Mostek’s position
Mostek maintains that she reasonably shot Aggie to protect her own dog, Buddy, while the dogs and Maynard were on the pavement at her feet.
Justice for Aggie
What Happened
Competing accounts, recordings, deposition testimony, and scene evidence concerning April 21, 2024.
Kent Maynard’s account
Kent Maynard recalls lying helpless on the ground, holding Aggie against his chest, when Mostek fired. In his account, the bullet entered Aggie’s left ear just inches from his face.
He contends that he had restrained Aggie and that Buddy had begun moving away before the shot. He describes the shooting as a danger to his own life as well as the loss of his dog.
Disputed claims: These competing characterizations remain disputed in pending litigation and are not findings by this site.
Plaintiff’s filed allegations
What the First Amended Verified Complaint alleges
This is a summary of allegations in a filed pleading—not findings by the court. Defendants disputed liability, and later rulings resolved some counts.
The complaint alleges that Mostek fired toward Maynard while he was on the ground with Aggie, killing Aggie, placing Maynard in fear of being shot, and violating federal and state law.
It alleges that Mostek acted under color of law and within the scope of her employment, and that the City bears responsibility under the pleaded theories. Those allegations were contested.
It alleges that, after the shooting, Mostek made false statements to Maynard’s landlord describing Aggie as dangerous or vicious and allowed to run “amok,” intending to cause the landlord to terminate Maynard’s tenancy. The defamation count was later resolved against Maynard on summary judgment.
Counts II and III were dismissed at the pleading stage. Summary judgment was later entered on Counts IV and VI; the other counts addressed in the February 9, 2026 ruling remained unresolved at that stage.
Read the court’s account and video limitations in the February 9 opinion ↗
- 1
Initial public account
Early CBS and ABC7 reports repeated an account attributed to police: that Aggie attacked Buddy and Mostek fired to stop the attack, without mentioning plaintiff’s contention that Aggie was in his arms when the shot was fired. The surveillance video was not yet public.
- 2
COPA video release
Sensitive content advisory: The linked videos show the fatal shooting of a dog and may be disturbing.COPA publicly released surveillance video 1 and surveillance video 2, along with other materials, through its official case portal. The footage supplied information that was absent from the initial reports and prompted new scrutiny of the official account.
Official incident reports, original recordings, and early news accounts →
Camera footage and 911 audio
The incident: a compilation of camera footage and 911 audio
Compiled by Kent Maynard from his Blink camera, the two surveillance recordings and Mostek’s 911 call released by COPA, and aftermath photographs taken by Maynard. Mostek’s call is included in this compilation and is available on COPA’s website as “911 Call 1”, the first of the five listed 911 calls. The two COPA-released surveillance recordings are also listed and linked on this site: Original surveillance video 1 and Original surveillance video 2 (graphic content).
GRAPHIC CONTENT — VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED
This video depicts the fatal shooting of a dog and includes close-up photographs of Aggie’s body with substantial visible blood. It also contains distressing audio and strong language. Some viewers may find it deeply upsetting.
Timing disclosure: The 911 audio is aligned approximately with the camera footage, using Mostek’s testimony that she called immediately after entering her garage. The alignment is an editorial reconstruction, not independently verified synchronization.
Sources and editing: The Blink view shows Maynard’s porch. The surveillance views show the street, with the second view appearing as a lower inset. Audio of Mostek's 911 call is superimposed on the surveillance video and audio and should not be assumed to originate from the surveillance videos. The aftermath photographs are labeled separately and do not depict the exact moment of the accompanying call. The closing Blink footage of Maynard returning to his apartment has been replaced with a neutral card because its timing relative to the call is not established. The complete soundtrack and running time are retained. Embedded subtitles remain in the retained footage; the closing audio-only portion has no subtitles. New labels sit outside the original picture.
Subtitle note: Captions were supplied within the compilation and have not been independently verified against the original recordings. They remain embedded in the picture. The original recordings should be consulted when wording or speaker attribution is uncertain.
This is a plaintiff-prepared compilation, not a single continuous camera recording or a judicial finding. The circumstances and justification for the shooting remain disputed.
Original surveillance video 1 · Original surveillance video 2 · Mostek’s 911 call — COPA “911 Call 1” (external links; graphic content).
Deposition testimony
Mostek reviews the shooting footage
Deposition excerpt · April 3, 2025. Mostek answers questions while reviewing surveillance footage of the April 21, 2024 incident.
Graphic content: This video includes footage of the fatal shooting of a dog. Viewer discretion advised.
The excerpt contains on-screen subtitles. Questions and statements by the questioner are distinct from the witness’s answers. Mostek estimates the distance as “about four feet” and discusses limitations of the video’s viewpoint and quality. She did not answer the final assertion that Maynard was closer; that silence is not presented as agreement. A brief freeze-frame and fade to black have been added after the excerpt.
For a clearer view of the incident, see the original surveillance footage at COPA’s linked host: Surveillance video 1 ↗ · Surveillance video 2 ↗. These links also contain graphic content.
City-produced photograph
The scene after the incident
This photograph was produced by the City in discovery. It is presented for scene context and is not a judicial finding. Viewer discretion advised.
