Hide Techdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.

Body Cam Video Shows Cop Killing A Harmless Dog Within 15 Seconds Of Arriving At The Scene

from the 'fast-moving-situation'-means-more-than-a-cop-shooting-quick dept

I don’t often write about cops killing dogs. It’s not that it’s a rarity. It actually happens all the time.

Laurel Matthews, a supervisory program specialist with the Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services (DOJ COPS) office, says it’s an awful lot. She calls fatal police vs. dogs encounters an “epidemic” and estimates that 25 to 30 pet dogs are killed each day by law enforcement officers.

Cops kill dogs at an alarming rate. And it remains alarming, despite the increased possibility of them encountering actually dangerous dogs. True, cops are often the first to respond to calls about stray dogs. But they also put themselves in danger by wandering into fenced areas meant to keep dogs contained when pursuing suspects or just meandering around in hopes of finding something that justifies their intrusion.

More than half of our federal court districts have held that killing or wounding a family pet is a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. Nonetheless, this behavior persists, with cops seemingly willing to shoot any animal that heads towards them, even when propelled by nothing more than their innate friendliness and curiosity.

Being trigger-happy in the presence of animals can have more serious consequences. Cops have wounded and killed human beings while trying to shoot dogs that had the temerity to ignore shouted orders.

A recent lawsuit [PDF] has highlighted another senseless killing of a family pet by a cop. (While multiple outlets covered this lawsuit, Law and Crime actually posted the complaint, which is why we’re linking to that site.)

According to the lawsuit, Wendy Love and Jay Hamm had stopped in the parking lot of a vacant business to do some work on a second-hand ice machine and give their three dogs a chance to stretch. The business had no name on the front and all the windows were covered. There were no other people or vehicles in the lot.

However, the business owner was apparently monitoring still-live CCTV cameras. He called the Loveland (CO) police department, asking them to send someone out to remove them from the premises, claiming he was concerned the couple was going to tamper with his locked dumpster. The couple was parked nowhere near the apparently-sacred dumpster nor did they approach it at any time, something admitted by the business owner during his call to dispatch.

Officer Mathew Grashorn was the first to arrive. Within 13 seconds, he had exited his vehicle and mortally wounded the couple’s 14-month-old dog.

There’s body cam video of the shooting.

It happens so fast it’s entirely contained in the camera’s 30-second rolling buffer, hence the initial lack of sound. What happens in these 15 seconds is the officer’s arrival, which is followed almost immediately by the officer brandishing his weapon. It’s unclear which threat justified this action. Was it the people hanging out in a vacant parking lot? Or was it the happy dog approaching him at a medium lope? Whatever it was, it resulted in the dog being shot by the officer. And those shots resulted in the dog dying, euthanized four days later because of the severity of the wounds.

There’s something incredibly eerie about the recording. The violence is silent. That disturbing silence is finally interrupted by the distressed shouts of Wendy Love, the first of which is rendered soundless by the body cam’s built-in recording features.

This probably won’t have much legal relevance, but it’s still worth pointing out: the couple accuses the city of fostering this shoot-first behavior in Loveland police officers by continually stressing the importance of protecting local businesses. As the lawsuit notes, this “business-first” mentality has resulted in other acts of police violence. (There are recordings of these incidents as well.)

On June 26, 2020, Walmart suffered no loss when dementia-sufferer and 73-year-old woman Karen Garner walked out of the store without paying for $13.88 of items. When confronted, she gave the items back and attempted to pay for them. Walmart refused and instead called LPD to deal with it. LPD sent multiple officers, including Sergeant Metzler, to locate and tackle Ms. Garner, causing her to suffer a broken and dislocated shoulder. The multiple officers involved did this knowing that Walmart hadn’t suffered any loss. They did it pursuant to the aforementioned policy of making large, demonstrative showings of allegiance to Loveland businesses.

On July 20, 2020, Target contacted Loveland PD to deal with a man (Keenan Stuckey) suffering from mental health issues in their parking lot, requesting that they arrest or remove him even though he was breaking no laws and bothering nobody. Loveland PD sent six officers there in minutes, and they promptly brutalized the man with batons, kicking him, punching him, and doing a pile-driver type of jump atop his lifeless body.

The lawsuit also notes the Loveland PD’s internal investigation cleared the officer of any wrongdoing, claiming he reasonably feared for his safety. But if the officer was fearful, he didn’t show it (other than the immediate use of his weapon). He could have retreated to the safety of the car he had just exited. He could have stepped behind his still-open door. He could have used any less-lethal weapon to subdue the animal. But he chose to kill.

As if this isn’t enough to show just how dangerous law enforcement officers can be, there’s this:

Loveland sergeants and officers next discussed together concern that Ms. Love and Mr. Hamm had mentioned sharing what had happened with the media. Sergeant Metzler told Officer Grashorn that “since [Hamm’s] saying he’s going to go to the press, we better scratch him a ticket for something.”

The officers decided they would claim that Herkimer [the dog shot by the officer] had attacked Officer Grashorn. They did in fact tell this lie over and over again. They told this lie to Larimer County Animal Control and to the veterinarians attempting to treat Herkimer.


This lie was also at the foundation of the Defendant officers’ decision to give Mr. Hamm a ticket for having a “dangerous dog,” a charge that the Larimer County District Attorney’s office later dismissed as not having any basis in fact.

It’s not enough that officers can kill people (or their pets) with near impunity. They also have the power to punish people for having their pets killed by an officer. In this case, it appears this was done to get out ahead of the pet owner’s attempt to tell his story via social media. With the only recording being in police possession, the “our word against theirs” would have ensured the cops’ narrative — the one about an unsecured, “dangerous” dog — would receive the most air time and been immediately granted the most credibility.

That’s an absurd amount of power. And it comes with so very little accountability. The lawsuit — even with the seemingly-damning recording — is still a longshot. And the couple doesn’t get to use tax dollars to move their allegations forward. It’s coming out of their own pockets while the city gets to defend itself and its officers using unlimited funds provided by Loveland residents. And even if the officer is found to be at fault, he’ll likely be indemnified, meaning it won’t cost him anything either. The city will just take that judgment money from taxpayers as well.

The whole thing was recorded. There can be no claims that something is being “taken out of context.” It shows everything the cop did, which was respond to a possible trespass call with deadly force — all within 15 seconds of arriving on the scene. The danger was entirely imagined. And it was justified by retconning the encounter with the issuing of a “dangerous animal” citation. It’s ugly enough that a pet was killed for no justifiable reason. Attempting to punish the pet owner for witnessing an unjustified act of violence is disgusting.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Body Cam Video Shows Cop Killing A Harmless Dog Within 15 Seconds Of Arriving At The Scene”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Still recovering.

Yeah, I already saw the police video and it was soul-crushing. The dog wasn’t showing aggression and didn’t get close enough to the officer to attack.

Grashorn had an excuse to kill a dog and did that.

And then the precinct decided he acted appropriately.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Still recovering.

Realistically the couple probably has an uphill battle here.

While not aggressive, the dog was off leash and did charge the officer. His defense will argue that the officer was fearful that he was going to be attacked and had a right to defend himself. It was a split second decision that he had to make. Most of the time, this sort of argument is sufficient. Procedure and law allows for the use of force to protect yourself from (potential) danger. Often the perception of danger is enough.

What will hurt the officer is his general attitude was crap and a jury will not look highly upon the behavior and appearance of trying to cover it up and come up with something to charge them with. He also didn’t do anything to help himself by announcing his presence or requesting the dog(s) be restrained initially. He walked up knowing the dogs were (potentially) unleashed.

His comments about the dog biting the owner was also really odd and will get spun by lawyers.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Still recovering.

"The dog wasn’t showing aggression and didn’t get close enough to the officer to attack."

Even if it was, the cop was running toward it and its own, triggering the natural reaction to defend. As far as justified shootings go, this seems to be along the same level as shooting a black man because he reached into his pocket in response to his order to show his ID. Self defence kind of loses its meaning when you deliberately cause the situation you’re apparently defending against.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:


for those living in the United States, it is not possible to stress this enough:


the only person you are required to talk to is a judge. that’s it.

this couple would have had a better leg to stand on my NOT TALKING. they set themselves up for a heap of trouble once they started talking about posting footage to the Internet. don’t do that. just get through the encounter. THEN it is time to talk to a lawyer. THEN, if the lawyer gives the OK, go ahead and post the video. but only in THAT ORDER.

Anonymous Coward says:


Unless you are in serious mortal danger, calling the police is rarely the best course of action.

Way too many examples of police acting like thugs protected by the legal system. Between shooting unarmed people, taking property, beating up mentally ill patients, inventing crimes to charge people with who dare show contempt of cop, or any of the other common brutish behavior, it just goes poorly too often.

GloatingSwine says:


One point of correction: You must affirmatively assert your right to silence. Merely remaining silent has been held in court to not be an invocation of that right and allows negative inference to be drawn against you at a later date.

Inform the officer that you will not answer their questions and only provide such identification as your state laws mandate.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

While this is horrible being the resident sociopath means I have to point out that in ‘Merika there are more people pissed about the dog being shot than a person of color.

They’ll demand justice for the dog but are awfully quiet when the courts rule that beating someone to death who was having a mental health crisis was a okay. They’ll accept the narrative even when the video shows something different.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

How about the lack of outrage over the Corrections Officers who used a high pressure hose and boiled an inmate to death?
How about the lack of outrage when the DA declined to file any charges?

So you’ve never heard anyone make the enlightened statement that the person who ended up dead, most often a person of color, should have just followed the orders?
Never seen the cops releasing the victims entire ‘criminal history’ in record time to show people they were a bad person who deserved it?

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re:

A few facts: I accept the 25-30 dogs killed per day as true.

According to the Washington Post, they have recorded over 5000 police shootings since 2015. Trying to drill down gave me tells me ~4400 deaths in 4-1/2 years. Exact number of days tracked and deaths would be a bit more effort than I want to put into making this point, So ill say 4400 deaths over 4 years (remember this is ALL reported human deaths in the US).

From this I can determine Humans, as a whole, are killed by cops at a rate of ~3 per day.

I can’t remember the last time a dogs death made national news. I certainly can’t remember the last time a dogs death resulted in a protest against police violence that got news attention.

On the basis of these facts, I can’t agree more people are pissed about the dogs death. Despite dying at a rate 10 times that of humans, dog deaths are more niche than general police violence issues, more niche than police homicide issues, and more niche than black lives matter. Might result in more virtue signalling facebook posts, but it hasn’t motivated any save our pets marches in the last decade.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Yet amazingly we’ve had people counter protesting BLM protests and screaming the victims should have just complied.

While they might not be having a save the dog marches, they fact they don’t show up when a human is murdered by cops but will do/say/post more when a dog is shot is rather sad.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

While they might not be having a save the dog marches, they fact they don’t show up when a human is murdered by cops but will do/say/post more when a dog is shot is rather sad.

[citation needed]

Your original claim was people being "more upset", a claim I tried to face by noting that demonstrations aren’t happening over dogs, despite the issue being more widespread.

Your response is to claim that because authoritarian lapdogs think the police are saints and you subjectively see more police killed a dog stories, people will "do" something about dog deaths but not people.

I would postulate that the reason you see so many posts about dogs is because they are killed an order of magnitude more often. It takes 10 times the deaths to generate questionably more facebook posts. But it isn’t upsetting people to the degree that it generates actual action. You know, doing something. I don’t see politicians running on the save the dogs police reform ticket. I see plenty running on the save human lives police reform ticket. Some even acting on it.

I don’t actually see any "cops killed my dog" posts being shared nationally. I see "cops killed a dog" posts, sharing a news article. I see far more "Cops killed <insert relation here>" posts sharing , but fewer "Cops killed another person today" posts sharing news articles.

I Postulate your issue is the press, not necessarily the population, as you have claimed. You’ve claimed people don’t do/say/post as much as they do for dogs, a subjective assertion, but the scale of the actual problem is even worse for dogs as it is for people of color.

I think we should prioritize actual effort toward saving human lives from cops. But your subjective opinion has not provided a substantial claim that more outrage is directed toward dog deaths, as the dearth of lawsuits, protests or legislative actions toward the dog shooting issue suggests it isn’t as important to the populace.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

‘Merika where the loudest supporters of the Death Penalty also gave aid and comfort to Abortion Clinic bombers & shooters running from the law.

You can disagree with my opinion of people, but if enough of the "right" people showed up with outrage & demanded change it would happen.

People put effort into writing the FCC because they heard a naughty word on the tv that upset them horribly but don’t bother writing anyone when another person is killed by cops.

People donate to PETA while a portion of the nation went to bed hungry.

People scream how taking a knee is unamerican and an insult to the troops, while they accept the substandard care the vets are getting because we’ve failed to keep up our side of the bargain.

People scream about how businesses are dodging taxes but keep electing the same people who give them tax breaks because they say the right thing about guns or abortion.

People screaming ALL LIVES MATTER not to support but to express their outrage that the community who is on the receiving end of a disproportionate of beatings & killings DARED to speak up and suggest that they deserve equal treatment.

So yes my opinion of humans is low enough to "know" that there are people in this nation who are more pissed off a dog got killed than another POC was shot by cops.

600K+ dead, how many of those were needless deaths because ‘muh rights’ and politicians who made basic steps to protect yourself & others a political litmus test. People more upset they were told to wear a mask than if they managed to make the pandemic worse and they are still doing it.

Anonymous Coward says:

The officer definitely set him self up for this situation by walking up on the couple unannounced and clearly be able to see an unrestrained dog. He was definitely thinking shoot first as he immediately pulled his weapon before saying anything that could have potentially avoided the situation

Then there was clearly “no fucks given” from the officer about what had happened.

And the trespassing is super weak here. Sure it wasn’t their property, but they were in a parking lot. People do that all the time. There is absolutely nothing inherently nefarious about being in a parking lot

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Cdaragorn (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Oh it’s way worse than that.

If there weren’t any clearly marked signs against trespassing and this business’s parking lot was clearly connected to a main road (like almost every business on the planet) it was 100% legal for someone to stop there for a short time.

There is no trespassing case. It’s not just weak, it doesn’t exist.

Anonmylous says:

Garbage training

"In fear of his life." Yeah, I believe it. Because his training was apparently lacking. Instead of ordering the pair via PA to secure their animals, splitting them up and making one approach while the other did that, he chose to: get out of his vehicle, approach, and then deal with the approaching animals with his firearm while giving both of the humans an opportunity to grab any potential firearms from their vehicle and shoot him dead.

If my training made me ignore the humans who could be armed in favor of shooting animals, I’d fear for my life too!

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Defund the Police

The problem is the plutocrats who choose which candidates get to primary (yes, they get to do that) really like the police, and even like their dog-killing and people-murdering policies. And they will not allow a candidate to primary that will support defunding or abolishing the police.

If it were up to the public, the whole justice system has to go. The corruption throughout the courts, the prosecutors, law enforcement and the penal system is entrenched, and nothing short of crimes against humanity are routinely committed.

But ours is not really a democracy, rather an oligarchy with some democratic elements. In the 80s and 90s we get to chose which neoliberal will administrate. Now we get to choose between the status-quo neoliberal and the fascist who wants to go full autocracy.

Even if we defunded the police, they’re ready to wage a civil war to preserve their funding, because money. In fact, they’re already balking against efforts to curb their asset forfeiture racket which helps preserve their vast power.

So enjoy your dog while he’s still alive, and avoid law enforcement, even when you might need them.

Anonymous Coward says:

This sort of mentality

Cops are not trusted by the communities they "serve" anymore so outright hostility by the public to their arrival will become the norm. This is ass backwards as they should be the help not the nuisance.

Cops will be more likely to be shot on sight by people fearful for their lives over these violent brutes the force seems hell bent on both hiring and coddling rather than purging from their ranks.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

This needs to stop

This is heartbreaking!

Look, people get shot by cops… but, what, 99% of the time it’s justifiable. Disobeying a lawful order, running away, being stupid.
I don’t give a rats arse when a human gets shot being stupid.

Animals have no understanding of lawful orders.
And shooting on-aggressive animals is pathetic.

People who hurt animals should spend the rest of their lives waterboarded every hour. And when they finally die or commit suicide their body should be strung up in nature to feed the wiled animals.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: This needs to stop

Don’t misunderstand me, . There’s a difference between best choice and justification.

But situations like the Floyd case rarely happen any more.
And even there, I still felt the cop intended to kill him. Just abuse him.
Also remember that wasn’t a random encounter. The officer and Floyd knew each other and had a deep problem with each other.
It wasn’t random, nor consistent activity.

The problem today is not the use of deadly force, it’s the lace of use and training with lesser options.

But… when you break it down, few human shootings are random. Few exist as extrajudicial.
They aren’t murder or extermination as much as they are wrong application of force.

Killing suspects is bad, not evil.

Killing animals is sadistic sadism.
Want to stop a dog? Blast them with binaca.
Works in the eyes of humans too, instant collapse.

It’s alcohol, it rapidly evaporates causing extreme coldness in the eyes.
Torture? Maybe. But not only less lethal, it’s non-lethal.

Pain lasts up to 2 minutes.
Long enough so zip tie a dog or cuff a human
And unlike mace, pepper spray, and CS, you cant build a tolerance.
Works every time.

There’s no reason to kill a dog.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: "99% of the time it's justifiable"

I don’t know about superman, I’m not a DC fan.
But it would be interesting to see your evidence. What study are you sighting.

Because I have found zero cases study that shows a plague of mass murder. Instead I see case after case after case…
Running away, driving away, not keeping hands up, stupid shite for being at the end of a barrel.

Bad cops need to be ferreted out and properly held responsible.
But even if I disagree with the methods and use of force, most human shootings of humans have cause.

Because I’ve watched approaching tens of thousands of hours of body/dash camand secondary footage.

I’ve seen only 4 that could remotely constitute murder.
Sadly, I remember all of them vividly.

Where there is an absolute systemic problem is the murder of animals.
From dogs and cats to snakes, reptiles, and rabbits.
WTAF is an 8” rabbit gonna do to a cop? Besides run away if not murdered in its cage.

So feel free to come up with some study backed by actual evidence that proves more than 50% of police shooting deaths are from people obeying the police orders. I’ll be waiting.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 "99% of the time it's justifiable"

Not at all. But it’s the reality of the law. And the reality of survival/m: me over you.

When you tell a suspect to stop and they keep running they’re a threat.
When you say hands up and they shove their hand in the pockets they’re a legitimate threat.

I’m not going to repost my extensive break down of less than and non lethal alternatives I believe all law enforcement should be trained with and using.

All I’m saying is it is
What it is.

It’s stupid people doing stupid things and coming out dead.

Wyrm (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 "99% of the time it's justifiable"

When you say hands up and they shove their hand in the pockets they’re a legitimate threat.

I’ll give you this one, with one correction. "… they’re a potential threat."
They might not be armed, they might not hear you to begin with (yes, that’s a real case where police shot someone who had earphones and couldn’t hear them: are you going to blame him for listening to music?).
But I agree that they might have a weapon and getting ready to shoot.

When you tell a suspect to stop and they keep running they’re a threat.

This one, certainly not. They might become a threat later on, or in some cases they might be a threat to people crossing his path, but if he’s fleeing he’s definitely not a threat to you. You can’t pretend "you fear for your own life" when shooting down someone running away from you. Unless he’s also shooting back at you, but I’ve yet to see such a case (outside of movies that is).

You see, the problem is that there are way too many cases where the use of force went above and beyond not only what was necessary, but also what was reasonable and justifiable.

You want to know what study proves that 50% of shootings where unjustified?
That was likely unfounded and probably just a figure of speech instead of actual statistics.
What about your claim that 99% are justified? I’m going to be way more suspicious about this number than the 50% above. There have been enough proof that cops can shoot someone with all the bad faith in the world and get away with it. (Just a little less now than a couple of years ago, but still.) And we also have definite proof in many cases that they will lie through their teeth (with full support from their hierarchy in most instances) about anything to make a shooting "justified", so their reports are difficult to believe.

  • "Disobeying a lawful order", though their orders are not always lawful.
  • "Running away", does present an immediate danger to the cop.
  • "Being stupid", which is not illegal. (Fortunately for some politicians since they give proof of this "crime" on TV.)

And in some cases (I won’t estimate the percentage), we know that cops lie about the circumstances of the shooting. The most common lie being the "resisting arrest", when we can see cops one-sidedly beating someone to a coma or even to death while repeating "stop resisting" to cover their bases.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 "99% of the time it's justifiable"

yes, that’s a real case where police shot someone who had earphones and couldn’t hear them

Damn right. It’s actually why I don’t wear double headphones when I walk/jog.
But I’m more accommodating and understanding than average in terms of law and law enforcement.

but if he’s fleeing he’s definitely not a threat to you

Partly. They’re a volatile potential threat to everyone else.
But if they have a loaded weapon they’re also a threat to you. You don’t think people shoot behind them?
Over the shoulder?

too many cases where the use of force went above and beyond not only what was necessary, but also what was reasonable and justifiable.

I won’t go so far as unreasonable, in my beliefs, but definitely agree there’s more force than necessary.
I’ve always agreed with that aspect.

What about your claim that 99% are justified?

Also a figure of speech, but belief in what is justification varies.

Disobeying a lawful order", though their orders are not always lawful.
"Running away", does present an immediate danger to the cop.
"Being stupid", which is not illegal.

•granted. •could be, see above
•unfortunately correct.

Let’s look at the pocket case.
Licence… etc
I have a gun
Don’t reach for it
Keeps reaching claiming I’m not

Sad situation? Yes. Unfathomable murder? Not at all.
The proper response is to stay still as an officer panics. Hell, for the safety of the officer and the driver!; stay still. Don’t move.

The proper action in such a case is to not reach,
Hands on the wheel
‘Officer I have a sidearm, would you feel safest if I were to step out so you could disarm me?’
That has been my exact interaction.

How about the taser case? Driver is told to get out. Driver turns on car and floors it.
Officer pulls the wrong pistol grip device and shoots the man accidentally.
While the media makes a big deal out of it, they ignore the officer that was literally nearly run over. They ignore that a man so desperate to not comply is operating a deadly device.
If he swung the wheel right he would have clipped, and possibly killed two officers.

Taylor? A know person previously harbouring a fugitive, an armed individual at the door, and a police announcement of who they were?

For all the outrage of late, I am only aware of one that is actually abusive: Floyd.
And even there, where the police response is undeniably incorrect, it’s not racist white cop kills innocent black man !
It’s bad cop killed known user of mind/mood altering drugs… who was resisting even if it was not intentional.
And that cop was sentenced. For a count harsher than what actually happened.

I’ve never denied the real, legitimate, problems. A handful of bad cops. The protection racket of shielding them.
And I’ve been quite vocal in the need to remove deadly weapons from standard policing and move to less deadly methods.

But I will not lie and say this is all without cause, as the media does.
None of these are innocent people interacting with evil blue dogs.

The solution is to acknowledge the reality. All aspects. Police do not need self reloading handguns, let alone rifles, for a traffic stop.
Nor should deadly force be the first act of self protection.


The public and the media need to stop pretend these are innocent victims of law enforcement.

The problem isn’t policing and the solution isn’t defunding.

The problem is excessive use of unequal force for the situation and the protection of the fools who go to such an extreme.

Robin says:

Sergeant Metzler was a bad actor in the Karen Garner incident

It’s interesting to see Sergeant Metzler’s name come up again in this incident. Metzler was of course the first supervisor to arrive on scene after Karen Garner was arrested. He appears to have played a key role in the initial cover up. His own body cam video shows his dismissive interaction with a witness to Karen Garner’s arrest. He made a conscious and probably illegal attempt to hide/bury this particular video from discovery, his actions in this regard detailed by YouTube activist Lackluster: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7Co8M_PxT0

Ashar Koase says:

Idk what’s so hard to figure out here. If the couple who’s dog got shot had control of it instead of letting it run at large, this never would have gone done like it did. Cop was justified in his actions 100%.

Also 100% the dog approaching the officer was about to attack. You can see it is the alpha as it checks the other dog – which then stops other dogs approach – and asserts it’s dominance to attack first.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...