Chino was one year old, a pit bull who lived with his family in Maple Heights, Ohio. On January 30, 2025, a neighbor complained to police about a loose, "aggressive" pit bull, and an officer went out to respond. He encountered Chino near the dog's own yard.
According to police, Chino lunged at the officer twice, and the officer fired three shots. The rounds struck Chino's paws, his leg, and his stomach. The one-year-old dog was hospitalized in critical condition.
His family disputed the premise of the whole encounter, saying Chino was not aggressive at all.
Strip the dispute away and certain facts remain. The dog was near his own yard. Three shots were fired. They hit paws, leg, and stomach, and left a year-old animal fighting for his life. The word "aggressive" entered the record with a neighbor's complaint; the police account adopted it; the family rejected it. No version of events from outside the department appears in the record to settle the difference.
The Maple Heights Police Department investigated the shooting — which is to say, it investigated itself. In February 2025, the month after the shooting, the police chief announced his conclusion: the officer was cleared. The officer, who was never publicly named, faced no reported discipline. The review that cleared him was conducted and decided inside the same department whose officer fired the shots — the standard arrangement in these cases, in which the institution whose conduct is in question is also the institution that renders the verdict.
The costs of the shooting went elsewhere. While the department was clearing its officer, Chino's family was raising money to pay for his surgery. The household whose dog was shot absorbed the medical bills for the shooting; the public record contains no reimbursement, no settlement, and no compensation of any kind. What it contains instead is a cleared officer, a dog hospitalized in critical condition with wounds to his paws, leg, and stomach, and a family raising funds to repair what three police bullets did. The chief closed the case the month after it opened. No discipline was reported.