TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:Surprise surprise. Who didn't see this coming?
http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/256978 ... -justified" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I didn't see one thing that bolsters your claim of .......... what is your exact claim anyway?

Saffron wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Wow! The dog was so aggressive it was still on or near its bed when it was shot. Sad ordeal right there.

Beyond the pale.

To bad he has no idea if that is true.

mojo84 wrote:

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.

So, if your alarm at home went off while you were at wotk and the police responded and shot your dog then said it was aggressive, even though there are bullet holes in his bed, you would be an irresponsible dog owner? Is that what you are saying?

You keep repeating some points like you really think they mean something but I got to say I don't think they do on there own. Yes there was a bullet hole in the futon sofa the dog used as a bed. That same sofa is in a room straight down a hall in line with that hall. If the dog moved down the hall towards 5 he officers the sofa would be in line the whole length of the hallway. Without more info, like the angle of the round that hit the sofa, the fact that a bullet hit the sofa means very little and certainly not what you're implying. You also keep hitting that the dog had hip dysplasia as if that proved something. Without more info it's meaningless. Saying someone has arthritis could mean they are chair bound or that on bad days they pop an advil. Without more info it's worthless. You are taking info that should be investigated and drawing conclusions from it.

gljjt wrote: I was commenting on mojo84's quote and not yours eellis. Sorry for the confusion.

I got that. It was just that he referenced a comment that I made saying that if the cops knew there was a rott inside they may have made different choices by saying that since there was a "sign" the shooting was unjustified. Not only does one thing not lead to the other but I personally wasn't thinking they should stay out just because a sign. Obviously mojo read my comment differently than I meant it so I thought I would clarify my point when you posted your comment.

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.

When I said the cops may have proceeded differently I was thinking they may have called for the dog to see if it was there, but heck the dog may be half deaf or just strange and ignored the calls so the officers still would of made entry. It's all assumption and we know how that goes. Just because they believe there may be a dog inside doesn't mean they shouldn't enter or that there is some safe way to sweep the house even with a dog there.

SewTexas wrote:I thought the "common" or "accepted" practice is to put the sign or sticker or the front window closest to the front door. I've been told by friends that fire and police had told them to put "rescue" stickers and other such stickers there. That's exactly where that sticker was.

It looked to me that it was the window just to the right of the door but it was a.good 15 to 20 feet away. Of course cameras can distort things but.......

rentz wrote:Reading this story today had me re-thinking using a home alarm system, I'd rather lose some items than my dog. Besides my dog is a much better deterrent than any alarm would ever be, she is large and protective which is why we have several signs up indicating beware of dog.

I am not sure about other cities but in mine on the alarm permit application (which is yearly) there is an option to list of a dog is on site and what location the dog would be in.

There are also other options including private monitoring and systems that will just call you and you can remotely check cameras and then decide based on what you see.

mojo84 wrote:

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?

So you are now going to argue the difference between a sign and a sticker? If they were investigating a burglar alarm, they should have seen the sticker.

No credibility in that argument counselor. It's a shame you are more interested in creating doubt than facing what is apparent and common sense.

I asked a question because as far as I knew they had more than one sign. And yes I do think there is a difference between a 3 by 5 sticker in a window and a sign and that the placement matters. The personal bull just isn't necessary.

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?

SewTexas wrote:
I don't see where it says it's a raised futon, it just says "futon" could be a futon mattress that they used, it's not clear.

I won't comment on the rest, I think it's all been hashed out and I just don't feel like getting into an argument.

They showed it on the news report, think couch not mat.

VMI77 wrote:
Not likely in my opinion, having had a German Shepherd and a Great Dane with this condition. Of course it depends on how advanced the displasia is, but both of our dogs went from falling down or falling back occassionally, to about half the time, and after awhile, couldn't get up or walk at all. We had to get a sling for their back hips and hold their hips up so they could move. Once they were down they could not get up at all without assistance.

It's a bit like saying someone has arthritis and then assuming they can't walk. Specifically here I would say that if the dogs condition is that bad it is strange that his bed was a raised futon that the dog would of have to of climbed or jumped up on. The dog is 8 so he wasn't a spring chicken but it's not ancient either.

VoiceofReason wrote:
Question: Can a police officer sue a homeowner if bitten by the homeowners dog?

Yes. Now plenty of factors go into play including if they win they likely have to repay any benefits received from insurance or department.

mojo84 wrote:

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

If extra paperwork proves a suffient deterrent, then the dogs shouldn't have been shot in the first place. If fewer dogs have been shoot and the number of cops being bitten has not risen, then the cops were wrong in shooting them in the first place. Thank you for proving my point.

I'm off to do something productive now.

Prove your point? I stated that point and have done so on other threads previously. I do not know if there was a change to the number of bites though. That would be interesting to find out. It also should be noted that the Austin policy change was pretty recent. If I remember correctly I saw where Houston P D had 150+ bites in a 3 year period that needed medical attention.

JSThane wrote:What bugs me is the apparent lack of critical thinking ability and observational skills on the part of the officers here. If the dog is such an apparent threat, and it's fine and dandy until unknown strangers (the cops) enter the house, then there's not anyone else in the house, or at least no one else that doesn't belong there. If there was anyone there, then the dog took care of them, and the officers don't need to immediately clear the house. If the dog has problems moving, then it's not a major threat, and the officers can (carefully) clear the house to make sure there's no burglar.

When did reasoning skills become obsolete for law enforcement? It has to have been sometime in the 6 1/2 years since I graduated the Academy, because I sure as heck needed them to pass.

Your point requires the assumption that the officers knew the dog was there and was safe in the back napping. I believe if they knew those facts then they would of made other choices so your comment, to me, is off point.

mojo84 wrote:
If the dog was charging, I doubt he would have been close enough to his bed for their to be bullet holes in his bed.

I chose take the word of the lady that owns the home until she is proven wrong or lying. I have no reason to believe the dog was aggressive, charging or a threat to the officers.

If a cop has a dog phobia, he needs to be assigned to a safe desk job or find another career. Putting a scared cop on the streets is akin to hiring a highrise window washer that is afraid of heights. Come to think of it, I'm afraid of heights and I've never applied for a highrise window washing or skyscraper iron worker. Go figure.

Well the woman didn't see anything so .... And the bed was in view directly down the hall. Look down the hall and there is the bed just past the door to the room. It would of been in a direct line if the dog charged down the hall at someone. I don't think the woman is lying I just don't hold up her analysis of events as necessary being correct. And as to the scared of dogs thing, I never mentioned it.