TexasCHLforum.com

Um... wow, this thread exploded. I'm just going to respond to VM177's response to me, and then I'm gonna finish the rest of the thread.

VMI77 wrote:It doesn't change the fact that his unreasonable fear or incompetence resulted in a dog being killed.

Unreasonable fear or incompetence? I'm not so sure it was unreasonable. The worse chewing I got from a dog was at the teeth of a rottweiler that had been taught to play that way by an incompetent owner. If you don't know the dog, you don't know the dog. Did he go overboard? I want to agree, but having been in similar situations, having been chewed on by aggressive dogs -and- playful dogs with no self-control, I can't deny him the benefit of the doubt. I still have scars from the rottweiler incident, and I know I might not respond well in a similar situation. Then again, I might.

VM177 wrote:He was serving a traffic warrant, not busting a drug house.

I wasn't clear on this one. If this was a traffic warrant, it does change things. All these serve is revenue generation, and I want them to go away. If it was a traffic warrant, no cops had any business being on the property. If you must have them, just wait until the next time he gets pulled over, and hook him up then. If someone's going to scofflaw a traffic ticket, they'll usually drive in such a fashion as to get pulled over again. Finding him is NOT going to be difficult.

[quote='VM177"]The notion that a cop should be able to come onto my property to serve a traffic warrant and kill my dog without any consequences is absurd. No one else who comes on my property gets to do this. [/quote]

And neither should the cops. Don't get me wrong, I was not and am not arguing for no consequences. I was arguing that the consequences devolve from the initial mistake - that of the wrong address - and not the subsequent actions. Because of the initial mistake, the rest of it, however justified it -would- have been (or not), becomes the department's liability. Whether or not the officer made the initial mistake will probably determine what, if any, disciplinary action he faces; however, his department holds the liability for any veterinarian costs, property damage, lawsuits, etc. (The mistake could have been from the officer swearing the warrant, the judge issuing it, OR the officer serving it)

VM177 wrote:All he had to do was call the people inside BEFORE he entered their property and ask them to secure any animals. Neither I, nor the Constitution that is supposed to guarantee my inalienable rights, exists to make life easier for law enforcement.

While we're quibbling on exactly -what- the problem was, we're on the same wavelength here. Officer incompetence, judicial inattention, or what, regardless of where we draw the line of error, this family's property rights -WERE- violated, and they are due recompense.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:With respect. I think the problem is that + he shot the dog. Poor doggie.

I get ya, and I do feel bad for dog and owner, but my point was that, had he been at the right address, there wouldn't be any question. Justifying use of force on an animal is a bit simpler than on a person, especially since the dog can't testify against you. (Bad joke, I know, but it's also true) Had the officer had the right address, no one would have questioned shooting the dog. Therefore, shooting a dog is itself not the problem here, but the mistake that led to this whole screw-up is.

I find myself figuring the error here happened in one of two places.

1) When the warrant was being sworn/printed, the address was entered wrong,
OR
2) The officer serving the warrant used a GPS to find the address, and failed to notice the city was wrong.

Either way, it's a departmental/court error, and they ought to pay the costs for the whole thing. I'm not going to go after the officer for shooting a dog he probably believed was attacking him; but I can fault him for being where he had no business. I say that as someone who has been chewed up a time or two (not on duty), and who has come close to having to use force on a dog in self-defense (on duty). Once that animal starts charging, be it either for play, protection, or aggression, you don't really have much time to go back and re-examine the address, etc, before it gets there; it's grab whatever tool pops into your head to use, and set about defending yourself. Add in the additional adrenaline of serving a warrant, fear of some ex-con having violent buddies over, trained attack dogs, etc, and it gets more and more understandable that the officer would shoot first, play fetch later. So I don't fault him here. BUT....

The problem isn't that he shot the dog. The problem is that he was at the wrong address in the first place, and THAT is what makes everything afterward the liability of the department and/or court that issued the warrant.