ok, that's one heck of a stupid cop. Whether or not it follows the manual is beside the point. You don't just go to a sick cat and shoot it. You take it to the animal shelter. It's their job to help it
And according to the manual, it's the cop's job to shoot it. I do think he should have went against the manual and taken it to the animal shelter. Especially if the cat had a collar (which I'm assuming it did). But the cop wasn't stupid for following the manual. He probably didn't really give a damn about the animal to do it so quickly, but if the manual says "shoot a sick animal," then those who use the manual have to shoot the sick animal.
Well if the cat was really sick and obvious that it was going to die, then i would say yes. However, going through with it is a different matter. If he did it inhumanely, then no he shouldn't have. But if he did it quickly and painlessly, then i suppose so. I guess i stand on a neutral line here...
I rather dislike these one sided stories. Obviously the procedure is like that for sme reason. It may not be the best option (likely dated) but there was something that justified it. Is it stupid? Sure, but I don't blame the officer.
He was completely justified. It's the owners fault for not taking care of their animals. The police officer did his job. He did it well. It was not hasty or anything, he put the cat out of its misery.
I agree one hundred and ten percent. Although he COULD have taken a bit more time to try and figure out the situation, it was regulation to kill the cat. A sick cat can pose more of a threat than just getting your cat sick, it could be carrying a deadly virus that could be transferred to humans. I have heard of animals being used as weapons for biological warfare, as in getting the animal sick and sending it into a population to transfer the disease. I am sure that was not the case here but still, if the owners had simply watched the cat more closely it wouldn't have escaped. Besides, if we are talking about humane the cop put a bullet through its head (pretty sure there is no faster way to kill something). After all is said and done it comes down to this . . . why in the world would the neighbor call the cops instead of animal control? (unless animal control there is anything like where I live, slow to act) In the end the cop was following regulation and you can't go telling a cop not to follow some regulations but still follow others, you should request a change to the regulations which, thankfully, is what the owner's of the cat are doing.
The cop should be temporarily fired for doing that. Regardless of whether it was in the manual or not, one could see that it a collar and all that stuff and that it was well taken care of, as it was a groomed. Also, even if it was close to dying and officer ended its suffering, there's no way to tell now if sometime could have been done to save the cat and prevent its death, since the officer shot it.
Fired? No way, that isn't right. My uncle is a police officer and they get a ton of shit as it is. Plus it isn't that easy to save an animal from dying. Granted it is very possible but not nearly as easy as it is for a human.
I agree with Muscles, cops have to deal with a lot of crap from people daily. He makes one controversial choice and everybody gets on his case. He was doing his job and if you want to fire somebody for that then . . . I strongly disagree.
This is a complicated debate... My own opinion lies with... well, I'm kinda on both sides. I don't agree with the killing of the cat, there may have been a chance to save it. However, I don't believe the officer is to blame. Since he was following regulations and the manual etc. If anything is considered wrong, then it should be the manual. Either way... It's a horrible thing to have happened and to do but I don't think the officer is to blame for doing his job. Sure he could have gone against the manual, but then he would have likely gotten into trouble anyway. For him it was a lose lose situation. Some people might respond to what I have to say with; 'what about a question of his morales? If he was gonna get in trouble anyway, why not save the cat?' Well that is a whole different can of worms. You could argue that while killing the cat without giving it a chance was immoral. Putting it out of it's misery, and in a painless way could be seen as the counter to that. Especially if as people mentioned above he had to consider the danger of illness to the family who lived there etc. There are many angles to this. All can be pretty much countered on either side. Over all though, the officer had to make a decision. I can't be sure if it's wrong or right. If people are gonna blame the officer however, I think that's unfair on the officer. The ruling should be blamed. What I'd be more concerned with is it sounded like he killed the cat in front of the Granddaughter. Depending on her age that could have not been the wise thing. Also: Amaury, judging from the articles last few lines here: Not wearing tags could also suggest a lack of a collar. However that can't be confirmed. At the same time, it can't be proven the cat was wearing a collar either. I see your point and the articles point that if it was well groomed, the officer should have been able to tell. But again it goes back to the regulations thing which there is no point in me repeating. My only point here was the can't be sure whether there was a collar or not.
