Translate

23 July 2013

How to Give a Cat a Pill and How to Give a Dog a Pill


How to Give a Cat a Pill
1. Pick up cat and cradle it in the crook of your left arm as if holding a baby. Position right forefinger and thumb on either side of cat's mouth and gently apply pressure to cheeks while holding pill in right hand. As cat opens mouth, pop pill into mouth. Allow cat to close mouth and swallow.

2. Retrieve pill from floor and cat from behind sofa. Cradle cat in left arm and repeat process.

3. Retrieve cat from bedroom, and throw soggy pill away.

4. Take a new pill from foil wrap, cradle cat in left arm, holding rear paws tightly with left hand. Force jaws open and push pill to back of mouth with right forefinger. Hold mouth shut for a count of ten.

5. Retrieve pill from goldfish bowl and cat from top of wardrobe. Call spouse from garden.

6. Kneel on floor with cat wedged firmly between knees, hold front and rear paws. Ignore low growls emitted by cat. Get spouse to hold head firmly with one hand while forcing wooden ruler into mouth Drop pill down ruler and rub cat's throat vigorously.

7. Retrieve cat from curtain rail, get another pill from foil wrap. Make note to buy new ruler and repair curtains. Carefully sweep shattered figurines and vases from hearth and set to one side for gluing later.

8. Wrap cat in large towel and get spouse to lie on cat with head just visible from below armpit. Put pill in end of drinking straw, force mouth open with pencil and blow down drinking straw .

9. Check label to make sure pill not harmful to humans, drink 1 beer to take taste away. Apply Band-Aid to spouse's forearm and remove blood from carpet with cold water and soap.

10 . Retrieve cat from neighbor’s shed. Get another pill. Open another beer. Place cat in cupboard, and close door on to neck, to leave head showing. Force mouth open with dessert spoon. Flick pill down throat with elastic band.

11. Fetch screwdriver from garage and put cupboard door back on hinges. Drink beer. Fetch bottle of scotch. Pour shot, drink. Apply cold compress to cheek and check records for date of last tetanus shot. Apply whiskey compress to cheek to disinfect. Toss back another shot. Throw Tee shirt away and fetch new one from bedroom.

12. Call fire department to retrieve the damn cat from across the road. Apologize to neighbor who crashed into fence while swerving to avoid cat. Take last pill from foil wrap.

13. Tie the little bastard's front paws to rear paws with garden twine and bind tightly to leg of dining table, find heavy-duty pruning gloves from shed. Push pill into mouth followed by large piece of filet steak. Be rough about it. Hold head vertically and pour 2 pints of water down throat to wash pill down.

14. Consume remainder of scotch. Get spouse to drive you to the emergency room, sit quietly while doctor stitches fingers and forearm and removes pill remnants from right eye. Call furniture shop on way home to order new table.

15. Arrange for SPCA to collect mutant cat from hell and call local
pet shop to see if they have any hamsters.



How to Give a Dog a Pill


1. Wrap it in bacon.

2. Toss it in the air.


HOW TO BATHE A CAT


Okay - grab your cat....!
-------------------------------------------

1. Put both lids of the toilet up and add 1/8 cup of pet shampoo to the water in the bowl.

2. Pick up the cat and soothe him while you carry him towards the bathroom.

3. In one smooth movement, put the cat in the toilet and close both lids. You may need to stand on the lid.

4. The cat will self agitate and make ample suds. Never mind the noises that come from the toilet, the cat is actually enjoying this.

5. Flush the toilet three or four times. This provides a "power-wash" and rinse".

6. Have someone open the front door of your home. Be sure that there are no people between the bathroom and the front door.

7. Stand behind the toilet as far as you can, and quickly lift both lids.

8. The cat will rocket out of the toilet, streak through the bathroom, and run outside where he will dry himself off.

9. Both the commode and the cat will be sparkling clean.

 

Sincerely,
The Dog












09 July 2013

GOOD POLICE, BAD COPS

Keep in mind that I'm a white man, an Engineer, a businessman and present a reasonable appearance.  I can only imagine what it's like for dark-skinned or otherwise 'different' people who are zeroed in on by the cops.

This post is a result of my extreme anger at all the dogs being shot dead by cops all over the country because the dogs barked at them or approached them to check them out, as dogs will do with strangers; and this includes dogs in their own yards and a thirteen year old Cocker Spaniel and dogs in their own homes, often during police raids at the wrong addresses.  Much of my Facebook page is dedicated to the abuse and welfare of animals, domestic or wild, and I read accounts, every day, about cops unnecessarily shooting dogs who were running away or being friendly, barking a warning to leave their territory and other "dangerous, aggressive" behaviors.

I was going to write a post about the need for us all to have our city and county police to be properly trained to use non-lethal methods to restrain or, better yet, avoid the same dogs that postmen manage to pass, every day, without having to shoot them.   The majority of these cops are clearly at fault and it's often recorded on home or smart phone videos as such, but their superiors always claim that their boys acted on protocol.   Too often, these  Barney Fifes are let off with no punishment or charges of animal abuse, which is what they are guilty of doing.


Instead, after posting this, I'm going to post an article by a freelance writer, with her permission, that does justice to the issue and is well written and covers everything I wanted to say.  It'll be entitled

Stop the Bleeding: An open letter to police on the shooting of pets





Below, is my contribution:

Over the years, if I've seen a lone cop or one who somehow seemed "lost," I often asked if he/she required assistance.  I was reminded of this, yesterday, when I saw a police car off in a field with its bubble gum lights on and no cop in sight.  I didn't stop at the time, but, on my way back by there some fifteen minutes later, the lights had been turned off and I asked the fellow collecting donations for the homeless if he knew about the cop.  As it turned out, the cop had been talking to the collector fellow at some point and was okay.    It was a crappy intersection to try to make a U-turn to get to that field, but I was planning to do so should his lights still be on and I hadn't been assured by the donation collector that the cop was all right.

Whether we are armed or not, it's a moral duty for all of us to query people if we think they might need help and that includes anyone in uniform.  I stop in the middle of traffic or pull off the road, depending, to help accident victims and even animals, wild or domestic, that are injured.  i do what I can until the EMTs, animal control or police arrive.

[My now oldest cat was in the middle of one of our busiest roads, a five-week old kittten at the time, and I nearly ran over her, myself, thinking she was a sock, until she moved.  I suspect someone dumped her there to get rid of her.  Fortunately, there was no traffic very close behind me and she sat waiting for me; didn't run off.  I tossed her in my truck and she's almost a constant companion, now, about five years old, greets me whenever I come home and often cuddles next to me.]

This does not change my opinion about the bully cops I've run into over the years,  or the ones who are too trigger happy to be given guns and badges, or the ones who shoot dogs and unarmed people instead of being properly trained and quick thinking enough to use non-lethal methods, of course.   Those Barney Fifes shouldn't even be given the one bullet for their shirt pockets, much less a fully loaded automatic weapon.

Many of these should be re-evaluated for their positions and, if deemed necessary, given anger management or other psychological evaluations to determine if they, in fact, should even be on the police force, much less carrying lethal weapons.  It's the responsibility of our city officials and their police chiefs to weed out what I still refer to as Bully Cops, but are quite possibly downright dangerous cops.

On some occasions, when I, myself, needed police assistance, I was given exactly that and usually with friendliness or at least respect for a citizen.  I'd like to think the majority of them are honest and respectful and knowledgable of the law, but I know there are many who don't know the law as well as they think they do,  ignore it or make it up as they go, and that's  why we, as citizens, should know our own state laws should we be accosted for no apparent reason.  Carry a copy of some appropriate statutes with you, if you think it necessary .  I know of one expert concealed carry lawyer who always carried that particular statute with him in case he had to educate a cop about it.

One may still end up in jail, but very likely be released soon after they discover their error and they may even apologize for the inconvenience.


[There was recently written a wonderful article, which I'll also try to post here, which has some wonderful suggestions for dealing with cops and staying out of jail or soon getting out because of a false arrest.]

Rules for Recording Police Actions

I've been waiting to hear from the original author of this article, but have not heard back from him.  It was originally  written a year ago and has since been updated.  I'm going to take the chance of sharing it, here, and should he ask me to remove it, I shall;


7 Rules for Recording Police

Posted on May 21, 2012

Written by Steve Silverman

http://www.redditstatic.com/spreddit2.gif1 point on reddit

This article by Steve Silverman originally appeared April 5, 2012 in Reason.com. It’s been updated to include new information regarding recent rulings in favor of citizens’ right to record.

Last week the City of Boston agreed to pay Simon Glik $170,000 in damages and legal fees to settle a civil rights lawsuit stemming from his 2007 felony arrest for videotaping police roughing up a suspect. Prior to the settlement, the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Glik had a “constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public.” The Boston Police Department now explicitly instructs its officers not to arrest citizens openly recording them in public.

Slowly but surely the courts are recognizing that recording on-duty police is a protected First Amendment activity. But in the meantime, police around the country continue to intimidate and arrest citizens for doing just that. So if you’re an aspiring cop watcher you must be uniquely prepared to deal with hostile cops.

If you choose to record the police you can reduce the risk of terrible legal consequences and video loss by understanding your state’s laws and carefully adhering to the following rules.

Rule #1: Know the Law (Wherever You Are)

Conceived at a time when pocket-sized recording devices were available only to James Bond types, most eavesdropping laws were originally intended to protect people against snoops, spies, and peeping Toms. Now with this technology in the hands of average citizens, police and prosecutors are abusing these outdated laws to punish citizens merely attempting to document on-duty police.

The law in 38 states plainly allows citizens to record police, as long as you don’t physically interfere with their work. Police might still unfairly harass you, detain you, or confiscate your camera. They might even arrest you for some catchall misdemeanor such as obstruction of justice or disorderly conduct. But you will not be charged for illegally recording police.

Twelve states—California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington—require the consent of all parties for you to record a conversation. But do not despair if you live in these states: All but 2 —Massachusetts and Illinois—have an “expectation of privacy provision” to their all-party laws that courts have ruled does not apply to on-duty police (or anyone in public). In other words, it’s technically legal in those 48 states to openly record on-duty police.

IMPORTANT UPDATES: As mentioned earlier, the First Circuit Court of Appeals covering Massachusetts declared the state’s ban on recording police to be unconstitutional. In May, The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals covering Illinois also declared the state’s harsh recording ban unconstitutional, ordering authorities to stop enforcing it. In November, The Supreme Court of the United States rejected Illinois’ petition to appeal the Seventh Circuit Court’s ruling.

Rule #2 Don’t Secretly Record Police

In most states it’s almost always illegal to record a conversation in which you’re not a party and don’t have consent to record. Massachusetts is the only state to uphold a conviction for recording on-duty police, but that conviction was for a secret recording where the defendant failed to inform police he was recording. (As in the Glik case, Massachusetts courts have ruled that openly recording police is legal, but secretly recording them isn’t.)

Fortunately, judges and juries are soundly rejecting these laws. Illinois, the state with the most notorious anti-recording laws in the land, expressly forbids you from recording on-duty police. Early last month an Illinois judge declared that law unconstitutional, ruling in favor of Chris Drew, a Chicago artist charged with felony eavesdropping for secretly recording his own arrest. Last August a jury acquitted Tiawanda Moore of secretly recording two Chicago Police Internal Affairs investigators who encouraged her to drop a sexual harassment complaint against another officer. (A juror described the case to a reporter as “a waste of time.”) In September, an Illinois state judge dropped felony charges against Michael Allison. After running afoul of local zoning ordinances, he faced up to 75 years in prison for secretly recording police and attempting to tape his own trial.

The lesson for you is this: If you want to limit your legal exposure and present a strong legal case, record police openly if possible. But if you videotape on-duty police from a distance, such an announcement might not be possible or appropriate unless police approach you.

Rule #3: Respond to “Shit Cops Say” 

When it comes to police encounters, you don’t get to choose whom you’re dealing with. You might get Officer Friendly, or you might get Officer Psycho. You’ll likely get officers between these extremes. But when you “watch the watchmen,” you must be ready to think on your feet.

In most circumstances, officers will not immediately bull rush you for filming them. But if they aren’t properly trained, they might feel like their authority is being challenged. And all too often police are simply ignorant of the law. Part of your task will be to convince them that you’re not a threat while also standing your ground.

“What are you doing?”

Police aren’t celebrities, so they’re not always used to being photographed in public. So even if you’re recording at a safe distance, they might approach and ask what you are doing. Avoid saying things like “I’m recording you to make sure you’re doing your job right” or “I don’t trust you.”

Instead, say something like “Officer, I’m not interfering. I’m asserting my First Amendment rights. You’re being documented and recorded offsite.”

Saying this while remaining calm and cool will likely put police on their best behavior. They might follow up by asking, “Who do you work for?” You may, for example, tell them you’re an independent filmmaker or a citizen journalist with a popular website/blog/YouTube show. Whatever you say, don’t lie—but don’t let police trick you into thinking that the First Amendment only applies to mainstream media journalists. It doesn’t.

“Let me see your ID.”

In the United States there’s no law requiring you to carry a government ID. But in 24 states police may require you to identify yourself if they have reasonable suspicion that you’re involved in criminal activity.

But how can you tell if an officer asking for ID has reasonable suspicion? Police need reasonable suspicion to detain you, so one way to tell if they have reasonable suspicion is to determine if you’re free to go. You can do this by saying “Officer, are you detaining me, or am I free to go?”

If the officer says you’re free to go or you’re not being detained, it’s your choice whether to stay or go. But if you’re detained, you might say something like, “I’m not required to show you ID, but my name is [your full name].” It’s up to you if you want to provide your address and date of birth if asked for it, but I’d stop short of giving them your Social Security number.

“Please stop recording me. It’s against the law.”

Rarely is it advisable to educate officers about the law. But in a tense recording situation where the law is clearly on your side, it might help your case to politely present your knowledge of state law.

For example, if an insecure cop tries to tell you that you’re violating his civil liberties, you might respond by saying “Officer, with all due respect, state law only requires permission from one party in a conversation. I don’t need your permission to record so long as I’m not interfering with your work.”

If you live in one of the 12 all party record states, you might say something like “Officer, I’m familiar with the law, but the courts have ruled that it doesn’t apply to recording on-duty police.”

If protective service officers harass you while filming on federal property, you may remind them of a recently issued directive informing them that there’s no prohibition against public photography at federal buildings.

“Stand back.”

If you’re approaching the scene of an investigation or an accident, police will likely order you to move back. Depending on the circumstances, you might become involved in an intense negotiation to determine the “appropriate” distance you need to stand back to avoid “interfering” with their work.

If you feel you’re already standing at a reasonable distance, you may say something like, “Officer, I have a right to be here. I’m filming for documentation purposes and not interfering with your work.” It’s then up to you to decide how far back you’re willing to stand to avoid arrest.

Rule #4: Don’t Share Your Video with Police

If you capture video of police misconduct or brutality, but otherwise avoid being identified yourself, you can anonymously upload it to YouTube. This seems to be the safest legal option. For example, a Massachusetts woman who videotaped a cop beating a motorist with a flashlight posted the video to the Internet. Afterwards, one of the cops caught at the scene filed criminal wiretapping charges against her. (As usual, the charges against her were later dropped.)

On the other hand, an anonymous videographer uploaded footage of an NYPD officer body-slamming a man on a bicycle to YouTube. Although the videographer was never revealed, the video went viral. Consequently, the manufactured assault charges against the bicyclist were dropped, the officer was fired, and the bicyclist eventually sued the city and won a $65,000 settlement.

Rule #5: Prepare to be Arrested

Keene, New Hampshire resident Dave Ridley is the avatar of the new breed of journalist/activist/filmmaker testing the limits of the First Amendment right to record police. Over the past few years he’s uploaded the most impressive collection of first-person police encounter videos I’ve ever seen.

Ridley’s calm demeanor and knowledge of the law paid off last August after he was arrested for trespassing at an event featuring Vice President Joe Biden. The arresting officers at his trial claimed he refused to leave when ordered to do so. But the judge acquitted him when his confiscated video proved otherwise.

With respect to the law Ridley declares, “If you’re rolling the camera, be very open and upfront about it. And look at it as a potential act of civil disobedience for which you could go to jail.” It’s indeed disturbing that citizens who are not breaking the law should prepare to be arrested, but in the current legal fog this is sage advice.

“Shut it off, or I’ll arrest you.”

At this point you are risking arrest in order to test the boundaries of free speech. So if police say they’ll arrest you, believe them. You may comply by saying something like “Okay, Officer. But I’m turning the camera off under protest.”

If you keep recording, brace yourself for arrest. Try your best not to drop your camera, but do not physically resist. As with any arrest, you have the right to remain silent until you speak with a lawyer. Use it.

Remember that the camera might still be recording. So keep calm and act like you’re being judged by a jury of millions of your YouTube peers, because one day you might be.

Rule #6: Master Your Technology

A majority of Americans now own a smartphone of some kind. If you’re one of them, you should consider installing a streaming video recording and sharing app such as Qik or Bambuser. Both apps are free and easy to use.

Always Passcode Protect Your Smartphone

The magic of both apps is that they can instantly store your video offsite. This is essential for preserving video in case police illegally destroy or confiscate your camera. But even with these apps installed, you’ll want to make sure that your device is always passcode protected. If a cop snatches your camera, this will make it extremely difficult for her to simply delete your videos. (If a cop tries to trick you into revealing your passcode, never, never, never give it up!)

Keep in mind that Qik and Bambuser’s offsite upload feature might be slow or nonexistent in places without Wi-Fi or a strong 3G/4G signal. Regardless, your captured video will be saved locally on your device until you’ve got a good enough signal to upload offsite.

Set Videos to “Private”

Both apps allow you to set your account to automatically upload videos as “private” (only you can see them) or “public” (everyone can see them). But until police are no longer free toraid the homes of citizens who capture and upload YouTube videos of them going berserk, it’s probably wise to keep your default setting to “private.”

With a little bit of practice you should be able to pull your smartphone from your pocket or purse, turn it on, enter your passcode, open the app, and hit record within 10 seconds. Keep your preferred app easily accessible on your home screen to save precious seconds. But don’t try to shave milliseconds off your time by disabling your passcode.

Both apps share an important feature that allows your video to be saved if your phone is turned off put to sleep—even if you’re still recording. So if you anticipate that a cop is about to grab your phone, quickly tap the power button to put it to sleep. Without your passcode, police won’t be able to delete your videos or personal information even if they confiscate or destroy your phone.

With the iPhone 4 and Samsung Galaxy Android devices I tested, when the phone is put to sleep the Qik app immediately stops recording and uploads the video offsite. But if the phone is put to sleep while Bambuser records, the recording continues after the screen goes black.

This Bambuser “black out” feature is a double-edged sword. While it could easily trick cops into thinking you’re not recording them, using it could push you into more dangerous legal territory. As previously mentioned, courts have shown a willingness to convict citizens for secretly recording police. So if you’re somehow caught using this feature it might be easier for a prosecutor to convince a judge or jury that you’ve broken the law. It’s up to you to decide if the increased legal risk is worth the potential to capture incriminating police footage.

Other Recording Options

Cameras lacking offsite recording capability are a less desirable option. As mentioned earlier, if cops delete or destroy your footage—which happens way too often—you might lose your only hope of challenging their version of events in court. But if you can hold on to your camera, there are some good options.

Carlos Miller is a Miami-based photojournalism activist and writer of the popular Photography is Not a Crime blog. While he carries a professional-end Canon XA10 in the field, he says “I never leave home without a Flip camera on a belt pouch. It’s a very decent camera that’s easier to carry around.”

The top-of-the-line Flip UltraHD starts at $178, but earlier models are available for $60 on Amazon. All flip models have one-button recording, which allows you to pull it out of your pocket and shoot within seconds. The built-in USB then lets you upload video to YouTube or other sharing sites through your PC.

Small businessman and “radical technology” educator Justin Holmes recommends the Canon S-series line of cameras. In 2008, his camera captured a police encounter he had while rollerblading in Port Dickenson, New York. His footage provides an outstanding real-life example of how a calm camera-toting citizen can intelligently flex their rights.

“I typically carry a Canon S5-IS,” Holmes says. “But if I was going to buy one new, I’d go for the SX40-HS. If I were on a budget and buying one used, I’d go for S2-IS or S3-IS.” The features he regards as essential include one-touch video, high-quality stereo condenser microphones, fast zoom during video, and 180×270 variable angle LCD. But the last feature he regards as “absolutely essential.” With it the user can glance at the viewfinder while the camera is below or above eye level.

Rule #7: Don’t Point Your Camera Like a Gun

“When filming police you always want to avoid an aggressive posture,” insists Holmes. To do this he keeps his strap-supported camera close to his body at waist level. This way he can hold a conversation while maintaining eye contact with police, quickly glancing at the viewfinder to make sure he’s getting a good shot.

Obviously, those recording with a smartphone lack this angled viewfinder. But you can get a satisfactory shot while holding your device at waist level, tilting it upward a few degrees. This posture might feel awkward at first, but it’s noticeably less confrontational than holding the camera between you and the officer’s face.

Also try to be in control of your camera before an officer approaches. You want to avoid suddenly grasping for it. If a cop thinks you’re reaching for a gun, you could get shot.

Becoming a Hero

If you’ve recently been arrested or charged with a crime after recording police, contact a lawyer with your state’s ACLU chapter for advice as soon as possible. (Do not publicly upload your video before then.) You may also contact Flex Your Rights via Facebook or Twitter. We’re not a law firm, but we’ll do our best to help you.

If your case is strong, the ACLU might offer to take you on as a litigant. If you accept, your brave stand could forever change the way police treat citizens asserting their First Amendment right to record police. This path is not for fools, and it might disrupt your life. But next time you see police in action, don’t forget that a powerful tool for truth and justice might literally be in your hands.

 

Related articles


·         Boston pays $170k to settle cell phone recording lawsuit (arstechnica.com)

05 July 2013

Stop the Bleeding: An open letter to police on the shooting of pets

I am posting this with the author's permission, with the proviso that I do, in fact, give her the credit for writing it and that the link to the original article be included, which I have done.  I had intended to write much the same letter to my own  county commissioners in Broward County (Ft. Lauderdale), but this was not only easier, but more eloquent than I believe I would have created.  Both Sara Duane-Gladden and myself are on Facebook and both of us are advocates of animal welfare and opponents of animal abuse.  She further gives anyone permission to use this letter -edited for your own purposes if you  must - to send to your own local authorities and I would highly recommend doing so, for those of you who love animals.

The examples she lists are only a few of the hundreds of dogs (and other animals) that have been shot by police this year alone and we both advise that all police authorities be better trained to recognize true threats from non-threatening behaviors and that they be better trained in using non-lethal methods of restraining a perceived threat, which includes backing off until a trained animal control officer may be called in to assist.

·         animal advocacy
·         June 29, 2013
 

 







bY:  Sara Duane-Gladden
Minneapolis Pet News Examiner
 
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/hash/c7/9a/c79a2231bfc040f74400c455e1209904.jpg?itok=Cyk9Pgz5
·         animal advocacy   
·         June 29, 2013      
·          
·         DEAR Mayors, City Councils, Police Chiefs and Police Officers of the United States:
 
You fail to grasp the damage inflicted on communities when police kill pets. The wounds caused by the murdering of dogs and other family pets at the hands of police officers run deeper than bullets into flesh.
 
From Minneapolis to New York City to El Monte, California, police are unnecessarily, and in some cases wantonly, shooting and wounding and/or killing the family pets of citizens. Citizens that once believed people with badges were brave upholders of justice.
 
As the number of family pets shot by police adds up, it is causing damaged relationships beyond the families and friends of these pets. The stories and excuses are circulating in the news to the population at large. Most people are confused and horrified to learn that dogs on their tethers, dogs on their own front porch, dogs under tables and inside their kennels are shot because a police officer was scared.
 
Scared? Really? Of an elderly cocker spaniel? Of a five pound Chihuahua? Of a 4-month-old puppy? I ask you, as city leaders and fellow police officers, how could you trust someone who felt threatened in such situations to remain calm and in control when people’s lives are really at stake? People are not only worrying that their police officers are inadequate for the job, law-abiding citizens are beginning to worry if their pets could be next should they ever have to call for help. That fear feels very real as in case after case, police departments turn their heads away from these shameful acts and defend cowardly conduct as “protocol.”
 
What happens when police officers miss their intended victim? In North Carolina, an innocent dog owner was shot in the leg when police tried to shoot the dog standing by her side. In Minneapolis, a police officer was shot by a fellow police officer that was trying to shoot a dog. A bullet ricochet from a police discharged weapon wounded both a dog and a child in Mississippi and police shooting at a dog in Lima hit a pedestrian instead.
 
If the potential for friendly fire, injured citizens and damaged community relationships isn’t enough to convince leaders of the detrimental effects of police shooting pets, perhaps the potential for monetary damages will sway opinions. The incidence of successful lawsuits against cities and police forces following such shootings are mounting. In Minneapolis, a lawsuit was settled to the tune of $250,000 over the police shooting a family dog, right after another $25,000 settlement. In Iowa, Des Moines paid $51,000 for egregious police mistakes. La Grange, Missouri, also paid $51,000 and Marble Hill, Missouri, paid $145,000.
How many of those types of lawsuits could your community afford? Do you think the citizens of your city will be okay with picking up these bills? The madness needs to end and you can help to stop it. All police officers should undergo training to reduce these damaging incidents. They should face disciplinary action and potential for firing when they use deadly force when it’s unnecessary.
 
At what point will police and community officials admit that every effort should be made to reduce the carnage of police bullets on our communities? An easy place to start with that is to stop aiming them at pets.
Every incident, every dead and injured family pet at the hands of the police erodes community confidence in the supposed "protectors of the peace." If mail carriers, pizza delivery workers and people of other professions who encounter strange dogs every day don't need to shoot them, there is no credible excuse for police to do so. When ordinary citizens do shoot a dog, they’re often prosecuted for reckless discharge of a weapon and/or animal abuse. Why are police not held to the same standard?
 
Please stem the tide of dead family pets: Train your officers in dog behavior, dog emotions and non-lethal forms of diffusing these situations. The time and money investment in such training is a fraction of the potential lawsuits you may face. Not only will pets and pet owners be pleased, your taxpayers will thank you for it.
 
Sincerely,

Sara Duane-Gladden
Minneapolis Pet News Examiner