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.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.
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.