The miniature Dachshund's name was Killer, but he was far from that. Killer was 11 years old and, according to his owner, had never attacked anyone.
So why did a police officer in Danville, Va., shoot and kill the small dog last week?
Because he thought Killer had rabies. So he fired his weapon, he said, in self-defense.
I had to read this story several times before it finally sank in. But even now, I have to wonder if the officer, Murrill McLean, acted too quickly and without giving thoughtful consideration to the situation.
At a news conference last Thursday, Danville Police Chief Philip Broadfoot said he regretted that the dog was killed, but he stood by McLean's decision to shoot him.
"The fact of the matter is that the dog was running loose, that it placed officer McLean in a precarious situation, and that officer McLean made a judgment decision in a fraction of a second that cannot be re-versed," Broadfoot said. "I'm not expressing regret over the decision."
Here's what happened: McLean was attempting to serve a warrant at a nearby house when he was approached by Killer, who bared his teeth and growled. Because that type of behavior is associated with rabies, McLean believed he was in danger.
When Killer lunged at him, according to McLean's report, the officer drew his gun and fired.
OK, he felt threatened. But did he act recklessly? Could he have used his foot or nightstick to fend off the dog? Could he have tried to scare the dog by shouting at him? Could he have called out to the owner, who might have heard him and retrieved Killer?
Were his actions overly rash?
A Dachshund is a small, non-threatening dog. They're biters, too, but I can't help but believe the officer in this case could have chosen another course of action. Maybe a swift kick would have turned Killer away and kept McLean from shooting him. But we'll never know.
One more thing: Killer's owner, Angela Harper, said her dog didn't have rabies.
