TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote:

jimlongley wrote: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.

The sheriff did say that they were looking to change the current policy to one more like what you mention. If he did so you could hold the fact that he violated that policy against him in a civil action but criminal law doesn't take that into consideration. He says he didn't think the dog was a problem when he first exited the vehicle. I see no reason to disbelieve him or more importantly for a court to disbelieve what he says. To a court it shouldn't matter if he was required to kill the dog but rather if he was within the law when he did. Nothing anyone said so far has addressed that fact or given any evidence he wasn't.

Alf wrote: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.

So you would kill a cop in Texas regardless of the fact that it's likely the law allows them to shoot your dog in a case like this?

puma guy wrote:
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.

So every single person who is a cop must be as much of an expert as you are on dog behavior or face charges for wrongfully shooting a dog that threatens them? It is not about the real threat it is legally about the officers perception. Same as it is in a civilian shooting.

Science also doesn't back up your statement about shooting the dog in the back of the head. For one thing the officer may just have jumped to the side. That is a herding dog and they are know to charge and retreat when herding. So it's impossible the dog did so with the deputy? To someone who knows better that may be a sign that the dog wasn't going to bite but we have no way to know the deputy was aware of that. I've also addressed this early in the thread that it could also be a sign of the back shoot phenomenon that can happen to police and civilians in shootings. http://www.forcescience.org/shotback.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And by the way you are not that much of an expert. Different dog show different behavior not to mention different breeds have some common tendencies but there is no universal standard that all dogs automatically follow. They are individuals.

nightmare69 wrote: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.

He should have hired EEllis to explain to the officer and the court that the man was allowed to fight back when the dog attacked him...because theoretically he was still innocent at that point...

Seriously though... Nightmare's story just reinforces what a number of folks on here are complaining about...one set of rules for citizens...a different set for the police. An Officer can usually justify shooting a dog simply because he FELT threatened, even though he was not actually attacked, and face no repercussions. A citizen who is having his leg bitten and chewed on by a Police K-9, and kicks at the dog to try and stop himself from being mauled by a trained attack dog, is charged with felony assault... enhanced because he struck an "officer".

EEllis wrote:

puma guy wrote:
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.

So every single person who is a cop must be as much of an expert as you are on dog behavior or face charges for wrongfully shooting a dog that threatens them? It is not about the real threat it is legally about the officers perception. Same as it is in a civilian shooting.

Science also doesn't back up your statement about shooting the dog in the back of the head. For one thing the officer may just have jumped to the side. That is a herding do and they are know to charge and retreat when herding. So it's impossible the dog did so with the deputy? To someone who knows better that may be a sign that the dog wasn't going to bite but we have no way to know the deputy was aware of that. I've also addressed this early in the thread that it could also be a sign of the back shoot phenomenon that can happen to police and civilians in shootings. http://www.forcescience.org/shotback.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And by the way you are not that much of an expert. Different dog show different behavior not to mention different breeds have some common tendencies but there is no universal standard that all dogs automatically follow. They are individuals.

Keep in mind that perceptions used as justification are judged by the "reasonable man" standard. If someone is unreasonably afraid, even if he is truly quivering in his boots, that perception alone does not justify the use of force or deadly force.

talltex wrote:

nightmare69 wrote: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.

He should have hired EEllis to explain to the officer and the court that the man was allowed to fight back when the dog attacked him...because theoretically he was still innocent at that point...

Seriously though... Nightmare's story just reinforces what a number of folks on here are complaining about...one set of rules for citizens...a different set for the police. An Officer can usually justify shooting a dog simply because he FELT threatened, even though he was not actually attacked, and face no repercussions. A citizen who is having his leg bitten and chewed on by a Police K-9, and kicks at the dog to try and stop himself from being mauled by a trained attack dog, is charged with felony assault... enhanced because he struck an "officer".

So no one sees the difference between the actions a suspect may take resisting a police dog when the cops are trying to apprehend them and a bystander that be attacked by a police dog. One is part of a police action and no you can't hit the dog the other is just a dog attack and you can legally take any actions you would with any attacking dog.

Excaliber wrote:
Keep in mind that perceptions used as justification are judged by the "reasonable man" standard. If someone is unreasonably afraid, even if he is truly quivering in his boots, that perception alone does not justify the use of force or deadly force.

So? I know this is a bit of an echo chamber here but don't think that is symptomatic of the larger public. Most people just don't bother because the emotion and rhetoric runs them off. If the cops story is not refuted by evidence the idea he would be found legally liable is unrealistic at best. To even attempt to do so, if there is no other evidence, is unconscionable for the DA and a disservice to the public.

EEllis wrote:

puma guy wrote:
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.

So every single person who is a cop must be as much of an expert as you are on dog behavior or face charges for wrongfully shooting a dog that threatens them? It is not about the real threat it is legally about the officers perception. Same as it is in a civilian shooting.

Science also doesn't back up your statement about shooting the dog in the back of the head. For one thing the officer may just have jumped to the side. That is a herding do and they are know to charge and retreat when herding. So it's impossible the dog did so with the deputy? To someone who knows better that may be a sign that the dog wasn't going to bite but we have no way to know the deputy was aware of that. I've also addressed this early in the thread that it could also be a sign of the back shoot phenomenon that can happen to police and civilians in shootings. http://www.forcescience.org/shotback.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And by the way you are not that much of an expert. Different dog show different behavior not to mention different breeds have some common tendencies but there is no universal standard that all dogs automatically follow. They are individuals.

I wondered when you'd get around to me.
First of all I am far more of an expert than you and probably most members on the forum. I've dealt with just about every breed of dog there is. From the smallest Yorkshire to breeds such as the Fila that make a Rottweiler look like an average size dog. Handling them, holding them, managing them in face to face situations while, most of the time, unpleasant procedures were performed on them. So please don't tell me what I know about dogs.

Now

I responded to your statement that the dog was charging. You have no way of knowing what occurred after the dog jumped out of the truck. You still don't. I described the dogs behavior in the truck. Show that part of the clip to your dog expert and see what they say.
Never did I say every cop had to be an expert

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.

(did you not read my post?)
and never said this guy should face charges. You interject suppositions in your responses that have nothing to do with my post. I think your main goal is to be provocative regardless of what I said in my post.

As for you science; it's about human beings. I think I'll just leave it at that.


Here's a theory for you; while it was charging the dog could also have done a back flip and been shot in the back of the head just before it landed. Follows your logic of proving the unprovable.

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?

EEllis
Senior Member

Posts: 948

talltex wrote:

nightmare69 wrote: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.

He should have hired EEllis to explain to the officer and the court that the man was allowed to fight back when the dog attacked him...because theoretically he was still innocent at that point...

Seriously though... Nightmare's story just reinforces what a number of folks on here are complaining about...one set of rules for citizens...a different set for the police. An Officer can usually justify shooting a dog simply because he FELT threatened, even though he was not actually attacked, and face no repercussions. A citizen who is having his leg bitten and chewed on by a Police K-9, and kicks at the dog to try and stop himself from being mauled by a trained attack dog, is charged with felony assault... enhanced because he struck an "officer".

There are many parts of Texas law that I disagree with. It's not my place to argue the law, I have to enforce the laws on the books. I doubt I could ever shoot a dog unless it's latched onto my arm or leg. I still get sad when I shoot a deer once every few years.

puma guy wrote: I First of all I am far more of an expert than you and probably most members on the forum. I've dealt with just about every breed of dog there is. From the smallest Yorkshire to breeds such as the Fila that make a Rottweiler look like an average size dog. Handling them, holding them, managing them in face to face situations while, most of the time, unpleasant procedures were performed on them. So please don't tell me what I know about dogs.

I don't know what you know but I know that you made a incorrect statement. So I don't care what your expertise is. Now maybe you are trying to make it simple to to explain to laymen and left some bit's out, whatever, dog behavior is not universal.

I responded to your statement that the dog was charging. You have no way of knowing what occurred after the dog jumped out of the truck. You still don't. I described the dogs behavior in the truck. Show that part of the clip to your dog expert and see what they say.

I did and he didn't think the dog was at all submissive.

Never did I say every cop had to be an expert

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.

(did you not read my post?)
and never said this guy should face charges. You interject suppositions in your responses that have nothing to do with my post. I think your main goal is to be provocative regardless of what I said in my post.

Well you judge what you believe a cop should do based on your experience and not on what a regular person might know. So you claim dissatisfaction with his response based on him not doing what you, the expert, would do. So I responded to that. As to you not asking for the guy to face charges, you're right. These threads get busy and several back and forths go on at once and they often get crossed. I'm not always just replying to the tread quoted if you will.

As for you science; it's about human beings. I think I'll just leave it at that.

And the deputy is what? The issue is his reactions and responses as much or more that what he responds to. There is a "lag" between decision and action. That study examined the relationship between that lag time and the time it took to take certain actions. While the "actions" taken are different unless dogs are thought to react slower than humans it is a valid and reasonable point. Action beats Reaction.

Here's a theory for you; while it was charging the dog could also have done a back flip and been shot in the back of the head just before it landed. Follows your logic of proving the unprovable.

So unless you think that you theory is somehow more plausible that the story the deputy gave we are just getting silly.

Really people will believe as they will. My responses are not meant to attack anyones belief or the fact that they hold that belief. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Though I will admit I may get caught up in the back and forth. It's the statements that just are not true, fallacies that people use to show why they think a certain way, illogic and mis statements that I really tend to respond to.

Many government atrocities throughout history were allowed by law and made possible by people who rationalized that it wasn't their job to question the law.

I'll stop there out of respect for forum rules.

EEllis wrote:

puma guy wrote: I First of all I am far more of an expert than you and probably most members on the forum. I've dealt with just about every breed of dog there is. From the smallest Yorkshire to breeds such as the Fila that make a Rottweiler look like an average size dog. Handling them, holding them, managing them in face to face situations while, most of the time, unpleasant procedures were performed on them. So please don't tell me what I know about dogs.

I don't know what you know but I know that you made a incorrect statement. So I don't care what your expertise is. Now maybe you are trying to make it simple to to explain to laymen and left some bit's out, whatever, dog behavior is not universal.

I responded to your statement that the dog was charging. You have no way of knowing what occurred after the dog jumped out of the truck. You still don't. I described the dogs behavior in the truck. Show that part of the clip to your dog expert and see what they say.

I did and he didn't think the dog was at all submissive.

Never did I say every cop had to be an expert

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.

(did you not read my post?)
and never said this guy should face charges. You interject suppositions in your responses that have nothing to do with my post. I think your main goal is to be provocative regardless of what I said in my post.

Well you judge what you believe a cop should do based on your experience and not on what a regular person might know. So you claim dissatisfaction with his response based on him not doing what you, the expert, would do. So I responded to that. As to you not asking for the guy to face charges, you're right. These threads get busy and several back and forths go on at once and they often get crossed. I'm not always just replying to the tread quoted if you will.

As for you science; it's about human beings. I think I'll just leave it at that.

And the deputy is what? The issue is his reactions and responses as much or more that what he responds to. There is a "lag" between decision and action. That study examined the relationship between that lag time and the time it took to take certain actions. While the "actions" taken are different unless dogs are thought to react slower than humans it is a valid and reasonable point. Action beats Reaction.

Here's a theory for you; while it was charging the dog could also have done a back flip and been shot in the back of the head just before it landed. Follows your logic of proving the unprovable.

So unless you think that you theory is somehow more plausible that the story the deputy gave we are just getting silly.

Really people will believe as they will. My responses are not meant to attack anyones belief or the fact that they hold that belief. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Though I will admit I may get caught up in the back and forth. It's the statements that just are not true, fallacies that people use to show why they think a certain way, illogic and mis statements that I really tend to respond to.

I surrender. Mom gave me advice as to who I shouldn't argue with and I should have listened.

puma guy wrote: I surrender. Mom gave me advice as to who I shouldn't argue with and I should have listened.

nightmare69 wrote:

puma guy wrote: I surrender. Mom gave me advice as to who I shouldn't argue with and I should have listened.

[ Image ]

Until one shoots it in the back of the head. Sorry I don't have access to meme, but I couldn't resist

The fired deputy has now been indicted by the county grand jury for Creulty to Animal and faces up to two years in jail if found guilty.

Source: WFAA News app.