TexasCHLforum.com

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.

How about a little fairness and forgiveness?

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

My sincerest sympathy goes out to the owner of the dog. He should not have been drawn down on either.

In the same vein my sympathy goes out to the LEO as well.

Love your neighbor as yourself, and let's not allow this incident to taint our respect and feelings for LEO.

Anygunanywhere

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.

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."

bci21984 wrote:. In my years in law enforcement Ive sprayed many people. Pepper doesnt always work. Im sure its the same with dogs. The dog could have been deadly. So deadly force as a reaction is justified. The use of force continuum adopted by most leo agencies allows a +1 ratio. Our force is justifiable if taken to the level just above the level of force being used against us. Again, none of us were there.

Jumping Frog wrote:I hear all the uproar, and there are simply of couple of issues rolling around in this head of mine.

First, I think getting focused on leash laws was a diversion, because it isn't the leash law that is at issue. The issue is any person (not just LEO's) has the right to defend himself against an attacking dog anywhere he has a right to be. There are two key nuances in that statement. First, what is a reasonable person's interpretation of "attacking dog". Second, the issue of whether they have the right to be on a certain property.

Let's leave the property issue alone for a minute and look at the scenario of a stray dog unaccompanied by an owner running towards you barking aggressively while you are walking in the park. Nowhere does it say you have to let yourself get bitten first to see if the dog is really attacking or just barking. That situation can happen fast. I could see myself going from recognizing a bad situation to actually shooting at a dog within 4 seconds, so the elapsed time on the video does not seem surprising or unusual.

Now, let's look at the property issue. Regardless of the right address or wrong address, that officer had the right to be on that property. He was responding to a call at the address he had been given. You cannot fault the officer for being on that property since he had a right to be there, so the whole "private property" argument falls apart.

As far as gun drawn, we heard a couple of shouts for "show me your hands". Obviously, the officer couldn't see his hands or he wouldn't have been shouting. We don't know exactly when he pointed the gun at the homeowner. For all we know, he had his hand on his holstered sidearm, or he had the sidearm at low ready, until that moment he had someone coming towards him. When he transitioned to actually pointing the gun at the person is a big unknown. So we can debate our suppositions endlessly, like other recent cases in the news, or we can simply admit we don't know what that officer was really facing.

Lastly, I was also struck by the thought that when it was all said and done, that officer did go home safely to his family at the end of his shift. That isn't something to be taken for granted and minimized by people using 20-20 hindsight.

VoiceofReason wrote:http://www.hillcountrynews.com/news/art ... f887a.html

Excaliber wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Now remember that we are only seeing one side of this story, with that said based on what I have read I have to question the officers state of mind. Lets forget about the dog for the moment and look at what happened before the dog came into play. The officer pulls up to a scene where he believes a Domestic Disturbance is happening, guy comes from around back to great him and makes no threating moves, he draws gun and points it at guy. I know that Domestic Disturbance calls are extremely dangerous but drawing a weapon and pointing it at someone with out provocation is not something I think is taught to our officers. Now as I said before we are only seeing one side of this story and I would really like to read/see/hear the officers side as well.

I agree on both points.

The gentleman who lost his dog should file a formal complaint with the agency and insist on a full investigation of the facts.

If the account we have is true and complete, it looks like APD has a supervisor in need of some serious job coaching as well.