Ahhh the use of dogs in forever failed government “War on Drugs.” It seems that in Concord, NH a state police K9 got loose from it’s handler, ran across the street, viciously attacked another dog, and then viciously attacked the 13-year old girl/owner who was trying to protect her dog from being attacked:
“The girl, attempting to protect her dog, was bitten several times on her left arm and hand. (A NH State Police official) said the incident is under investigation by the department and that State Police have been in touch with the victim’s family.”
Clearly the state police will conduct a full, fair, and evenhanded investigation of themselves. Had this dog attack had been completely reversed in sequence and involved a dog charging the state trooper… I think we’d probably have another dead dog.
An interesting comment by a Union Leader reader:
The only question here is obvious….Why was the officer not in control of the dog?….I guessing that the drug dog broke free of the officers grip on the leash…but that doesn’t relieve the officer of responsibility…
– unwind, NH
Yes, that indeed is correct. The law on this type of thing reads:
466:31 Dogs a Menace, a Nuisance or Vicious
II. Under this section, a dog is considered to be a nuisance, a menace, or vicious to persons or to property under any or all but not limited to the following conditions:
(e) If it growls, snaps at, runs after, or chases any person or persons not on the premises of the owner or keeper;
(g) If, whether alone or in a pack with other dogs, it bites, attacks, or preys on game animals, domestic animals, fowl or human beings.
Since this clearly is a violation of this law… the state trooper will be facing charges, right? Isn’t that only fair considering if it were you or I who lost control of our respective dog and it did what the trooper’s dog did, we’d be facing charges?
With all the “authority” granted to a public official such as this, shouldn’t they be held to a higher standard?
