November 20, 2010 in City

Deputy in probe shot dog, spurring lawsuit

Spokane native recounts California incident

Thomas Clouse The Spokesman-Review

Tags:Alan CreachBrian HirzelCathedral CitySheriff Ozzie KnezovichWayne Scott Creach

33 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

lewis8457 on November 20 at 7:39 a.m.
so we have a cop out there that will shoot a dog and a 74 year old man. Sounds like he is a big man that needs to be knocked down a few pegs. what about it Ozzie will you fire this scum or give us a demonstration on shooting a dog?
If your missing your dog you might want to start checking the trunks of police cars.
misjustice on November 20 at 9:43 a.m.
Lewis, we all know that NOTHING is going to happen to the dog killer, Hirzel. Tucker’s got his back.
misjustice on November 20 at 10:53 a.m.
More on the dog killer;
“Eileen Harvey, 80, who was born in Spokane but lived as an adult in California, said that was the day her husband, Ronald, had a massive heart attack.”
“She called 911 and asked for an ambulance. Hirzel was among the police officers who responded as well. Harvey, who was 67 at the time, stopped CPR and ran to unlock her front door before returning to her husband.”
“The next thing I heard was a very loud shot and a loud yelp,” Harvey said. “I didn’t realize for a few seconds that he had shot my dog. I was consumed with trying to save my husband.”
“Paramedics took away her husband. Police officers who arrived after Hirzel took away the body of the 9-year-old golden retriever named Duchess.”
“When I went out after they took my husband, there was blood all over the wall and floor. It was horrendous,” Harvey said. “Now I was grieving for both of them.”
“Harvey, who had rescued the dog from a shelter, sued Cathedral City for $3 million. City officials later settled the case for $10,000, she said.”
“It was a very small settlement because I knew the police officers would back each other up and not tell the truth,” Harvey said. Hirzel “said the dog was attacking him. He said he had been bit or threatened two weeks prior to that. He just killed her.”
http://dailyme.com/story/2010112000001976/deputy-probe-shot-dog-spurring-lawsuit.html
zelda on November 20 at 11:13 a.m.
What the hell?! I mean it — what the hell?!
This guy is a killing machine. He operates under a uniform code — shoot everything. No brain, no judgment, just adrenaline.
misjustice on November 20 at 12:03 p.m.
Yeah, what the hell?
Pin a medal on him!
Coffee on November 20 at 6:29 p.m.
Brian Hirzel is just in the wrong job he should become a TSA employee of course he may be just a little to low on the food chain even for them to employ.
chouligirl on November 20 at 6:56 p.m.
and what makes this story “premium” so the rest of us non-premium subscribers can’t read it? really SR?? how do you determine what news story is premium and what isn’t? wtf…
as for Hirzel, what a waste of flesh. he should lose his ability to ever be a police officer again anywhere. he has no regard for any life whatsoever. I can’t imagine the grief and trauma of her husband possibly dying of a heart attack and duffous Hirzel shooting her golden retriever. what is wrong with him??!!
is he still on paid leave? how long does it take to investigate and convict this thug?
eagle on November 20 at 7:47 p.m.
Wow this is really incredible, do you rememeber the original questions and answers following the Creach shooting, “What kind of man shoots a Pastor of 45 years on his own property without permission to even be there and then goes on VACATION to VEGAS?” answer a man of low character. But now the question is, what kind of police department knowingly hires and defends a man with this type of history? It would be absolutely unbelievable if Hirzel somehow was in that womans home without instructions to be there from his dispatch. I have to wonder if the Sheriffs department knowingly hired this guy or if he knowingly misled the Sheriffs department and the department failed to perform a competent background check on him. Either way there is a pattern here that can’t be denied. The civil lawsuits just seem to follow this man wherever he goes.
Ed Byrnes on November 20 at 11:12 p.m.
I have always asserted that it is legitimate to question authority and Deputy Hirzel, through his own actions, opens his character and judgment to questions. Since none of us were present at the Creach or Harvey incidents we are left with questions and may want to avoid asserting answers. Nonetheless, this emerging pattern of behavior and character might not affect reasonable doubt in a criminal proceeding though it is beginning to appear that it could create preponderance in a civil one. Thank goodness that Alan Creach is not easily dissuaded from pursuing the truth, whatever it may be.
Ron_the_Cop on November 21 at 1:26 a.m.
Eagle,
As I told my CJ classes many times, don’t skimp on background investigations.
lewis8457 on November 21 at 7:22 a.m.
MisJ apparently the police do no background check and couple that with no drug test what type of people do we have as police officers?
Why wouldn’t Ozzie fire Hirzel when they find this stuff out or they already knew?
The list of items that can get someone shot or their dog for that matter is getting longer.
Gun, Knife, Rock, pepsi bottle, hammer held by senior citizen, dog at door.
Come Ozzie show us what your guys are trained to do if they meet a puppy at the door? Blam, blam, blam
bszottlinger on November 21 at 10:27 a.m.
A big issue for me is why this incident was not included in the investigative report sent to the prosecutor. I wonder whether information regarding the litigation against the Chief of Police in Cathedral City, which Deputy Hirzel was involved in, also was not included in the investigative file.
I would not expect Hirzel’s personnel files from the three law enforcement agencies to be made public, I would however expect that Mr. Tucker would have been provided those files by the investigators. If Mr. Tucker was not provided with the personnel files nor requested them, I would suspect his explanation would be that they were not relevant to the case at hand. I disagree with that position as I feel it is important that the prosecutor must have all the available background information possible in making a charging decision whether or not the information is admissible at trial.
The investigator hired by the Creach family will be able to follow-up on the civil litigations Hirzel was involved in because when filed they become a matter of public record. The Family will likely have to wait to see the personnel files until they are subpoenaed for the civil litigation to determine if “negligent hiring or retention” was an issue. This article speaks to one witness the investigator has uncovered it will be interesting to see how many more he develops including other officers who have worked with Hirzel.
I am not surprised that the Creach family asserts that their investigator, apparent to many of us, has uncovered a number of discrepancies and mistakes that are commonly found during a plaintiff’s investigation. That is why it is so important that the investigation is top notch and every effort is made to minimize the amount of mistakes that are made. That cannot be done if, as is usually the case, Police Administrators rush the investigation, something, based on the various emails made public that obviously has happened here.
It looks like the Creach case, as was the Zehm case, will be another learning experience for Spokane Law Enforcement. The question is, will they accept the fact that many mistakes were made, and make the necessary changes or will they defend to the end the investigation, their training, their abilities, and continue along the same path they have been allowed for so many years.
I will be anxious to read Ron’s review of the 733 page investigative report.
Brad
Ron_the_Cop on November 21 at 12:26 p.m.
Brad Z,
Det. Hamond and others at SPD chose not to make the Dep. Hirzel’s files from Cathedral City part of the reports given to Steve Tucker (Page 119 of the redacted 733 reports)
bszottlinger on November 21 at 2:53 p.m.
Ron_the_Cop:
I would hope they gave it to him as a separate file, and did some follow-up on any allegations that might have been made in the files. Perhaps there was concern about privacy issues since the primary file was going to be made public. Even though I do not believe Hirzel’s Personnel/IA Files should be made public at this point, when Mr. Tucker announces his decision I would hope the press would ask if in fact he reviewed all of those files before making his decision.
I understand that Mr. Pulver is very well thought of within the local defense bar, and has considerable contacts in law enforcement in Kootenai County so I would suspect he will be doing interviews with those folks, as well as any California officers that are willing to talk.
I will guarantee you this, in the Zehm case, the AUSA has all of Officer Thompson’s personnel and IA files, and Agents did follow-up on any aspects that may assist in gaining an understanding of Officer Thompson.
bszottlinger on November 21 at 2:59 p.m.
Ron,
Just one other thing, I would assume when you presented a case to the prosecutor you included the suspect’s criminal history and did follow-up on any issues, though not necessarily admissible, that would shed some light on the suspect.
Brad
Ron_the_Cop on November 21 at 4:51 p.m.
Brad Z,
Yep re criminal histories for sure. It was expected by the district attorney’s office at the time of filing as this played a factor in deciding whether to file a fel/misd if it was a “wobbler” and also for potential sentencing enhancements and/or CA “strike” priors for past serious felonies as defined in the three strikes law. In CA not all felonies were “serious felonies” under this law. Generally crimes of personal violence, robbery, kidnapping, certain drug trafficing offenses and gang related offenses.
Here’s the wording by Det. Hamond re Cathedral City’s file from Page 119 of the redacted report:
“In conversations with the investigative team to include Lt. McGovern, it was felt that the entire case file involving the incident with Deputy Hirzel in Cathedral City, California, would not be included int he investigative packet because it had no direct bearing in the investigation involving the shooting death of Mr. Creach. Detective Hamond has made DPA Driscoll aware of the existence of that incident and the subsequent investigation.”
Sounds like this is the file related to the neck control hold death and not this case involving the shooting of the dog.
bszottlinger on November 21 at 7:19 p.m.
Interesting that “the investigative team to include Lt. McGovern” is able to make decisions as to what does or does not have a “direct bearing” in the investigation involving the shooting death of Mr. Creach.
As far as transparency is concerned that certainly leaves things open to many questions. Was there anything else, that the “investigative team to include Lt. McGovern” did not provide the prosecutor because they “felt” it had “no direct bearing” on the investigation?
This is silly, you give the prosecutor everything you can get and let them decided. Unless of course you have something, you do not want the prosecutor to know. The investigative team must have had at least some idea that this would end up in a civil litigation and the Creach family would end up with all the information so why hold anything back knowing that later people would question why you withheld information. That is nuts.
Does an investigator withhold information on the acquittal of a rapist in a previous case because he thought it had no bearing on the new case? Does an investigator withhold information on the acquittal of a murderer who allegedly poisoned a victim and is later arrested for shooting a different victim because he/she thought it had no direct bearing?
Why would Prosecutor Driscoll be satisfied with simply being told by Detective Hammond about the incident? Would he not want to read the file and make his own determination as to the relevancy of any information in the file, or on the other hand would he take the position that it would be better not to know in case something significant comes up later and the prosecutor can blame the cops for not providing all the information they needed. Moves like this just open the door for the public to question what is going on. How much easier would it have been to just provide the prosecutor with every thing and let them decide?
I’m assuming there is no mention of Hirzel having shot the dog, which would lead me to believe that either the investigators didn’t know about it, even though it was public record, or they felt it had “no direct bearing” on the investigation.
I know what the response would be if an FBI agent came into the office of the USAG and told him/her that the officer under indictment for a CRV involving someone’s death had a previous case where the officer killed another individual and the FBI was not going to submit the file to the USAG regarding the earlier case because they did not feel it had a direct bearing on the case at hand.
I would like to say this is comical but I cannot, it is absurd.
Brad
k9coug on November 21 at 7:26 p.m.
I wish my newspaper would report stories about law enforcement fairly, but after many years and complaints I do not anticipate this happening any time soon. Dogs act differently around uniforms and stressful situations. The nicest dog in the world has the propensity to bite. I do not know the circumstances of this incident, but would assume the Spokesman does. If they do, we need more of the details, and why from those details this is relevant to the investigation. A city that would settle a lawsuit with a recently widowed woman is not at all unusual even without any culpability. I also doubt that the other police report used the term “chokehold.”
bszottlinger on November 21 at 7:36 p.m.
Sorry Officer; If I used the term “chokehold” please insert “Lateral Neck Control Technique”.
eagle on November 21 at 9:45 p.m.
Ron, perhaps you should contact Cathedral City and ask for copies of any relevant records, it may be possible that the SPD did not even request that info. Also after reading some of the Creach families news comments it would appear that they believe that the SPD has been somewhat less than honest or transparent. I would hope that is not the case but if Pulver is as good as some are saying he may be compiling a list not just discrepancies but also LE’s obvious attempts to corrupt evidence anddistort facts in an attempt to deceive the courts
Ed Byrnes on November 21 at 11:00 p.m.
k9coug: I am grateful that you are joining this forum with an understanding that all of the facts of this case are apparently not available to everyone. I trust what you will see in this forum is people asking legitimate questions. Ron, Brad and others have not been making spurious assertions. If you want to see spurious assertions or even some downright meanness, such as people who question the actions of LE being characterized as uneducated or criminal, or LE being referred to as pigs, that has happened in some past forums.
The good news is that the tone of these conversations is changing to substantive discussion and questioning, with individuals from both sides of the issues participating. Welcome to the discussion about how to heal the divide between LE and the public.
I have been doing some research on citizen review of OIS’s and will write more about what I learn once I believe I have been thorough, and I invite you to please share you view of the pros and cons of this idea.
Ed
Ron_the_Cop on November 22 at 9:10 a.m.
Brad Z, Eagle, Ed and Ernie,
I think SPD only had the info on the death in custody and one other issue from Cathedral City involving Dep. Hirzel. I don’t think SPD had this dog shooting incident. The family’s PI apparently got that one. How Clouse became aware of this incident is unk. I don’t think the Creach family released it. Perhaps the owner of the dog or her relative that lives here tipped the S-R.
In any event these officer personnel files shouldn’t be released in publicly released reports. If necessary they can come in by subpoena in a later civil case if the judge deems them relevant. I believe SPD was trying to shield these personnel files from becoming public with the release of the redacted reports. I don’t have heartburn over this but would expect the prosecutor’s office would receive these complete files that would be exempted from disclosure under WA public disclosure law.
I don’t know what the past practice has been re making these OIS investigations public once they are given to the prosecutor. In my opinion the reports in a normal environment shouldn’t become public until the prosecutor decides not to file criminally.
If SPD didn’t have such a track record of nontransparency - “trust us” in these OISs, this really wouldn’t be an issue. This is further compounded by Tucker’s acceptance of the police work product without question - the Zehm case. Tucker doesn’t have his own investigators and must rely on LE to do most of the investigatory work.
There is no real independent review/check of the SPD’s work product. The Ombudsman is a start but this is a work in progress. I have experience with civilian review boards. They sometimes only provide a false sense of security much like the TSA screenings do for feel good reasons at considerable public expense.
What will raise the bar and regain trust of the community is a police command staff that will demand excellence. This was not evident with KREM2’s “Cage Fight” report. See my previous comments in the other thread:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/nov/17/police-officers-who-shot-gunman-identified/?comments#c221284
As former Sheriff Tony Bamonte has explained if you have police chiefs and sheriffs doing their jobs that they are sworn to do on behalf of WE THE PEOPLE there would be no need for these review mechanisms.
As I said in this earlier thread:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/nov/07/life-or-death-in-an-instant/#c217209
“In officer involved shooting cases (OIS) for the benefit of us all as a community, we need top flight criminal/IA investigators doing A+ work. Doing anything less has both criminal/Internal affairs/civil ramifications. Do sloppy work and we as taxpayers we suffer the financial consequences when in the subsequent civil actions that will follow we have to pay the piper. We have the right as citizens to hold our elected/appointed accountable when they fail to do their jobs and the financial consequences of their poor work product is that we have to indemnify their mistakes as taxpayers. . .
Based on my professional training, education and experience as both a criminal investigator and police union president from a So Cal agency with over 500 personnel, the Creach OIS case as handed off to Steve Tucker to review is incomplete with many areas in need of further investigatory work.
I do understand the complaints/concerns by the OIS detectives re giving this investigation to Tucker at the time they did. The detectives’ concerns were apparently over ruled by the law enforcement brass. What was the rush? I would be embarrassed to present such a work product to my district attorney’s office for review to determine whether a police shooting was justified criminally. . .
[Continued]
Ron_the_Cop on November 22 at 9:11 a.m.
[Continued from above]
Further I will not go into detail here but there was a public official that reached out to my current employer and accused me of making “wild speculation” re this OIS. Was this an attempt to silence me as a citizen with unique experience, education and training from offering constructive critique? . . .”
Of course if the citizens of Spokane wish to continue with “Spokane Nice”, burying their heads in the sand and not hold their elected/appointed accountable nothing will change. That’s why I was actively campaigning against the re-election of Tucker that probably was related to the complaint to my employer. This is the typical MO of Spokane’s power elite to silence outspoken critics.
I chose to move to Spokane for it many fine attributes and amenities with exception of local government that is co-opted and corrupt. I for one will not BURY MY HEAD in the sand when I see unprofessional behavior and/or wear a sign on my back in Downtown that says, “Taxpayer - ROB ME!” I will not go quietly into that goodnight.
BTW my former department just lost another officer in-the-line of duty yesterday:
http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_News_Local_D_shooting09.110cb89.html
We lost six officers due to firearms in my thirty-year career:
http://web.mac.com/rpdremembers/RPD_Remembers/Memorial.html
Det.Ron Wright (Retired)
Former two-term president of the Riverside Police Officers’ Assn.
Riverside, CA
bszottlinger on November 22 at 9:53 a.m.
eagle:
I do not at this point believe that there is an obvious attempt on the part of law enforcement to “corrupt evidence” and “distort facts”. I attribute the mistakes that have been made to a lack of experience, understanding the problem, and just plain common sense at the administrative and supervisory level. I do not necessarily blame the investigators. Their administrators must establish the investigative expectations.
When discussion took place regarding the presentation of the file concerning the previous death associated with Deputy Hirzel, an administrator should have had the foresight to step in and direct the “investigative team including Lt. McGovern” to provide the prosecutor with every piece of information they had. You would think that after the video fiasco in the Zehm case, someone in authority would have common sense enough to say “We will not put ourselves in a position where we can be accused of withholding anything from the prosecutor, period!”
The same is true of releasing the vehicle back into the motor pool, an administrator should have said, “I don’t care how badly the Sheriff wants that vehicle back, it is a piece of evidence, it’s early in the investigation and although you may think you did all the forensic testing you need, something may come up later. The evidence will be released only when the prosecutor gives us the okay in writing.” There is no legitimate reason not to take that position.
Drug testing is an important part of the written Critical Incident Protocol, and allows for voluntary testing or obtaining a search warrant. It is the responsibility of police administrators to see to it that an effort is made to secure samples from the officer/s involved. A form requesting voluntary samples and written permission to do so should be a part of every investigation and documented in the case file (Is it in the file Ron?). Did an administrator or supervisor address the issue that evening, I doubt it? I am guessing it was not done, because as a matter of course it is not done. Administrators not investigators need to address this issue.
The stupidity of rushing the investigators in a case like this, always comes back to haunt an organization and it will in this case. Mr. Pulver has lots of time to spend following up leads, interviewing witnesses, and picking apart the investigative process. That is to be expected, and he will find mistakes throughout. The question is, will law enforcement be willing to learn from the mistakes or not. I would bet the investigators including Detective Hammond would like to have some things back, but it’s to late, not their fault it is the fault of the brass. Almost every OIS Investigator I have interviewed has said the same thing “ Yes I should have, but the brass was all over me to get this done and that done they don’t have a clue, and I never was given the time to sit back and think or do the things I wanted to do.” Therefore, when I see the Chief of Police demanding that the case be submitted to the prosecutor right away, I have a good idea of what is going on.
It is time for the investigators including Lt. McGovern to take a stance and say we are not trying to hide anything, we are trying to do a good job, but administrators who are only concerned about protecting their own image hinder us. If you are not willing to do that then you might as well plan on having to put up with the heat for the rest of your careers.
Brad
bszottlinger on November 22 at 9:57 a.m.
Ron,
We overlapped, good points!
Ron_the_Cop on November 22 at 10:35 a.m.
Ed and Brad,
I don’t think there is anything in the current critical incident policy that addresses the drug testing issue. Drug testing from my read was never done either voluntary/compelled in the Creach OIS.
I’ve mentioned before we had a chief that went overboard on drug testing after a critical incident. We sued and got a temporary injunction. We then later successfully negotiated a compelled drug testing of the officer directly involved and gave admin what they needed to forestall this issue coming up in later civil litigation. This policy had built in safe guards using a medical review officer (MRO) that screened the results before the department got the results. This was to screen out prescribed meds taken in therapeutic dosages and noise level false positives of illegal/controlled substances.
I agree there was no deliberate covert effort to conceal facts in this OIS. Of course in prior OISs I would question the actions of Asst. City Attorney Rocky Treppiedi that the feds are exposing now in the Zehm case. The OIS investigators obviously were being hammered by the brass to hand this case off to Tucker (KREM’s Report on the emails). Perhaps this urgency was due to the pending election. The OIS investigators perhaps could have benefited from other seasoned OIS investigators were detached from this investigation reviewing their work product to close the obvious gaps I’ve seen. OIS investigations are definitely a learning process for all involved. As you suggest what we should expect is that the same mistakes should not be repeated from investigation to investigation. This is a police management issue that you and I appear to agree on.
Ron
bszottlinger on November 22 at 3:35 p.m.
Ron,
The new CIP that changed the interview timeframes contains the drug-testing element. It does not however contain the safeguards you mention. Whether or not safeguards are part of another policy, one can only guess.
We are completely in agreement regarding leadership, and I understand the position that the grunts are in because of it.
I would be more inclined to believe that the “urgency” was leadership more concerned about media pressure and public outcry then doing the best job possible. If I were the boss, and thank God I am not, I would have sent Detective Hammond and his crew to Cathedral City to do the same thing that Pulver is doing now. Anyone can call that second-guessing if they so choose, but the fact is as an administrator I would have realized that there would not be an end to the mess for sometime to come and I would not want my troops or my organization to look bad for not having done so. Spending a little money early will end up saving a lot in the end.
I cannot read Lt. McGovern’s mind but from the sound of the emails, he was unhappy with the presentation to the prosecutor, and wanted to do more. I would suspect he would have liked to respond to the press by saying “I’m not happy with what we are giving the prosecutor and I want to do more before we submit the case.” Heck Lt, the worse thing that could happen is she sends you night shift, but just think of the respect you would gain from the men/women you lead. Some times a platoon leader has to take the point just to prove he is willing to suffer the consequences in order to get the job done.
monkeyman on November 23 at 4:23 p.m.
Cool !!! Sounds like bad person all around.
Sad in a way because dog-killing sometimes gets more attention that human killing.
Not sure how true it is, but I have heard that US troops (have to) shoot stray village dogs as they may alert potential terrorists.
I hope more stories of dog killings in Afghanistan (by US troops) were publicized. Perhaps that will leave a worse taste in the mouths of some American public, compared to hearing about some nameless civilians being killed at random on a daily basis. People might then sympathize much more about the costs of war, rather than beating the war drums.
––––––
Warning: graphic and disturbing content.
––––––
US Soldier shoots Iraqi farmer’s dog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfiW07mYBNo
The above was portrayed in much detail on a PBS Frontline episode a couple of years back. Apparently, the soldier just felt like some target practice. The villager/owner seen was crying over its body later.
http://ericsdogblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/us-soldier-shoots-dog.html
eagleproducer on November 24 at 1:04 p.m.
chouligirl: The SR hasn’t figured out that content on the internet should be free. It’s why other newspaper websites kill them in terms of ad revenue. They don’t get the prevailing model and never will. Use the local t.v. stations websites if you want full story coverage that is free.
http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/11/24/quote-unquote-sarah-palin-has-kim-jong-ils-back/
She just keeps on giving and giving. Blessed be, Saracuda!
Elloki on November 24 at 7:54 p.m.
What the story does not say is the officer was trying to get down a narrow hallway leading to the room where the gentlemen was dying. The officer responded to the 911 call and got no answer at the door. As he did so, the dog blocked his path and attacked him. The officer shot it 1 time and continued to the room where the man was dying on the bed. The officer put the life of a human about that of a dog, simple as that. This story is so biased and inaccurate, read the police report for yourself and stop listening to the POS SR who is anti police to begin with. Contact Cathedral City police and obtain a copy of the report. The media is bashing the officer over the Creach shooting, all of which could have been avoided if Creach had simply dropped the gun. If you approach an officer with a gun in hand, then refuse to drop it when told, your asking for problems. The officer has not shot a single person in 19 years, this is his first. He has 43 commendations and not one single sustained use of force complaint - ever! Kinda tells me he’s squared away and a level headed guy. The media continues to report he used a “choke hold” on a man in California that resulted in his death. NOT TRUE, he has never used such hold. The media also has a copy of that report which states just that, but they won’t report that part. Come on media, the info. is in the report you obtained after making things up, report what it really says - post a copy on your sight. Anthony Gomes obtained it directly from the Cathedral City Police under a public records request. I challenge you to post the report on the website and lets see what it really says media, that you lied. POST THE REPORTwhich contradicts what you have said about this officer.
bszottlinger on November 24 at 10:26 p.m.
Elloki:
Just a piece of advice, take it for what you feel it is worth. Think clearly and seriously about what you are doing.
Brad Szottlinger
monkeyman on November 24 at 11:06 p.m.
@ k9coug on November 21 at 7:26 p.m.
“Dogs act differently around uniforms and stressful situations.”
I assume you are a K9 police officer(?). Can you please elaborate on the above, specifically how (and why, if known) the dogs react differently to a uniformed person?
(I was initially going to make a joke about dogs being quite smart…)
Sadbuttrue on November 26 at 4:09 p.m.
If you are going to declare war against the population, and if you decided to use military tactics and treat civilians as hostile enemy combatants, then it follows that the officers you hire should demonstrate a willingness and proficiency for killing.