Heroes Shoot A Dog (Again)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

After coming home from church on Wednesday night, an Owasso, Oklahoma family was disturbed to find their family dog bleeding on the porch from a gunshot wound.

The German Shepherd named Bruno had suffered a single gunshot wound that shattered its shoulder from a deputy with the Rogers County Sheriff’s Office. Shockingly, instead to seeking medical attention for the animal, the officer simply attached a note to the front door and left it to suffer.

The note relayed this message:

We were investigating a crime and a dog attacked our deputy. The dog was shot and we need you to call us.

“They left him bleeding. He was here almost three hours bleeding,” the dog’s owner, Angie Laymon said. “It’s just not fair. He’s part of our family.”

Laymon said the animal was first found by her young children who called to tell her what happened. She said she then called the sheriff’s office which told her that the animal attacked the deputy.

“I said ‘did he bite him?’” Laymon said. “He said, ‘well he felt threatened.’”

Police say the deputy was responding to a shots fired call in the area and approached Laymon’s home to investigate. Surveillance footage recorded at the residence shows the officer pull up in the driveway and exit his vehicle when he is approached by Bruno, who is trained to protect the property.

The deputy was not bit, but police maintain that the officer was only acting in self defense when he opened fire.

“There’s a lot of things that could be asked,” Rogers County Sheriff Scott Walton said. “Why didn’t he Tase him, why didn’t he pepper spray him? An officers weapon was the first thing that he drew. We don’t have time to go through this use of force ladder.”

Local news coverage:

On a GO FUND ME page that has been set up by Laymon to help cover Bruno’s medical expenses, she calls what happened to her pet “senseless and cruel.”

Laymon says in the page:

There was a call to the Sheriff’s office from a home about half a mile south of us stating they heard gunshots and believed a bullet struck the side of their house. Deputies responded and began investigating. After determining that the shot came from the East, they sent a deputy to question the property owner to the East.

Instead, for reasons yet to be explained, the Deputy turned into my driveway. My property is North, with other properties being between mine and where the call came in. My property does not border either of the properties in question – about half a mile from both and in a different direction. Furthermore, there is a creek and wooded area between my house and my neighbors and several buildings between me and the property in question

Share Button


    The rise of protectionism may have a strong rationale. One fundamental flaw with economic thinking is that humans are assumed to be doing things to make a living and improve their economic condition. This is partially true. But people are also doing things for existential reasons. We may be better off economically (in the aggregate) by exporting jobs. But that’s not what people may really want.
    I write because that’s what I am designed to do –and subcontracting my research and writing to China or Tunisia would (perhaps) increase my productivity but deprive me of my identity.
    So people might want to *do* things. Just to do things, because they feel it is part of their identity. It may be cruel to cheat them of that. They too want to play. They want to have their soul in the game.
    Bureaucrats don’t get it because they don’t do things.
    NOTE I: More technically, it is erroneous to think that one necessarily has to “maximize” income if one seeks it (economists used naive mathematics in their optimization programs and thinking). It is perfectly compatible to “satisfice” their wealth, that is, shoot for a satisfactory income, plus maximize one’s fitness to the task, or the emotional pride they may have in seeing the fruits of their labor. Or not maximize anything, just do things because that is what makes us human.
    What we are seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.
    With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30y of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, microeconomic papers wrong 40% of the time, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating only 1/5th of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers with a better track record than these policymaking goons.
    Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats wanting to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. I have shown that most of what Cass-Sunstein-Richard Thaler types call “rational” or “irrational” comes from misunderstanding of probability theory.
    The *establishment* composed of journos, BS-Vending talking heads with well-formulated verbs, bureaucrato-cronies, lobbyists-in training, New Yorker-reading semi-intellectuals, image-conscious empty suits, Washington rent-seekers and other “well thinking” members of the vocal elites are not getting the point about what is happening and the sterility of their arguments. People are not voting for Trump (or Sanders). People are just voting, finally, to destroy the establishment.
    How to bluff when you are clueless – Humphrey Bogart
    Larken Rose Full Speech At Anarchapulco (raw 2016)
    Larken Rose on the rise of Trump

  2. Hopefully my next house will be in a place where I can gate the driveway for reasons like this one. Of course this hero probably would have rammed the gate as well as shoot their dog.

    • The double standard is galling.

      I, as a concealed handgun permit holder, am required by law to retreat if I feel threatened and only if I am unable to retreat and my life is in imminent danger am I legally permitted to draw my weapon. If I fire it, I had better damn well be able to substantiate the foregoing. Merely saying I “felt threatened” will result in years in prison… for me.

      But these cretins in costumes are legally encouraged to draw their weapons – and fire – at the least (and unsubstantiated) “threat” to their precious “safety.”

      Perhaps someone can explain how and why it is that “heroes” are held to a lesser standard than ordinary citizens?

      • Dear Eric,

        There is indeed a logical explanation.

        Notice I said “logical”, not “valid”. The logic is fully consistent with the very premise of government, as outlined by sociologist Max Weber.

        Monopoly on violence

        The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, also known as the monopoly on violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates), is a core concept of modern public law…

        As the defining conception of the state, it was first described in sociology by Max Weber… Weber claims that the state is the “only human Gemeinschaft which lays claim to the monopoly on the legitimated use of physical force.

        … Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation.

        Notice how Weber and statists across the entire statist spectrum, from Stalin to sanctimonious bleeding heart “human rights champions” wrongly assume that any such monopoly can be “legitimated”?

        This is the reason any type of government must be rejected flat out, in toto, as utterly unacceptable.

  3. There are no repercussions for this type of behavior. That’s why it is happening more frequently, and why it will get ever more egregious over time. There is a solution, and it does not involve the legal system that they are a part of. It involves good people who are willing to right wrongs and discourage future acts such as the one above.

    • Of course there is no repercussion. In the city near me (the same one with the window smashing hero) the police were video taped abusing their own K9!!!! Local animal rights groups attempted to rescue this poor dog but have been unsuccessful.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here