Texas LEO shoots family dog at wrong address

[mojo84]

I posted a similar scenario a page or two back except I used selling insurance. No one chose to respond.

When it's a cop, it's oh well, mistakes happen. When it's a mere citizen, it's time to take a ride, forfeit your guns, pay a tremendous amount for defense and face jail time and a fine.

[Cedar Park Dad]

they could carry a small cattle prod which will keep a dog off without injuring them, but they had to stop after someone saw them zap their dog and sued them for damages...they now carry pepper spray also.

Very prudent. If some yokel came into my yard and tased my killer attack wiener dog its not going to go well for them.

[EEllis]

A buddy of mine called me to come help him move a porch swing. I called him a few minutes before my arrival and he said he was out back getting it ready to move. When I showed up, I walked to the side of his house and though his gate. As I rounded the corner and his dog started to come at me barking with teeth showing. It was an aggressive dog and I feared for my life so I stopped the threat. As it turns out, I was at the wrong house. See he just moved in to his house and he is at 3632 Any Street but got confused on his address and told me he was at 3623 Any Street. I shot and killed someones treasured pet.

Now, all sarcasm aside, this didn't happen as I'm sure you could guess.

Other than a badge how is this any different? As a LEO, I'm pretty sure you would take me to jail for this. Now, I got to go lock my front door and gates because I just learned that if I don't put up a sign and have unlocked doors, anyone can just come walking in to my house or yard.

In all actuality you most likely wouldn't face charges just civil liability and the law does not consider houses to be the same as yards,

[Cedar Park Dad]

Shooting a firearm in a residential neighborhood? Are you sure about that?

[apostate]

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.

Thank goodness for purple paint.

[anygunanywhere]

They need to issue guns to letter carriers, meter readers, yard guys, and UPS and Fedex delivery men, so they can shoot dogs too.

Wow. Another of the all-too-common, LEO-involved, shoot-first-ask-questions-later scenarios.

I'd say better that we start issuing firearms to the family pets, so they can finally have a means of defending themselves against the true aggressors.

Maybe we need to issue the unborn firearms too.

Anygunanywhere

[EEllis]

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.

Thank goodness for purple paint.

It's an option for those who find "No Trespass" to long

[EEllis]

Shooting a firearm in a residential neighborhood? Are you sure about that?

Well it kind of depends on why doesn't it? If you can show, well excuse me that is backwards, unless the state can show you didnt have a legitimate reason for firing a gun in self defence killing a dog then your location is insignificant as long as you aren't there illegally.

[lrpettit]

We have already established that the law, and most people, don't consider an unposted, unlocked gate to mean "STAY OUT!"

I'm not a lawyer. I'm genuinely asking. I always considered a fence (gated or not) to mean I better have a good reason to cross it. 30.05 says notice includes "fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock". It doesn't say anything that gates have to be locked.

So maybe I'm rare when thinking it's probably not ok (in fact dangerous) to start opening people's gates and wondering in their fenced backyards (especially if there are no meters back there). But under the law does a 6 foot fence have to have locked gates for it to be "obviously designed to exclude intruders"?

[Cedar Park Dad]

Shooting a firearm in a residential neighborhood? Are you sure about that?

Well it kind of depends on why doesn't it? If you can show, well excuse me that is backwards, unless the state can show you didnt have a legitimate reason for firing a gun in self defence killing a dog then your location is insignificant as long as you aren't there illegally.

Shooting another person's dog in their back yard on their property ina fenced in area, yea you're going before the judge, assuming they don't shoot you first.

[EEllis]

We have already established that the law, and most people, don't consider an unposted, unlocked gate to mean "STAY OUT!"

I'm not a lawyer. I'm genuinely asking. I always considered a fence (gated or not) to mean I better have a good reason to cross it. 30.05 says notice includes "fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock". It doesn't say anything that gates have to be locked.

So maybe I'm rare when thinking it's probably not ok (in fact dangerous) to start opening people's gates and wondering in their fenced backyards (especially if there are no meters back there). But under the law does a 6 foot fence have to have locked gates for it to be "obviously designed to exclude intruders"?

If you want a real solid case against trespassers and to insure against liability if someone enters then yes it does. In Texas case law is pretty clear. If you are entering a unlocked unposted fenced area for "normal" business then you are not trespassing until asked to leave and you refuse to do so. You say 6' fence and I would agree that would personally make me less likely to enter than a 3' chain link or a white picket fence. Primarily because the homeowner put much more effort into securing the area making me believe they don't want people on their property. But then again why would you go thru all that effort but not post or lock your gate? Several of my neighbors have such fencing but they only get locked when they are gone or at night. They wouldn't consider it trespassing when the UPS driver enters so you can't assume anyone else is trespassing. This is one of those times that reading the statutes will not give you the whole story.

Mind you you may very well be right in the fact that it might be dangerous. You can see just from this thread how misinformed many people are about the law so you may very well be met by someone with a gun, heck ever it would be worse at night, but that really doesn't matter legally speaking if there might be danger involved. Is a bit strange that people would be willing to stop someone at gunpoint but can't be bothered to post or secure a gate. Takes all kinds I guess.

[EEllis]

Shooting a firearm in a residential neighborhood? Are you sure about that?

Well it kind of depends on why doesn't it? If you can show, well excuse me that is backwards, unless the state can show you didnt have a legitimate reason for firing a gun in self defence killing a dog then your location is insignificant as long as you aren't there illegally.

Shooting another person's dog in their back yard on their property ina fenced in area, yea you're going before the judge, assuming they don't shoot you first.

Well as long as you have a sound legal basis.......

[VMI77]

Please site your source.

By entering your property, a utility worker or anyone else for that matter does not forfeit his/her right to self defence up to and including deadly force. If your dog attacks someone coming to your front door, that person can kill your dog if necessary to protect themselves, then sue you.

I've never heard of a utility worker, letter carrier, or most other such people likely to show up on my property, that is allowed to carry a deadly weapon. The postal service most definitely prohibits letter carriers from possessing deadly weapons on duty. If a utility worker enters my fenced, gated (and locked) property and I have not contracted with that utility for any service, he is trespassing. I happen to work in the electric utility industry, for a VERY gun friendly company, and I can assure you that any meter reader who entered a customer's property armed would be fired (assuming the company found out). If he killed a customer's dog he would be fired. Some utility easements expressly forbid entering property with a gun in possession. And anyway, the company would expect that employee to contact the homeowner or person receiving service and ask them to secure their dog. That is because for those of us not in LE, there are consequences for killing our customer's pets.

Employer policies and legal liability are two separate issues and the fact that many employers prohibit their employees from effectively being able to defend themselves is hardly worth mentioning when discussing the law. Truth is since it is not trespassing to enter the yard when it's unlocked and unposted there is every reason to believe that one could shoot a dog and successfully claim self defence. Now I assume the shooter would be doing so because they feared serious injury, and I hope they were correct and have evidence of such. Really though isn't this why we carry? What if you were walking you daughter as she sold GS cookies, or school candy, or whatever. We have already established that the law, and most people, don't consider an unposted, unlocked gate to mean "STAY OUT!" So if you were walking you kid and around the corner comes 2 barking shepherds do you really think you couldn't "get away" with shooting? Please.

If my dog is running loose in a front yard, especially in a place where there is a leash law, and someone is attacked by my dog, he can sue, and I would not desire to see him punished for defending himself. If I found my dog attacking someone I would shoot it myself (at least if they weren't trespassing). That's not the situation here, where the officer was in the wrong location, and entered a fenced yard through a closed gate. Where I live, with my gate shut, they'd either have to call me or break the lock, and breaking the lock would be criminal trespass. There is either a contract or implied contract allowing entry for utility workers and deliverymen. Someone who enters my property without consent, unsolicited, or without such implied consent, is going to get charged with trespassing. I see them with a gun in their hand something more serious is likely to happen.

You're trying to equate your situation with a locked and secure gate to what the officer was faced with. It is not the same. Anyone can open an unlocked unposted gate because the contract you mention includes contacting the residents, which is what the officer was trying to do. Leave you gate unlocked and try it your way but TDC has really poor internet access so you probably won't be able to tell us to much about it.

You're a real champion of the strawman argument, unless you're really obtuse. The whole thrust of what several people have posted, including me, is that everyone BUT law enforcement has to face consequences for killing someone's dog on their property, especially when it is inside a fenced yard. Mamabearcali explained how some companies handle entering fenced yards. No one not employed by LE is even allowed to carry weapons with which they can kill dogs while they are carrying out their duties. If cops faced just the same consequences as utility workers --being fired-- the number of dogs being shot like this would be greatly reduced. Everyone else seems to be able to conduct their business without killing dogs, and LE should be able to do the same. You can make up all the different scenarios you want but it won't change the fact that LE doesn't face any consequences for killing people's pets, even when they are clearly in the wrong.....but then, they rarely face consequences for getting the wrong address and killing innocent people either.

[VMI77]

They wouldn't consider it trespassing when the UPS driver enters so you can't assume anyone else is trespassing. This is one of those times that reading the statutes will not give you the whole story.

Mind you you may very well be right in the fact that it might be dangerous. You can see just from this thread how misinformed many people are about the law so you may very well be met by someone with a gun, heck ever it would be worse at night, but that really doesn't matter legally speaking if there might be danger involved. Is a bit strange that people would be willing to stop someone at gunpoint but can't be bothered to post or secure a gate. Takes all kinds I guess.

More strawmen. Strawman #1: A UPS delivery is essentially by invitation. Strawman #2: the electric company has a lock on my gate, so they essentially have permission to enter. But if I lived in town, this is not the normal practice, so, if I needed to receive a delivery or the electric company needed to read the meter when no one was home, the gate would have to be left unlocked. I put a piece of metal so the latch can't be bumped and accidentally open the gate, but it isn't "locked." If you're not just demolishing strawmen, then I can only conclude you are one of these people who can't conceive of any legitimate reason for other people to conduct their lives any differently than you do.

[EEllis]

You're a real champion of the strawman argument, unless you're really obtuse. The whole thrust of what several people have posted, including me, is that everyone BUT law enforcement has to face consequences for killing someone's dog on their property, especially when it is inside a fenced yard. Mamabearcali explained how some companies handle entering fenced yards. No one not employed by LE is even allowed to carry weapons with which they can kill dogs while they are carrying out their duties. If cops faced just the same consequences as utility workers --being fired-- the number of dogs being shot like this would be greatly reduced. Everyone else seems to be able to conduct their business without killing dogs, and LE should be able to do the same. You can make up all the different scenarios you want but it won't change the fact that LE doesn't face any consequences for killing people's pets, even when they are clearly in the wrong.....but then, they rarely face consequences for getting the wrong address and killing innocent people either.

Bull. No strawman argument to say getting fired by a private employer is different than a cop being prosecuted. I'm sorry if you are upset that a meter reading company would have different policies than a police dept but thats reality. What an employer does is their business the law is a different story you are the one who was trying to mix them probably because you can't make your point legitimately. Because you are wrong on the facts and your logic is non-existent. Personally I think you are letting your issues with cop color your reality a bit but so be it. There is no law that would keep private citizens with CHL's from legally entering private property. If while on that property conducting legal and reasonable activities, and this would be based on court cases not what every individual wacko thinks as reasonable, an individual is faced with a situation where the use of force would be ok on public property then they use force on private property is also OK.

No one not employed by LE is even allowed to carry weapons with which they can kill dogs while they are carrying out their duties.

Yeah show me that law.