TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:FAMILY FURIOUS AFTER POLICE SHOOT GERMAN SHEPHERD IN FRONT YARD – PLUS, DOES SECURITY VID CONTRADICT COPS’ STORY?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06 ... %20Buttons" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Contradict their story? What ever happened to the word 'lie" in this country, is it now obsolete? They LIED. The video doesn't "contradict" their story, it provides unassailable proof that they LIED. I think immediate dismissal should follow being caught in a blatant lie like this by people who are supposed to uphold the law and have the public trust. On top of that, these two uniformed liars show utter contempt for the public and the property of the people here, as they just stroll right in and leave the gate wide open so any dogs in the yard can get out. The police showed up at my door like that and I saw the contempt they demonstrated by their actions, they'd get zero cooperation from me even if they didn't shoot my dog.

talltex wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I just don't see how we can accept the double standard like we do whether it be "department policy" or not. Especially considering the cop was at the wrong location.

Inconsistency in the application of the law, double standards and certain people getting a pass on things that would get a mere citizen thrown in jail is what leads to a lot of the "us against them" attitudes so many complain about.

I read something interesting earlier today: Since 2010, there have been 228 dogs shot by police officers in Houston alone( I really didn't think the number would have been anywhere near that high). The Department said it had ruled EVERY ONE of the 228 OIS (officer involved shootings) as justified in accordance with departmental policies. That's impressive...not a even one of the officers made a mistake or were found to be at fault in a single instance out of 228 shootings. I also read this from a report issued by the US Dept. of Justice in 2012: The report" emphasized that serious dog bites in the line of duty are very rare, and no particular breed is especially dangerous" (despite so many of the officers statements that they thought it was a pit bull), "so officers have little reason to feel fear when encountering a canine in the performance of their duties." It concluded by saying: "When an officer shoots a dog that doesn't constitute a serious threat, the safety of his fellow officers and bystanders are compromised and put at risk, and the trust and respect of the community is significantly eroded." This discussion certainly proves that statement to be correct.

So, let me get this straight.....when the police do something wrong, we hear that they're just human and make mistakes, yet when they evaluate their performance, they find perfection. That's quite an astonishing record. Sounds like they're as perfect as the police in Las Vegas.

EEllis wrote:

VMI77 wrote:
You're a real champion of the strawman argument, unless you're really obtuse. The whole thrust of what several people have posted, including me, is that everyone BUT law enforcement has to face consequences for killing someone's dog on their property, especially when it is inside a fenced yard. Mamabearcali explained how some companies handle entering fenced yards. No one not employed by LE is even allowed to carry weapons with which they can kill dogs while they are carrying out their duties. If cops faced just the same consequences as utility workers --being fired-- the number of dogs being shot like this would be greatly reduced. Everyone else seems to be able to conduct their business without killing dogs, and LE should be able to do the same. You can make up all the different scenarios you want but it won't change the fact that LE doesn't face any consequences for killing people's pets, even when they are clearly in the wrong.....but then, they rarely face consequences for getting the wrong address and killing innocent people either.

Bull. No strawman argument to say getting fired by a private employer is different than a cop being prosecuted. I'm sorry if you are upset that a meter reading company would have different policies than a police dept but thats reality. What an employer does is their business the law is a different story you are the one who was trying to mix them probably because you can't make your point legitimately. Because you are wrong on the facts and your logic is non-existent. Personally I think you are letting your issues with cop color your reality a bit but so be it. There is no law that would keep private citizens with CHL's from legally entering private property. If while on that property conducting legal and reasonable activities, and this would be based on court cases not what every individual wacko thinks as reasonable, an individual is faced with a situation where the use of force would be ok on public property then they use force on private property is also OK.

No one not employed by LE is even allowed to carry weapons with which they can kill dogs while they are carrying out their duties.

Yeah show me that law.

Geez, another strawman.....when did I say anything about LE being "prosecuted??" I, and several others here, have talked about "consequences." With one exception, I haven't specified any particularly desired consequences: I stated outright that if police were fired, as someone not in LE would be, the number of pet killings would be reduced. And while I believe in accountability I'm not a big fan of the prison-industrial complex and the criminalization of everything.

Show you the law? OK, no one who can put a coherent sentence together is that obtuse, so it's obvious you're choosing to use non-sequiturs and straw men. Unlike you, who said you're done with me, I am done with you. Misunderstandings and disagreements are one thing, but I'm just way too laze to continue exchanges with someone who thrives on deliberate misdirection and/or what may be a huge case of cognitive dissonance

EEllis wrote: They wouldn't consider it trespassing when the UPS driver enters so you can't assume anyone else is trespassing. This is one of those times that reading the statutes will not give you the whole story.

Mind you you may very well be right in the fact that it might be dangerous. You can see just from this thread how misinformed many people are about the law so you may very well be met by someone with a gun, heck ever it would be worse at night, but that really doesn't matter legally speaking if there might be danger involved. Is a bit strange that people would be willing to stop someone at gunpoint but can't be bothered to post or secure a gate. Takes all kinds I guess.

More strawmen. Strawman #1: A UPS delivery is essentially by invitation. Strawman #2: the electric company has a lock on my gate, so they essentially have permission to enter. But if I lived in town, this is not the normal practice, so, if I needed to receive a delivery or the electric company needed to read the meter when no one was home, the gate would have to be left unlocked. I put a piece of metal so the latch can't be bumped and accidentally open the gate, but it isn't "locked." If you're not just demolishing strawmen, then I can only conclude you are one of these people who can't conceive of any legitimate reason for other people to conduct their lives any differently than you do.

EEllis wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:Please site your source.

By entering your property, a utility worker or anyone else for that matter does not forfeit his/her right to self defence up to and including deadly force. If your dog attacks someone coming to your front door, that person can kill your dog if necessary to protect themselves, then sue you.

I've never heard of a utility worker, letter carrier, or most other such people likely to show up on my property, that is allowed to carry a deadly weapon. The postal service most definitely prohibits letter carriers from possessing deadly weapons on duty. If a utility worker enters my fenced, gated (and locked) property and I have not contracted with that utility for any service, he is trespassing. I happen to work in the electric utility industry, for a VERY gun friendly company, and I can assure you that any meter reader who entered a customer's property armed would be fired (assuming the company found out). If he killed a customer's dog he would be fired. Some utility easements expressly forbid entering property with a gun in possession. And anyway, the company would expect that employee to contact the homeowner or person receiving service and ask them to secure their dog. That is because for those of us not in LE, there are consequences for killing our customer's pets.

Employer policies and legal liability are two separate issues and the fact that many employers prohibit their employees from effectively being able to defend themselves is hardly worth mentioning when discussing the law. Truth is since it is not trespassing to enter the yard when it's unlocked and unposted there is every reason to believe that one could shoot a dog and successfully claim self defence. Now I assume the shooter would be doing so because they feared serious injury, and I hope they were correct and have evidence of such. Really though isn't this why we carry? What if you were walking you daughter as she sold GS cookies, or school candy, or whatever. We have already established that the law, and most people, don't consider an unposted, unlocked gate to mean "STAY OUT!" So if you were walking you kid and around the corner comes 2 barking shepherds do you really think you couldn't "get away" with shooting? Please.

If my dog is running loose in a front yard, especially in a place where there is a leash law, and someone is attacked by my dog, he can sue, and I would not desire to see him punished for defending himself. If I found my dog attacking someone I would shoot it myself (at least if they weren't trespassing). That's not the situation here, where the officer was in the wrong location, and entered a fenced yard through a closed gate. Where I live, with my gate shut, they'd either have to call me or break the lock, and breaking the lock would be criminal trespass. There is either a contract or implied contract allowing entry for utility workers and deliverymen. Someone who enters my property without consent, unsolicited, or without such implied consent, is going to get charged with trespassing. I see them with a gun in their hand something more serious is likely to happen.

You're trying to equate your situation with a locked and secure gate to what the officer was faced with. It is not the same. Anyone can open an unlocked unposted gate because the contract you mention includes contacting the residents, which is what the officer was trying to do. Leave you gate unlocked and try it your way but TDC has really poor internet access so you probably won't be able to tell us to much about it.

You're a real champion of the strawman argument, unless you're really obtuse. The whole thrust of what several people have posted, including me, is that everyone BUT law enforcement has to face consequences for killing someone's dog on their property, especially when it is inside a fenced yard. Mamabearcali explained how some companies handle entering fenced yards. No one not employed by LE is even allowed to carry weapons with which they can kill dogs while they are carrying out their duties. If cops faced just the same consequences as utility workers --being fired-- the number of dogs being shot like this would be greatly reduced. Everyone else seems to be able to conduct their business without killing dogs, and LE should be able to do the same. You can make up all the different scenarios you want but it won't change the fact that LE doesn't face any consequences for killing people's pets, even when they are clearly in the wrong.....but then, they rarely face consequences for getting the wrong address and killing innocent people either.

VoiceofReason wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

everyone else, not in LE, that has to deal with dogs in similar situations, is legally required to accept whatever risk such contact entails, and for the most part, are allowed no recourse to deadly force.

VoiceofReason wrote:Please site your source.

By entering your property, a utility worker or anyone else for that matter does not forfeit his/her right to self defence up to and including deadly force. If your dog attacks someone coming to your front door, that person can kill your dog if necessary to protect themselves, then sue you.

I've never heard of a utility worker, letter carrier, or most other such people likely to show up on my property, that is allowed to carry a deadly weapon. The postal service most definitely prohibits letter carriers from possessing deadly weapons on duty. If a utility worker enters my fenced, gated (and locked) property and I have not contracted with that utility for any service, he is trespassing. I happen to work in the electric utility industry, for a VERY gun friendly company, and I can assure you that any meter reader who entered a customer's property armed would be fired (assuming the company found out). If he killed a customer's dog he would be fired. Some utility easements expressly forbid entering property with a gun in possession. And anyway, the company would expect that employee to contact the homeowner or person receiving service and ask them to secure their dog. That is because for those of us not in LE, there are consequences for killing our customer's pets.

If my dog is running loose in a front yard, especially in a place where there is a leash law, and someone is attacked by my dog, he can sue, and I would not desire to see him punished for defending himself. If I found my dog attacking someone I would shoot it myself (at least if they weren't trespassing). That's not the situation here, where the officer was in the wrong location, and entered a fenced yard through a closed gate. Where I live, with my gate shut, they'd either have to call me or break the lock, and breaking the lock would be criminal trespass. There is either a contract or implied contract allowing entry for utility workers and deliverymen. Someone who enters my property without consent, unsolicited, or without such implied consent, is going to get charged with trespassing. I see them with a gun in their hand something more serious is likely to happen.

VoiceofReason wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I just don't see how we can accept the double standard like we do whether it be "department policy" or not. Especially considering the cop was at the wrong location.

Inconsistency in the application of the law, double standards and certain people getting a pass on things that would get a mere citizen thrown in jail is what leads to a lot of the "us against them" attitudes so many complain about.

Apparently mere "policy" cleanses away all morality, responsibility, judgement, and law breaking, from a small town police department all the way up to TSA, DHS, CIA, NSA, DEA, DOJ all the other alphabet agencies, and the FBI --heck, all the way up to the Prez. Yeah, we spied on reporters, but it was policy. Yeah, we monitored millions of innocent Americans, but it was policy. Yeah, we were selling weapons to Al Qaeda and let an ambassador and a few other Americans die, but it was in accordance with administration policy. Yeah, we sold some guns to Mexican drug cartels, but hey, it was policy. Yeah, we got the wrong address, busted down the door of the wrong house, shot the occupants and their dogs, but we did it in accordance with policy, so it's AOK.

There is and always will be a double standard.

Street cops go in harm’s way, sometimes numerous times per day and occasionally even when they are “off duty”. We have pretty much beat this horse to death and people will still have different opinions.

We don’t know what experience the officer has had with dogs. Maybe he has been bitten possibly more than once. I do not know anyone that can size up a strange dog running at them and know if it will bite or not. This officer had a few seconds to act and two dogs running at him. The officer had no way of knowing the history of the dogs and what they might have experienced at the hands of (let’s say) someone in uniform.

I’m an old man and have seen a lot. I have seen a dog stand and wag it’s tail while a person pet the dog, then the dog bit that person.

The officer does not have the luxury of deciding what warrants are served and which ones he doesn’t have to. The subject may have only gone a “few” miles per hour over the speed limit or he/she might have 57 tickets and not shown up in court for any of them. It would not have looked good for the officer if he had not served the warrant and the subject had been sitting in the back yard the whole time, sipping a cold one with some steaks on the grill.

I would say this situation is what it is. No door was “busted down”, the “occupants and their dogs” were not shot and hopefully the dog recovers.

I agree that some officers should be put in jail for some of the things they do and some are but then again I believe LEO’s should be among the highest paid people in the country.

Due to the nature of their duties, there certainly are circumstances where LE is and should be treated differently than how a citizen is treated. By the same token, it is not my fault that someone else earned a warrant, or that the police got the address wrong, so those exceptions related to duty should not extend to the privilege of wrongly entering my property and killing my dog without facing any consequences for their error. A badge shouldn't be a blank check. Not having to face consequences facilitates and engenders errors. Texasjoker says he knows that warrant addresses are often wrong, and he apparently considers that as an excuse for less diligence rather than more. Serving the public isn't quite as convenient as ruling over it, but LE is supposed to protect and serve. To me that suggests some extra effort is required under circumstances KNOWN to be fraught with error, and that in such circumstances business as usual amounts to negligence.

JSThane wrote:Um... wow, this thread exploded. I'm just going to respond to VM177's response to me, and then I'm gonna finish the rest of the thread.

VMI77 wrote:It doesn't change the fact that his unreasonable fear or incompetence resulted in a dog being killed.

Unreasonable fear or incompetence? I'm not so sure it was unreasonable. The worse chewing I got from a dog was at the teeth of a rottweiler that had been taught to play that way by an incompetent owner. If you don't know the dog, you don't know the dog. Did he go overboard? I want to agree, but having been in similar situations, having been chewed on by aggressive dogs -and- playful dogs with no self-control, I can't deny him the benefit of the doubt. I still have scars from the rottweiler incident, and I know I might not respond well in a similar situation. Then again, I might.

VM177 wrote:He was serving a traffic warrant, not busting a drug house.

I wasn't clear on this one. If this was a traffic warrant, it does change things. All these serve is revenue generation, and I want them to go away. If it was a traffic warrant, no cops had any business being on the property. If you must have them, just wait until the next time he gets pulled over, and hook him up then. If someone's going to scofflaw a traffic ticket, they'll usually drive in such a fashion as to get pulled over again. Finding him is NOT going to be difficult.[/quote]

[quote='VM177"]The notion that a cop should be able to come onto my property to serve a traffic warrant and kill my dog without any consequences is absurd. No one else who comes on my property gets to do this. [/quote]

And neither should the cops. Don't get me wrong, I was not and am not arguing for no consequences. I was arguing that the consequences devolve from the initial mistake - that of the wrong address - and not the subsequent actions. Because of the initial mistake, the rest of it, however justified it -would- have been (or not), becomes the department's liability. Whether or not the officer made the initial mistake will probably determine what, if any, disciplinary action he faces; however, his department holds the liability for any veterinarian costs, property damage, lawsuits, etc. (The mistake could have been from the officer swearing the warrant, the judge issuing it, OR the officer serving it)[/quote]

VM177 wrote:All he had to do was call the people inside BEFORE he entered their property and ask them to secure any animals. Neither I, nor the Constitution that is supposed to guarantee my inalienable rights, exists to make life easier for law enforcement.

While we're quibbling on exactly -what- the problem was, we're on the same wavelength here. Officer incompetence, judicial inattention, or what, regardless of where we draw the line of error, this family's property rights -WERE- violated, and they are due recompense.[/quote][/quote]

I think we're pretty much in agreement. Maybe I could have used a better term than unreasonable fear. What I meant is that everyone else, not in LE, that has to deal with dogs in similar situations, is legally required to accept whatever risk such contact entails, and for the most part, are allowed no recourse to deadly force. Hence, how reasonable is it for the fear of dogs by LE to be so much greater than the fear that must simply be accepted by everyone else doing their jobs in similar situations and without a resort to the use of deadly force? Not the best wording, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say.

I couldn't get the nesting right and gave up.

mojo84 wrote:I just don't see how we can accept the double standard like we do whether it be "department policy" or not. Especially considering the cop was at the wrong location.

Inconsistency in the application of the law, double standards and certain people getting a pass on things that would get a mere citizen thrown in jail is what leads to a lot of the "us against them" attitudes so many complain about.

Apparently mere "policy" cleanses away all morality, responsibility, judgement, and law breaking, from a small town police department all the way up to TSA, DHS, CIA, NSA, DEA, DOJ all the other alphabet agencies, and the FBI --heck, all the way up to the Prez. Yeah, we spied on reporters, but it was policy. Yeah, we monitored millions of innocent Americans, but it was policy. Yeah, we were selling weapons to Al Qaeda and let an ambassador and a few other Americans die, but it was in accordance with administration policy. Yeah, we sold some guns to Mexican drug cartels, but hey, it was policy. Yeah, we got the wrong address, busted down the door of the wrong house, shot the occupants and their dogs, but we did it in accordance with policy, so it's AOK.

texanjoker wrote:To find these people you do database checks to locate possible addresses. Some of those data bases do provide incorrect addresses and the only way you will know for sure is by knocking on doors as that is how you track people down. Many people do use incorrect or old addresses, or somewhere it gets switched. I know the previous owner of my home (been here 6 years) has started using my address over the past couple years and some warrant round up post cards have come in the mail. I expect a door knocking one of these days when they come looking for him.

Your rationalizations are amazing. What you say right here makes the conduct LESS excusable, yet you seem to think it's some kind of justification or excuse. You're saying you KNOW the address has a good chance of being incorrect, yet you feel no obligation to exercise any additional caution or restraint. Out here in the world of citizens that would be considered negligence. It also demonstrates a complete lack of regard for the citizens you're supposedly protecting and little respect for private property. In any other line of work that required someone to find the right person at the correct address there is no burden forced on whomever may now be residing where the person being sought is no longer living, no matter how much easier it may make the job of those looking.

gigag04 wrote:I feel that what those with an LE background see this as a reasonable, and understandable situation because we have been there and done it. Through no fault of our own, and in the routine execution of our duties, we have been sent to wrong houses.

And therein is why police are slowly losing the respect and earning the contempt of the citizenry. Serve and protect increasingly applies to law enforcement and not the public. Officer safety seems to have priority over public safety. What you're essentially saying is that because you could make the same mistake you want to be part of a protected class that doesn't have to face the same consequences for the same actions as ordinary citizens do. It's ok for a letter carrier to get bitten by a dog, but police officers are so grand or so delicate shooting people's dogs is acceptable? You don't want to have to face the consequences of your mistakes. Hey, we all want that, no one wants to suffer the consequences of their mistakes and wrongdoing, but when we don't, the world is a worse place for it.

It IS this officer's fault. HE went to the house, not the person who sent him there. The "just following orders" excuse doesn't wash. HE didn't check the address or question where HE was sent. HE didn't ask himself why the yard was gated. It doesn't take a genius to stop and think --maybe there's a dog in there. And after seeing an enclosed yard, instead of calling first to ask the homeowner to secure any animals, HE just went through the gate and shot their dog. HE didn't attempt to read the dog or accept ANY risk, as anyone else would have had to do, and just shot it. He was serving paper on an unregistered vehicle, not approaching a drug house or apprehending a terrorist. If LE finds this conduct acceptable and 90% of the citizens don't, how do you think that's going to turn out for LE? When LE does things the community doesn't accept, they're not serving the community, they're RULING it.

gigag04 wrote:

JALLEN wrote:The problem seems to be that government employees make mistakes quite often but are almost never made to suffer a disadvantage for them. Everyone in private life suffers when they screw up. The legal principle used to be that "the king could do no wrong" when these days the king often can't do right.

When Tom Brady throws an interception half the people stand up and boo and everyone in New England. When a McDonald's clerk puts the wrong sandwich in the bag someone complains and it is made right. When some SWAT team serves a no-knock warrant on the wrong house and shoots the terrified, innocent occupants, "no blame to the officers" an innocent regrettable error.

I think LEOs get a great deal of scrutiny.

Now that I'm in industrial sales, my supervisor doesn't field many calls about me changing lanes without a blinker or not wearing my seatbelt. There is no shortage of people willing to BOOO at cops.

Apples and oranges --and you an engineer. Petty people reporting cops for violating traffic laws does not equal consequences for serious unlawful behavior --and they also can't issue cops tickets for doing the same thing the cop could give them a ticket for. And people willing to BOOO at cops have no power to punish them for misbehavior or negligence --they're talking in the wind.

Pacifist wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Pacifist wrote:

VMI77 wrote:They need to issue guns to letter carriers, meter readers, yard guys, and UPS and Fedex delivery men, so they can shoot dogs too.

Wow. Another of the all-too-common, LEO-involved, shoot-first-ask-questions-later scenarios.

I'd say better that we start issuing firearms to the family pets, so they can finally have a means of defending themselves against the true aggressors.

You realize I was being sarcastic, right?

Was there anything in my response that appeared to indicate otherwise?

Since you selected a particular part of my comment I wasn't sure if your first sentence was referring to my comment or to the incident under discussion.

JSThane wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:With respect. I think the problem is that + he shot the dog. Poor doggie.

I get ya, and I do feel bad for dog and owner, but my point was that, had he been at the right address, there wouldn't be any question. Justifying use of force on an animal is a bit simpler than on a person, especially since the dog can't testify against you. (Bad joke, I know, but it's also true) Had the officer had the right address, no one would have questioned shooting the dog. Therefore, shooting a dog is itself not the problem here, but the mistake that led to this whole screw-up is.

Not true. Let's say the dog he shot was at the right address. It doesn't change the fact that his unreasonable fear or incompetence resulted in a dog being killed. He was serving a traffic warrant, not busting a drug house. The notion that a cop should be able to come onto my property to serve a traffic warrant and kill my dog without any consequences is absurd. No one else who comes on my property gets to do this. All he had to do was call the people inside BEFORE he entered their property and ask them to secure any animals. Neither I, nor the Constitution that is supposed to guarantee my inalienable rights, exists to make life easier for law enforcement.

JSThane wrote:The problem isn't that he shot the dog. The problem is that he was at the wrong address in the first place, and THAT is what makes everything afterward the liability of the department and/or court that issued the warrant.

Yes, that is the problem. If he hadn't shot the dog, we wouldn't even be discussing it. The problem is that the police are less competent at dealing with dogs than letter carriers, delivery men and women, census takers, meter readers, and yard guys --none of whom get to shoot dogs. And the reason they are less competent is that they get to shoot dogs without consequences.