Again today the Coeur d’Alene Press skewspaper has run letters to its editor from citizens who believe the Coeur d’Alene police officer who shot Arfee the dog on July 9 should be disarmed.

OpenCdA has put up several posts about the incident.

As we’ve said before, we believe it is imperative that the officer not be prematurely judged.   That is more than just trying to be fair to the officer.   Shooting and killing Arfee the dog has certainly pointed out some very serious issues that the Police Department should be studying and addressing.

For example, why did a press release prepared hours after the incident by a patrol sergeant contain erroneous if not intentionally misleading information?  Why did the sergeant, a supervisor, apparently believe it was acceptable to release unsubstantiated, inaccurate information about an incident involving an officer’s intentional firearm discharge?

Why did someone, anyone, in the Police Department not consider the social and political ramifications of this incident?  Did no one in the department’s command staff even consider that this could blow up in the Police Department’s face?  And why was the incident not thoroughly investigated when there was still physical and testimonial evidence to be sought and preserved?  Was the Department’s haste to wrap up the scene and move on a desire to simply “make this go away” in hopes the public wouldn’t really care and would soon forget that a man’s pet had been shot by a police officer?

We believe that while the individual officer’s conduct has to be scrutinized, it must be examined in the context of the Coeur d’Alene Police Department’s policies, procedures, and practices.  The question, “Why did this officer take each action he took when he took it that led to his shooting a dog inside a lawfully parked van?” may be at the top of the list, but the actions of each other officer, including supervisors, at the scene are just as important.  Ultimately, the basic question about the individual officer’s actions, all of them,  in this incident needs to be fully answered.  While the officer acted individually, his actions were a product of the institution, the Coeur d’Alene Police Department.  How had the institution, the Police Department, prepared and supervised him so that the officer performed exactly the way he did in this situation?

That examination has been made much more difficult because the incident scene was not timely and thoroughly processed to acquire all available relevant information about the incident.   Because the shot was fired at a dog rather than a live person, the Coeur d’Alene Police Department apparently failed to treat this intentional firearms discharge by an officer with the seriousness it deserved.  That failure, if it existed, can not be attributed to the officer who fired the fatal shot.

There are other questions as well that relate to the entire incident and its aftermath, not just the shooting itself, and must not be limited by the rules of evidence.  We believe must be answered honestly and thoroughly so that incidents like this are less likely to happen again.

The Coeur d’Alene Police Department has been tasked by the Mayor to conduct a thorough self-examination of the entire incident.  The Mayor and acting Police Chief have promised that the report will be made public, but only after it has been reviewed by City officials and an outside third party.   We have little doubt that there will be some kind of report released by the City, but we are very skeptical that it will reveal all the relevant details about this incident.  Nevertheless, the report that is issued will give the public an opportunity to evaluate the City’s performance.  And it is the City’s performance, not just the individual officer’s performance, that should be judged.  The individual officer was a product of the City’s selection process.   He was a product of the State’s and City’s training.  He was a product of his supervisors in the Police Department.

We hope that those who are urging that the Coeur d’Alene police officer be fired or disarmed will diligently and thoroughly scrutinize the City’s report when it is released.   It seems clear to us that while the officer may have some culpability, there are indicators of some fecal matter defying the law of gravity and flowing uphill in the Department’s and City’s chain of command.   We should not be afraid to follow that uphill flow.