|
Two
dogs shot in German BSL raid
GERMAN POLICE once again showed its ‘true colours’
when officers mercilessly shot dead two pet dogs during a raid
at a private house in the quiet town of Olfen, Munsterland,
North-Rhine Westphalia. The dogs had been accused of ‘attacking’
a labourer on a nearby building site, prompting the swift action
under Germany’s, Breed-Specific Legislation, the so-called
‘Fighting Dog’ laws.
The pressure group Domino Dogs Deutschland conducted its own
investigation into the action carried out by the Police and
the Olfen Public Order Department against five medium sized
dogs, all of which had official certification that they did
not belong to a so-called
‘ fighting dog’ breed.
Reporter Andrea Koch of the Suddeutschen Zeitung newspaper and
Klaus Brzezinski undertook the DDD investigation and found some
serious flaws in the authorities’ reaction to the original
complaint against the dogs.
The families involved in the incident were identified as Mr
and Mrs P, their daughter and her partner Mr N, who have a child
and live together in the same large mansion house. They own
four dogs and two cats between them. There are other tenants
in other apartments in the property. The house itself is surrounded
by a 5.4" (1.6m) high wire fence and is quite secure, with
as large iron "dog proof" gate for access. Opposite
the property is the municipal building yard.
Koch and Brzezinski met Mr P, the owner of the property, and
soon afterwards his daughter and her partner, Mr N. Mrs P was
not present, being in hospital after suffering a heart attack
shortly after the police action, as she already suffered from
severe heart problems.
The family background involving dog ownership is quite interesting,
but hardly threatening or inclined towards the ownership of
dangerous dogs.
Mr P. has owned dogs - mainly Dogues - for forty years without
any problem. His daughter rehomed a Greyhound-Labrador cross
breed, - an entire bitch - from the local animal shelter.
Under NRW dog laws, this crossbreed comes under the "20/40"
ruling). At that point in time she already owned another crossbreed
(also a 20/40 dog). The bitch had a litter. Some of the puppies
looked like Pointer-Whippet mongrels with narrow pointed noses,
others were stockier in head and body. Photographs of the puppies
subsequently failed to show any phenotypic breed characteristics.
After the German Dangerous Dogs Act came into being the dogs
were registered with the Public Order Department. There followed
an inspection by a County Vet and the manager of the Public
Order Department. They demanded that the fence to raised to
the height of 5.4 " (1.6m), then checked the dogs over
by the County Vet, who declared them to be "20/40s".
The owner wanted to do a character test with his dogs of his
own free will, but the County Vet refused as this wasn't required
for 20/40 dogs and pointed out that, in any case, the dogs were
all very friendly.
The manager of the Public Order Department drew up certification
that these were not fighting dogs, but mongrels, which were
covered by the 20/40 ruling of the Dangerous Dogs Act. The Public
Order Department did not ask the dog owner for a police report
either. To make sure there would not be any problems from the
Public Order Office, Mr P erected a second fence of the same
height, which prevented the dogs from running free in paddocks
at the back of the property, nor was there any danger of them
barking at passers-by On the morning of January 17th, at about
5.30am., Mrs P (wife of the owner) went outside the front door
to have a cigarette while letting her three dogs out into the
fenced in part of the garden for to allow them to do their toilet.
During the night or early in the morning an unknown person must
have opened the gate to the property and taken off the security
chain. Mrs P was unable to see that the gate was open in the
dim light. At this point, the three dogs then ran out through
the gate, and crossed over to the municipal building yard opposite.
From there Mrs P heard a workman shout. She ran over, saw him
gesticulating wildly, kicking and hitting at the dogs. Upon
seeing Mrs P he declared: "One of them bit me!"
She called the dogs, who came at once took them back to her
house, then returned to speak to the workman, asked what happened
and whether he was hurt. He answered that one of the dogs had
bitten his leg.
About 6.00 am. Mrs P asked her husband to go over to the yard
and find out precisely what had been going on. As the workman's
trousers showed neither holes nor dirt marks, Mr P doubted the
man's claims.
About 8.00 am. Miss P and her partner went over to the building
site to see whether they could see the bite and perhaps begin
to talk about compensation. They didn't see any sign of a wound
either and could not see any damage to the workman’s trousers.
When they asked to see the wound, he firmly refused to show
them.
About 3.00 pm. that afternoon, Miss P and her partner left the
flat with their baby. Their own two dogs, which had not been
involved in the incident in the morning, and their four cats,
were left behind. The other three dogs were in the Mr and Mrs
P’s flat.
About 3:30 pm, Mrs P looked out of the window and saw 16 police
cars with the policemen surrounding the property. Mr P went
to the gate alone, while the dogs stayed in the flat.
The manager of the Public Order Office was at the gate, saying:
"We are now going to confiscate your dogs." Mr P asked
the officers to wait at the gate so he could ring his daughter.
Without answering or allowing Mr P time to make his call, the
manager and all the policemen stormed the fenced-in inner area
with drawn weapons, ready to shoot, and commanded Mr P to let
the dogs out immediately, otherwise they would storm the flat.
Mr P opened the front door in a state of shock and the dogs
ran out in panic.
In the tense atmosphere with unknown human beings shouting and
gesticulating, one of the dogs nipped the manager. A police
officer then deliberately showed his sleeve to the dog, the
dog pulled at the jacket and the policemen immediately started
firing.
Confusion
The
badly injured first dog staggered away for some ten metres,
before collapsing dead at the fence. A number of other policemen
started firing wildly and indiscriminately, at which point
a second dog was hit, but in the general confusion he vanished
out of sight and was assumed to have fled together with a
third dog for fear of the shooting. Frightened by the sounds
of gunfire, Miss P’s two dogs, which were her flat with
the four cats, looked out through the closed metal blinds.
Upon seeing them, manager of the Public Order Department is
alleged to have shouted: "Kill the Lot", at which
point the police officers started firing again. At no point
did any officer stop to ascertain whether there was anybody
in the apartment, and could not have known this, due to the
metal blinds being closed. Next to the window in the bedroom
there was a blue rattan chair that was penetrated by a bullet.
It was in this chair that Miss P used to sit while her baby
had a lunchtime nap in her parents' bed.
In the meantime Miss P and her partner Mr N, together with
their baby returned from their shopping trip and saw the police
helicopter hovering over their home. The helicopter had been
called by the police on the ground had in order to use thermal
imaging cameras to find two dogs which were said to have fled
in a state of panic.
The wounded second dog had not escaped, as had at first been
thought, but had taken a desperate jump through the broken
back widow of the house. As he had been hit by a number of
bullets he bled to death there without anybody knowing about
it.
The third dog, which had escaped, was hit by a car four kilometres
away (Mr P suspects it was a police car) and had dragged himself
badly injured into the back corner of a partly open garage.
Miss P asked a vet who had accompanied the police, to follow
the helicopter with her. The vet had watched the whole episode
in a state of shock with a stun gun in his hands, expecting
only to use the stun gun if absolutely necessary. He had certainly
not expected to see the police open fire in such a frenzied
manner. As Miss P and the vet arrived at the garage about
four kilometres away -in the middle of a built-up area - they
found that a number of policemen were stationed there, poised
to open fire on the injured dog.
After a lengthy discussion with the senior police officer,
Miss P was allowed to go to the dog, which had gone into hiding
behind a dustbin. With a lot of encouragement he came to her,
she picked him up ("..he was shaking and bleeding badly.....")
and carried him to the vet's car. As she did that she heard
one policeman say that they had not warned the inhabitants
of the surrounding properties of the use of shotguns at the
garage. Another of the policemen had tears in his eyes as
he saw the injured dog in her arms, so he had to turn away,
saying that he himself had a dog.
In the meantime the helicopter was seen returning to the property.
The daughter hurried back with the vet and the injured dog
to prevent the second escaped dog from being killed also.
When she got back home her shocked mother said that she had
found the dog dead at the back of the house. Completely shell
shocked, and beside herself with grief, she asked her daughter
to have another look at him, in the hope that he was still
alive.
Mrs P alleges that one of the officers told her brusquely:
"Lift your feet and get inside, oldie".
The manager of the Public Order Department then ordered the
two dogs in the flat to be let out, otherwise the police would
start firing again and would storm the flat. Miss P insisted
that she should fetch the dogs, and she was eventually allowed
to take the dogs to a waiting car. All three surviving dogs
(the daughter's two and the injured dog) were taken to a boarding
kennel.
Koch and Brzezinski conclude their report of the incredible
incident: "The dogs now have to undergo a character test
- including the injured one - although the outcome of the
test seems to be a forgone conclusion as the Manager of the
Public Order Department is involved. The owners are still
completely traumatised by their experiences, but want to use
all legal means to get the dogs home as soon as possible.
They are afraid for their safety."
This terrible incident once again reveals the nazi-like mindset
behind some Government officials and police officers in enforcing
the overly harsh Fighting Dog laws. No investigation into
the complaint of an alleged attack on the workman was carried
out; no evidence to suggest that one of the dogs bit the man
has been forthcoming. Instead, the authorities’ approach
was to ‘ go in hard’ rather than let the dogs’
owner calmly bring the dogs out of the property.
For supposedly trained law enforcement officers to start firing
with live ammunition simply to kill dogs which are suspected
of being ‘ dangerous’, without any checks for the
safety of people in the area simply beggars belief. But it
would seem that the authorities feel they have carte blanche
to use such tactics because of the irrational fear that exists
against dogs in Germany.
With thanks to Andrea Koch and Klaus Brzezinski
OUR DOGS will report any further developments in this alarming
case as soon as such become available.
|
