TexasCHLforum.com

One problem here... which is rooted in the media bias for this story... is that the people who did not see the the events immediately prior to and including the shooting are being referred to as witnesses. If they did not see the shooting or the events immediately prior to it... then they are bystanders.

Their "knowledge" of the shooting and whether it was justified or not is no greater than ours.

They heard the gunshot and turned around and saw the officer with the gun in his hand. Other than establishing that he most likely discharged his weapon, they have no information pertinent to the incident. The dog's behavior last week, the day prior, and even 5 minutes prior to the event don't mean that the dogs were not acting aggressively when they were shot.

There were only TWO witnesses. The shooter and the dog owner.

As for the dog owner's account. It has unexplained discrepancies. The biggest one is that she insists that the dogs had turned away prior to the officer shooting his weapon... but the EVIDENCE shows that the dog was hit in the front of the head, from a distance of about 3 feet. It is not possible for her story and the evidence to both be correct. One of them is unreliable. Personally, I will go with the physical evidence over the story put forth by someone with an emotional attachment to the dog that was shot.

What we are left with is:
1. A dog capable of inflicting serious injury was unrestrained and in close proximity to young children.
2. One person whos story does not match the evidence states the dogs were not acting aggressively.
3. One person whos story does match the evidence says he shot out of necessity.

Circumstantial/background information that is relevent includes:
1. By several accounts, the dogs have a history that does not include aggressive behavior.
2. The shooter whos judgement is being questioned is an experienced, well-trained peace officer who makes his living (and stays alive) by quickly assessing dynamic situations.

I don't understand why a reasonable person would lend more creedence to circumstancial point 1 than 2.

KBCraig wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:"He shouldn't have reacted so fast" when the dog was already within arm's reach. Great thinking there.

I have found no reference to the distance in either of the posted articles. Where did you read that it was "within arm's reach"?

I don't know about arm's reach... but we do have a quote the Chief of police mentioning that the dog was very close.

From this article - http://www.empiretribune.com/articles/2 ... 889780.txt

“We know Chili was not disobeying any laws by carrying his gun in the park,” Tarleton Police Chief Justin Williams said. “The trajectory of the shot and the blood from the dog being on the sidewalk indicates he was close - real close - to Chili and his children, which he perceived as a threat.”

flintknapper wrote: I know of one incident where a Pomeranian killed an infant child.

That's true... but not really relevent to the discussion about using deadly force to stop an animal attack. I don't believe that any of us feel that we would need to shoot a pomeranian in order to stop an attack before serious injury was sustained. There are many other options available that would be just as effective, safer for everyone involved, and less traumatic for any young witnesses.

Substitute that pomeranian with a larger, faster, stronger, better armed (toothed!?) dog and our ability to reliably prevent injury without resorting to taking the shot drops dramatically.

Are there those among us who are confident they could get a pit (or any other large, strong dog) under control without having to shoot it? I'm sure there are a few. Of course, there are also people out there who wrestle 10 foot alligators too... but I'm not one of them :) (Please don't take that as an attempt to equate a pit to a 'gator! - just trying to keep things a little lighthearted as I believe that we all share a lot of values/beliefs even though we disagree on some points).

Flint, I usually agree with your posts... but I'm really on the opposite side of the fence on this one.

Your main argument seems to be an insinuation that he shot the dog simply because it was a pit bull.

In my mind, that is exactly the same thing as playing the race card and saying that an officer only shot "momma's little angel" just because he was (insert skin-color of choice here).

You have absolutely no factual reason to belive that the breed of dog was a contributing factor in the incident, yet you repeatedly offer that as your main argument.

flintknapper wrote:
I disagree. The fact that the girls are purported to have taken these same dogs (daily by one account) to the park with no incidents...is rather telling IMO. ANY animal (or humans for that matter) are "capable" doing things that are unpredictable, I certainly understand that. However, the past conduct/actions of both animals and humans is exactly what we base our trust or distrust on. I remain unconvinced this was a necessary shooting.

According to the study linked above, in more than two thirds of the attacks it was the dog's first known display of aggressive behavior. I'm not going to wait for an animal to "prove" that it is vicious by mauling someone else's child before I take action to protect my own child from it when it is displaying aggressive behavior.

As for past conduct/actions being what we base our trust on... pit bulls are responsible for attacks at a MUCH greater rate than other dog breeds. It is a well documented trait/flaw of the breed. Does that mean we should shoot any pit bull we see? Of course not. Does it mean that I am going to keep a closer eye on a pit bull that is around my children than I will a labrador retriever that is near them? Absolutely.

I also see a lot of people saying that he should have positioned himself between the dog and his kids. First off, we don't know that he didn't do that. Second, dogs are very fast and agile. I've been around large dogs my entire life and I can guarantee that the vast majority of us would NOT be able to stop a dog from getting around us and biting a child if it was attacking at full speed - no matter how well we were positioned. Most of us would be able to get hands on it, or force it to go around us, but very few of us would actually be able to grab the animal and gain enough control over it to prevent it from successfully biting the target. It is a risk that I would not be willing to take with my children. Additionally, even if he successfully grappled with the one dog and got it under control (exposing himself to serious risk of injury in the process), he would have been completely unable to defend his family from the other dogs if they had also attacked.

I think it is foolish for people to suggest that he should have resorted to actions that were unlikely to have stopped the primary threat, greatly increased his risk of serious injury and subsequent inability to defend his children, and left his children exposed to additional potential attackers.

All of the "witnesses" in the story who say how non-threatening the dog was admit that they DID NOT SEE the events immediately prior to the attack. They all say they heard the shot and turned around.

I don't care how well behaved an animal "always" is. It only takes one incident to kill a child or maim them for life. ONLY the owner and the shooter and his children saw the dog's actions immediately prior to it getting shot. Obviously they disagree on what happened... but if you actually read the story, there are no impartial witnesses to the only actions that mattered... the dog's actions immediately prior to the shot.

How many cold blooded killer's relatives have you seen sobbing to the media that their little angel could never have done something like that?? How many serial killers' neighbors and coworkers say, "he seemed like such a nice guy?? How many dog owners whose pets have mauled someone say things like, "he's never bitten anyone in his life"??

I'm sorry, but an animal's history of non-aggressive behavior doesn't mean beans if that animal is currently threatening your children. It might be a one in a million occurrence - but if it is MY child who winds up being that one in a million person that the dog decides to attack, there is going to be a dead dog.

We don't know, nor are we likely to ever find out if the dog was behaving in a way that a reasonable person would find seriously threatening. It is a classic he said, she said situation.

What we DO know is that he was legally armed and a large unleashed dog was in very close proximity to his family. We do know that IF he felt a reasonable fear for his family members, then it was a legal/good shoot.

The fact that the dog owner was violating a city ordnance has nothing to do with weather the shot was justified or not... but I think we can all agree that if she had been following the law and had that dog leashed, none of this would have happened.

I love dogs. I have a 100+ pound german shepherd. He is always gentle and has been socialized around other dogs and people since he was weaned. He doesn't go outside of the back yard without a leash. Why? Not because I expect him to attack someone... but rather because I know that if he DID attack someone, he could cause them serious harm. I understand this and believe it is my responsibility to be able to control him if that one in a million situation comes up. If someone disregards that responsibility with their animal, then I don't feel sorry for them if it threatens someone and has to be put down to prevent it from injuring someone.