Dog shot in city park

[mr.72]

People label me a someone that going to beat them up if I look at them wrong or I’m just in their store to rob them of steal from them(Yes I have been followed more than once around a store). It’s kind of funny some times when a coworker and I get onto an elevator here at work and there is a kid there. The kid normally looks at the coworker first and smiles and what not but then glances over to me and practically starts crying. I don’t do it on purpose it’s just the look I have.

It is a fact that humans have a survival instinct and have developed a sense of how to identify a potential threat, be it human animal or vegetable, by way of all kinds of non-rational cues. So if you look like you might be a threatening type of person, then I think it's reasonable and totally understandable for people to perceive a heightened sense of threat when around you, regardless of whether you actually have any intent to harm anyone. The same is true for animals as well. Likewise an innocuous-looking person may indeed be a threat but is not perceived as one because they don't have outward indicators that trigger a heightened threat response.

So you know I think it's natural and normal for people to respond to people and animals that *look* threatening as if they might be an elevated risk. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, and certainly not every scary looking guy is actually there to hurt you and not every pit bull is actually there to attack your children but many people get hurt or killed because they gave the bad guy or bad animal the benefit of the doubt when they should have been at higher alert.

BTW I don't think anyone has advocated going around looking for unleashed pit bulls to shoot down without any cause. My position is that the fact that the dog was a pit bull reasonably raises the alert level of someone who needs to protect their children, and therefore when there is an animal who can potentially kill the children, we need to cut the guy some extra slack if he elected to be better safe than sorry. I get the impression that Flintknapper may not believe that one should consider the breed/size/etc. of the dog as a factor when evaluating whether or not it might be a threat, and that is likely where we disagree. Somehow though, this point always gets turned into "you want to go out and shoot every living pit bull, and you're an uninformed dog-racist living in fear!". It would really help us to have a reasonable discourse if we could actually respond to what each of us is actually saying, rather than assuming motives that are just clearly not there.

I have to say, though, any dog that can get shot with a .40SW in the head and survive is a bad mamajama.

[mr.72]

I will say that this discussion has been enlightening for me and scary at the same time. I am truly shocked at the mindset of some folks here. It seems many are willing (some eager) to summarily dispatch any free roaming animal they encounter that could "possibly" pose a threat. You have to wonder if they carry this same "fear" into their daily lives and how they would react to a "perceived" human threat?

See this is what I am talking about.

Did anyone actually say that they are willing, or eager, to "summarily dispatch any free roaming animal they encounter that could 'possibly' pose a threat"? I've read this whole thread and I must have missed the post that said that, but you are suggesting that there are actually more than one who have expressed this sentiment.

Then you go on to suggest that this mindset, which is not indicated as far as I can tell, translates to a willingness to go out and kill people who are not actually a threat, is that right?

I am not going to go back and re-read this whole thread to comb through and see if we really do have a bunch of sociopaths on the forum that have expressed these ideals but I think I would have noticed if this was really the case.

What we actually have are some people who believe that some breeds of dogs, including pit bulls, are by their very nature more dangerous than other breeds, and therefore some of us would respond with elevated alert to what we perceive as aggressive behavior from these more-dangerous dogs than we would to other dogs. That doesn't mean that we see the mere presence of such a dog as an imminent deadly threat! I mean if I am out walking in the neighborhood and see someone walking a pit bull and the dog is going about minding its business and on a leash, then there is absolutely no cause to shoot the dog! But if I am at a park and there is an unleashed dog, owner refusing to restrain it, who is approaching my kids in what I reasonably think is a threatening manner then the dog is much more likely to be shot at if it is a pit bull than if it is a dachshund.

Your "questions" are about the motives of the shooter, AFAICT. You seem to be suggesting or "questioning" that the officer who shot the dog is lying about the encounter, and that he was in fact eager to shoot the dog just simply because it was a pit bull, am I right? So are you considering that the testimony of an off-duty police officer protecting his children is perhaps less reliable than your steadfast opinion about the chances of a pit bull to become aggressive? It seems to me that you are really so convinced that pit bulls are all 100% harmless that you would question the validity of a father's account of the incident even though you were not there, no witnesses can refute his testimony directly, and all other evidence seems to support his position.

Please do correct me if I am wrong about what you are "questioning".

Now of course maybe the guy is lying, maybe his kids were on the opposite side of the park, maybe he followed the pit bull owner to the park with the express intent of killing the dog because he has an unreasonable hatred of pit bulls. If it turns out that way, then I will quite gladly concede that you were right to question it. The odds of that are virtually zero but there is always a chance :)

I really don't have a dog in this fight :) I believe the shooter has every right to defend his children and has no real motive to lie about this encounter but I presume that most people are basically reasonable and are going to make the reasonable choice under these circumstances. However I wasn't there and don't know for sure, and really I'm just kind of put off by the suggestion that anyone who does not believe that pit bulls are unjustly vilified are automatically dog-blood-thirsty hair-trigger maniacs hoping for the chance to kill an innocent pet. Maybe we just don't want to have to try and figure out how to shoot this dog after the kid's head is already in its jaws.

[KD5NRH]

One more thing that nobody has touched on (unless I missed it somewhere). How were the kids interacting with the dog before it became aggressive?

From the article that hasn't yet hit the website: (the dog's name is Jackson)

"One of the boys ran and the oldest boy backed up against the fence and was trying to wave Jackson off" Reyes said. "I could tell he was terrified of dogs."

Doesn't sound like they were chasing it, or otherwise interacting at all until it approached.

Reyes said the officer, Sgt. Jeff "Chili" Alexander, warned Reyes twice to call off the dog.

Sounds pretty reasonable on his part. For her part, one wonders why she wasn't already doing it after seeing the boys in obvious fear of the dog.

But, before Reyes had a chance, she said Alexander pulled out a gun and shot the dog in the face.

Say it with me now: "Call off your dog." Now let's try her line: "Jackson." How did he have time to repeat his *and* draw the gun *and* pass up one opportunity to fire (remember story #2) before she had time to say two syllables? I can do that in the time it takes to draw from an open carried, non-retention holster. Or does the dog only accept stand down orders typed in triplicate and filed at Doggy Headquarters? If it doesn't respond to its own name then it's not as "well behaved" as has been claimed, and has no business being off leash regardless of any ordinances.

Ah; it's finally been posted:

Dog to make full recovery
By JESSICA HORTON
Staff Writer
news@empiretribune.com
Published: Friday, August 15, 2008 11:08 AM CDT
Jackson, the pit bull/boxer mix shot in Stephenville City Park on Monday, is home and expected to make a full recovery, according to the dog’s owner, Briana Reyes.

Reyes said doctors and the staff at Ark Veterinary Clinic saved Jackson’s life.

Meanwhile, Reyes and her two roommates, Kolby Graham and Kathleen Cranford, who were with Reyes when the incident happened, say they are trying to recover from the ordeal that left them stunned and shaken. On Monday afternoon, the three roommates who are also Tarleton State University students, were walking their four dogs in the park.

“It’s something we’ve done at least three days a week all summer,” Reyes said. “We take three laps around the park, then let the dogs run down to the stream for a quick swim.”

The girls admit they violated a city ordinance by not having their dogs on leashes, but said they had no idea it was required. They said they were never given a warning by city officials or police and never saw signs indicating the dogs had to be on leashes. In fact, they said it is not uncommon for dogs to roam freely inside the park.

“We did not intentionally violate the law,” Reyes said. “If we had known, we would have had the dogs on leashes.”

What happened next, however, was something the three said no one could have expected. While the dogs were playing near an embankment, Jackson approached an off-duty Tarleton police officer’s children.

“One of the boys ran and the oldest boy backed up against the fence and was trying to wave Jackson off,” Reyes said. “I could tell he was terrified of dogs.”

Reyes said the officer, Sgt. Jeff “Chili” Alexander, warned Reyes twice to call off the dog.

But before Reyes had a chance, she said Alexander pulled out a gun and shot the dog in the face. Stephenville Police Chief Roy Halsell said Alexander was within his rights to carry a gun and use it to protect his family. He said no criminal charges will be filed.

Reyes and her roommates say they will try to heal from the traumatic experience, but will not be taking their dogs back to the park.

“Watching a man pull out a gun and shoot a dog in the park is terrifying,” Cranford said. “We had no idea he was a police officer — or if he would shoot us next.”

They all say they wish the incident had never happened.

“It is unclear who is really at fault. Both parties could have handled it differently. Obviously we should have had our dogs on a leash - but he shouldn’t have reacted so fast,” Reyes said. “It was a horrible situation and it could have been prevented. I’m sorry everyone had to go through it.”

"He shouldn't have reacted so fast" when the dog was already within arm's reach. Great thinking there.

[flintknapper]

BTW I don't think anyone has advocated going around looking for unleashed pit bulls to shoot down without any cause

.

Then you have very selective memory (this would include pit-bulls).

Oh...if I even see any BIG MUSCULAR VISCIOUS LOOKING DOG running loose in my neighborhood, I get my rifle and go hunting. He doesn't even have to act viscious. he just has to look BIG enough to take out a human.

I get the impression that Flintknapper may not believe that one should consider the breed/size/etc. of the dog as a factor when evaluating whether or not it might be a threat, and that is likely where we disagree.

I am really not as dense as you would paint me to be. Of course size/breed can be a factor, my point (somehow lost on you) is that it should NOT be the ONLY factor. Hard to believe you missed that, its clear you are an intelligent man.

[dustyb]

I googled "poodle attacks" and came up with 632000 hits. I say we shoot threatening poodles too!!

Also, I googled "goose attack" and it came back with 2,050,000 results, so it appears as though geese are more dangerous than pit pulls. Next goose that starts eyeing me down is gonna have lead chasing him!!

Poodle attacks usually are not fatal.

[LarryH]

Don't forget that "poodle" isn't just the 10-lb ball of fluff, but also includes the Standard Poodle which is similar in size to a collie or shepherd. While the standard is less well-known than the mini, toy or tea-cup, they are still fairly common.

[flintknapper]

I googled "poodle attacks" and came up with 632000 hits. I say we shoot threatening poodles too!!

Also, I googled "goose attack" and it came back with 2,050,000 results, so it appears as though geese are more dangerous than pit pulls. Next goose that starts eyeing me down is gonna have lead chasing him!!

Poodle attacks usually are not fatal.

I suspect pit-bull attacks are not either, but in any case a "fatality" or the potential for it is not the standard by which we may protect ourselves. Any "reasonably" perceived threat of serious bodily harm is good enough (as it should be).

Also, the animals ability (by virtue of size/breed characteristics) should be a valid "consideration" but not the ONLY consideration.

I know of one incident where a Pomeranian killed an infant child.

[Sangiovese]

I know of one incident where a Pomeranian killed an infant child.

That's true... but not really relevent to the discussion about using deadly force to stop an animal attack. I don't believe that any of us feel that we would need to shoot a pomeranian in order to stop an attack before serious injury was sustained. There are many other options available that would be just as effective, safer for everyone involved, and less traumatic for any young witnesses.

Substitute that pomeranian with a larger, faster, stronger, better armed (toothed!?) dog and our ability to reliably prevent injury without resorting to taking the shot drops dramatically.

Are there those among us who are confident they could get a pit (or any other large, strong dog) under control without having to shoot it? I'm sure there are a few. Of course, there are also people out there who wrestle 10 foot alligators too... but I'm not one of them :) (Please don't take that as an attempt to equate a pit to a 'gator! - just trying to keep things a little lighthearted as I believe that we all share a lot of values/beliefs even though we disagree on some points).

[mr.72]

I am really not as dense as you would paint me to be. Of course size/breed can be a factor, my point (somehow lost on you) is that it should NOT be the ONLY factor. Hard to believe you missed that, its clear you are an intelligent man.

I don't see anyone stating that it is the ONLY factor. If it is not your position that the breed or size of the dog should not be a factor, then what are we debating here? I agree the dog's breed and size should be one factor, and if you also agree, then what's the point of debate?

I must have missed the post about the dude going dog hunting. I don't think that's the general sentiment. Is there anyone involved in this discussion who thinks that the ONLY factor that should be considered when evaluating whether one should shoot a dog is the breed of the dog? Like, you are going to let a Labrador kill your child but you'll shoot a pit bull on sight? That's preposterous, isn't it? The notion that some people think that the breed of dog is the ONLY factor is largely unsupportable.

[Venus Pax]

One source says pit bulls are good animals full of all sorts of admirable and lovable qualities, the bad ones are just flukes, and most of the information about pit bulls being bad pets are based on myths.

The other source says pit bulls are basically bad animals, good and lovable ones are flukes, and most of the information supporting their good qualities are full of misinformation.

That mentality can be applied to just about anything from guns to soap to Kids crafting scissors to the ham samich that you are about to eat for lunch.

Guns, soap, crafting scissors and ham sammiches don't have much of a record of chasing other living beings down and mauling them.

Admitting that something can be dangerous isn't saying that you despise it and want it destroyed. Large dogs have the potential to be dangerous; burying our heads in the sand doesn't change this.

[Wildscar]

One source says pit bulls are good animals full of all sorts of admirable and lovable qualities, the bad ones are just flukes, and most of the information about pit bulls being bad pets are based on myths.

The other source says pit bulls are basically bad animals, good and lovable ones are flukes, and most of the information supporting their good qualities are full of misinformation.

That mentality can be applied to just about anything from guns to soap to Kids crafting scissors to the ham samich that you are about to eat for lunch.

Guns, soap, crafting scissors and ham sammiches don't have much of a record of chasing other living beings down and mauling them.

Admitting that something can be dangerous isn't saying that you despise it and want it destroyed. Large dogs have the potential to be dangerous; burying our heads in the sand doesn't change this.

While I do agree with ya. That was not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to state that for any article you find saying something is good there can be another found saying the same thing is bad.

[flintknapper]

See this is what I am talking about.

Did anyone actually say that they are willing, or eager, to "summarily dispatch any free roaming animal they encounter that could 'possibly' pose a threat"?

Yes! In so many words.

I've read this whole thread and I must have missed the post that said that, but you are suggesting that there are actually more than one who have expressed this sentiment.

I am suggesting nothing other than there appears to be an unhealthy and undeserved view of an entire breed of dog here.

Then you go on to suggest that this mindset, which is not indicated as far as I can tell, translates to a willingness to go out and kill people who are not actually a threat, is that right?

I am calling into question the ability of some folks to "reasonably/correctly" identify what constitutes a serious threat. If people are so willing to condemn a dog (based solely on breed) then why would you think that kind of prejudicial thinking would stop there?

So he shot the dog. Big deal. It is a dog. Better that the dog is shot than the human is mauled. What kind of inconsiderate person allows their dogs to run free all over a park where children are playing. Should have shot the owner of the dog as well.

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.

Personally, I am not a dog racist. I will shoot deader than dead any unrestrained viscious looking animal aproaching me or mine. If the owner doesn't be real darned careful at that point and acts aggressively as well, he may be meeting god also.

I am not going to go back and re-read this whole thread to comb through and see if we really do have a bunch of sociopaths on the forum that have expressed these ideals but I think I would have noticed if this was really the case.

There is no need to re-read it all. I am not saying there are ANY "sociopaths" here, those are your words. I am simply asking folks to be careful about how (and when) they use deadly force. I am also concerned about the hasty conclusions that many are willing to draw.

What we actually have are some people who believe that some breeds of dogs, including pit bulls, are by their very nature more dangerous than other breeds, and therefore some of us would respond with elevated alert to what we perceive as aggressive behavior from these more-dangerous dogs than we would to other dogs.

Elevated alert is both proper and reasonable. "Perception" on the other hand is a very subjective issue. Surely you will concede that the world is full of folks that have made mistakes based on "perception". That is precisely why the law requires "reasonableness", mere perception just doesn't cut it. How are we to expect this reasonableness from folks who have their minds made up that all dogs of a certain size or breed pose a threat to them?

That doesn't mean that we see the mere presence of such a dog as an imminent deadly threat!

And well it shouldn't. Good for you!

I mean if I am out walking in the neighborhood and see someone walking a pit bull and the dog is going about minding its business and on a leash, then there is absolutely no cause to shoot the dog! But if I am at a park and there is an unleashed dog, owner refusing to restrain it, who is approaching my kids in what I reasonably think is a threatening manner then the dog is much more likely to be shot at if it is a pit bull than if it is a dachshund.

No problem, but would you take exception to someone questioning whether or not your perception was "reasonable"? In your mind what constitutes "a threatening manner"? Is a dog that approaches "quickly" an automatic threat. Does the fact that the same dog is wagging its tail and not making a bee-line toward your kids make any difference, or do you just shoot....because "you never know"? This is what I mean by "perception" being subjective.

Is it just remotely possible that the pit-like dog that was shot was just approaching the officers kids in a friendly manner? Is is further possible that the officer has certain notions about pit-like dogs. Is is possible that HIS "perception" was incorrect, and the added emotional stress of this involving his children (which may have been unnecessarily freaking out) caused him to over react. Is this even a possibility? Did he perhaps claim the dog(s) were growling/snarling afterward to cover himself, is that possible?

Do we automatically give credence to his statements and not the dog owners statements because he is LEO? Heaven knows they could not make a "mistake".

Your "questions" are about the motives of the shooter, AFAICT. You seem to be suggesting or "questioning" that the officer who shot the dog is lying about the encounter, and that he was in fact eager to shoot the dog just simply because it was a pit bull, am I right?

No. I am NOT saying the officer (or anyone else) is "lying". I am saying that its possible that a "friendly" pit-bull may have been shot owing to someones preconceived ideas about them. We will never know because the officer (if he's smart) will not offer any additional information to the media. So we are left with spotty and conflicting information to work with.

I'm just saying that for me, all things considered, it just doesn't add up. I believe (perhaps wrongly) that shooting the dog was probably unnecessary and hasty.

So are you considering that the testimony of an off-duty police officer protecting his children is perhaps less reliable than your steadfast opinion about the chances of a pit bull to become aggressive?

Wrong again, I am saying that I do not put the testimony of an off-duty police officer above (or below) that of an ordinary citizen...and certainly not above that of the dog owner, a person who knows the dog best.
Actually, testimony in this case...with all the conflicting information is pretty much useless for both sides.

It seems to me that you are really so convinced that pit bulls are all 100% harmless that you would question the validity of a father's account of the incident even though you were not there, no witnesses can refute his testimony directly, and all other evidence seems to support his position.

The only "evidence" that we have is that the dog was in close proximity to his children (we are not told how close) and he shot it. That is the only demonstrable "evidence" we have. If its good enough for you to shoot an animal because of proximity and not necessarily aggressive behavior, then yeah, I think thats unreasonable.

Please do correct me if I am wrong about what you are "questioning".

I am certainly trying to, although I don't think I"ve been "unclear" on any particular point.

Now of course maybe the guy is lying, maybe his kids were on the opposite side of the park, maybe he followed the pit bull owner to the park with the express intent of killing the dog because he has an unreasonable hatred of pit bulls. If it turns out that way, then I will quite gladly concede that you were right to question it. The odds of that are virtually zero but there is always a chance :)

I don't think the man is "lying", but I do think its possible he over reacted. Of course, he did not "follow the person to the park with the intent of killing the dogs", your sarcasm lends nothing to the discussion here.

However, based on the small sampling of "feelings" about pit-bull expressed here....is it out of the question that the officer may have harbored the same. I can tell you that LEO as a group... are much more predisposed to have negative feelings about large dogs. But I am sure you will never consider... that might have been a factor.

I really don't have a dog in this fight :) I believe the shooter has every right to defend his children and has no real motive to lie about this encounter but I presume that most people are basically reasonable and are going to make the reasonable choice under these circumstances.

As do I, and I have stated this repeatedly. The question remains (for me) were his children really in any danger?

However I wasn't there and don't know for sure, and really I'm just kind of put off by the suggestion that anyone who does not believe that pit bulls are unjustly vilified are automatically dog-blood-thirsty hair-trigger maniacs hoping for the chance to kill an innocent pet.

This is a grossly unfair statement, I have made no such accusation or inference. The drama is better saved for some other argument.

Maybe we just don't want to have to try and figure out how to shoot this dog after the kid's head is already in its jaws.

Nobody wants that.


This has proved to be a most unfortunate circumstance in all respects. Someone correctly posted that it could have all been avoided had the dogs been leashed. Good advice !

[03Lightningrocks]

One source says pit bulls are good animals full of all sorts of admirable and lovable qualities, the bad ones are just flukes, and most of the information about pit bulls being bad pets are based on myths.

The other source says pit bulls are basically bad animals, good and lovable ones are flukes, and most of the information supporting their good qualities are full of misinformation.

Looks to me like a classic difference of opinion. Obviously the person who has suffered a pit bull attack has extremely understandable misgivings about these dogs and they don't mince words on their web site. I am not advocating this site, but just saying that it is no more biased than those sites that support pit bulls as benign lovable pets. It's very little different than the obviously in your face web sites written by people who are advocates of self defense and have been victims of violent crime themselves, vs. the generally passive nature of the rest of people who have never been a victim and are apathetic to the whole idea. I figure once you get attacked by a pit bull, you might have cause to change your tune. If you never suffer such an attack then you might not understand why some people are so virulently opposed to these dogs running free.

Very well said. That deserves a repost.

[dustyb]

Don't forget that "poodle" isn't just the 10-lb ball of fluff, but also includes the Standard Poodle which is similar in size to a collie or shepherd. While the standard is less well-known than the mini, toy or tea-cup, they are still fairly common.

I was referring to the 10-lb balls of fluff. I feel pretty confident I could handle an aggressive 10-lb ball of fluff without using deadly force. I would not want to go toe to toe with a pit bull, or any other large dog.

[mr.72]

Flint, you use the terms "perceive" and "perception" as if it is something we choose.

We all have only our perception from which to react. If I perceive the dog is a threat, then as far as my ability as one person thinking is concerned, the dog is a threat. I can't decide to rely upon another person's perception or any after-the-fact analysis with which to make an immediate choice. My perception is the whole of my input on the situation.

BTW the dog owner in this case may know the dog better than anyone else, but also they are far and away the most biased witness in this whole thing. The pit bull owner that was my neighbor was in abject denial about the dangerous state of her pet. I would put zero faith in the dog owner's testimony. Zero.

Anyway no hard feelings from my end. I don't really think you reasonably do think the things that you seem to be suggesting in your posts. But I do think that you are putting far too much faith in the good nature of this dog or dogs in general, and far too little faith in the good will of normal responsible people. The whole CHL ideal is predicated upon the trust that regular people are going to make the right choices the majority of the time, so there is no reason to deny them their right to carry a gun. Is this not true for regular people's choices regarding dogs they see as threats, as well as human predators?