becomes so beyond tolerably painful; too painful to forget and too painful to remember, that the brain, in trauma, effectively sections itself into a front brain that is conscious and a back brain that is unconscious. Physiologist Benjamin Libet, in his book, “MInd Time: The Temporal Factor in Consciousness,” Harvard University Press, 2004, describes aspects of the physiology of such trauma-induced brain sectioning. My best guess so far, based on my non-Freudian psychoanalytic experience, is that the sectioning is achieved through the brain’s developing inhibitory neurotransmitter circus rhythms which effectively block much of the communication that would otherwise occur between the front and the back of a “typical” untraumatized human brain.

    The second sectioning of neurotypical human brains results in hemisphere dominance, such that may folks display right or left hemisphere dominance, and I find that this is the result of the difficulty of believing in the delusion of the happening of avoidable mistakes or accidents.

    In 1990, I was given a Quantitative Electroencephalogram (QEEG) hortly after the equipment and software that could make such brain scan measurements came on the market. As I read the results of that QEEG, I find that I have neither front/back or hemisphere dominance; all of my brain is at work all of the time.

    The difficulty I find that people who are neurotypical have is simply having conscious access to only about a quarter of their brains, either the left hemisphere frontal lobes or the right hemisphere frontal lobes. Those, lobes are, alas limited to inventing and processing only the imaginary and symbolizing it, for the frontal lobes do not directly process actually tangible concrete reality (the Lacanian Real).

    The, now well documented, mirror neuron system facilitates people copying other people’s imagined reality, and it is the copying of imagined reality that is the process which generates the social construction of reality. Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, “The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, ” Anchor Books, 1966.

    Since I successfully defended my doctoral dissertation in 1997, I have worked to design and develop a practical method for removing time-corrupted learning, hence also trauma, from the processes of the interpretation of the Law.

    I find that there is no defect of any sort in the law as written, for the law as written is purely symbolic, and communication theory informs me that any communication symbol can symbolize anything.

    The predicament of the Adversarial System of Law and Jurisprudence is to be found, so I gather, in its most defining premise, that avoidable mistakes and/or accidents can actually happen, is perfectly, absolutely, and eternally biologically false.

    My dissertation contains the tangible falsification of that accident of evolution in symbolic form. Human experience, such as a police officer killing a pet dog as an acting out of toddler experienced trauma is one form of concrete evidence.

    I knew of Dauberti in 1993, and completed my thesis field work in accord with my understanding of Daubert, by using the most reliable scientific methodology of which I was aware, that of the null-hypothesis/alternate-hypothesis approach.

    My best guess so far is that my doctorate presents to humanity the remedy for crime, war, terrorism, hatred, prejudice, drunk driving, murder, child abuse, and every other destructive aspect of human society.

    Trauma and human destructiveness are two names for one existential phenomenon.

    Please, if you can, actually demonstrate that my research and/or dissertation are actually wrong in some actually significant way.

  6. I totally agree with Otteray Scribe. We may not like government surveillance, but it’s past time for some civilian surveillance, both from the government and from the police. Otherwise, if things get to court, it is the “official” version vs. the individual. Guess who generally wins?

  7. “Protect and serve.”

    Doublespeak blurs the meanings of words.

    When a “country” becomes “The Homeland”, the authoritarians interpret “protect and serve” as protecting and serving themselves.

  8. This is why God made rifles. With triggers without a trigger guard so that a paw can pull the trigger.

  9. They should be fired and charged.
    The sad part is police officers wonder why they are despised as a whole overall. Most cops are bad cops. They ruin it for the good cops.

  10. Increasingly, the best defense for the general public is the increasing use of video cameras. Not just for encounters with police, but for accidents and other incidents as well. Auto dashcams are now available for well under a hundred dollars. Home security cameras are also cheap

    I remind new hire officers that video cameras are everywhere. Every teenage kid has a cell phone camera and knows how to use it, and unless they want to become the star of a viral video on the Internet, they need to behave themselves at all times.

  11. Yeah, inconvenience our “protectors in blue” or tick them off, and they find a way to make you pay. This behavior will continue and intensify until we the people can stop it through the judicial system. And if the judicial system does not stand up for the people’s rights, there is no hope left for this country.

    Even common criminals do not kill a citizen’s dog unless it is interfering with their criminal enterprise. The cops seem to do it for fun.

  12. It would appear the police were annoyed they were called and someone was going to pay. Why would they do this? Because they can and there is never any downside. Police can do anything. We are all at risk.

Comments are closed.