Police car runs down and kills foxhound as a last resort

[12gauge82]

Muddy funker, totally agree

[E.w.]

Q

For those saying stopping the traffic poses a significant risk, presumably to give the police car a fair chance of hitting the target; stopping the police car after impact to make sure the dog was dead and car not knackered; clearing the burst dog off the carriageway along with any bits of bumper, headlights, etc all required the traffic to be stopped anyway.

There is no excuse, the traffic simply needed to be stopped.

The police car has all the disco lights on top for that very reason.

My god, How on earth did you come up with that load of verbal, you weren't there but you keep making thing up assumptions assumptions that's all you got.

[grrclark]

My god, How on earth did you come up with that load of verbal, you weren't there but you keep making thing up assumptions assumptions that's all you got.

Again your response baffles me.

 

A few folk have mentioned that stopping the traffic would have presented a risk, i simply made suggestion that the traffic would have to have been stopped anyway for any of the reasons in my post, hence that argument is moot.

 

Or are we to assume that the police car hit the dog whilst traffic was still flowing and then they carried on?

 

So how is it "a load of verbal"?

 

For whatever reason you seem to want to challenge me, but if makes you happy then you bash on.

[E.w.]

Again your response baffles me.

A few folk have mentioned that stopping the traffic would have presented a risk, i simply made suggestion that the traffic would have to have been stopped anyway for any of the reasons in my post, hence that argument is moot.

Or are we to assume that the police car hit the dog whilst traffic was still flowing and then they carried on?

So how is it "a load of verbal"?

For whatever reason you seem to want to challenge me, but if makes you happy then you bash on.

.

 

There's nothing that should baffle you because from your postson other threads you come across as an inteligent and rational man.

 

You don't think for one second that the officer wanted to run that dog down, but if it saved the life of one human being then so be it.

 

Some people I've spoken to in the farming community think the officer involved should get a medal.

[timmytree]

Most PW discussions are intelligent and good reading. Somehow this one has degenerated. The police acted in the way they thought correct at the time. They had to make the decision to take out an animal that may have caused an accident after previously trying to stop it. Whatever they do someone is going to moan about it aren't they? A road closure can't be done in seconds, a running dog isn't like a static accident scene, in the time it takes to put on a closure the dog may have moved another 3 or 4 miles. The police acted as they did to prevent a possible accident involving human life.

Maybe those who can't accept the reason might question if shooting birds or animals to prevent crop damage is ethical? Maybe more netting over crops and rabbit proof fences around every field would be the answer?

Maybe the dog should have been under proper control? why not prosecute the owner and give them the bill for damage to the police car?

It's 1 dead dog, no dead people. Good result.

[Mike737]

The 'disco' lights are only visible where the police car is, and not necessarily at the back of the queue. Donkey's years ago, one car would do 'Tailback Duty', and be at the back of the stationary traffic, with the blue light lit, steadily reversing to try and stay with the back of the queue. But they wouldn't have had time to organise anything in this instance. Officer bitten, vehicles swerving, police car at scene, driver makes decision. If they hadn't done that, and a multiple pile-up had occurred, with injury or loss of life, who would be being blamed then?

 

Graham, I normally hold your posts in high regard, but this time, I fear you have missed the point. (Or someone has hacked your account...) The officers have a split-second decision to make. Even allowing for the fact that the dog has been run down and killed, it may well not have required the whole carriageway to be closed, just one lane. And I still come back to the fact that a lorry and a car had already swerved to avoid the dog, and a tragedy could easily have occurred. An HGV swerving and crossing the central reserve would happen in a few seconds. Once the dog was out of the equation, all the traffic has to do is slow down. While the dog is panicking, and running wild, it could go anywhere. Who has seen the aftermath of an HGV crossover? No people died, and they could so easily have done. I'm glad it wasn't me making the decision, but I think it was the right one.

 

Mike.

[grrclark]

There's nothing that should baffle you because from your postson other threads you come across as an inteligent and rational man.

 

You don't think for one second that the officer wanted to run that dog down, but if it saved the life of one human being then so be it.

 

Some people I've spoken to in the farming community think the officer involved should get a medal.

Truthfully I have no idea what would compel the officer to run down the dog and think that is an appropriate course of action.

 

I absolutely do understand a balance of human life versus a dog and i have no problem with the destruction of the dog.

 

None of us know the detail and to that end speculation is unhelpful, but yesterday the M5 was stopped during the day to allow for the safe removal of a stray dog on the carriageway.

 

The same road was closed during the day not so long ago to let a swan and cygnets clear the carriageway.

 

If it had been a horse or a cow then hitting the animal with the car would not be an option simply due to the size of the beast so the traffic would have had to be stopped.

 

I don't accept the argument that the risk was so significantly increased that it may have led to a human death had they chosen to stop all traffic until the dog could be captured or moved off the road.

 

I absolutely can believe there is a very real resourcing problem and that relocating police units to deal with a stray dog on a road at 3am would have been a real inconvenient menace, possibly requiring traffic to be stopped for a while.

 

If someone can present a good and well reasoned scenario that can reasonably demonstrate why driving a car at speed to hit the dog is the best possible course of action then I will consider myself better informed and happily concede that this course of action may have been correct, but it will have to be something better than a HGV might have had to swerve and that could have flattened a family car full of babies and puppies.

[jam1e]

The point seems to be that there are some simpletons around who can say the Police did the right thing without actually being there, merely reading the same news or watching the same TV.

 

Confident that they are always right - without any knowledge - they proceed to have a pop at anyone who disagrees with them. They don't even consider that they don't know what they are talking about.

 

It must be brilliant on Planet Simple.

If you could read, you would see, that I do not always agree with any organisation for that matter. Especially if they are wrong. But at least I base my opinion on the facts, and not what the local rag has to say.... I also said, "All organisations balls up at times".

"Ignorance is bliss" springs to mind....

At least I can say I spent nearly 2 decades in the Police, and saw with my own eyes what really happened at 100's of incidents. And then got to read the **** the press made-up. Especially when all the details were not given. Sometimes as a result of the Police making a balls up. And others, when details were not given, due to security, privacy, and various other reasons. The only "Simpleton's" here, are the douch bags who believe the tripe written in papers. The Police balls up, like any other organisation. The difference is, some sad ***** who like nothing better than to slate the Police, get off on what the papers say. Get a life. It's just tomorrow's chip paper.....

[Scully]

Truthfully I have no idea what would compel the officer to run down the dog and think that is an appropriate course of action.

 

I absolutely do understand a balance of human life versus a dog and i have no problem with the destruction of the dog.

 

None of us know the detail and to that end speculation is unhelpful, but yesterday the M5 was stopped during the day to allow for the safe removal of a stray dog on the carriageway.

 

The same road was closed during the day not so long ago to let a swan and cygnets clear the carriageway.

 

If it had been a horse or a cow then hitting the animal with the car would not be an option simply due to the size of the beast so the traffic would have had to be stopped.

 

I don't accept the argument that the risk was so significantly increased that it may have led to a human death had they chosen to stop all traffic until the dog could be captured or moved off the road.

 

I absolutely can believe there is a very real resourcing problem and that relocating police units to deal with a stray dog on a road at 3am would have been a real inconvenient menace, possibly requiring traffic to be stopped for a while.

 

If someone can present a good and well reasoned scenario that can reasonably demonstrate why driving a car at speed to hit the dog is the best possible course of action then I will consider myself better informed and happily concede that this course of action may have been correct, but it will have to be something better than a HGV might have had to swerve and that could have flattened a family car full of babies and puppies.

This.

[Gordon R]

jam1e - I am surprised that in 20 years in the Police you merely saw 100s.

 

I think this is the first time I have not supported the Police on this Forum. I normally take stick for supporting them.

 

Did you attend this incident? If you didn't, where did you get your inside information which makes your opinion worth a bean? Merely saying that you have some experience doesn't make you right. As grrclark has pointed out, other Forces stopped traffic for the same thing. I assume they didn't benefit from 20 years in the Force. Perhaps they should have contacted you for a solution.

[GingerCat]

Hasn't this one run its course?

[ozzy518]

Everyone is entitled to and will have his own opinion on this. Ultimately the officer on the ground made a decision based on the circumstances at the time with the resources he had available . As with any use of force, it will be for him to justify and I have no doubt the matter will be subject to scrutiny by his professional standards dept.

[12gauge82]

Truthfully I have no idea what would compel the officer to run down the dog and think that is an appropriate course of action.

 

I absolutely do understand a balance of human life versus a dog and i have no problem with the destruction of the dog.

 

None of us know the detail and to that end speculation is unhelpful, but yesterday the M5 was stopped during the day to allow for the safe removal of a stray dog on the carriageway.

 

The same road was closed during the day not so long ago to let a swan and cygnets clear the carriageway.

 

If it had been a horse or a cow then hitting the animal with the car would not be an option simply due to the size of the beast so the traffic would have had to be stopped.

 

I don't accept the argument that the risk was so significantly increased that it may have led to a human death had they chosen to stop all traffic until the dog could be captured or moved off the road.

 

I absolutely can believe there is a very real resourcing problem and that relocating police units to deal with a stray dog on a road at 3am would have been a real inconvenient menace, possibly requiring traffic to be stopped for a while.

 

If someone can present a good and well reasoned scenario that can reasonably demonstrate why driving a car at speed to hit the dog is the best possible course of action then I will consider myself better informed and happily concede that this course of action may have been correct, but it will have to be something better than a HGV might have had to swerve and that could have flattened a family car full of babies and puppies.

For me this sums it up perfectly, I to support the police and I'm not saying that the officers involved should be sacked just that I feel in this instance they got it wrong, there human after all. As has been mentioned by ozzy the officers involved will have to justify it and it will be on them alone to do that,like I mentioned earlier I think that roboticly following a decision making model without thinking 'what would the public expect of me' can at times land them in hot water but that's just my speculation. Edited February 28, 2016 by 12gauge82

[Oxon T]

Im a bit confused. Whenever we hear about someone letting their dog get out of control in a farmers field I generally see posts saying the dog should be shot. I never see one saying tazer trained police should be called etc. It almost seems like potential danger to road users is less important.

 

Also I haven't seen anyone say who let their dog get out of control on the road?

 

It seems a shame that the dog was killed but i doubt the police found the decision much fun to make. ..

[Mike737]

Truthfully I have no idea what would compel the officer to run down the dog and think that is an appropriate course of action.

 

I absolutely do understand a balance of human life versus a dog and i have no problem with the destruction of the dog.

 

None of us know the detail and to that end speculation is unhelpful, but yesterday the M5 was stopped during the day to allow for the safe removal of a stray dog on the carriageway.

 

The same road was closed during the day not so long ago to let a swan and cygnets clear the carriageway.

 

If it had been a horse or a cow then hitting the animal with the car would not be an option simply due to the size of the beast so the traffic would have had to be stopped.

 

I don't accept the argument that the risk was so significantly increased that it may have led to a human death had they chosen to stop all traffic until the dog could be captured or moved off the road.

 

I absolutely can believe there is a very real resourcing problem and that relocating police units to deal with a stray dog on a road at 3am would have been a real inconvenient menace, possibly requiring traffic to be stopped for a while.

 

If someone can present a good and well reasoned scenario that can reasonably demonstrate why driving a car at speed to hit the dog is the best possible course of action then I will consider myself better informed and happily concede that this course of action may have been correct, but it will have to be something better than a HGV might have had to swerve and that could have flattened a family car full of babies and puppies.

And that is some of the point... This incident was at 3.00am, when it would have been dark, so drivers cannot see so far ahead. Streetlights do not replicate daylight. And if it had been a horse or a cow, well the size of the incident always dictates the response...

 

Mike.

[12gauge82]

Not being argumentative but it hasn't been mentioned that people hit hundreds of foxes and badgers on the roads every day and you don't hear of many accidents caused by them, granted they're smaller than a dog but I wonder if they didn't over reaxt, I don't know?

[Tedly47]

26th of this month BBC reported a three car smash with one of the drivers as having minor injuries, and massive tailbacks in south wales... So three cars smashed up and one person injured.... Why because of dogs on the carriageway one of which was killed...!

 

I travel along the a55 a lot through the night and early hours due to my job, at 3am believe it or not it's busy due to the port traffic with hundreds of hgv's and vans trying to make up time....

 

I wonder if we would have such a debate if one of the officers were killed while trying to catch a dog on the carriageway....

 

I'm not be any means condoning what they did but in my eyes human life is more important than a dogs....

[McSpredder]

How can they decide what speed would be sufficient to cause the destruction of the dog?

Round here there are lots of badgers and foxes, and occasionally sheep, killed on narrow twisty roads where it would be hard to exceed 45mph. Police drivers are probably aware of that.

 

Some people I've spoken to in the farming community think the officer involved should get a medal.

Some people I've spoken to think the world is flat, but I try not to let them influence me unduly.

 

Has there perhaps been an element of exaggeration in some comments?

The officers have a split-second decision to make

According to the report, the police "did not take this decision lightly" and "Other methods of destruction were considered...". They arrived, tried to catch the animal, made contact with it, stood and watched while a car and an HGV swerved, and then decided to kill the animal by running it over. Presumably they had to return to their own vehicle, and wait until they could be sure no other road users were endangered, before accelerating up to a lethal contact speed.

Does that really constitute a split-second decision?

 

..... it almost caused an accident.

I didn't see that in the report. Has it been stated elsewhere, or is it just conjecture?

The report says two vehicles HAD TO SWERVE, although it seems more likely that they CHOSE TO SWERVE. The car could have carried on and run over the hound, and might have sustained some damage; the HGV could have carried on and would probably have suffered no damage at all. Is there anything to suggest those vehicles were not fully aware of the traffic situation before they decided to move across the road and avoid the animal?

 

I swerved three times yesterday to avoid deep potholes, but nobody forced me to do so -- I could have driven straight over the holes, and that is exactly what I would have done if there had been other vehicles on the road. But driving over a big pothole is never entirely safe, because damage to tyres and suspension could contribute to a serious accident at a later date. So I had to make split-second decisions, just as every other driver does.

 

Overall, I am not convinced that the police handled this in the best possible way, but we have all done things and then realised afterwards that there was probably a better method. Also, like other folk who have commented, I wasn't there at the time. It was an unfortunate incident, but no humans have been hurt, and no doubt the police will bear it in mind next time something similar occurs.

[jam1e]

jam1e - I am surprised that in 20 years in the Police you merely saw 100s.

 

I think this is the first time I have not supported the Police on this Forum. I normally take stick for supporting them.

 

Did you attend this incident? If you didn't, where did you get your inside information which makes your opinion worth a bean? Merely saying that you have some experience doesn't make you right. As grrclark has pointed out, other Forces stopped traffic for the same thing. I assume they didn't benefit from 20 years in the Force. Perhaps they should have contacted you for a solution.

One things for sure Gordon, I'm in a better situation than you, to know what goes on behind the scenes.... You clearly get off on making childish pointless comments, so I'll leave you to play with your toys......

[mudpatten]

Every time I`ve hit a dog, fox, badger etc. the collision has caused extensive damage to the car I was driving.

 

It would be interesting for one of those really interested in the morals of this debate to enquire by way of the Freedom of Information Act exactly what damage was caused to the police car, what happened to it subsequent to the collision and what this course of action actually cost the taxpayer.

 

I`m not sure exactly how fast one needs to be traveling in a car to kill a foxhound sized animal as humanely as possible.

 

Let`s just hope there was`nt a lot of reversing involved in the dispatching of the dog.

 

Just to add another dimension to the discussion.

[Gordon R]

One things for sure Gordon, I'm in a better situation than you, to know what goes on behind the scenes

 

 

Little do you know.

[Mike737]

 

Little do you know.

Cryptic...

 

Mike

[Browning 425 clay hunter]

Once again Gordon slating everyone else's opinion who doesn't agree with him and asking if they have 'inside information' to validate their argument talking as if his opinion is gospel. Then throwing out the idiot comment as he does every time his argument falls to pieces.

 

Early contender for TROLL OF THE YEAR, keep up the good work work and the title is yours.

[Wb123]

Most PW discussions are intelligent and good reading. Somehow this one has degenerated. The police acted in the way they thought correct at the time. They had to make the decision to take out an animal that may have caused an accident after previously trying to stop it. Whatever they do someone is going to moan about it aren't they? A road closure can't be done in seconds, a running dog isn't like a static accident scene, in the time it takes to put on a closure the dog may have moved another 3 or 4 miles. The police acted as they did to prevent a possible accident involving human life.

Maybe those who can't accept the reason might question if shooting birds or animals to prevent crop damage is ethical? Maybe more netting over crops and rabbit proof fences around every field would be the answer?

Maybe the dog should have been under proper control? why not prosecute the owner and give them the bill for damage to the police car?

It's 1 dead dog, no dead people. Good result.

This. At 0300 i highly doubt the manpower was readily available to close the road off without leaving the dog endangering traffic for some time.

[ozzy518]

No need for anyone to be flinging personal insults around. Opinions are like bottom holes, everyone has got one. By the very nature of forums differing opinions will surface some we will agree with, some we won't. Play nicely kids or leave the sandpit lol

Edited February 28, 2016 by ozzy518