TexasCHLforum.com

flintknapper wrote: With all due respect, you really have your head in the sand if you don't think there are people out there that:

I never said it is not POSSIBLE that there are people like this, just that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY in this case, that this is one of those people, given the evidence and the circumstances. Sheesh!!

Not everyone who shoots a dog does so out of terror or ignorance about dogs!!

Now...I am not accusing Officer Alexander of having any of these views/feelings.

of course you are, this is the basis of your argument.

But one thing I DO know is that he discharged a firearm in public/populated/park setting and that someone could have been seriously injured or killed because of that action. Sorry, but I believe that it is the duty of the Police dept., the city, and the public... to determine if this was reasonable and necessary.

THEY DID! That's why the guy has not been charged. But just because they didn't assume that the dude had some undue hatred or fear of dogs instead of actually listening to his reasonable testimony, we have 14+ pages of you throwing garbage at the man.

There simply does not exist enough evidence (or witnesses) in this event to point one way or the other.

What? That's the thing. The officer is enough of a witness, the evidence supports his story, and there is no indication that he is a crazed anti-dog nut, so that's the end of the story.

flintknapper wrote: The bottom line for me is this:

Dog really was aggressive (for whatever reason), was close to children (pretty much established), officer is semi familiar with dogs, and not overly afraid of them, Dog really is growling or displaying other unmistakable signs, kids are not in a position to retreat and are in great fear, etc...

Funny how this is also the one and only witness's account of the story goes, and this is normal and reasonable to expect as the probable cause of the officer shooting the dog, and this weighs in as normal and expected from every angle you look at it.

Conversely, if the man doesn't own dogs, doesn't know dogs, has a fear of dogs, has had a bad experience with dogs, kids are afraid of dogs, has a support group that as a whole doesn't like dogs (or certain types), then I can very easily see a mistake being made if a dog approached his kids

While this is almost completely ridiculous and only exists as a likely description of reality in your imagination.

Thanks Sangiovese for succinctly and intelligently making the point that I have been so clumsily trying to make.

I agree with what you said 100%. It's right on the money.

flintknapper wrote: Well heck, why not.......lets do this one more time.

I do not "insist" the dog approached tail wagging, tongue out, or otherwise, please re-read my posts. I am suggesting that it is an equally plausible event to it charging the children "growling and snarling" and for good reason.

Well ok, then. You think it's "equally plausible". I think there is maybe a 1% probability. You see this police officer doesn't have a history of hunting dogs either, as far as we are aware, so we should probably assume he is a normal reasonable person to begin with unless we have evidence otherwise, and the chances of a normal reasonable person just shooting a friendly dog are extremely small. IMHO of course.

Why is there a "high likelihood" that the dog was behaving in a threatening manner? The facts overwhelming support the dogs normal demeanor as NOT being aggressive or troublesome.

The high likelihood is because the dog's behavior prompted a police officer to shoot it, and his account of the situation supports this as a good shooting. The dog's "normal demeanor" is completely irrelevant, since the dog was not shot while undertaking its normal demeanor.

Did you read any of the testimony the girls and others gave?

You mean the ones that say things like "I can't believe they let some guy carry a gun stuffed down his shorts and just go blasting away"? Like I said many times, I think the testimony of the dog owners is completely unreliable, because they clearly have a strong case for bias.

Here are some pointed questions for you, please answer all of them for me...(and with something more than "I don't know" please).

1. Why would a group of dogs doing something they had done before (playing in the water many dozens of times) suddenly become violent and aggressive and pin a couple of boys against a fence?

Because they did. You expect me to time-travel, read the mind of some dog 250 miles away, and answer this question with something other than "I don't know"?

2. Why would these vicious and uncontrollable animals not have attacked the ducks or the squirrel that were close by, seems like a more likely target? Could it be because they are not aggressive.

uhh, because they were busy attacking the children? again who knows!

3. Do you think it is possible that someone that is afraid (maybe terrified) of dogs might see the animal as nothing but a big head with teeth coming (completely missing the non aggressive posture), is that possible?

Sure anything's possible. That type of person would be a complete moron for going to a public park to begin with. So I would say this is JUST AS LIKELY as it is that the dog was not actually behaving aggressively. Let's say 1% chance this was happening, and 1% chance the dog was being friendly, and 98% chance the people (including the children) were responding normally to the animal and the animal was in fact being aggressive, to the surprise of the owner and her friends.

4. What is the "likelihood" that these dogs have encountered other children in the park before (excellent huh), why didn't they attack them? Why didn't they attack a grown up, another dog, anything, nothing at all in all this time they have been in the park (dozens of times)? Aren't you just a little curious, or has your own experience perhaps resulted in the "bias" you accuse me of?

The only "bias" I have here is that a police officer encountered events that prompted him to take the serious step of shooting a dog, so it would be extremely unlikely for there to have been no cause.

Every dog that ever bites or attacks a person does so one time for the first time. It's not like they are puppies and from day 1 they constantly bite everyone they encounter. And as far as we know, this dog may have indeed bitten or attacked other people, dogs, etc. and the victims or witnesses are just not coming forward. Only the dog would know who they are, if they were not witnessed by the owner of the dog during any such attack. So the real answer to this question is not only the dreaded "I don't know", but also "we don't know".

So, how does this work for you? The discussion here (at least on my part) has not challenged the officers right to have a firearm, I fully support that. Are you saying that the paper has purposely misrepresented either side? Looks like they have reported everything they can get their hands on.

Looks like! Now we also can read the minds of reporters as well as bullet-resistant dogs.

The fact is: The girl (and numerous on line posters) have responded to the event. The officer is laying low and has contributed nothing further, Zero, Zilch. How is the paper at fault for that, tell me?

Are you suggesting that the paper's report was unbiased?

If you were in the officer's position, and the following had occurred:

1. you shot a dog that you believed was attacking your children
2. your lawyer told you not to say anything to anyone about it
3. the newspaper report was heavily biased against the very idea of even carrying a gun, much less using it
4. whatever you might say would likely not get reported without additional bias

would you go on the record and say something to the press?

Many other folks were witnesses until just moments before the shooting, the dog owner for one. The officer and his children were obviously witnesses, but we haven't heard a peep out them. But somehow, because the girls were unaware that they were breaking any laws/ordinances their testimony is inadmissible, can only be inaccurate and unreliable in your mind...and nothing they say should be trusted or have any weight. How very convenient.

No, I guess it is very inconvenient for the police officer that nobody else witnessed the event, because it does not offer him any other witness to corroborate his story. Now all of the other witnesses are not actually witnesses to the event, and the dog owner is unreliable as a witness, even if she were a witness, simply because she is the dog's owner. The fact that she also has an unfounded fear of guns and is ignorant to the leash law simply enforces this.

IF these people had ACTUALLY WITNESSED the event, and not some time before the event, but the real event, THEN they could be evaluated as witnesses. But they did not witness it. We have only one adult witness.

It is my fervent hope not to have to use deadly force against man or beast, but I will without hesitation if there is clear and present danger of a nature requiring that kind of action. I hope the same for you and everyone else here.

Why then are you so unwilling to begin with the idea that this officer acted exactly as you would?

If ever I am unfortunate to be involved in a deadly force shooting, I expect and welcome the full scrutiny of my peers. I will have every confidence that they will judge correctly....because I do not intend to employ such force unless their is an obvious and reasonable need.

Obvious to whom? There are no other witnesses in this case.

This all really reminded me of the events surrounding my own run in with my next-door-neighbor's pit bull, and how I had wished that the police officer had shot it rather than believing the insane owner when she swore the dog was perfectly friendly and under control.

If the lady did not witness this event then it is understandable that she had doubts, what is so hard to fathom about that. [/quote]

Are you talking about my neighbor? She had witnessed her dog attacking people many times! She had pressured neighbors whose children had been bitten to not call the police. She went into hysterical crying fits with the idea that her precious dog was going to be taken away. So even though she knew full well that the dog was dangerous, she would not allow it to be dealt with. So here we have at least one dog owner who was completely irrational, so that's why I am saying it's just as POSSIBLE that this dog owner is also irrational, just like you say it is POSSIBLE that the children who were being attacked had a phobia of dogs. Sure, anything is POSSIBLE. So that's why we have to seek the account of a reasonable person who witnessed it, in this case, the shooter.

I would have shot, and hopefully killed, a dog whose owner, family members, and other dog-character-witnesses would have sworn up and down was a perfectly good dog, just trying to be friendly.

Here we would have had a circumstance closely paralleling the one we have been discussing. By shear numbers (of witnesses), we might have say..... 15 people whose experience with this dog has been nothing but good. Versus ONE person who says it was not. Why is it unreasonable to have "questions" when we see this type of disparity and why does it upset you and others so....when I apply it to this case (which seems to have more holes in it than that).

Because those 15 people did not actually see the event.

You might ask, why would the person who alleged the attack make up something like that. And an excellent question that would be. If the case went to court...how would we determine your trustworthiness (since I assume your children were not bitten and there is no other evidence to speak of). If it comes out that in the past you have told your neighbors that "if they don't keep that blankity blank pit-bull in their yard then they will be burying it", if it turns out that you posted "you'll get your rifle out and hunt them down even they are doing nothing" on the INTERNET for all to see, etc....then I fully expect a jury to suspect that you are just "laying" for the dog, or have an unnecessary and unreasonable fear of them.

none of this speculation is relevant to this case.

If on the other hand, you are a dog owner, are not overly afraid of dogs (watchful though), have been around dogs before, haven't instilled in your children any phobias, and have not had any harsh dealings with your neighbors then I'd say If I were on the jury....I'd sure listen to you.

So there it is! The test for whether you are a reasonable person is if you are a dog owner!

So I guess my question is: Which one of these scenarios best describes the officer (maybe something in between).

Howabout this scenario. He's just a normal regular guy, just like you and me. He has normal and regular expectations of how dogs should behave and has normal and regular reactions to seeing an apparent attack on his children, and has the normal high standard for responding to such an attack by firing his gun.

Because it would be most normal to expect the guy to be normal.

[/quote]
I don't belong to PETA.

I figured this would come up!

BTW my nutso neighbor did belong to PETA.

I'm sick of arguing about this.

flintknapper wrote:

I believe the father was pro-active in defending his children instead of waiting for a time that it may have been too late.

This seems to be a popular viewpoint...and you may be right, we don't know.

It is easy to sit here and be a arm chair quarterback and criticize a father for protecting his children from what he deemed as a credible threat.

This keeps coming up. The fault with it however, is that no questions concerning the "reasonableness" of his belief/perception are to be allowed. The dissenter seeks to exploit the Father-Child relationship (a highly emotional thing) to his advantage. The premise seems to be that as long as the Parent feared for the child then any action to correct the perceived threat is acceptable and expected. The law of course, would rightfully demand the action be normal and reasonable and that others (in a similar situation) would have acted in the same way. For me, a dog approaching is NOT a reason for me to jerk my weapon. There must be a compelling reason for me to believe that the animal means me harm.

The problem with your position here, at least as far as I can read and comprehend it, is that it is so very biased and blind to the overwhelming likelihood that indeed the man's reaction was in fact reasonable that there is no way I can see to effectively communicate. There can be no common ground as long as you insist that the dog MUST have been just approaching with its tail wagging and its tongue out or in some other non-threatening manner.

The high likelihood is that the dog was behaving in a threatening manner, and the uninformed, ignorant and otherwise extreme anti-gun "witnesses" are completely unreliable, most of which the dog's owner who didn't even know about a leash law. The news reports posted are also ridiculously biased against guns in general so there is little chance that the true story is really getting reported. Given these things, the most dependable witness is the man who shot the dog, because he is the one who has not demonstrated his complete ignorance of the law with regards to shooting a dangerous animal, and he was the only one who was actually a witness to the event.

Flint, I just hope if you ever have to fire your weapon in defense of yourself or your family against a dog, mouse, human predator or whatever other threat, that people don't try and crucify you the way you are attacking this poor guy who shot the dog. You may find new respect for the opinions of those, maybe particularly those on a grand jury, who have a lot less emotional attachment and insistence in the infallible good nature of the BG you have to shoot than you are demonstrating in favor of this dog.

This all really reminded me of the events surrounding my own run in with my next-door-neighbor's pit bull, and how I had wished that the police officer had shot it rather than believing the insane owner when she swore the dog was perfectly friendly and under control. If I had owned a gun on the day that dog came over my fence and came at my kids, then it would be me you would have been attacking for my motives for shooting a dangerous animal because of course, I would have been the only witness and I would have shot, and hopefully killed, a dog whose owner, family members, and other dog-character-witnesses would have sworn up and down was a perfectly good dog, just trying to be friendly. Who knows how many more children that dog has bitten in the 8 or so years since that happened.

So here's hoping you're not on any jury I have to face. I'll take jurors without blind faith in the goodness of pit bulls in spite of the testimony of a reasonable person.

KBCraig wrote:and, the unlikelihood, given the details as reported, that this was an actual attack.

That is all.

Of course it was not an actual attack. It was a prevented attack.

I don't see how anyone can read the dog's mind and determine whether the animal is going to carry out an attack.

Not all of us are "dog whisperers" who can intimate the feelings and motivations of canines. It's ridiculous to expect the average, normal person to be able to discern all of the finer points of animal behavior to predict an attack. Even experts get it wrong sometimes, just ask Steve Irwin and Sigfried and Roy. There is simply no way to know if inaction on the part of the shooter would have resulted in the dog carrying out the attack or not.

IMHO we just have to trust people to make reasonable decisions more than we trust our opinion of the good nature of all dogs.

yes KB and any anecdotal reports do not add up to statistically-valid data.

That may be unbiased data, but it is purely anecdotal and there are numerous anecdotal accounts of people mauled or killed by pit bulls.

It would be very difficult to compile any statistics that would be of any merit to this discussion, much like "gun violence" statistics. It would be too easy to cook the numbers so they support whatever position suits those running the study.

Flint, you use the terms "perceive" and "perception" as if it is something we choose.

We all have only our perception from which to react. If I perceive the dog is a threat, then as far as my ability as one person thinking is concerned, the dog is a threat. I can't decide to rely upon another person's perception or any after-the-fact analysis with which to make an immediate choice. My perception is the whole of my input on the situation.

BTW the dog owner in this case may know the dog better than anyone else, but also they are far and away the most biased witness in this whole thing. The pit bull owner that was my neighbor was in abject denial about the dangerous state of her pet. I would put zero faith in the dog owner's testimony. Zero.

Anyway no hard feelings from my end. I don't really think you reasonably do think the things that you seem to be suggesting in your posts. But I do think that you are putting far too much faith in the good nature of this dog or dogs in general, and far too little faith in the good will of normal responsible people. The whole CHL ideal is predicated upon the trust that regular people are going to make the right choices the majority of the time, so there is no reason to deny them their right to carry a gun. Is this not true for regular people's choices regarding dogs they see as threats, as well as human predators?

flintknapper wrote: I am really not as dense as you would paint me to be. Of course size/breed can be a factor, my point (somehow lost on you) is that it should NOT be the ONLY factor. Hard to believe you missed that, its clear you are an intelligent man.

I don't see anyone stating that it is the ONLY factor. If it is not your position that the breed or size of the dog should not be a factor, then what are we debating here? I agree the dog's breed and size should be one factor, and if you also agree, then what's the point of debate?

I must have missed the post about the dude going dog hunting. I don't think that's the general sentiment. Is there anyone involved in this discussion who thinks that the ONLY factor that should be considered when evaluating whether one should shoot a dog is the breed of the dog? Like, you are going to let a Labrador kill your child but you'll shoot a pit bull on sight? That's preposterous, isn't it? The notion that some people think that the breed of dog is the ONLY factor is largely unsupportable.

I will say that this discussion has been enlightening for me and scary at the same time. I am truly shocked at the mindset of some folks here. It seems many are willing (some eager) to summarily dispatch any free roaming animal they encounter that could "possibly" pose a threat. You have to wonder if they carry this same "fear" into their daily lives and how they would react to a "perceived" human threat?

See this is what I am talking about.

Did anyone actually say that they are willing, or eager, to "summarily dispatch any free roaming animal they encounter that could 'possibly' pose a threat"? I've read this whole thread and I must have missed the post that said that, but you are suggesting that there are actually more than one who have expressed this sentiment.

Then you go on to suggest that this mindset, which is not indicated as far as I can tell, translates to a willingness to go out and kill people who are not actually a threat, is that right?

I am not going to go back and re-read this whole thread to comb through and see if we really do have a bunch of sociopaths on the forum that have expressed these ideals but I think I would have noticed if this was really the case.

What we actually have are some people who believe that some breeds of dogs, including pit bulls, are by their very nature more dangerous than other breeds, and therefore some of us would respond with elevated alert to what we perceive as aggressive behavior from these more-dangerous dogs than we would to other dogs. That doesn't mean that we see the mere presence of such a dog as an imminent deadly threat! I mean if I am out walking in the neighborhood and see someone walking a pit bull and the dog is going about minding its business and on a leash, then there is absolutely no cause to shoot the dog! But if I am at a park and there is an unleashed dog, owner refusing to restrain it, who is approaching my kids in what I reasonably think is a threatening manner then the dog is much more likely to be shot at if it is a pit bull than if it is a dachshund.

Your "questions" are about the motives of the shooter, AFAICT. You seem to be suggesting or "questioning" that the officer who shot the dog is lying about the encounter, and that he was in fact eager to shoot the dog just simply because it was a pit bull, am I right? So are you considering that the testimony of an off-duty police officer protecting his children is perhaps less reliable than your steadfast opinion about the chances of a pit bull to become aggressive? It seems to me that you are really so convinced that pit bulls are all 100% harmless that you would question the validity of a father's account of the incident even though you were not there, no witnesses can refute his testimony directly, and all other evidence seems to support his position.

Please do correct me if I am wrong about what you are "questioning".

Now of course maybe the guy is lying, maybe his kids were on the opposite side of the park, maybe he followed the pit bull owner to the park with the express intent of killing the dog because he has an unreasonable hatred of pit bulls. If it turns out that way, then I will quite gladly concede that you were right to question it. The odds of that are virtually zero but there is always a chance :)

I really don't have a dog in this fight :) I believe the shooter has every right to defend his children and has no real motive to lie about this encounter but I presume that most people are basically reasonable and are going to make the reasonable choice under these circumstances. However I wasn't there and don't know for sure, and really I'm just kind of put off by the suggestion that anyone who does not believe that pit bulls are unjustly vilified are automatically dog-blood-thirsty hair-trigger maniacs hoping for the chance to kill an innocent pet. Maybe we just don't want to have to try and figure out how to shoot this dog after the kid's head is already in its jaws.

Wildscar wrote: People label me a someone that going to beat them up if I look at them wrong or I’m just in their store to rob them of steal from them(Yes I have been followed more than once around a store). It’s kind of funny some times when a coworker and I get onto an elevator here at work and there is a kid there. The kid normally looks at the coworker first and smiles and what not but then glances over to me and practically starts crying. I don’t do it on purpose it’s just the look I have.

It is a fact that humans have a survival instinct and have developed a sense of how to identify a potential threat, be it human animal or vegetable, by way of all kinds of non-rational cues. So if you look like you might be a threatening type of person, then I think it's reasonable and totally understandable for people to perceive a heightened sense of threat when around you, regardless of whether you actually have any intent to harm anyone. The same is true for animals as well. Likewise an innocuous-looking person may indeed be a threat but is not perceived as one because they don't have outward indicators that trigger a heightened threat response.

So you know I think it's natural and normal for people to respond to people and animals that *look* threatening as if they might be an elevated risk. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, and certainly not every scary looking guy is actually there to hurt you and not every pit bull is actually there to attack your children but many people get hurt or killed because they gave the bad guy or bad animal the benefit of the doubt when they should have been at higher alert.

BTW I don't think anyone has advocated going around looking for unleashed pit bulls to shoot down without any cause. My position is that the fact that the dog was a pit bull reasonably raises the alert level of someone who needs to protect their children, and therefore when there is an animal who can potentially kill the children, we need to cut the guy some extra slack if he elected to be better safe than sorry. I get the impression that Flintknapper may not believe that one should consider the breed/size/etc. of the dog as a factor when evaluating whether or not it might be a threat, and that is likely where we disagree. Somehow though, this point always gets turned into "you want to go out and shoot every living pit bull, and you're an uninformed dog-racist living in fear!". It would really help us to have a reasonable discourse if we could actually respond to what each of us is actually saying, rather than assuming motives that are just clearly not there.

I have to say, though, any dog that can get shot with a .40SW in the head and survive is a bad mamajama.

One source says pit bulls are good animals full of all sorts of admirable and lovable qualities, the bad ones are just flukes, and most of the information about pit bulls being bad pets are based on myths.

The other source says pit bulls are basically bad animals, good and lovable ones are flukes, and most of the information supporting their good qualities are full of misinformation.

Looks to me like a classic difference of opinion. Obviously the person who has suffered a pit bull attack has extremely understandable misgivings about these dogs and they don't mince words on their web site. I am not advocating this site, but just saying that it is no more biased than those sites that support pit bulls as benign lovable pets. It's very little different than the obviously in your face web sites written by people who are advocates of self defense and have been victims of violent crime themselves, vs. the generally passive nature of the rest of people who have never been a victim and are apathetic to the whole idea. I figure once you get attacked by a pit bull, you might have cause to change your tune. If you never suffer such an attack then you might not understand why some people are so virulently opposed to these dogs running free.

flintknapper wrote:

mr.72 wrote:I don't see how that's any more biased than a pro pit bull source.

Do you see that anyone here has submitted an obviously "pro pit-bull source" in order to make a point?

you mean like this one posted earlier?

http://www.austinlostpets.com/kidskorne ... itbull.htm

I don't see how that's any more biased than a pro pit bull source.