UPDATED 2/28/2009: Rosenblatt Denied Copy of Police Report From Upper Gwynedd Police
In an email to Operation-Nation this week, Stan Rosenblatt said he requested a copy of the police report from when Tempe cop Whitney Jurjevich shot and killed his dog, Bruce, on January 16; and was denied.
“Apparently I need a subpoena to get a copy,” Rosenblatt wrote. “I expect to be able to do so if/when I start civil action.”
Jurjevich was not charged by Montgomery County (PA) authorities and not punished by Tempe Police.
ORIGINAL LINK: http://blog.operation-nation.com/2009/02/14/stan-rosenblatt-whitney-jurjevich-lied-to-upper-gwynedd-police.aspx
OPERATION NATION REPORT
2/15/2009 (links updated December 27, 2018)
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PA — Stan Rosenblatt spoke out in the online forum for The Reporter, a newspaper based in Lansdale, Pennsylvania. Mr. Rosenblatt, who used the screen name “stanr,” outlined several items he alleges Jurjevich, a Tempe (AZ) cop, and his father fabricated to avoid being charged in the January shooting of Rosenblatt’s dog.
Montgomery (PA) County Assistant District Attorney Abby Silverman decided not to press charges against Jurjevich after an investigation was completed. Here is the full text of Mr. Rosenblatt’s comment: (for background on the story, click here and here.)
“I learned now for the first time about the lies that were told to the Upper Gwynedd police by the officer and his father.
Lie #1 The shooter said “Prior to the walk, the man’s father had warned him about a large brown and white dog in the neighborhood that he said was known to be aggressive toward other dogs, police were told.”
The truth: The shooters father knew Bruce well. In fact, he always greeted Bruce in a friendly manner and usually stooped over from his height of 6’7″ to scratch Bruce behind the ears. Bruce always responded in a friendly manner. The lie is a fabrication after the fact designed to obfuscate the truth. Bruce was not an aggressive dog. Bruce never bit another dog or a person. Never!
Lie #2: “The man said he saw the same brown and white dog come running out of the double doors to the building’s lobby when he returned from his walk, and that he saw that Bruce was attached to a retractable leash, but told police the dog’s owner was not in sight.”
The truth: The shooter stood outside the well-lit lobby and both saw me and Bruce in the lobby. I shouted loudly to the shooter “Wait, don’t come in until I clear the lobby.” The shooter ignored my request and instead, he opened the door just enough for Bruce to squeeze through. Bruce was curious about the other dog, which we were not familiar with, and he only wanted to investigate. Bruce went through the door with me close behind. Bruce was on his leash and was not facing the shooter when he was shot 3 times in the side. All four feet were on the ground. Bruce did not bark. He did not growl. The shots came too fast for him to do anything except go through the door.
Lie #3: “According to the DA’s office, it appeared to the man that Bruce was attacking Lulu and had jumped onto her back, at which point the man drew his gun.”
The truth: This never happened. Bruce was shot immediately after coming through the door. Where was the damage to the shooter’s dog? There wasn’t any because it was a fabrication. If Bruce really had jumped on the back of the other dog, wasn’t he afraid that his shots would hit his dog, too?
Lie #4 “At this point, he told police, he was still unable to see Rosenblatt or anyone else in control of the animal.”
The truth: The shooter had looked into the lobby through the glass doors and had seen Bruce and me, as well as the leash. He knew where I was at all times.
Lie #5 “He told police that he fired three shots, all of which struck Bruce, after which Rosenblatt emerged from behind the double doors of the building, yelling, before leaving to get care for his dog.”
The truth: I did not emerge through the door yelling at the shooter. I immediately went to Bruce, who was lying on the ground. Only when I realized he had been shot did I begin yelling at the shooter. I realized that Bruce was mortally wounded and I started to advance toward the shooter. At that point he raised his gun and pointed it at my chest and threatened to shoot me. He told me not to come any closer. It was at that point that I turned and went to take Bruce to the veterinary hospital. Bruce died shortly after he was put into my car.
The shooter lured Bruce outside by opening the door, even though he was told not to do so. Bruce did not and could not open the door by himself. He was waiting with a loaded gun to shoot Bruce and he did so in a cowardly, immoral and reprehensible way. neither he nor his dog was threatened in any way by Bruce.
I am not surprised by the DA’s decision because I learned that Pennsylvania law permits him to kill another dog under certain circumstances. However, I believe that he and his father concocted his story after the fact of the shooting. There were no witnesses besides myself and the shooter. It was his word against mine, and there is no way to prove either version.
The shooting was a cold-blooded callous act that is inexcusable. Had he missed Bruce, he could have easily sent his bullets into one of the close-by ground floor apartments. Could this 33 year-old 6’7″ man really be so afraid of Bruce that he felt it necessary to kill him? The shooting was irresponsible, excessive, unnecessary, and an affront to our community. To think that he is now on the loose among civilians in his home town, is a scary thought. Who knows what will set him off again and find him shooting an innocent human or another animal.
The police say “…although Bruce was attached to a retractable leash, he was approximately 25 feet from Rosenblatt and on the opposite side of a double glass door at the time he was shot.”
This is their opinion, and it is not correct. The full length of Bruce’s extension leash is 25 ft, but I was no more that 2-3 feet from the door when Bruce was shot, and Bruce’s body was measured to be 16 feet from the doors. he was not at the full extension of the leash when he was shot.