The photo above is credited to the Gloucester Police Dept., who lost one of their own when the dog, 3 1/2 year old German Shepherd Dog Schultz, was killed while in the line of duty.

Now, I use phrases like "one of their own" and "while in the line of duty", out of respect for the human officers and their emotional connection to one of their greatest "tools", the K-9. I respect the training investment as well as the financial, time, and effort investments made with these dogs, and I recognize the value they bring to the communities they serve. I understand that the officers who rely on these dogs view them as partners, not just assets. K-9's get badges, bullet-proof vests, and funerals to rival those of their human co-workers, because they are social beings like us and we value that working and personal relationship.

But The Truth About Pet Food asks a good question with, "Should Killers of Police Dogs Be Prosecuted as Killers of Cop?"

According to this report, the criminal responsible for the dog's death faces charges of "inflicting harm on a law enforcement animal and cruelty to animals".

The question is not, "are those charges appropriate?", but rather, "are those charges enough?"

What started it all: according to the article I linked to above, the dog chased down a robbery suspect, and while in the act of targeting the suspect, the dog was grabbed and thrown into highway traffic. Schultz was killed instantly.

In case you didn't know, trained police dogs, even dogs as young as Schultz, come with an enormous price tag. This isn't just a pet dog. Many dogs in police service often come from long lines of healthy, intelligent dogs raised for this purpose, and the pup alone comes with a price worthy of his potential future. Trainers log hundreds, even thousands of hours of training with the dogs before and during their official service to mankind. This means another financial investment, in addition to the travel and training costs for the dog's handlers, plus the dogs daily care and upkeep.

Therefore, to replace a law enforcement animal (departments often use horses as well, and possibly, rarely, other animals), requires a tremendous financial and other cost to the department. This dog may be the only K-9 they had. This means that the community and the officers face greater risks and much more time and effort will be involved in police work until another dog can be brought into service. This is, of course, in addition to the emotional investment and loss a department faces, especially when an animal is lost as a result of the work they do.

So yes, absolutely, a separate and unique charge of "inflicting harm on a law enforcement animal" is appropriate. Especially if the suspect intended to harm the dog by throwing him INTO traffic (versus simply fighting the dog or intending to throw him in order to get away), the charge of cruelty is also quite appropriate.

However, it seems that the Truth About Pet Food people want to know if their readers believe there should be a charge equating the canine officer to human officers. And that is where my answer is, "no". The dog is a dog, as valuable as he is to those who know him on an emotional level, and to those who rely upon him for their safety and efficient work in their community. Human officers have a far greater value in many ways, and I can't see equating the loss of a human to the loss of a dog.

Should a canine officer be somehow classified as having EQUAL rights, privileges, and defenses with those of his human colleagues? I don't believe so, though of course K-9's do have their own special privileges and defenses according to the law.

We respect all "working", "service", and "working companion dogs" (as I like to call useful pet dogs). They all have a very valuable purpose for those who love them, and are hard to replace, any way you look at it. Police dogs are recognized by the law has having a special value to their community as a whole, but other working dogs are generally limited where legal defense for their individual owners is concerned. This is because emotional values are impossible to price, financially or otherwise, and most dogs generally serve an individual only (versus police or military dogs, which serve a larger purpose to a society).

This criminal faces charges which are unique to animal cruelty and also recognize the dog as a special animal because there is a larger community whose safety depends on his presence. When Schultz became a working police K-9, he was classified, appropriately, I believe, in a separate group which would allow prosecutors a chance to recognize the special risks he faced and the value he presented to the community. But EQUAL to human officers? I don't think so.

My heart goes out to Schult'z handler(s), training partners, fellow officers, and community. May they find comfort in a difficult time, and soon find another great partner to help them protect and serve.