Rains County Deputy Shoots Victim's Dog

[EEllis]

The owner was in no way negligent. The dog was a stock dog and he can not work while on a leash. Evidence leaves little doubt here, the LEO was being a cowboy. This dog was not a danger. This LEO was given authority to enforce laws, but only in a responsible and prudent manner with respect for life. He failed.

BTW do you think the leo would have been so cavalier about shooting a 2000+ lb Charolais bull as he was a mere dog? I bet he would have acted entirely different.

He was working in the back of a pickup? If the owner has voice control fine but if he is not there to control the dog then the dog should be contained. Leash laws are not just about leashes. I have stated I don't think the deputy need to shoot the dog but the "evidence" is thin at best. Most people seem to agree because they keep making up spurious arguments. If you just say "I feel" then I won't be arguing, maybe try and express another possibility, but not argue. However when people make comments that there just isn't support for as "reasons" for their conclusions I say so. No one here can know the dog wouldn't bite. You cannot state as a fact the dog wasn't a danger. I can state if the dog had bitten anyone the the owner would be responsible because he would be held negligent. His dog wasn't controlled and regardless of how common it is he is required to do so. It is even more so when he knew a deputy would be arriving at some point. Saying that shouldn't be taken as it being ok for the deputy to shoot the dog but it is the truth.

[EEllis]

No credibility left! There no amount of investigating that would satisfy those that love to argue for the sake of arguing.

That isn't fair or accurate. Heck I even said I thought the deputy didn't need to shoot the dog about 10 times. So what exactly is the investigation going to satisfy? By the way the Sheriff referred the incident to the DPS which will be investigating it.

[mojo84]

Life's not fair counselor. You know that. Ask the dog and dog owner.

[jmra]

No credibility left! There no amount of investigating that would satisfy those that love to argue for the sake of arguing.

That isn't fair or accurate. Heck I even said I thought the deputy didn't need to shoot the dog about 10 times. So what exactly is the investigation going to satisfy? By the way the Sheriff referred the incident to the DPS which will be investigating it.

Fair or not, the public has had enough of cops shooting people's pets simply because they can. This deputy wasn't fired because he shot the dog, he was fired because the people finally are demanding accountability. The department received so many calls it was interfering with the departments ability to function properly.
It's about time the people stood up to be counted.

[Excaliber]

The sheriff would not have thrown the guy under the bus if he wasn't wrong in what he did.

Yeah because a boss has never thrown someone under a bus to save themselves or heck just because it's too much trouble to do otherwise.

"His career is ruined in this community. And there's been threats toward him, threats toward this department," Traylor said. "I think my officers would be in danger if he was still out there."

Yep just like he thought the guy was guilty before they even had time to investigate.

No credibility left! There no amount of investigating that would satisfy those that love to argue for the sake of arguing.

Agreed.

A deputy in farm country knows that nearly every farm has a dog, and that dog will all be protective of their owners and property and will alert to and challenge strangers. They manage their approach accordingly, and often carry dog biscuits to bribe the ones that are particularly insistent.

I spent a year working as a rural area sheriff's deputy and it never even occurred to me to think about shooting someone's dog.

Even though the interaction between the dog and the deputy in this case was off camera, the deputy's actions after the shoot reveal his mindset and clearly tell the story he didn't want told.

He badly mistreated the victim, refused to euthanize the dog, didn't attempt to assist or console the farmer in any way, and called for backup even though he wasn't under threat to try to cover for what he did.

What used to be called common sense before it became uncommon needs to be applied here. This is a bad shoot that no amount of unsubstantiated "what ifs" or ludicrous attempts to apply leash laws to the acreage of a farm is going to change. That type of thinking may make for an interesting debate in a university where ideas don't have consequences, but it doesn't carry any weight in farm country, where folks deal with the hard realities of life day in and day out. It's tough to flim flam a farmer or a rancher, or a sheriff who's been lied to for a living for 25 or 30 years.

The fact that the sheriff did the right thing quickly is to his credit. The facts were clear enough that there wasn't significant doubt about what happened on that farm, and there was nothing to be gained by dragging out the decision. That's a lot different than throwing someone under the bus to save oneself, and I don't see any indication that's what happened here.

[WildBill]

The sheriff would not have thrown the guy under the bus if he wasn't wrong in what he did.

Yeah because a boss has never thrown someone under a bus to save themselves or heck just because it's too much trouble to do otherwise.

"His career is ruined in this community. And there's been threats toward him, threats toward this department," Traylor said. "I think my officers would be in danger if he was still out there."

Yep just like he thought the guy was guilty before they even had time to investigate.

No credibility left! There no amount of investigating that would satisfy those that love to argue for the sake of arguing.

Agreed.

A deputy in farm country knows that nearly every farm has a dog, and that dog will all be protective of their owners and property and will alert to and challenge strangers. They manage their approach accordingly, and often carry dog biscuits to bribe the ones that are particularly insistent.

I spent a year working as a rural area sheriff's deputy and it never even occurred to me to think about shooting someone's dog.

Even though the interaction between the dog and the deputy in this case was off camera, the deputy's actions after the shoot reveal his mindset and clearly tell the story he didn't want told.

He badly mistreated the victim, refused to euthanize the dog, and called for backup even though he wasn't under threat to try to cover for what he did.

What used to be called common sense before it became uncommon needs to be applied here. This is a bad shoot that no amount of unsubstantiated "what ifs" or ludicrous attempts to apply leash laws to the acreage of a farm is going to change. That type of thinking may make for an interesting debate in a university where ideas don't have consequences, but it doesn't carry any weight in farm country, where folks deal with the hard realities of life day in and day out. It's tough to flim flam a farmer or a rancher, or a sheriff who's been lied to for a living for 25 or 30 years.

The fact that the sheriff did the right thing quickly is to his credit. The facts were clear enough that there wasn't significant doubt about what happened on that farm, and there was nothing to be gained by dragging out the decision. That's a lot different than throwing someone under the bus to save oneself, and I don't see any indication that's what happened here.

Excellent synopsis Excaliber!

[Jim Beaux]

The owner was in no way negligent. The dog was a stock dog and he can not work while on a leash. Evidence leaves little doubt here, the LEO was being a cowboy. This dog was not a danger. This LEO was given authority to enforce laws, but only in a responsible and prudent manner with respect for life. He failed.

BTW do you think the leo would have been so cavalier about shooting a 2000+ lb Charolais bull as he was a mere dog? I bet he would have acted entirely different.

He was working in the back of a pickup? If the owner has voice control fine but if he is not there to control the dog then the dog should be contained. Leash laws are not just about leashes. I have stated I don't think the deputy need to shoot the dog but the "evidence" is thin at best. Most people seem to agree because they keep making up spurious arguments. If you just say "I feel" then I won't be arguing, maybe try and express another possibility, but not argue. However when people make comments that there just isn't support for as "reasons" for their conclusions I say so. No one here can know the dog wouldn't bite. You cannot state as a fact the dog wasn't a danger. I can state if the dog had bitten anyone the the owner would be responsible because he would be held negligent. His dog wasn't controlled and regardless of how common it is he is required to do so. It is even more so when he knew a deputy would be arriving at some point. Saying that shouldn't be taken as it being ok for the deputy to shoot the dog but it is the truth.

Of course in the back of the truck, dawgs cant drive!

The owner was not negligent. The dog did not pose a danger. There were alternatives that a prudent man would have taken without killing the dog.

On the issue of spurious arguments, I can only respond with "Physician, heal thyself"....

[hillfighter]

Does anybody think a citizen would get off as lightly if they shot a police dog because it barked at them?

[jmra]

Does anybody think a citizen would get off as lightly if they shot a police dog because it barked at them?

Logical arguments will not be tolerated!

[nightmare69]

Does anybody think a citizen would get off as lightly if they shot a police dog because it barked at them?

In the eyes of the law assaulting a police K-9 is the same as assaulting a LEO. I know of a K-9 officer who charged some criminal with felony 3 for hitting her K-9 and the charge was held up later in court.

[mamabearCali]

Does anybody think a citizen would get off as lightly if they shot a police dog because it barked at them?

Their dogs are sacred....our dogs are target practice if they do anything other than roll over and pee on themselves. May not always be true, but it sure does seem like it of late.

[philip964]

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Rains-Co ... 48881.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Deputy Indicted for animal cruelty.

[mamabearCali]

that is a surprise.

[nightmare69]

I feel this is a knee jerk reaction and I doubt this will hold up in court. We shall see though. For the record, he should have went for OC first before going lethal.

[mojo84]

I think shooting the dog was a knee jerk reaction.