Talkback: News

Does anyone else find it disturbing that a 19-year-old unarmed kid on probation for traffic violations would be pursued by "officers from Erving, Montague, Leverett, Sunderland, New Salem, three members of the Environmental Police and six to eight troopers from the state police, including a dog handler and his K-9"? I wasn't there, so I am withholding judgment, but the question ought to be asked: Did the police escalate this situation? It's a wonder that only the dog was shot, tragic as that is. Plus, as another commenter asked, why couldn't the police, especially with so many of them present, have used nonlethal force on the dog?

Upon first reading this story, I did feel bad for the dog and still do. He was protecting his owner in a situation that he felt was threatening. Dogs are a man's best friend now aren't they? In a situation such as this, the owner is responsible for his dog's actions;He did nothing to restrain the dog from attacking the officer. I am not sticking up for the kid, but I am sticking up for his dog.

More importantly, we need to remember that the officer had to act in split seconds to prevent himself from getting hurt. His first action to protect himself was not to kill the dog, but to use a non-lethal force (OC spray) to free himself of the attack. And I think that this is a commendable action for someone who is being attacked in a life-threatening situation such as this. Instead of judging the officer, why don't you put yourself in his position. You will see that his actions were quite good considering how quickly he had to act. Also, remember that he is NOT the same officer that shot the dog.

I also know that this officer hasa very cute face. We would not want the dog to bite that.

Well i have a pitbull and she is friendly.It dose not matter what breed the dog is every dog will attack if felt threaten.. My dog is well trained and is AROUND CHILDREN and has never been a proublem..So don't blame the cop or the pit blame the kid..

After reading this article, I believe that Chief Harding isn't telling the whole truth to our reporter. I understand that during the search, the dog was only shot after it attacked a Ma State Trooper and his search dog. I also belive that the suspect was ordered several times to retrain the pitbull or it would be shot if it attacked them. I know this officer, and he DID NOT shoot the pitbull. I also believe that the owner, a career criminal who has been through the system several times, instructed the dog to attack Police in both instances to avoid apprehension. So before you judge the officer, please know the truth. For you people that always seem to side with the criminals, why not invite Mr Russel and his new pitbulls over to your house for dinner......Wake Up!!!!

Hindsight is easy. Mistakes were made. Understandable. One the kid was stopped for parole violations and traffic violations. He was unarmed, 19, scared, and dumb. Why chase him? Probably most excitement Shutesbury cops have seen in a long long time. Adreneline running. Where was the kid going to go? Take a breath and talk to the kid. Quiet, deliberate, nonthreating. Difuse the situation. Police officers in other countries taught how to look at a situation in hopes of solving peacefully. Too much stress put on intimidation in US training of police personnel. I believe the police did the best they could at the time. But lets hope they do better next time. Lets hope this teenager learns a hard lesson and straightens up. But the death of the dog is still haunting. Dogs are innocent. He did not understand. I believe the dog was young, and probably scared and confused. But easy to evaluate this in hindsight.

The dog attacked. Dog was not able to be calmed by the criminal he was with. Dog was not with owner. Criminal involved in running from cops (wanted for some time on warrants)had someone elses dog with him who was not trained to care for the dogs behavior.

I love dogs. I believe in responsible pet ownership. "Cops" are dog lovers. They also rely heavily on responsible training. (K9 units)

People who are so quick to jump on an angry cause over the dog, should focus on better and more responsible pet ownership.

I feel for the officer who I am sure took no pleasure on pulling a VP Dick C. on the animal. If he didn't think twice, the dog wouldn't have had a chance to bite the first time. I am sure the animals owner feels a great loss for his protector and companion also. No one wins here.

Maybe the criminal fleeing should be held more responsible for creating the situation. I for one am grateful for our law enforcement, and I have not always been on their good side. I am glad they weren't all running through my neighborhood where my children could have been out playing, or my pets involved in the altercation.

I say if a criminal is going to run, chase them down and shoot if you have too! If you are a criminal, think twice about running, you and/or your loved ones will be held responsible for the mess you make. You don't have a right to break the law, but the law does have the right to enforcement, and I the protection of the law.

What an embarrassment these numb skulls are for being angry at an officer for this situation. Get an original thought or clue you stupid rebels with out a cause.

Get Real folks, Put yourself on the street with a dog attacking you or even bareing teeth and growling with the intent to attack. Next have a police officer there trying to talk the dog down.Coaxing it with treats. GET REAL. Dogs have the natural instinct to attack when they feel threatened no matter what the breed. They were all wild at one time. Then put into the picture people breeding these dogs for fighting. Now you have ruined the breed in all aspects regardless of how docile they are. I for one would rather have the officer use force to subdue the animal than have it run off and attack an innocent child. Lets hope it never happens to you...

So many of you obviously didn't read the whole article.. and you are just making yourselves sound stupid. A dog should never be trained to attack someone unless its owner andthier friends have enough intelligence to actually control the dog .. which this kid didn;t chose to do. He is the reason the dog got shot.. He didn;t own the dog and didn;t protect it like he should have... Also the original cop didn't shoot the dog so before you all go calling people names and such read the article ...if you can read at all.

The previous poster that says it is too bad the dog did not do more damage is typical of the leftist, greenie, PETA, types that inhabit Franklin County. As a law enforcement officer that has actually had to shoot a pit bull that was attacking I can tell you it is no laughing matter. I can only wish that all of these wacko animal lovers has had the experience of being attacked by a dog out of control. You nut cases out there should make an effort to understand what it takes to be a police officer. Remember it is always easier to criticize after the fact than actually get in there and do the work.

It's just too bad the dog didn't do more damage when he bit the cop, then at least he wouldn't have dies for no reason. The cops had no right to shoot the animal, and I hope his wound gets infected.

Unbelievable that someone would read this article and find fault with the officers actions. I dont care what kind of dog it was, any dog that was used to attack an officer, would have been dealt with in the same manner. Unfortuantley we have professional athletes, and criminals using Pitbulls as mean dogs. These dogs are very loveable and can be great pets when they are raised by the proper people. The officer did a great job and all officers would do the same thing in this situation, the dog probably should have been shot after the first attack.

Let's see... should the officer have been armed with treats and asked the dog nicely to sit and stay while he attempted affect an arrest warrant? This officer was alone in the middle of nowhere dealing with bad dudes- from what I can tell, he displayed great composure, restraint and professionalism

I suppose you would have let Old Yeller out of the shed too, just to protect his rights, after all - it was just a child he would have infected, not another dog.

Re read the article Irate Animal Rights Enforcer, it was not the owner the dog was defending. Like I said before, if you really cared for these animals, you would clearly see that it is the criminals that you should be attacking - not the ones who are forced to make split decisions and trained to act in the publics best interest.

Obviously you lack the ability to see both sides, due to your anger. Maybe you should try and see this for what it is, a criminal situation, not the place to launch a campaign for animals. I really hope that you are never put in the position these officers are, because personal feelings over rational thought can get you killed, and leave innocent people unprotected. I guess thats why they are the ones who can step up to the plate for you.

B*LLSH*T! That the dog saw his owner being violated and natural instict was to protect it's master. How shallow that the police were so untrained and inexperienced that they resorted to the coward's way out of tazering or tranqualizing the animal. Guess it continues to show that the law enforcement takes little time or effort in the rights of animals and their natural insticts toward their loved ones.

Let's think about this another way... Had the man pulled out a gun, he would have been perceived as a threat to the officers life, and therefore legally, and justifiably been fired upon. A dog of that breed is considered a dangerous weapon - the same threat to an officers life. The threat was real, and the officers acted well within the law and their training. Police officers are sworn to protect and serve - had that criminal been armed and the dog been successful at taking out the officer, the criminal could have been left to do whatever he wanted to -- maybe show up at your doorstep.

The officer who was bitten had the right to shoot the dog, and maybe would have been more able to carry out the main objective of apprehending the criminal had he exercised this right. He did show a great effort at a non lethal resolution, which is commendable. Non the less- I would have chosen the officers safety, along with his ability to continue to protect and serve over an animal that is clearly dangerous.

It is a shame that this breed has been targeted, but lets see this for what is is --- criminals have used these animals, and made them a weapon of choice. Law enforcement are responding to that threat. If you really want to complain to someone, go after the criminals who have created this problem, and not the officers who put their lives on the line every time they put their badges on to protect and serve you.

Let's think about this another way... Had the man pulled out a gun, he would have been perceived as a threat to the officers life, and therefore legally, and justifiably been fired upon. A dog of that breed is considered a dangerous weapon - the same threat to an officers life. The threat was real, and the officers acted well within the law and their training. Police officers are sworn to protect and serve - had that criminal been armed and the dog been successful at taking out the officer, the criminal could have been left to do whatever he wanted to -- maybe show up at your doorstep.

The officer who was bitten had the right to shoot the dog, and maybe would have been more able to carry out the main objective of apprehending the criminal had he exercised this right. He did show a great effort at a non lethal resolution, which is commendable. Non the less- I would have chosen the officers safety, along with his ability to continue to protect and serve over an animal that is clearly dangerous.

It is a shame that this breed has been targeted, but lets see this for what is is --- criminals have used these animals, and made them a weapon of choice. Law enforcement are responding to that threat. If you really want to complain to someone, go after the criminals who have created this problem, and not the officers who put their lives on the line every time they put their badges on to protect and serve you.

I wonder about leveling charges against the (absent) dog owner. Loaded weapon, unsecured.

To all the people that commented on this article, READ THE ARTICLE as the dog in question did not belong to the person arrested it belonged to someone else and if I was in the Police Officer shoes I would have done the same thing to protect myself

Montague Officers didn't even respond..from what I have heard they weren't allowed too. Secondly, I agree the dog was only protecting its owner, however it attacked an officer it definetley needed to be shot. I dont blame the dog I blame the idiot who owened the dog.

There was no need to shoot that dog ! NOT right !

Pit bull owners like to say that their dogs are the baddest on the planet. They walk down the street whistling "macho man" while holding the leash and snickering as people move away for fear of the dog. What power!!

I agree with Mark. As a police officer it is completely irrational to attempt to reason with a dog, regardless of its breed. An yes, any dog who bit an officer and/or civilian with these circumstances would have been shot. And "protective"?? This was not even the suspect's dog; the dog obviously was out-of-control and a threat hence the intitial bite to the officer. And provided the circumstances, the officer(s) was completely justified in not waiting to be attacked again. He attempted to utilize a less lethal use of force intially without prevail. Clearly you are unaware of what "back-up" consists of and when it is warranted. All of those police officers were necessary because the suspect, unknowing to the police officer, could have been armed with a weapon...he did flee on foot after all. At the point when the officer requested the back-up, the criminal acts were not limited to simply a probation violation but resisting arrest as well as others criminal acts; we don't know what he was on probation for and what the violation was so to question the officer's actions is ridiculous.

Good job to all the officers involved!

Exactly, tiny weenie.... Look at who's holding the leash. The pit bull is not at fault for being used as a "furry gun," and not all pit bull owners are "thugs or punks."

Blame the owners, not the dogs. Pit bulls get a bad rap, but it is their status as the preferred animal of choice among thugs that gets them that reputation, not -- as some believe -- that they are naturally more aggressive or psycho or problematic. They need to be well-trained and disciplined like any other dog.

I say this not being a particular dog lover, in fact I'm a little terrified of large dogs, but let's put the responsibility where the responsibility belongs.

I agree that the shooting sounds pretty ambiguous, it's too bad things had to work out that way.

They should shoot every pit bull, who needs one of those dogs? Shoot all pitbulls, and order psychiatric exams on the owners! Seriously, ask yourself; when you see a pitbull on the street, who is usually holding the leash? Young thugs and punks. It is like a furry gun to these criminals. If i was the cop I wouldve shot it sooner.

As a responsible pit bull owner, I am well aware of the capabilities of the breed. If that dog had been on a mission to hurt the officer, he would be in the hospital despite the use of pepper spray.

Just because the pit bull is acting the way it is naturally supposed to does not negate the danger its actions pose to the police officers. Are you really suggesting that officers take into account the "intent" of the animal or whether it is just doing what it is "supposed" to do before they take actions to protect themselves and others? How about this, try putting yourself in the officers' shoes for a minute, and then imagine trying to "reason" with the pit bull, telling him you know he's just doing what he thinks is right but that he really needs to stop biting now. I hope you're able to get your gun out of the holster before the dog immobilizes your hand! But that's okay, he can bite you and anyone else because he's just doing his job! Unbelievable....

Seriously ordinary guy? Kill the dog for no reason? Just because it was a pit? While I'm glad the officer didn't get hurt, I really don't see how it was necessary to kill the dog. Pits are known to be very protective. Not like he could tell the difference between an officer and who he perceived as a threat. The kid had a probation violation and ran, surprise surprise. Was it really necessary to call in all those officers for one kid on a probation violation? Maybe if they had backed off and not gone in guns blazing, it would have been different.

A cop was bitten. I wish the cop had been able to shoot and kill the dog BEFORE he was bitten. I hope the cop is really okay. Throw the book at the punk who ran and caused all this.

Great job by all officers involved! I can't say that I'm surprised by the reaction here with everyone questioning the shooting of the dog. How about the danger that Russel chose to put himself and the police officers chasing him, and the general public in? It's okay to blame someone other than the police for the outcome of their stupid and reckless behavior.

You people are worked up over a dead dog? What pansies. Yay police!!!

Of course I wasn't there, but I'm not sure why they couldn't use non-lethal force on the dog the second time. My guess is that emotions were running high after the kid evaded the police. Maybe they shot the dog to punish the suspect or just because it was a pit bull. That makes more sense than the explanation given.

No, it probably was not necessary to kill the pit bull. The dog did not hurt the officer and if it had wanted to I'm sure it could have. Would they have shot it if it was a Lab or Golden and did the same thing? Probably not.

Was it completely necessary to kill this dog? It was doing its job by protecting its owner. Most dogs would do the same if put into this situation. If the dog had been a lab, would the officer have so readily shot it?