TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:

bci21984 wrote:"So it is not very likely at all that they would not react to pepper spray." I can only assume that your participation in this forum is based on your possession or intent to possess a firearm that is carried for defense of self and if applicable the defense of others, should the situation arise. If that is the case, "it is not very likely" that you will ever use said firearm. But then again you know. NEVER base your survival on "it is not very likely". Again, playing what if's, what if the officer previously in his career was injured by a dog and had attempted to pepper spray the said previous dog with no effect. Is the officer going to risk injury a second time in a serious bodily injury/possible death situation by spraying a dog that might not react to the pepper. No, he is not. Also, with the unknowns of the situation and already having his service weapon drawn, is the officer in a split second decision making time frame going to holster his weapon and draw whichever less lethal device he's going to use to subdue the charging/barking/growling dog. I cant speak of your familiarity with working dogs but they are very quick and agile. My boxer can make it (in full sprint) up the stairs of my house in 3 steps. He can jump the privacy fence in my back yard. I have seen heelers jump onto the backs of cattle and cross the herd to get to the other side. The officer simply wouldnt have had time to react, transition and re-engage. If he wouldve attempted he would have been defenseless against the dog and wouldve had to try to defend himself after the attack had begun. He was able to stop the perceived threat before the attack began. Bottom line: The officer was put in fear of his life and sever bodily injury due to circumstances out of his control.

My knowledge of dogs is with my pets through the years (shepherds, beagles, basset hounds, a Bernese mountain dog and good old fashioned mutts) and some amount of study of the smelling capability of dogs (nasal sensitivity). I do know that a barking dog is entirely different than a charging dog. Perhaps in all the training police officers have they should receive some with dogs as they are sure to encounter them. The electrical company around here trains their people on how to deal with dogs (they go in and through people's back yards all the time) they don't have the option of shooting the dog, and they have a near flawless record on dog bites. I just simply find the number of times I hear "cop shot dog" to be on the unacceptable side. I want everyone to go home with the same number of holes in them they left with, but if the power company can have less than one dog bite a year and they go into hostile dog situations on a regular basis it is suspect to me that the police cannot minimize the number of dogs shot.

bci21984 wrote: I wouldnt expect you to be able to understand the functions of "Use of force" as it pertains to police work as we receive HOURS upon HOURS of training in the matter, much in the same fashion I couldnt expect myself to understand the functions of the complexities of the work you are trained to do. It would be unfamiliar territory for both us. Heres a model that helps break it down. As far as youre examples, if an officer gives you a lawful command, such as "stand up, and turn around, youre under arrest", and you answer with "go away and leave me alone" (in not so nice terms) the officer is legally justified in pepper spraying you based on the use of force continuum. Does it always happen that way, no it doesnt. Is it legal and justifiable, yes it is. If a person spits at me (in Tx its a felony) it could be to temporarily blind me, so that they can easier assault me or it could be to infect me with whatever communicable disease they have. (yes, it actually happens) This scenarior is a little more in depth. If the spit is precursored with "im gonna (insert bodily harm intended)" then the action would be "assualtive" and the legal and justifiable response would be deadly force. Again, does it always happen that way, no, but it would be legal and justifiable. "The suspect who was known to have extensive criminal history pertaining to assault on police, interferring with police, and weapons charges stated to me, "Im going to kill you" and then spat in my face. The spit was followed by the suspect attempting to punch me with his right fist. I was in fear that the suspect would cause me great bodily harm or follow through with his threat of death. I backed away from the suspect and gave loud clear commands to "get on the ground" and "youre under arrest". I wiped the suspect's saliva from my eyes and could see that he was still approaching me in a combative/assaultive stance. The suspect had his left hand in his pocket and was refusing to follow my commands. I drew my service weapon and fired at the suspect. He fell to the ground, I continued my loud clear commands and the suspect refused to follow them. I covered the suspect until back up arrived." is different than "he spat in my face and I shot him."

Seems reasonable, and the stair steps is a good illustration. Thanks for the instruction. The initial way I took it was entirely different than how you explained it.

It's amazing isn't it? ....letter carriers, deliverymen, repairmen, meter readers, all manage to routinely enter property where there are dogs, and they never shoot them --basically, because you can't run a business and get away with shooting people's dogs. The police shoot dogs for one reason....they can....there are no consequences, so they get away with it. If, for example, the city, or whatever government agency, had to cough up a cool million to animal rescue groups every time they killed a dog like this --due to their own negligence-- these kinds of dog killings would cease over night. Or take a chunk of change right out of the budget of the offending department.....the incentive of the police is shoot a dog rather than accept any risk of attack, however small, because it costs them nothing when they make a mistake.

ScooterSissy wrote:

bci21984 wrote:... The officer was placed into a dangerous possibly life altering/ending situation in a matter of seconds and made a decision that allowed him to go home with the same number of holes he went to work with...

I' ve seen this as a "justification" a couple of times now. Here's a counter though.

The owner of the home, the citizen who was helping pay the officer's salary, didn't even leave his property, yet was left with what he considered a family member that that did have more holes than he started the day with. And that home owner did nothing that justified his pet dying.

That's the rub. I'm sorry if this offends some of the LEOs, and trust me, I'm not anti-LEO by any means, but if the ultimate goal of an LEO is to ensure that he goes "home with the same number of holes he went to work with", then he is in the wrong line of work.

The citizen who is doing nothing wrong deserves the first consideration, the LEO is there to protect him.

speedsix wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:

speedsix wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:

Beiruty wrote:I am more concerned why the Police officer has to draw on unarmed person who is not a threat or even aggressive or non-compliant. That would be an aggravated assault if done by a civilian. That officer has be sent to for long time re-training and long time office desk duty to cool down and learn to control his fear. He behaved like scared bat squirting out from a cave.

Was there a weapon involved in the initial report? If so I can understand the officer drawing his sidearm.

How would you know the subject was “unarmed” until you have searched him? I agree the officer probably overreacted but none of us were there and don’t know all of the details. It is easy to criticize when one is sitting safely in front of his/her keyboard and take all the time he/she wants to think about what he/she would do in a situation we don’t know all the facts about.

...those of us who HAVE spent several years on the streets usually consider what's in the subject's HANDS to determine whether or not to draw and cover them...more often it's handled as you posted earlier...then search him/her if/as the situation calls for it...the fact that the officer greatly overreacted is not in dispute, with the facts we are given here...where one is sitting when coming to these conclusions makes little difference to the conclusions drawn...Beiruty's concerns are valid and well supported by the supplied facts...the dashboard audio tells us a lot...

I HAVE spent time on the streets with a Sherriff’s Department. If I were dispatched to a domestic disturbance call and the caller reported a gun or knife involved, I would draw on someone that came around the corner of a house, approaching me. To do otherwise is betting your life that he/she does not have a small gun or large knife in their hand just out of site behind their leg, in their pocket, in the belt in the small of their back etc. After patting them down then we could talk. If he was more than 15 feet from me I would just put my hand on my gun and order him against a wall so I could pat him down.

I once took custody of a male subject from a DPS officer and transported him to the county jail so the DPS officer could answer another call. When I got him to the jail and told him to empty his pockets, he laid a large buck knife on the counter. I had assumed the DPS officer had searched him before handcuffing him. I had assumed the subject was unarmed so I didn’t search him myself before taking custody. I never made that mistake again.

My point is that none of us were there and we don’t know what the original report was or how close to the officer the subject or the dog was. The dashboard audio may tell a lot but without the video it may leave out a lot also. Earlier in this thread people were condemning the officer for going to the wrong address when they didn’t know he was dispatched to the wrong address.

...if you introduce a reported weapon, of course that would justify at least low ready...however there was NO report of a weapon...the 911 caller said clearly there was NO weapon involved, and also described the man in the argument/altercation as a hispanic with salt and pepper hair...none of that translates to justification for drawing one's weapon and aiming at a man unless he's seen to have a weapon in his hands..especially when he's nowhere close to the description given...there's no defense for this guy on that....