Rains County Deputy Shoots Victim's Dog

[EEllis]

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.

And you were bit how many times? Because we have heard that this deputy was bit before. I don't think this dog needed to be shot but I don't think, especially with not being able to see the incident, that I can totally rule out the need and that my feelings are necessary the bar to measure everyone's else's actions.

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.

He may not of been allowed to euthanize the dog so I don't know that is a strike since I don't know his dept policies. He did try to console the owner though he didn't seem to be very effective. He did call for backup but we never saw enough of the vid to know he was never under threat. I would say that the owners reactions were extreme and would more than likely think there were some raised voices and it was a highly charged atmosphere. Calling backup out may have been the best thing to make sure a situation didn't develop. And I just have to say that bit about how he called for backup to try and cover for what he did? Really? Just by that statement it seems to me you show that you are not willing to even try and be objective. Maybe he just got scared with all the hollering. He may of thought there was a real threat. Mind you being cowardly isn't a good thing either but pretending we KNOW why he so is a bit much.

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.

Now wait a second. What I was saying is if you call someone out to your place and then don't have your dog controlled and it attacks someone you are and should be held responsible. While this is a horrible thing and the focus should be on the shooting the fact that dog owners can also take something away from this that has to do with their responsibility is not something that I think should be mocked.

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.

That is basicly what he said. He didn't say the deputy was wrong just that due to threats he couldn't have the guy working. Since my understanding is he was a new hire and would of been on probation he could fire him easily. I doubt he could get away with doing so with a full employee but I may be wrong with it being such a small dept.

[EEllis]

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.

You state that as if is a fact. You cannot know that. The evidence to support that is not available to us here. You may believe it to be so, but that doesn't make it so. That there were alternatives to shooting the dog doesn't affect whether the dog posed any danger or if the man should have secured the dog. If the dog did pose even the faintest danger then he should of been restrained and the owner was negligent for not doing so. If the deputy got bit would the owners home owners policy of paid off? Yes because the owner would have been negligent. Doesn't mean the dog should of been shot just that people need to be more aware of their responsibilities with dogs.

[talltex]

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.

For the record...if he was afraid of getting bitten, he shouldn't have gotten out of the car. He parked right behind the truck and saw the dog was agitated...he could have backed up and parked farther away.... then he wouldn't have had to decide between using OC or "going lethal". I hope they have at least one class on using common sense at the academy. If it goes before a jury in Rains county, I'll bet it DOES hold up in court...people are fed up with this kind of stuff.

[EEllis]

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.

For the record...if he was afraid of getting bitten, he shouldn't have gotten out of the car. He parked right behind the truck and saw the dog was agitated...he could have backed up and parked farther away.... then he wouldn't have had to decide between using OC or "going lethal". I hope they have at least one class on using common sense at the academy. If it goes before a jury in Rains county, I'll bet it DOES hold up in court...people are fed up with this kind of stuff.

The deputy said at first, when he initially left his unit, he didn't think the dog was aggressive. I'm mean really it was just a barking dog right? The dog jump out of the truck, where we couldn't see him, and then charged the deputy and that would be the time he thought it was dangerous. The period we can't see.

There is virtually no mandated training in Texas for police relating to how to recognize and or deal with aggressive dogs. Some Dept have started doing departmental training but the state doesn't require any training for peace office certification. If I remember right Wendy Davis authored a bill that would require TCLOSE to mandate training and CE for "dog encounters" but I haven't read anything about it's progress. Right now if the officer feels threatened he can legally shoot a dog. Not if he thinks he might receive great bodily injury or the like but just if he feels threatened. How would you "prove" that?

I also have to say OC is not for when someone or something is already charging or actually attacking you. Sometimes it may work and will shorten a fight or help limit visibility or breathing but it's most effective when you hit the attacker right before they make their move. Basically it's pain compliance and if they have committed to an attack then they have already decided to accept some pain in the form of being hit so it normally won't just cause someone to flee or drop in pain. It would be effective if you needed to approach an area a dog is guarding or when a dog is making the initial signals for attack but much less effective during an attack.

[jmra]

people need to be more aware of their responsibilities with dogs.

Perhaps it's the LEOs who need to be more aware of their responsibilities with dogs.
It is always refreshing to hear your unbiased commentary.

[mojo84]

This too is being offered up as fact and we have no way of knowing whether it is or isn't.

The dog jump out of the truck, where we couldn't see him, and then charged the deputy and that would be the time he thought it was dangerous. The period we can't see.

Some people make their living creating doubt without much interest in right, wrong and justice while invoking the double standard. Sheesh!

[mamabearCali]

I have some sympathy for the LEO. It happened fast. He was not thinking right. He had been bitten before....etc etc etc

But then I get this big however. If the LEO had brought a police dog to the farm, and the police dog had gone bonkers and had been chewing on the farmers leg (not barking, not moving around, but actually biting him) what would have happened to the farmer if he had tried to defend himself in the same manner. Somehow I think we would have not been reading about a dead dog, but a dead farmer.

We have laws for the thee but not for me. That really rubs me the wrong way and no amount of clouding the issue will solve that. That rubs me the wrong way. So even if this fellow get off on these charges, which is possible I still think it is a good thing for him to have to face these charges. Why? To make LEO's think a bit. To make LEO's realize that they too can be held accountable for every bullet they fire whether at man or beast. To make the LEA train on how to handle animals.

Now do I want him to go to jail. Not really. I think restitution to the farmer, and the loss of his position is enough.

[jimlongley]

Almost fifty years ago, as a young telephone man, I learned to sit, blow the horn, and wait for the owner to secure the dog before exiting my vehicle, and in those days we were always responding to calls from people. These days he could have sat there and blown the siren, called the people on his cell phone, or had dispatch call, especially if he was in some elevated state due to a previous encounter with a dog, there was nothing urgent about the call that required him to get out and kill the dog.

That's the way I would present it to the jury.

[jimlongley]

Almost fifty years ago, as a young telephone man, I learned to sit, blow the horn, and wait for the owner to secure the dog before exiting my vehicle, and in those days we were always responding to calls from people. These days he could have sat there and blown the siren, called the people on his cell phone, or had dispatch call, especially if he was in some elevated state due to a previous encounter with a dog, there was nothing urgent about the call that required him to get out and kill the dog.

That's the way I would present it to the jury.

And, BTW, I just watched a different video where it turns out that that is exactly what he did AFTER he shot and injured the dog. He ran and jumped in his car, backed up the drive, and then started calling for the owner on his speaker.

He may be in tears in every interview, but if I were the judge and we was convicted, part of his sentence would be to have a tape of the dog's agonized scream played for him, regularly.

[Alf]

If somebody murders my dog, they're going to prison or in the ground. Let's hope for prison but neither cowardice nor cynophobia gets them off the hook.

[puma guy]

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.

For the record...if he was afraid of getting bitten, he shouldn't have gotten out of the car. He parked right behind the truck and saw the dog was agitated...he could have backed up and parked farther away.... then he wouldn't have had to decide between using OC or "going lethal". I hope they have at least one class on using common sense at the academy. If it goes before a jury in Rains county, I'll bet it DOES hold up in court...people are fed up with this kind of stuff.

The deputy said at first, when he initially left his unit, he didn't think the dog was aggressive. I'm mean really it was just a barking dog right? The dog jump out of the truck, where we couldn't see him, and then charged the deputy and that would be the time he thought it was dangerous. The period we can't see.

There is virtually no mandated training in Texas for police relating to how to recognize and or deal with aggressive dogs. Some Dept have started doing departmental training but the state doesn't require any training for peace office certification. If I remember right Wendy Davis authored a bill that would require TCLOSE to mandate training and CE for "dog encounters" but I haven't read anything about it's progress. Right now if the officer feels threatened he can legally shoot a dog. Not if he thinks he might receive great bodily injury or the like but just if he feels threatened. How would you "prove" that?

I also have to say OC is not for when someone or something is already charging or actually attacking you. Sometimes it may work and will shorten a fight or help limit visibility or breathing but it's most effective when you hit the attacker right before they make their move. Basically it's pain compliance and if they have committed to an attack then they have already decided to accept some pain in the form of being hit so it normally won't just cause someone to flee or drop in pain. It would be effective if you needed to approach an area a dog is guarding or when a dog is making the initial signals for attack but much less effective during an attack.

You are offering up as fact what even you don't know.

A dog shot in the back of the head is not a charging dog. Don't offer up the dog turns his back theory to me. It doesn't fly. I've been around dogs for almost all of my 66 years. Thousands and thousands of them and all but a few total strangers to me. Guess what? I've never got bit by any of the them. A charging, aggressive dog focuses on the perceived threat and doesn't turn its back unless in retreat. This was not a snarling threatening dog. Candy's behavior in the truck displayed a mildly aggressive reaction, barking and wagging, then a passive almost submissive mode.
The SO kept advancing any way and the dog jumped out, then the gunshot to the back of the dog's head. We don't know if the dog charged other than by the SO's statement. Unless you were there you can't know that happened. Again the back of the head shot directly refutes that.
I'll allow the SO can't be an expert on dog behavior, but he worked for the SPCA and has experience with them. How much he learned one may judge by his actions.

I would like to view an unedited version of the dash cam. I timed the version on TV and there was less than a minute between the shooting and notifying the owner.

[SewTexas]

Almost fifty years ago, as a young telephone man, I learned to sit, blow the horn, and wait for the owner to secure the dog before exiting my vehicle, and in those days we were always responding to calls from people. These days he could have sat there and blown the siren, called the people on his cell phone, or had dispatch call, especially if he was in some elevated state due to a previous encounter with a dog, there was nothing urgent about the call that required him to get out and kill the dog.

That's the way I would present it to the jury.

that's still what you do in the county. and if this idiot didn't know that, then it's his superiors fault.

[EEllis]

people need to be more aware of their responsibilities with dogs.

Perhaps it's the LEOs who need to be more aware of their responsibilities with dogs.
It is always refreshing to hear your unbiased commentary.

I would say yes to that. They are not mutually exclusive.

[EEllis]

I have some sympathy for the LEO. It happened fast. He was not thinking right. He had been bitten before....etc etc etc

But then I get this big however. If the LEO had brought a police dog to the farm, and the police dog had gone bonkers and had been chewing on the farmers leg (not barking, not moving around, but actually biting him) what would have happened to the farmer if he had tried to defend himself in the same manner. Somehow I think we would have not been reading about a dead dog, but a dead farmer.

We have laws for the thee but not for me. That really rubs me the wrong way and no amount of clouding the issue will solve that. That rubs me the wrong way. So even if this fellow get off on these charges, which is possible I still think it is a good thing for him to have to face these charges. Why? To make LEO's think a bit. To make LEO's realize that they too can be held accountable for every bullet they fire whether at man or beast. To make the LEA train on how to handle animals.

Now do I want him to go to jail. Not really. I think restitution to the farmer, and the loss of his position is enough.

That isn't exactly true. In fact if the police dog was unrestrained and the individual was not a suspect then there would be no charges if an individual hurt or killed a police dog. There have been many incidents where depts pay out for dog bites for attacks when dogs are let loose. There is an issue with because of how police dogs are trained the more you fight the more they attack so I'm sure in court fighting the dog would be brought up to use against a damage claim but that is lawyer crap in a civil case. Legally you are well within your rights to defend yourself.

If we as citizens want there to be a different standard then there is currently thats great. I don't think we need to make that change at the expense of someone, and I am not speaking of this officer in specific, who is acting in good faith according to the standards that are currently in place and are what they have been told and trained to follow. Most cops are not trained to deal with dogs. The only real training is when is it legal to shoot an animal. If a cop is legally on the property and he feels threatened by an animal he is legally allowed to shoot it. That may be absurd but that's what the law is. So if, and I don't want to claim things I can't know, if he felt threatened how do we hold him liable when his actions are legally permissible and as far as I know within his department policies? Shouldn't taking action against someone wait until they actually do something illegal or against policy? It's almost like making something illegal after the fact ans then prosecuting them.

[EEllis]

This too is being offered up as fact and we have know way of knowing whether it is or isn't.

The dog jump out of the truck, where we couldn't see him, and then charged the deputy and that would be the time he thought it was dangerous. The period we can't see.

Some people make their living creating doubt without much interest in right, wrong and justice while invoking the double standard. Sheesh!

What that we can't see it?


Fine has anyone given any evidence that the dog didn't charge the cop? That the cop chased down the dog and assassinated it because of some unknown reason?