TexasCHLforum.com

sugar land dave wrote:For those who attack me personally, you prove my point. Dogs can bring forth strong emotions. I just do not discount fear produced in others. An LEO should not have to suffer a bite or potential thereof. I recognize him as human with the ability to fear and make mistakes. If one should shoot my dogs, I will grieve, but I will not rage. As for my intellect, it is north of 150, but I like to say that I am just as smart as I need to be. In this case, it means not engaging in a fruitless internet squabble over something which does not personally involve me. Sticks and stones may break my bones......

I rescue dogs and find good homes for them even though I am not a member of any animal group. My own dogs are controlled within a 7 foot privacy fence which I personally built to surround all but my front door. They dogs have space to roam on my property while allowing visitors safe access to visit me. I rescued them as pups and never taught them to bite. The yard dog will not bark unless someone enters inside of his fence. He has been trained by me not to charge anyone or jump up on them even though he is a big 90 pound dog. The inside 12 pound dog has the same training. My dogs do not even fear or cower from fireworks and thunder. I took the time to teach them to be the dogs I expected to be. In return, I spoil them gloriously.

In spite of my love for dogs, I will still not choose them over my fellow man in all his glory of strength and weakness. Accidents happen. Mistakes happen. Intellect or Emotion? It's an intriguing question for me I choose one, but another chooses me. Paradox.

Wow, "north" of 150.....too modest to proclaim yourself a genius? We all may be suitably impressed, but you still said in essence that everyone who doesn't see it the way you do is responding emotionally, not intellectually, like you. So while it's true you didn't single anyone out, you insulted everyone who disagrees with you, in a condescending manner that you just repeated with your reference to your IQ. Your IQ is "north" of 150, so you must automatically be right? Please, if that's not your intention in citing your IQ, explain it to us. Also, your classification of a dog as mere property, and the suggestion that when a LEO kills a dog one should just go out and get another one, as if a dog is interchangeable like a TV set, isn't at all "smart," it's just patronizing, ludicrous, and insulting. By your own proclamation, you're way too smart not to understand all this.

Excaliber wrote:If you don't have time to look up the source, it would be appreciated if you'd refrain from wasting ours by posting unsupported statistical garbage that even you don't believe anyway.

Tossing a highly controversial but unsupported statistic into an already heated debate inevitably sheds much more heat than light, and causes those of us who care about leaving unrefuted misinformation on the Forum to spend time hunting down its roots instead of on more productive endeavors.

In my book, going silent, for whatever reason, and failing to respond to an immediate request from a moderator for a reference right after posting that statistic does not enhance a member's credibility either.

Let's use this experience as an opportunity to improve our Forum submissions. My request to all would be to provide a link to the source of any statistic cited so the rest of us can easily do the homework to assess its value.

I'd even like to see it elevated to a Forum rule.

Mods? Charles?

Yes, I should have provided a source. However, it wouldn't change much, especially in this case. In the first place, while a source reference is perhaps better than nothing...how much better is it? If, for example, the source was supposed to be a news article that referenced a study, or even a study itself, what would it tell you? Pretty much nothing more than I didn't just make up the numbers cited --that's it. It wouldn't tell you that the "source" didn't make up the numbers, no matter how supposedly reputable the source might be. For that you'd have to see the study AND the raw data, not someone's description of the study. Secondly, who is to say the source claimed is the actual source? The source you say you found is the not source I see referenced for this particular statistic. I looked around for a few minutes and found the statistic attributed to Don B. Kates and/or Gary Kleck: http://wc.arizona.edu/papers/89/104/03_1_m.html and http://www.keepandbeararms.com/informat ... sp?ID=1776. So who's correct?

There is no statistic, no matter the source, that isn't conditional and debatable. Sources can be cited all day long but it's rare, very rare, to see the actual methodology, and the raw data that a statistical result is compiled from, on the internet, so we're always taking someone's word that a given statistic is relevant and meaningful. Even when a report is available it provides the results, not the raw data, and there is no way of determining whether or not the statistic given is close enough to something we can call "truth" to be meaningful. And that's assuming complete objectively and honestly on the part of the person compiling the statistic --something that is also very rare.

In the case of this particular statistic I'm surprised you find it controversial.....it seems to me that it's pretty much what one would expect --which is why I mentioned it even though I couldn't remember the reference. LEO's are in the business of seeking out and confronting criminals, and they're often introduced into a situation where they can't be certain of who the good guys are. In any case, even if you considered the source to be reliable, it seems to me that the numbers just point to something that could be true: to make a judgment from these numbers would require more data --at a minimum the population each percentage is based on, in addition to much more subjective information like the definitions of LEO, civilian, and "innocent." Any mention of a statistic presupposes some reasonable level of understanding of statistics and logic.

I'm probably not communicating the concept properly, but I don't "believe" any statistic. I view every statistic as suspect, and at best, a guide to making an informed judgement. A statistic can represent something close enough to the truth to be meaningful; it can be "truthful" and yet meaningless; it can be "truthful" and misleading; it can be deceptive; it can be mostly false and yet still meaningful; and a host of other possibilities.

To me, it's not doing your homework just to check on a link provided as a reference. I typed in a few phrases like "how often do police shoot the wrong person" and in a few minutes found links citing Don Kates and Gary Kleck. It seems to me that doing my homework entails my own independent search for and evaluation of references.I don't know how you're going to "fact check" any reference, especially one that is obscure. It's one thing to "fact check" some statement someone claims Obama made --you may find a preponderance of agreement that he did or didn't make such a statement-- it's another thing entirely to "fact check" a reference to a study of any kind, much less one this obscure.

Excaliber wrote:In my book, going silent, for whatever reason, and failing to respond to an immediate request from a moderator for a reference right after posting that statistic does not enhance a member's credibility either.

Seriously? Whatever reason? Checking and answering blog posts is pretty far down on my list of priorities. Furthermore, I don't see what it has to do with my "credibility." I made a remark that I qualified with "supposedly" to indicate that there is reason for doubt --that it shouldn't be taken at face value, and I gave a statistic that doesn't even seem controversial to me, but what one might expect, given the inherent differences between LEO's and non-LEO's. But of course, you're free to make whatever judgement you wish about my credibility --I'm content to let whatever I've posted here stand on its own.

sugar land dave wrote:Ahhh! Emotion vs Intellect. It is always amazing to me the way that Emotion can take a normally quite intelligent person into places and positions that he would normally avoid. Human weakness or Human strength? Does love of a lower life form overcome love of a fellow member of ones own species?

Dogs are not our children, no matter how much we may try to substitute them as such. I love my dogs. I rescued all of them from the street. I never forget though that on this planet, most everywhere that I know of, dogs are property or wild animals. If a LEO shoots one of mine, I will be sad, but I will not be mad. Intellect still rules Emotion within me, and LEO is a fellow good guy, one with an incredibly difficult job.

My condolences go out to the owner who lost his dog. My assurance to him is that there are many wonderful dogs out there in rescue organizations just waiting for a good owner like him to come along. And the police department should pick up the tab.

So, anyone who isn't fine with a LEO killing their dog, from negligence, is ruled by their emotions....but those who have no problem with it, like you apparently, are masters of intellect, unlike the rest of us knuckle draggers. You're a funny guy....it seems to me that you're in fact just the opposite of what you claim to be....you're just ruled by a different emotion and conditioned response, or are afraid to face what intellect tells you is wrong: that a LEO can enter private property without cause, or due to negligence, and kill someone's dog. Since a dog is merely "property" to you, then you're apparently OK with LEO entering private property and destroying it --due to negligence. How "intellectual" of you.

My intellect tells me that allowing LEOs to get away with this kind of behavior is bad for property owners, dog owners, and society at large. My intellect also tells me that a dog is not merely "property" and that one dog is not interchangeable with another, as you seem to believe. Where's that prized intellect when it comes to observing dog behavior? Dogs are obviously individuals, have different personalities, and different levels of intelligence, making them much more than property, and not interchangeable or replaceable like a TV set....your rather glib and condescending assurance to the contrary not withstanding.

Excaliber wrote:

VMI77 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

Supposedly, about 11% of those shot by LEO's are shot by mistake.....and the corresponding number for CHL's is something like 3%.

That's a most interesting statistic that I am not familiar with, although I am very familiar with its subject.

Please provide the source so it can be fact checked.

I wasn't ignoring you, I've been out of town until today, with no internet access. I don't believe any statistics, really, even the ones that are credible....at best, they are a snapshot of something removed from a larger context, and always incomplete. That's why I said "supposedly." I would have provided the source originally, but I couldn't remember where I'd seen the number and when I posted, didn't have time to look it up.

speedsix wrote:...I assume you mean people...that's not surprising, considering how often LEOs point their guns at humans...and how seldom CHLs do...
I sincerely believe that TV and movies have programmed/desensitized officers to pull and point far more often than we ever did in the 70s...it was FAR more common to see an officer approach a suspect with his hand on his holstered weapon rather than to see him with it out and pointed...unless there was a weapon or violence present...it just wasn't done the way it is today...

Yes, people. I agree about TV and movies....and I'd go further....TV is probably the single most destructive influence in the world, and from whence it was once maybe a little silly and superficial, it has become depraved, morally and intellectually degrading, and insidious.

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

Supposedly, about 11% of those shot by LEO's are shot by mistake.....and the corresponding number for CHL's is something like 3%.

anygunanywhere wrote:Regradless of how I feel about any animal, they are never going to be more valuable than a human person. Any human. They are animals.

Can't agree with that....depends on the dog, and the human. For example, you think your dog's life is less valuable than the life of a man who rapes and murders a child? I don't.

anygunanywhere wrote:The real issue here as I see it is that this LEO has been drawn, quartered, charged, tried, convicted, and executed without ever being in a courtroom. Most of this has been done by the same individuals who are quick to scream when someone who shares our love of the 2A and firearms is treated in this manner by those who seek our demise.

What I called for is a financial cost to the city or DEPARTMENT, that would provide an incentive for appropriate training, policy, and restraint. That's a far cry from tried, convicted, and executed. The killing occurred because of negligence. It may not of been the officer's negligence....but it's an issue for his department. The initial report was that the officer and his superior didn't even apologize for the error. That suggests a POLICY that is hostile to property rights, individual rights, and dogs, and unless the officer was violating policy, it's the department LEADERSHIP that is at fault.

anygunanywhere wrote:The man who shot the dog will be living with this for a long time.

That's an assumption that unless you know the officer personally, is without any basis. He may be a dog hater. He may feel justified and not feel any guilt whatsoever. Or he may feel guilty.....it doesn't really matter. It's not an individual issue, it's a departmental issue...a matter of training and policy.

talltex wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

flintknapper wrote:...I’m just saying….I believe (these days) officers have it drummed into their heads that THEIR safety is the only thing that matters and that a certain “warrior” spirit is the only thing that will get them home each day (sigh…….).

The job can be dangerous…no doubt, but if you are unwilling to accept that (and a few bruises and bumps along the way) then maybe Law Enforcement isn’t really the best profession for some folks.

It is undeniable…. the growing divide of the “US vs. THEM” between the public and the police. Why is that?

Thank you, this is the point I was trying to make. You did it better than I (at least, at the end there ;) )

It's pretty obvious from this thread, that there is somewhat of an "US vs. THEM" mindset in place. It's as if any non-LEO questioning an officer's behavior is tantamount to "bashing" them, because "we" don't know what his "perception" of the situation was. Years ago, I worked for the Sheriff's Dept. in a Texas college town, and I'm sorry, but this idea that EVERY officer is facing life or death situations EVERY day they go to work, is fantasy land. Certainly they know there is a possibility they MAY face such a situation on any given day, but 99% of the time it's pretty much routine stuff. Perception plays a big part in the outcome of every situation, because perception is reality, to that person. If you go into every encounter with your primary thought being "I may have to kill or be killed", that colors your perception of events, and you are MUCH more likely to overreact and possibly wind up firing your weapon, because mentally, you are already visualizing yourself in a worst case scenario.

Of course an officer is entitled to DEFEND himself against aggressive behavior...but only AFTER that aggressive behavior has actually occurred. That does not give them the right to act preemptively. It is not acceptable for an officer to punch some one first, just because he thinks they MAY take a swing at him. Nobody has said on officer should "take a beating now and then", but they shouldn't be so afraid of any physical confrontation that their first thought is to pull a gun or taser before a punch has been thrown.

Here's a list of the most dangerous jobs in America: http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/03/01 ... rous-jobs/

LEO's don't even make the top 10.

And to put that in further perspective: http://www.mcrkba.org/LEOsKIA.pdf

Police death rates from intentional and
accidental firearm injury generally have
been decreasing since a peak of 7.3 in
1973 and the 2009 rate of 1.6 is near
the all time 2008 low (1.35) for the past
109 years as you can see from Figure 1.
Since 1940 more officers typically die in
vehicle accidents or assaults than are
killed with firearm accidents or assaults.

Refuse collectors, fisherman, roofers, and truck drivers all have more dangerous jobs than LEO's.

bci21984 wrote:

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.

The service men you mentioned enter property for different reasons than police. I bet your next paycheck that if you took a service man and had him enter a yard under normal pretense, (during the day, homeowner gone) he would get a completely different response than if he entered yelling at the home owner in a commanding voice much like the officer did.

And therein is the problem: someone entering private property and yelling at the home owner in a commanding voice. If the homeowner was breaking the law and this happened, my view would be different. He wasn't. He was innocent of any wrongdoing. If ANYONE else but a LEO or government official did ANYTHING like this they would be accountable for their actions. If, for example, a contractor demolished part of the wrong house he THOUGHT he was supposed to renovate, he'd have to pay for it. When the police kill a dog, due to their own NEGLIGENCE, there are NO CONSEQUENCES.

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.