Texas LEO shoots family dog at wrong address

[texanjoker]

TJ,

it's not that "dogs do not like uniforms" it's that 1) dogs like people and want to play or 2) dogs feel the need to protect their humans. they will pick up ques from the incoming stranger and react accordingly. My corgies will immediately determine if a stranger likes dogs and either bark or bring their ball, and bark and wiggle their butt, but there will be barking and there will be running and yes, they can bark around their ball, it's very weird.

That is a matter of opinion. Dogs are very smart. They know body language and a LEO is usually not there to play and as such the dog gets protective. That is their job. I know my police k9's would pick up peoples intentions fast.

Just to set the record straight in my incident the dog was loose, on a busy roadway and out of control. Totally different then this case being discussed.

[VMI77]

I just don't see how we can accept the double standard like we do whether it be "department policy" or not. Especially considering the cop was at the wrong location.

Inconsistency in the application of the law, double standards and certain people getting a pass on things that would get a mere citizen thrown in jail is what leads to a lot of the "us against them" attitudes so many complain about.

Apparently mere "policy" cleanses away all morality, responsibility, judgement, and law breaking, from a small town police department all the way up to TSA, DHS, CIA, NSA, DEA, DOJ all the other alphabet agencies, and the FBI --heck, all the way up to the Prez. Yeah, we spied on reporters, but it was policy. Yeah, we monitored millions of innocent Americans, but it was policy. Yeah, we were selling weapons to Al Qaeda and let an ambassador and a few other Americans die, but it was in accordance with administration policy. Yeah, we sold some guns to Mexican drug cartels, but hey, it was policy. Yeah, we got the wrong address, busted down the door of the wrong house, shot the occupants and their dogs, but we did it in accordance with policy, so it's AOK.

[mojo84]

TJ,

it's not that "dogs do not like uniforms" it's that 1) dogs like people and want to play or 2) dogs feel the need to protect their humans. they will pick up ques from the incoming stranger and react accordingly. My corgies will immediately determine if a stranger likes dogs and either bark or bring their ball, and bark and wiggle their butt, but there will be barking and there will be running and yes, they can bark around their ball, it's very weird.

That is a matter of opinion. Dogs are very smart. They know body language and a LEO is usually not there to play and as such the dog gets protective. That is their job. I know my police k9's would pick up peoples intentions fast.

Just to set the record straight in my incident the dog was loose, on a busy roadway and out of control. Totally different then this case being discussed.

Based on what you've said, your dog shooting incident sounds like it was completely legit and warranted. Therefore, completely different than the one being discussed here.

[texanjoker]

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

The investigator assigned has a list of arrest warrants to serve. Arrest warrants are NOT search warrants, and some of the comments in this thread are confusing the two. This was a simple traffic warrant for somebody that failed to show or pay. The warrant is going to have the suspects info on it, and the address listed on the citation. It will not describe a target location like a search warrant. Additionally the officer is not going to have the actual signed piece of paper with him as there is no need.

To find these people you do database checks to locate possible addresses. Some of those data bases do provide incorrect addresses and the only way you will know for sure is by knocking on doors as that is how you track people down. Many people do use incorrect or old addresses, or somewhere it gets switched. I know the previous owner of my home (been here 6 years) has started using my address over the past couple years and some warrant round up post cards have come in the mail. I expect a door knocking one of these days when they come looking for him.

For whatever reason dogs DO NOT like uniforms. I have responded to countless dog bite calls with people saying their dog would never bite anybody. I also know first hand from working police k9's that a german shepherd can cause serious bodily injury. Right or wrong this officer faced two that were allegedly charging him and he choose to protect himself in a manner that the news said was policy. As such they are not going to disarm him "like a criminal" as one post asked. There will be an internal investigation to make sure he was following policy and go from there.

My comment about disarming him "like a criminal" was directly related to how the officers treated the guy that shot the aggressive dog on his own property and then called report it was treated. Many on here defended how the officers treated him including shooting the man and killing him. The argument was that he it was a "criminal investigation".

I just don't see how we can accept the double standard like we do whether it be "department policy" or not. Especially considering the cop was at the wrong location.

Inconsistency in the application of the law, double standards and certain people getting a pass on things that would get a mere citizen thrown in jail is what leads to a lot of the "us against them" attitudes so many complain about.

The cop was allegedly at the wrong location. They said in one press release that it indicated that address, and I have explained how one goes about finding somebody in another post. For his sake I hope he kept whatever paperwork he had showing that address.

In bringing up the other incident, you have to remember the police responded to a stranger with a gun that shot a dog. The responding officer didn't know him or what had happened and it is normal to temporarily seize the gun. The tragic part of it all is that the guy probably would have been cleared on the shoot if it was a loose aggressive dog. We read threads all the time of CHLS that shoot somebody and are then given their gun back after the police determine they didn't do anything wrong. You can be sure their gun was taken by the first LEOs that got there. While I respect your opinion on it, that is different then an on duty officer that just shot a dog while working. I can tell you I disarmed an off duty officer once that shot a dog. He ended up being prosecuted as well as it was unbelievable what he did. That would be another story.

[texanjoker]

TJ,

it's not that "dogs do not like uniforms" it's that 1) dogs like people and want to play or 2) dogs feel the need to protect their humans. they will pick up ques from the incoming stranger and react accordingly. My corgies will immediately determine if a stranger likes dogs and either bark or bring their ball, and bark and wiggle their butt, but there will be barking and there will be running and yes, they can bark around their ball, it's very weird.

That is a matter of opinion. Dogs are very smart. They know body language and a LEO is usually not there to play and as such the dog gets protective. That is their job. I know my police k9's would pick up peoples intentions fast.

Just to set the record straight in my incident the dog was loose, on a busy roadway and out of control. Totally different then this case being discussed.

Based on what you've said, your dog shooting incident sounds like it was completely legit and warranted. Therefore, completely different than the one being discussed here.

Correct. it was and I was cleared after IA did their thing. I only posted that to back up giggag talking how the dogs demeanor changes after the first shot and why he probably didn't have to fire more shots.

[SewTexas]

TJ,

it's not that "dogs do not like uniforms" it's that 1) dogs like people and want to play or 2) dogs feel the need to protect their humans. they will pick up ques from the incoming stranger and react accordingly. My corgies will immediately determine if a stranger likes dogs and either bark or bring their ball, and bark and wiggle their butt, but there will be barking and there will be running and yes, they can bark around their ball, it's very weird.

That is a matter of opinion. Dogs are very smart. They know body language and a LEO is usually not there to play and as such the dog gets protective. That is their job. I know my police k9's would pick up peoples intentions fast.

Just to set the record straight in my incident the dog was loose, on a busy roadway and out of control. Totally different then this case being discussed.

it has nothing to do with uniforms, it has to do with attitude and body language. you said dogs don't like uniforms. that's what I was arguing, you can come in in your uniform and lay on the floor and throw the ball with my Artie all you want and he'd love you. But next week if you came in with the "where's the bad guy" attitude, I'm guessing he'd be confused, but he'd maybe try to bark your ear off defending me, he might even try to nip your ankles.

[mojo84]

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

The investigator assigned has a list of arrest warrants to serve. Arrest warrants are NOT search warrants, and some of the comments in this thread are confusing the two. This was a simple traffic warrant for somebody that failed to show or pay. The warrant is going to have the suspects info on it, and the address listed on the citation. It will not describe a target location like a search warrant. Additionally the officer is not going to have the actual signed piece of paper with him as there is no need.

To find these people you do database checks to locate possible addresses. Some of those data bases do provide incorrect addresses and the only way you will know for sure is by knocking on doors as that is how you track people down. Many people do use incorrect or old addresses, or somewhere it gets switched. I know the previous owner of my home (been here 6 years) has started using my address over the past couple years and some warrant round up post cards have come in the mail. I expect a door knocking one of these days when they come looking for him.

For whatever reason dogs DO NOT like uniforms. I have responded to countless dog bite calls with people saying their dog would never bite anybody. I also know first hand from working police k9's that a german shepherd can cause serious bodily injury. Right or wrong this officer faced two that were allegedly charging him and he choose to protect himself in a manner that the news said was policy. As such they are not going to disarm him "like a criminal" as one post asked. There will be an internal investigation to make sure he was following policy and go from there.

My comment about disarming him "like a criminal" was directly related to how the officers treated the guy that shot the aggressive dog on his own property and then called report it was treated. Many on here defended how the officers treated him including shooting the man and killing him. The argument was that he it was a "criminal investigation".

I just don't see how we can accept the double standard like we do whether it be "department policy" or not. Especially considering the cop was at the wrong location.

Inconsistency in the application of the law, double standards and certain people getting a pass on things that would get a mere citizen thrown in jail is what leads to a lot of the "us against them" attitudes so many complain about.

The cop was allegedly at the wrong location. They said in one press release that it indicated that address, and I have explained how one goes about finding somebody in another post. For his sake I hope he kept whatever paperwork he had showing that address.

In bringing up the other incident, you have to remember the police responded to a stranger with a gun that shot a dog. The responding officer didn't know him or what had happened and it is normal to temporarily seize the gun. The tragic part of it all is that the guy probably would have been cleared on the shoot if it was a loose aggressive dog. We read threads all the time of CHLS that shoot somebody and are then given their gun back after the police determine they didn't do anything wrong. You can be sure their gun was taken by the first LEOs that got there. While I respect your opinion on it, that is different then an on duty officer that just shot a dog while working. I can tell you I disarmed an off duty officer once that shot a dog. He ended up being prosecuted as well as it was unbelievable what he did. That would be another story.

I would buy into your argument IF in the other situation, the shooter didn't own the property on which the dog was shot and was the one that called to report the shooting. Therefore, he was not an "unknown" person. If someone else had seen the shooting and then reported it, I would come closer to agreeing with you. Since the guy self-reported the shooting, I can't buy into your argument.

Like I said earlier, the bottom line is the officer was at the wrong place, regardless of whose fault, went into a closed fence on private property without a search warrant for that location to serve an arrest warrant for a person that wasn't at that location and then shot an approaching dog. In the mere citizen world, regardless of ones policy or procedures, they would be determined to be negligent at the least and possibly criminally responsible for their actions.

As an attempt to clarify. Imagine this scenario. Let's say I decide to go door to door to sell insurance carrying my gun as a CHL licensee and assume I obtain the necessary permits from the city to go door to door soliciting. What if I went onto someone's property, knocked on the door, went through a closed gate then shot their dog that was approaching me. As the responding officer, how would you envision handling the situation assuming I am going to say the dog was viciously and aggressively approaching me and it is my company policy to shoot all dogs that approach me in such a way and it is my policy to check to see if someone is in the back or side yard and just didn't hear the doorbell when I rang it? Do you think it would be handled the same way for me as it is being for this officer?

[Jaguar]

TJ,

it's not that "dogs do not like uniforms" it's that 1) dogs like people and want to play or 2) dogs feel the need to protect their humans. they will pick up ques from the incoming stranger and react accordingly. My corgies will immediately determine if a stranger likes dogs and either bark or bring their ball, and bark and wiggle their butt, but there will be barking and there will be running and yes, they can bark around their ball, it's very weird.

That is a matter of opinion. Dogs are very smart. They know body language and a LEO is usually not there to play and as such the dog gets protective. That is their job. I know my police k9's would pick up peoples intentions fast.

Just to set the record straight in my incident the dog was loose, on a busy roadway and out of control. Totally different then this case being discussed.

it has nothing to do with uniforms, it has to do with attitude and body language. you said dogs don't like uniforms. that's what I was arguing, you can come in in your uniform and lay on the floor and throw the ball with my Artie all you want and he'd love you. But next week if you came in with the "where's the bad guy" attitude, I'm guessing he'd be confused, but he'd maybe try to bark your ear off defending me, he might even try to nip your ankles.

I agree, but we are still talking about a trained therapy dog in this story, I cannot see one being aggressive even if a swat raid were taking place. I have seen therapy dogs put up with stuff no untrained dog would tolerate to the point of being in pain, the most they will do is move away. I would bet this dog was just happy to see someone new in his yard and wanted to say hello. This was not a police K-9, a stray, a guard dog, or a typical pooch, this dog's primary job is to allow unfamiliar people to make physical contact with it and to enjoy that contact.

I believe it was bad judgment and poor training on the officer's part. They need to rectify that if nothing else.

[mojo84]

TJ,

it's not that "dogs do not like uniforms" it's that 1) dogs like people and want to play or 2) dogs feel the need to protect their humans. they will pick up ques from the incoming stranger and react accordingly. My corgies will immediately determine if a stranger likes dogs and either bark or bring their ball, and bark and wiggle their butt, but there will be barking and there will be running and yes, they can bark around their ball, it's very weird.

That is a matter of opinion. Dogs are very smart. They know body language and a LEO is usually not there to play and as such the dog gets protective. That is their job. I know my police k9's would pick up peoples intentions fast.

Just to set the record straight in my incident the dog was loose, on a busy roadway and out of control. Totally different then this case being discussed.

Based on what you've said, your dog shooting incident sounds like it was completely legit and warranted. Therefore, completely different than the one being discussed here.

Correct. it was and I was cleared after IA did their thing. I only posted that to back up giggag talking how the dogs demeanor changes after the first shot and why he probably didn't have to fire more shots.

I understand. I posted my comment to demonstrate I am not some fanatical dog lover that thinks a dog should never be shot. I think the same way for dogs as I do humans, depending on the circumstances, some of them just need shootin'. Some people cherish the life of animals above humans. That is not me. That is another topic for another time and another forum.

Please understand, I respect you and what you do and thank you for doing what you do. I just have some different opinions and believe it is a matter of perspective.

[mojo84]

Here is an example of how things are handled differently for some than others. If it warranted firing him, wouldn't it warrant criminal charges being pursued?

http://ksat.com/news/boerne-police-offi ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[texanjoker]

Here is an example of how things are handled differently for some than others. If it warranted firing him, wouldn't it warrant criminal charges being pursued?

http://ksat.com/news/boerne-police-offi ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you read the related link on the link you posted, you will see that they did arrest this off duty officer. The case was taken to the grand jury. For whatever reason, the grand jury choose not to indict him. The dept made the right decision and fired the officer.

http://www.ksat.com/news/cat-being-trea ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Boerne Police Department responded to the scene and after conducting an initial investigation. Reports say they arrested one of their own.

Officer Lance Deleon, with the Boerne Police Department was arrested Tuesday and charged with animal cruelty, South Texas Veterinary Specialists released in a statement.

[mojo84]

Here is an example of how things are handled differently for some than others. If it warranted firing him, wouldn't it warrant criminal charges being pursued?

http://ksat.com/news/boerne-police-offi ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you read the related link on the link you posted, you will see that they did arrest this off duty officer. The case was taken to the grand jury. For whatever reason, the grand jury choose not to indict him. The dept made the right decision and fired the officer.

http://www.ksat.com/news/cat-being-trea ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Boerne Police Department responded to the scene and after conducting an initial investigation. Reports say they arrested one of their own.

Officer Lance Deleon, with the Boerne Police Department was arrested Tuesday and charged with animal cruelty, South Texas Veterinary Specialists released in a statement.

I did read the related link. I just find it interesting they didn't indict him but it warranted him being fired. I've actually spoken to this particular officer. Albeit long before this incident. He seemed to be a nice professional officer. I wonder if the grand jury would have chosen not to indict me if I did the same thing.

[texanjoker]

Here is an example of how things are handled differently for some than others. If it warranted firing him, wouldn't it warrant criminal charges being pursued?

http://ksat.com/news/boerne-police-offi ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you read the related link on the link you posted, you will see that they did arrest this off duty officer. The case was taken to the grand jury. For whatever reason, the grand jury choose not to indict him. The dept made the right decision and fired the officer.

http://www.ksat.com/news/cat-being-trea ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Boerne Police Department responded to the scene and after conducting an initial investigation. Reports say they arrested one of their own.

Officer Lance Deleon, with the Boerne Police Department was arrested Tuesday and charged with animal cruelty, South Texas Veterinary Specialists released in a statement.

I did read the related link. I just find it interesting they didn't indict him but it warranted him being fired. I've actually spoken to this particular officer. Albeit long before this incident. He seemed to be a nice professional officer. I wonder if the grand jury would have chosen not to indict me if I did the same thing.

To answer your question, you may not have been arrested or even faced a grand jury. I have seen time and time again a leo charged with something that a non leo would not all in the "interest of justice." Officers often get fired for an incident that doesn't rise to a criminal offense, but does violate a dept policy. I am not saying shooting this cat wasn't criminal, but just making a general statement.

[gigag04]

While we're on the topic, I hate cats.

[paperchunker]

While we're on the topic, I hate cats.