OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it

[tbrown]

The deceased made a series of decisions which were not under the control of the dog owner, and there were clear alternatives to the ones he made that would have certainly led to a much different incident outcome

True. It's also true Whitted made a series of decisions which were not under the control of Schaefer, and there were clear alternatives to the ones he made that would have certainly led to a much different incident outcome.

There's enough blame to go around. Including the irresponsible dog owner.

[Excaliber]

This part of the article seems to be being ignored by those that think the officer was completely in the right and the dead man was totally wrong. Now, I do think the dead man was wrong in trying to argue at that point in time and I do not fault the officer for shooting him once the now dead man pulled his gun. I still question why the officer was so adamant about disarming the guy and treating him as a "suspect" when he arrived on the scene. I don't think anyone that shoots a dog that doesn't belong to them that was attacking them in their backyard and then calls the police to report it should be regarded as a suspect. Call me crazy if you want.

The man had called 911 early Friday to report he was attacked by a pit bull that did not belong to him in his back yard,

http://statesman.com/news/news/local/po ... nor/nWdY9/

Websters definition of suspect.
http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suspect

It's important to remain cognizant of the fact that the news stories leave huge gaps in areas of relevant information.

LEO's have to assimilate a lot of information and make instantaneous high consequence judgments when responding to a call such as the one in question. A critical element that would make a big difference in how the call is handled is the demeanor of the subject being encountered. If the complainant was agitated and argumentative, that could have led the officer to very reasonably conclude that leaving the man's gun in easy reach in his waistband was a bad idea and dealing with that was a high priority. The news stories are silent on this extremely important point.

[Excaliber]

The deceased made a series of decisions which were not under the control of the dog owner, and there were clear alternatives to the ones he made that would have certainly led to a much different incident outcome

True. It's also true Whitted made a series of decisions which were not under the control of Schaefer, and there were clear alternatives to the ones he made that would have certainly led to a much different incident outcome.

There's enough blame to go around. Including the irresponsible dog owner.

There are degrees of responsibility for the roles of anyone whose actions impact an incident outcome. Some are very large, and some very small.

I think it's quite a stretch to think that the dog owner could reasonably be expected to have known that his loose dog would lead to the death of a neighbor in an OIS.

The dog owner is certainly not responsible for the officer's decisions, but the actions of the deceased did make the officer's actions reasonable in my opinion based on the information we have to go on and my own experience in investigating officer involved shootings. Whether those decisions were optimal or not I don't know - I wasn't there and there's a lot of relevant data that we don't have.

[texanjoker]

it was the complainant's actions that set the events in motion.

I'm still not completely convinced of this. He is mostly at fault because he resisted the lawful actions of the officer.

The deceased was not breaking any laws by openly carrying on his own property, right?

And it has been stated that the officer had the authority or right to disarm him. Okay, but was it required? Did the officer feel threatened. Did he need to disarm him or was it merely policy or his desire?

The deceased suspect shot a dog. (suspect in the shooting of a dog and aggravated assault on a public servant). The police had the right to detain him and investigate this potential criminal offense. Had the suspect used some common sense he would be alive today. I do not fault any officer that disarms an armed suspect that just fired a gun, refuses to put the gun away when instructed by dispatch, refuses to comply with a uniformed officers lawful commands, ect. That is basic officer safety. Not disarming a suspect that did all that would concern me. That is a lot different than some guy simply open carrying on his own property and a leo showing up wanting to disarm him for the heck of it.

Yes and I was only curious to know if the disarmament was required. When I asked what would have happened if he had left his gun in the house no one said that it would have been confiscated for the duration of the investigation. Because of that, I didn't think getting the gun that he shot the dog with was required.

Disarming the guy is for officer safety. What I posted is part of what would be used to show why the officer needed to disarm the person. If he had left the gun in the house as asked or surrendered it as asked they would have investigated. Had they determined this had been an incident of him protecting himself they most likely wouldn't have taken the gun at all. They would have written a report up, called animal control and taken photos.

[C-dub]

Yes and I was only curious to know if the disarmament was required. When I asked what would have happened if he had left his gun in the house no one said that it would have been confiscated for the duration of the investigation. Because of that, I didn't think getting the gun that he shot the dog with was required.

Disarming the guy is for officer safety. What I posted is part of what would be used to show why the officer needed to disarm the person. If he had left the gun in the house as asked or surrendered it as asked they would have investigated. Had they determined this had been an incident of him protecting himself they most likely wouldn't have taken the gun at all. They would have written a report up, called animal control and taken photos.

For the officer's sake I hope the guy was agitated. It would certainly make his attempt to handcuff and disarm the man more palatable to everyone. After all, how many times have we heard about court cases saying that the mere presence of a gun is not enough reason to stop someone and require a search or in some states to even identify one's self? We don't know all the facts of this incident yet, but for others it sure seems that some officers disarm people just because they can rather than out of any real fear. Although the law gives LEOs the authority or right to do that what bothers me about it is that in the name of officer safety we loose a little bit of our freedom. And that is starting to sound like something else familiar.

[texanjoker]

Yes and I was only curious to know if the disarmament was required. When I asked what would have happened if he had left his gun in the house no one said that it would have been confiscated for the duration of the investigation. Because of that, I didn't think getting the gun that he shot the dog with was required.

Disarming the guy is for officer safety. What I posted is part of what would be used to show why the officer needed to disarm the person. If he had left the gun in the house as asked or surrendered it as asked they would have investigated. Had they determined this had been an incident of him protecting himself they most likely wouldn't have taken the gun at all. They would have written a report up, called animal control and taken photos.

For the officer's sake I hope the guy was agitated. It would certainly make his attempt to handcuff and disarm the man more palatable to everyone. After all, how many times have we heard about court cases saying that the mere presence of a gun is not enough reason to stop someone and require a search or in some states to even identify one's self? We don't know all the facts of this incident yet, but for others it sure seems that some officers disarm people just because they can rather than out of any real fear. Although the law gives LEOs the authority or right to do that what bothers me about it is that in the name of officer safety we loose a little bit of our freedom. And that is starting to sound like something else familiar.

You have to get passed all that other stuff and focus on this specific incident. This wasn't a simple stop of a guy carrying a gun. They were there for a call to investigate a shot dog and had the lawful right to detain this man and disarm him to conduct the investigation. The incident is very tragic and unfortunate. From all accounts this seemed like a good person that for whatever reason picked this route of non compliance.

[Purplehood]

The bottom line is that he pulled a gun on an officer that was not presenting a threat to his life.

[gigag04]

If we're going to play "but for" then let's charge the dog owner with homicide, because he or she put this all in motion. Once the dog was allowed to run loose and attack people, Schaefer was no more (and no less) to blame than Whitted.

While you're at it, I see the gun makers (all of them) as responsible. And the dog breeders too...

[A-R]

If we're going to play "but for" then let's charge the dog owner with homicide, because he or she put this all in motion. Once the dog was allowed to run loose and attack people, Schaefer was no more (and no less) to blame than Whitted.

While you're at it, I see the gun makers (all of them) as responsible. And the dog breeders too...

I already tried showing some folks in this thread how their logic was similar to anti-gunners. Didn't stick first time. Doubt it will stick this time.

[Panda]

Can one of the people who know what happened post a link to the video so the rest of us can see too ?

[A-R]

Can one of the people who know what happened post a link to the video so the rest of us can see too ?

Far as I know, APD hasn't released any video yet.

[Keith B]

Can one of the people who know what happened post a link to the video so the rest of us can see too ?

Far as I know, APD hasn't released any video yet.

And likely will not if it possibly could hamper any investigation currently under way. The video will come out eventually, but even open reqcords requests will not be fufilled if they can show substantial evidence that public realease of the video would possibly sway any findings.

[recaffeination]

I'm trying to imagine them not releasing a video from a convenience store robbery because it might interfere with the investigation. Usually it's the opposite.

[gringo pistolero]

I'm trying to imagine them not releasing a video from a convenience store robbery because it might interfere with the investigation. Usually it's the opposite.

It depends what story the video tells. Remember the Vanishing Vegas Videos of 2010?

[texanjoker]

They really need to maintain the integrity of the investigation so that the grand jury sees the evidence in the proper manner vs. seeing everything after it's been played, edited, ect in the media.