TexasCHLforum.com

KBCraig wrote:Here's an unrelated blog from a Fort Worth cop, dealing with pits.

http://cowtowncop.blogspot.com/2008/08/good-dog.html

Nice looking animal. Nicer still... of the officer to take him in, he has a big heart.

srothstein wrote:

flintknapper wrote:There simply does not exist enough evidence (or witnesses) in this event to point one way or the other. It is very much He said, She said. The officer will not offer any more testimony in this case, that is certain....so we are never going to be able to scrutinize it further.

Well, I would think that if you are correct about it being a he said/she said type case (I don't agree but will so stipulate for the time being), then the police did the exactly correct thing by closing the case.

After all, we operate on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. If there is not enough evidence to prove the officer did something wrong, he was innocent. Right?

Absolutely right! Now....I hope you will not take exception to what I am about to ask next.

How hard was that evidence looked for? The officer was interviewed by another policeman. I am trying to find out now if the University and the City looked into as they said they would.

But really, you are not asking me to believe that fraternal support and the thin blue line do not exist, right?

My problem with this whole thing is that the seriousness of it all doesn't seem to register with some folks. A firearm was discharged in a populated, public place. Deadly force was used. This is serious. A large amount of discount has been applied by some folks here because the target was a dog. I don't even care about that, I care that the matter is looked into... and looked into hard , to make certain it was proper and necessary.

austin wrote:My SIL had an incident like this occur just a few weeks ago.

The dog ( a pit) got loose from its owner and crossed the park and attacked her dogs while she was walking them. The attack was silent, sudden, and vicious - there was NO WARNING.

The dog in the park was not really a "pit" but a pit mix, looks more boxer to me, but that has no bearing on your account. Stories are fairly numerous about other dogs being attacked by pit-like breeds (happens fairly often with several breeds actually). I am not surprised to hear of this, "some" pits are animal aggressive, no doubt about that.

Her son was next to her dogs and was knocked down during the attack.

A bad position to be in and a real cause for concern.

My BIL kicked the dog so hard it lifted the dog off the ground - he had to kick it several times to cause it to stop. The dog then went for him but the owner grabbed the leash before the dog could attack him.

Good for your BIL, I would be trying to boot the dog into space also. The advance on the BIL must have been half-hearted though, no way the owner would get the leash in time if the dog really wanted him. Doesn't matter though, the dog had clearly displayed it's intent.

I did deploy my folder and would have used it on the dog had it attacked my BIL or gotten a good hold on their dogs Since this was an NPE non-reprocial community, I did not have my pistol on me.

Smart thinking and good reaction.

Had this been Texas I would have shot the dog on the spot and it would have been a good shoot.

Yes it would.

I've talked with enough Police Officers to know what they have seen or heard pits doing and I applaud this man for what he did.

And I have my suspicions that this type of banter between officers only fosters "bias confirmation" and may even predispose them to a certain course of action.

Better safe than sorry when it comes to dogs and kids. If a dog so much as looks sideways at my kid, that dog is a marked mutt.

Well....I will reserve any comment on this one, except to say I consider it hasty and unreasonable.

Thank you, though... for sharing the account. Maybe with each story we read, some small point may be gleaned that will benefit us in the future if ever we experience something similar.

Mr.Scott wrote:
With all due respect, you really have to have your head in the sand if you don't think that there are people out there that:
Care more about their dogs than they do people

Yes, I am aware of this. Do you think I am one of these people?

Own dogs but don't take proper care of them including leashing them.

There are people who are poor stewards of their pets/animals in many respects, yes.

Immediately stick their hand out to pet a strange dog knowing nothing about it

I don't know about immediately, but I have done this many hundreds of times. Still have both hands, never been bitten. Either I am a fool, or a reasonable judge of dogs, I will not ask your opinion.

Hasn't had a negative experience with a dog (yet)

You would have to define "negative" for me, but you seem to be suggesting that a bad experience is a virtual certainty and only a matter of time.

Think everything a police officer does, be it on the job or in his personal life is because he is on a power trip and is just a retard that doesn't care about anyone else but himself and his own self centered interests.

There are people with this viewpoint. Of course, it is incorrect....and I hope you don't think that this is MY view of things.

All I can say is I won't be going to the park because they took down all the playground equipment my kids liked because they were to dangerous but that's another story

O.K.........

mr.72 wrote:

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.

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

Are terrified/afraid of dogs.
Harbor a hate for certain types of dogs.
Don't own dogs, and know little about them (except they are scary).
Have children that are afraid of dogs.
Immediately retreat or go on the defensive when a dog approaches (regardless of posture).
Perhaps work in a profession that increases the likelihood he/she will encounter a dog being protective of its master, property or premises.
Perhaps work in a profession that has provided him/her with training in how to deal with large dogs.
Has had a negative experience with a dog, and now regards ALL dogs of a certain breed or size to be a certain threat.

You honestly don't believe there are people like that? You don't think these feelings would influence how a person reacts if approached by a dog?

Now...I am not accusing Officer Alexander of having any of these views/feelings. I do not know the man. He might have a backyard full of dogs, his kids might roll and play with them every afternoon, he might be volunteering his time at the local animal shelter...its even possible he has forgotten more about dogs than I have ever known. I don't know.

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.

The police dept had this incident as a "nearly closed" case about as fast the story first appeared, I pretty much expect that of the "thin blue line". The university stated it will be looking into this and the city suggested they will too. I will not hold my breath.

There simply does not exist enough evidence (or witnesses) in this event to point one way or the other. It is very much He said, She said. The officer will not offer any more testimony in this case, that is certain....so we are never going to be able to scrutinize it further.

It disturbs me to some degree that so few are willing to question these actions in order to confirm they were reasonable and immediately necessary. Conversely, it disturbs some folks here that I would have the audacity to question the actions of an LEO, a well liked and respected man in his community. I guess the idea is that he is incapable of making mistakes. The consequences of making a mistake writing a ticket are small, a mistake made when firing a weapon could be devastating.

So...yes folks, I still have questions and lots of marshmellows left.

Plus, I woke up a little "snarly" this morning...so I won't be going to the park today.

flintknapper wrote:

WildBill wrote:

flintknapper wrote:So, if it means I get grilled for being curious, for having questions and doubts (for good reason) then so be it, fire up the coals!

I'll bring the marshmellows!

And I'll bring the skewers!

For me, the marshmellows, or both?

If for me....I'm a pretty big boy, so bring some sturdy ones.

Of course, you could "quarter" me up. Ouch!

Edit

Right2Carry wrote:

One problem I have with your argument is you are not applying your standards equally to both sides. You claim the dog is good natured, has never had a problem, been at the park and never attacked any other kids or animals, so why would he all of a sudden attack some children which would be out of character for the dog.
I think you need to apply that same standard to the officer.

I feel as if I have applied that standard. But we can discuss it if you like. I have to warn you...it is a double edged sword.

Why would an officer of the law who has never exhibited bad behavior in the community, been an outstanding member of the community, has been in parks before with no history of shooting dogs or animals, all of a sudden do something that is completely out of character for him? I am sure the officer has a few more years on this planet exhibiting good character than the dog has.

Remember the numerous posts informing us that in many cases there was no prior warning that an animal would be aggressive. Oh wait....there is one right below this response. I am willing to apply the previous "good behavior" record as something to be weighed and considered, if you will allow that people (like animals) sometimes do things we do not expect of them, often things we have never witnessed them do before. I mean....if its good the the goose, it should be good for the gander, right?

Recent media history is full of examples of Cops that were great cops right until they killed their wives, Catholic Priests that seemed to be great servants of God..right up until they started molesting children, Husbands that seemed to be stable and trustworthy providers...right up to the time they cheated on their wives, emptied the bank account and moved out. Do I need to go on! That "double edged sword" of "there is a first time for everything" seems to fit humans better than it does the dogs, huh?

Not to mention we have absolutely no idea how Officer Alexander has acted in the past (under similar circumstances) since most likely his children have not been approached by a dog, in other words he probably hasn't been tested. In the case of the dogs we DO know they have frequently roamed freely in certain parts of the park with no problem. So to me your comparison rings a bit hollow.

You might want to watch a few episodes of when animals attack. I think you would be surprised at the number of family pets that never showed aggression that ended up attacking their owners or others.

I've seen a few. Quite frightening...some of them. Of course...we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that these attacks represent a minuscule percentage of the pets/animals owned and kept by people. Certainly...that number (of pets), would reach into tens of millions if not hundreds of million. Naturally, anything with teeth "can" bite, but let us keep the attacks in perspective.

I would say the chances of the dog acting out of character are far greater then the officer acting out of character and shooting a dog who was no threat to him or his children

I'd say that too (as written). Plainly the officer considered the dog a threat. I certainly don't think he is going around shooting dogs that he DOESN'T think are threating him. My question all along has been was it a reasonable "perception". The reason I want to know this is not for the sake of the dog. I like dogs....but I don't value them above humans or even human safety. I do put high value on humans though...and we have a situation here where an officer discharged a weapon in a public and populated park setting. By some accounts it occurred on a sidewalk, others suggest not...but all agree there were other people present. This is potentially a serious matter.

If it were "clearly" necessary...then great, the risk is worth it. Its just that certain unanswered questions and conflicting statements leave me wondering if other peoples safety was jeopardized by a "possible" hasty decision. I would think it natural to want to "look into that".

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... Any decent combination of these things and heck yeah, good shoot! In fact, you'd have to beat me to the draw if I had been there.

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. In which case... I say we might have a "hasty" shoot (consistent with the dog owners perception).

So I leave it to each person to consider the sum of what we know (which isn't much) and glean from it what you will. My main concern is that we learn from it. We will only learn from it by talking about it. Seems to be a real resistance here by some for anyone to challenge or question the officers perception or statement. I have the greatest respect for LEO, but reserve the right as a tax paying citizen to ask simple questions about events that could have the potential for taking other human life.

So, if it means I get grilled for being curious, for having questions and doubts (for good reason) then so be it, fire up the coals!

I'll bring the marshmellows!

03Lightningrocks wrote:

I thought you were going to leave it alone flintknapper.

I know, I tried....I really tried. I guess I can't claim to be a punctual person anymore.

How many posts have you made since this promise?

I don't really know. Is there a fee?

I am willing to bet that no one is going to change the way they feel about a situation like this because of what you or anyone else may say in a post on this forum.

Probably not, but that wasn't my purpose for participating, just offering some food for thought and few of my own opinions (wanted or not).

I am not sure I see what it is your trying to accomplish by .

Generally, the term refers to a re-hashing of some subject that has already been resolved or discussed to the juncture that no new points can be made that advance an argument/position. So....I guess I didn't see the horse. Did you?


So....is the horse officially dead, and no one told me?

TB820 wrote:

Welcome! Hope you stick around; this is a great place to learn about CHL matters.

Thank you, there is some interesting stuff on here. I've had my CHL for 3 years now, but have never been on here before.

+1

Welcome to the forum. I hope this thread doesn't "put you off", once in awhile a subject comes up that fosters alot of disussion.

Glad to have another member!

Sangiovese wrote: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.

.
I don't see the media as being bias here. I see them doing nothing more than printing any information they have and allowing comments from on-line participants (both for and against the officers actions). If Officer Alexander would like to re-butt the comments or add additional information...I am dead certain the newspaper would print it. I suspect however...he is lawyered up. The rest of your comment I agree with, all others present are rightfully considered bystanders.

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

Very true.

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.

Again....true.

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.

Acknowledged, but it does establish what the dogs "normal" behavior is...and begs the question: Why would the dog on this day be acting abnormally. According to "Mr72" there is a 99% chance that is what happened, so I guess by inference 99 out of 100 pit-mix dogs intend to attack you anytime they approach. Doesn't make sense and isn't supported by evidence.

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

Yes! A classic "He said, She said".

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.

I believe the distance is yet undetermined. We do NOT know the distance based on the scant evidence alone, the only thing clearly established is the animal was struck in the front part of the "head" (muzzle actually).

The location of the "entry" is being used in an attempt to establish the position of the shooter relative to the dog. It is asserted that the girl is lying/mistaken because the dog sustained a wound to the to the "face" and therefore must have been close and must have been facing the shooter in a menacing fashion.

Lets see if that is so:

Could this dog be shot in the front of the head?
http://th533.photobucket.com/albums/ee3 ... illdoe.jpg


What about this one when it turned its head to look at you?
http://th516.photobucket.com/albums/u32 ... h_blue.jpg


I could easily shoot this one in the front of the head.
http://th120.photobucket.com/albums/o17 ... IM0075.jpg


Is it possible a dog like this got shot in the front of the head simply because it was close to someone: http://th167.photobucket.com/albums/u13 ... 000014.jpg


Or was this the dog that got shot:
http://th182.photobucket.com/albums/x15 ... t_bull.jpg



Folks we're never gonna know.

What we are left with is:
1. A dog capable of inflicting serious injury was unrestrained and in close proximity to young children.

Yes. "Capable".

2. One person whos story does not match the evidence states the dogs were not acting aggressively.

IMO the "evidence" shows nothing that could be construed as reliable.

3. One person whos story does match the evidence says he shot out of necessity.

And conflicting testimony by the dog owner.

Circumstantial/background information that is relevent includes:
1. By several accounts, the dogs have a history that does not include aggressive behavior.

Yes.

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.

Well, perhaps you know officer Alexander and his level of experience, but if I remember correctly...he is employed as a University Policeman. My guess is that he stays alive more by virtue of his envirionment..than having quickly assessed the dynamic situations involved in breaking up a fight and telling folks to turn their music down. That is not to say that serious situations can't erupt on a college campus. I will assume he is "trained" (perhaps well trained) at least to the minimum standards. If you have documentation of his training or stories relating to quick assessment having saved his life...I will happily accept them.

One thing is clear, Officer Alexander seems to be quite popular among the students and citizens of the town (most of them anyway). This tells me that he must be a friendly and outgoing person. It doesn't mean he is incapable of making mistakes, but it does mean folks are likely to rally around him if he does. Good to have support and I am actually glad for the man. I am just left with questions concerning this incident, nothing more or less.

mr.72 wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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. Did you read any of the testimony the girls and others gave? They have the same dogs, in the same park, doing the same thing for nearly three months now, at least 3 times a week. By all accounts there have been NO problems. So, on the likeliness scale... most "likely" the dog was NOT being a threat.

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?

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.

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?

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 news reports posted are also ridiculously biased against guns in general so there is little chance that the true story is really getting reported.

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. 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Personally, I have experience in the past with an alpha male Lab I owned that was an awakening for me. So I agree that under certain circumstances a "thought to be" reliable dog...may not be. But that doesn't mean that all dogs have quirks or are ticking time bombs. I am surprised the lady dismissed your account so casually, I consider this to be irresponsible on her part, but I don't see how it is applicable here.

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.

First, I am not "attacking" anyone...so please don't characterize my questions as such. Second, you have somehow worked into the mix the idea that I am against anyone protecting themselves which for the zillion-th time I say "I am not". This experience of yours seems to have influenced your position concerning personal protection to the point that (like another person here) you will not even permit simple questions.

Lets look at what you wrote and see what we can extract from it:

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).

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.

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 I guess my question is: Which one of these scenarios best describes the officer (maybe something in between). Because, if its the first one...I can easily see where he could have made a mistake, thats all I'm saying. I'm not here rooting for the dog...and I don't belong to PETA.

So here's hoping you're not on any jury I have to face.

Well...there is an excellent chance...because I always get picked, always!

I'll take jurors without blind faith in the goodness of pit bulls in spite of the testimony of a reasonable person.

You're NOT talking to one here. I just don't believe that any significant percentage of them are the demon dogs so many portray them as. And if ever I am a juror for your case, you may rest assured that I will carefully weigh the facts as presented. If you can give me any compelling evidence that the dog was attacking (or about to attack), something, anything that can help me support you I will. But unless one person is more credible than the other, or more credible witnesses than the others come forth, or some circumstantial evidence (past history) comes up, then I might have questions. Sheesh....you'd think that would be a good thing.

KD5NRH wrote:

This was from one of the mother's comments, and backed up thirdhand via a deputy who took an interest in the incident.

Good enough, I thought I'd read something about no exit wound in something written somewhere, but I've read so much on it....I couldn't remember just where.

I still haven't been able to confirm caliber. The .40 is what I last remember seeing him carry on duty, but he may have something different for concealment. Of course, buttlet weight and quality would also have a lot of effect on the depth; a 135gr PowRBall isn't going to make it far in anything, (which is why I keep some of the 100gr .357 ones in a speed strip for when I know I'll be in a crowd) where a 180gr bullet with less aggressive expansion could conceivably exit the chest and damage the sidewalk on a shot like this.

I am inclined to agree.

The other odd thing is that the entry wound appears to be at such a strong downward angle; dogs normally look up at people, so this angle would suggest the dog was ignoring Chili and focused on something else lower and/or farther away. (Kids? The owner? I'd have to know where everybody was in a lot more detail to say for sure, but it doesn't appear that it was looking at the nearby, moving gun.)

Yeah, this is why it would be beneficial to know the posture and location of the dog. A lowered head and shot taken from an elevated position nearly requires an exit wound in the lower jaw/muzzle IMO. An alert/upright head allows for much more latitude concerning bullet termination. Of course, distance and angle are factors.

None of these things are deal makers or breakers for me though, I'm just glad the incident turned out as well as it did and that all involved were unharmed and now wiser for the unfortunate event.

Right2Carry wrote:

Sorry I respectfully disagree. Flintnapper has been going out of his way to show the FATHER acted inappropriately.

Sir, if what you mean by this is the notion that I do not believe the man has an absolute right to defend himself, his children, or any other third party from an obviously aggressive animal then I take exception to your statement.

If you dislike the fact that I have "questions" about whether or not this shooting (potentially dangerous to bystanders) was actually necessary or reasonable....(and feel that I have "gone out of my way" or over labored the subject), well....that is your right.

I think his points were made, and the reference about the pictures appearing to contradict the Father's testimony was nothing more than speculation and an attempt to continue to beat this dead horse.

Absolutely "speculation" (not unlike your own or that of others here). We have little to go on in terms of empirical evidence in this case. I believe I have been the first to point that out. Beating a dead horse? I suppose everyone has their own idea of when that starts. I apologize if my questions have placed a burr under your saddle, I felt as if there was still some useful discussion to be had, even though I violated my pledge earlier in this thread to "bow out". I tried.

I don't think it is an insult to point out what I feel his posts have implied regarding dogs and children

.
It certainly is not, I have the same respect for your opinion/perspective as I do anyone who has presented a contrasting view point. In fairness however, I would ask that you be somewhat specific so that I might at least respond to your objections...or point you to a post I have already made (probably numerous times), surely that is not too much to ask.

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.

For another person, perhaps someone not raised around dogs, someone afraid of dogs, someone who doesn't own a dog, whose children aren't familiar with dogs, etc.....the perception of a friendly dog, wagging his tail, tongue hanging out....could be quite different...I realize that.

I have seen to many people put animals above human life, I won't apologize for calling something as I see it.

You've not seen me putting animals above humans, quite the contrary in fact. So since this accusation is apparently leveled at me, then I will require you to show me a post where I have stated or inferred anything of the sort. Again, a perfect example of an unreasonable and inaccurate "perception", yes?

I hate the political correctness that has our society scared to voice opinions that should be voiced

.
With you all the way here. I am not a man to mince words either (although I try not to be purposefully offensive) so I hope I have not been.

I am just calling it the way I see it and if you think it was an insult well that is your prerogative.

I can't speak for anyone else....but I am not insulted by your posts. Glad you made them in fact.

Flint.

The_Vigilante wrote:He shot the dog because "he could" and he knew he would get away with it. That's all there is to it.

Well.....no!

IMO, this is as short sighted as some other posts that purport blind faith in the Officer/Father.

Unquestionably, it is more complicated than that.

I take some solace in knowing first... that the Children and the Officer were not harmed, but also that the dog managed to survive his wounds. So, in the end.... the best possible outcome was realized.