TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

EEllis wrote:I think that if you have an animal that you have an obligation to make sure it's not a danger to anyone else. If your dog may bite, snap, or in any way be even slightly aggressive then it shouldn't be loose even in your home if someone else is there. If in your yard the yard should be posted no trespass and beware of dog. If you are walking your dog on a leash you must be able to control the dog and have the presence of mind to do so.

While I agree with you concerning a dog owner's responsibility, an owner's failure does not justify an officer overreacting to a potential "bite" as opposed to being mauled or seriously injured. The stats you quoted ("There are about 1200 reported dog bites a year in the city. Houston also had 27 mail carriers bit last year") prove that there is very little threat to anyone, including officers. 1,200 bites in a city of 2 million people is nothing, and 27 mail carriers being bitten is clear proof that being in frequent contact with dogs who appear to be aggressive rarely results in even a bite, much less serious injury. As noted, there's nothing to indicate they are anything more than minor injuries or perhaps no injury at all. Whenever someone is seriously injured or killed by a dog, it's all over the local, state and national news, but those situations are very rare.

As I've said before, I was a COP for 10 years and I hold a Master Certificate from TCLEOSE. I'm not the least bit anti-law enforcement, but I'm rabidly anti-bad COP. They make life harder for every man and woman who wear the badge and do a good job.

Every officer should try to look at such situations from the public's perspective. There not only appears to be a double standard, there most certainly is a double standard. An HPD officer was recently convicted of official oppression, a misdemeanor. He and other officers were caught on video kicking and beating a burglary suspect who had voluntarily laid on the ground before the officers got to him. The convicted officer lied and said he didn't kick the suspect, but a second camera from a different angle proved he kicked him several times. He was given 2 years probation. Last night on Houston's CH.11 TV, there was a news report of a citizen being charged with felony cruelty to animals for mildly striking a puppy. So the public sees a group of offices beating the snot out of a suspect who had surrendered and it results in a misdemeanor conviction and 2 years probation. Then the public sees a man striking a dog (not a human, a dog) causing absolutely no injury and he's facing a felony charge.

Combine these factors with the ever-increasing militarization of law enforcement and it should be no surprise to anyone that the public's perception of law enforcement is changing and not for the better. When I was a COP, community policing was the norm, COPS were friendly and well received by the public, and bullies-with-a-badge were quickly weeded out. Sadly, this has changed and too many officers and even some agencies don't want merely to be respected, they want to be feared. This will cost them dearly in terms of public support, as well it should.

I want to change the subject slightly. We have a rule against blatant LEO bashing. We don't have a rule against supporting COPS even when they are wrong. People who are in the "COPS are always right" group are just as biased and irritating as those who are in the "COPS are always wrong" group. Supporting LEOs who act inappropriately, unconstitutionally, or unlawfully only serves to hurt law enforcement in general. I'm not saying you (EEllis) fall in either group; I'm just making an observation.

[/rant]

Chas.

talltex wrote:What part of "If you secure your dog where the public CAN'T encounter it then it never becomes an issue" did I fail to understand? The police officers obviously CAN encounter them in a fenced yard, because that's where most of the dog shootings people are upset about have occurred. So, where is it that you think they should secure their dogs "to ensure that it never comes up"?

I think it's the training or lack of it that is a big part of the issue. There is no training at all for HPD on handling dogs. Also their policy is pretty plain. If you think the dog will bite then you can shoot it.

talltex wrote:

EEllis wrote: I think it's the training or lack of it that is a big part of the issue. There is no training at all for HPD on handling dogs. Also their policy is pretty plain. If you think the dog will bite then you can shoot it. But lets face facts If you secure your dog where the public can't encounter it then it never becomes an issue. The cops may not be good with dog encounters but as an owner it's your job to ensure that it never comes up. The cops only shoot dogs when the owner fails that dog. Houston does have issues with animal control. There are about 1200 reported dog bites a year in the city. Houston also had 27 mail carriers bit last year.

Your solution is that the owners should keep their dogs confined inside the house at all times to eliminate any chance of them encountering anyone else, so it never becomes an issue? REALLY? Why not just take it a step further and declare they shouldn't have them at all....after all, on a rare occasion you might have a non family member inside the house too....carpet cleaners, bridge club, plumber... the possibilities are endless. "THE COPS ONLY SHOOT DOGS WHEN THE OWNER FAILS THAT DOG"...EEllis, I've got to give you credit...you are relentless and unstoppable when it comes to denying culpability for ANYTHING a police officer does. Hey, waaaaait a minute, I've got it...are YOU are the HPD spokesman who said that every one of the 228 dog shootings was justifiable and not a single one of the officers was at fault under departmental policies? So, there were 27 mail carriers bitten last year...those mail carriers were interacting with peoples dogs EVERY day, and only 27 of them were bitten in a 12 month period, while the officers, who only interacted with the dogs occasionally, felt threatened enough to shoot an average of 10 dogs a month during that year. YEP...clearly it's the owners fault.

talltex wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

VMI77 wrote:. . . since virtually all these shootings are by police officers --not letter carriers, UPS drivers, meter readers, and salesmen.

This is an issue I've wondered about for a while. All of the people you listed come in contact with far more dogs than do LEOs, but we don't see or hear a lot of reports of them being mauled. Apparently, as others with extensive experience with dogs/training have indicated, the likelihood of being seriously injured (perhaps injured at all) is very low or we would see more reports.

Chas.

In a previous thread on the dog shot at wrong address in Liberty Hill, I noted that the Houston PD's own report stated that since 2010, they had had 228 dogs shot by officers. The department stated it had ruled every one of the 228 OIS (officer involved shootings) as justified in accordance with departmental policies. In EVERY CASE. Not a single officer was found to have made a mistake or been at fault in 228 investigations....impressive! I also cited a Dept. of Justice report issued in 2012 which "emphasized that serious dog bites in the line of duty were very rare, and no particular breed is especially dangerous, so officers have little reason to feel fear when encountering a canine in the performance of their duties. When an officer shoots a dog which doesn't constitute a serious threat, the safety of his fellow officers and bystanders are compromised and put at risk, and the trust and respect of the community is significantly eroded." My personal opinion is that much of the problem stems from a lack of liability on the police officers part. In all those other occupations which require interaction with pets in yards on a daily basis, the employees are LIABLE for their actions and whatever harm they do. If you remove that immunity from police officers, they would quickly adapt and find non lethal means of dealing with dogs, just like those other folks do.

talltex wrote:Don't have enough details to form an opinion in this case, but it sure happens alot in Houston...according to their own statistics, officers have shot 228 dogs there from January 2010 thru 2012

"My dogs aren’t aggressive dogs. I don’t exactly understand what transpired while I was asleep. I have no idea," Pena said. "If they attacked anybody, maybe they were just scared because they were out. Generally, they are just inside dogs."

Condon said he, his wife and their dog suffered injuries, which were documented by the Precinct 4 Constable’s Office.
“I have owned dogs and have been an animal lover my entire life. The last thing I would ever want to do is hurt an animal, especially someone’s pet,” Condon said in a statement.