A Kalispell couple is threatening to sue the police department after an officer on Sunday shot their son's dog.
"We are requesting a full investigation by the Kalispell Police Department, which we believe is required … when force of this nature is used in the vicinity of humans," said Thane Johnson, attorney for Mark and Pattie Irvine.
The Irvines allege the shooting, which seriously injured but did not kill their dog, was unprovoked and dangerous.
Police, however, say the dog charged an officer - who did not fire his weapon in an unsafe manner and was justified in the use of deadly force.
According to police logs, officers were dispatched to the 1100 block of Second Avenue West at 9:05 p.m. Sunday to investigate a loose dog complaint.
A neighbor called to report that when she confronted Mark Irvine about the loose pet, he grabbed a wooden bat or piece of lumber and began yelling at her, Kalispell police Lt. Jim Brenden said.
Responding officers, including Patrolman Chad Zimmerman, found the dog in another neighbor's yard and shooed it back onto the Irvines' property, according to Brenden.
Turning, the dog reportedly began to bark and growl at officers.
Police told Mark Irvine at least twice to contain the 60-pound Dalmatian mix before it charged, forcing Zimmerman to shoot it once in the head, Brenden said.
Pattie Irvine said she was in the house when the shooting occurred but looked outside a bedroom window after hearing the commotion in the yard.
Snowball, her son's dog, was sitting five or six feet from Zimmerman and about 10 feet from her husband, she said.
And then a gun went off.
"I thought he'd shot my husband," said Pattie Irvine, who fainted after she heard the shot. "The bullet could have ricocheted and hit my husband."
Like the Irvines, some witnesses say they saw the dog barking but never saw it charge.
"It didn't charge at all," said Roman Hopper, who witnessed the incident from across an alley. "It was sitting down the whole time."
Pattie Irvine also said neither she nor her husband recognized Zimmerman, who may have been wearing a bike patrol uniform, as a police officer and that his gun appeared to waver between the dog and her husband.
But Brenden noted that there were other uniformed police officers on the scene - officers who reported that at no point was Zimmerman's duty pistol pointed at anything except the dog and the ground.
An expert marksman who runs the department's firearms training program, Zimmerman at no time put anybody else in danger, Brenden said. His options were either to shoot the dog - at a downward angle from only feet away - or get bit, Brenden added.
"When it's a vicious dog, we don't have the luxury of just saying everything is fine because it returned to its owner's yard," Brenden said. "It's our responsibility at that point to contain the dog, and if the owner had assisted us, things might have turned out differently."
After the incident, Mark Irvine was arrested for disorderly conduct, obstructing a police officer, failure to license his dog, having a dog at large and owning a vicious animal - all misdemeanors. If convicted, he faces more than $600 in fines and six months in jail.
Due to the pending criminal charges, Mark Irvine - who is currently serving a 10-year probationary sentence for burglary - was unavailable Tuesday for comment.
Snowball was seriously injured in the shooting. The bullet reportedly entered near her eye and exited from her throat.
"She was lucky she survived," Pattie Irvine said. "She needs more care … and more procedures, but we can't afford it."
Reporter Nicholas Ledden can be reached at 758-4441 or by e-mail at nledden@dailyinterlake.com
jed
Shoot first and sort it out later..?
informed
Well he should've been!!! Bet then some of you would find ways to defend his sorry ass. But who cares about the dog, right.
define progress
Let's not forget that the police had already "shooed" the dog back onto it's property. This brings out two points that demonstrate the need for KPD to revise its officer training: 1) They chased the dog across property lines - that is, in the dogs mindset they initiated aggression & 2) the dog was pushed back onto property that it recognized as belonging to it. Dogs have a very strong den instinct and know what is theirs. At this point officers had shown aggression towards it and now in its home. Of course it is going to stand its ground! Another point: when animals charge, by and large it is a bluff charge - that is, it will veer off - but not 5 to 6 feet away. KPD needs to make sure its officers understand the situations they will face - this is a pure lack of training. After all, an expert marksman who was properly trained would know that a dog lunges off of its hind legs and, only if needed, would have shot the hind quarters to deter the dog and stop its ability to lunge. This guy, by aiming at the head, was looking to do
blueice
informed: I'm sure the officer would have preferred to shoot the dog in the leg, but that's like trying to shoot a charging grizzly in the toe and hoping it will stop it. It's too bad that Mark put his dog's and everybody else's life on the line. All Mark had to do was put the dog in the house, take his couple of misdemeanor tickets and all would have been calm in the neighborhood. Maybe the Irvine's should be banned from owning dogs and banned from Kalispell too.....