KEYE News Austin – What Is APD’s Policy For Dealing With Animals?
Recently there was an incident Austin involving an officer and a dog where the dog was shot and killed. Unfortunately the officer was at the wrong house and the dog was only reacting to it’s scared owner. It is a tragic story, and it has gone viral across the nation. KEYE News contacted us at Sit Means Sit Madison and asked if we would review the APD policy on dealing with animals. Below is a snippet of that conversation. You can see more in the video at the KEYE News Site “What Is APD’s Policy For Dealing With Animals?“.
While the conversation with KEYE was much longer, it of course had to be edited down. In this case, I think they did a decent job. The point I was trying to make is it was horrific for everyone, and I have no way to know what was going through the officers head or how threatening the dog might have appeared to him. However, the dog was not very large and it of course is going to react to the stress of it’s owner. In most cases, it is unlikely a dog will bite – especially if the target of the concern remains standing still allowing for more consideration in the moment. Some more training to educate the APD on dog behavior and body language as well as bite prevention may have changed this situation – but not necessarily. In any case, there are a ton of dogs in Austin and I think it would be a good use of time to ensure the APD has a good foundation of dog body language and bite prevention and I would guess some of the trainers and behaviorists in Austin would be happy to assist with an effort like this.
The shooting of a pet dog by an Austin police officer has drawn national attention to police policy when dealing with animals.
When Officer Thomas Griffin approached the scene in East Austin, his training for that type of situation consisted of memorizing two paragraphs from APD’s policy handbook:
In circumstances where officers encounter any animal which reasonably appears, under the circumstances, to pose an imminent threat to the safety of officers or others, officers are authorized to use deadly force to neutralize such a threat.
In circumstances in which officers have sufficient advanced notice that a potentially dangerous domestic animal (e.g., dog) may be encountered, such as in the serving of a search warrant, officers should develop reasonable contingency plans for deadline with the animal without the use of deadly force (e.g., fire extinguisher, TASER Device, oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray, assistance of animal control). Nothing in this policy shall prohibit any officer from resorting to deadly force to control a dangerous animal if circumstances reasonably dedicate that a contingency plan has failed or becomes impracticable.
Troy Pfeifer, a professional dog trainer in Austin believes memorizing words is not properly preparing these officers to deal with domestic animals.
“When you walked in Jaydo (Pfeifer’s dog) barked at you, right?” he asked, “But you had no way to know whether he’s going to attack you or just telling you he’s there and to stay out of the house.”
Pfeifer said to prevent unnecessary deaths officers need hands on training, like learning the difference between an angry dog versus a fearful dog. He thinks the current APD policy about stopping an animal is lacking and too vague.“Dogs are animals and you never can predict and that’s why it’s so dangerous to assume anything,” he said.
According to APD policy, if an officer believes an animal poses an imminent threat to themselves or others, they have the discretion to use deadly force.
It also says “where possible” an officer should give warning before firing on an animal. But it doesn’t require that warning.
“Officers and cadets learn this policy, they know when it is appropriate to discharge a firearm and that’s the main portion of the training,” said Anthony Hipolito with the Austin Police Department.
APD has launched an internal investigation to determine if shooting the dog in this case was a reasonable response.