Dog shot in city park

[tallmike]

I'm not flintknapper, but I take great umbrage at the insult you've just issued him. He has never defended the owner for having her dog off a leash, and he's certainly never shown the least hint of valuing dogs over children.

You have gravely insulted the man, and you owe him an apology.

I agree with that. I doubt anyone here values a dog over a child, what we are arguing about is not the value of either but our opinions of a persons actions.

[Crossfire]

This is an emotionally charged topic, as it is. Please do not let it get personal.

[The_Vigilante]

After reading all of the posts here and the newspaper accounts with all of the so-called witness reports here is what I "think" happened. The dog approached the children with no intention of doing harm to them. He does not have a history of any prior vicious attacks and apparently had a good reputation in the park. It was more out of curiosity IMO. The children, not accustomed to dealing with dogs, any dogs, panicked and tried to get away. Now whether the dog actually growled or snarled at them as if to attack them is open to conjecture. We only have the statement of the father that this happened and of course that explanation is self-serving and would make the shooting "good." . It seems curious to me that no one else noticed or heard what was going on. I never heard from the owner whether she heard or didn't hear the growling or snarling. She was probably close at hand. When the children started crying Dad also panicked and decided to take matters into his own hands and shot the dog and apparently didn't do a very good job of it as the dog survived. Here where I live (Far West Texas) LEO's have a good reputation for shooting Pit Bulls wherever they find them deserved or not. And of course anytime a LEO is involved in a shooting, any kind of a shooting, he is almost always no-billed by the Grand Jury. A witness would have to have very strong evidence (video) to get him convicted. Now if it were one of us who performed this "dastardly deed" we would still be in lockup and characterized as the most vicious gun-packing villain by the media and Chief of Police for endangering children in the park. Anyway that's my $.02 worth on the matter.

[Excaliber]

Recipe for a 12 page post:

Take multiple emotionally charged elements: Dogs / children / pit bulls / fatherhood / police officer / gun / bucolic neighborhood park / college students
Stir well and heat until flashover.

What I see here is a set of primarily he said / she said circumstances, a police officer asserting that he fired his weapon at the dog as the only reasonable way to preserve his children from imminent serious injury under the circumstances as he saw them, blood on a sidewalk at a point consistent with the officer's account of the dog's location and inconsistent with other witnesses' reports of the animal's location, and a dog with a survivable bullet wound to the head.

Since this controversy has gone on for several days and the main elements haven't changed much as they continue to be reported, to me it looks very likely that all witnesses are being fairly honest about what they believe happened. Variations in perceptions that are not contradicted by physical evidence do not necessarily mean anyone is being deceptive. Any experienced investigator knows that it is extremely common for honest witnesses to report widely differing perceptions about what happened in a given incident because they witnessed the events from different distances, angles, and perspectives and filtered them through their own perceptual systems.

A dispassionate analysis of this case based on standard law enforcement methodology would virtually have to conclude that there isn't enough independently verifiable information here to reach a nonspeculative conclusion about whether the dog in question presented an actual imminent threat of serious harm to the officer and / or his children at the moment the officer fired his weapon. The blood evidence supports that the dog was close enough to have presented an imminent threat. The officer himself was in the best physical position to determine whether the dog's behavior was in fact threatening, and he acted in a manner consistent with the perception he reported. Barring any new forensic findings or direct indications that one or more witnesses are deliberately lying, there is insufficient reliable evidence to indicate that the officer acted unlawfully or inappropriately.

There's no value in beating up other members whose speculations on what really happened differ from one's own.

Life is full of stories with no satisfyingly definitive ending. This is one of them.

[KD5NRH]

Anyone other than me think that the photos here suggest a different "trajectory" than first reported?

Appears to be an entry wound on the dogs right side, I can see no clear exit wound...but a "blood shot" eye on the opposite side suggests a shot taken from the side or an angle.

As I understand it, the bullet was lodged in the flesh of the throat, which would be consistent with a shot taken form in front and above.

http://www.empiretribune.com/articles/2 ... 719923.txt

Though, as was pointed out on another board, doesn't that look more like restraining the dog with a double handful of neck, rather than the cute cuddling they were no doubt trying to show?

[The_Vigilante]

We only have the self-serving statement of the dad/leo that the dog was about to attack his children which isn't verifiable by anybody. If it was me that shot that dog I would be in jail and the cops and DA would have thrown away the key-for endangering the children in the park. The leo gets off scot-free-a dual standard anyway you look at it. But I am just repeating what I said in my prior post-sorry. In this case I tend to believe the dog owner's version of the event-not the LEO's.

[Right2Carry]

Hmmmmmmmm,

Anyone other than me think that the photos here suggest a different "trajectory" than first reported?

Appears to be an entry wound on the dogs right side, I can see no clear exit wound...but a "blood shot" eye on the opposite side suggests a shot taken from the side or an angle.

http://www.empiretribune.com/articles/2 ... 719923.txt


Doesn't really "jive" with first reports. But who knows........

You're grasping at straws and speculating over photo's that don't show squat. Stop trying to defend the actions of an owner who didn't have her dog on a leash. You have proven your point that you value a dog over the life of a child.

I'm not flintknapper, but I take great umbrage at the insult you've just issued him. He has never defended the owner for having her dog off a leash, and he's certainly never shown the least hint of valuing dogs over children.

You have gravely insulted the man, and you owe him an apology.

Sorry I respectfully disagree. Flintnapper has been going out of his way to show the FATHER acted inappropriately. I think his points were made, and the reference about the pictures appearing to contradict the Father's testimony was nothing more than speculation and an attempt to continue to beat this dead horse.

It was a dog that should have been on a leash end of story. I find it amazing that anyone would sit here and second guess a father who maybe had split seconds to determine the nature of the dog and what to do about it. I don't think it is an insult to point out what I feel his posts have implied regarding dogs and children. I believe the father was pro-active in defending his children instead of waiting for a time that it may have been too late.

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. I would bet the same people on here trying to prove this father over-reacted would be the same ones lambasting him if he had done nothing and his child had been killed or maimed. Hindsight is 20/20.

I have seen to many people put animals above human life, I won't apologize for calling something as I see it. I hate the political correctness that has our society scared to voice opinions that should be voiced. I am just calling it the way I see it and if you think it was an insult well that is your prerogative.

[flintknapper]

The blood evidence supports that the dog was close enough to have presented an imminent threat.

Would it be fair to say that most likely there was a veritable "blood trial" present? I would bet my last dollar we could find "blood" many places at the scene other than just on the sidewalk right?

VReyes wrote on Aug 13, 2008 6:00 PM:
" Just as the polise department is biased. Yes Briana committed a misdemeanor offense, and does accept responsibility for her actions. But the bigger ofense here is that law enforcement is biased on the side of Jeff Alexander. Yes blood was on the sidewalk, because Briana sat on the side walk after being covered in blood. The city will go through there motions and nothing will get done becasue Jeff Alexander is a long time Stephenville citizen that has run for office and is well liked by the community. It's a shame. "

kindofageek wrote on Aug 12, 2008 1:18 PM:
" Having known this dog for well over a year, I can honestly say I do not believe he made any attempt to harm this "police officer." As for its "history," he has none. He has no history of violence towards people. Yes, it was against the law to have the dog off the leash. There is no disputing that. The dogs should absolutely have been on a leash, but I think there is a much larger issues here. I guess we should all start taking our guns to the city park and carelessly blast away at every unleashed dog that has a "history" based on its breed. How about the small dog the man threatened to shoot? It was a Boston Terrier. A twenty pound dog. I suppose they have a history of attacking people too. I know for a fact that the Boston in question has never hurt anyone. If I understand correctly the angle of gun fire was towards the water the dog had just come out of. This man fired a high powered firearm towards a relatively small body (one that was turning to come to its master) and in the general direction of a body of water. Bullets have been known to bounce off water. What about the safety of the people across the river? I guess when you have a gun tucked in your shorts while walking your kid in the public park in broad daylight it gives you a sense of power. I guess that power entitles all licensed handgun owners to just fire off some rounds in the park. By the way, it's Briana not Brianna. I must applaud the Tribune for what I think is an honest, fair, and unbiased report on this incident. "

kindofageek wrote on Aug 13, 2008 3:06 PM:

On the way to the vet she could barely talk she was so distraught. She was covered in blood (doesn't matter if it's dog or human) and scared that she lost the most precious thing in her life. Who was there that day? Who saw the pain she was going through? I was. I did. Yes, I am being biased. I freely admit it. Maybe it was seeing the blood everywhere. Maybe it was the hopeless crying. She has no obligation to speak to the press or answer her phone if she doesn't want to. Is the officer even the slightest bit remorseful? Has he even said "hey I am sorry your dog got his face shot off?" I guess when you can hide behind a badge (coincidentally one he was not wearing) you don't have to feel sorry for anyone else.
Everyone please stop calling the dog a Pit Bull. It's a pit/boxer and displays the traits of a boxer. This is verified in the comment by VReyes on the original article page. I think he would know a little about the dog.
mordecai is right, this is far from over. I have only met one of the parents of the girls involved, but I know plenty about all of them. Trust me, this will not go away any time soon. "

So again, we have conflicting testimony. Clearly, "blood alone" is not a good indicator of where the dog was in relation to the Officer and his children. The "wound" itself...I would expect to be telling.

“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.”

Life is full of stories with no satisfyingly definitive ending. This is one of them.

Agreed.

[The_Vigilante]

He shot the dog because "he could" and he knew he would get away with it. That's all there is to it.

[flintknapper]

As I understand it, the bullet was lodged in the flesh of the throat, which would be consistent with a shot taken form in front and above.

I agree... this would certainly support the claim. It is not a concrete indicator of "distance" but if we knew the approximate angle we could make an educated guess.

Do you have a source stating that this is where the bullet lodged, I only ask because from the photo... I could discern no obvious exit wound, (rather supporting what you have said).

I have only photos to go by, but the officer appears to be man about 6' tall. The dogs head likely is no more than 24" from the ground. I am 6'-5" but when I hold my weapon (both arms outstretched/Isosceles) and aim at point 24" high and 3 feet away/arms length (a distance I have seen asserted) the angle (estimated) is something approaching 50 degs. off horizontal (fairly steep).

I would think this would result in the bullet having exited the bottom of the animals muzzle or at best lodged in the very back of the throat where the bulk of the tongue is. Certainly the bullet could have suffered some deflection, but experience tells me that a 40 S&W at close distance penetrating thin skin, thin bone (nasal cavity) and little (if any muscle) would have stayed pretty much on course.

Anyway, it is not necessary to apply armchair forensics to this incident. The incident is for all practical purposes over and done with as far as the police dept. and the city are concerned. While it may seem to some that I have labored this subject (some claim in defense of the dog) my concern is really for the welfare of the other humans that were present. If in fact...the shooting was unnecessary/hasty then thats a problem as I see it.

[flintknapper]

He shot the dog because "he could" and he knew he would get away with it. That's all there is to it.

Well.....no!

IMO, this is as short sighted as some other posts that purport blind faith in the Officer/Father.

Unquestionably, it is more complicated than that.

I take some solace in knowing first... that the Children and the Officer were not harmed, but also that the dog managed to survive his wounds. So, in the end.... the best possible outcome was realized.

[KD5NRH]

Do you have a source stating that this is where the bullet lodged, I only ask because from the photo... I could discern no obvious exit wound, (rather supporting what you have said).

This was from one of the mother's comments, and backed up thirdhand via a deputy who took an interest in the incident.

I would think this would result in the bullet having exited the bottom of the animals muzzle or at best lodged in the very back of the throat where the bulk of the tongue is. Certainly the bullet could have suffered some deflection, but experience tells me that a 40 S&W at close distance penetrating thin skin, thin bone (nasal cavity) and little (if any muscle) would have stayed pretty much on course.

I still haven't been able to confirm caliber. The .40 is what I last remember seeing him carry on duty, but he may have something different for concealment. Of course, buttlet weight and quality would also have a lot of effect on the depth; a 135gr PowRBall isn't going to make it far in anything, (which is why I keep some of the 100gr .357 ones in a speed strip for when I know I'll be in a crowd) where a 180gr bullet with less aggressive expansion could conceivably exit the chest and damage the sidewalk on a shot like this.

The other odd thing is that the entry wound appears to be at such a strong downward angle; dogs normally look up at people, so this angle would suggest the dog was ignoring Chili and focused on something else lower and/or farther away. (Kids? The owner? I'd have to know where everybody was in a lot more detail to say for sure, but it doesn't appear that it was looking at the nearby, moving gun.)

[flintknapper]

Sorry I respectfully disagree. Flintnapper has been going out of his way to show the FATHER acted inappropriately.

Sir, if what you mean by this is the notion that I do not believe the man has an absolute right to defend himself, his children, or any other third party from an obviously aggressive animal then I take exception to your statement.

If you dislike the fact that I have "questions" about whether or not this shooting (potentially dangerous to bystanders) was actually necessary or reasonable....(and feel that I have "gone out of my way" or over labored the subject), well....that is your right.

I think his points were made, and the reference about the pictures appearing to contradict the Father's testimony was nothing more than speculation and an attempt to continue to beat this dead horse.

Absolutely "speculation" (not unlike your own or that of others here). We have little to go on in terms of empirical evidence in this case. I believe I have been the first to point that out. Beating a dead horse? I suppose everyone has their own idea of when that starts. I apologize if my questions have placed a burr under your saddle, I felt as if there was still some useful discussion to be had, even though I violated my pledge earlier in this thread to "bow out". I tried.

I don't think it is an insult to point out what I feel his posts have implied regarding dogs and children

.
It certainly is not, I have the same respect for your opinion/perspective as I do anyone who has presented a contrasting view point. In fairness however, I would ask that you be somewhat specific so that I might at least respond to your objections...or point you to a post I have already made (probably numerous times), surely that is not too much to ask.

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.

For another person, perhaps someone not raised around dogs, someone afraid of dogs, someone who doesn't own a dog, whose children aren't familiar with dogs, etc.....the perception of a friendly dog, wagging his tail, tongue hanging out....could be quite different...I realize that.

I have seen to many people put animals above human life, I won't apologize for calling something as I see it.

You've not seen me putting animals above humans, quite the contrary in fact. So since this accusation is apparently leveled at me, then I will require you to show me a post where I have stated or inferred anything of the sort. Again, a perfect example of an unreasonable and inaccurate "perception", yes?

I hate the political correctness that has our society scared to voice opinions that should be voiced

.
With you all the way here. I am not a man to mince words either (although I try not to be purposefully offensive) so I hope I have not been.

I am just calling it the way I see it and if you think it was an insult well that is your prerogative.

I can't speak for anyone else....but I am not insulted by your posts. Glad you made them in fact.

Flint.

[flintknapper]

This was from one of the mother's comments, and backed up thirdhand via a deputy who took an interest in the incident.

Good enough, I thought I'd read something about no exit wound in something written somewhere, but I've read so much on it....I couldn't remember just where.

I still haven't been able to confirm caliber. The .40 is what I last remember seeing him carry on duty, but he may have something different for concealment. Of course, buttlet weight and quality would also have a lot of effect on the depth; a 135gr PowRBall isn't going to make it far in anything, (which is why I keep some of the 100gr .357 ones in a speed strip for when I know I'll be in a crowd) where a 180gr bullet with less aggressive expansion could conceivably exit the chest and damage the sidewalk on a shot like this.

I am inclined to agree.

The other odd thing is that the entry wound appears to be at such a strong downward angle; dogs normally look up at people, so this angle would suggest the dog was ignoring Chili and focused on something else lower and/or farther away. (Kids? The owner? I'd have to know where everybody was in a lot more detail to say for sure, but it doesn't appear that it was looking at the nearby, moving gun.)

Yeah, this is why it would be beneficial to know the posture and location of the dog. A lowered head and shot taken from an elevated position nearly requires an exit wound in the lower jaw/muzzle IMO. An alert/upright head allows for much more latitude concerning bullet termination. Of course, distance and angle are factors.

None of these things are deal makers or breakers for me though, I'm just glad the incident turned out as well as it did and that all involved were unharmed and now wiser for the unfortunate event.

[Right2Carry]

Sorry I respectfully disagree. Flintnapper has been going out of his way to show the FATHER acted inappropriately.

Sir, if what you mean by this is the notion that I do not believe the man has an absolute right to defend himself, his children, or any other third party from an obviously aggressive animal then I take exception to your statement.

If you dislike the fact that I have "questions" about whether or not this shooting (potentially dangerous to bystanders) was actually necessary or reasonable....(and feel that I have "gone out of my way" or over labored the subject), well....that is your right.

I think his points were made, and the reference about the pictures appearing to contradict the Father's testimony was nothing more than speculation and an attempt to continue to beat this dead horse.

Absolutely "speculation" (not unlike your own or that of others here). We have little to go on in terms of empirical evidence in this case. I believe I have been the first to point that out. Beating a dead horse? I suppose everyone has their own idea of when that starts. I apologize if my questions have placed a burr under your saddle, I felt as if there was still some useful discussion to be had, even though I violated my pledge earlier in this thread to "bow out". I tried.

I don't think it is an insult to point out what I feel his posts have implied regarding dogs and children

.
It certainly is not, I have the same respect for your opinion/perspective as I do anyone who has presented a contrasting view point. In fairness however, I would ask that you be somewhat specific so that I might at least respond to your objections...or point you to a post I have already made (probably numerous times), surely that is not too much to ask.

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.

For another person, perhaps someone not raised around dogs, someone afraid of dogs, someone who doesn't own a dog, whose children aren't familiar with dogs, etc.....the perception of a friendly dog, wagging his tail, tongue hanging out....could be quite different...I realize that.

I have seen to many people put animals above human life, I won't apologize for calling something as I see it.

You've not seen me putting animals above humans, quite the contrary in fact. So since this accusation is apparently leveled at me, then I will require you to show me a post where I have stated or inferred anything of the sort. Again, a perfect example of an unreasonable and inaccurate "perception", yes?

I hate the political correctness that has our society scared to voice opinions that should be voiced

.
With you all the way here. I am not a man to mince words either (although I try not to be purposefully offensive) so I hope I have not been.

I am just calling it the way I see it and if you think it was an insult well that is your prerogative.

I can't speak for anyone else....but I am not insulted by your posts. Glad you made them in fact.

Flint.

IMHO your intent as I perceive is to find a way to lay fault at the fathers feet. The fault in this case is with the girl who violated the law by not having her dog on a leash. I doubt that he would have shot the dog had it been wagging it's tail. The child was obviously fearful of the dog according to the owners own account. Owners see their dog differently than others see them. I have seen large dog owners at the park with leashes way to long for my comfort level when my 7 year old is playing. They walk their dogs through the playground area without one thought about what would happen if their dog would attack a child.

It is my opinion that dog owners think that their dog would never attack anyone, much like most of the sheep think that a crime will never happen to them. We carry our firearms in case it does happen to us.

Again my problem here is that the same people who are questioning the actions of the father are the same ones who I believe would be lambasting him had he done nothing and that dog had mauled or killed his child. Dogs sense fear, and with the owners testimony about the child being scarred there is no way to predict what the intentions of that dog were.

If you want to find fault, find fault with the irresponsible owner, if she had followed the law we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

As far as my comment about People putting value of animals above human life, it wasn't directed at you. If I wanted that comment to be directed at you I would have used your name instead of People. If I have something to say to someone I will either respond to their post or will address them directly in any post that I make on the subject.

I am glad that you didn't take my comment as an insult, that was just my perception of what I had been reading. It was not meant as an insult even though KB PERCIEVED it as such. I think the discussion has been civil. although we disagree on a few things.

I don't get offended easily and sometimes I think society should be a little more thick skinned instead of all this tap dancing around things that some people may find offensive or not politically correct. I abide by the rules set forth here in Charles place out of respect for him and the community.

You are entitled to your opinion and as such I guess we will just have to disagree on the subject at hand. I will grant you that the possibility exists (although a very small one IMHO) that the father may have over-reacted to the situation. I think that unless some other evidence or video of the shoot turns up, that this is and was a good shoot according to the law enforcement agencies.

The father is under no obligation to train his child or socialize his child to animals or animal behaviour. Is it a good idea to do so probably, but he is not obligated to do so. An owner is required to keep his or her pet under control at all times or face the consequences of not doing so, in most places that is the LAW. I know exactly what I would have done had that dog had my child cornered and was growling or snarling. The father attempted to get the owner to call off the dog, according to her accounts she didn't have time, but I would venture a guess that she thought she didn't have to and that was her second mistake.