The metaphor, it’s a dog-eat-dog world, unfortunately hit too close to home on July 21 at People’s Park.
At 12:14 a.m., while administering a normal patrol of the park, a UCPD officer noticed someone sleeping on the ground. Beside the man was a dog — unleashed, according to UCPD. The dog reportedly approached and jolted at the officer, at which point the officer shot and killed the dog, firing two rounds at man’s best friend.
There is no excuse in this circumstance that justifies the officer’s actions. And there is no plausible alternative that could have ended worse.
We are not questioning the police being at People’s Park, nor are we questioning the officer’s attempt to wake up the man, who should not have been sleeping at the park.
That does not explain why a dog was killed.
So the dog “jolted on the officer with teeth drawn,” according to Capt. Margo Bennett. How else would you expect a dog to react when a stranger approaches its owner? And isn’t “teeth drawn” sort of a dog’s natural state? Like the police officer, the dog was probably just scared.
Using a gun is an extreme measure, one that should be used responsibly and rationally and rarely. A dog “jolting” — which means, literally, to push or shake abruptly and roughly — does not warrant the discharge of a firearm. There are a number of other ways the officer could have defended himself from the dog, from tasering to kicking. Any other response would have been better.
How is shooting and killing the dog the best solution? How does that rectify the situation? We ask these questions because, frankly, we can’t think of a single logical answer.
The police officer did not need a gun to protect himself from the dog. The officer was not even harmed, despite all that “jolting” and teeth drawing.
There is no way for the police to make amends. At the very least, though, UCPD should admit fault and review procedures for animal disturbances. The police should know how to deal with People’s Park and the transient community by now.
The police are supposed to protect and serve the public. Apparently, dogs are not part of that.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
The officer did the right thing, that dog shouldn’t have been unleashed and was a danger to the general public. It’s about time someone started firing rounds into peoples park. I say we fence off the area and put up razor wire until the university turns it into something productive. It’s a great injustice that the liberals in berkeley are willing to let students and middle class families live with the park’s drugs and crime while the rich berkeley elites defend it from their hillside castles. If the homeless started sleeping in the rose garden or tilden the police would be called to drive them out the very next day!!!
I’ve read a lot of stupid editorials by the Daily Cal. In fact, stupid editorials are as much a feature of the Daily Cal as Sex on Tuesday. But this is possibly the dumbest editorial I have ever read.
I’m betting the SEB writer’s judgment that ”
A dog “jolting” — which means, literally, to push or shake abruptly and roughly — does not warrant the discharge of a firearm,” is based on the author’s anecdotal experiences with their own, well-behaved suburban doggie. In their rose-colored sheltered world, police officers can just wait until someone or something makes an attempt on their life, the police officer will survive that attempt, and the officer can just “subdue” the target and everyone’s a winner.
I would say we take the Editorial Board down to the K9 training grounds, and let them see what a dog can do to a human. We don’t need to be cruel. We can dress the board up in the protective gear, but they will soon realize that many dogs aren’t just cute accessories you put in your purse.
Well I think this editorial is powerful and morally correct
“morally correct”?! Hilarious.
While I have mixed feelings about the shooting of the dog and the DC editorial, the usage of “morally correct” would be the funniest phrase I’ve read in years were it not the genuine belief of the pro-Occupation, KPFA and PC crowd who would like to impose their sense of “morality” upon all of us.
Yes, the adage “Stalinist” is certainly applicable here.
A real problem is that many people are developing morals that don’t take into account reality. Berkeleyprotest’s morals would change if he actually had the facts. Let’s take him down to the K9 training center and let him try to stop a dog from tearing him apart. We won’t give him a gun, so he can see what the officer could have faced if he did not shoot. Then we will see what his idea of morally correct becomes.
I’m appalled that this editorial would mention “the officer was not even harmed”. Since when does physical harm become a requirement for self-defense? Should UCPD wait for a vicious dog to bite off a finger before pulling out a gun? The police have been trained to neutralize all forms of deadly force when they encounter such force. That’s why they shoot to kill three times in a gunman’s heart instead of “winging” them in the arm. If they suspect a suicide bomber, they shoot for the head.
Dear Senior Editorial Board,
Sometimes you guys really get it right, and sometimes you really don’t. This time you don’t. Check it out:
My dear friend is a Berkeley firefighter and has been running calls for a while now. I remember him telling me of a call when a dog lunged at this guy’s girlfriend’s mother and tore her nose clean off before she could blink. I mean there was NO NOSE there, just that little bone that protrudes at the top. She had to have a complete nose replacement (however they do that nowadays).
So there’s a rule that says to keep dogs on a leash. That rule is there because dogs are both man’s (humankind’s, whatever) best friend as well as a potentially lethal weapon capable of tearing people limb from limb. In a split second this dog, may he rest in peace, might have maimed the cop. Is that an acceptable outcome?
I know we have a problem with “prolonged adolescence” in our culture, but you guys are not “college kids”; you are first rate university students. The Daily Cal is also not a pretend newspaper. This was NOT well thought out and smacks of naivete. Wise up, cuz ur better than this ….
Well said.
Um, no. Life = scratch on the arm? False equivalency.
The best part is, you probably support gun control and think the government wants to protect us too.
I really don’t know WHAT the hell you’re saying in response to me. Please elaborate.