On August 24 of this year, a police officer from the North Holland police in Haarlem shot a dog, resulting in its death. Based on the investigation by the Safety, Integrity and Complaints department, the Public Prosecution Service concludes that the police action was lawful. Therefore, the officer will not be prosecuted.
Background
On Sunday, August 24, a neighbor dispute took place in Haarlem. The police were called because the situation remained tense. Several arrests were made. One of the involved residents, whose wife and daughter had been arrested, wanted to speak with the police. He kept walking back and forth between his home and the front yard. He also contacted his son, who then arrived. After his arrival, the unrest flared up again, prompting the police to arrest the son as well. The police dog handler then took his police dog out of the car as a precaution.
Circumstances
The resident was inside his home when his son was arrested. When he went outside, he did not close the front door, allowing a dog inside the house to follow him out. Given the unrest, the presence of the police dog, and the fact that the residents dog was not leashed, the police repeatedly called for the dog to be removed. Nevertheless, the dog approached the police officers who were arresting the son. The dog shifted its attention and walked towards the dog handler and the police dog. The dog handler recognized from experience that the dog assumed an attack posture (raised hackles, tail up, and bared teeth).
The dog handler decided to fire a warning shot to stop the dog, which did not respond to calls. However, the dog continued to advance aggressively towards the dog handler and the police dog. To protect himself and the police dog, the officer then shot at the dog. This only took effect after several shots, with the dog handler waiting for the dogs reaction after each shot before firing again.
Decision
The police may use force if it is necessary for the lawful performance of their duties. The force must be proportionate to the intended goal, and no less severe means must have been available.
In this case, the police officer used force against the dog. According to the Public Prosecution Service, this was necessary to stop the dogs attack and to prevent injury to the police dog and/or the dog handler. Attempts were made to stop the dog in other ways, such as stepping back, creating space, and firing a warning shot. The dog did not respond and continued its attack. The dog handler had only a short time to act and had no other option but to respond as he did. Based on the investigation findings, the Public Prosecution Service concludes that the police action was lawful. The police officer will not be prosecuted.
