Dog shot in city park

[KD5NRH]

Not sure how much longer these (with comments) will be available on the E-T's site. Comments seem to be about 50/50 between "it's so irresponsible to use a gun in a park" and "I'd do the same thing."

http://www.empiretribune.com/articles/2 ... ogcomments

Tarleton officer shoots dog in City Park
By JESSICA HORTON
Staff Writer
news@empiretribune.com
Published: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:08 AM CDT
An off-duty Tarleton police officer shot a pit bull he claimed was about to attack his children in Stephenville City Park Monday.

According to Jeff “Chili” Alexander, he and his children were playing in the park near the tennis courts when four dogs, none of them on leashes, started playing in the stream that runs along the north side of the courts.

Brianna Reyes, the owner of the pit bull, and another girl were with the dogs. Reyes admitted the dogs were running loose and playing in the water, but said they were not acting aggressive toward anyone. Witnesses in the park at the time of the shooting backed up Reyes’ claim.

“I see those girls in the park every day around this time,” said Jody Caudle, a witness. “I come to the park on my lunch breaks to practice guitar and I see them. The same girls are always walking them without leashes and the dogs are always well-behaved.”

None of the witnesses, however, said they saw the events leading up to the incident.

“There were lots of people all around and those dogs weren’t bothering anyone,” one witness said at the scene. “We weren’t watching them because they weren’t a threat to us. But we heard a loud bang and turned around and he (Alexander) was standing there with his gun drawn.”

Alexander said the dog ran up to his children growling and snarling. He told officers he warned Reyes three times to get the dog away from his sons.

“The dog had my kids pinned against the fence,” Alexander said. “I thought he was going to attack my sons and I did what I thought would keep them safe.”

Reyes claimed the dog was not attacking, but playing, and turned back to her when she called its name. According to Reyes, when the dog got close to the kids, Alexander pulled out his gun and fired.

According to Stephenville Police Chief Roy Halsell, the gunshot hit the dog in the front of the head.

According to another witness and Reyes, Alexander then began to point the gun at another, smaller dog and yelling for the dogs to get away.

“He (Alexander) didn’t identify himself as an officer until after it was all over and he realized what he did,” Reyes said. “He just pulled out his gun and shot him in the face! He was yelling at us to keep the other dogs back and pointed the gun at the small dog.”

Anna Slaughter, a witness, described what she saw.

“The dog wasn’t right up on the children, but he was closer than the rest. I didn’t see him fire the shot, but I turned when I heard it. I looked up and saw a man waving a gun in the air and screaming and cussing at her (Reyes).”

Halsell said Alexander was within his legal rights to carry a gun in the park and that Reyes was breaking a city ordinance by allowing the dogs to run in the park without a leash.

“A person has the right to protect himself and his children if he feels there is a threat of danger,” Halsell said.

Meanwhile, Tarleton Police Chief Justin Williams said Stephenville police will handle any criminal investigation, and Tarleton will conduct an internal investigation to ensure that Alexander followed university policies and procedures.

Williams also said as far as he knew this was the first incident where Alexander has ever used deadly force.

At press time no charges had been filed. The dog’s status was also unknown. The dog was undergoing surgery at a local veterinarian hospital.

Followup; apparently Ms Horton is pushing a bit of an antigun agenda. Anybody interested in emailing her about that?

No criminal investigation into shooting
Questions surround off-duty officer’s use of deadly force
By JESSICA HORTON
Staff Writer
news@empiretribune.com
Published: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 11:07 AM CDT
Two days after an off-duty Tarleton State University police officer shot a pit bull in the Stephenville City Park, residents are left with more questions than answers.

Tarleton officer Jeff “Chili” Alexander shot the dog Monday, claiming it was threatening his children while he walked with them in the park. But witness statements contradict that claim. Now, residents are left wondering if Alexander was justified in firing a shot in a park filled with children enjoying the last days of summer vacation.

The dog’s owner, Briana Reyes, said the dog was not threatening Alexander’s kids. In fact, she said when the incident occurred, she was doing what she does every day - walking her dog. Stephenville Police Chief Roy Halsell said it is not unusual for witness statements and victim accounts to differ and Alexander appeared to have acted appropriately.

“The common thread in the statements was that the dog did go toward Chili and his kids,” Halsell said. “This he perceived as threatening, and he was within his rights to protect his family.”

This begs the question, is there really a law that allows an off-duty officer, who is playing with his children in the park, to carry his weapon and shoot anything he perceives to be a threat? And if so, is there anything the city can do about it?

According to City Administrator Mark Kaiser, Reyes was the one who broke a city ordinance by allowing her dog to run unleashed in the park. Kaiser said Alexander did not break any laws by carrying his licensed handgun.

State and federal governments, not the city, set concealed handgun laws, Kaiser said. He also said city ordinances do not supersede those laws, which has some residents wondering if children are safe when a man can whip out a gun and shoot an animal in broad daylight.

“What if the bullet had missed the dog and hit a child?” Cherie Wayland, a Stephenville resident, asked. “I know Chili and love him dearly, but he handled the situation improperly and was a poor example for his children. He should face consequences for his actions.”

According to Halsell, the case is all but closed. He said reports filed by the investigating officer indicate Alexander broke no laws and acted within his rights.

When asked if he was concerned that there is no law banning guns in city parks, Halsell said, “Handgun laws have always been a huge concern of mine because I disagree with them, but they are state and federal laws and I cannot change them.”

Meanwhile, Kaiser said the city will look into the incident after police finish their investigation.

While many are calling for Alexander to be reprimanded for his actions, others are cheering him on.

“I would have done the exact same thing if it were my children in the park and I had a gun,” a reader posted on the Empire-Tribune’s Web site.

The Tarleton State University Police Department released a statement saying they will conduct an internal investigation to ensure Alexander followed university procedures and policies.

“We know Chili was not disobeying any laws by carrying his gun in the park,” Tarleton Police Chief Justin Williams said. “The trajectory of the shot and the blood from the dog being on the sidewalk indicates he was close - real close - to Chili and his children, which he perceived as a threat.”

Sources said Tuesday morning, the pit bull survived surgery, but the dog’s status was unclear. Attempts to reach Reyes were unsuccessful

[BigBlueDodge]

I want to know what he was carrying (caliber) when he shot the dog. He hit the dog in the head, at near distance and the dog did not die?

On a side note, when I read this story I think of the National Park System gun ban, because I can see the same situation happening there. Guy goes to Yosemite and get's out of car to take picture of buffaloes eating on side of road. Buffalo get's irritated that tourists are around, and buffalo makes a false charge at tourist to assert his space. Tourist construes false charge as an attack, pulls out gun and proceeds to shoot buffalo.

The problem we have is that most people aren't animal biologists and understand animal behavior. In this article, the guy saw that the dog was a pit pull and automatically assumed that it was viscous and threatening. Would he have done the same if the dog was poodle or beagle, or any other breed? Was the dog truly trying to attack his kids, or was he just being curious. I think there are so many better ways for dealing with dogs rather than using a gun. This is an unfortunate case. There is no convincing evidence that the dog was being agressive to this mans kids. His innocence seems to be based on the fact that the dog did get close to his family. Two facts seemed to have sealed the deal, the dog was a pitbull, and the dog got in close proximity to his family.

I fully support drawing a weapon to put down any threat to one's self or family, in the face of an attacker (be it human or dog). But this story just doesn't seem "convincing" that anyone's life was being threatened.

[Pinkycatcher]

I fully support drawing a weapon to put down any threat to one's self or family, in the face of an attacker (be it human or dog). But this story just doesn't seem "convincing" that anyone's life was being threatened.

So a dog knows what someone means when the pull out a strange metal object? I mean that's fine and dandy and all but in the face of a potential attack on a child by a dog who is not on a leash which is legally required, I'd much rather be on the side of shooting the dog than watching the attack. A dog is a dog, a person is not.

[flintknapper]

I want to know what he was carrying (caliber) when he shot the dog. He hit the dog in the head, at near distance and the dog did not die?

On a side note, when I read this story I think of the National Park System gun ban, because I can see the same situation happening there. Guy goes to Yosemite and get's out of car to take picture of buffaloes eating on side of road. Buffalo get's irritated that tourists are around, and buffalo makes a false charge at tourist to assert his space. Tourist construes false charge as an attack, pulls out gun and proceeds to shoot buffalo.

The problem we have is that most people aren't animal biologists and understand animal behavior. In this article, the guy saw that the dog was a pit pull and automatically assumed that it was viscous and threatening. Would he have done the same if the dog was poodle or beagle, or any other breed? Was the dog truly trying to attack his kids, or was he just being curious. I think there are so many better ways for dealing with dogs rather than using a gun. This is an unfortunate case. There is no convincing evidence that the dog was being agressive to this mans kids. His innocence seems to be based on the fact that the dog did get close to his family. Two facts seemed to have sealed the deal, the dog was a pit-bull, and the dog got in close proximity to his family.

I fully support drawing a weapon to put down any threat to one's self or family, in the face of an attacker (be it human or dog). But this story just doesn't seem "convincing" that anyone's life was being threatened.

I am not at all convinced that he was justified in shooting this animal. The Police Chief and City Administrator seem satisfied that it was a proper shooting based mainly on the fact that the off duty officer was not breaking any laws and that the dog owner was (did not have dogs on a leash). An unleashed dog is NOT the standard by which you may use deadly force against an animal. Its a poor argument IMO.

I am more inclined to think that the officer saw it was a "pit bull"...and because it was fairly close to his child he chose to shoot it. I would like to know more about this incident.

[seamusTX]

Handgun laws have always been a huge concern of mine because I disagree with them, but they are state and federal laws and I cannot change them.

With that attitude, does anyone care to speculate how this incident would have been handled if the shooter were not a LEO?

- Jim

[alphonso]

I'm with the shooter on this one. If an unknown to me and unleashed pit bull gets too close to me or mine I consider it a serious threat. Google pit bull attacks if you need some convincing.

For the gentleman who compared (above) a pit bull to a poodle or beagle I suggest please that you also Google poodle and/or beagle attacks to gain some perspective. All dog breeds are not alike in their capacity to kill or maim.

I shot a pit bull on our property last year. I didn't know where it came from, but it growled at my wife on our rural property and that was enough for me. Enough for the police also. I got a pat on the head (lots of cops hate pit bulls) and the owner, who lived 1/2 mile away got a citation.

[TxRVer]

I am not at all convinced that he was justified in shooting this animal. .

He said the dog ran up to his kids growling and snarling. Only the dog owner said otherwise. Sounds justified to me. It could have been avoided if she had kept her dogs on leashes.

[Excaliber]

This is a case where use of an appropriate OC product (e.g. Kimber LifeAct) would more than likely have achieved the desired result without all the hoopla that surrounds discharge of a firearm, even when legally justified.

[KD5NRH]

Would he have done the same if the dog was poodle or beagle, or any other breed?

Since part of their complaint was that he also pointed the gun at her boston terrier until it either retreated or was restrained, I'm pretty sure the answer would be yes.

Also, the dog that was shot was a pit/boxer mix, so likely pretty stocky and intimidating.

I'm not sure what caliber Chili carries off duty, but IIRC his on duty weapon is a .40S&W. I suspect he'll be laying low for a bit with all the publicity from this, and certainly won't want to answer odd questions about it until all the hubbub dies down, but I'll try to remember to ask next time I run into him.

Also of interest in the comments from the first story:

VReyes wrote on Aug 13, 2008 2:47 PM:
" You are right, he can carry a gun anywhere any time, with hollow point ammunition, in a public park, and while firing, endangering every other citizen's life that was in the area. Are hollow points also used on campus? If so, Tarleton State must be a hot bed of illegal activity that requires that type of ammunition to subdue a student. "

Any LE want to weigh in on the site and reply to that? The reply I'm inclined to post certainly wouldn't make it past their profanity filter.

[Pinkycatcher]

Any LE want to weigh in on the site and reply to that? The reply I'm inclined to post certainly wouldn't make it past their profanity filter.

Haha, considering an FMJ would be more dangerous because of overpenetration I believe the right choice for ammo would be a hollowpoint.

[xpur3l0g1cx]

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!

[flintknapper]

I'm with the shooter on this one. If an unknown to me and unleashed pit bull gets too close to me or mine I consider it a serious threat. Google pit bull attacks if you need some convincing.

For the gentleman who compared (above) a pit bull to a poodle or beagle I suggest please that you also Google poodle and/or beagle attacks to gain some perspective. All dog breeds are not alike in their capacity to kill or maim.

I shot a pit bull on our property last year. I didn't know where it came from, but it growled at my wife on our rural property and that was enough for me. Enough for the police also. I got a pat on the head (lots of cops hate pit bulls) and the owner, who lived 1/2 mile away got a citation.

Yes, and this may have been part of the equation in this shooting.

[bryang]

Handgun laws have always been a huge concern of mine because I disagree with them, but they are state and federal laws and I cannot change them.

With that attitude, does anyone care to speculate how this incident would have been handled if the shooter were not a LEO?

- Jim

That was what I was thinking. This is a very unfortunate situation, however, the way they attacked the LEO for protecting his family is disturbing and for just having a gun in the park. Without more information we probably never know what happened for sure. One thing is for sure he felt like his family was in serious danger and reacted. Appropriately, in my opinion. Whether or not he did it because it was a pit bull or not, I don't know...however, I have see many cases, way to many, of children torn apart by them. I know it would have been on my mind.

I can only imagine the reaction of the town if it had been a CHL that had taken this action to protect their children. The anti's all over the country would jump all over it. With the attitude of the police chief and of everyone they interview.. I would imagine he would be is serious trouble. IMO

-geo

[flintknapper]

TxRVer wrote:

He said the dog ran up to his kids growling and snarling.

Seems unlikely given the account from other witnesses:

Brianna Reyes, the owner of the pit bull, and another girl were with the dogs. Reyes admitted the dogs were running loose and playing in the water, but said they were not acting aggressive toward anyone. Witnesses in the park at the time of the shooting backed up Reyes’ claim.

“I see those girls in the park every day around this time,” said Jody Caudle, a witness. “I come to the park on my lunch breaks to practice guitar and I see them. The same girls are always walking them without leashes and the dogs are always well-behaved.”

TxRVer wrote:

Only the dog owner said otherwise.

Actually...no! The story (as written) clearly states that "witnesses" (plural) refuted his account. We are not told how many witnesses but it is plain that more people said the dogs were not a threat than the ONE officer who says they were.

TxRVer wrote:

Sounds justified to me.

Perhaps it was, I was not there and reports are conflicting.

“There were lots of people all around and those dogs weren’t bothering anyone,” one witness said at the scene. “We weren’t watching them because they weren’t a threat to us.

Anna Slaughter, a witness, described what she saw.

“The dog wasn’t right up on the children, but he was closer than the rest.

TxRVer wrote:

It could have been avoided if she had kept her dogs on leashes.

I agree completely that the dogs should have been on a leash. However, if the scenario were a bit different, say... one of the dogs simply pulled the leash out her hand and approached the children, then what would your position be. Again, the standard for deadly force against an animal is NOT the fact that it is unleashed.

Why weren't the other dogs shot?
Did the officer attempt to put himself between his children and the dogs?
Did the officer consider the angle of the shot and what was beyond the dog?
Sounds like it might have happened on a sidewalk, not the best backstop for a bullet.

I most certainly will not judge the officers actions...because I wasn't there, but it seems a lot Pit-Bulls get shot because "they're pit-bulls" and not necessarily because they are being a real threat. Too, if you want to start a "I'd shoot a pit-bull in a second" conversation then just bring up subject among most LEO or SWAT, you'll get an earful.

I'd still like to know more about this shooting, but I suspect the subject is already dead as far as the Police Chief is concerned.

[TxRVer]

TxRVer wrote:

He said the dog ran up to his kids growling and snarling.

Seems unlikely given the account from other witnesses:

Brianna Reyes, the owner of the pit bull, and another girl were with the dogs. Reyes admitted the dogs were running loose and playing in the water, but said they were not acting aggressive toward anyone. Witnesses in the park at the time of the shooting backed up Reyes’ claim.

“I see those girls in the park every day around this time,” said Jody Caudle, a witness. “I come to the park on my lunch breaks to practice guitar and I see them. The same girls are always walking them without leashes and the dogs are always well-behaved.”

TxRVer wrote:

Only the dog owner said otherwise.

Actually...no! The story (as written) clearly states that "witnesses" (plural) refuted his account. We are not told how many witnesses but it is plain that more people said the dogs were not a threat than the ONE officer who says they were.

TxRVer wrote:

Sounds justified to me.

Perhaps it was, I was not there and reports are conflicting.

“There were lots of people all around and those dogs weren’t bothering anyone,” one witness said at the scene. “We weren’t watching them because they weren’t a threat to us.

Anna Slaughter, a witness, described what she saw.

“The dog wasn’t right up on the children, but he was closer than the rest.

TxRVer wrote:

It could have been avoided if she had kept her dogs on leashes.

I agree completely that the dogs should have been on a leash. However, if the scenario were a bit different, say... one of the dogs simply pulled the leash out her hand and approached the children, then what would your position be. Again, the standard for deadly force against an animal is NOT the fact that it is unleashed.

Why weren't the other dogs shot?
Did the officer attempt to put himself between his children and the dogs?
Did the officer consider the angle of the shot and what was beyond the dog?
Sounds like it might have happened on a sidewalk, not the best backstop for a bullet.

I most certainly will not judge the officers actions...because I wasn't there, but it seems a lot Pit-Bulls get shot because "they're pit-bulls" and not necessarily because they are being a real threat. Too, if you want to start a "I'd shoot a pit-bull in a second" conversation then just bring up subject among most LEO or SWAT, you'll get an earful.

I'd still like to know more about this shooting, but I suspect the subject is already dead as far as the Police Chief is concerned.

I don't know what happened there. I just know that if the dog had been on a leash, under control, nothing would have happened. I have to believe the guy feared for the safety of his kids.

As far as witness accounts, I copied this from the article. "None of the witnesses, however, said they saw the events leading up to the incident."

All other witness accounts don't matter. The dogs may have been friendly at every other time. No one else saw what happened when he said his kids were attacked.

I don't know who's telling the truth but why would he shoot a dog in the park if it wasn't attacking his kids.