Rochester, NY Police officer Chris Burgstrom Executed Codi from Behind, Shooting the Scared Dog as it was Running Away

By Davy V.

Tuesday morning, exactly a week to the day that Codi, a scared, injured, lost dog was executed by Rochester, NY Police officer Chris Burgstrom, while his owner Steven Jodoin Benus searched everywhere for him, Codi’s remains were finally released to Steven.

But not before Rochester, NY Police Chief James Sheppard did everything he could in order to avoid releasing Codi’s remains.

Chief Sheppard even had the nerve to get in front of television cameras and question the fact that Steven was Codi’s owner.

Codi was just 5 months old when Steven rescued him from a home near his job on Rochester’s northeast side.

“I actually saw Codi being born, then as he grew I realized he wasn’t being taken care of. His collar was gouging his skin, he was dirty, he had fleas and worms when I got him.” said Steven.


Rochester, NY Police officer Chris Burgstrom

Sheppard used the fact that Steven was not Codi’s original owner as a loophole to not have to release the remains.

To call what Sheppard did by putting a grieving owner through the red tape and uncertainty of being able to retrieve his dog, after his best friend was executed by a trigger-happy Rochester cop, an insult to injury, would be an understatement.

Why didn’t Rochester, NY Police Chief James Sheppard want Codi’s remains released?

What didn’t Chief Sheppard want the the public to see?

What was Chief Sheppard and the Rochester, NY Police department hiding?

The answer is now clear.

Rochester, NY Police Chief Sheppard did not want Codi’s remains to be released because the fact is that Rochester, NY Police officer Chris Burgstrom shot Codi from behind.

In the back of his head.

Codi was not charging anyone.

After having been struck by officer Burgstrom’s police cruiser, Codi, injured, and scared, ran onto the pier at Lake Ontario Park in Charlotte, where officer Burgstrom hunted him down, shooting the innocent pet in the back of his head as the photos clearly show.

Follow me on twitter https://twitter.com/davyvara


photo (1)

Rochester, NY Police Report:

Click to read Lies and Cover-up.


  • alex louis armstrong

    i got some 12 gauge shotgun shells filled with rock salt that i’d like to use on this guy fucking cop trash

  • Pingback: Rochester, NY Police officer Chris Burgstrom Executed Codi from Behind, Shooting the Scared Dog as it was Running Away - Unofficial Network()

  • Teresa

    Oh my God how could he?? Shoot this poor dog in the back of the head?? Photos don’t lie that dog was not charging him what the hell he should be held accountable for this! That just put me in a warm fuzzy mood for the night. Piece of shit.

  • mike s

    This is sick. This cop needs to be automatically fired. Tried for animal abuse and animal cruelty. This LEO has gone above and beyond the call of a murderer. Its one thing if the animal attacked him but the poor defensless thing had to be hit with a cruiser and shot. I hope this cop gets whats coming to him. He needs to be made an example of and put in a cage for the rest of his pathetic life.

  • Bob Washington

    This guy is capable of shooting jay walkers in the back of thier heads.

  • underoath

    Does that mean all the deer I’ve shot in the back of the head from motor vehicle crashes have been running away from me?

    That guy would have to be one hell of a shot to shoot a running dog in the head.

    This is an unfortunate situation but I refuse to arm chair quarterback.

    Could he have killed the dog in cold blood? Sure.

    Could he have accidentally hit the dog with his cruiser and had to put it down? Sure.

  • Aaron

    Chris Burgstrom, you little scum, I hope you choke on a turd. Way to serve and protect, you cowardly, lying dog killer.

    It probably won’t amount to much, but I hope Cody’s owner sues the shite out of these people.

  • reason

    Please read this whole post and keep an open mind before you get outraged.
    I’m not defending or condemning this officers actions. But I will say that all we’re getting here is possibly a biased news story and an account from the distraught pet owner.
    Let me throw out a scenario. A loose dog runs out into the road in front of your car and you don’t have time to react. You hit the dog and cause such severe injuries that the animal is suffering incredibly. You can’t locate the owner and you have no emergency clinic or any resources available to help this animal or it is injured and suffering to the point where you know death is likely and will be excruciating. You have a firearm, a means of ending this animal’s suffering. What do you do?

    My point is we don’t know the whole story. And we’re assuming the chief had the worst of intentions in not wanting to release the body. What if seeing his pet in that condition would cause unnecessary emotional trauma? Medical examiners don’t let family members come in and examine mangled remains of their loved ones.

    I’m not defending it, and I could be wrong, but we don’t have the full story. I do however highly doubt this officer was out looking to execute stray dogs. I think if he was that heartless we might’ve seen the dog shot in the face. And for those who aren’t familiar with firearms I’ll just tell you that to make that shot the dog would’ve had to have been still and he would’ve had to be close to the animal. If the dog wasn’t morality injured by the car I don’t suspect that shot could’ve been made that clean.

    But I know we’re all here to just make assumptions and hate on pigs so go ahead and tear me apart. Just remember that I made a rational argument so please do the same don’t just call me an asshole and say this guy should burn.

  • Winston

    Someone should put the remains of a slaughtered pig in front of the cop’s house.

  • Anonymous

    It is time. You know his name, you know his face…

    Here is a much better display.

  • Randy

    This is disgusting. It’s a shame people don’t think of animals having a life. Douchebag cop.

  • Doomsday

    Id’ like to shoot this fucking prick in the face.

  • mobooz

    underoath: Your questions wouldn’t seem so flaccid if the original police report actually reflected the scenario you’re imagining. Go back to the article from a week ago–in an addendum to the report, Burgstrom and Marone wrote that the dog was charging when it was shot. If you believe the dog was shot in the back of the head, then the police report was clearly a lie.

  • Common Sense

    Davy, running on fumes on this one…

  • Artie

    Is that all you got, Common Sense? By the way, can I call you “Commie” for short?

  • Backfire

    Ummm, the pictures don’t “prove” he was shot from behind. Those wounds most definatly could have been inflicted if the dog was charging. Get the ballistics and trajectory information from the wound, and investigate. Is that an entry and exit wound? or is it 2 hit from 00 buck?

    There is no evidence to support the claims that the dog was hunted down and killed in cold blood.

  • Artie

    Backfire: after the dog owner was prevented by the perps from obtaining a necropsy in a timely manner, the onus is now on your ilk.

  • simpleton

    @Backfire, entry wound is just behind the left ear, exit wound is above the left eye. Based on the photo, shot was fired from the rear. Only 1 shot, dog died a quick death, thankfully. Its a sad story and I’m not a fan of pit bulls. But the dog didn’t deserve to be executed.

  • Ed D

    @underoath…you ask could the cop have accidentally hit Codi? Yes.
    You ask did he need to put Codi down? No. The report says that Codi was able to run away after being hit by the car. He obviously wasn’t hurt so badly that he needed to be put down on scene. The cop could have called for animal control to come get Codi and take him to a vet for treatment.

  • Aaron

    @Ed D.: If I’m not confusing this with another article, the initial report said that, after spending an hour looking for the dog, the cops did have animal control with them, but wouldn’t let animal control do their job. Executing the dog was more expedient – more fun? – I guess.

    Way to go, Chris Burgstrom, dog killer. Maybe you could put that on a business card:
    “Chris Burgstrom: dog killer. I also dabble in corphagia.”
    “Chris Burgstrom: freelance dog executions. Frightened dog? Not a problem – I have no feelings.”
    “Chris Burgstrom: I eat shit. I also kill frightened dogs.”
    “Chris Burgstrom: I’m sub-human. But I can shoot frightened dogs.”
    “Chris Burgstrom: I’m irresponsible, and shouldn’t be allowed to carry a weapon. But if you give me a gun, I’ll shoot your dog.”

    (In case you’re wondering, I’m trying a little “search engine optimization” on “Chris Burgstrom” and “dog killer.”)

  • Common Sense

    Just like in JFK.. “Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left.”

  • t.

    ED D: Keep up, animal control was already there and the “sweet puppy” tried to attack him. And, as proof that he wasn’t hit very hard by the car…he was running around chasing people off of the dock….before charging at the animal control officer AND the officers (1 of them..for the second time)

    @mobooz: That wasn’t the police officers report. It was, even according to you…an addendum that appears to have been written by maybe a supervisor.

  • Backfire


    It doesn’t really work like that, I’m under no obligation to do anything. If people want to prove something, they will need to do their own necropsy and bring any evidence found to the table.

  • Backfire


    Prove it.

  • Aaron

    @t: You’re like “Uncle Jimbo” in the South Park “Volcano” episode. Whatever justifies your murdering tendencies, right?


    Amazing shot by dog killer Chris Burgstrom, hitting a charging dog in the back of the head. I can only hope it won’t be too long before the civilized among us will get fed up with the murdering cops and start shooting at them like dogs in the streets.

  • http://facebook Angela

    I know that a few of you people have commented on this. Some of you are on the cops side playing devils advocate and the others are horrified about this man shooting the dog. Now the way I see it is if there was nothing to hide then why did the Chief make it so hard for the owner or new owner to get the dogs body back. Now some of you could argue that he was charging people and then the officer shot him when he had a shot as he was running. I think it is a bullshit scenario that the dog died. I think that this article was very bias and didn’t give both sided of the story so that people could make their own decision. Were there witnesses to validate that the dog was charging or not. That is the question I would be asking.

  • takaru
  • t.

    I am just utter.y amazed that you guys really think that any police officer should just stand there and get bitten by your dog. Or that we should just stand back and let your dog menace the neighborhood because you think he’s “sweet”.

    Just like I don’t have to wait for you to shoot at me, I don’t have to wait until your dog is mauling my leg. And I certainly not going to wait until its mauling some kid.

    Every officer that I work closely with….that’s a couple of squads of guys….has a least 1 dog. Cops aren’t anti-dog. But I’ve been bitten twice while n duty. And unless some kid is holding the leash when the next one tries..I won’t be bitten again.

  • simpleton

    @backfire, this response is going to be based on the premise that we are both somewhat intelligent adults. I can’t prove it, but if I was brought into a courtroom for ths case, I’m fairly certain I could prove it. I was an avid hunter in my younger years and I am all too familiar with entry and exit wounds. Entry wounds are tiny, exit wounds are huge. That being said, in 2007 I was attacked by 2 german shepards on a property that I had in which I was plowing snow. I had taken care of this high end property for 2 years. The dogs were familiar with me. The elder female had just had pups and she was being protective, as she was trained to do. But as being truthful I was scared to death while being bitten on my arms and almost my face, and I got chewed up pretty good. But at no time while these dogs were attacking me would I have been able to shoot them from the rear. it would have been shots to the mouth, or the forehead or the chest…whatever. But I can gaurentee you i would not have been able to shoot them in the back of their skull. that is what I have derived my opinion from.

  • t.

    Simpleton: So are you hung on the method of death / how it was shot, or the fact that it was shot and the way it was ces fiber?

    If its the latter, remember that even Tennessee v. Garner, shoot a person in the back isn’t necessarily wrong. IF this dog charged the officer and he had to jump up on his car to get away, and IF this dog chased people around the dock, and IF it was so aggressive that animal control couldn’t handle it….shooting it in the back of the head is pretty reasonable. One of the other posts here had an addendum to the report. It would be revealing what the office ERS wrote about this incident.

  • takaru

    Shoot the dog even if you are serving a search warrant at the wrong house? Shoot the dog if you are coming through someones private property illegally? Shoot the dog cause you JUST LIKE KILLING and this is the great opportunity to vent and it is plausible.

  • takaru

    Funny how my postman has made it 30 years going in peoples yards without being bitten armed only with a can of mace, and not having to discharge a fire arm endangering the entire neighborhood. Cops have pepper spray stun guns etc. but prefer to use the most powerful weapon in their arsenal right off the bat and at any opportunity, thats cops: sociopaths.

  • http://clarkcountycriminalcops.wordpress.com clarkcountycriminalcops

    @t…”… remember that even Tennessee v. Garner, shoot a person in the back isn’t necessarily wrong.”

    As usual, T is here with to bring the discussion to a more rational level, and does so with his usual level of ignorance to the law and devotion to those who are supposed to enforce it.

    While t, wakes up every morning sporting wood at the thought that today may be the day he gets to shoot someone in the back of the head. His does so under the misguided notion that the Supreme Court has given there permission. You see, this is not the first time he has shown a completely immature understanding of Tennessee v. Garner. T., and those like him, put their tiny little minds upon this pivotal SCOTUS ruling and come away with the the same conclusion, that Ten. V. Garner is a permissive ruling which allows them free reign to assassinate suspects, even those who are running away.

    However, the police actions at the center of the ruling, the 1974 killing of the teen-aged Garner as he ran away from Memphis Police Officers Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright are what the court ruled in. In this matter the court held, “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.” That even the possibility of the criminal getting away was acceptable. “It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape.”

    The courts ruled this way under the assumption that police are a part of the criminal justice system, as their involvement usually sets the whole process in motion. This lead the justice to offer perhaps the most important statements in their decision,

    “The use of deadly force is a self-defeating way of apprehending a suspect and so setting the criminal justice mechanism in motion. If successful, it guarantees that that mechanism will not be set in motion.”

    The courts held the when a police officer kills a suspect then the entire criminal justice system has failed. Failed before it ever had a chance to begin.

    T. puts all the powers of his cop mind on to a ruling that says it’s better for the suspect to get away, and that even in the most extreme cases where an officer must use deadly force, the officer’s actions have failed our entire justice system and he come away with, “The Supreme Court says I can shoot people in the back.”

    I wonder what came first. Is it the realization that you are a fundamental failure in life that leads you to look a career in law enforcement and see how in that field, no only is failure never punished, it is often rewarded and think, “Now THAT’S the place for me!”

    Or does working a culture absent even the slightest hint of responsibility or repercussions slowly erode the pride you once had in yourself?

    Whatever the path, you all end up at same sad place.

    But T.’s response is valuable. When we ask, “why do cops kill so many dogs,” he has the answer.

    He thinks if the Supreme Court is okay with him killing your son, then what’s wrong with killing your dog.

    And the before you buy into T’s suggestion that all cops are dog lovers, you should realize that of the nearly 20 police dogs who were killed last year, the vast majority were either shot by a cop or left to die in a hot car.

  • http://clarkcountycriminalcops.wordpress.com clarkcountycriminalcops

    @reason. I did as you asked and I read the entire post. I am not outraged at all. I would call it profoundly disappointed. Why do you go to such great lengths to imagine the one scenario where killing this dog was okay? Do you make these same comments every time police arrest someone? When police tell you they’ve arrest a child molester, do you spend even a second trying to think of a set a circumstances that would make violating a child an okay prospect.

    So if a “loose dog runs out into the road in front of your car and you don’t have time to react….and cause such severe injuries that the animal is suffering incredibly,” so you humanly put the animal out of his misery, what do you do next.

    Do you:

    A) Write up a report detailing exactly what happened

    B) Express sympathy or remorse to the dog’s owner when his is locarte


    C) Write up a report where, instead of describing the animal as being in severe pain, you tell others the dog was trying to attack you, (because somehow people in your world see being afraid as indication of bravery). Then, after humanly putting the animal die, you lie to the owner about how aggressive he was and then make it as hard as possible to retrieve the remains.

    I know what I would do, and I know what Chris Burgstrom did.

    But your right. We don’t know the whole story. It is entirely possible things happened like you described and Burgstrom simply lied on his report. It wouldn’t be the first time a cop has lied about the reasons he killed.

    That’s the police force we have today. Either they are doing something bad or their lying. Nice choice you gave us, reason.

  • BluEyeDevil

    T., Common Scent, Back, and all you other trolls,
    Hopefully when your on duty you get hit by a car and someone put a bullet hole in the back of your head……….Whether your running away or coming at someone. You sick fucks.

  • BluEyeDevil

    LOL better yet,
    I hope you pig dick suckin trolls try a little door to door confiscation of guns. I would be willing to bet a buffalo nickel that you get killed real quick. Hell, we should make a game out of it. We could call it Fucking dumb cops go on suicide mission. Your lack of compassion is why people wish people like you dead………..

  • BluEyeDevil

    LOL, what did you did you pigs think of that bitch pig getting her ass stomped over weed, that shit was funny wasn’t it, LOL…………

  • underoath

    Blueyedevil….the new keyboard tough guy! You big bad ass you!

  • Aaron

    @t: the entry / exit wound is significant because the cop said the dog was charging him, supposedly justifying the shot. Well, if the dog was charging him, that was a hell of a rebound shot such that the cop could make the bullet do a 180 degree turn and hit a charging dog in the back of the head. My college physics teacher, along with the rest of us, would be amazed at that.

    It’s more likely that the dog was either lying on the ground, wounded, or running away. If wounded, I could see a mercy shot to put the dog down. Report doesn’t say that. If the dog is running away, I don’t see the justification of shooting him like that. He’s not harming the officer.

    So, which is it? Bullets defying physics, or cop lying?

  • BluEyeDevil

    Hey BrokenOath,
    Say what I want man, it’s a free country. What you gonna do. LOL, not shit pussy, that’s what. Hey but you got to admit that bitch cop getting her head kicked in was funny as hell, over weed. Hopefully your next mother fucker. I’m not no keyboard tough guy, I type slow asshole, shit I’d make quick work of you in a second. You fat, doughnut eatin, pig dick suckin, tin badge god, son of a whore. Call me a keyboard tough guy, look at you key board tough guy. That shit is sure funny about that female pig getting shit stomped, LOL. Why don’t you go shoot a dog coward. I’m just gonna sit back and wait for gun confiscation and hopefully you answer the door. No, in all seriousness, I love it when I hear about cops getting beat down, it’s put a smile on my face.


  • Jean

    I hope I’m not too far out of line, this might seem like spamming – but between the headlines on the New York Times, and things like TheDailySheelple.com, you WOULD expcet a gun ban and door-to-door confiscation soon, right?

    I’m a slow study, but I learn. The reality is, there will be no door-to-door or stop-and-search checkpoints – it will simply become too onerous (costly or dangerous) to maintain a weapon. Not even gun, weapon. Includes swords, for example. Keep in mind, a lot of this has been in the works for years – we’re seeing the tip of the iceberg here, with the psychopaths recruited to police departments.

    So those rooting for revenge – if you don’t do it soon, you might be using a paring knife on an armored pig.

    Public demonization of gun owners will continue. Bans on internet sales of ammo will be introduced, and along with “no grandfather” and bans of specific types of ammo, or types or clip or magazine, eventually it will include speed-loaders for revolvers… Guns too long, guns too short, guns that shoot too fast, or too large a shell, or fire a bullet that can penetrate body armor… Eventually, ALL guns will be illegal by proxy, or due to “defining features.”

    Not to mention the “buy back” and “Tax Rebates” as the currency is devalued. What happens when people can’t get jobs? Do they starve to death, or find ways to eat? Keep in mind there’s been a bad season for farmers in the US, Ukraine, and Russia – that’s something like 70% of the world’s wheat. So when you need to stretch those dollars a LITTLE longer – that tax rebate sounds REAL GOOD to keep food on the table.

    And after the means of “redress of grievances” is dealt with – since DEMONSTRATION IS ALREADY LISTED BY DHS AS A FORM OF TERRORISM – ALL THE OTHER AMENDMENTS ARE DEAD.
    NDAA, Patriot, the drones in use on American soil, Wiretappign against US for recordign THEM, but they ARE ALLOWED TO TAPE US without consent – violates 4th amendment, BTW – but incrementally, we lose it all.

    To this story: We have a psychopath, as far as I can tell, who is allowed to do Whatever he think is “right”. (Entitlement)

    I have an American Bull dog. His idea of playing is to bite, chew, shake, grab, play tug-o-war, and run like a fiend. (Doesn’t do fetch well – won’t bring the ball back and give, just chases the ball, gets it, comes back to us, and wants to play keep-away.)
    So what does he do? Bark, growl, nip, shake his head (and whatever’s in his mouth [kills prey]), paw at people, rush people and run away. He’s 100# of muscle, so I can understand people being afraid. So we have “Dangerous Dog”. (Bad Situation)

    But we also have an incorrect police report, denial to release the remains, lack of info on the type of shot used, and a dog that apparrently survived being hit by a car, then RAN AWAY, and WAS PURSUED by the cop. Now, if I have an intruder in my home, and do more than LOOK AT HIM ANGRILY as he steals my stuff, kills my dogs, or rapes the women, and/or kills me – I CAN GO TO JAIL. If he breaks his leg, I CAN BE SUED. If I defend myself, I WILL BE CHARGED WITH ASSAULT.

    And if I FOLLOWED him to FINISH THE JOB? It’s not covered under the concept of “Public Welfare.” Even if half his brain is on the floor, if he can stagger off, I CANNOT pursue, even to mercifully end his life.

    So, seriously, cop-suckers: WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE FOOLING?

    Basic law of physics, BTW, is that deformed bullets leave larger exit wounds than the non-deformed bullet makes entry wounds. Direction of travel is obvious, even on an eye socket shot. Deflected bullet would go DOWNWARDS though the eye, or UPWARDS – and AWAY FROM THE DOG. So we KNOW, without any fancy CSI ballistics tests, that shot came from behind.

    I’d even grant that there are times when you react – often badly – AFTER an event, using planned actions that are no longer appropriate. Say, you are planning to flip an omellette: Pan is ready, omellette mobile, but before you can flip it, something lands in the pan, in the omelette. Your mind still is thinking, “Flip omelette,” and the body does so – even though you realize that there’s no something ELSE that needs to be done first (remove foreign object from food.)

    So, maybe – JUST MAYBE – the officer was rushed by the dog (good or ill intent no longer matters here, so playful or protective). The dog stopped and turned to run away – hadn’t bitten – but officer already had gun out and was aiming. Dog turns, officer shoots, dog dies. SO FAR, it’s still in a sense a good shoot. WRONG, but a “good shoot” under “Honest mistake”. Hard to change motions when you’re committed in 0.3 seconds or so. Brain just can’t change messages fast enough. So – OK, it’s a WRONG shoot, but justifiable (“good” in this nomenclature.)

    So -the cop KNOWS, because he’s now aware the dog turned, that he’ll be screwed when word gets out that he shot the dog from behind (rules out all self-defense, given there’s not even a scratch on cop, and dog was running away.) So, he tried to hide the problem by using every trick he knows of to block retrieval of the body. Which happens anyway…

    NOW, we KNOW he’s dirty, or too immature to handle this sort of job. It’s one thing to make an honest mistake; when you cover up afterwards, now you’re an “accessory after the fact,” right t, POSSGT, Common NoSense? plus there’s conspiracy to consider, plus intent (maybe he TRIED to hit the dog to provoke the incident? Making it premeditated instead of accidental?)

    What, that’s what piggy does when he’s investigating. Tack on one thing after another, and see what sticks.

    IF this officer had been in a “good shoot” situation, he should’ve reported honestly, and the facts from all accounts would match. This story sounds like a crack addict’s alibi about buying more crack: It wasn’t me, I didn’t do it, I’m buying for a friend, that’s not MY drugs, you must’ve mistaken me, you didn’t mirandize me correctly, etc, etc, etc – after buying from an undercover narco. You could drive a truck through the holes in this and not notice.

  • Common Sense


    Awesome thesis. I like how you go from DHS, checkpoints and drones to dogs and CSI.

    Here’s the real headline.

    “Police shoot, kill unlicensed, stray and aggressive dog.”

    The opening wound does not have to be larger then the exit would. The slug would do massive damage but not deform. The dogs face does not have the bone struture to deform a 1 .oz rifled slug. The slug travels anywhere from 1400 to 1600 fps with a massive about of ft lbs, say 1900-2000 at less then 100 yards.

    From looking at the photo, the soft tissue and excessive skin was more than likely being pushed backward from the dog’s forward movement.

    You are welcome to dive in Lake Ontario for the slug of course. I wonder what the necropsy will tell us? In true CB’er from I will conclude that since a necropsy was ‘reportedly’ done 3 days ago, and since there has been shocking updates, then the good Dr’s conclusion must match my own. Result, dog shot in face.

  • underoath

    Great job Mr Devil. You proved my theory about you being a keyboard badass absolutely correct.

  • Blister

    I don’t believe the written report given by the officer. The entire department and officers were just trying to cover their butts. Typical behavior as we’ve seen in the past. Also, they know most of you citizens don’t know how or don’t have the resources/money to fight in court…nevermind trying to win. It is very similar to Monsanto and how they bully farmers into submission.

  • BluEyeDevil

    Mr. Oath,
    That the best you can come up with. Like I always say, LOL, they always hire STUPID MOTHER FUCKERS to be cops. You fool, when you got something worth while to say come talk to the big boys. In the mean time get your night stick out of your ass and go right a ticket to hard working citizens. Oh by the way, I got the last word, faggot……

  • Common Sense

    Poor Devil, all that angst and anger and no one cares…

  • underoath

    Haha you better settle down Mr Devil. I’m sure your mom won’t appreciate you tearing up her basement!

  • takaru
  • http://www.facebook.com/etherslumber Michelle

    What a coward. I would love to b!tch (cause that’s what he is) slap that ugly smirk off of his smug face. He better not get away with this. I am sick to death of these chicken sh!t, trigger-happy “cops” running around pretending to be real men.

  • http://facebook.com/etherslumber Michelle

    What a coward. I would love to bitch (cause that’s what he is) slap that ugly smirk off of his smug face. He better not get away with this. I am sick to death of these chicken sh!t, trigger-happy “cops” running around pretending to be real men.

  • s

    Officer Chris Burgstrom – you must feel really good about yourself — killing a wounded, scared dog, not attacking you (you know that). An easy shot. Really? Is that the only way you can boost your small ego?

    And, all that lying on the job to make yourself look good, probably on a regular basis. I feel sorry for you man. What a way to live. Constantly living with conflict, lying and dealing with truth, lying to cover up lies,… soon you won’t know your own lies to yourself…”you are a hero…killing dogs.”

  • t.

    Clark: I love it so his wrong you are. Read and quoted almost the entire case, but like George Sands did a few months ago (when she posted and article specifically about Tenn v Garner, you don’t see what’s in front of you.

    I’ll pick some low hanging fruit so that maybe you can follow. Lets say I respond to an armed robbery at the convience store. As me and mine a coming up along one side of the building, said bad guys exits, sees us and turns and runs. No shoot…easy. But lets say as I’m walking up I hear gunshots inside the store, he exits, sees me and turns and runs towards a ish shopping center (or park, or school, etc). Now. This guy is armed and has already shot at someone. Maybe killed them. Should I let someone with an already demonstrated propensity towards violence and armed with a deadly weapon that he has already used, just flee and endanger more ? No. And that’s not what SCOTUS in either Tenn v garner nor in Graham v Conner is talking about. It’s all about reasonableness. Someone sneaking out the back after stealing something, while clearly a dangerous person, isn’t an imminent threat. But when there has been demonstrated violence / aggression, and there is an a iLife to cause serious injury or death….

    So now let us return to our original story and apply what you should have learned.
    Since we don’t have the officers report ( funny how good old Davy V. only posts and addendum from a report that was t written by the officers…hmmm, anyway) we’ll go with what we have. This sweet dog is maurading through the town. Said sweet puppy, when approach by one officer is so aggressive that the officer has to climb onto his car to keep from being mauled. Would it have been ok with you from him to shoot the sweet dog at this point? If the dog approached you like that, would you just let it chew on you? Well, moving on. Next an officer who is looking for the sweet, misunderstood pup hits it with his car as the sweet puppy runs out into the road, the horror of it. But because the officer was driving along looking for the sweet dog he wasn’t going very fast and the saccred animal runs off, maurading onto the dock. Now, this same sweet dog, apparently (according to good old Davy V and you) approaches a couple of people just looking for a milk bone. But they misunderstand this apparently and flee for their safety. Now, if the dog had tried to attack you or your family like that, would you shoot it or let it chew on your kid? Moving on again. So now 2 officers and animal control find the dog. Animal control can’t get close enough to get under control because the sweet pup is so aggressive in seeking the milk one treat he wants. Now, with evidence that he has tried to attack at least 4 people, one of them being the officer standing beside you telling you of how the sweet puppy nearly mauled him, and animal control being unable to strain the sweet pup, do you let it maurade on until it hurts or kills someone?

    If you apply the reasoning of Tenn. v garner and graham v Connor, you will should (I say that because I know you still won’t because the idea of reasonablness escapes you) you should act in the publics interest and protect the innocent from the openly dangerous.

    @aarron: We don’t “know” what the officer said. All we have is an addendum to a report that wasn’t written by the officer. More of Davy V’s professional journalism

  • surething

    its easy to get very worked up excited and emmotional when the things around us seem to just pull those special strings of ours that have us jump up and just about explode. i dont blame any of you employed, unemployed, law enforcement or non law enforcement. but as with any incident/report there are two sides yes, there laws and legal procedures to be followed and in some cases not. the facts are what stand the proof is in the pudding. a police report is the meat of the sandwhich. while not every officer is bad there is an equal number of ones that are truely authorized officers of injustice, misconduct, and brutality. therse cases have been publicized and well known. i cant help that notice when an officer does something wrong that he is always justified or takes a petty for of punishment or at worst will lose his job after someone has lost a life. the concern shouldnt be aimed at the “pig mother fucker sucker blah blah” but at the fact that this continues to happen and that these types of officers continue to be hired and remain in the field. how can we prevent/stop this can it be stopped. we have a voice we have resources we should always use them. always question dont bend to any authority for god sakes it your fundamental right to protect yourself no matter what. and as for the dog……the whole thing seems fishy and actions do speak louder than words. im not a csi pro but i have seen balistics reports and have fired guns at all typed of targets be at the range or in the woods w dad. its pretty clear that round came in the back under the base of the skull and traveled out the orbital cavity or eye socket. most police carry 9mm side arms. it took an hour to find the dog? so why is it dead w a bullet in its head? im not asking in a biased manner but these are questions that need to be answered. deadly force should be the last last resort. did it really take an hour to find the dog? if so he obviously was able to escape and good at that he was. and why did the officer find it imperative to spend an hour of his time to find the dog when the city could need more help for a larger more dangerous situation? dogs are good at running thats what they do. why didnt he give up or right a small report an leave it be or maybe make a small clip on the news asking citizens if they see or know the dog to try an secure it an call authorities? also when an animal is severly hurt they can become aggresssive when approached because they are vulnerable at that point and fear further threat injury. if he was so called putting it out of its misery that sure is a funny angle for the gun shot if it was laying down or curled up to die….wonder how he was holding that gun? what really happened? i dont know? reasearch the hell out of it folks

  • http://clarkcountycriminalcops.wordpress.com clarkcountycriminalcops

    @T…”Should I let someone with an already demonstrated propensity towards violence and armed with a deadly weapon that he has already used, just flee and endanger more ?”

    Your mind is like a kindergarten classroom, full of cubbyholes and if something doesn’t just fit, you drop it on the ground. Nothing in my analysis of Tenn. v Garner was wrong, and I see you were unable to cite a single legal ruling or quote SCOTUS in any way to prove your nonsense.

    Yes, in the scenario you made up in your mind, the use if deadly force would be justified. Nothing I posted is contrary to that. What I said, what it true, and what you clearly are unable to understand, is the the case was not a PERMISSIVE ruling. The actions of the officer’s involved was found UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Prior to this case, police had a huge amount of leeway to kill people. After the ruling the situations in which deadly force can be used was severely limited. But you, in typical infantile cop thought sees this ruling as allowing officers to kill.

    Yet, the most chilling and disturbing thing you have posted, which proved my point by the way, is you attempt to apply Tenn. V. Garner to the shooting of this animal. The Tenn. v. Garner case has a felony at it s core. Since a dog cannot commit a felony this case it not relevant. Unless, as both your posts show, as an officer of the law you see no difference between human beings and animals. And since the vernacular of law enforcement it just full of colorful ways of describing the public as mere animals (sheep, lemming, wolves, etc) you have proven once again that you are no better than the worst of them.

    But thanks for taking the time a proving my point once again.

  • http://davyv.blogspot.com Davy V.

    While I rarely care about what the Trolls on here have to say, I just wanted to let the Trolls know that I have added the Rochester, NY Police department’s report of lies and cover-up. Of particular interest is the RPD’s own contradiction right on the report where it states that Rochester animal control officer Ronald Lodar arrived on scene at 0918HRS and that he and the officers spent 20 minutes trying to catch Codi. Then the report goes on to state that Codi was executed at 0920HRS. So how could the animal control officer have spent 20 minutes trying to catch Codi? Of course, the loser trolls and cops on here will still back the RPD up.

  • Common Sense

    Just to be clear, the court views dogs or any other animal owned, maintained by a person, as a possession and/or property.

    Also, maybe this is a minor point, but the only information about the incident is from what Davy V posted, and in it, “..THE DOG STARTED TO CHARGE TOWARDS OFFICER BURGSTROM…”

    It clearly doesn’t say ‘charging at and was shot’ but reads ‘started to charge’ which leave open the idea of that the dog could have stopped and turned, could have been distracted by either the ACO or the 2nd Officer.

    Since there is no actual police report, only something from a PA officer, perhaps Davy V needs to FOIA some additional documents.

  • Common Sense

    I stand corrected, the report was just posted.

  • http://davyv.blogspot.com Davy V.

    And Common, don’t get it twisted. After my relentless and unwavering determination in getting RPD officer Nina Nowack’s name when she kicked her K-9 partner in that now famous youtube video I posted, this time around the City of Rochester emailed me the report within a couple of hours, thanks to Mr. Gary Walker, Communications Director for the City of Rochester. NO FOIL this time. Didn’t need to. You Common and the rest of the loser trolls on here can say what you want, but what you and the rest don’t realize is all you do is motivate me even more to continue to expose dirty, corrupt, trigger-happy cops. And Common don’t forget how I found out who that officer from Cleveland was, Luis Rivera, just like I know who YOU are. Stay tuned.

  • Common Sense

    You do? Really? Or is that a philosophical/meta-physical type question? Does anyone really ‘know’ anyone else? Or am I to take that as a veiled threat? Are you going to show up at my home? Track me down because my 1st Amendment rights aren’t as strong as yours?

    Overall, you are a victim of your own narcissism.

    For some odd reason, you, and even those from Copblock itself, believe that a magical number of ‘hits’ means something tangible. That the number of views/likes/followers means you are some how ‘popular’ and valued to many, many people, not just disembodied mouse clicks.

    Your ‘famous Youtube video’ is all well and good, but there are thousands of famous Youtube videos. I’m not trying to rain on your blogging parade, just give you some perspective. It seems that only you and a few others, thought the dog kicking video was ‘infamous’ since the view counter reads 3000. I noticed that the 2009 Youtube video detailing that Popeye’s Chicken in Rochester NY was in fact, out of chicken, had brought in 4 million views.

    I don’t think anyone who visits this site or yours favors police brutality, but unfortunately, there in lies the rub. Someones it is clearly excessive and other times, however shocking, it is not. You can cry out ‘it was murder’ but, in a courtroom, you have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, certain facets of a criminal statute. I think that’s why some cops do come here aren’t here to ‘motivate’ you, but rather educate you into what happens in the real world (IRL).

    lastly, what were the results of the necropsy? Was one done?

  • t.

    Clark: Your idiotacy grows in leaps and bounds. My scenario about Tenn v Garner and Graham v. Connor are examples….where SCOTUS discusses reasonableness and the totality of the circumstances. Both of those cases, the police “lost”. But they set ground rules…set forth ideas for determining reasonableness, and hence why I mentioned them and why they are both pertinent.

    I’m truly sorry for you that you would rather just act asslike and not have a real discussion. The idea / concept of why it sounds like the officer(s) acted correctly. Front of the head, top ofthe head, back of the head, hit with a car, run over by a steam roller, a safe dropped on him. The method matters little to nothing. Its the reason. If you look AAT all of Tenn v Garner I believe it is North Carolina (pretty certain) use of force / deadly force statute that is mentionedas an explain for other states to follow (and most have). SCOTUS points out the reasonableness standard of the statute. In Tenn v. Garner the officers actions….while legal atthe time…were ultimately deemed to be unreasonable.

    Taking all of that in to account, and looking back at my examples and at this incident…the players ddon’t necessarily matter…human / dog. Its the actions / behaviors the matter. EDP walking down the middle of the residential street with a shotgun who unresposive, or pit bull aggressively charging and trying to attack multiple people on a city street. Both are imminent dangers to others. One of the things taught in the cases I listed is that the imminent dangers that the dog posed, as opposed to the dangers the fleeing felon in Tenn v Ganrer posed…are. very different. One MAY pose a possible danger down the road (fleeing felon) while one poses an immediate danger (aggressive, unrestrained pit bull). This is a case were the police have to apply the court rulings….things aren’t black and white.

  • Aaron

    @Common Sense: “Just to be clear, the court views dogs or any other animal owned, maintained by a person, as a possession and/or property.”

    If that’s so, why are people who harm police animals treated so harshly? Why are they “property” in one case, but valued beings in another? Why is your dog more important than mine?

  • s

    Is Chris Burgstrom right handed?

  • http://clarkcountycriminalcops.wordpress.com clarkcountycriminalcops

    @t…At least I know how to spell idiocy. So far you’ve done nothing but confirm what I’ve said. I never talked about the reasonableness of an officer’s actions, because that wasn’t the comment you made in which I responded. You stated that Tenn. v Garner allows officers to shot someone in the back, when in fact the ruling found that very action unconstitutional. Yes, the court did provide the very narrow exceptions in which such an action is permissible, but in doing so NARROWED the instances that deadly force can be used. Therefore making it a RESTRICTIVE rather than PERMISSIVE ruling. (If you are having trouble understanding the difference between those words ask a grown-up for help).Those are the facts.

    Now as far as applying this incident to the standards set forth in the Garner decision, I’m sorry I just can’t do that. You see, as “asslike” as you might consider it, I refuse to have an “real discussion” based on the assumption, “the players ddon’t[sic] necessarily matter… human / dog,” because I do view humans and animals very differently. That fact that you don’t is perhaps the most chilling thing you’ve every shared about law enforcement.

    While you keep wanting to apply irrelevant SCOTUS rulings to this incident, my main point is that in doing so, you show just how sick modern day law enforcement can be.

  • s

    How about the dash cam videos? If the dog was so vicious, why not prove it with YOUR DASH CAM VIDEOS???

  • t.

    s: Dash can videos are stationary in the car….the officers were on foot trying to keep this dog from mauling people on a pier. The dash cams most likely just show where they parked.

    Clark: wow. I don’t even know what to say to you. I tried to pick the low hanging fruit so that you could follow…but its still over your head. You did at least get a little closer in your last post though so there is a least some growth. You and others want to focus on this dog having to have been shot in the back of the head. I used the Tenn v garner and Graham v Connor cases to illustrate that if that had occurred, it doesn’t make it bad or illegal. Where you finally got it in your last point is that in Tenn v garner its not always illegal to shoot someone in the back (yee haw for Clark). Its the totality of the circumstances…the reasonableness of it. And when seen in that light…the officers actions seem more than reasonable. So I hope that you have embraced your growth and now have an expanded understanding. When you sit back and use reason rather than just emotion…things look far different. So, I’m proud of you Clark, your starting to get there.

  • me

    You people are fuckin idiots!!!

  • Artie

    @t.: Why are you trying so hard to weasel out of what is really at the crux of the matter?

  • t.

    Artie: First, who’s weaseling? And second, what is the “crux” that I’m missing. / avoiding?

  • t.

    Artie ?

  • t.

    Maybe Artie got hit by a “crux”.

  • Mohammed Islam

    The cop should be executed

  • Shawn Keenan

    Maybe the officer was trained to make his bullets go where he wants like in the WANTED movie. Maybe he is special like that. I think he likes everything from behind. Somebody needs to move his bottom jaw bone over a few inches for him to take that smirk off his face!

  • Common Sense

    As always with Davy, if you favor him reposting articles with a few opinions inserted, please give him money, he needs it.

  • http://copblocker.org keith

    why do you do that to that pore dog you dick that it anmalis abuse you are not to a abuse peopple us citize s stats and canada if they dont speak langusag why do you beat tham incent peopple dont do that it will come back on you you serve and protced peopple

  • Common Sense, destroyer of Liberty and Freedom

    Goddamn keith….

  • https://www.facebook.com/jason.steele.50 Jason Steele

    We need to meme the hell out of this bucket of slime.

  • http://yahoo larry

    There was an incident a few days ago in a town in PENN. where two dogs were fighting in the back end of a pickup truck. The truck just happens to be parked across the street from a high school that is in session.

    Two officers approach the truck with their pistols drawn and ready to fire. One of the officers shout five times into the back of the truck while the second one watched. Mean while a third officer approached the truck, with a shoot gun, going in between the other two officers and shot twice in to the back of the pick up.

    Cops are willing to kill any thing. Any time. At the drop of a pin.

    I sure wish that they would get rid of the moronic idiots and bring back the Peace Officer mentality of the past.

    I would not trust my children around any kind of law enforcement, as they like to call them selves today.

  • http://yahoo larry

    Spelling is a little off in the other post. :-(

  • Pingback: Cop SAVES dog | Cop Block()

  • Pingback: Cop SAVES dog - Unofficial Network()

  • ben

    Pussy motherfucker!!!

  • ben

    P**** m**********r

  • http://www.michaelkorslifestyle.com authentic michael kors outlet

    This is the best article I have read, thank you, I have learned a lot of knowledge in this area. http://youtu.be/CxZRvoeDQas

  • Nanette Valencia

    Another dirtbag, pos, killer cop. I hate them