Dog shot in city park

[mr.72]

I believe the father was pro-active in defending his children instead of waiting for a time that it may have been too late.

This seems to be a popular viewpoint...and you may be right, we don't know.

It is easy to sit here and be a arm chair quarterback and criticize a father for protecting his children from what he deemed as a credible threat.

This keeps coming up. The fault with it however, is that no questions concerning the "reasonableness" of his belief/perception are to be allowed. The dissenter seeks to exploit the Father-Child relationship (a highly emotional thing) to his advantage. The premise seems to be that as long as the Parent feared for the child then any action to correct the perceived threat is acceptable and expected. The law of course, would rightfully demand the action be normal and reasonable and that others (in a similar situation) would have acted in the same way. For me, a dog approaching is NOT a reason for me to jerk my weapon. There must be a compelling reason for me to believe that the animal means me harm.

The problem with your position here, at least as far as I can read and comprehend it, is that it is so very biased and blind to the overwhelming likelihood that indeed the man's reaction was in fact reasonable that there is no way I can see to effectively communicate. There can be no common ground as long as you insist that the dog MUST have been just approaching with its tail wagging and its tongue out or in some other non-threatening manner.

The high likelihood is that the dog was behaving in a threatening manner, and the uninformed, ignorant and otherwise extreme anti-gun "witnesses" are completely unreliable, most of which the dog's owner who didn't even know about a leash law. The news reports posted are also ridiculously biased against guns in general so there is little chance that the true story is really getting reported. Given these things, the most dependable witness is the man who shot the dog, because he is the one who has not demonstrated his complete ignorance of the law with regards to shooting a dangerous animal, and he was the only one who was actually a witness to the event.

Flint, I just hope if you ever have to fire your weapon in defense of yourself or your family against a dog, mouse, human predator or whatever other threat, that people don't try and crucify you the way you are attacking this poor guy who shot the dog. You may find new respect for the opinions of those, maybe particularly those on a grand jury, who have a lot less emotional attachment and insistence in the infallible good nature of the BG you have to shoot than you are demonstrating in favor of this dog.

This all really reminded me of the events surrounding my own run in with my next-door-neighbor's pit bull, and how I had wished that the police officer had shot it rather than believing the insane owner when she swore the dog was perfectly friendly and under control. If I had owned a gun on the day that dog came over my fence and came at my kids, then it would be me you would have been attacking for my motives for shooting a dangerous animal because of course, I would have been the only witness and I would have shot, and hopefully killed, a dog whose owner, family members, and other dog-character-witnesses would have sworn up and down was a perfectly good dog, just trying to be friendly. Who knows how many more children that dog has bitten in the 8 or so years since that happened.

So here's hoping you're not on any jury I have to face. I'll take jurors without blind faith in the goodness of pit bulls in spite of the testimony of a reasonable person.

[flintknapper]

The problem with your position here, at least as far as I can read and comprehend it, is that it is so very biased and blind to the overwhelming likelihood that indeed the man's reaction was in fact reasonable that there is no way I can see to effectively communicate. There can be no common ground as long as you insist that the dog MUST have been just approaching with its tail wagging and its tongue out or in some other non-threatening manner.

Well heck, why not.......lets do this one more time.

I do not "insist" the dog approached tail wagging, tongue out, or otherwise, please re-read my posts. I am suggesting that it is an equally plausible event to it charging the children "growling and snarling" and for good reason.

The high likelihood is that the dog was behaving in a threatening manner, and the uninformed, ignorant and otherwise extreme anti-gun "witnesses" are completely unreliable, most of which the dog's owner who didn't even know about a leash law.

Why is there a "high likelihood" that the dog was behaving in a threatening manner? The facts overwhelming support the dogs normal demeanor as NOT being aggressive or troublesome. Did you read any of the testimony the girls and others gave? They have the same dogs, in the same park, doing the same thing for nearly three months now, at least 3 times a week. By all accounts there have been NO problems. So, on the likeliness scale... most "likely" the dog was NOT being a threat.

Here are some pointed questions for you, please answer all of them for me...(and with something more than "I don't know" please).

1. Why would a group of dogs doing something they had done before (playing in the water many dozens of times) suddenly become violent and aggressive and pin a couple of boys against a fence?

2. Why would these vicious and uncontrollable animals not have attacked the ducks or the squirrel that were close by, seems like a more likely target? Could it be because they are not aggressive.

3. Do you think it is possible that someone that is afraid (maybe terrified) of dogs might see the animal as nothing but a big head with teeth coming (completely missing the non aggressive posture), is that possible?

4. What is the "likelihood" that these dogs have encountered other children in the park before (excellent huh), why didn't they attack them? Why didn't they attack a grown up, another dog, anything, nothing at all in all this time they have been in the park (dozens of times)? Aren't you just a little curious, or has your own experience perhaps resulted in the "bias" you accuse me of?

The news reports posted are also ridiculously biased against guns in general so there is little chance that the true story is really getting reported.

So, how does this work for you? The discussion here (at least on my part) has not challenged the officers right to have a firearm, I fully support that. Are you saying that the paper has purposely misrepresented either side? Looks like they have reported everything they can get their hands on. The fact is: The girl (and numerous on line posters) have responded to the event. The officer is laying low and has contributed nothing further, Zero, Zilch. How is the paper at fault for that, tell me?

Given these things, the most dependable witness is the man who shot the dog, because he is the one who has not demonstrated his complete ignorance of the law with regards to shooting a dangerous animal, and he was the only one who was actually a witness to the event.

Many other folks were witnesses until just moments before the shooting, the dog owner for one. The officer and his children were obviously witnesses, but we haven't heard a peep out them. But somehow, because the girls were unaware that they were breaking any laws/ordinances their testimony is inadmissible, can only be inaccurate and unreliable in your mind...and nothing they say should be trusted or have any weight. How very convenient.

Flint, I just hope if you ever have to fire your weapon in defense of yourself or your family against a dog, mouse, human predator or whatever other threat, that people don't try and crucify you the way you are attacking this poor guy who shot the dog.

It is my fervent hope not to have to use deadly force against man or beast, but I will without hesitation if there is clear and present danger of a nature requiring that kind of action. I hope the same for you and everyone else here.

You may find new respect for the opinions of those, maybe particularly those on a grand jury, who have a lot less emotional attachment and insistence in the infallible good nature of the BG you have to shoot than you are demonstrating in favor of this dog.

If ever I am unfortunate to be involved in a deadly force shooting, I expect and welcome the full scrutiny of my peers. I will have every confidence that they will judge correctly....because I do not intend to employ such force unless their is an obvious and reasonable need.

This all really reminded me of the events surrounding my own run in with my next-door-neighbor's pit bull, and how I had wished that the police officer had shot it rather than believing the insane owner when she swore the dog was perfectly friendly and under control.

If the lady did not witness this event then it is understandable that she had doubts, what is so hard to fathom about that. Personally, I have experience in the past with an alpha male Lab I owned that was an awakening for me. So I agree that under certain circumstances a "thought to be" reliable dog...may not be. But that doesn't mean that all dogs have quirks or are ticking time bombs. I am surprised the lady dismissed your account so casually, I consider this to be irresponsible on her part, but I don't see how it is applicable here.

If I had owned a gun on the day that dog came over my fence and came at my kids, then it would be me you would have been attacking for my motives for shooting a dangerous animal because of course, I would have been the only witness and I would have shot, and hopefully killed, a dog whose owner, family members, and other dog-character-witnesses would have sworn up and down was a perfectly good dog, just trying to be friendly. Who knows how many more children that dog has bitten in the 8 or so years since that happened.

First, I am not "attacking" anyone...so please don't characterize my questions as such. Second, you have somehow worked into the mix the idea that I am against anyone protecting themselves which for the zillion-th time I say "I am not". This experience of yours seems to have influenced your position concerning personal protection to the point that (like another person here) you will not even permit simple questions.

Lets look at what you wrote and see what we can extract from it:

I would have shot, and hopefully killed, a dog whose owner, family members, and other dog-character-witnesses would have sworn up and down was a perfectly good dog, just trying to be friendly.

Here we would have had a circumstance closely paralleling the one we have been discussing. By shear numbers (of witnesses), we might have say..... 15 people whose experience with this dog has been nothing but good. Versus ONE person who says it was not. Why is it unreasonable to have "questions" when we see this type of disparity and why does it upset you and others so....when I apply it to this case (which seems to have more holes in it than that).

You might ask, why would the person who alleged the attack make up something like that. And an excellent question that would be. If the case went to court...how would we determine your trustworthiness (since I assume your children were not bitten and there is no other evidence to speak of). If it comes out that in the past you have told your neighbors that "if they don't keep that blankity blank pit-bull in their yard then they will be burying it", if it turns out that you posted "you'll get your rifle out and hunt them down even they are doing nothing" on the INTERNET for all to see, etc....then I fully expect a jury to suspect that you are just "laying" for the dog, or have an unnecessary and unreasonable fear of them.

If on the other hand, you are a dog owner, are not overly afraid of dogs (watchful though), have been around dogs before, haven't instilled in your children any phobias, and have not had any harsh dealings with your neighbors then I'd say If I were on the jury....I'd sure listen to you.

So I guess my question is: Which one of these scenarios best describes the officer (maybe something in between). Because, if its the first one...I can easily see where he could have made a mistake, thats all I'm saying. I'm not here rooting for the dog...and I don't belong to PETA.

So here's hoping you're not on any jury I have to face.

Well...there is an excellent chance...because I always get picked, always!

I'll take jurors without blind faith in the goodness of pit bulls in spite of the testimony of a reasonable person.

You're NOT talking to one here. I just don't believe that any significant percentage of them are the demon dogs so many portray them as. And if ever I am a juror for your case, you may rest assured that I will carefully weigh the facts as presented. If you can give me any compelling evidence that the dog was attacking (or about to attack), something, anything that can help me support you I will. But unless one person is more credible than the other, or more credible witnesses than the others come forth, or some circumstantial evidence (past history) comes up, then I might have questions. Sheesh....you'd think that would be a good thing.

[mr.72]

Well heck, why not.......lets do this one more time.

I do not "insist" the dog approached tail wagging, tongue out, or otherwise, please re-read my posts. I am suggesting that it is an equally plausible event to it charging the children "growling and snarling" and for good reason.

Well ok, then. You think it's "equally plausible". I think there is maybe a 1% probability. You see this police officer doesn't have a history of hunting dogs either, as far as we are aware, so we should probably assume he is a normal reasonable person to begin with unless we have evidence otherwise, and the chances of a normal reasonable person just shooting a friendly dog are extremely small. IMHO of course.

Why is there a "high likelihood" that the dog was behaving in a threatening manner? The facts overwhelming support the dogs normal demeanor as NOT being aggressive or troublesome.

The high likelihood is because the dog's behavior prompted a police officer to shoot it, and his account of the situation supports this as a good shooting. The dog's "normal demeanor" is completely irrelevant, since the dog was not shot while undertaking its normal demeanor.

Did you read any of the testimony the girls and others gave?

You mean the ones that say things like "I can't believe they let some guy carry a gun stuffed down his shorts and just go blasting away"? Like I said many times, I think the testimony of the dog owners is completely unreliable, because they clearly have a strong case for bias.

Here are some pointed questions for you, please answer all of them for me...(and with something more than "I don't know" please).

1. Why would a group of dogs doing something they had done before (playing in the water many dozens of times) suddenly become violent and aggressive and pin a couple of boys against a fence?

Because they did. You expect me to time-travel, read the mind of some dog 250 miles away, and answer this question with something other than "I don't know"?

2. Why would these vicious and uncontrollable animals not have attacked the ducks or the squirrel that were close by, seems like a more likely target? Could it be because they are not aggressive.

uhh, because they were busy attacking the children? again who knows!

3. Do you think it is possible that someone that is afraid (maybe terrified) of dogs might see the animal as nothing but a big head with teeth coming (completely missing the non aggressive posture), is that possible?

Sure anything's possible. That type of person would be a complete moron for going to a public park to begin with. So I would say this is JUST AS LIKELY as it is that the dog was not actually behaving aggressively. Let's say 1% chance this was happening, and 1% chance the dog was being friendly, and 98% chance the people (including the children) were responding normally to the animal and the animal was in fact being aggressive, to the surprise of the owner and her friends.

4. What is the "likelihood" that these dogs have encountered other children in the park before (excellent huh), why didn't they attack them? Why didn't they attack a grown up, another dog, anything, nothing at all in all this time they have been in the park (dozens of times)? Aren't you just a little curious, or has your own experience perhaps resulted in the "bias" you accuse me of?

The only "bias" I have here is that a police officer encountered events that prompted him to take the serious step of shooting a dog, so it would be extremely unlikely for there to have been no cause.

Every dog that ever bites or attacks a person does so one time for the first time. It's not like they are puppies and from day 1 they constantly bite everyone they encounter. And as far as we know, this dog may have indeed bitten or attacked other people, dogs, etc. and the victims or witnesses are just not coming forward. Only the dog would know who they are, if they were not witnessed by the owner of the dog during any such attack. So the real answer to this question is not only the dreaded "I don't know", but also "we don't know".

So, how does this work for you? The discussion here (at least on my part) has not challenged the officers right to have a firearm, I fully support that. Are you saying that the paper has purposely misrepresented either side? Looks like they have reported everything they can get their hands on.

Looks like! Now we also can read the minds of reporters as well as bullet-resistant dogs.

The fact is: The girl (and numerous on line posters) have responded to the event. The officer is laying low and has contributed nothing further, Zero, Zilch. How is the paper at fault for that, tell me?

Are you suggesting that the paper's report was unbiased?

If you were in the officer's position, and the following had occurred:

1. you shot a dog that you believed was attacking your children
2. your lawyer told you not to say anything to anyone about it
3. the newspaper report was heavily biased against the very idea of even carrying a gun, much less using it
4. whatever you might say would likely not get reported without additional bias

would you go on the record and say something to the press?

Many other folks were witnesses until just moments before the shooting, the dog owner for one. The officer and his children were obviously witnesses, but we haven't heard a peep out them. But somehow, because the girls were unaware that they were breaking any laws/ordinances their testimony is inadmissible, can only be inaccurate and unreliable in your mind...and nothing they say should be trusted or have any weight. How very convenient.

No, I guess it is very inconvenient for the police officer that nobody else witnessed the event, because it does not offer him any other witness to corroborate his story. Now all of the other witnesses are not actually witnesses to the event, and the dog owner is unreliable as a witness, even if she were a witness, simply because she is the dog's owner. The fact that she also has an unfounded fear of guns and is ignorant to the leash law simply enforces this.

IF these people had ACTUALLY WITNESSED the event, and not some time before the event, but the real event, THEN they could be evaluated as witnesses. But they did not witness it. We have only one adult witness.

It is my fervent hope not to have to use deadly force against man or beast, but I will without hesitation if there is clear and present danger of a nature requiring that kind of action. I hope the same for you and everyone else here.

Why then are you so unwilling to begin with the idea that this officer acted exactly as you would?

If ever I am unfortunate to be involved in a deadly force shooting, I expect and welcome the full scrutiny of my peers. I will have every confidence that they will judge correctly....because I do not intend to employ such force unless their is an obvious and reasonable need.

Obvious to whom? There are no other witnesses in this case.

This all really reminded me of the events surrounding my own run in with my next-door-neighbor's pit bull, and how I had wished that the police officer had shot it rather than believing the insane owner when she swore the dog was perfectly friendly and under control.

If the lady did not witness this event then it is understandable that she had doubts, what is so hard to fathom about that. [/quote]

Are you talking about my neighbor? She had witnessed her dog attacking people many times! She had pressured neighbors whose children had been bitten to not call the police. She went into hysterical crying fits with the idea that her precious dog was going to be taken away. So even though she knew full well that the dog was dangerous, she would not allow it to be dealt with. So here we have at least one dog owner who was completely irrational, so that's why I am saying it's just as POSSIBLE that this dog owner is also irrational, just like you say it is POSSIBLE that the children who were being attacked had a phobia of dogs. Sure, anything is POSSIBLE. So that's why we have to seek the account of a reasonable person who witnessed it, in this case, the shooter.

I would have shot, and hopefully killed, a dog whose owner, family members, and other dog-character-witnesses would have sworn up and down was a perfectly good dog, just trying to be friendly.

Here we would have had a circumstance closely paralleling the one we have been discussing. By shear numbers (of witnesses), we might have say..... 15 people whose experience with this dog has been nothing but good. Versus ONE person who says it was not. Why is it unreasonable to have "questions" when we see this type of disparity and why does it upset you and others so....when I apply it to this case (which seems to have more holes in it than that).

Because those 15 people did not actually see the event.

You might ask, why would the person who alleged the attack make up something like that. And an excellent question that would be. If the case went to court...how would we determine your trustworthiness (since I assume your children were not bitten and there is no other evidence to speak of). If it comes out that in the past you have told your neighbors that "if they don't keep that blankity blank pit-bull in their yard then they will be burying it", if it turns out that you posted "you'll get your rifle out and hunt them down even they are doing nothing" on the INTERNET for all to see, etc....then I fully expect a jury to suspect that you are just "laying" for the dog, or have an unnecessary and unreasonable fear of them.

none of this speculation is relevant to this case.

If on the other hand, you are a dog owner, are not overly afraid of dogs (watchful though), have been around dogs before, haven't instilled in your children any phobias, and have not had any harsh dealings with your neighbors then I'd say If I were on the jury....I'd sure listen to you.

So there it is! The test for whether you are a reasonable person is if you are a dog owner!

So I guess my question is: Which one of these scenarios best describes the officer (maybe something in between).

Howabout this scenario. He's just a normal regular guy, just like you and me. He has normal and regular expectations of how dogs should behave and has normal and regular reactions to seeing an apparent attack on his children, and has the normal high standard for responding to such an attack by firing his gun.

Because it would be most normal to expect the guy to be normal.

[/quote]
I don't belong to PETA.

I figured this would come up!

BTW my nutso neighbor did belong to PETA.

I'm sick of arguing about this.

[Sangiovese]

One problem here... which is rooted in the media bias for this story... is that the people who did not see the the events immediately prior to and including the shooting are being referred to as witnesses. If they did not see the shooting or the events immediately prior to it... then they are bystanders.

Their "knowledge" of the shooting and whether it was justified or not is no greater than ours.

They heard the gunshot and turned around and saw the officer with the gun in his hand. Other than establishing that he most likely discharged his weapon, they have no information pertinent to the incident. The dog's behavior last week, the day prior, and even 5 minutes prior to the event don't mean that the dogs were not acting aggressively when they were shot.

There were only TWO witnesses. The shooter and the dog owner.

As for the dog owner's account. It has unexplained discrepancies. The biggest one is that she insists that the dogs had turned away prior to the officer shooting his weapon... but the EVIDENCE shows that the dog was hit in the front of the head, from a distance of about 3 feet. It is not possible for her story and the evidence to both be correct. One of them is unreliable. Personally, I will go with the physical evidence over the story put forth by someone with an emotional attachment to the dog that was shot.

What we are left with is:
1. A dog capable of inflicting serious injury was unrestrained and in close proximity to young children.
2. One person whos story does not match the evidence states the dogs were not acting aggressively.
3. One person whos story does match the evidence says he shot out of necessity.

Circumstantial/background information that is relevent includes:
1. By several accounts, the dogs have a history that does not include aggressive behavior.
2. The shooter whos judgement is being questioned is an experienced, well-trained peace officer who makes his living (and stays alive) by quickly assessing dynamic situations.

I don't understand why a reasonable person would lend more creedence to circumstancial point 1 than 2.

[mr.72]

Thanks Sangiovese for succinctly and intelligently making the point that I have been so clumsily trying to make.

I agree with what you said 100%. It's right on the money.

[TB820]

I just found this site this morning, i spent all week last week reading the message board on the empire tribune. I live in Stephenville, right down the street from Chili (don't know him personally though). I am a CHL holder, and a single father of 3 young boys. I didn't read all 13 pages but maybe to help clarify i did hear that he was carrying a .380. Also, i don't know his exact height but i'm 6'3" and he is quite a bit shorter than me. I'm a little surprised at some of the opinions on here, being a CHL Forum, about him getting away with it only because he is a LEO. I also expected this to be very different than the postings on the empiretribune.com website. I would have done exactly the same thing. This is so cut and dry, i cannot believe there is this much discussion about it. Though i never want to have to pull the trigger i would in a new york minute. There was no way for him to know the history of that dog at that exact moment, and i seriously doubt he pulled the trigger just cause he knew he could get away with it. He has caught plenty of crap here in "rumorville", especially from our biased newspaper, which has had a front page article for 6 days running now. Like i said, i don't know him personally, but i do know that he is very well respected and liked amongst all the college students and the community and to my knowledge has never been in any kind of trouble for anything like this in many years of service to our community. I know there are some corrupt LEO's in the world but the amount of distrust in law enforcement, especially with CHL holders, bothers me a little bit. Cheers to Chili!!!! The dog owner broke the law, he did not. IMO, there is nothing to investigate any further!

[flintknapper]

One problem here... which is rooted in the media bias for this story... is that the people who did not see the the events immediately prior to and including the shooting are being referred to as witnesses. If they did not see the shooting or the events immediately prior to it... then they are bystanders.

.
I don't see the media as being bias here. I see them doing nothing more than printing any information they have and allowing comments from on-line participants (both for and against the officers actions). If Officer Alexander would like to re-butt the comments or add additional information...I am dead certain the newspaper would print it. I suspect however...he is lawyered up. The rest of your comment I agree with, all others present are rightfully considered bystanders.

Their "knowledge" of the shooting and whether it was justified or not is no greater than ours.

Very true.

They heard the gunshot and turned around and saw the officer with the gun in his hand. Other than establishing that he most likely discharged his weapon, they have no information pertinent to the incident.

Again....true.

The dog's behavior last week, the day prior, and even 5 minutes prior to the event don't mean that the dogs were not acting aggressively when they were shot.

Acknowledged, but it does establish what the dogs "normal" behavior is...and begs the question: Why would the dog on this day be acting abnormally. According to "Mr72" there is a 99% chance that is what happened, so I guess by inference 99 out of 100 pit-mix dogs intend to attack you anytime they approach. Doesn't make sense and isn't supported by evidence.

There were only TWO witnesses. The shooter and the dog owner.

Yes! A classic "He said, She said".

As for the dog owner's account. It has unexplained discrepancies. The biggest one is that she insists that the dogs had turned away prior to the officer shooting his weapon... but the EVIDENCE shows that the dog was hit in the front of the head, from a distance of about 3 feet. It is not possible for her story and the evidence to both be correct. One of them is unreliable. Personally, I will go with the physical evidence over the story put forth by someone with an emotional attachment to the dog that was shot.

I believe the distance is yet undetermined. We do NOT know the distance based on the scant evidence alone, the only thing clearly established is the animal was struck in the front part of the "head" (muzzle actually).

The location of the "entry" is being used in an attempt to establish the position of the shooter relative to the dog. It is asserted that the girl is lying/mistaken because the dog sustained a wound to the to the "face" and therefore must have been close and must have been facing the shooter in a menacing fashion.

Lets see if that is so:

Could this dog be shot in the front of the head?
http://th533.photobucket.com/albums/ee3 ... illdoe.jpg


What about this one when it turned its head to look at you?
http://th516.photobucket.com/albums/u32 ... h_blue.jpg


I could easily shoot this one in the front of the head.
http://th120.photobucket.com/albums/o17 ... IM0075.jpg


Is it possible a dog like this got shot in the front of the head simply because it was close to someone: http://th167.photobucket.com/albums/u13 ... 000014.jpg


Or was this the dog that got shot:
http://th182.photobucket.com/albums/x15 ... t_bull.jpg



Folks we're never gonna know.

What we are left with is:
1. A dog capable of inflicting serious injury was unrestrained and in close proximity to young children.

Yes. "Capable".

2. One person whos story does not match the evidence states the dogs were not acting aggressively.

IMO the "evidence" shows nothing that could be construed as reliable.

3. One person whos story does match the evidence says he shot out of necessity.

And conflicting testimony by the dog owner.

Circumstantial/background information that is relevent includes:
1. By several accounts, the dogs have a history that does not include aggressive behavior.

Yes.

2. The shooter whos judgement is being questioned is an experienced, well-trained peace officer who makes his living (and stays alive) by quickly assessing dynamic situations.

Well, perhaps you know officer Alexander and his level of experience, but if I remember correctly...he is employed as a University Policeman. My guess is that he stays alive more by virtue of his envirionment..than having quickly assessed the dynamic situations involved in breaking up a fight and telling folks to turn their music down. That is not to say that serious situations can't erupt on a college campus. I will assume he is "trained" (perhaps well trained) at least to the minimum standards. If you have documentation of his training or stories relating to quick assessment having saved his life...I will happily accept them.

One thing is clear, Officer Alexander seems to be quite popular among the students and citizens of the town (most of them anyway). This tells me that he must be a friendly and outgoing person. It doesn't mean he is incapable of making mistakes, but it does mean folks are likely to rally around him if he does. Good to have support and I am actually glad for the man. I am just left with questions concerning this incident, nothing more or less.

[TB820]

...he is employed a University Policeman. My guess is that he stays alive more by virtue of the envirionment..than having quickly assessed the dynamic situations involved in breaking up a fight and telling folks to turn their music down.

Again, i don't know him personally, but as someone who knows many local officers and listens to a radio frequently i do know that many nights a week Erath County has 1 deputy on duty at night expected to cover 1000 square miles, therefore they often rely on Tarleton officers and DPS to assist with all kinds of calls. So in the years he's been there i would venture to say he has had a wide variety of experience assisting on many types of calls on and off campus.

[03Lightningrocks]

I am going to give the "mods" a break now ( I know they have been praying for that) and remove myself from the discussion.

Thanks to all who participated, and no hard feelings!

Flint.

I thought you were going to leave it alone flintknapper. How many posts have you made since this promise? I am willing to bet that no one is going to change the way they feel about a situation like this because of what you or anyone else may say in a post on this forum. I am not sure I see what it is your trying to accomplish by .

[KBCraig]

I just found this site this morning,

Welcome! Hope you stick around; this is a great place to learn about CHL matters.

This is so cut and dry, i cannot believe there is this much discussion about it.

Apparently it's not, because there is.

[TB820]

Welcome! Hope you stick around; this is a great place to learn about CHL matters.

Thank you, there is some interesting stuff on here. I've had my CHL for 3 years now, but have never been on here before.

[flintknapper]

Welcome! Hope you stick around; this is a great place to learn about CHL matters.

Thank you, there is some interesting stuff on here. I've had my CHL for 3 years now, but have never been on here before.

+1

Welcome to the forum. I hope this thread doesn't "put you off", once in awhile a subject comes up that fosters alot of disussion.

Glad to have another member!

[flintknapper]

I thought you were going to leave it alone flintknapper.

I know, I tried....I really tried. I guess I can't claim to be a punctual person anymore.

How many posts have you made since this promise?

I don't really know. Is there a fee?

I am willing to bet that no one is going to change the way they feel about a situation like this because of what you or anyone else may say in a post on this forum.

Probably not, but that wasn't my purpose for participating, just offering some food for thought and few of my own opinions (wanted or not).

I am not sure I see what it is your trying to accomplish by .

Generally, the term refers to a re-hashing of some subject that has already been resolved or discussed to the juncture that no new points can be made that advance an argument/position. So....I guess I didn't see the horse. Did you?


So....is the horse officially dead, and no one told me?

[03Lightningrocks]

[Right2Carry]

Flitnapper wrote:

One thing is clear, Officer Alexander seems to be quite popular among the students and citizens of the town (most of them anyway). This tells me that he must be a friendly and outgoing person.

One problem I have with your argument is you are not applying your standards equally to both sides. You claim the dog is good natured, has never had a problem, been at the park and never attacked any other kids or animals, so why would he all of a sudden attack some children which would be out of character for the dog.

I think you need to apply that same standard to the officer. Why would an officer of the law who has never exhibited bad behaviour in the community, been an outstanding member of the community, has been in parks before with no history of shooting dogs or animals, all of a sudden do something that is completely out of character for him? I am sure the officer has a few more years on this planet exhibiting good character than the dog has.

You might want to watch a few episodes of when animals attack. I think you would be surprised at the number of family pets that never showed aggression that ended up attacking their owners or others.

I would say the chances of the dog acting out of character are far greater then the officer acting out of character and shooting a dog who was no threat to him or his children.