Leash laws are for protection

By Aimee Staten
Managing Editor
Published on Sunday, July 27, 2008 4:22 PM MST

For many families pets are not just animals. They are contributing members of the family unit.

Ask anyone who has a dog. They are comforters, friends, protectors and entertainers. That is why it is so heartbreaking to hear or read about one being killed or put down.

Dogs cannot, however, be expected to know and understand the laws that limit their behavior and actions. That is the responsibility of the owners.

An example is the dog that was recently killed by a Safford Police officer who had entered its yard to investigate a dog bite call.

The police reports state a jogger called the police on the morning of July 12 after being bitten by a dog that was out of its yard. When the officer entered the yard, the dog began to run toward him, barking, and then leaped at the officer.

Put aside — for a moment — the emotional aspect of the situation and put yourself in the shoes of the officer. He had to make a snap decision about a dog that had already bitten one person that morning, and he had to do it while the dog was leaping and barking at him.

The law — for the state and the city — appears to support the actions of the officer.

Safford Chief John Griffin said his officer acted appropriately considering the situation and pointed out the Arizona Revised Statues section 13-3107, C-9, which references unlawful discharge of firearms. Section C-9 states a firearm can be discharged “in self-defense or defense of another person against an animal attack if a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force against the animal is immediately necessary and reasonable under the circumstances to protect oneself or the other person.”

Following is the city of Safford’s 6.08.060 Leash Requirements: “No dog shall be allowed to run at large within the city. Any dog found running at large is in violation of this chapter and shall be taken up and impounded; provided, however, that if any dangerous, vicious or fierce dog cannot, in the discretion of the designated officer, be safely taken up and impounded, such dog may be immediately slain, and further provided, that any designated officer may, at his or her discretion, for any humane reason, immediately kill any dog found at large within the city that is in violation of this chapter.”

According to the police reports, the dog in question was at large when it bit the jogger and was acting in a threatening manner after the officer entered its yard.

It is doubtful that anyone could have predicted the tragic outcome of this situation. That is why it is important to protect your animals by adhering to leash laws and keeping your pets safely inside your fence.

Print this story Email this story Post A Comment

Comments

13 comment(s)

Teresa wrote on Oct 27, 2008 3:42 PM:

" The dog was in his own yard when shot ! How sick is that. He's suppose to protect his yard ! This should of been handled more carefully. The officer had to know the protective dog was there.
This was handled poorly and hatefully !
It could of been thought through before being so very reckless about it ! "

Whats your agenda wrote on Aug 16, 2008 9:45 PM:

" To Kiki and AP,
I think you two forgot where you are blogging. This is an informative article and does not go into the details you mentioned. That is because the article is called,"Leash laws are for protection". It is not the main article on this subject. There are no skewed facts in this article. I do not know Aimee Staten personally and she does not know me. You two just found an oppportunity to insult her. Condsider this. Those of us WITHOUT an agenda can see right through you. "

That sums it up wrote on Aug 12, 2008 7:04 AM:

" Under the second statute listed the officer doesn't even need self defense. He only needs to determine that the dog cannot safely be impounded. Thanks to the editor for making a bunch of morons look even dumber. "

Kiki wrote on Aug 5, 2008 5:25 PM:

" As usual,we find Aimee writing an obviously biased report, and a friend ("What's your agenda")trying to come to her rescue when criticized. Did we forget to report that as soon as the officer entered the yard and shot the dog, three other officers at the scene immediately left? What does this tell you? This officer, who shot another dog a month prior, used poor judgement and had other options. Now he's trying to save face. "

AP wrote on Aug 4, 2008 9:32 PM:

" Once again the MANAGING EDITOR’S poor work and shallow intellect shines through like a dismal glimmer of dying professionalism that she is. No surprise here that she’s backing the SPD up with an article, basking them in a favorable light. She wrote an article a while back telling us all how wonderful they are. She indeed underestimates the readers’ intelligence. She believes we won’t catch a little skewed fact here and there. Give it up, Aimee. We know when you’re wrong and when you’re “white-washing” your articles. Keep ‘em coming, though…..it’s entertaining amongst the community. "

To WMR wrote on Aug 3, 2008 5:35 PM:

" You got it wrong pal. The dog bite occurred outside the yard. The paramedics treated the jogger and left. Brand THEN entered the yard and shot the dog.

Keep it straight otherwise everyone knows how stupid you are.

As the first comment says, there was no reason for Brad to enter the yard at all. "

Whats your agenda wrote on Aug 1, 2008 1:23 PM:

" To disappointed Reader,
Aimee's opinion on this subject does not require "Intellectual Depth". The article is NOT poorly written and it is not uninteresting. On the contrary, it is well written and states pertinent facts for the reader to ponder. Maybe you don't agree with the facts that she presented. That doesn't give you justification to attack and insult the Editor. If you are trying to present yourself as an intelligent critic, you fail. What is the real reason you bothered to write such nonsense? "

WMR wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:12 AM:

" Again you guys are so stupied, the officer entered the yard, because he was called to help the man who had been bitten. He was doing his job. He defended himself. Where was the owner when all this happened? If he loved his dog so much how come he wasn't there when the dog bit the jogger? How come he didn't control his dog when it attacked an officer? "

Disappionted Reader wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:34 AM:

" Very poorly written opinion, Aimee you simply tell and fail present intresting issues to think about and debate. That is why there are so few postings on this editoral. Only your superficial opinion, no intellectual depth of thought. Sister Aimee will tell the citizens what is right. You under estimate the intelligence of the reader. "

Fifi wrote on Jul 28, 2008 1:57 PM:

" In agreement with the article, not the comments. "

to If you think about it wrote on Jul 28, 2008 11:42 AM:

" Totally agreed! Safford cops have way too much time on their hands so they try to get involved with everything! "

Fifi wrote on Jul 28, 2008 1:25 AM:

" Agreed. "

if you think about it wrote on Jul 27, 2008 10:14 PM:

" editor,
patrol officers don't investigate animal bites. Interview the city's Animal Control Officer.

That said, the officer made a poor judgment call when he decided to enter the yard. I'd like to hear what the witness has to say. Reynolds didn't consider that someone may have seen the incident.

There would have been no self-defense had Reynolds remained outside the yard until the owner had secured the animal.

Why did the officer take it upon himself to enter the yard in the first place? "

WRITE A COMMENT

READER COMMENTS
* Be respectful of others, the writer and the subjects in the story.

* Be relevant. Keep your comments pertinent to the story that is being discussed.

Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All reader comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. The Eastern Arizona Courier is not liable for messages from third parties. IP addresses can be subpoenaed and your identity established by individuals who have been hurt by your comments.

DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity: You can be prosecuted for identity theft.
* Comments unrelated to the story.

Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in www.eacourier.com reader comments represent the individual's own views and not those of the Eastern Arizona Courier. The Courier does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than Eastern Arizona Courier spokespersons.

Thank you for your comments!