Dog shot in city park

[Sangiovese]

I disagree. The fact that the girls are purported to have taken these same dogs (daily by one account) to the park with no incidents...is rather telling IMO. ANY animal (or humans for that matter) are "capable" doing things that are unpredictable, I certainly understand that. However, the past conduct/actions of both animals and humans is exactly what we base our trust or distrust on. I remain unconvinced this was a necessary shooting.

According to the study linked above, in more than two thirds of the attacks it was the dog's first known display of aggressive behavior. I'm not going to wait for an animal to "prove" that it is vicious by mauling someone else's child before I take action to protect my own child from it when it is displaying aggressive behavior.

As for past conduct/actions being what we base our trust on... pit bulls are responsible for attacks at a MUCH greater rate than other dog breeds. It is a well documented trait/flaw of the breed. Does that mean we should shoot any pit bull we see? Of course not. Does it mean that I am going to keep a closer eye on a pit bull that is around my children than I will a labrador retriever that is near them? Absolutely.

I also see a lot of people saying that he should have positioned himself between the dog and his kids. First off, we don't know that he didn't do that. Second, dogs are very fast and agile. I've been around large dogs my entire life and I can guarantee that the vast majority of us would NOT be able to stop a dog from getting around us and biting a child if it was attacking at full speed - no matter how well we were positioned. Most of us would be able to get hands on it, or force it to go around us, but very few of us would actually be able to grab the animal and gain enough control over it to prevent it from successfully biting the target. It is a risk that I would not be willing to take with my children. Additionally, even if he successfully grappled with the one dog and got it under control (exposing himself to serious risk of injury in the process), he would have been completely unable to defend his family from the other dogs if they had also attacked.

I think it is foolish for people to suggest that he should have resorted to actions that were unlikely to have stopped the primary threat, greatly increased his risk of serious injury and subsequent inability to defend his children, and left his children exposed to additional potential attackers.

[Venus Pax]

Are we to believe that the owner of the dogs simply "ignored" the warnings of the officer....?

That could be a possibility. It is not unheard of for people to use their larger dogs, especially ones with reputations for being "fighters", as a tool of intimidation.

However, none of us were present.

[mr.72]

I find it ironic how quick so many are to defend:

1. a reportedly aggressive dog
2. of a breed well-known to be involved in dangerous or fatal attacks
3. and the dog's negligent owner for letting it run loose

and on the other hand defend citizens who shoot actual real human beings under similar circumstances of perceived threat against their persons or property.

I will never comprehend some of the actions or thoughts of some "dog lovers".

In my last house, we had a next-door neighbor with a so-called "harmless" pit bull who was similarly beset with irrational justification of the dog. We had a 6ft cedar privacy fence that the dog could occasionally jump. The dog would also get out of the neighbors' back yard routinely. This dog had bitten a couple of neighborhood kids but the families were pressured by the owners to not file complaints. I won't get into the whole story but suffice to say all rational thought was left behind while defending this dog. Fortunately the neighbor moved away before anything tragic happened in that neighborhood but I became convinced that short of the dog actually killing someone, the only thing that would get rid of this obvious threat to the children of the neighborhood would be if someone would kill it.

The point is that even though these neighbors knew good and well that their dog was dangerous, and that it had bitten people before and even nearly attacked police officers at the door of the house in the past, they still remained steadfast that the dog was perfectly loving, harmless, and just playing a little rough when it bit people. So forgive me when I am unconvinced by dog owners swearing up and down about how friendly and kind their pit bulls are.

I am sorry to break it to all of you dog lovers but many of us have very good reason to suspect your pit bull is a dangerous animal regardless of your rosy view of its history. So if you don't want to be burying your pit bull then you had better keep it solidly chained, on a leash, and under absolute control while it is around my family. I'm not giving the dog the benefit of the doubt. Any action that looks like it might be threatening is too much risk for me.

[Mach1]

I have not been around many pit bulls, but the few I have been around seem to move pretty fast. I don't think a guy, who thinks his children are in danger, has much time to reason with the dog. With the information we have, I've gotta side with the actor.

[petroleumag07]

Any dog acting agressively towards a child (any person for that matter) should be restrained or repelled immediately.

Since no restraining device was available to the owners or the father, and no immediate non lethal repellent could be found, deadly force was warranted.

There is a large disparity of force between a dog that size, regardless of breed, and small children. Any hesitation from the owner or the potential victim could result in tragedy.

There is always a first time for everything. Just because an animal has never shown aggresion doesnt mean that it wont, every dog is peaceful until that first time.

These women are lucky that the dog didn't get to attack which would have gotten them in deep legal trouble.

The father was lucky that he was able to resolve it with no human injury.

The moment we start defending a dog over a child in a situation that could go either way, we have lost focus.

***Edit: This coming from someone who is a huge dog lover, and whose parents owned a pit until he was 3***

[flintknapper]

I find it ironic how quick so many are to defend:

1. a reportedly aggressive dog

Reported by ONE person (the person who shot it). All other accounts (prior to the alleged threat) state the dogs were not acting aggressively and never have.

2. of a breed well-known to be involved in dangerous or fatal attacks

If this is only criteria to establish whether or not this particular dog was a potential threat then we must shoot every untethered animal from pit-bulls to Pomeranians (yes... Pomeranians have killed children).

3. and the dog's negligent owner for letting it run loose

I can find not a single post where anyone has condoned the obvious infraction by the dog owner.


I have absolutely no problem with a person defending themselves (or others) against clear and aggressive behavior from any animal (heck...I'll help), but I question in this case if that was the circumstance, or if someone just over-reacted because the animal happened to be a pit-bull. Or is that a complete impossibility?

And just to clear things up... in case anyone is wondering: I do not own any pit-bulls, never have and never will, but not because I believe them to be the "devil dogs" that some here espouse. Any large breed dog with good jaw strength is "capable" of inflicting serious injury or death to people under the right conditions. Shall we shoot them all because of their size?

Would this same officer have shot a Labrador if it came running up to him or his children (not snarling and growling of course)? I mean...here you have a large dog, big teeth, muscular, known to bite and attack people (some of them), not leashed. How many times have you witnessed a small child (or grown up for that matter) recoil from an animal that approached them? Often times the animal will be wagging its tail and not offering any signs that it is aggressive in any way, but still the person is in fear. Could this be what really happened?

I am just saying that most dogs are not aggressive to the point that they need to be shot (including pit-bulls), and the Macho, Gun toting, Chest thumping, (I'll shoot every loose dog that comes around) attitude should be dispensed with and each situation dealt with according to the totality of the circumstance.

[KD5NRH]

I have absolutely no problem with a person defending themselves (or others) against clear and aggressive behavior from any animal (heck...I'll help), but I question in this case if that was the circumstance, or if someone just over-reacted because the animal happened to be a pit-bull. Or is that a complete impossibility?

Since the very same people in the comments who are defending Reyes and claiming that Chili shot it because it was a pit are also claiming that it was a pit/boxer displaying primarily boxer traits, I'd have to wonder if he even knew it was a pit at all before the investigation.

Having had a difference of opinions with a boxer in the past, the only thing I'd have done different is to double-tap with anything less than a shotgun.

[Wildscar]

Looks like this is another

[Sangiovese]

Flint, I usually agree with your posts... but I'm really on the opposite side of the fence on this one.

Your main argument seems to be an insinuation that he shot the dog simply because it was a pit bull.

In my mind, that is exactly the same thing as playing the race card and saying that an officer only shot "momma's little angel" just because he was (insert skin-color of choice here).

You have absolutely no factual reason to belive that the breed of dog was a contributing factor in the incident, yet you repeatedly offer that as your main argument.

[flintknapper]

Are we to believe that the owner of the dogs simply "ignored" the warnings of the officer....?

That could be a possibility. It is not unheard of for people to use their larger dogs, especially ones with reputations for being "fighters", as a tool of intimidation.

However, none of us were present.

I can't argue that, except to ask why would the girl (who frequents the park with her dogs) have any reason to intimidate small children (or a grown up) with her pit-bull?

As far as we know....she doesn't seem to fit the picture of a person who has her dogs because they are "fighters". I would think that any previous problems with the dogs at the park would have made that self correcting.

It is probably something less than fair to suggest that she be lumped in with (drug dealing, gang banging, macho wannabe's) who are known for owning and mis-training pit bulls.

But, as you say....none of us were present.

[KD5NRH]

I'm somewhat inclined to post this in a new thread as well for political discussion, but I suspect it would get mixed up pretty quickly anyway.

In light of the controversy, I can see the university not issuing Tasers, but it is interesting that they don't issue pepper spray.

I would also assume Chili doesn't have a CHL, since that is never brought into the discussion.

Dog shooting causes residents to question handgun laws
By WHITNEY WHITE-ASHLEY
Staff Writer
Whitney.ashley@empiretribune.com
Published: Thursday, August 14, 2008 11:07 AM CDT
Two days after the story first ran about an officer-involved shooting of a dog in the city park, readers have been quick to offer a variety of opinions on the subject.

Sgt. Jeff “Chili” Alexander, a Tarleton State University police officer, was off-duty and playing at the park with his children when he shot a dog owned by Briana Reyes.

Details surrounding the shooting vary from witness to witness, but all parties agree that Reyes violated a city ordinance and state law by not keeping her dog on a leash. Alexander claims the dog was coming toward him and his children when he shot it. The incident has left residents wondering about Texas laws for handguns and off-duty law enforcement officers. And readers posting comments on the E-T Web site have not been shy about sharing their thoughts.

According to authorities, Alexander broke no state or city laws by carrying a handgun at the park.

Tarleton Police Chief Justin Williams cited Texas Penal Code Sec. 46.15. For anyone not well acquainted with the law, it states that law enforcement and peace officers are not prohibited from “carrying a weapon in this state, including in an establishment in the state serving the public, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator is engaged in the actual discharge of the officer’s or investigator’s duties while carrying the weapon.”

Translation: Alexander has every right to carry a side arm with him at all times, on or off-duty.

Williams said the firearm used in Monday’s shooting was Alexander’s personal gun because the Tarleton unit has not yet issued service weapons to its officers. He also said the unit does not issue tasers, mace or any other personal defense device.

Stephenville Police Chief Roy Halsell confirmed Wednesday that the investigation has been closed and no criminal charges against Alexander will be filed.

That leaves many residents wondering if Alexander acted appropriately, even if he did act within the confines of the law.

Williams wants the public to keep in mind that every law enforcement officer goes through intense training so they are prepared to respond to similar situations.

“Any time we use deadly force, the officer has to be cognizant of where that round will go,” Williams said. “We are responsible for every round.”

At one point during the incident, Williams said Alexander decided not to fire at the dog because he could see people behind it. Shortly thereafter, he fired a single round when the dog was approximately three feet away from him.

“He fired one round to stop what he believed to be an aggressive animal,” Williams said. “It comes down to standing in his shoes. It’s a whole different level when you’re protecting your kiddos.”

Williams said he understands why some residents may be concerned and said he will conduct a thorough internal investigation.

“We have to take everybody’s statement and try to find the common threads,” Williams said. “Internally, we will take in all the facts before making our decision.”

Under Texas Penal Code Sect. 9.33, “a person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.”

In addition, Alexander was not legally required to identify himself as an officer or to fire a warning shot before shooting the dog.

Williams calls claims that Alexander acted aggressively “very uncharacteristic.” He also said there have been no complaints of excessive use of force or deadly force lodged against Alexander.

“I know him to be a kind-hearted person,” Williams said.

Alexander was placed on administrative leave immediately following the shooting Monday afternoon, but he has since been allowed to return to his duties.

[flintknapper]

Flint, I usually agree with your posts... but I'm really on the opposite side of the fence on this one.

Thats fine, we need not agree on every subject and I respect your opinion and that of others here.

Your main argument seems to be an insinuation that he shot the dog simply because it was a pit bull.

It is central to my argument, yes. But....what I really mean to convey... is that I suspect this person "over reacted" to an untethered dog, but I certainly can not prove that.

In my mind, that is exactly the same thing as playing the race card and saying that an officer only shot "momma's little angel" just because he was (insert skin-color of choice here).

Prejudice and preconceived ideas are a fact of life, let us not dismiss that. Not right, but a fact nonetheless.

You have absolutely no factual reason to believe that the breed of dog was a contributing factor in the incident, yet you repeatedly offer that as your main argument.

This is true...and I may be wrong. I have submitted my "guess/suspicion" based on deductive reasoning (perhaps flawed) and a general attitude concerning pit-bulls as a breed. The same disdain for them is reflected among most of those posting here. Is it really that unreasonable to think that this officer (by means of extrapolation) thinks any differently. We don't know, I admit.

Please understand...that I have only "questions" about this shooting and have tried to be careful not to demonize the actions of this person.

I will say however, that because of his profession...chances are excellent that he has had more discussion (perhaps even training) concerning aggressive dogs (pits in particular). If any of the LEO here would like to weigh in on that (or refute it) then I'm all ears. But, this might well predispose a person to a certain train of thought.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider that an unreasonable idea. Hence, my questions.

Respectfully,

Flint.

[seamusTX]

Under Texas Penal Code Sect. 9.33, “a person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.”

I wonder where that came from.

Chapter 9.31-44 apply to force or deadly force used against people.

- Jim

[KBCraig]

And just to clear things up... in case anyone is wondering: I do not own any pit-bulls, never have and never will, but not because I believe them to be the "devil dogs" that some here espouse.

Same here. I've encountered dozens of them over the years, what with my wife being a groomer and both of us generally being "dog people".

The biggest kick I get out of people's visceral reaction to "pit bulls", is that the majority of the time they couldn't identify a pit if their life depended on it. Any time a stocky short-hair dog bites someone, it's attributed as a "pit bull attack", even when it's just a mutt.

See if you can spot the pit bull:
http://understand-a-bull.com/Findthebul ... ll_v3.html

[kidder014]

Thats sad to hear about that. Chances are the guy saw the "pitbull" and assumed the worst. Most pits by nature are good dogs. The owners were wrong in not having by the leash but imo people are so quick to judge that its a "pit" and shoot it. Its the owners that make these dogs the way they are, just like any other dog. I dont know, I just dont get it I guess. I think the dog probly didnt attack and the guy was in the wrong, but then again I wasnt there. I own a pit myself and always wonder if it would even wake up if someone got in my house. Sweetest dogs in the world!

Glad to see that there are still fellow responsible pit owners out there that see this.