TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub

Excaliber wrote:
C-dub wrote:
speedsix wrote:...at least 2% of us ... http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... llionaires" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...latest from the Chief...he's frosted...

http://digitaltexan.net/2012/austin-loc ... icle31998/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Chief has a point about the slain officer, but it looks like they are going to gloss over the main problem of Officer Griffin's contact in this incident. Why did he draw his gun on someone that was not threatening him or anyone else? I still think that even if he'd had his gun holstered when the dog came out he would have drawn and shot first and asked questions later.
If I read the chief's letter correctly, he's indicating that they're doing a thorough after action review to identify all of the issues brought to light by this incident. Just like any disaster, it almost certainly has a whole bunch of bad things behind it that came together at that time.

I expect a good review would include the officer's decision to lunge into a domestic dispute call with no second officer present, drawing and pointing his firearm at an individual who didn't match the person described in the call, the department's use of force policy, its training program, etc.

If this is what's going on, it's the exact opposite of glossing over the problem - it's looking for all the contributing elements so they can be effectively addressed. An effort of this type won't be finished by tomorrow or the day after either. It will take time to do it right to prevent a repeat incident in the future.

I hope it is all inclusive. I just noticed the part about reviewing their policy on dealing with animals.

C-dub

speedsix wrote:...at least 2% of us can... http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... llionaires" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...latest from the Chief...he's frosted...

http://digitaltexan.net/2012/austin-loc ... icle31998/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Chief has a point about the slain officer, but it looks like they are going to gloss over the main problem of Officer Griffin's contact in this incident. Why did he draw his gun on someone that was not threatening him or anyone else? I still think that even if he'd had his gun holstered when the dog came out he would have drawn and shot first and asked questions later.

C-dub

matriculated wrote:
jimlongley wrote:In my 28 years as a telephone man, I was bitten several times on the job. Company rules forbade my suing even in the most egregious situations, such as when I told the owner that the (barking, growling, scrabbling to get out of owner's arms) dog had to be put in another room while I was there. She insisted her little miniature poodle was no threat to anyone, and as soon as I got inside the house, she turned the dog loose from the kitchen, and it ran over and bit me on the knee. By the time I got to the hospital to get the wound cleaned and stitched, and the hospital, following protocol reported the bite to animal control, she had called the VP complaint line at the phone company, and lodged an official complaint about me slamming a door on her dog. Guess who wound up in trouble?

I have backed down a lot of dogs and I have been cornered, and I have been surprised and bit on the butt (twice, in vastly different situations) and I have given the speech about putting the dog in another secure area more times than I can count.

I still think the officer did wrong, particularly considering the timing of the shooting.
People are just stupid sometimes. I'm sure that poodle attack wasn't a life threatening event, but it cost you time, energy, money, and getting in trouble at your job. All because of a stubborn customer who wouldn't follow common sense. I have three harmless dogs who have never (nor would they ever) bitten anyone, but they do yap a lot (especially the little ones) and they get annoying to a stranger real quick, so whenever I have somebody in my house repairing anything, all 3 of them are locked away behind closed doors. For everyone's sanity.

By the way, did you really slam the door on the lady's poodle? Just curious. Was that while it was still attached to your leg?

If as you say, you still secured your dogs than I congratulate you for that. I'm sure the woman in Jim's story thought the same as you do about your dogs, though, but she was much less pragmatic. All dogs will bite under that right circumstances. Well, maybe not all dogs. Some are so afraid that they will just pee all over themselves if they are too afraid to bite, but that's a pretty small number.

C-dub

jmra wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:
jmra wrote:I can't help but think that if the dog had not been there to "take a bullet" we might be talking about a dead man instead of a dead dog.
Anything is possible, but I think that is a stretch. How often do LEO draw their weapons? How often do citizens draw to defend themselves and how few are actually shot?

Anygunanywhere
How many shoot little dogs? Not being sarcastic, truly curious.

My guess is and that's all it is, is that most of the dogs shot by police are under 50 pounds. However, that may just be because most people have dogs that are under 50 pounds.

C-dub

The reason the water, electric, or phone people don't get bit much is because they generally don't go in your yard if there is a dog running loose in it. If they need access they will knock on your door and ask you to put your animals away. If you're not there they will contact you some how and ask you to leave you animals in or secure them so they may gain entry on a known day. The electric company tried to enter my fenced backyard one day without notifying me. My two GSDs prevented them from doing so even after being sprayed. I received a phone call that night telling me that I could receive a citation for failure to allow them access to their property in the easement. I dared them because they are supposed to notify someone first and failed to follow their own procedures and the laws regarding them gaining access to the easement. I did not deny them access. I didn't even know they wanted in. Try reasoning with a couple of trained GSDs. I also told them that if they ever pepper sprayed my dogs again I would have them charged with assault. I don't really know if I could do that, but that and me knowing that they must notify someone before gaining access sure got them to back down and apologize pretty quick.

Just because a dog has a greater sense of smell than a human does not mean they are more sensitive to pepper spray. It works differently on them and the spray used for people is actually much less effective on dogs if it works at all. There is a different formula or concentration for dogs, like there is for bear spray.

C-dub

Yes and yes. Re: Eric Scott (RIP) at Costo.

C-dub

Wienerdogtroy wrote:
matriculated wrote:
Excaliber wrote:
An officer or any other person who appears to be acting aggressively toward a dog owner will elicit an aggressive response from a dog. That's what dogs do out of loyalty to their masters. Once again, a competent officer understands and respects this, and takes it into account. Dealing with people in the presence of their dogs is a very common occurrence, and an officer should be able to handle it easily and successfully.

In over 20 years of police work, I recall one instance where an officer was compelled to shoot an attacking doberman. That's it - one case in a department of 200 officers who responded to over 50,000 calls a year. We dealt with lots of dogs, but didn't use gunfire as our primary go to tactic. There are lots of alternatives. Many officers kept small bags of dog treats in their briefcases for those times when a little canine bribery was needed to accomplish the mission.

We didn't point guns at people without clear justification either. Our officers were intensively trained in the proper use of force. Whenever a firearm was pointed at a person, our procedures required that the officer complete a Use of Force report that detailed the legal justification and practical necessity for doing so. Some would say this is an unnecessary administrative burden, but we did it deliberately to guide officers to think about what they were doing with deadly weapons and to make good use of force decisions. With this in place, it was a rarity to find firearms deployed when they shouldn't be, and our officers were very sharp on using them only when they should. When the gun was the right choice, it was brought into play without hesitation and with confidence because the officers knew for sure they were acting properly and that the command staff would back them when they acted within the bounds of the law and good judgment.

If one of my officers had behaved as the one in the Austin instance reportedly did, my agency would have been doing a serious review of his ability to handle his responsibilities. If the reports we have are true and complete, the officer's behavior indicates inordinate fear and reactions that border on hysterical. When these characteristics show up in a person who is sent to calls where conflict is common, courage is routinely called for and life and death decisions must be made correctly every time, it's a disaster just searching for its time and place.
All I can say is I applaud you and whatever department you either work for, or used to work for. You are exactly the kind of police officer I want responding if I ever have an issue and your department is the kind of department I want to be dealing with. Sounds like cool heads all around.
Seconded.

Nice screen name.

I missed that last "r" and thought it was Weiner dog toy.

C-dub

flintknapper wrote:
Keith B. is absolutely correct in that even a relatively small dog, 20-50 pounds, can cause severe damage. It probably won't be bone crushing, but tendon, ligament, or muscle damage is very possible and if they happen to get one of those sensitive areas they might hit an artery.

Not very likely. So...are LEO now able to use "deadly force" to avoid minor injuries (if that)?

Honestly, there seems to be a mind set among today's LEO that they WILL go home (completely unscathed) each day, no matter what it takes. These dog shooting things happen WAY too often!

I can cite several instances (posted here over the past few years) that were just ridiculous (the miniature dachshund for one). One of the criteria for hiring new LEO should be they are NOT "overly" afraid of dogs, for crying out loud, mailmen, meter readers, door to door salesmen...manage it every day.

They do happen too often. I think it is because LEO's are trained to read a person's body language and not a dog's and many have their own personal fears about being bitten by a dog. Just look at how many criminals react when they think the police might send a dog for them. A LEO doesn't much like the idea of being bitten by a dog either.

Just like a gun, when you stop respecting it is when it will reach up and bite you. This can also apply to a dog. Underestimating your opponent can lead to bad results. Most bites like this will be in the lower leg or hand area and they can do some damage there.

C-dub

puma guy wrote:
C-dub wrote:
ScooterSissy wrote:
puma guy wrote:... Let's say someone with a CHL is replying to an ad for the sale of an item and owner's dog comes at them.
Gotta modify that a little. How about replying to an ad from a neighbor, and going to the wrong house.

With gun drawn...
Part in red is your biggest problem. The officer thought he was going into a bad situation and even then there was no reason to have already had his gun out. A CHL has even less of a reason to already have their gun out in your scenario.
It could be the wrong address in a newspaper ad or even someone approching the property to invite someone to come to a church Sunday service. I don't know that being at the wrong address would be pertinent or not so assuming there's not a no tresspassing sign or similar posting, I'll pose the question differently. Are LEO's under a different standard reacting to a perceived threat such as the barking dog coming toward them than a CHL? redundancy here: would both be protected under a case of defending themselves?

I'm not sure I understand your question. I am not a lawyer or LEO, so I'm not aware of a situation that would allow for an officer to approach a residence with their gun drawn where there was no known threat. Also, I cannot conceive of a situation where I would approach anyone's house, right or wrong address, with my gun drawn for any reason other than to prevent one of those crimes we are able to use deadly force to prevent. I also don't believe the officer just had his hand on his holstered gun before the dog came out and barked ONCE before he was killed. Once is all I could hear. Did he get more than one bark out? Anyway, ...

Keith B. is absolutely correct in that even a relatively small dog, 20-50 pounds, can cause severe damage. It probably won't be bone crushing, but tendon, ligament, or muscle damage is very possible and if they happen to get one of those sensitive areas they might hit an artery.

C-dub

ScooterSissy wrote:
puma guy wrote:... Let's say someone with a CHL is replying to an ad for the sale of an item and owner's dog comes at them.
Gotta modify that a little. How about replying to an ad from a neighbor, and going to the wrong house.

With gun drawn...

Part in red is your biggest problem. The officer thought he was going into a bad situation and even then there was no reason to have already had his gun out. A CHL has even less of a reason to already have their gun out in your scenario.

C-dub

Keith B wrote:Very sad situation. My sympathy goes out to your friend. Not able to see exactly where the dog was in relation to the officer, but that shot definitely was taken awfully quickly. My gut says he overreacted big time to the dog coming to investigate and then tried to cover it with his blaming your friend for not getting his dog, when in reality your friend had not even had time to process what was going on and react himself. This is one time when the dash cam audio will be an asset for your friend to prove liability on the city.

Yeah. Even without the video it sounds bad for the officer and he immediately began trying to pass the blame to the owner. To me, that says he immediately knew he did something wrong and was trying to distance himself from his actions.

C-dub

Speedsix, I agree with everything you're saying and also understand everyone's point of view and think almost all of them are valid. There's just that one.

Also, from my point of view, I have been training dogs for obedience, tracking, and protection for over 20 years. I probably didn't gain enough understanding to be able to reliably "read" a dog's intent and ability within a few seconds until I had been at it for over 5 years. The average LEO simply will not have that same level of understanding. If this had been me and one of my dogs the officer would not have seen him coming. My dogs are trained for this type of threat and in this type of situation unless I give them the guard command they will not bark and they will go for the hand with the weapon. This is another reason I take more care with my dogs.

Cisco my not have had a mean bone in his body, but the officer could not have known this because he was threatening Cisco's Master and Cisco stepped up to the plate. I am truely deeply sorry for the owner.

I wish the APD would now step up to the plate and apologize and try to make this right. I think that's all they can do at this point and maybe all the owner is really looking for.

C-dub

Oldgringo wrote:Why was this LEO alone on that call?

That is an outstanding observation. Perhaps all the others were at the correct address.

C-dub

At large and running at large means off of and outside of the premises of the owner and not under the immediate control of the owner or other person by use of a collar and leash, and shall apply to all animals on the premises of the owner which are not kept secured by an adequate fence or which are not kept secured by a chain attached to the animals in a humane manner sufficient to prevent the animals from running at large.

This is the definition of "at large" from my city's ordinances. It is probably very similar in most other cities. It may not be right, but that's what it says. Notice it does not take into account how much training a dog has had or the control one is able to demonstrate over their dog.

C-dub

sjfcontrol wrote: Well, again that's not my point. Let's separate this from this incident, and look at a hypothetical situation. Let's say I am sitting on my front porch in my favorite rocking chair, with my faithful companion sitting beside me ( my dog, not my wife ) the dog is not on a leash, and the front yard is not fenced. The dog is totally unrestrained, but totally calm. Could an officer drive by, see my peaceful dog, and give me a ticket because the dog "could" leave the property, even though he hasn't?

I think the answer is yes. I'll look for it, but in your scenario your dog is considered "at large" and you could get a citation. I doubt an officer would do it, though. They MIGHT call animal control and have them cite you, but most won't even bother unless there is a complaint from someone else about your dog. And even then it will likely be like an officer showing up to one of us being on someone's property with a 30.06 sign. The officer, if they make contact with you at all, will probably ask you to either put a leash on your dog or put them inside. Then if you refuse you would get the citation.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 17 matches

Re: APD Shot and killed buddy's dog

Re: APD Shot and killed buddy's dog

Re: APD Shot and killed buddy's dog

Re: APD Shot and killed buddy's dog

Re: APD Shot and killed buddy's dog

Re: APD Shot and killed buddy's dog

Re: APD Shot and killed buddy's dog

Re: APD Shot and killed buddy's dog

Re: APD Shot and killed buddy's dog

Re: APD Shot and killed buddy's dog

Re: APD Shot and killed buddy's dog

Re: APD Shot and killed buddy's dog

Re: APD Shot and killed buddy's dog

Re: APD Shot and killed buddy's dog

Re: APD Shot and killed buddy's dog