LOS ANGELES — The fatal shooting of a dog by an LAPD officer during a welfare check prompted debate among Police1 readers over officer safety, pet-owner responsibility and training for encounters with animals.
Body-worn camera video from the June 13 incident shows officers repeatedly asking the resident to secure the dog, a golden Saint Bernard doodle mix. The dog later entered the hallway and moved toward an officer, who fired four rounds.
LAPD described the dog as charging the officer. Some readers agreed that the officer faced a rapidly developing threat, while others said the video did not justify the use of deadly force.
The shooting remains under investigation. The civilian Board of Police Commissioners will ultimately determine whether the officer’s tactics and use of force complied with department policy.
| RESOURCE: Choose the right real-time policing model for your agency
Police1 asked readers: Does your department have a written policy or specific training for dog encounters? If so, what tactics does it emphasize?
Responses reflected broad disagreement over whether the officer faced an immediate threat, whether less lethal tactics were practical and who bore responsibility for securing the dog.
Here is what Police1 readers had to say:
Was the officer facing an immediate threat?
Readers who defended the officer emphasized the dog’s size, its proximity to the officer and the limited time available to respond.
“While tragic, the dog was clearly charging him and the officers had already ordered that the dog be put up,” one reader wrote. “The officer clearly had no intention of being bit.”
Another reader said the body camera video may not fully convey the threat posed by a large dog moving quickly through a confined hallway.
“I understand the shooting when a large barking dog is running toward you from a very short distance,” the reader wrote. “It’s a shame. But I side with the officer.”
One reader who noted their law enforcement experience cautioned against minimizing the potential consequences of a dog attack.
“During my career, I’ve seen too many people mauled — to death in some instances — by dogs that were characterized as being ‘not aggressive,’” the reader wrote. “I’m hoping public outcry won’t determine or influence this officer’s fate, but rather unbiased command leadership.”
Other readers viewed the dog’s actions differently and questioned whether it posed an immediate danger.
“Been doing this a long time, that dog did not need shooting,” one reader wrote.
Another said the dog appeared frightened rather than aggressive.
“The dog that was killed in the video was scared and meant no harm to the officer, in my opinion,” the reader wrote. “I cannot tell you what was going through the officer’s mind when he shot, but I would not have done it because I know how they behave.”
Could a less lethal option have worked?
Several readers said officers should receive more training on using OC spray, TASERs, verbal commands and other tactics during encounters with dogs.
A retired firearms and use-of-force instructor said OC spray had proved effective during previous encounters.
“Pepper spray works on dogs,” the reader wrote. “I have seen too many knee-jerk reactions involving dogs.”
Another reader described using OC spray several times during a law enforcement career.
“I was taught 30 years ago to use OC against dogs. I have sprayed approximately five or six dogs in my career, and in every instance, that dog wanted nothing more to do with me,” the reader wrote. “OC is an extremely effective tool that many officers aren’t trained to use on dogs.”
Others questioned whether officers would have had enough time or distance to deploy a less lethal weapon effectively.
“The dog was 2.5 to 3 feet away from him in a hallway and [the] gap closing,” one reader wrote, questioning how effectively a TASER or OC spray could have been used from that distance.
Readers question the decision to draw a firearm
Some readers focused on the officer drawing his firearm before the dog entered the hallway.
“I am having a problem with the officer unholstering his service weapon before the dog was out,” one reader wrote. “Why escalate the situation?”
Another reader said the officer should have initially drawn a TASER instead.
“The officer drew his firearm after a bark,” the reader wrote. “Should have drawn TASER.”
Other readers said preparing a firearm before entering an uncertain situation is not unusual.
“I never go into an unknown situation without either my hand on my duty weapon or breaking leather altogether,” one reader wrote. “No officer goes on duty hoping to discharge their weapon sometime during their tour.”
Who was responsible for securing the dog?
Several readers placed responsibility on the resident, noting that officers repeatedly directed her to secure the dog before the shooting.
“Owner should have had the sense to obey the command to put the dog up when instructed,” one reader wrote.
Another reader said pet owners must prevent their animals from entering an already uncertain police encounter.
“As a responsible adult, they would not be allowed to be in a position to run past me out the door,” the reader wrote. “Secured in another room or a crate, especially if the police are the ones at my door.”
A third reader agreed that the encounter could have been avoided.
“Honestly, she should have put the dog away,” the reader wrote. “We have to be responsible for their health, welfare and security.”
The investigation will consider the officer’s actions under LAPD policy, including his tactics, decision to draw his firearm and use of deadly force. Mayor Karen Bass has also directed department leaders to review LAPD policies and training for encounters involving dogs.
