Chief Don Lanpher Jr. and his Aberdeen Police Department are here to serve and protect.
But in a recent, unfortunate incident Oct. 3 involving a dangerous dog and gunfire on city streets, Lanpher and his department failed to warn people about a possible, immediate threat.
When an Aberdeen police officer fired three shots at a dog that had just killed another in a garage, he had no other choice. It was the right call to make to diffuse the situation that night.
But when the dog ran away, wounded but still alive, Lanpher and his department should have alerted Aberdeen residents about what was going on.
Instead, Lanpher offered several reasons not to inform the public that a dog that had killed once was running loose in a neighborhood.
His instincts don't match with the facts:
- Because the dog had been wounded and likely spent several near-freezing cold nights outdoors, it likely died, Lanpher told the American News Monday. "My guess is the dog was hit hard enough and is probably expired," he said. He was wrong; the dog was found alive Tuesday, despite Lanpher's diagnosis.
- Lanpher did not want to cause a panic where there was none, essentially, yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. But it is OK to alert people when there really is a fire, and, like neighbor Teri Wagner said Wednesday, "If the police considered the dog dangerous enough to shoot it, then they should have done more to notify the residents."
- Lanpher, in conversation with the American News, said there was some concern about vigilante justice, with residents arming themselves and looking for the dog. Instead, a Good Samaritan driving by saw the injured dog and took it to get it help. This was despite American News reports and an overly sensational, unnecessary headline we published on our front page Oct. 10. We were wrong, and we apologize for that mistake.
But knowing all of this, we go to Lanpher's last instinct, which he shared with the Aberdeen City Council Tuesday evening, just hours after the dog had been found alive: that the dog was not dangerous to humans. He told the council that the dog had lived with small children and previously showed no signs of aggression. When confronted by the owner of the dog that it had killed, the dog ran away.
However, the fact is the dog had also lived with a younger dog for a month, too, and, once loose - for only one day - killed another dog.
Lanpher assumed the dog would become less aggressive to humans after being alone for a week? Think about this: What would you do if you were shot and wounded, cold, hungry, scared and disoriented? What would your aggression level be?
Doesn't the more cautious instinct tell you that once the dog has killed another, it might be likely to do it again?
Especially when even the owner of the dog said he didn't know the dog's temperament before being shot, according to Aberdeen Police Capt. Dave McNeil?
Especially when everyone agreed the best course of action for this dangerous dog was to shoot it?
When residents see police cars on their street, hear three shots and then learn through neighborhood chatter about a much-loved neighborhood dog's mauling, they aren't going to feel safe. The rumor mill takes over in lieu of accurate, useful information.
The true concern sets in: They don't feel protected.
This story was first made public in Tuesday's American News, after neighbors had called us with the tip. Had it not been published then, about a week after the shooting, would the residents on Stewart Drive have ever found out what happened the night of Oct. 3?
What does your instinct tell you?