Idaho Sheriff Speaks Out About Dog Shooting In Front Of Family

BobbyLast week, we posted a story about a Teton County Idaho Sheriff’s Deputy shooting a family’s dog in their own front yard while school children watched. Fortunately, Bobby, the dog, survived.

Teton County Sheriff Kim Cooke spoke about the incident this week.

Cooke said the shooting is being investigated and the deputy involved in the incident has been suspended. The Sheriff did say that Bobby was shot in accordance with county ordinances.

He stated, “If any vicious animal so found at large cannot be safely taken up and impounded, such dog may be destroyed by the Animal Care and Control Officer or Teton County Sheriff’s Office.”

Cooke said that there were three complaints about Bobby within five days and he was considered vicious.

He added, “Each of these calls consisted of this animal attacking a mentally disabled woman and ripping the clothing on her body leaving self defense marks on her hands and chasing her into her residence.”

Bobby’s owner, Leo Barboza, said he knows who the accuser is and said she has reported false accounts about dogs in the neighborhood. He added that other neighbors have had problems with the woman because she has claimed that their dogs have also bitten her.

Barboza said that the woman’s claims of Bobby attacking her are not true. He wants justice for what happened to Bobby and wants to see things in the sheriff’s department change with how they deal with animals.

Cooke added, “Teton County Sheriff’s office is considering it a learning experience that we can learn from and improve policy and procedure in dealing with vicious animals.”

Bobby is recovering and will have surgery later this week to have his wounds sewn up.

Source: KIDK

12 Responses to “Idaho Sheriff Speaks Out About Dog Shooting In Front Of Family”

  1. kaefamily says:

    they serve and protect all citizens by simply believe the words of an accuser at face value without any investigation? We all should feel safer now!

  2. Velvet's Dad says:

    He added, “Each of these calls consisted of this animal attacking a mentally disabled woman and ripping the clothing on her body leaving self defense marks on her hands and chasing her into her residence.”

    ‘Mentally disabled’ may in fact be a euphemism. Sounds as if the woman may have self-inflicted her scratches. To kill this animal on the basis of the same “mentally disabled” woman’s complaints seems short-sighted and ridiculous. (No one else complained??)

  3. mikken says:

    “If any vicious animal so found at large cannot be safely taken up and impounded, such dog may be destroyed by the Animal Care and Control Officer or Teton County Sheriff’s Office.”

    Um, so how does that pertain to a dog who was in his home at the time, brought out by the owner and tied to a tree? The dog was NOT “at large”, he was indoors under control of his owners.

    Any way you paint it, this was handled really badly by the police department.

  4. Donna says:

    The Teton County Sheriff’s Office is considering this a “LEARNING EXPERIENCE”!!! Are you kidding me??? I hope they are least paying for the damage they caused while they were learning on this poor animal.

  5. mittens says:

    whether the woman lied or not it appears the deputy never tried to impound the dog which would be in compliance with their rarther free wheeling law.- the dog was basically ‘ taken up’ in his own house by the owner and led out of the house with no problem which shows the dog could have been easily taken in. it stood their to be shot. the deputy went right to ‘ kill the dog’ before even getting animal control out there to take him in. they violated their own law like vigilantes. that’s wrong. the police are little more than criminals legally toting guns when they break the laws theyre suppose to uphold.

    it’s for a judge to decide if the woman was lying or truthful- not some errant police officer.

  6. Lynn says:

    There are so many things wrong here:

    ~ In what way is the “mentally disabled” person disabled? Is her problem self-mutilation?
    ~ The police were stupid enough to condemn the dog on the basis of 3 uninvestigated complaints.
    ~ Three complaints in five days…..all from the same person? That should tell you something.
    ~ It appears the police believed the person[s] complaining when they deemed the dog vicious. People may be using this term without knowledge of what its legal connotation is.
    ~ A “learning experience” - and I wonder, just what did the police department learn?

    Honestly, it sounds as though this state is living in the days of Davy Crockett and makes its own rules. I don’t care what their ordinance says - if I recall they got the animal INSIDE THE HOUSE, strung it up, and shot it.

    I don’t mean this unkindly, but for her own protection perhaps this “mentally disabled” person needs to be with a companion when outdoors. Apparently there’s a fear of animals involved and if she is indeed mentally ill, any action from her could be interpretted as a threat from the dog.

    Barboza ought to sue the police department for their insane reaction. And he ought to get to the bottom of the complaints and if it turns out that the individual complaining has a tendency to complain about all dogs…….well, shame on the police department for acting on that. Shame!

    And, as in the Congo case, terms like vicious and dangerous can be a deciding factor in the disposition of a pet. But IT TAKES A MORONIC POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ASSUME THAT A PERSON CALLING IN A COMPLAINT KNOWS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VICIOUS AND DANGEROUS AND ACTS ON IT.

    Last but not least, I would definitely send all vet bills to the Police Dept.

  7. Lynn says:

    One more thing:

    What kind of a pet owner acquiesces to a cop on a witch hunt to kill his dog, and believes the cop when he tells the owner that there is proof the animal is vicious? I don’t know any pet owner with a dog who is not dangerous that would lie down and let the cops take his pet. No one.

    Remember - it’s YOUR tax dollars that pay these creeps.

    [And to all the good law enforcement people, I know you’ll forgive me for raking the macho-power types over the coals.]

  8. Robert Davis says:

    I agree with what has been written….. why did the police take it on themselves to assume this person was telling the truth? Didn’t the news state there was only one case that was dismissed? We need a Congo Law for the nation - our pets must be protected from this kind of stupidity. The very least is the dog should have been investigated…the persons complaint should have been investigate to see if the scratches on her were from a dog (i.e. CSI - Criminalistics can determine this with good forensic evidence).
    What has happened to this country?
    Robert Davis

  9. Hazel Chambers says:

    And why was this cop discharging a fire arm in the front yard of a house??

  10. Act Now says:

    Oh, yes, many problems with what happened here.

    As this will definitely result in a civil suit, one can only hope there may a jury. A jury of many pet owners, who will appalled at the action taken here and the potential of it happening to them. (If it is only a judge, then there’s a 50/50 chance of things going right or wrong, ie. CONGO).

    “Teton County Sheriff’s office is considering it a learning experience that we can learn from and improve policy and procedure in dealing with vicious animals.” LOL! Perhaps they have learned (take the dog down the street before you shoot it, learn how to aim your gun, don’t hire mentally disabled deputies). Wonder if the sheriff realizes the learning experience hasn’t yet begun and when it does, it will be one of those proverbial very expensive lessons. Perhaps the attorney representing the dog will have sense enough not to limit the suit to the Sheriff’s Dept, but will name the deputy, as well. That way, if there are some local statutes limiting government agencies’ financial responsibility - the deputy himself can be held personally financially responsible.

  11. Sharon says:

    I spoke to an animal control officer who came to our neighborhood to check out the “vicious” dog living next door to me. Some neighbors down the street had complained. The guy whose family complained is mentally ill or has alzheimers. He is allowed to wander the neighborhood all day. He trespasses on private property. He is coming into my neighbors yard and harassing their dog while they are at work. I told the animal control guy that the man was more dangerous than the dog and to tell his family to keep him confined and off of other people’s private property. I don’t know what happened but I haven’t seen the dog since. I think they suceeded in getting rid of the dog. The old man is still a wandering hazard to animals, children, and drivers and will be until a kid is hurt or someone runs over him.

  12. Becky says:

    I’m afraid it gets even worse. I live close to this area. In many areas such as St. Anthony and last I heard Rigby, these towns still take strays out and shoot them rather than have them humanely euthanised.
    I invite anyone to come look at the supposed animal shelter in St. Anthony. It’s a disgrace.
    Someone please explain to me how murderers and rapists get three meals a day and a roof over their heads, when these poor animals who’s only crime is that they are “at large” get taken out and shot. Let’s not forget that it’s with no thanks to their previous, pitiful excuse of a caretaker that threw them out like trash.
    Everywhere here is mostly rural but I live more in the country and have since adopted 2 dogs and 3 cats that were dropped off to fend for themselves. I also have been feeding anywhere from 2-6 strays at a time. I get them spayed and neutered as I can to help keep numbers down, but when will it end? How long do we tolerate this kind of irresponsiblity?


Close
E-mail It