TexasCHLforum.com

Right2Carry wrote:

mojo84 wrote:There's more than one article and news report. I didn't make it up that the dog had hip dysplasia. The owner said it.

He didn't say it on his on camera interview which is part of the link I attached. The video interview shows how difficult that sign would be to miss.

My Rott lived to be 13 and even with severe arthritis she could move when she needed to. I have no sympathy for irresponsible pet owners.

gljjt wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
Blaming the homeowner that wasn't even there is ridiculous. If the dog was being aggressive and wasn't slowed by hip dysplasia like its owner said, I doubt very seriously it would have still been on or near its bed with cops coming in the door announcing themselves. It would have met them at or near the door.

A. I quoted you exactly. I go on what you wrote. I don't read minds. I wish I could.
B. Don't imply i am rediculous, I never even mentioned, much less blamed the homeowner.
C. I indicated the officers deserve a fair shake, they aren't getting it from some here.
D. I am done here. This is a waste of my time. I'll be in on other topics where I can learn something.

Right2Carry wrote:In the below article the owner states they have a known problem with the front door. The owner also states that he received an alarm notification on his cell phone and disarmed the alarm. Yet nowhere does he say he called the police to warn them of the dog or to cancel the response. The homeowner must accept responsibility for failing to notify police after receiving the alarm notification on his phone. This could have been prevented. The video also shows how hard that window sticker is to see from the front door. This news story could easily have read " officer responding to house alarmed mauled by family Rottweiler".

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/256544 ... wners-home" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

gljjt wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

gljjt wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
I worked a LOT of burgular alarm calls, and we never entered without the consent of the owner. 98% of the time they were false or accidentally triggered by a homeowner or someone at the buisness. >1% was no one there on a break-in, and <1% was the one time we found someone in the business and the owner had given us permission to enter over the


I just watched this report. There was a sign up saying there was a rotweiller inside. The cops entered anyway. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ ... work-video" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Based on this fact and per eellis' comment quoted, it was not a good shoot. The officer should be disciplined.

And if there had been a bad guy in the house, beating, raping or worse to the occupants, the police, not knowing what is occuring, should wait outside because there is a sign saying dog inside? Why even dispatch if you aren't going to really investigate? IMHO an alarm with an open door constitutes probable cause to enter. Seattle had 25,000 alarm calls in a recent year, the majority false. For the 3% that were real (750), if there is a dog sticker/sign, we put that above helping persons in potential danger if there is a dog and the owner can't be found? I hope not.

You may want to look back at the thread to see who said what. I didn't say they shouldn't enter. I said there was a sign saying there was a dog inside and they entered anyway. Therefore, they should have been mentally prepared and not surprised to encounter a dog. Just because there is a dog and it's barking doesn't mean it is being aggressive and presenting imminent danger and needs to be shot.

You implied they shouldn't enter. You said "There was a sign up saying there was a rotweiller inside. The cops entered anyway." This is different than "Therefore, they should have been mentally prepared and not surprised to encounter a dog. Just because there is a dog and it's barking doesn't mean it is being aggressive and presenting imminent danger and needs to be shot"

You are adding to your narrative after I commented. That may be what you thought, but it isn't what you originally said, unless I missed something. It has happened before!

gljjt wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
I worked a LOT of burgular alarm calls, and we never entered without the consent of the owner. 98% of the time they were false or accidentally triggered by a homeowner or someone at the buisness. >1% was no one there on a break-in, and <1% was the one time we found someone in the business and the owner had given us permission to enter over the


I just watched this report. There was a sign up saying there was a rotweiller inside. The cops entered anyway. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ ... work-video" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Based on this fact and per eellis' comment quoted, it was not a good shoot. The officer should be disciplined.

And if there had been a bad guy in the house, beating, raping or worse to the occupants, the police, not knowing what is occuring, should wait outside because there is a sign saying dog inside? Why even dispatch if you aren't going to really investigate? IMHO an alarm with an open door constitutes probable cause to enter. Seattle had 25,000 alarm calls in a recent year, the majority false. For the 3% that were real (750), if there is a dog sticker/sign, we put that above helping persons in potential danger if there is a dog and the owner can't be found? I hope not.

EEllis wrote:

I just watched this report. There was a sign up saying there was a rotweiller inside. The cops entered anyway. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ ... work-video" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What I saw was a small sticker on a window 20 feet from the door. Is that the sign you meant?

Keith B wrote:

EEllis wrote:Unless you don't want police to enter homes when they find an open door during an alarm response I'm not sure where the criticism is coming from. You have a very large dog of a known aggressive breed. The cops were in it's house when no one else was home. I have a hard time believing the dog wouldn't be aggressive in that situation. If a dog like that did bite it would normally be a pretty serious injury. If they had know a rott was inside then I do believe they should of taken a different approach but roasting cops for every shooting irregardless of facts is wrong.

I do not want police entering my home at all unless I have advised them there is a potential hostage situation. If my family is not there, my dog will be hiding from the sound of the siren, and there is no reason for them to enter the home, especially if there is no sign of forced entry. Once I have made it to the house I will make the call of them entering or not.

I worked a LOT of burgular alarm calls, and we never entered without the consent of the owner. 98% of the time they were false or accidentally triggered by a homeowner or someone at the buisness. >1% was no one there on a break-in, and <1% was the one time we found someone in the business and the owner had given us permission to enter over the phone.

Just the extra paperwork and scrutiny made officers be a bit more judicious in their application of force.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote: I think it says a lot that you jump in and argue against people's opinions without even reading the articles. Here you go.

you are correct the article does have the owner mentioning hip dysplasia. But as I said I don't think it proves anything or even makes one thing more likely.

While it may not be conclusive at this point, hip dysplasia is definitely a major factor as to whether it was reasonable to think the dog was a threat. I've had two dogs (both German Shepherds) that had this common big dog malady. When symptoms first appeared, the dogs could pretty much move normally. As it progressed, they were like old men/women with severe arthritis. Getting up was a slow and painful process and running was a thing of the past. Through it all however, they would still bark and could sound menacing. If this dog was in an advanced stage of the disease, he would have done little more than lay on his bed and bark, possibly rising up on his front legs but not getting up, at least not quickly. Even at the moderate stage, the dog would not have been capable of sudden movements. There's no clear evidence if the dog was already standing when the officers came in, but bullet holes in the futon he used as a bed is an indication he was laying down. If the alarm was still sounding when they arrived and if the dog was laying in his bed, then it is an indication the hip dysplasia was more advanced.

This case is significantly different from others that have been in the news. LEOs were answering a burglar alarm call undoubtedly thinking it was another of the 99% that are false alarms. Upon arriving, they probably saw an open door and that changed the nature of the call significantly. If this were the only case reported, I don't think most people would questions the officers' action. However, it's not the first case, it's just the latest of many reported dog shootings and that is what I think has people so upset.

Chas.

EEllis wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:EEllis, you are a resident police apologist. That is fine. Does not bother me, we all have our perspectives. I am likely becoming known as an OC apologist of late. So respectfully I know I won't convince you, what I write is not for your benefit.

These situations are becoming everyday. Look I understand sometimes it is unavoidable, but if shooting a dog is the first instinct of a LEO to a barking dog that person has no place being a LEO. If you cannot handle the stress of an irritated dog I do not trust you with dealing with a belligerent teen without resorting to violence. The level of disregard for the value of life even that of a dog has become disturbing.

I admit I have a high standard before placing blame. I don't think that means I'm a "police apologist". I also think that many use that term as an insult and as a way of ignoring statements made by that person. It is a personal comment and has nothing to do with any points made. As to your comments. You say "barking dog" when it is more likely that it was a charging 120lb rott. See the difference? They didn't shoot thru a fence they were in a confined space with the dog. For all we know the dog was still sleeping when they shot it but it's funny how you frame it as just a barking dog. Not everyone places the same value on pets as you. Many officers are unwilling to get even a small nip before shooting others wouldn't shoot unless their lives depend on it. Peoples background play a large roll in what importance they place on pets and it doesn't equate to automatic lack of concern of human life.

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote: In which of your law books did you learn the legal term "regardless"?

The dog had hip dysplasia and was shot on or near its bed. Doesn't sound like a charging aggressive threat to me. Like I said earlier, I could probably overlook some of these incidents if it wasn't so common. It's too common and I know too many cops' attitudes about how shooting an animal is no big deal.

"irregardless" While not in common use is a word. Not my fault if you don't know that and it wasn't be used as a legal term. I didn't see the info you post in the original source but not sure it proves anything, or really even makes it more likely.

Lane said 8-year-old Bullet, who suffered from hip dysplasia, is not aggressive.

“My dog is in his home, in his room, laying down chilling like he does and he takes a long time. Anybody can come in the house and be like, ‘I thought you had a dog?’ And I do, but he’s not an aggressive dog,” Lane told KVUE.

Lane added that the dog’s blood was cleaned up off the floor, but that bullet holes remain in the wall and the futon Bullet slept on.