Texas LEO shoots family dog at wrong address

[E.Marquez]

Was the property locked or posted? Because it could of been a girl scout coming to sell cookies and ending up mauled.

Then she was entering gated (doesn't matter if its locked or not) private property and was trespassing.

THIS ^^

[E.Marquez]

My dog will charge (gleefully, but it's hard to tell the difference) barking right to withing feet, and then she will hunker down and kowtow, soliciting petting and making a pest of herself. My wife's dogs will follow, making a racket, but most of them won't approach unless they are invited.

As a retired telephone man I have dealt with a LOT of dogs over mt career, and been bitten a few times too (13 lifetime), and except for one specific circumstance I can't imagine responding by shooting the dog.

It bothers me that the officer was 14 miles away from where he should have been serving the warrant.

It bothers me that the officer appears to me to not have spent an adequate amount of time at the front door.

And it bothers me that he shot three times, and only hit once, and yet the threat seems to have been reduced. Did the dogs turn and run and he stopped shooting? Did he realize his mistake and that's why he stopped shooting?

There is so much more that we don't know.

And yet I still feel that he should be held responsible, and his department.

THIS ^^

[E.Marquez]

The cop was at the wrong house, entered a private gated area and then shot an approaching dog. What else do we need to know?

I would like to know if other cops came and disarmed him like a criminal.

Was the property locked or posted? Because it could of been a girl scout coming to sell cookies and ending up mauled. The cop wasn't making a raid on the place or sneaking in he just walked up to the front door to ask about a person that a database said might have some connection to that address. Why would cops disarm him? They know who he is.

It's quite apparent you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing and you always seem to argue the mere citizen is in the wrong and the cop is in the right. It wasn't a little girl. It doesn't matter if the gate was locked or posted. I'm suspect the cop isn't the first person to encounter the dog but it appears he's the first one to shoot it. Bottom line, the cop was at the wrong place and shot the dog.

I'm not going to argue nor debate this with you. I'll read and consider your opinions but arguing with you is just a waste of my time.

THIS ^^

[EEllis]

The cop was at the wrong house, entered a private gated area and then shot an approaching dog. What else do we need to know?

I would like to know if other cops came and disarmed him like a criminal.

Was the property locked or posted? Because it could of been a girl scout coming to sell cookies and ending up mauled. The cop wasn't making a raid on the place or sneaking in he just walked up to the front door to ask about a person that a database said might have some connection to that address. Why would cops disarm him? They know who he is.

It's quite apparent you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing and you always seem to argue the mere citizen is in the wrong and the cop is in the right. It wasn't a little girl. It doesn't matter if the gate was locked or posted. I'm suspect the cop isn't the first person to encounter the dog but it appears he's the first one to shoot it. Bottom line, the cop was at the wrong place and shot the dog.

I'm not going to argue nor debate this with you. I'll read and consider your opinions but arguing with you is just a waste of my time.

There was no citizen just a cop and a dog. I have no idea if the dog was aggressive or not. If it was then of course the cop is going to shoot that is what his dept has told him to do. The gate being locked or posted does matter because without those things there is no trespass, it's the same as walking up to any door.

[EEllis]

Was the property locked or posted? Because it could of been a girl scout coming to sell cookies and ending up mauled.

Then she was entering gated (doesn't matter if its locked or not) private property and was trespassing.

You do know that is not the law right? If a kid entered not only would they not be in violation of any law but if attacked the dog owner would most likely be civilly and even criminally liable in some cases. I feel for the dog and glad the cop missed but ............

[RottenApple]

You do know that is not the law right? If a kid entered not only would they not be in violation of any law but if attacked the dog owner would most likely be civilly and even criminally liable in some cases. I feel for the dog and glad the cop missed but ............

Then please show us exactly where I am wrong?

Edit: Nevermind. I'll just show you where you are wrong.

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or
someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously
designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock

You can continue reading 30.05 if you like, but there is no legal requirement for a gate to be locked.

[SewTexas]

The cop was at the wrong house, entered a private gated area and then shot an approaching dog. What else do we need to know?

I would like to know if other cops came and disarmed him like a criminal.

Was the property locked or posted? Because it could of been a girl scout coming to sell cookies and ending up mauled. The cop wasn't making a raid on the place or sneaking in he just walked up to the front door to ask about a person that a database said might have some connection to that address. Why would cops disarm him? They know who he is.

It's quite apparent you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing and you always seem to argue the mere citizen is in the wrong and the cop is in the right. It wasn't a little girl. It doesn't matter if the gate was locked or posted. I'm suspect the cop isn't the first person to encounter the dog but it appears he's the first one to shoot it. Bottom line, the cop was at the wrong place and shot the dog.

I'm not going to argue nor debate this with you. I'll read and consider your opinions but arguing with you is just a waste of my time.

There was no citizen just a cop and a dog. I have no idea if the dog was aggressive or not. If it was then of course the cop is going to shoot that is what his dept has told him to do. The gate being locked or posted does matter because without those things there is no trespass, it's the same as walking up to any door.

and a little boy!

and they were not at the location on the warrant, they were 20 minutes away from there.

[RX8er]

unfortunately gals / guys, you will be chasing your tails. Just keep your sanity and give up as this is being argued to absurdity

In the last week, I have learned:
I should never question a LEO unless I want to go to jail - either for POP or for annoying them
A warrant that will be issued tomorrow is valid yesterday because they don't need one anyways
I must lock every door gate and fence or it is not considered trespass

I have to say that I have the utmost respect for LEO and many other civil servants. Heck, my MIL works for Dallas County in jail intake and I hear the stories of what she deals with on a daily basis. I understand mistakes. I want this LEO to have the same consequences that anyone else would for their first offense. He MESSED UP and now he and other's should admit it.

This is getting totally ridiculous.

[OnceFired]

What is interesting about this is perhaps who was with this particular officer.

Found him easily on a search - the guy is a former Marine, and assigned to SWAT & US Marshal duty. No slouch, and likely quite familiar with duties as a professional shooter. So the questions that are begged in my mind are:

1) Who was responsible for locating the address where the warrant was supposed to be served?
2) Who was responsible for driving there?
3) Was either 1 or 2 this particular officer's role?

It seems that if this officer was purely defending himself from a dog of unknown aggression running right at him while serving some random warrant vs he was responsible for knowing where the warrant was to be served are two entirely different issues.

Doesn't seem that the officer would be guilty of anything illegal if he wasn't running the show. Until all the facts come out it's tough to tell. I feel bad for the dog, and the officer. The family was probably pretty rattled too.

ZA

[VoiceofReason]

Not having been there and seeing the aggression in the dog, real or perceived, it's easy for us to say a lot of things.

I am convinced though that some would not be happy with an LEO shooting a dog until the dog was actually chewing on him and perhaps maybe not even then.

I don't want to see an officer bitten by an attacking animal. To state or imply differently is being dishonest on the that persons part, or they simple do not understand or know the truth of it.

I'd be happy if an officer, or anyone else that had no justifiable reason to enter a gated property, would ask the owners permission prior to being in an area with the animal.

The officers mistake put him in that position, his handling of the event he caused is the issue as well as his mistake.

Officer safety, ah yes an often stated reason for an officers action the average citizen would be arrested for. Sorry, not buying it.

I believe officers by personal choice or "department" policy choose to shoot an animal many times more often then workers who are in contact with these same animals and never find the need to do the same. Why is that? What makes those other workers so skilled they do not need to kill an "attacking" animal so often as we read about it happen by a LEO?


Utilities meter reader folks, postmen, package deliver folks, utility workers, and many others have contact on privet property with dogs in total more often then LEO's I would guess.. Yet, they seem to be able to walk to a front door without the need to shoot a dog.. and do so thousands of times a day, every day, all year long.

I was told by a professor when I worked at Oregon State University as an instructor.. If the majority of your students fail the test, it's not the students fault.. If we look at the over all group of workers that are by job description in constant contact with gated property, and animals behind those fences and not... One small subset in the group seems to be failing the test.. but the majority of the group is not..... That in my mind points to the "students fault" not the test...

I don't have an answer to the problem, a suggestion would be, don't go to the wrong address..be as well trained at handing dogs as you are humans, have a plan to handle "aggressive" dogs as you do humans (we demand LEOs do not "shoot first" by choice and policy every "aggressive" human they contact... why is that the first (only) choice for dogs?

It's no secret, I like dogs more then most humans... I dislike humans that have no regard for there safety, trust, loyalty and no bounds selfless love for their humans. I've put dogs and humans down when needed...neither gives me joy. And both leave me feeling a responsibility and consequence beyond words.

Just for added safety (for the dog and people) the gate should have been locked and a sign posted.

I worked for a telephone company for fifteen years and was bitten twice. The first time a woman came to the front door telling me the dog wouldn’t bite me after it already had. No warning signs were posted.

In hindsight, I should have reported it and sued the owners of both dogs.

Utilities meter reader folks, postmen, package deliver folks, utility workers, and many others have contact on privet property with dogs in total more often then LEO's I would guess.. Yet, they seem to be able to walk to a front door without the need to shoot a dog.. and do so thousands of times a day, every day, all year long.

There are probably hundreds if not thousands of “meter reader folks, postmen, package deliver folks, utility workers, and many others” bitten every year and not reported because they fear retaliation by their employer.

I passed by that house a couple of weeks later and noticed a “beware of dog” sign on the front gate.

[EEllis]

You do know that is not the law right? If a kid entered not only would they not be in violation of any law but if attacked the dog owner would most likely be civilly and even criminally liable in some cases. I feel for the dog and glad the cop missed but ............

Then please show us exactly where I am wrong?

Edit: Nevermind. I'll just show you where you are wrong.

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or
someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously
designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock

You can continue reading 30.05 if you like, but there is no legal requirement for a gate to be locked.

Check again. If the fence is unlock and not posted then you can't show that it is intended to keep someone out, kind of useless putting up a security fence that doesn't lock right, so you can't get a trespass charge on it.

Here http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district- ... 65541.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is a case in Florida. Now cops enter for totally different reasons and basicly this is about an appeal of a conviction but the part that may interest you is the court found that if you have an unlocked unposted gate and want privacy then....

Mr. Nieminski had the initial burden in this case to establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy that included an expectation that citizens would not enter the property through the unlocked gate to knock on his door for the ordinary purposes for which people knock on doors under similar circumstances. He failed to establish that his expectation of privacy at this property included protection for such a limited intrusion.

Really though is the UPS guy trespassing? The Postman? If not then the Cop wasn't either. Wait I know that was Florida so it doesn't count. Fine heres some Texas case law. http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/fourt ... 77346.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Absent express orders from a person in possession of property not to trespass, a police officer is not prevented from approaching the front door of a residence. See Cornealius v. State, 900 S.W.2d 731 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). In this case, appellant cites no evidence of a sign prohibiting entry onto the property or that the gate was locked, but only that it was a motorized gate, operated by remote control, which the officers instead pushed open.
At least one Texas court has held that unlatching an ordinary latch on a closed, but unlocked, gate to approach the front door of a house is not an illegal entry by police. See Nored v. State, 875 S.W.2d 392, 396-97 (Tex. App. Dallas 1994, pet. ref d).

Now some will complain again that cops are being treated differently being allowed to trespass but know the whole point is that it isn't criminal trespass for anyone.

[RottenApple]

Check again. If the fence is unlock and not posted then you can't show that it is intended to keep someone out, kind of useless putting up a security fence that doesn't lock right, so you can't get a trespass charge on it.

Here http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district- ... 65541.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is a case in Florida. Now cops enter for totally different reasons and basicly this is about an appeal of a conviction but the part that may interest you is the court found that if you have an unlocked unposted gate and want privacy then....

I couldn't care less about FL law. We're talking about Texas. And TX law is quite clear that the fence alone is barrier enough.

Now some will complain again that cops are being treated differently being allowed to trespass but know the whole point is that it isn't criminal trespass for anyone.

Moving the goal posts again I see. I never said that the COP was trespassing. The hypothetical Girl Scout you brought up, OTH, most definitely was. 30.05 has a specific exemption for LEOs. So while this officer(s) weren't trespassing (which I think is a bunch of bull since they were at the wrong house), they were 1) at the wrong location, 2) discharged a firearm recklessly (3 shots, 1 hit, and a 6yo boy nearby), 3) traumatized a little boy & family due to their error, 4) should be held civilly and criminally liable for their mistake.

[EEllis]

Check again. If the fence is unlock and not posted then you can't show that it is intended to keep someone out, kind of useless putting up a security fence that doesn't lock right, so you can't get a trespass charge on it.

Here http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district- ... 65541.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is a case in Florida. Now cops enter for totally different reasons and basicly this is about an appeal of a conviction but the part that may interest you is the court found that if you have an unlocked unposted gate and want privacy then....

I couldn't care less about FL law. We're talking about Texas. And TX law is quite clear that the fence alone is barrier enough.

Now some will complain again that cops are being treated differently being allowed to trespass but know the whole point is that it isn't criminal trespass for anyone.

Moving the goal posts again I see. I never said that the COP was trespassing. The hypothetical Girl Scout you brought up, OTH, most definitely was. 30.05 has a specific exemption for LEOs. So while this officer(s) weren't trespassing (which I think is a bunch of bull since they were at the wrong house), they were 1) at the wrong location, 2) discharged a firearm recklessly (3 shots, 1 hit, and a 6yo boy nearby), 3) traumatized a little boy & family due to their error, 4) should be held civilly and criminally liable for their mistake.

Actually it does matter what the FL courts say. It is called precedent and if their statute is significantly the same as ours, which it is, then our courts can and do use cases in other locations to guide us. But be that as it may you conveniently ignored the Tx example that says the same thing when attempting to berate me. I said the Cop being there wasn't trespassing and I posted the law in response to those who said it was. So how am I moving the "goalpost"? And That same interpretation that says the cops were not trespassing , when they found evidence used to arrest people, was held so because it wouldn't of been trespassing for for an average citizen going about their business, like selling cookies. It is clear that entering a unposted yard with an unlocked gate is not trespassing in Texas if your motive for doing so is to go knock on the door. While people may want it to be different the courts have held to that interpretation again and again. Complain to them not me.

As to your list
1) According to the report the officer was attempting to locate a person who he had a warrant for. A database had that address as having some link to the person he was looking for. So the Officer was knocking on the door to ask if the residents had any info. He didn't raid the place, didn't accuse anyone, just knocked to get more info. This was not a random house that he went to because his GPS failed, it was an address that at some time had some reported link with his fugitive.
2)You haven't shown he was reckless. You might argue he wasn't very accurate but that is not the same as negligent or reckless.
3)You haven't show his actions to be negligent which legally speaking you would need to do. The child may help you boost your claims in a civil action but don't help establish the basis of the claims.
4)Again if you can show negligence but so far you haven't.

[Jaguar]

I said it earlier in this thread, and I will repeat it. I cannot believe a trained therapy dog showed aggression.

Therapy dogs come in all sizes and breeds. The most important characteristic of a therapy dog is its temperament. A good therapy dog must be friendly, patient, confident, gentle, and at ease in all situations. Therapy dogs must enjoy human contact and be content to be petted and handled, sometimes clumsily.

Poor training on the officer's part - I blame his department and I am angry about it. I blame the culture of the PD of shooting dogs and getting away with destroying people's property and beloved pets without serious repercussions. I am glad this officer was also a poorly trained pistol shooter and the dog will live.

And I am sure the hypothetical Girl Scout would have found a friendly, gentle, happy to see her dog when she showed up to sell her cookies.

[gigag04]

I see this getting locked soon...but oh well.

I feel that what those with an LE background see this as a reasonable, and understandable situation because we have been there and done it. Through no fault of our own, and in the routine execution of our duties, we have been sent to wrong houses.

I can't comment whether or not the dog should have been shot, as I wasn't there to see what it was doing. I know the pitbull that I shot was coming to attack me...different area/situation, but relevant.

What we have here is a mistake, and a messy one - but I don't think that the officer did anything criminally wrong. I feel that many that are unfamiliar with what is actually entailed in the day to day duties of a police officer are justified in being upset with this situation. That said....being on both sides of the badge now, I can say that I do not consider this that big of a deal.

To those questioning the hit ratio on the dog - I would offer that drawing from a level 2/3 retention holster and firing at a moving/advancing target is harder than most people would realize.