The ongoing questions and answers as to what happened to the shooting of the Dog Dixie…July 2nd 2023 – 710 Oberlin Avenue – Lorain Ohio Part one Lorain, Oh -A DOG Succumbs As Does REASON / CIVILITY | OH Her Again! (oheragain.com)
There are so many questions and misconceptions and the
“I would’ve….. Why didn’t he, he should’ve….., coward, Pig, piece of shit had other options“
Part Two – will cover those observations covers not using the Taser, mace, pepper spray, stun gun etc.
THE TASER QUESTIONS:
Due to so many social media pages, comments arguments and threats against the officer, his family and all involved as to why the Officer did not use a Taser ( since they carry one). I decided to explore WHY myself!
Page 78 of the Investigative Report:
“Unfortunately, many in the general population are completely ill-informed of the laws that govern an officer’s use of force, and the circumstances that officers are presented with, in their totality, that can warrant an officer using force. The general reaction by the public to an officer involved in a use of force incident is based on the public’s own biases and lack of training or knowledge on the use of force by the police.”
I read through the Investigative Report for answers. After reading all the information on the Taser situation mentioned in the report , I then contacted the Lorain Police Chief James McCann with some questions I wanted to flesh out in layman’s terms. Due to those questions, I was then invited to come to the Lorain Police Department to see for myself the “Way of the Taser”
However, first and foremost, the Taser as mentioned in the Investigative Report: found here:
INVESTIGATIVE REPORT IA-23-031 FINAL REPORT for Public Release 9-7-23
Page 12 of the Investigative Report there is a witness statement by Colleen Paradissis.
Witness statement:
Summary of Statement by Coleen Paradissis.
Coleen Paradissis was identified as a witness to the incident by Patrol. According to a written statement by Paradissis, she was making a right turn at the stop sign at the corner of W. 8th Street and Oberlin Avenue. She said while she was stopped, she witnessed Officer Palmer shoot a Labrador dog approximately twenty feet away at least four times.
NOTE LR; This statement is inaccurate as to the distance as shown in Part one and further questions PUT THE FIRST SHOT OF THE ANIMAL “WITHIN’ 4 FOUR Feet” OF THE OFFICER…… “NOT 20 TWENTY FEET” as stated
CONFIRMED by photos Page 30. Figure 10 and also one of the questions asked by me to the Lorain Police Dept. which will follow.
within 4 feet from the Officer
Paradissis claimed that the action was unprovoked, and that the dog was not showing any aggression. She also noted that Officer Palmer never tried to pull his Taser or pepper spray.
Please note in the Diagram from Page 32 WHERE THE OFFICER’S POSITION – THE TELPHONE POLE- AND THE ANIMAL – FIGURE 14 PAGE 32 – BASED ON BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE
Page 20 – Summary of Interview with Officer Palmer on July 6th, 2023
I asked Officer Palmer if he had considered other options to address the dog charging at him.
Officer Palmer responded that he did not have time to consider other options, such as a Taser. Officer Palmer added that Tasers are generally not made for dogs and the Taser prongs could have missed the dog as it was coming at him. He said getting proper placement of the Taser prongs was difficult enough for humans moving at human speeds, let alone a dog.
NOTE: L.R. THIS STATEMENT WAS FULLY EXPLORED DURING MY SESSION AT THE LORAIN POLICE DEPT AND IS ADDRESSED LATER IN THIS REPORT WITH PHOTOS.
He said the animal was moving at a quick speed, and accordingly, he believed that he would not have had enough time to address the threat by the use of his Taser. Officer Palmer said based on the situation which presented itself (he believed the dog was about to cause him serious physical harm), he did not even consider the use of a Taser, or some other less lethal option. Officer Palmer said based on the level of the threat that was presented, it required the use of a firearm”
Page 23 /24 of the Investigative Report
To begin the analysis, it is important to review the relevant law and department policy. According to Ohio Revised Code §955.28 (Dog may be killed for certain acts – owner liable for damages),
“Subject to divisions (A)(2) and (3) of section 955.261 of the Revised Code,
a dog that is chasing or approaching in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, that attempts to bite or otherwise endangers, or that kills or injures a person or dog that chases, threatens, harasses, injures, or kills livestock, poultry, other domestic animal, or other animal, that is the property of another person, except a cat or other dog, can be killed at the time of that chasing, threatening, harassment, approaching, attempt, killing, or injury. If, in attempting to kill such a dog, a person wounds it, the person is not liable to prosecution under the penal laws that punish cruelty to animals (Emphasis added). Nothing in this section precludes a law enforcement officer from killing a dog that attacks a police dog as defined in section 2921.321 of the Revised Code.” (Emphasis added.)
PAGE 66 of the Investigative Report Office of Professional Standards
“A reasonable person after breaking down this incident second by second and frame by frame, devoid of any human emotion and looking at the situation objectively, would have to conclude that the dog was acting in a manner that could reasonably be perceived as aggressive. OPS makes such determination. Recall that the incident cannot be judged by 20-20 hindsight, but rather it must be judged in the shoes of a reasonable officer at the scene at the time of the use of force.
Moreover, it has been suggested in the public square that there was the possibility of using pepper spray, a Taser, or some other less than lethal means should have been employed by the officer. From the evidence OPS reviewed there is no indication that these non-lethal means would have been effective given the circumstances in this case.
Page 74/ 75 Lorain Police Department Policies Related to Animal Control & the Destruction of Animals.
“The policy goes on to state that, “In circumstances where there is sufficient advance notice that a potentially dangerous animal may be encountered, department members should develop reasonable contingency plans for dealing with the animal (e.g., fire extinguisher, TASER, oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray, animal control officer). Nothing in this policy shall prohibit any member from shooting a dangerous animal if circumstances reasonably dictate that a contingency plan has failed or becomes impractical.
” In this case, based on the evidence that is currently available for review, Officer Palmer did not have enough time to resort to other methods to address the forthcoming threat that the dog was presenting. Accordingly, the department’s policy gives Officer Palmer the authority to shoot the animal, as other methods to address the dog’s aggression in this case were unreasonable or impractical. It should be also noted that officers carry Tasers on their weak side. Therefore, an officer must cross draw the Taser, which causes more time for an officer to come on target, compared to drawing their firearm from their strong side.
NOTE : (LR) This situation of cross draw a etc. will also be fleshed out in the next segment as per my experience at the Lorain Police Dept.
And from the outside expert– Scott Hughes statement in his report
IT WOULD NOT BE FEASIBLE FOR AN OFFICER TO RESORT TO PEPPER SPRAY, TASER, BATON OR ANY OTHER LESS –THAN- LETHAL FORCE OPTION IN THIS SITUATION. A DOG ATTACKING AN OFFICER (OR A CIVILIAN) IS IMMEDIATE GROUNDS FOR THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
OH Her Again! 