Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Oklahoma City PoPo shoots and kills perp who was killing his K9

As far as I am concerned, the idiot was killed for resisting arrest with a deadly weapon.

... this is a case where disparity exists between what IS the law,and how I personally feel it should be handled.

Not a problem, you seem to have no problem using your dog as a weapon to "maul" fellow citizens, so I would guess that you have no problem killing them as well if they object to the "mauling".

And you lot wonder why so many detest coppers.

The man lost any claim to "self defense" when he started fleeing...

In this case you are extremely keen on defending his actions, as is MM.

You're pretty good at jumping to unfounded conclusions. Perhaps a sarcasm emoticon after my last post would've helped. You can act butt hurt all you want but the fact is I made nor inferred any of the bs you spouted

That's about the way I took it from the get go. Just as the article stated

Oklahoma Highway Patrol troopers led the pursuit when the driver was speeding southbound on Interstate 35 in Norman, Oklahoma City police Capt. Dexter Nelson said.

Troopers used tactics to end the pursuit near the Goldsby exit on I-35, where the vehicle hit a ditch west of the highway, Nelson said.

Reckless, dangerous driving by the robbery suspect. Using "tactics" to force him off the road looks pretty good to me.

Oklahoma City K9 officers and gang unit officers stayed back with troopers until the driver got out of the vehicle and started running south near the service road.

Can't let this guy go. True, the officers don't have an arrest warrant and the guy hasn't been indicted by a grand jury, but he's exhibiting dangerous behavior and has committed criminal acts in full view of the pursuing officers; reckless driving and fleeing/attempting to elude.

A K9 officer, who later was identified as Stark, let the police dog chase the driver.

The story doesn't say, but I think it's reasonable to suppose that the officers have been screaming "stop!" ever since the suspect got out of his car. He didn't stop. The story doesn't say, but we might consider the possibility that he was running faster than any of the officers.

The K9, later identified as Kye, apprehended the driver as he ran behind a business, police said.

Stark made his way to the man�s location to pull the dog off of the man, at which point he saw the driver had a knife and was stabbing the police dog, police said. Stark was in close proximity to the driver at the time, police said.

The story doesn't say how long Stark was in close proximity to the suspect while the suspect was stabbing the dog. The story doesn't say how many times the suspect stabbed the dog while Stark was in close proximity. The story doesn't say what Stark was saying to the suspect between the time that Stark came into close proximity and the time Stark shot the suspect. I would like more information about this.


Stark fatally shot the man, and the police dog was taken to a veterinarian for emergency surgery.

Based on what we know - from the story - I'd be inclined to trust the officer's judgment in fatally shooting the suspect. Pending more information on the subject above.

From a legal standpoint, a K9 is considered a tool that an officer uses, Nelson said. However, police officers view them as partners, he said.

A police officer could not shoot a person solely for attacking a K9 dog, but officers are trained that they can use lethal force when they are within 21 to 25 feet of a person with a knife if the situation warrants, Nelson said.

The suspect was in close proximity and - I'm speculating, here - may have been within 21 to 25 feet of the officer while the suspect was shanking the dog an unknown number of time and - again, I'm speculating, here - the officer is screaming something to the effect of "Put down the knife!" and the suspect didn't put down the knife. If subsequent information doesn't materially conflict with what we know from a news story posted on the internet, I'm inclined to think that the officer acted correctly.

TRH....exactly what do you disagree with?

How so?

I think I've been clear thus far. What part of what I've said is confusing you?

Read the post I quoted & be specific about what you disagree with...

I stand corrected as I have reread your posts and you most definitely have not been defending his actions.


And I have got to say that asking a deceptively simple question like that is very rude...I actually had to go back and read your posts.

Again, I've fully expressed my position on this situation.

I stand corrected as I have reread your posts and you most definitely have not been defending his actions.


And I have got to say that asking a deceptively simple question like that is very rude...I actually had to go back and read your posts.

Criminitly, give him a summation counselor, unless your concerned about contradicting yourself.

Again, I've fully expressed my position on this situation.