TexasCHLforum.com

Arriving at the wrong house and shooting the dog is not negligent?

puma guy wrote: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.

...I'd like to read that in the law, do you know where it's found? Negligence is in play here since he was neither on the street or at the house number he was sent to...other things like inadequate training may show negligence...I hope they have some legal recourse...

gigag04 wrote: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.

Look at the video. This wasn't "the hood."

puma guy wrote: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.

And this is a conservative value exactly how? I understand things like eminent domain.......don't like it, but I understand it.......but eminent domain at least requires compensation for the loss of property. But you're saying that it's true that a police agency can kick down your door, shoot your dog, and burn your house down—all in absolute error—and they don't have to compensate you for the damage to property? That's like 25 kinds of wrong, and it's not something that should be allowed to stand, particularly by a governor who made his bones bragging about smaller government and citizen rights.

And, as others have pointed out, negligence is definitely at play here. Wrong address? Can't tell a collie from a pit bull? Negligence and ignorance.

"Conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. A person has acted negligently if he or she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances.

In order to establish negligence as a Cause of Action under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct, the defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged."

I'd say that the Bolings have a pretty good case for proving negligence. Regardless of what happened after the LEO arrived, his first mistake was unacceptable. When You are going into a possible life & death situation, you'd better make darn sure you are where you are supposed to be.

My prayers are with that family, and I hope justice is done on their behalf.

gigag04 wrote: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.

Nobody needs a "ride" to know that bad elements (people and dogs) exist...and that sometimes harsh measures are required in the performance of an LEO's duties.

What we are saying is: IT DOESN"T APPLY to everyone you meet.

The problem lies primarily with the training (or lack of) that LEO get these days IMO.

gigag04 wrote: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.

The idea that the only option an officer has when APPROACHED by a dog is to shoot it before it attacks him, is ridiculous. Every single day, in every single town in this country, hundreds of thousands of utility company employees are going into those same yards...confronting the same animals...on the dog's home turf (backyard in many cases)...to read electric meters... usually without an owner standing there to control the dog, and yet they NEVER shoot or cripple one. That even includes those same dogs living "over in the hood". How can it be that the dogs are more prone to attack an armed officer, forcing him to defend himself with deadly force than an unarmed meter reader? I think it's obvious that the difference is in the attitude of the person...the utility employee KNOWS that if he injures an animal, he WILL be fired and subject to legal action by the owner, while the officer (in these recent cases) has a gun and believes he has the right to use it preemptively before an actual attack has occurred, because he can justify it with a ridiculous claim and be backed up by his department. This guy says he thought he was being charged by a pit bull ...yeah, sure he did, not the slightest resemblance....only bull involved in this case is of the bovine variety.

Never mind that this officer can't tell the difference between a Pit and a Border Collie. That's just ridiculous. But is Fort Worth's policy such that they can just shoot Pit Bulls now? The officer said he thought the dog was a Pit, as if that was his justification for shooting it!

Not sure why you guys are trying to convince me this wasn't ok...I don't disagree, but I'm reserving my opinion for a later date. The ride offer still stands.

...this old cop would love to take you up on the ride...but you'd have to duct tape me in the seat...I'd be on the ground before you would...I miss the days...

speedsix wrote:

puma guy wrote: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.

...I'd like to read that in the law, do you know where it's found? Negligence is in play here since he was neither on the street or at the house number he was sent to...other things like inadequate training may show negligence...I hope they have some legal recourse...

I think it would be difficult to prove negligence by arriving at the wrong location. There are many cases of PD breaking down doors at the wrong location with no consequences. It happened in the wee hours of night in my fair city years ago. It was about the time 911 was first implmented and the poor folks called and were told to surrender . The culprit the police were looking for heard all the commotion on the next street over and split. Governments have soverign immunity except in special cases. My friend in McQueeny found out the hard way in his suit against Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority. He argued up to the Texas Supreme Court and lost. As he now says "the government is King and can do no wrong." I know this is all anecdotal, but you can see Avery VS. GBRA.
I do not have the law, but I know there were changes made in 1969 and 1987 expanded liability for governments a little from English Common Law which prevails that like a King government can do no wrong. Perhaps a real attorney will chime in here and explain far better than I.

...if an electrician, for instance, was given an order to disconnect service at 1234 Smith Street and went to 5678 Jones Street and disconnected service, and harm to the occupants, property, or even pets occurred, he would be negligent and liable...so should the PD on this one for the wrong street and wrong house number and what happened following...unless the law clearly says that city government is immune to civil liability...I doubt that there is in Texas such blanket immunity...I know that in La. there is not...cities have been sued and made to pay damages for the negligent/ignorant/unlawful actions by PD personnel there..Texas may be different...

speedsix wrote:...if an electrician, for instance, was given an order to disconnect service at 1234 Smith Street and went to 5678 Jones Street and disconnected service, and harm to the occupants, property, or even pets occurred, he would be negligent and liable...so should the PD on this one for the wrong street and wrong house number and what happened following...unless the law clearly says that city government is immune to civil liability...I doubt that there is in Texas such blanket immunity...I know that in La. there is not...cities have been sued and made to pay damages for the negligent/ignorant/unlawful actions by PD personnel there..Texas may be different...

Speed,
I agree with you that it should be negligence, but I don't think it would be viewed as such by the courts. IANAL so take this for what it's worth. Louisiana (being French)actually has a different basis for laws and does not go by English Common Law. There are cases where suits are brought against goverments in Texas but it is very difficult to prevail and is based on limited circumstances. Go to Tort Reform Act of 1969.

...will look it up...thanks...

...here's a bit of info...seems we can now in limited circumstances...a lot to read...

steveincowtown wrote:Fort Worth Officer responds to the wrong address, shoots home owners dog in the back.

http://www.aol.com/video/family-dog-sho ... nk1|164940" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very, very sad.

The penalty for us citizens shooting a police dog should be the same that this maroon gets for shooting a family pet. Maybe less if the police dog is actually attacking someone at the time.