[diggerdick]

Fendi, a six-year-old pit bull, was shot in her owner's Chilliwack yard Tuesday by police who were conducting a training exercise involving a police dog. Dec. 22, 2009.

Fendi, a six-year-old pit bull, was shot in her owner's Chilliwack yard Tuesday by police who were conducting a training exercise involving a police dog. Dec. 22, 2009.
Family furious after police shoot pit bull in yard

Updated: Tue Dec. 22 2009 19:53:58 http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loca ... lumbiaHome
Douglas Quan, ctvbc.ca

A Chilliwack, B.C., family is furious after their six-year-old pit bull was shot and killed by police who came onto their property unannounced to perform a training exercise with a police dog.

Brian Hacker said his dog, Fendi, had gone out into the yard Tuesday morning to relieve herself when two police dog handlers and a police dog came onto the family's property without advance notice.

The pit bull and the police dog engaged each other, he said, and moments later, Fendi was shot.

"They can't break up a dog fight?" he told CTV News. "We're not wrong here on any level."

Hacker's wife, Jennifer Gorcak, told ctvbc.ca that she was folding laundry in the bedroom when she heard the commotion and went outside.

"My husband was two doors down from where the dog limped to her death. He was on his knees screaming, 'They killed Fendi!'" she recalled.

"They should not have been in my yard unannounced," she said.

RCMP spokesman Sgt. Peter Thiessen told ctvbc.ca Tuesday night that the training exercise was being performed by an Abbotsford police officer connected to the Lower Mainland Regional District Police Dog Service and a Chilliwack RCMP officer.

He said that the two officers were training a police dog to track a suspect through a residential area.

When they entered the property, the police dog came under attack by the pit bull, Thiessen said.

Thiessen said the police dog was bitten in the throat.

He said the officers attempted to separate the dogs but were unable to. They feared that the police dog's life was in danger, and a decision was made to shoot the pit bull.

One shot was fired, he said.

Thiessen said this wasn't the first time police dog handlers had used the area for training and that residents had consented to the exercises in the past.

He confirmed that residents were not given prior notice of Tuesday's exercise. He said he didn't know why the notice didn't go out.

That'll form part of the investigation, he said.

[diggerdick]

okay I want to see if I understand this correctly , the RCMP can conduct training exercises on a citizens of Canada private land without notification to that person... then when that person's dog protects that citizens land from and intruder it is shot dead because the RCMP want to protect one of their members .... A police dog.... the owner of this dog that was shot and killed is extremely lucky he was not outside because I would not doubt the RCMP would have deemed him a threat also.....and either tazer or shot him..... the RCMP should conduct their training in a secure area where their police dogs and their handlers are not a threat to the general public........................ what is next, are they going to enter a citizen's home to conduct training... and then shoot that citizen because they do not submit to their commands.

[ridenrain]

The cops should have asked to use the property but the pit-bull should have been inside a fenced yard or on a leash.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Ok, so what would happen if they had actually BEEN tracking a criminal and this happened?
Although I gotta agree with you about the fence/leash.

[ridenrain]

If it's a criminal investigation then they already have the right to go where they need to.
I just think it's a considerate thing to do, just as anyone else should ask first.

Where this might fall apart was if they had one of those burried wire fences and the electric dog collars because that would keep the dog inside it's property. If someone else entered, and there were "beware of dog" signs, the dog owners might have a case.

[OldChum]

Yes I have to get permission to ask to hunt on some ones land and they should have given advance notice of their intention .

[Akhenaten]

The Article wrote:

He said the officers attempted to separate the dogs but were unable to. They feared that the police dog's life was in danger, and a decision was made to shoot the pit bull.

So? Who's yard is it? The police dogs or the pit bulls? By that logic they should've shot the police dog.

There is nothing I can see in the story that indicates whether or not the yard was fenced.

Face it guys -- an I come down H A R D on dog owners who aren't responsible and end up letting their dog maul someone but that's not what happened here. This dog was innocent by any metric. What if it was your dog? All you're guilty of is letting your dog out and all the dog is guilty of is protecting it's territory. Remember this wouldn't have to be a pit bull, could've been plenty of breeds.

[ridenrain]

If there was a fence and a "dangerous dog" sign, then you'd be right.
Would the dog attack the mailman? The Meter-reader? The girl guides with mom & dog?
Just because it's the owners property does not mean he can have possibly dangerous dogs on it. Even on his own property, he is responsible for his dogs actions.

[OldChum]

[Brenda]

WTF???
No one said the yard was NOT fenced...

[Choban]

Regardless, I'd be pissed. I have two large dogs, a fenced yard and signs up that say dog's in yard. My dogs don't let anyone into the yard unless they are with me (with the exception of some friends and family the see all the time). If this happened to my dogs I'd be pissed and I don't discount the fact that this could very well have been a fenced yard. As far as the dangerous dog sign, I disagree, the dog may be amiable to people in theyard but not other dogs especially large police dog breeds.
I would think that the RCMP were lax in not notifying the public, why they can't conduct their training in a facility without putting the public at risk is something I think should be looked into

[BartSimpson]

diggerdick wrote:

okay I want to see if I understand this correctly , the RCMP can conduct training exercises on a citizens of Canada private land without notification to that person... what is next, are they going to enter a citizen's home to conduct training... and then shoot that citizen because they do not submit to their commands.

Canadians have no property rights so the RCMP can enter at will. Next time you folks draft a Charter you might want to remember to include this little gem.

In California, about twenty years ago, the "Campaign Against Marijuana Planting" (CAMP) was a mutli-jurisdictional police force that was initially put together to ostensibly help rural counties deal with drug growers in remote areas.

Part of the 'tools' they had was the ability to seize private property and then sell it and use the proceeds as they saw fit. Consequently, there were several 'raids' against people who simply committed the crime of owning valuable land that the cops wanted to seize. Several landowners were shot and killed and evidence later showed no drugs on their land.

In Humboldt County (around 1990-1991) the proverbial black helicopter appeared over a property and as the four commandoes rappelled down from the chopper they shot the property-owner's dogs. The property owner then shot and killed the four commandoes. He then called the Humboldt County Sheriff for help who responded only to find the man under siege by the multi-jurisdictional force. The Sheriff ordered his men to protect the property owner.

The property owner *never* faced any charges and ended up with a $3 million judgment against CAMP for violating his rights with their warrantless invasion of his property. This was what started the ball rolling to put an end to CAMP.

In short, though, the rights of the property owner to be safe and secure in his home outweighed the spurious 'authority' of the CAMP cops.

Not to mention, his marksmanship also helped to win the day.

I post all of this to underline the reason why the right to keep and bear arms is so integral to a free society. In Canada, when the cops come on your property with no reason and kill your dog you have to suck it up and just hope they don't kill you, too.

Down here you can kill the f**kers and the court and the Constititution will be on your side. But it's hard to stand up to the cops without the means to do so.

[Akhenaten]

ridenrain wrote:

If there was a fence and a "dangerous dog" sign, then you'd be right.
Would the dog attack the mailman? The Meter-reader? The girl guides with mom & dog?

I don't know. Would he? Apparently the dog has lived there for years without incident. You are filling in the blanks here with extrapolations you couldn't possibly know about. You even assume the dog is dangerous and there should be a sign. Why? There's no indication whatsoever that this dog has ever been aproblem and most dogs will run at any other dog that runs into it's yard. That's only natural, not 'dangerous'. You also have zero reason to assume the dog was neither in a fenced yard nor leased. As far as I'm concerned the dog is innocent and as far as we know without any previous incidents. No point going on with "what if it was girl scouts? What if it was a mailman?". We can safely assume mail is delivered to the house already.

Deal with the facts of the story as they are, not a bunch of what-if's designed only to try and excuse the police. As far as Im concerned and with all the info available this dog is innocent.

riden wrote:

If there was a fence and a "dangerous dog" sign, then you'd be right.

Please explain/show me where it says there wasn't a fence OR a sign.

[BartSimpson]

ridenrain wrote:

If there was a fence and a "dangerous dog" sign, then you'd be right.
Would the dog attack the mailman? The Meter-reader? The girl guides with mom & dog?
Just because it's the owners property does not mean he can have possibly dangerous dogs on it. Even on his own property, he is responsible for his dogs actions.

Excuse me, but if my dog were to attack uninvited and heavily armed men on my property then HE'S DOING HIS FREAKING JOB!!!!!

[Akhenaten]

BartSimpson wrote:

ridenrain wrote:

If there was a fence and a "dangerous dog" sign, then you'd be right.
Would the dog attack the mailman? The Meter-reader? The girl guides with mom & dog?
Just because it's the owners property does not mean he can have possibly dangerous dogs on it. Even on his own property, he is responsible for his dogs actions.

Excuse me, but if my dog were to attack uninvited and heavily armed men on my property then HE'S DOING HIS FREAKING JOB!!!!!

+1. The story says the two dogs "engaged". For all we know it was the police dog that attacked the other one.