Fort Worth LEO Shoots and Kills Dog....at the wrong house.

[thenick_ttu]

according to one of the LEO's whom frequent this board, the cop's attitude is "shoot first, ask questions later." Is it any wonder that docile, family pets are routinely gunned down by over-zealous, trigger-happy cops? I sure hope and pray that I never need an LEO to show up at my house... or my neighbor's house... or my neighbor's house two blocks away.

[The Annoyed Man]

This could all be avoided with some variation on a very simple procedure: when the officer is arriving, or about to arrive on scene, he radios the dispatcher, asking dispatch to phone the home to notify the resident that he is out front, and to ask the resident (who after all is the one who called the cops) to please go to their front window and verify that they see the officer. When they confirm to dispatch that they see the officer, the dispatcher instructs the homeowner to get any dogs he owns under control. Only then does the officer exit his vehicle and approach the house. The right of the homeowner to be safe and secure in his person and property is then observed, as is the right of the officer in question to have a safer work environment.

I agree TAM, but step one is that the officer has to show up at the correct address.

This is why the officer "confirms" whether or not he is at the right address by having dispatch phone the homeowner at the correct address. If the homeowner goes to the front window and reports to dispatch there there is no police officer out front, then dispatch can tell the officer to double check his location.

Here's another procedure that would work: have the officer call up the correct address on Google Maps from within his squad car and then zoom in on the address in question. Google maps, particularly the "street view," will tell the officer if he's at the right address. Sure it adds time to the equation, but isn't the extra couple of minutes more than offset by not killing the dog at the wrong home?

The point is that this is a VERY simple problem to solve. Step one: Police ADMIT there is a problem. Set two: implement a simple procedure to avoid it going forward. If a police department is not willing to make that effort, then maybe their municipality ought to cut back their funding until they get the message. After all, who works for whom?

[steveincowtown]

This could all be avoided with some variation on a very simple procedure: when the officer is arriving, or about to arrive on scene, he radios the dispatcher, asking dispatch to phone the home to notify the resident that he is out front, and to ask the resident (who after all is the one who called the cops) to please go to their front window and verify that they see the officer. When they confirm to dispatch that they see the officer, the dispatcher instructs the homeowner to get any dogs he owns under control. Only then does the officer exit his vehicle and approach the house. The right of the homeowner to be safe and secure in his person and property is then observed, as is the right of the officer in question to have a safer work environment.

I agree TAM, but step one is that the officer has to show up at the correct address.

This is why the officer "confirms" whether or not he is at the right address by having dispatch phone the homeowner at the correct address. If the homeowner goes to the front window and reports to dispatch there there is no police officer out front, then dispatch can tell the officer to double check his location.

Here's another procedure that would work: have the officer call up the correct address on Google Maps from within his squad car and then zoom in on the address in question. Google maps, particularly the "street view," will tell the officer if he's at the right address. Sure it adds time to the equation, but isn't the extra couple of minutes more than offset by not killing the dog at the wrong home?

The point is that this is a VERY simple problem to solve. Step one: Police ADMIT there is a problem. Set two: implement a simple procedure to avoid it going forward. If a police department is not willing to make that effort, then maybe their municipality ought to cut back their funding until they get the message. After all, who works for whom?

I understand...and agree.

If departments are having procedural issues, it is only a matter of time before this becomes a bigger problem than it already is. The time is now to implement standards and basic procedures to prevent this from happening in the future.

[Keith B]

Many animal control departments in cities are associated with the police department, or at least is a city function. I think all officers should have to spend a couple of weeks working with them to learn about how to handle aggressive dogs and how to tell the difference in one that is attacking and one that is running up to say howdy.

[steveincowtown]

I had no idea how prevalent this seems to be:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/2 ... 46841.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Contrast that to the U.S. Postal Service, another government organization whose employees regularly come into contact with pets. A Postal Service spokesman said in a 2009 interview that serious dog attacks on mail carriers are extremely rare. That's likely because postal workers are annually shown a two-hour video and given further training on "how to distract dogs with toys, subdue them with voice commands, or, at worst, incapacitate them with Mace."

[gigag04]

Cant speak to this situation as I wasn't there.

However, I'll offer an open invite for anyone to come and ride for a night. We can go see some nice pets people keep over in the hood.

[speedsix]

...enough is enough...they ought to get a pirahna-type lawyer and make an example of FT. Worth that will make the nation's police chiefs take action...this is totally inexcusable...wrong street...wrong house number...a collie doesn't faintly resemble a pit...and the homeowners' witness statements in the video nail him...angry isn't quite the word....

[C-dub]

Cant speak to this situation as I wasn't there.

However, I'll offer an open invite for anyone to come and ride for a night. We can go see some nice pets people keep over in the hood.

If I were closer I would love to take you up on that offer.

I don't have any problem with anyone shooting a dog that is attacking or about to attack them. The problem is there are too many incidents where a dog isn't displaying aggressive behavior and still gets shot. The dogs aren't getting shot because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. The officers are in the wrong place. In this case the officer said he thought it was a pitbull. So far that we know, he didn't say it was attacking him, but rather that he thought it was a pitbull. For his sake, he better come up with more than that if he's going to save his job. So far, it doesn't even sound like this dog was barking at him to warn him off his property like the one down in Austin was. I'll be waiting for more facts, but it doesn't look good.

[speedsix]

Many animal control departments in cities are associated with the police department, or at least is a city function. I think all officers should have to spend a couple of weeks working with them to learn about how to handle aggressive dogs and how to tell the difference in one that is attacking and one that is running up to say howdy.

...now THIS would make sense...our animal control is under the PD, run by a Lt...since a lot of officers seem to fear dogs, some training would be very wise...

[speedsix]

Cant speak to this situation as I wasn't there.

However, I'll offer an open invite for anyone to come and ride for a night. We can go see some nice pets people keep over in the hood.

...I'll bet they don't remotely resemble the dog shown in the link...and they have twice as many BIG teeth...I know that some folks keep huge monsters to sic on the police...I'm all for dropping them (and their dogs) when they use the dogs to attack a cop...this wasn't even close to that kind of a situation...and for the officer to tell another that he thought that dog was a pit bull...we're talkin' apples and popcorn here...

[Heartland Patriot]

EDITED

Cant speak to this situation as I wasn't there.

However, I'll offer an open invite for anyone to come and ride for a night. We can go see some nice pets people keep over in the hood.

I understand that any sort of dog can get unruly and perhaps be a danger to an officer. That said, there is a rather big difference between a collie dog and a pit bull (or other sorts of dogs that the fine substance manufacturers in "the hood" use to protect their business). Did the officer have to kick the dog off of himself and shoot it? Did it "charge" him? Were the owners "siccing" it on him? I've said it before and I'll say it again...I have a lot of respect for LEOs in general, but something like this is just WRONG.

Okay, I watched the video instead of just reading a story I saw on it...that dog was a menace? No way...we have a border collie/black lab mix...she'll bark like crazy, and come up to you, but she's really friendly...she's a WATCH DOG, not an ATTACK DOG...I'll go out on a limb here, but I'll bet that dog in the video wasn't much different.

[Teamless]

Cant speak to this situation as I wasn't there.

However, I'll offer an open invite for anyone to come and ride for a night. We can go see some nice pets people keep over in the hood.

Like others above, if i lived closer I would love to.
But as others have said as well, at least if the officer were at the right house, and had a bit of dog understanding, there should be far less of this, at least of the "wrong house syndrome" that seems to be running rampant for the past few months.

how many times have you broken down the door or something else at the wrong residence? I would think none in your career and why do I say that? You seem to be a very logical person, and takes pride in what they do.

[speedsix]

...that's the key...the man on the street has to be sharp and diligent...you don't get the wrong house number and the wrong street name by being sharp or careful...it wasn't a hot call...this kind of slob is just another thing the good officers have to live down...add to it what happened after he got there(according to what the homeowners and he himself said)...no excuse...he's in the wrong line of work...

[puma guy]

he thought it was a pit bull.............. canine profiling!
Unfortunately the officer, the PD and the city are all protected from any suit unless negligence is proven. In Texas Governments CAN destroy and damage your property with impunity. Unless a vehicle is involved or there is negligence or defective equipment you are toast for any recovery for damages.