CA Police Dog Dies of Heat After Being Left in Handler’s Car

[TRICKSTER]

Originally Posted by Featureless

You didn't answer my question but I'll answer yours. There is a lot of distrust of law enforcement in this country today. Some of it justified, most of it not.

I think you'll agree, finding yourself in the continuing position of defending police on these forums.

One would think that law enforcement agencies everywhere would actively demonstrate as much transparency as possible in order to reinforce what trust they do have. Too often "wait for the investigation" has been a predicate for a coverup (which usually comes from the top, btw, not the rank and file).

The link that I posted (from the Weather Channel) was from 3 days ago-same time as the story came out everywhere else. If they had that information you can bet all the other news outlets had it also.

You acknowledge that "a very important and logical procedure was overlooked". I agree. My question was why?

And my apology is not 'bogus'. It's quite sincere. I acknowledge my remarks and attitude were out of line.

"Currently, all of our patrol K-9 handlers are checking their Heat System Controller prior to every shift and will continue to do so as part of their daily protocols," the department statement said.

This can be read one of two ways.

1: This was the current procedure in place at the time.

2: This is now the new current procedure put in place because of the accident.

But of course, you assume that it is the latter without getting any information to clarify. For all we know, the officer checked the system at the beginning of his shift and it simply malfunctioned, but that still doesn't stop you from making assumptions and accusations not based on any actual facts. You are doing nothing but bashing the LE and department, something that is a violation of the forum rules.

As far as my acknowledgement that "a very important and logical procedure was overlooked", I was speaking of you and your total lack investigating and search for factual information prior to making inflammatory accusations and assumptions. In your hurry to bash LE, you failed to look for anything that would disprove your anti-LE bias as well as ignored the rules of this forum.

[splithoof]

This is so very sad on multiple levels, and I wish the handler and his beloved family member a recovery both here on earth and where the dog awaits.
A former neighbor had such a partner, whom was truly like a child to him that was deeply loved by the entire family and most of us neighbors.
While I will leave the finger pointing and speculation as to factors that contributed to this horrible death to others, I believe that prevention of future incidents like this should be a parellel focus to the investigation going on. If a policy change that keeps the canine partner with his handler and away from hot vehicles is in order, then it should be implemented ASAP. I frequently observe dogs in many common public places, and would welcome canine officers and their partners anywhere.

[pacrat]

Why wouldn't checking safety equipment, in this case a 'failsafe' alarm, be part of the daily protocol in the first place? Intelligent, responsible professionals know (or should know) that equipment fails all the time.

How is it a seemingly simple, but very important procedure was overlooked?

Where was it stated that the equipment check was "overlooked"?

And as to your factually correct statement re equipment failures happening.

How long does it take for an "electronic temp sensor" to fail?

Considering that electrical time frames are measured in "Nano Seconds"?

[bigger hammer]

Originally Posted by theLBC

how sad.
these patrol vehicles have heat control systems and automatic alarms.
either the system malfunctioned, was turned off, or ignored.

either way, it shouldn't be sop to lock your dog in your car when you are off duty.

More of the same sort of comment that we see in OT. But this isn't OT. AND there's absolutely NO EVIDENCE here that says that there's been any wrongdoing on the part of the handler. That hasn't stopped the veiled accusations of wrongdoing.

There are many reasons why an off duty LEO K‒9 handler might have his dog in the car. Perhaps he was on call, perhaps he was taking the dog to the vet or for some training. Point is you have no idea of why the dog was in the car, yet you don't hesitate to insinuate that there is some wrongdoing to this.

[bigger hammer]

Originally Posted by edgerly779

Felony animal cruelty.

Not by any legal standard. You might think about actually reading the statutes that apply. You're completely wrong, unless you have some evidence that's not been shown. Do you?