TexasCHLforum.com

Right2Carry wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

mojo84 wrote:There's more than one article and news report. I didn't make it up that the dog had hip dysplasia. The owner said it.

He didn't say it on his on camera interview which is part of the link I attached. The video interview shows how difficult that sign would be to miss.

My Rott lived to be 13 and even with severe arthritis she could move when she needed to. I have no sympathy for irresponsible pet owners.

So, if your alarm at home went off while you were at wotk and the police responded and shot your dog then said it was aggressive, even though there are bullet holes in his bed, you would be an irresponsible dog owner? Is that what you are saying?

You keep ignoring the fact that the homeowner had a door that didn't close properly and he failed to fix. You ignore that fact that the homeowner had a monitored alarm and failed to notify police that when responding there is a large dog in the house ( you can and should notify police of special circumstances in your home). You ignore the fact that the homeowner disarmed his alarm but failed to call police and cancel the responding officers or at least make them aware of the dog. You ignore the fact that the little sticker in the lower corner of a window well away from the front door that was ajar was almost impossible to see. You ignore the fact that the beware of dog was not at the front door.

If I had done the irresponsible things this homeowner did and my dog was shot while police were responding to an alarm at my house, I can honestly say I would be sad but I would place the blame where it belonged.....with myself.

I don't expect police officers or any of our public servants to risk an animal attack on top of everything else they put up with on a daily basis.

In my opinion the homeowner was not responsible enough to take the proper precautions to ensure his pet would be safe knowing police would respond to an alarm at his residence.

The news interview showing the door and the itty bitty window sticker says it all. That is all I have to say on this subject.

mojo84 wrote:

gljjt wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
I worked a LOT of burgular alarm calls, and we never entered without the consent of the owner. 98% of the time they were false or accidentally triggered by a homeowner or someone at the buisness. >1% was no one there on a break-in, and <1% was the one time we found someone in the business and the owner had given us permission to enter over the


I just watched this report. There was a sign up saying there was a rotweiller inside. The cops entered anyway. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ ... work-video" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Based on this fact and per eellis' comment quoted, it was not a good shoot. The officer should be disciplined.

And if there had been a bad guy in the house, beating, raping or worse to the occupants, the police, not knowing what is occuring, should wait outside because there is a sign saying dog inside? Why even dispatch if you aren't going to really investigate? IMHO an alarm with an open door constitutes probable cause to enter. Seattle had 25,000 alarm calls in a recent year, the majority false. For the 3% that were real (750), if there is a dog sticker/sign, we put that above helping persons in potential danger if there is a dog and the owner can't be found? I hope not.

You may want to look back at the thread to see who said what. I didn't say they shouldn't enter. I said there was a sign saying there was a dog inside and they entered anyway. Therefore, they should have been mentally prepared and not surprised to encounter a dog. Just because there is a dog and it's barking doesn't mean it is being aggressive and presenting imminent danger and needs to be shot.

VoiceofReason wrote:I don’t believe we have enough information to judge this one way or another. Was there a sign on the door or a window notifying people about the presence of a dog? If not, maybe there should be.

“Lane said 8-year-old Bullet, who suffered from hip dysplasia, is not aggressive.”

I don’t believe I would give a statement like this much credence. As I stated in another thread, a dog owner told me two or three times her dog wouldn’t bite after it bit me which she didn’t see.

The dog may have a problem walking normally but if it felt threatened, could it have possibly moved faster temporarily?

We don’t know if a reasonable person would have believed they were in danger of serious bodily injury because we were not there and are trying to pass judgment from a news story.

I am one that can tell you for a fact the news media can get a story messed up beyond recognition.

Question: Can a police officer sue a homeowner if bitten by the homeowners dog?

mojo84 wrote:Keith, I understand I may be hypercritical in these cases and it could be argued whether or not it is justified.

I wouldn't be if it wasn't becoming so common that people's dogs and people are being shot. Shooting a dog in or near its bed in its own home just doesn't pass the smell test to me. I think it is becoming too common that cops go to their guns and shoot out of " officer safety" and "the #1 priority is to go home at the end the their shift" nowadays. I do know for a fact, some officers have know qualms about shooting a dog as they know there won't be any repercussions as their departments consider them, "just dogs".

I agree with your thought of taking steps not to put yourself in a situation and using more discernment. Much of this could be avoided.