Cop goes to wrong house, shoots owners dog.

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

How is this part irrelevant? This is the reason the dog is dead, it is perfectly relevant. Instead of putting yourself in the officers shoes, put yourself in the victims shoes. If an officer broke into your house, held you at gunpoint and then shot your dog would you still feel that the fact he is in the wrong house is irrelevant? No, I do not think you would.

And I don't care if you have a dog or not, I'm saying this as a theoretical situation. You say you can't blame the officer? He was in the wrong house, he is the only one to blame here.

How about you watch the video first? He was at the reported adress, he did not make the mistake, he assumed the reported situation and thought that the dog would attack him.

The big thing is: He was at the REPORTED adress = they got the wrong adress.

He went into the house with his weapon drawn even though there was no signs of disturbance at the house. And as someone said earlier, there was a report that said the man told the officer that the dog would not harm him and yet he shot it anyway. Without even giving the owner a chance to restrain it.

So he went into the home of an innocent man with his weapon drawn, for something as simple as an argument between a couple, he had his weapon drawn. The man was unarmed yet he still held him at gunpoint. The man told the officer that the dog would not harm him and then the officer shot the dog without letting the owner restrain it. A stranger just walked into the dogs home, of course the dog is going to bark, it's what dogs do.

Reported address or not, what the officer did was wrong and he shouldn't be defended for it. It's the officers responsibility to make sure that they are definitely going to the right house. I'm wondering if they got the caller to actually confirm that it was definitely the correct address he'd mentioned before they acted. Or if they just got the call and went "Yep we'll take care of that". Let's also not forget that the officer just simply walked into the house. He didn't knock, he just walked right in. He should have knocked first, especially since there were no signs of disturbance. If there was no answer only then he should have let himself in

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

snip

But he should not be held account for things he had no control over. Like the fact that the information he got was false. On the rest I shall let the investigation people judge and no one who has only the news and tape as information.

You're right, the fact that he was given the wrong address was not his fault, however that does not excuse his actions once he arrived at the property.

It is also why I would like to know whether they got the caller to confirm the given address or if they just went without giving it any more thought. If they didn't get the caller to confirm that he/she gave the correct address then they are simply idiots, and so is the man/woman that called it in for giving the wrong address in the first place.

 

[JoJo]

You'd do the same thing?

I'm glad your not a police officer then. Another idiot policeman is something that really isn't needed.

Wow, thanks for contributing to the discussion El Luck, that comment was really enlightening.

...

Oh you edited it out, what a shame. You do know I could still report that to the mods right, since I've got a helpful copy in my inbox? It's your lucky day however I'm too lazy to bother, so instead I'll expand on my earlier point, so that you may understand my reasoning.

Yes, I'd do exactly same thing as the police officer. As a university biology student I'm very familiar with the fact that a dog is no more intelligent or special than many of the animals we consume for food every day and thus I'd have no qualms about dropping some hot lead into Fido if he so much as gave me or any of my family a funny look. If you want to keep a domesticated wolf then go ahead but don't blame me for not giving it the benefit of the doubt if it looks like it wants to make my eight year old sister its next meal, from my point of view it's worth sacrificing any number of dogs to protect one human life.

 

[El Luck]

You'd do the same thing?

I'm glad your not a police officer then. Another idiot policeman is something that really isn't needed.

Wow, thanks for contributing to the discussion El Luck, that comment was really enlightening.

...

Oh you edited it out, what a shame. You do know I could still report that to the mods right, since I've got a helpful copy in my inbox? It's your lucky day however I'm too lazy to bother, so instead I'll expand on my earlier point, so that you may understand my reasoning.

Yes, I'd do exactly same thing as the police officer. As a university biology student I'm very familiar with the fact that a dog is no more intelligent or special than many of the animals we consume for food every day and thus I'd have no qualms about dropping some hot lead into Fido if he so much as gave me or any of my family a funny look. If you want to keep a domesticated wolf then go ahead but don't blame me for not giving it the benefit of the doubt if it looks like it wants to make my eight year old sister its next meal, from my point of view it's worth sacrificing any number of dogs to protect one human life.

I got rid of it because I can't be arsed with this topic any more and I also realised how much of a dickish comment it was so I removed it, so do what you want with it, whatever floats your boat.

Anyway, I can see your point but looking at this entire mess...nope fuck it, I can't be bothered with this anymore

 

[Dasick]

Yes, I'd do exactly same thing as the police officer. As a university biology student I'm very familiar with the fact that a dog is no more intelligent or special than many of the animals we consume for food every day and thus I'd have no qualms about dropping some hot lead into Fido if he so much as gave me or any of my family a funny look. If you want to keep a domesticated wolf then go ahead but don't blame me for not giving it the benefit of the doubt if it looks like it wants to make my eight year old sister its next meal, from my point of view it's worth sacrificing any number of dogs to protect one human life.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you... MORALITY, as seen by science.

Anyway, the scenario you're giving is a bad one, because the situation we're talking about is completely different from what you're describing.

The police officer, while investigating a domestic disturbance barges into a man's home, weapon drawn, then shoots his dog.

See the words I've bolded? That's what's wrong with the picture. It's not about shooting a dog. It's about the things the police officer did which shouldn't be happening.

 

[Shivarage]

That dog was just 3 days away from retirement... that's what we call retirony xDDD

Captcha: Describe this in any words "Nasa" - dead and buried

 

[SuperNova221]

Speaking from the viewpoint of somebody with a phobia of dogs, it's kind of understandable assuming he had a similar phobia. When I see a dog, especially an intimidating one like the one in question, running about and barking, my immediate reaction is just to get the hell away from that dog and, in the cops situation, the easiest way to do that was to shoot. Of course, this only applies if he did have a phobia, and I'm just saying that it's understandable, not justified.

 

[JoJo]

Yes, I'd do exactly same thing as the police officer. As a university biology student I'm very familiar with the fact that a dog is no more intelligent or special than many of the animals we consume for food every day and thus I'd have no qualms about dropping some hot lead into Fido if he so much as gave me or any of my family a funny look. If you want to keep a domesticated wolf then go ahead but don't blame me for not giving it the benefit of the doubt if it looks like it wants to make my eight year old sister its next meal, from my point of view it's worth sacrificing any number of dogs to protect one human life.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you... MORALITY, as seen by science.

Anyway, the scenario you're giving is a bad one, because the situation we're talking about is completely different from what you're describing.

The police officer, while investigating a domestic disturbance barges into a man's home, weapon drawn, then shoots his dog.

See the words I've bolded? That's what's wrong with the picture. It's not about shooting a dog. It's about the things the police officer did which shouldn't be happening.

Your comment about morality as seen by science is quite succinct, you may or may not be aware that morality is generally considered to have originally evolved via "kin selection", i.e. it's advantageous to help family members as they carry the same genes as yourself. This example case I gave of me defending closely related family from a distantly related predator is a classic example of that.

Anyway, I'm from UK and so I don't have enough experience with gun politics to know whether it was right or wrong for the police officer to be holding a gun out when he entered the man's home. What I do know is that once he had entered that home, the dog was a threat and so he had to act fast for his own safety. I feel bad for the dog's owner but it isn't worth risking human life just to give an animal the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Dasick]

Your comment about morality as seen by science is quite succinct, you may or may not be aware that morality is generally considered to have originally evolved via "kin selection", i.e. it's advantageous to help family members as they carry the same genes as yourself. This example case I gave of me defending closely related family from a distantly related predator is a classic example of that.

It's no fun playing a game when you think of it as a bunch of transistors that either get an electric charge or not. Only when the pixels become dear friends and bitter enemies, when the controls become the extension of the thought do we find pleasure in that silly past time of ours.

Spoiler

Maybe that is the case. Dunno, wasn't there. Even considering God as the intelligent designer, that's a very possible low-level function of morality that makes sense. But what I do know is that looking at morality as such an egotistical, selfish drive makes want to howl. Thinking about it, about anything really in such a way makes me want to say "that's the wrong way to look at".

Anyway, I'm from UK and so I don't have enough experience with gun politics to know whether it was right or wrong for the police officer to be holding a gun out when he entered the man's home. What I do know is that once he had entered that home, the dog was a threat and so he had to act fast for his own safety. I feel bad for the dog's owner but it isn't worth risking human life just to give an animal the benefit of the doubt.

Forget gun politics for a second. Think about what happened.

The police officer, while investigating a domestic violence report barges into a man's home, weapon drawn, then shoots his dog.

Does that seem right to you? That in a supposedly advanced country, an agent of the government enters someone's house uninvited, for no good reason, no evidence to support the report so far, threatens the home-owner with his gun and uses it.

America invades guys on the premise that their government is the kind of government to allow this kind of thing to happen.

This is the issue. Not the dog - it's sad, but sometimes the good guys have to shoot bad guys, and sometimes bad guys use dogs.

 

[Wicky_42]

... What I do know is that once he had entered that home, the dog was a threat and so he had to act fast for his own safety. I feel bad for the dog's owner but it isn't worth risking human life just to give an animal the benefit of the doubt.

When I cross the road, cars are a threat. If I'm walking home at night and hear someone behind me, that is a threat. If a dog barks at me, that is a threat. If a kid shouts at me, that is a threat. If I stay out in the sun too long, that is a threat. If I eat too much ice cream, the resulting headache is a threat.

Life is full of threats and dangers. Policemen intentionally put themselves in threatening situations as part of their work, and should be trained to respond correctly to them. Over-reaction can cost innocents their liberty or lives, as can under-reaction. It was his decision to barge into someone's house, gun drawn and looking for trouble, and he should have to deal with the consequences of those actions. If he'd knocked, or even troubled to look through a window before storming the front, perhaps a man wouldn't be without his loyal pet, the misunderstanding and confusion could have been resolved amicably, and perhaps the reported case of domestic violence going on next door could have actually been dealt with.

On reflection though, perhaps it's a good thing that that officer went to the wrong place, otherwise with his attitude perhaps we'd be dealing with a dead husband instead...

 

[Dasick]

Spoiler

... What I do know is that once he had entered that home, the dog was a threat and so he had to act fast for his own safety. I feel bad for the dog's owner but it isn't worth risking human life just to give an animal the benefit of the doubt.

When I cross the road, cars are a threat. If I'm walking home at night and hear someone behind me, that is a threat. If a dog barks at me, that is a threat. If a kid shouts at me, that is a threat. If I stay out in the sun too long, that is a threat. If I eat too much ice cream, the resulting headache is a threat.

Life is full of threats and dangers. Policemen intentionally put themselves in threatening situations as part of their work, and should be trained to respond correctly to them. Over-reaction can cost innocents their liberty or lives, as can under-reaction. It was his decision to barge into someone's house, gun drawn and looking for trouble, and he should have to deal with the consequences of those actions. If he'd knocked, or even troubled to look through a window before storming the front, perhaps a man wouldn't be without his loyal pet, the misunderstanding and confusion could have been resolved amicably, and perhaps the reported case of domestic violence going on next door could have actually been dealt with.

On reflection though, perhaps it's a good thing that that officer went to the wrong place,
otherwise with his attitude perhaps we'd be dealing with a dead husband instead...

Exactly my point ^^

I was thinking about it though... what did happen to the domestic abuse household?

 

[WhyWasThat]

Yeah, methinks a simple "Whoops, my bad!" won't suffice in this situation.

 

[FURY_007]

This is why the police shouldn't and don't need to have guns, I know people will say that its fine if everyone has guns, but wouldn't it be better if no-one has them? The statistics are against you america, you have the most gun crime and most high school shootings per capita etc. Just outright ban the things.

I'm glad I live in the UK.

Meh, The problem with that theory is that when there is a will there's a way. Legally we can't have anything that's not semi-automatic, for private use, unless we go through some major fuckin hoops, to the point if anything bad happens wit the gun, there is major consequences. Criminals aren't just walking in to gun shops, buying guns legally, I.E. getting them registered to their name with the federal and local Law enforcement agencies. Before you get a gun, the place you get it from calls in to the sheriffs dept. for a background check. Criminals go to the Black Market which has guns from wherever that got smuggled here or stolen and get the serial number filed off and they can just buy them. Banning guns wouldn't stop criminals from getting guns, it'd just stop the law-abiding people who use them for self-defense, hunting, or, in my case, I collect them for their historical value, of which I have a British Lee-Enfield mk. III, one of my favorites. Or who just think they are really fun to shoot, which I strongly agree.

 

[WaysideMaze]

Sure, it must have been a pretty shitty experience but searches of innocent people's houses happens all the time, it's not ideal that their property sometimes get's damaged like in this case but if we gave out compensation and punishments every time for police officers doing their duty, well we wouldn't have much money or police left! For all the policeman knew that dog could have mauled him, now we know better but I would have done the same in his situation, better for many dogs to die than for one police officer to give benefit of the doubt and end up with his face chewed off. I'm being pretty generous to be honest with my suggestion of some compensation, heck maybe the owner could buy a younger and/or better dog than he owned previously and so benefit.

Benefit? Really? You may hate dogs, but people who keep pets form emotional attachments to them. This isn't like the officer knocked his TV off it's stand, and they can just buy him a new one. That dog is dead, and there is no way to replace him. I've grown up around dogs, and when one dies it is heart wrenching, it is like losing a member of the family. No, this is not an exaggeration. I have fond memories of those dogs, and I miss them. I really feel for the man that he had to witness his pet, his friend, get killed in front of him like that.

I am honestly stunned by the fact that I have to explain emotional attachments to you.

As a university biology student I'm very familiar with the fact that a dog is no more intelligent or special than many of the animals we consume for food every day

So I'm guessing you're not familiar with this [http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/PRN-an-evolutionary-tale-about-dogs-193185.aspx] train of thought then?

I'm also stunned by the 'buy a better dog' comment.

 

[JoJo]

Sure, it must have been a pretty shitty experience but searches of innocent people's houses happens all the time, it's not ideal that their property sometimes get's damaged like in this case but if we gave out compensation and punishments every time for police officers doing their duty, well we wouldn't have much money or police left! For all the policeman knew that dog could have mauled him, now we know better but I would have done the same in his situation, better for many dogs to die than for one police officer to give benefit of the doubt and end up with his face chewed off. I'm being pretty generous to be honest with my suggestion of some compensation, heck maybe the owner could buy a younger and/or better dog than he owned previously and so benefit.

Benefit? Really? You may hate dogs, but people who keep pets form emotional attachments to them. This isn't like the officer knocked his TV off it's stand, and they can just buy him a new one. That dog is dead, and there is no way to replace him. I've grown up around dogs, and when one dies it is heart wrenching, it is like losing a member of the family. No, this is not an exaggeration. I have fond memories of those dogs, and I miss them. I really feel for the man that he had to witness his pet, his friend, get killed in front of him like that.

I am honestly stunned by the fact that I have to explain emotional attachments to you.

I'm also stunned by the 'buy a better dog' comment.

I'm quite aware of dog owners attachment to their pets but while it's regrettable that the dog had to be killed, policeman's life > emotional attachment. I have an emotional attachment to my laptop but if a policeman ran up to me and said there was a chance that an assassin had placed a bomb inside it, I sure as hell wouldn't object to him shooting it to pieces. I am honestly stunned that you would risk a human's life who very likely has close family and friends, maybe even his own children, for the sake of someone's emotional attachment to a pet.

I never said I hated dogs either, I just don't consider them any different from other mammals (except humans).

So I'm guessing you're not familiar with this [http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/PRN-an-evolutionary-tale-about-dogs-193185.aspx] train of thought then?

You mean co-evolution? Dogs are hardly unique in that respect, every domesticated animal including cows, pigs and chickens have co-evolved to become reliant on humans to some degree and I don't see any objections to their deaths.

 

[Dasick]

Sure, it must have been a pretty shitty experience but searches of innocent people's houses happens all the time, it's not ideal that their property sometimes get's damaged like in this case but if we gave out compensation and punishments every time for police officers doing their duty, well we wouldn't have much money or police left! For all the policeman knew that dog could have mauled him, now we know better but I would have done the same in his situation, better for many dogs to die than for one police officer to give benefit of the doubt and end up with his face chewed off. I'm being pretty generous to be honest with my suggestion of some compensation, heck maybe the owner could buy a younger and/or better dog than he owned previously and so benefit.

Benefit? Really? You may hate dogs, but people who keep pets form emotional attachments to them. This isn't like the officer knocked his TV off it's stand, and they can just buy him a new one. That dog is dead, and there is no way to replace him. I've grown up around dogs, and when one dies it is heart wrenching, it is like losing a member of the family. No, this is not an exaggeration. I have fond memories of those dogs, and I miss them. I really feel for the man that he had to witness his pet, his friend, get killed in front of him like that.

I am honestly stunned by the fact that I have to explain emotional attachments to you.

I'm also stunned by the 'buy a better dog' comment.

I'm quite aware of dog owners attachment to their pets but while it's regrettable that the dog had to be killed, policeman's life > emotional attachment. I have an emotional attachment to my laptop but if a policeman ran up to me and said there was a chance that an assassin had placed a bomb inside it, I sure as hell wouldn't object to him shooting it to pieces. I am honestly stunned that you would risk a human's life who very likely has close family and friends, maybe even his own children, for the sake of someone's emotional attachment to a pet.

I never said I hated dogs either, I just don't consider them any different from other mammals (except humans).

The issue isn't that the police officer shot the dog. It's the circumstances. See my above comments.

And my issue with you isn't that you'd rather have a living policeman and a dead dog. It's that you're suggesting that giving the man a "better" dog is sufficient compensation for the loss of a loyal friend.

You mean co-evolution? Dogs are hardly unique in that respect, every domesticated animal including cows, pigs and chickens have co-evolved to become reliant on humans to some degree and I don't see any objections to their deaths.

Meet Hinduism [http://www.adherents.com/images/rel_pie.gif], Hippies and Moral Vegetarians and Vegans. They do, in fact, object. People do object to unethical treatment and use of animals.

 

[WaysideMaze]

I'm quite aware of dog owners attachment to their pets but while it's regrettable that the dog had to be killed, policeman's life > emotional attachment. I have an emotional attachment to my laptop but if a policeman ran up to me and said there was a chance that an assassin had placed a bomb inside it, I sure as hell wouldn't object to him shooting it to pieces. I am honestly stunned that you would risk a human's life who very likely has close family and friends, maybe even his own children, for the sake of someone's emotional attachment to a pet.

I never said I wanted the officer to risk his life. In fact earlier in the thread I said this

OK, I can concede that perhaps the officer felt the need to have his gun ready. Like you say, unknown situation, and I wouldn't want to read about a police officer being shot whilst attending to a domestic.
But I still feel he could have handled the situation better. Did he really need to approach the man in such an aggressive manner? Surely he could have calmly asked him to raise his hands? After all, he still had his weapon ready, and would have been able to get the drop on him if he had reached for something.
Dogs are highly territorial, and to have a stranger, screaming at his master probably set the dog off. Had the officer approached this more professionally then perhaps the dog would still be alive.

I'm not part of the 'OMG HE SHOT A DOG HE MUST DIE!' brigade, I just think he could have handled the situation better. I'll repeat, if he had handled the situation in a less aggressive, more professional manner, this whole mess could have been avoided. You can have your gun ready in case a suspect is armed, and still avoid yelling at people like a howler monkey.
By screaming at the resident, he exasperated the situation, and he should be held accountable for this.

I never said I hated dogs either, I just don't consider them any different from other mammals (except humans).

So I'm guessing you're not familiar with this [http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/PRN-an-evolutionary-tale-about-dogs-193185.aspx] train of thought then?

You mean co-evolution? Dogs are hardly unique in that respect, every domesticated animal including cows, pigs and chickens have co-evolved to become reliant on humans to some degree and I don't see any objections to their deaths.

Right, except we co-evolved with dogs to keep them as companions, whereas we co-evolved with livestock to eat them.

Finally, regarding this point.

I have an emotional attachment to my laptop

It isn't the same thing.

 

[JoJo]

Two people at once? Hope this layout isn't too confusing:

The issue isn't that the police officer shot the dog. It's the circumstances. See my above comments.

And my issue with you isn't that you'd rather have a living policeman and a dead dog. It's that you're suggesting that giving the man a "better" dog is sufficient compensation for the loss of a loyal friend.

I'm not really sure I'd refer to a dog as a "loyal friend", I don't think a dog has the capacity to really be a friend. On the other part of your post, I'm not really sure why you're quoting me in particular since I haven't really said anything about the situation of coming in with a gun and I'll be honest, I don't know what the answer is to that. Partly that's due to living in the UK where police aren't armed and nor is most of the populace, over here we don't need guns barging in except for terrorists but in the U.S. where many more criminals are armed it may be needed for the police officer's safety.

Meet Hinduism [http://www.adherents.com/images/rel_pie.gif], Hippies and Moral Vegetarians and Vegans. They do, in fact, object. People do object to unethical treatment and use of animals.

To clarify, the vast majority of both the public and people on this thread have no objection to the killing of farm animals, but many do to pets of similar intellect. I don't mind people who object to all animal slaughter so much (though I don't agree with their views) as at-least they are consistent rather than following the rule "animals which I like should get to live!", not that either of you necessarily are saying that, just certain people on this thread.

I never said I wanted the officer to risk his life. In fact earlier in the thread I said this: and I wouldn't want to read about a police officer being shot whilst attending to a domestic. I'm not part of the 'OMG HE SHOT A DOG HE MUST DIE!' brigade, I just think he could have handled the situation better. I'll repeat, if he had handled the situation in a less aggressive, more professional manner, this whole mess could have been avoided. You can have your gun ready in case a suspect is armed, and still avoid yelling at people like a howler monkey.
By screaming at the resident, he exasperated the situation, and he should be held accountable for this.

Come on now, he might not have done it perfectly but yelling at people shouldn't be enough to condemn a police officer to be held accountable for some sort of punishment, start enforcing that sort of rule and you'll end up with a situation where the police will be over-cautious like many places are now with "health and safety" because they know they'll be sued into oblivion if someone so much as gets a paper cut.

Right, except we co-evolved with dogs to keep them as companions, whereas we co-evolved with livestock to eat them.

Surely you must know people eat dogs in East Asia and used to in Ancient Rome and Mexico, only in the modern-day West is it a cultural faux pas to use them in that way. Not that it matters what we bred them for, having been designed to live with humans doesn't make them any-more valuable or worth more than animals who remain free in the wild.

Finally, regarding this point.

I have an emotional attachment to my laptop

It isn't the same thing.

I don't see why not. They're both possessions you spend a lot of time with and get enjoyment out of, they even each have their own (quite different) forms of limited intelligence. The only difference is that one is alive and one isn't.

 

[WaysideMaze]

I'll only tackle the issues me and you are discussing, JoJo, I'll leave out your discussion with Dasick so that it doesn't get too confusing. He has his own points that I am sure he can put across well enough.

Come on now, he might not have done it perfectly but yelling at people shouldn't be enough to condemn a police officer to be held accountable for some sort of punishment, start enforcing that sort of rule and you'll end up with a situation where the police will be over-cautious like many places are now with "health and safety" because they know they'll be sued into oblivion if someone so much as gets a paper cut.

Of course he should be held accountable. He fucked up.
He has caused this man unnecessary anguish because he can't read a situation and act appropriately. We need to hold police to a high standard, and hold them accountable when they screw up.

Surely you must know people eat dogs in East Asia and used to in Ancient Rome and Mexico, only in the modern-day West is it a cultural faux pas to use them in that way. Not that it matters what we bred them for, having been designed to live with humans doesn't make them any-more valuable or worth more than animals who remain free in the wild.

Yes, and in India the cow is held sacred, but we aren't talking about East Asia, Ancient Rome or Mexico. We are talking about the modern-day west. And in our culture dogs (and other pets) are considered more special than other animals. Whether this is fair or logical isn't the issue. Generally, our society cares far more for dogs than it does for other animals.

I have an emotional attachment to my laptop

It isn't the same thing.

I don't see why not. They're both possessions you spend a lot of time with and get enjoyment out of, they even each have their own (quite different) forms of limited intelligence. The only difference is that one is alive and one isn't.

I suppose the best way for me to illustrate this point would be bringing up a group such as the RSPCA.
I notice you're British so won't insult your intelligence and explain what they do, but if owning a dog and owning a laptop are the same thing, then why does no such group exist for mistreated laptops?

 

[dave1004]

I'll be honest, I myself have a very deep-running fear of dogs. Little ones are O.K, buy I still avoid them when they're eating. I was jumped by a huge husky when I was about eight (Walking past a garage in a small town, going to a friends). The dog was chained, but it reached me, and tore a hole in my chest. I had to run back home, screaming in pain and bleeding everywhere.

Story-time over, I don't think that the officer did the wrong thing here (At least, involving the dog). The mutt rushed him, and if you're not careful, one chomp on the neck can mean death. Still, I wonder how they got the house wrong...?

An apology and a tongue-lashing would suffice for the officer.