How often do we have to point out that whenever there is a bad dog, there is most likely a bad owner? This clown wants the officer punished and the city to pay his vet bill:
When Elwood reserve officer Gary Cole arrived, he said the dog jumped on his police car, and charged at him.
“I was scared. You got an animal charging at you, you don’t have a lot of time to think,” Cole said. “He wasn’t there to shake my hand. He was barking with teeth showing.”
Cole fired at the dog, striking it in the ear, he said. He then put the dog back inside the home.
Mickle was cited for having a public nuisance, having a vicious dog and failing to restrain his pet. He plead not guilty to the charges, but told Thomas he wants Cole punished, and for the city to pay the $330 veterinarian bill.
“He didn’t have to shoot the dog to corral it,” Mickle said. “He’s a dog catcher. That’s not the first way to do things, to just shoot the dog. They got nooses, tranquilizers and all other stuff.”
Yeah, call for the nooses and tranquilizers while the dog is charging with teeth bared. Sounds reasonable, does’t it?
Opening Arguments 
July 9, 2008 at 9:11 am
…And maybe cap the owner as well, that would save a LOT of good dogs from becoming bad dogs.
Oh, wait, didn’t we have the SAME problem with people & GUNS (crime)?
Or was that people & CARS (drunk driving).
No, it might have been people & DRUGS (crime again).
It’s not the dog’s fault…it’s the PEOPLE (who own them).
Imagine that.
Anyone ELSE seeing the pattern here?
B.G.
July 9, 2008 at 9:25 am
Why should an animal control officer have to call for nooses, tranquilizers, etc.? Shouldn’t he have the tools of his trade with him when he answers a call?
I wouldn’t criticize a letter carrier, or a fireman, who shoots a scary dog, in trying to defend himself.
Neither would I criticize an animal control officer shooting a vicious dog. However, the dog wasn’t attacking. Dogs bark at you to warn you. They bare their teeth to warn you. Vicious dogs bite and claw you without giving you any opportunity to avoid the confrontation.
Why does Elwood employ such a dog catcher who is so ignorant about dogs? Why does Elwood employ someone who thinks an animal control officer’s job to execute animals, rather than to control them?
The unreasonable thing is for Elwood to continue to pay this idiot’s salary. If all he can do is shoot up dogs, why not hire a cop instead; he’d be a lot more versatile employee.
July 9, 2008 at 9:53 am
The story says he was “a reserve police officer,” not an animal control officer. It’s unclear in what capacity he was acting.
July 9, 2008 at 1:12 pm
The story says he was “a reserve police officer,” not an animal control officer. It’s unclear in what capacity he was acting.
They must have changed the story since you looked at it, Leo. They do NOT call him a “reserve police officer” on that page at present. A reserve officer, yes, but not a police officer. My assumption was that, as the story also describes him as a dogcatcher, that he was a reserve animal control officer, not an officer in the Air Force Reserves, nor the Army Reserves, nor the Navy Reserves, nor a reserve truant officer, nor a reserve police officer.
There’s a discussion at elwoodindiana.org about this. The woman who called the police to complain about the dog is unhappy that they never sent a police officer, only a dog catcher.
Simply abandoning a wounded animal to die a slow and painful death is animal abuse, illegal in most states. You either need to finish the job of killing it, or you need to seek veterinary attention.
If the dog was, in fact, vicious, would the guy have put him inside the house where there was a 4-year-old kid? There’s a law against reckless endangerment, too.
July 9, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Caption under the photo.
July 9, 2008 at 6:15 pm
tsk, tsk, …