Legal review for dog shooting

The Whakatane police officer who shot a dog with an arrow after it strayed on to his property is now subject to a legal review.

Police launched a criminal investigation in November after Zeta, a bull mastiff, was shot in the body behind his elbow with an arrow.


A Whakatane police officer admitted to shooting the dog with an arrow after it strayed onto his property.

At the time the investigation was launched, Eastern Bay of Plenty area commander Inspector Kevin Taylor said: 'Enquiries were initiated to try to establish the circumstances that led to injury.”

'On Saturday, November 15, a member of police staff informed Whakatane Police that he was the person responsible for firing the arrow.

'A criminal investigation is underway and an employment investigation will also be conducted,” Kevin said back in November.

'Since becoming aware of the involvement of a police member, a senior officer has spoken to the owner of the dog to update her and to provide assurance that the matter will be investigated thoroughly and with integrity.”

Under the Animal Welfare Amendment Act 2010 it is an offence to wilfully or recklessly ill-treat an animal involving prolonged pain and suffering and the need for vet treatment.

A Bay of Plenty Police spokesperson says the criminal investigation into this matter has been completed and is now 'subject to legal review”.

'As a result of that process the case did not reach the threshold for a criminal prosecution,” they say.

'The matter is now subject of an employment inquiry.”

You may also like....

11 comments

Robin Hood

Posted on 13-01-2015 15:17 | By What now

Its hard to believe that a member of the police force would do such a thing. I am from a farming background. If a dog is straying on your land and you have stock. You are entitled to shoot it... It is up to the owner of the dog to keep it under control.. but with a Bow and arrow. No I don't think so. You are likely to only maim the dog and it doesn't deserve that...


The ONLY good thing here...

Posted on 13-01-2015 15:19 | By morepork

... is that the man 'fessed up. It is a worry to think there are cops around who would prefer to kill an animal rather than constrain it or remove it, but it looks as if, on reflection, the person concerned has at least decided to take responsibility for what was really, a dreadful action. Had the dog been threatening or attacking a human, it would be understandable and just an unfortunate outcome. But that doesn't appear to be the case. Oddly enough, I don't hope this cop gets fired; at least there will be ONE cop who's likely to think in future before using a weapon.


Not good enough

Posted on 13-01-2015 17:11 | By BennyBenson

We all contribute to paying these police officers, and I'm not happy with this guy still on the payroll. Sack him and remove his weapon. The Saddest part is, it wasn't the dogs fault she had an owner that didn't keep her safe and secure.


Farmers....

Posted on 13-01-2015 17:24 | By GreertonBoy

And property owners should not have to look each day to see how many stock have been mauled by dogs and home owners should not have to worry about children outside being attacked by dogs.... although I like Mastifs, they are known to attack and injure... the dogs owner should have had the animal restrained... wandering dogs can be a lot of trouble. I too hope the police officer is just warned, many people would not have had his morals... shows he is a good person, even if he is human and was angered by the roaming dog. Had the owner of the dog kept his animal appropriately, none of this would have happened... Unfortunate!


better to brandish a bow than a gun?

Posted on 13-01-2015 19:11 | By GiJoe

Obviously the details that lead to the animal being injured aren't exactly clear, however if the dog was being menacing or agressive or just trespassing as in the live stock situation brandishing a firearm would be a far more serious offence, so if he did intend to maim or kill the animal to defend himself or his property a bow, handled correctly, would have been more 'legal' than a gun no doubt?


Good on him

Posted on 13-01-2015 22:16 | By Bobby

If a bull mastiff strayed on to my property, I would deal to it with a kitchen knife or a hockey stick, because I don't own a crossbow and it would be reckless to discharge a shotgun in town. People who choose to own this type of animal should keep it confined to their own property where it can only tear their own children to pieces


Well said Benny!

Posted on 13-01-2015 23:31 | By monty1212

It is absolutely disgusting that there has been no prosecution in this case. One law for the Police and one for the rest of us! I shudder to think that we still have a member of the Police service in situ with this sort of mentality. Sack him now.


Strange comments here

Posted on 13-01-2015 23:32 | By Fonzie

Not all dogs are dangerous most are not People make mistakes and leave gates open etc To just shoot an animal because it is wandering is a very sick thing to do if that is all it was doing


Gun

Posted on 14-01-2015 00:19 | By Capt_Kaveman

not a good idea in a urban area,an arrow just the ideal thing, anyone who has a dog wonder on their property has the right to protect, cop or not in this case an arrow was the best choice now move along


Bugger, missed.

Posted on 14-01-2015 07:52 | By Theway

It wouldn't have been an offence if the bolt had got the dog in the head, therefor avoiding this "prolonged pain" crap. My suggestion would be for the officer to get some more target practice in.


The way

Posted on 14-01-2015 11:05 | By YOGI BEAR

So true, gunna do it make it a good hit so over quickly. Hate to think what would happen it the guy was let loose with a gun ... oh that's right they are ... hmmm scary. When a dog attacks kids the dog is usually put down, so does the same rule apply here or are the dogs going to be discriminated against?


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.