Yet another questionable dog shooting by a LEO?

[Charles L. Cotton]

. . . since virtually all these shootings are by police officers --not letter carriers, UPS drivers, meter readers, and salesmen.

This is an issue I've wondered about for a while. All of the people you listed come in contact with far more dogs than do LEOs, but we don't see or hear a lot of reports of them being mauled. Apparently, as others with extensive experience with dogs/training have indicated, the likelihood of being seriously injured (perhaps injured at all) is very low or we would see more reports.

Chas.

I disagree. When I worked regular LE work we responded to those dog bites and took reports. They just don't make the paper. I have a friend and she has been bit many times working postal work. She gets a nice payday each time.

I was a city police officer for 10 years and never once got a dog bite call.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

On the face of it, if you accept the account of the officer, it seems justified. However, it's getting harder and harder to believe police accounts of their behavior, as they get caught lying over and over again again, though usually only when it turns out someone had a recording device they didn't know about. Without some kind of evidence it's impossible to determine if the cop in this instance was in the wrong.

The 12 year old is emotionally involved, and people, including adults, sometimes minimize the bad behavior of their dogs. OTOH, I've also been surprised by people who have dogs, and you'd think would be dog lovers, who have no patience or tolerance for anyone else's dog. But then again, OTOH, it sure seems like this officer was pretty quick to pull the trigger. My wife and I were walking our 150 lb Great Dane one evening when two dogs literally jumped through the screen covering an open 2nd story window and rushed our dog. Somehow, as I tried to get my Great Dane under control, my little 5'4" wife managed to pull off the other two dogs and keep them separated while I got our dog away to defuse the situation --and all without shooting any dogs or sustaining any injuries (and they weren't tiny dogs either....but about pitbull size, though I don't know what the breed was). It sure seems like a lot of police officers are irrationally afraid of dogs, since virtually all these shootings are by police officers --not letter carriers, UPS drivers, meter readers, and salesmen.

True, but letter carriers, UPS drivers, meter readers and salesman do not carry guns and are not trained to stop a threat

Yes they are and they do so without killing the dogs. ....

mail carriers get bit all the time.

No they don't.

Chas.

[talltex]

. . . since virtually all these shootings are by police officers --not letter carriers, UPS drivers, meter readers, and salesmen.

This is an issue I've wondered about for a while. All of the people you listed come in contact with far more dogs than do LEOs, but we don't see or hear a lot of reports of them being mauled. Apparently, as others with extensive experience with dogs/training have indicated, the likelihood of being seriously injured (perhaps injured at all) is very low or we would see more reports.

Chas.

In a previous thread on the dog shot at wrong address in Liberty Hill, I noted that the Houston PD's own report stated that since 2010, they had had 228 dogs shot by officers. The department stated it had ruled every one of the 228 OIS (officer involved shootings) as justified in accordance with departmental policies. In EVERY CASE. Not a single officer was found to have made a mistake or been at fault in 228 investigations....impressive! I also cited a Dept. of Justice report issued in 2012 which "emphasized that serious dog bites in the line of duty were very rare, and no particular breed is especially dangerous, so officers have little reason to feel fear when encountering a canine in the performance of their duties. When an officer shoots a dog which doesn't constitute a serious threat, the safety of his fellow officers and bystanders are compromised and put at risk, and the trust and respect of the community is significantly eroded." My personal opinion is that much of the problem stems from a lack of liability on the police officers part. In all those other occupations which require interaction with pets in yards on a daily basis, the employees are LIABLE for their actions and whatever harm they do. If you remove that immunity from police officers, they would quickly adapt and find non lethal means of dealing with dogs, just like those other folks do.

[EEllis]

. . . since virtually all these shootings are by police officers --not letter carriers, UPS drivers, meter readers, and salesmen.

This is an issue I've wondered about for a while. All of the people you listed come in contact with far more dogs than do LEOs, but we don't see or hear a lot of reports of them being mauled. Apparently, as others with extensive experience with dogs/training have indicated, the likelihood of being seriously injured (perhaps injured at all) is very low or we would see more reports.

Chas.

In a previous thread on the dog shot at wrong address in Liberty Hill, I noted that the Houston PD's own report stated that since 2010, they had had 228 dogs shot by officers. The department stated it had ruled every one of the 228 OIS (officer involved shootings) as justified in accordance with departmental policies. In EVERY CASE. Not a single officer was found to have made a mistake or been at fault in 228 investigations....impressive! I also cited a Dept. of Justice report issued in 2012 which "emphasized that serious dog bites in the line of duty were very rare, and no particular breed is especially dangerous, so officers have little reason to feel fear when encountering a canine in the performance of their duties. When an officer shoots a dog which doesn't constitute a serious threat, the safety of his fellow officers and bystanders are compromised and put at risk, and the trust and respect of the community is significantly eroded." My personal opinion is that much of the problem stems from a lack of liability on the police officers part. In all those other occupations which require interaction with pets in yards on a daily basis, the employees are LIABLE for their actions and whatever harm they do. If you remove that immunity from police officers, they would quickly adapt and find non lethal means of dealing with dogs, just like those other folks do.

I think it's the training or lack of it that is a big part of the issue. There is no training at all for HPD on handling dogs. Also their policy is pretty plain. If you think the dog will bite then you can shoot it. But lets face facts If you secure your dog where the public can't encounter it then it never becomes an issue. The cops may not be good with dog encounters but as an owner it's your job to ensure that it never comes up. The cops only shoot dogs when the owner fails that dog. Houston does have issues with animal control. There are about 1200 reported dog bites a year in the city. Houston also had 27 mail carriers bit last year.

[talltex]

I think it's the training or lack of it that is a big part of the issue. There is no training at all for HPD on handling dogs. Also their policy is pretty plain. If you think the dog will bite then you can shoot it. But lets face facts If you secure your dog where the public can't encounter it then it never becomes an issue. The cops may not be good with dog encounters but as an owner it's your job to ensure that it never comes up. The cops only shoot dogs when the owner fails that dog. Houston does have issues with animal control. There are about 1200 reported dog bites a year in the city. Houston also had 27 mail carriers bit last year.

Your solution is that the owners should keep their dogs confined inside the house at all times to eliminate any chance of them encountering anyone else, so it never becomes an issue? REALLY? Why not just take it a step further and declare they shouldn't have them at all....after all, on a rare occasion you might have a non family member inside the house too....carpet cleaners, bridge club, plumber... the possibilities are endless. "THE COPS ONLY SHOOT DOGS WHEN THE OWNER FAILS THAT DOG"...EEllis, I've got to give you credit...you are relentless and unstoppable when it comes to denying culpability for ANYTHING a police officer does. Hey, waaaaait a minute, I've got it...are YOU are the HPD spokesman who said that every one of the 228 dog shootings was justifiable and not a single one of the officers was at fault under departmental policies? So, there were 27 mail carriers bitten last year...those mail carriers were interacting with peoples dogs EVERY day, and only 27 of them were bitten in a 12 month period, while the officers, who only interacted with the dogs occasionally, felt threatened enough to shoot an average of 10 dogs a month during that year. YEP...clearly it's the owners fault.

[brainman]

But lets face facts If you secure your dog where the public can't encounter it then it never becomes an issue. The cops may not be good with dog encounters but as an owner it's your job to ensure that it never comes up. The cops only shoot dogs when the owner fails that dog .

Definitely. If I secure my dog in my backyard behind a gated fence (you know, so he won't come in contact with the public), no cop will come to my house looking for someone who doesn't live here and stroll into my gated yard and shoot my dog a that was obviously threatening him. And I'm quite certain that if I keep my dog inside, behind locked doors (so the public can't encounter him), I don't have to worry that a SWAT team that is just too busy to double check my address won't smash my door in and shoot my dog. I'm glad such things could never happen because I took the time to secure my evil terror of a dog.

[Hoosier Daddy]

I also cited a Dept. of Justice report issued in 2012 which "emphasized that serious dog bites in the line of duty were very rare, and no particular breed is especially dangerous, so officers have little reason to feel fear when encountering a canine in the performance of their duties. When an officer shoots a dog which doesn't constitute a serious threat, the safety of his fellow officers and bystanders are compromised and put at risk, and the trust and respect of the community is significantly eroded."

http://www.wxii12.com/news/local-news/p ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Roundtree fired one shot at the dog, and the shot ricocheted on the pavement of Whitt's driveway, police said. Whitt, who said she was standing in the driveway near the dog, was hit by bullet fragments that remain in her leg.

The dog ran away and was later found with a leg injury that appeared to be a gunshot wound, police said. The dog was under quarantine at the Forsyth County Animal Shelter as of Thursday.

The man who led to the initial police call hadn't been found as of Thursday.

[texanjoker]

. . . since virtually all these shootings are by police officers --not letter carriers, UPS drivers, meter readers, and salesmen.

This is an issue I've wondered about for a while. All of the people you listed come in contact with far more dogs than do LEOs, but we don't see or hear a lot of reports of them being mauled. Apparently, as others with extensive experience with dogs/training have indicated, the likelihood of being seriously injured (perhaps injured at all) is very low or we would see more reports.

Chas.

I disagree. When I worked regular LE work we responded to those dog bites and took reports. They just don't make the paper. I have a friend and she has been bit many times working postal work. She gets a nice payday each time.

I was a city police officer for 10 years and never once got a dog bite call.

Chas.

We obviously have worked at different agencies.

[C-dub]

Maybe this will help a little.

http://about.usps.com/news/national-rel ... 13_052.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fiscal Year 2012 U.S. Postal Service Dog Attack City Ranking

Ranking City, State Attacks

• 1 Los Angeles, CA 69
  2 San Antonio, TX and Seattle, WA 42
  3 Chicago, IL 41
  4 San Francisco, CA 38
  5 Philadelphia, PA 34
  6 Detroit, MI 33
  7 St. Louis, MO 32
  8 Baltimore, MD and Sacramento, CA 29
  9 Houston, TX and Minneapolis, MN 27
  10 Cleveland and Dayton, OH 26
  11 Buffalo and Brooklyn, NY 24
  12 Denver, CO 23
  13 Dallas, TX and Tacoma, WA 21
  14 Wichita, KS 20

[EEllis]

I think it's the training or lack of it that is a big part of the issue. There is no training at all for HPD on handling dogs. Also their policy is pretty plain. If you think the dog will bite then you can shoot it. But lets face facts If you secure your dog where the public can't encounter it then it never becomes an issue. The cops may not be good with dog encounters but as an owner it's your job to ensure that it never comes up. The cops only shoot dogs when the owner fails that dog. Houston does have issues with animal control. There are about 1200 reported dog bites a year in the city. Houston also had 27 mail carriers bit last year.

Your solution is that the owners should keep their dogs confined inside the house at all times to eliminate any chance of them encountering anyone else, so it never becomes an issue? REALLY? Why not just take it a step further and declare they shouldn't have them at all....after all, on a rare occasion you might have a non family member inside the house too....carpet cleaners, bridge club, plumber... the possibilities are endless. "THE COPS ONLY SHOOT DOGS WHEN THE OWNER FAILS THAT DOG"...EEllis, I've got to give you credit...you are relentless and unstoppable when it comes to denying culpability for ANYTHING a police officer does. Hey, waaaaait a minute, I've got it...are YOU are the HPD spokesman who said that every one of the 228 dog shootings was justifiable and not a single one of the officers was at fault under departmental policies? So, there were 27 mail carriers bitten last year...those mail carriers were interacting with peoples dogs EVERY day, and only 27 of them were bitten in a 12 month period, while the officers, who only interacted with the dogs occasionally, felt threatened enough to shoot an average of 10 dogs a month during that year. YEP...clearly it's the owners fault.

Really? That is what you got from that? Have you gotten so worked up you can't even read what I write anymore?

[talltex]

What part of "If you secure your dog where the public CAN'T encounter it then it never becomes an issue" did I fail to understand? The police officers obviously CAN encounter them in a fenced yard, because that's where most of the dog shootings people are upset about have occurred. So, where is it that you think they should secure their dogs "to ensure that it never comes up"?

[EEllis]

What part of "If you secure your dog where the public CAN'T encounter it then it never becomes an issue" did I fail to understand? The police officers obviously CAN encounter them in a fenced yard, because that's where most of the dog shootings people are upset about have occurred. So, where is it that you think they should secure their dogs "to ensure that it never comes up"?

I think it's the training or lack of it that is a big part of the issue. There is no training at all for HPD on handling dogs. Also their policy is pretty plain. If you think the dog will bite then you can shoot it.

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.

[Cedar Park Dad]

What part of "If you secure your dog where the public CAN'T encounter it then it never becomes an issue" did I fail to understand? The police officers obviously CAN encounter them in a fenced yard, because that's where most of the dog shootings people are upset about have occurred. So, where is it that you think they should secure their dogs "to ensure that it never comes up"?

Exactly.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

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.

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.

[EEllis]

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.

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.

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.

When cops are wrong they are wrong. I said that there is no training in handling dogs required by Tclose and doing so would greatly reduce the need for officers to be involved in dog related shootings. When Austin implemented specific training and mandated all dog shootings go up the chain of command instead of just investigated by the officers supervisor the rate of shootings was cut in half. That is a good thing. I still see way to many loose dogs and too many people who say that their dog has never been violent right after their pet has bit someone.