TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:If the dog was being aggressive and wasn't slowed by hip dysplasia like its owner said, I doubt very seriously it would have still been on or near its bed with cops coming in the door announcing themselves. It would have met at or near the door.

This is the part that doesn't pass the smell test. Again, if officers were required to wear cameras on their vest there would be no question as to what happened.

Right2Carry wrote:In the below article the owner states they have a known problem with the front door. The owner also states that he received an alarm notification on his cell phone and disarmed the alarm. Yet nowhere does he say he called the police to warn them of the dog or to cancel the response. The homeowner must accept responsibility for failing to notify police after receiving the alarm notification on his phone. This could have been prevented. The video also shows how hard that window sticker is to see from the front door. This news story could easily have read " officer responding to house alarmed mauled by family Rottweiler".

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/256544 ... wners-home" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My alarm system works very different from this one. I am contacted by the monitoring company before police are ever contacted. I am told what part of the system was activated and asked if I would like police dispatched. Cameras are also activated during an alarm which I can access through my phone. This type of setup would have prevented the home owners dogs death.

I will add that if I knew I had issues with the front door, 1) I'd get it fixed 2) I'd lock the deadbolt regardless if I had a problem with the door or not.

Again, this whole debate would not be necessary if officers were required to wear cameras on their vests as the public could then see for themselves if the dog was actually aggressive.

mamabearCali wrote:

jmra wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:...if shooting a dog is the first instinct of a LEO to a barking dog that person has no place being a LEO. If you cannot handle the stress of an irritated dog I do not trust you with dealing with a belligerent teen without resorting to violence. The level of disregard for the value of life even that of a dog has become disturbing.

100%

Ah see we do agree on somethings.

Most things I think.

mamabearCali wrote:...if shooting a dog is the first instinct of a LEO to a barking dog that person has no place being a LEO. If you cannot handle the stress of an irritated dog I do not trust you with dealing with a belligerent teen without resorting to violence. The level of disregard for the value of life even that of a dog has become disturbing.

100%

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote: In which of your law books did you learn the legal term "regardless"?

The dog had hip dysplasia and was shot on or near its bed. Doesn't sound like a charging aggressive threat to me. Like I said earlier, I could probably overlook some of these incidents if it wasn't so common. It's too common and I know too many cops' attitudes about how shooting an animal is no big deal.

"irregardless" While not in common use is a word. Not my fault if you don't know that and it wasn't be used as a legal term. I didn't see the info you post in the original source but not sure it proves anything, or really even makes it more likely.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
"Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:Unless you don't want police to enter homes when they find an open door during an alarm response I'm not sure where the criticism is coming from. You have a very large dog of a known aggressive breed. The cops were in it's house when no one else was home. I have a hard time believing the dog wouldn't be aggressive in that situation. If a dog like that did bite it would normally be a pretty serious injury. If they had know a rott was inside then I do believe they should of taken a different approach but roasting cops for every shooting irregardless of facts is wrong.

In which of your law books did you learn the legal term "irregardless"?