Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Yes, this is the beginning of so many tragic stories. Here's another one, from Columbus, Missouri, where a SWAT team busted into a house, shot two dogs -- including a corgi, for crying out loud -- in full view of a 7 year old child, and found...a little pot in the house.
A police SWAT team entered Whitworth's residence around 8:30 p.m. suspecting a large amount of marijuana at the location, police spokeswoman Officer Jessie Haden said. SWAT members encountered a pit bull upon entry, held back and then fatally shot the dog, which officers said was acting in an uncontrollably aggressive manner.Whitworth was arrested, and his wife and 7-year-old son were present during the SWAT raid, Haden said. A second dog, which Whitworth's attorney Jeff Hilbrenner described as a corgi, also was shot but was not killed.
And here's what they got:
Police discovered a grinder, a pipe and a small amount of marijuana, Haden said. Because the SWAT team acts on the most updated information available, the team wanted to enter the house before marijuana believed to be at the location could be distributed, she said."If you let too much time go by, then the drugs are not there," she said.
Yeah, he could have slipped that marijuana into his pocket and went to 7-11 to get a slurpee. They charged the father with "suspicion of possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of marijuana and second-degree child endangerment." Balko has the correct response:
They found a "small amount" of marijuana, enough for a misdemeanor charge. The parents were then charged with child endangerment.So smoking pot = "child endangerment." Storming a home with guns, then firing bullets into the family pets as a child looks on = necessary police procedures to ensure everyone's safety.
Just so we're clear.
Crystal.
Politics
Comments
Shot the corgi too? Someone alert the queen.
Of course there will be an investigation into the source of the faulty intelligence. Not.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 7, 2010 9:27 AM
We need to start calling these what they are: Home Invasions.
Posted by: xebecs | March 7, 2010 11:16 AM
I don't know. I can see the cops position. Maybe they were firing at the pot and just accidentally hit the dog.
Posted by: Skip | March 7, 2010 11:51 AM
If the guy had just shot the cops, this whole situation could have been avoided.
Posted by: goober | March 7, 2010 12:38 PM
...and he would be on death row right now. Problem not solved.
Posted by: Gretchen | March 7, 2010 12:41 PM
I don't smoke pot. Well, about once a year, on average. I can take it or leave it. But the idea of criminalizing nature always seemed like the kind of wholly idiotic thing americans would think of doing.
Posted by: steve s | March 7, 2010 12:47 PM
steve s
Americans, especially fundies, respond (badly) to fear and change, hence Reefer Madness and our insane drug
warslaws!Posted by: MikeMa | March 7, 2010 12:51 PM
I'm pretty sure marijuana is illegal in most parts of the world, steve s. And the best argument against that is that using it is a victimless crime. Rape and murder are also very much natural, but I'd prefer you not legalize them anywhere near me.
Posted by: Gretchen | March 7, 2010 1:00 PM
No no, the "Child Endagerment" charge is there because when you have marijuana on the premises the police might send a swat team. What if in the heat of the moment they mistake the child for a dog?
Posted by: tkoz | March 7, 2010 1:14 PM
How pathetic: the dog breed discrimination of the writer and the story itself. It read to me as, "It's okay to shoot the pit bull-looking dog (we don't care) but OMG the Corgi was shot too!"
Thanks SWAT Team from saving us from possibly someone who would be happy, hungry and eventually napping.
Posted by: Amber | March 7, 2010 1:17 PM
The city is COLUMBIA not COLUMBUS. Columbus is in Ohio.
Posted by: joc | March 7, 2010 1:18 PM
joc, there is also a Columbus, MO. It's very small.
Posted by: tkoz | March 7, 2010 1:24 PM
The SWAT team can't be blamed too much. Remember, someone told the SWAT team where to go, and no doubt told them things would get dangerous, and so they went in prepared to get shot at/do some shooting. Pit bulls are the last dog you want to see when you enter a house that might be problematic. So, I can see where the SWAT team was coming from.
Whoever told a SWAT team, the guys who deal with gun happy criminals, to pick up a bag of marijuana? That's who the blame needs to be on.
Posted by: North | March 7, 2010 1:29 PM
I hate what my country is becoming.
Anyone who thinks that a drug raid over any amount of pot is justifiable is a moron. We arent talking crack cocaine here. We are talking about aplant that you cant OD on, that has proven anti-cancer and other medical uses being demonized by ignorant people.
You people wont be happy until 1 out of every 10 people is imprisoned for something as peaceful and normal as smoking a joint.
Tobacco and booze are so much worse than pot.
I pray for this family and all families like them whose lives are disrupted because of dipshit police. Cant they go after real criminals?
Posted by: Clayton | March 7, 2010 2:05 PM
So, SWAT team members are scared spitless by quadrupeds?
Take home lesson: if you deal weed, don't walk on all fours.
How come law enforcement personnel appear to be increasingly afraid of damned near everything?
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | March 7, 2010 2:08 PM
How pathetic: the dog breed discrimination of the writer and the story itself. It read to me as, "It's okay to shoot the pit bull-looking dog (we don't care) but OMG the Corgi was shot too!"
I think the point is that one can reasonably argue that pit-bulls can be frightening, whereas one can't reasonably say that about a corgi.
Posted by: LJM | March 7, 2010 2:21 PM
Don't SWAT teams wear, you know, bullet proof armor? Aren't they highly trained? Are they incapable of non-lethally taking down a pitbull? Seriously, just yell at it and it'll most likely leave you alone, or worst case just have one of your guys tackle it - it's not like the majority of pitbulls are trained for combat, and dogs can only really hurt you by biting, which is relatively easy to avoid if you know what you're doing.
Posted by: Tacroy | March 7, 2010 2:35 PM
Apparently so. Radley Balko is both a dog lover and an investigator into SWAT raids, so he pays special attention whenever something like this happens-- and it happens a lot. Most dogs who aren't strictly trained have the first impulse to launch themselves on any visitor in joy, asking for attention....which SWAT team members respond to by shooting them. Sometimes over and over and over.
Posted by: Gretchen | March 7, 2010 2:37 PM
All the more reason for dog 'owners' to learn to speak doggish so they can set limits to behavior, Gretchen. 'Course, failure to do so in no way justifies large, armed and armored men shooting dogs. I'll bet any member of that team outweighed the pit bull by a factor of at least three.
Ever notice how large male bodies often seemed to be inhabited by small, frightened boys? Boy howdy, the older I get the more I seem to notice. And we grant them authority . . .
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | March 7, 2010 2:48 PM
They do that because it makes 'em feel macho. Hey, know what I did today? I shot a Corgi! You know, those stupid little dogs that can barely chew through your shoe laces? Yeah, one of them. Ain't I a hero?
Well, it sure as hell beats doing real police work and dealing with real criminals - you know, the sort that will fight back? Yeah, who the hell would want to mess with real crooks - you could get hurt! Better stick to shooting Corgis - they can't chew through the flak jacket and jack boots.
Posted by: MadScientist | March 7, 2010 3:03 PM
There's a reason why you tell your dog to not jump on people, especially when it is a large breed, like a pit bull. In short, fit guy plus sixty pounds of equipment knocked on his back by a rather heavy and very strong dog. Now you've got a guy who's being mauled by a dog(Hey! Guess what! That dog knows to bite the fleshy warm stuff that bleeds and not the kevlar!) and removing that animal is fairly difficult, since bullets are pretty much out of the question, unless you adore "friendly" fire. Please, people, stop thinking of your adorable small dogs, and start thinking of an animal that is very, very capable of killing you, and is located in a house in which you expect to be shot at!
Mind you, I wasn't saying the SWAT team did anything morally correct, I said they did exactly what they are trained to do. Deal with bad situations, and thus they assume the situation is very bad. I'd put the blame on ridiculous overkill on whoever ordered the operation, they made the wrong decision in what assets were necessary for the job.
Posted by: North | March 7, 2010 3:03 PM
I'm always appalled when I hear these stories, not because the police shoot at dogs and citizens, but because citizens never shoot back. Liberty or death, and take some of the bastards with you if they demand the latter.
Posted by: Tre | March 7, 2010 3:08 PM
North @ 13:
Ah, the Nuremberg defense. Sorry, won't fly. As Thoreau said (in Resistance to Civil Government),
Before the SWAT became the SWAT, they were human beings and most likely decent people. They chose nonetheless to become the agents of our oppressors, to put the good of the rulers over the good of the ruled, knowing fully what that entailed. As Thoreau continues,
We are rational beings, possessed of free will (in appearance if not in physical fact), and it is eternally up to us to decide whether we will fight for the oppressors or the oppressed. Luckily for the peaceably inclined among us, "fight" need mean violence only if we choose to fight for the oppressors, for the oppressed have such an advantage in numbers that we need not engage in a bloody revolution, but merely withdraw our support.
Posted by: Miko | March 7, 2010 3:10 PM
@skip: I lol'd
Posted by: anon | March 7, 2010 3:11 PM
Originally misposted on a later thread.
And they had to break down the door and shoot a couple of dog, terrorize--at the very least--one innocent person (the boy) to keep him from flushing his huge stash of pot down the toilet? As one who has flushed toilets for about fifty seven years trying to get rid of any quantity of anything by flushing it is probably not gonna work out.
Posted by: democommie | March 7, 2010 3:34 PM
Posted by: democommie | March 7, 2010 3:38 PM
The only thing that surprises me about this story is that the SWAT team left anything or anyone breathing once they started shooting. Usually they don't stop with the family pets; they tend to blast away at any people they see, too.
Posted by: Nan | March 7, 2010 3:58 PM
If the people defended their home by force, which they really have every right to do, things like this would happen much less often. These police departments are a load of clowns.
It's typical that the people with small amounts of pot have NO guns in the house. Now why would that be? Lucky SWAT, this time.
Posted by: Freedom | March 7, 2010 4:21 PM
Washington state now has a voter initiative under way to try to decriminalize marijuana. Worth a look and possibly some support - it won't change the behavior of the police, but would make the excuse of "someone with marijuana" untenable.
http://sensiblewashington.org
Posted by: crelmn | March 7, 2010 4:52 PM
Hooray! Saving us from the giggles and the munchies!
Posted by: Greg | March 7, 2010 4:58 PM
I can't believe I'm the first person to say "If you don't want the attention of the law enforcement community, do your best not to break the law". No matter what you think about marijuana, it's illegal. If you buy/sell it, you can hardly complain when the cops come knocking.
Raids on the wrong houses and on innocents are terrible and should be condemned. Raids on houses where inhabitants are breaking the law are SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN. Don't like it? Don't smoke weed.
Posted by: Alex | March 7, 2010 5:14 PM
Awesome. Brilliant. Just Fantastic.
Posted by: me | March 7, 2010 5:14 PM
Actually such an attempt to defend yourself would likely lead to even greater violence and even edgier uses of excessive force in the future.
This idiocy is caused by law enforcement being paranoid, assuming every charge of possession/distribution is going to lead to an action movie shootout with drug warlords, Uzis, etc. For every case where the suspects do open fire and try to kill the police, there are probably one hundred or more where the police use excessive force as they did in this case. The response isn't to increase the level of force/violence, the response is to reform the judicial and law enforcement agencies, to reduce the availability of no-knock warrants, to decriminalize possession of hard drugs and legalize lesser drugs like marijuana.
The answer isn't more force and violence, it's more reason and thinking.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 7, 2010 5:22 PM
MadScientist - you must have never encountered a corgi. I own one and he chews through damn near anything. Love him to death though.
Posted by: piratekuhnbeard | March 7, 2010 5:25 PM
"in full view of a 7-yr-old child"
The source article only mentioned that the child was home, not that the shooting was in full view of the child. This outrageous abuse of police power is sensational enough without us having to make shit up.
Posted by: qiaoshiya | March 7, 2010 5:29 PM
Most SWAT cops lack balls, and are way full of themselves.
Jess
www.total-anonymity.us.tc
Posted by: Jack Frapp | March 7, 2010 5:45 PM
Alex said:
You're the first person to say it because most people who comment here are not nearly that stupid.
Given the number of laws that regulate the average citizen that the average citizen has no clue about (and many which they do), I can safely say this: you, as everyone else, probably break the law every day in some fashion or another. Does that mean the police should be breaking down your door, shooting your dogs, and charging you with child endangerment? No, I didn't think so. Does it really make sense to perform such raids on people suspected of possessing a substance that makes people slightly hazy and peckish in the first place, whether it's legal or not? Of course not. Speeding represents a greater potential harm to others than possession of marijuana, and those people-- when they are caught in the act-- are issued a ticket and sent on their way. I'm pretty sure that's the case whether there is a child in the car or not.
If there is such a thing as injustice, then it makes sense to complain when someone is treated unjustly, whether they broke the law or not. If we can't, then maybe people like the Whitworths should be given 40 lashes and then burned at the stake-- after all, they knowingly broke the law. Screw 'em!
Posted by: Gretchen | March 7, 2010 5:49 PM
Alex said,
And, on a related note, if you didn't want to get gunned down in the middle of the street, you shouldn't have been jaywalking.
While many of us who read this blog don't think marijuana should be criminalized at all, that's not really the point here. The point is proportional response. There is no justification for breaking into homes with guns blazing to be SOP for every potential drug bust. SWAT busts should be reserved for only the most potentially dangerous situations and using these tactics on petty drug users creates far more danger than it averts, and the damage inflicted is often grossly disproportionate to the crime.
It continues to discourage me how easy it is to put Americans into an absolute panic about other people, whether it's gays, drug users, "socialists", black Presidents, immigrants, etc., ad nauseum et infinitum, to the point where even extreme measures are portrayed as reasonable.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | March 7, 2010 6:01 PM
re: Scott at #37
It just goes to show the crucial crux of the latest paradigm. If one is not constantly terrified by something, one is not paying attention. How can one relax when our freedoms come under constant attack by those who act as though they were actually free?
Imagine, the quiet pursuit of personal happiness being used as an affirmation of what every sensible person knows as true freedom! In this Murica no one is allowed to monkey around with their bodies or minds by using anything that isn't manufactured specifically for human consumption. Anyone who even imagines otherwise is an enemy of the state and will be treated with extreme prejudice because . . . well because they are scary. Also, a preacher said they were and so did my camp counselor. Why, even the old man who lives next door knows that pot kills. He hit a burglar on the head with a cast iron pot once. Sumbitch dropped to the floor right there, deader'n a door nail. Old man still talks about it, forty years on . . .
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | March 7, 2010 6:37 PM
Pretty well my thoughts about a lot of crap like this. Don't send in a SWAT team when a calm guy in a suit will do. Heck, if you're worried that they'd open fire on a guy in a suit, do something a little more clever like sending him in a uniform for the local gas/electric/whatever company to check the pipes or something while quietly evaluating the situation.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | March 7, 2010 6:37 PM
Waiting for the right-wingers to chime in about how this incident is indicative of a socialist, fascist, totalitarian government trampling all over its citizens.....
Waiting.........
Waiting.........
Posted by: KShep | March 7, 2010 6:53 PM
@dogmeatib #32:
Very well said.
But sadly, I think much of the law enforcement community is so deeply indoctrinated that they're beyond the ability to reason and think critically.
Posted by: Brian W | March 7, 2010 6:57 PM
too bad it wasn't columbian cocaine mafia. Its always funnier, when SWAT teams are welcomed by controlled burst of machinegun fire and grenades (and even occiasional rocked propelled grenades).
People are just not armed enough to be safe from the state.
Posted by: messer | March 7, 2010 7:55 PM
Meet a interracial Match on
www.SeekInterracial. c o m
The bes t c l u b f o r
seek ing the black white s i n gl es, sex y beauties. ...It takes only
a few minutes to submit a profile which, however, might change your
whole life.
...
Meet a interracial Match on
www.SeekInterracial . c o m
The bes t c l u b f o r
seek ing the black white s i n gl es, sex y beauties. ...It takes only
a few minutes to submit a profile which, however, might change your
whole life.
...
..... , . - . - , _ , .....
..... ) ` - . .> ' `( .....
..... / . . . .` . . .....
..... |. . . . . |. . .| .....
..... . . . ./ . ./ .....
..... `=) /.=` .....
..... `-;`.-' .....
..... `)| ... , .....
..... || _.-'| .....
..... ,_|| _,/ .....
..... , ..... || .' .....
..... | | ,. ||/ .....
.... ,..` | /|.,|Y, .....
..... '-...'-._..||/ .....
..... >_.-`Y| .....
..... ,_|| .....
..... || .....
..... || .....
..... || .....
..... |/ .....
www.SeekInterracial . c o m
Posted by: zzz | March 7, 2010 8:28 PM
I just yahoo'd "drug raid" and "wrong address" and got close to 2300 hits.
The question I'd ask of the police in my lawsuit would be, "Who exactly provided the 'most updated information available' regarding this veritable warehouse of drugs (and paraphernalia!) to be found in my house?"
Posted by: ChicagoMolly | March 7, 2010 8:39 PM
Lets see every secular person I know thinks the drug war is stupid.
All religious people I've talked to think the drug war is a good thing.
So you can see that once again religion is a good thing. Especially when it leads to the destruction a a family.
Posted by: CybrgnX | March 7, 2010 8:46 PM
Don't be too surprised. People here are usually pretty reasonable.
The operative word here is "knocking." Having the cops come knocking would be fine. It's the kicking in doors and shooting that's out of line.
I don't think that armed raids are "supposed" to happen for any sort of misdemeanor offense. I don't have a problem with people being punished for breaking the law. Escalating to full scale nuclear war over a minor infraction is just bad policy. If bullets start flying in a home with two adults and a child in it, there had better be some serious criminal activity being stopped.
The question is, what's the safest way to do this type of thing? On the one hand, there's the probability that criminals will start shooting as soon as a police officer knocks on the door.
The flip side should be obvious: What does the average Joe who has no reason to expect SWAT do when his dogs go crazy and bullets suddenly start flying around his house? I know that if it were me and I had a weapon, I'd seriously consider picking it up until I was 100% sure what was going on. Everybody is lucky that this didn't end up with a much uglier scene.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | March 7, 2010 9:20 PM
if someone shoots the cops maybe they will start thinking twice before invading a persons home.... fuck the cops -- if he had weed to take to 7-11 in his pockets it was probably still only a misdemeanor..
The police departments are fucked... I will kill you guys when the day comes.
Posted by: Joe Lapke | March 7, 2010 9:32 PM
@Gretchen
...don't take yourself so damn seriously. Problem solved.
Posted by: Sammie | March 7, 2010 9:36 PM
"If you don't want the attention of the law enforcement community, do your best not to break the law"
This has to be the dumbest statement I have ever heard. I suppose this person also believes that there are no innocent people in prison either. Because if you think our judicial system anywhere approaches fair, you're living in a fairy tale........Buy a gun. Learn to shoot. Learn your local laws.
Don't be a victim...
Posted by: Mr Green | March 7, 2010 9:53 PM
This is the kind of shit that makes people want to go out in a blaze of glory.
Posted by: Average American | March 7, 2010 10:20 PM
We must start shooting more cops. Get them before they get us.
Marijuana should absolutely be legalized and sold over the counter to adults 21+.
Posted by: misty bradsaw | March 7, 2010 10:22 PM
"Raids on the wrong houses and on innocents are terrible and should be condemned. Raids on houses where inhabitants are breaking the law are SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN. Don't like it? Don't smoke weed."
Alex has apparently endorsed the notion that there is no such thing as excessive force. Don't be surprised if the cops unleash night-stick fury on your ass. Don't like it? Don't run that stop sign next time.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 7, 2010 10:26 PM
It also appears that we have an influx of really bad COINTEL people...
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 7, 2010 10:28 PM
I own 4 corgis and i can say that they probably were very aggressive towards the cops. By nature they are a very loud, snapping type of dog. i usually call them demon spawn and the like. everyone who thinks they are nice cute dogs are just fooled by appearance and when they take over the world it will be too late.
Posted by: Dylan R | March 7, 2010 10:52 PM
From a non-US 1st world perspective, the straight up hate, even the glorifying of violence towards law enforcement officers is kind of off-putting. I suppose it's just the American can-do attitude, which instills in so many people the belief that they are powerful, smart, charismatic and cruel enough to do well in a society without a central government that exercises a monopoly of violence.
I realize I'm too weak and stupid and awkward and sympathy-riddled to wish harm on the police even when they do something thoroughly moronic (such as here), simply out of selfishness.
As far as messer's rooting for a drug mafia over the SWAT... The mental gymnastics required there are difficult for me to imagine, unless of course there is a personal economic motive present. Oh well, the average US SWAT team would fucking murder druggie thugs, so it's a silly hypothetical.
It'd be a fucking funny hypothetical if the dumbasses actually tried to fire RPG-7s indoors though!
Posted by: Pvt Ymous | March 8, 2010 12:01 AM
The Founding Fathers of the US grew pot.
They also kicked the anational bankers out of the US.
My how things have changed.
Posted by: Angry Voter | March 8, 2010 12:22 AM
@Pvt Ymous:
I think you would have this particular perspective, too, if you lived in a nation like the US. The laughter at anti-police violence is coming not from our 'can-do attitude and cruelty,' but from the fact that our police force is 5 steps away from being brownshirts.
Beatings? Happened. Murders? Happened. Unjust arrests and showtrials? Long past that. Public execution with no repercussions? You guessed it!
Posted by: Lyle | March 8, 2010 1:01 AM
All you have to do is look at wikipedia (yes, yes I know, but it's a good starting point). Pit bulls were responsible for 46% of deaths by dog from 1982 to 2009. I don't blame the police for shooting the pit bull-but the question remains, for a misdemeanor pot bust? In retrospect, you slap yourself on the head. But they didn't know that going in, they probably thought this was the French Connection.
We just had a guy arrested in L.A. for putting up a sign on his building. A misdemeanor. The DA had him arrested and had him post a million dollar bond. Reduced the $100,000. For a sign.
Posted by: Phil | March 8, 2010 3:24 AM
Tre @ 22 said
It's people like you who make me want to illegalize all civilian weapons. And I own 13 guns. Seriously, are you an idiot? We live in a country with 300+ million people. This kill and be killed shit cannot, should not, and does not fly! It's idiotic, horrific, and just makes everything worse. The cops are that much more afraid, that much more trigger happy; your relatives are that much more bereaved when you are dead, and a bunch of innocents are killed in the cross fire. Way to go.
Gretchen @ 8 said
Your first point is iffy,although technically accurate. I disagree with your second point though. The best argument against the illicit nature of marijuana, or at least the war on drugs in that thousands, often bystanders or cops (usually in Mexico), die in the crossfires. As a direct result of the money that an illegal, and therefor very profitable drug can put in the hands of criminals.
Lyle @ 57 said
Beatings? Happened. Murders? Happened. Unjust arrests and showtrials? Long past that. Public execution with no repercussions? You guessed it!"
Grow up, or move to Russia and see how safer you feel. Or anywhere else in the world beyond Europe and the handful of other developed nations. Public executions? Source please.
For some reason, the drug war in this country brings out the crazy from all sides. No way should SWAT be used nearly as much as it is for drug related invasions. On the other hand, the whole "have a gun to shoot the cops!" nonsense advocated by messer and others is just making the problem worse. The real problem, as I inferred above, is that you cannot remove demand for a product that the public desires by making it illegal. This just gives criminals a way to make money. Then the DEA gets funding to attack the criminals, and the criminals buy more guns and everyone else loses. It's pretty simple math, but I'm constantly amazed how few people get it.
Posted by: Tamarron | March 8, 2010 4:33 AM
I never said I LIKED or WANTED violence, only that I could understand the sentiment. In fact, I want guns removed from society (including from cops) and the drug war stopped.
As for executions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKy-WSZMklc&feature;=player_embedded
The BART shooting is one of them.
Posted by: Lyle | March 8, 2010 5:22 AM
You have got to be joking! These are supposed to be trained policemen. They are supposed to be trained to violently enter peoples houses. When people violently enter a house with a dog in it, the dog is going to react aggressively. And yet these trained policemen, trained to violently enter peoples houses where dogs routinely act aggressively are not trained to deal with aggressive dogs in any way other than "shoot it", and you think that's reasonable? Are you nuts?
Posted by: baldywilson | March 8, 2010 6:01 AM
"You shoot one bloody dog" DCI Sandra Pullman (Obscure UK TV reference) :)
Dingo
---
PS: Lucky they didn't try to shoot me. I know where their nurseries are. ;)
Posted by: DingoJAck | March 8, 2010 7:03 AM
baldywilson @ 61:
If US police training is anything like it is over here, they are most likely trained to deal with aggressive dogs in one of two basic ways.
The "nice" way means using one officer to bait the dog and keep it occupied. There are several problems with this approach: it requires (at least) one officer's constant attention throughout the operation, it slows down the operation, it makes it very difficult for the team to operate in a particular area of the target, and even so it is not guaranteed to keep the dog out of the way. Hence this technique will usually only be used when the dog is the only threat the team is facing.
The other way is shooting the dog. This is fast, reliable and permanent, though care must be taken not to endanger bystanders -- something in which SWAT officers should be thoroughly trained.
I suppose it would be possible to fire a taser at a dog and bind its limbs with cable ties while it's immobilized. I've never heard of anyone attempting that, however, and it might be just as bad PR-wise.
In a drug raid in the US, I suspect SWAT default to the violent method until such a time that the situation at the target has calmed down and the threat of violent resistance is considered minimal.
Since the description of the operation in question is very brief and non-specific, it's hard to say whether this particular SWAT team was just acting hastily, or whether they stupidly killed one dog and injured another out of frustration and spite.
And if it's the latter, it's not like there's going to be any consequences, even if most of us would agree that in a perfect world there would be. The job done by SWAT teams is considered important enough and difficult enough that value judgements over low-priority issues (and there are few things of a lower priority in a police raid than the life of a dog) will not be cause for punishment.
[I should say all of my "police" training was in the military. No points for guessing how we were taught to deal with dogs.]
Posted by: Anon Ymous | March 8, 2010 8:53 AM
Dylan @54 is on the money. Corgis are a lot more protective than people think. I had one who would break up fights and take down toy guns from the side with no training. There's been at least one Schutzhund corgi. Not that the cops couldn't have handled things much better, starting with better intel. I'm just defending corgi honor here. There's a good chance that the corgi seriously defended the family. They're short working dogs, not little yappy dogs.
Posted by: Karen | March 8, 2010 9:16 AM
thank you, Ed and Radley for keeping these "isolated incidents" in the spotlight.
Posted by: VikingMoose | March 8, 2010 9:52 AM
@Tamarron:
You wanted examples of executions .... here you go.
In the UK which is less of a fascist hell hole than the US I believe:
'Mr Stanley, a father of three from Hackney, east London, was shot in the head and hand on September 22 1999 after a table leg he was carrying in a bag was mistaken for a sawn-off shotgun.'
'Two police marksmen who shot dead an unarmed man should not face disciplinary action, an official report will recommend today.'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-officers-will-not-face-action-for-shooting-tableleg-man-466058.html
Posted by: Felix | March 8, 2010 12:42 PM
@13, North; "Pit bulls are the last dog you want to see when you enter a house that might be problematic."
Actually, not true. Most breeds under the pit-bull type are not naturally human aggressive, and are not good guard dogs. In 30 seconds, I can think of at least a half a dozen breeds I would be more nervous encountering under such circumstances.
Posted by: Terrie | March 8, 2010 1:37 PM
This incident is so disturbing....people, we are losing our freedom when this kind of crap is considered OK by our police departments.
Posted by: Anna | March 8, 2010 7:39 PM