Rains County Deputy Shoots Victim's Dog

[gregthehand]

http://www.kltv.com/story/25302236/east ... ot-his-dog

I haven't seen the dash video so it's hard to tell exactly what transpired. The story that the dog owner is telling is that his residence was robbed, he called the police, and that when the responding deputy showed up his dog approached him barking and the deputy shot the dog. At that point the deputy began looking around the owner's house, including looking in the front door. The owner saw him, and honked the horn on his tractor to let him know he saw them. The owner stated that as he approached the deputy that the deputy simply stated "I shot your dog, sorry". At that point the story goes that the deputy retreated to his vehicle and told the owner over the PA intercom to not approach the vehicle. Other officers showed up, including two DPS Troopers, an investigator from the county, and a police officer from a nearby town. From this point on you can watch the video and see the rest.

My thoughts are that we won't know exactly who is in the wrong and who is in the right here until the dash cam video is released and maybe not even then. The deputy did state on camera that you can see how aggressive the dog was on his dashcam. The owner and his father are obviously very upset, and I can understand why. Apparently the dog was not dead and so the owner grabbed a bucket and then drowned the dog in a five gallon bucket. He says that he pleaded for the officer to finish off the dog and was ignored and that drowning the dog was his only option because his firearms had been stolen, among other items, which why he called the police.

Having worked in law enforcement it seems there is more to this story that hasn't come out yet. I say that because of a few things. The owner stated that as soon as he approached the deputy he was given the very terse "I shot your dog, sorry" comment and then the deputy turned around and retreated to his car. Given the amount of officers that showed up it would seem that the deputy called out for assistance on his radio. One Trooper states he came from the next county over and there is a local police officer on scene as well. Local PDs don't leave their city to just stop and check by with a county deputy unless they have reason to believe that their assistance is needed for the safety of the deputy or others. One Trooper also has his taser out. Now the rest of the story could be that the deputy realized he over-reacted and then dropped a call for assistance saying he was dealing with overly aggressive people which caused the response. This isn't an uncommon response to someone realizing they made a poor decision. The other part of the story could be that the owner and his father got aggressive with the deputy. I understand them being upset and I don't begrudge them for that at all, but as we should all know getting aggressive in situations like this doesn't help an already bad situation. It sucks, we want retribution for a loved pet, but we have to keep our emotions in check. Maybe what happened is a mixture of these two. The situation could have also been avoided from the get go as well had the deputy stayed in his vehicle. Hard to say at this point.

[talltex]

Saw the video last night on WFAA. The deputy that did this has already been fired by the Sheriff. I'm sure alot of ya'll saw it also...given the abundance of dog shootings by LEO's who feel threatened when a dog barks at them on the owners property, I wasn't surprised that it occurred. What shocked me the most, was the behavior of the DPS Trooper standing in the background... laughing and mugging for the video camera like it's all a big joke. I suspect he has already been called in for a "serious discussion" with his superiors. Deservedly so, because his behaviour was inexcusable and unprofessional.

[steveincowtown]

Story and dash cam video here:

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Deputy-f ... 39221.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In this case the dash cam video leaves no doubt that the officer exercised poor judgement by getting out of his car. He was not investigating a crime in progress, he was coming to take a report for a crime that had already occurred. If he truly felt there was a threat from the dog he should have stayed in his car.

[VMI77]

I have three dogs I love and I'm just not sure how I'd react to seeing any of them killed. The cavalier way some officers kill dogs has me very wary of ever calling the police to my property. These days I don't think I'd call the police unless a death was involved --the chances of one of these rogue incidents may be small but that has to be weighed against an outcome that is potentially catastrophic.

[philip964]

Since I am aware of these event being all too common. And being that I consider my dog to be a member of the family, I would make sure my dog was under control or locked up, if I knew the police were coming. What I worry about is these incidents where the police come unannounced to the wrong address.

Apparently it also took the police two hours to respond to the call of the burglary. Which is why I assume the farmer went off to do something else after a while of waiting for someone to show up.

The police office was fired for his own safety. That seems to be a new reason for termination.

[VMI77]

Since I am aware of these event being all too common. And being that I consider my dog to be a member of the family, I would make sure my dog was under control or locked up, if I knew the police were coming. What I worry about is these incidents where the police come unannounced to the wrong address.

Apparently it also took the police two hours to respond to the call of the burglary. Which is why I assume the farmer went off to do something else after a while of waiting for someone to show up.

The police office was fired for his own safety. That seems to be a new reason for termination.

I would too but depending on the particular call that's no guarantee. In this case it appears that the Sheriff did the right thing, but that doesn't bring the dog back.

[Excaliber]

In 20 years of police work in a 200 officer agency we shot one dog, and in that case there was no other option to prevent severe injury to the officer.

The conduct of both the deputy and the trooper in the incident described in this post is revolting.

These men clearly have no concept of service to the public, and are unworthy of wearing the badge that so many have worn with honor both in past years and to this day.

I hold agency leaders responsible for this type of conduct as well. There have been way too many clearly egregious cases where officers took the lives of cherished family pets with no reasonable justification. It is obvious that there is a problem that needs to be addressed through training.

The sheriff in this case acted swiftly and wisely after the fact, but, as has been pointed out, the firing doesn't bring back a cherished family pet who also performed important work on the victim's farm.

Mr. Middleton was victimized twice - once by the burglars and then again by the police. One could reasonably argue that the second victimization was worse than the first, because the loss in the first case was just stuff. The second cost the life of a family member.

There can be no excuse for what was done in this case, and that one officer's callous actions will cost his agency dearly for a long time after his firing. The sheriff's department and the troopers in that area have lost a critical degree of public trust that is absolutely essential to the performance of their jobs. That loss will play out in many ways, from people being unwilling to call deputies onto their properties to holding on to information that might be helpful to investigations and perhaps even thinking twice about coming to the aid of an officer in trouble or even making a call for help.

The sheriff needs to do more than just fire a deputy. He needs to find a way to re earn the trust of his constituents, and that won't be easily done. He'll find out whether or not he's succeeded at election time.

[txglock21]

I have been following this (on Facebook) even before it hit the news because it happened in the same county my daughter lives in. The one thing I wanted to point out that has not been mentioned is that an autopsy was done on the dog by an independent vet and he concluded that the dog (Candy) was shot from behind the ear and the bullet exited near nose. By this he concluded that the dog was retreating from the officer when shot.

[EEllis]

I have been following this (on Facebook) even before it hit the news because it happened in the same county my daughter lives in. The one thing I wanted to point out that has not been mentioned is that an autopsy was done on the dog by an independent vet and he concluded that the dog (Candy) was shot from behind the ear and the bullet exited near nose. By this he concluded that the dog was retreating from the officer when shot.

First off I want to say that I don't think the officer needed to shoot this dog. That being said the fact that the dog was shot in the "back" really doesn't mean anything. These are fast dogs, very quick, and when herding they charge and retreat repeatedly. It would be quite possible that if the officer decided he needed to shoot the dog during a "charge" that between the time the officer made that decision and actually shot the dog had spun and started to move away. This would be the same type of phenomenon where officer "backshoot" suspects because"action beats reaction".

http://www.forcescience.org/shotback.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mamabearCali]

I have said it before and I will say it again. There are all sorts of professions that have to deal with dogs in their day to day business. It is only ever the police we hear about shooting dogs. My husband used to have to go into back yards as a designer for the power company. He never so much as had to hit a dog with his clipboard or pepper spray. Sometimes I wonder about these situations. It seems that some of these guys once you give them a hammer (a firearm) everything looks like a nail.

Whatever happen to common sense and restraint. Unless the dog is chewing or about to chew on your foot there is no cause to shoot it. Shooting it from behind is particularly cowardly.

[EEllis]

Sometimes I wonder about these situations. It seems that some of these guys once you give them a hammer (a firearm) everything looks like a nail.

You do make a good point with this.

Shooting it from behind is particularly cowardly.

I think assuming that happened here is unwarranted. I also hope if an officer shoots a dog it's because he thinks it is needed not because he is trying to be "Brave". Also no officer should place themselves in any extra risk just so someone won't think they are "cowardly".

[psijac]

Postman and electricians know they are just visitors. They have a job to do an want to do it and leave.

Police reguardless of whether they are a good cop or bad cop show up and want to assume control of the area. They are invading a territory even if only for a few hours. A dog can sense this and probably doesn't like it.

[mojo84]

I have been following this (on Facebook) even before it hit the news because it happened in the same county my daughter lives in. The one thing I wanted to point out that has not been mentioned is t hat an autopsy was done on the dog by an independent vet and he concluded that the dog (Candy) was shot from behind the ear and the bullet exited near nose. By this he concluded that the dog was retreating from the officer when shot.

First off I want to say that I don't think the officer needed to shoot this dog. That being said the fact that the dog was shot in the "back" really doesn't mean anything. These are fast dogs, very quick, and when herding they charge and retreat repeatedly. It would be quite possible that if the officer decided he needed to shoot the dog during a "charge" that between the time the officer made that decision and actually shot the dog had spun and started to move away. This would be the same type of phenomenon where officer "backshoot" suspects because"action beats reaction".

http://www.forcescience.org/shotback.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here we go again.


My dog barks and ruffles at the UPS and FedEx guys every time they deliver a package. She backs off and leaves them alone after they throw her a dog treat. We even buy a package for them occasionally as our dog isn't the only one they encounter.

This is the first time I recall hearing about an officer being disciplined for shooting someone's dog. Good for the Sheriff.

[rp_photo]

This is the first time I recall hearing about an officer being disciplined for shooting someone's dog. Good for the Sheriff.

And good for the citizens who expressed their concern in whatever way they did.

[talltex]

This is the first time I recall hearing about an officer being disciplined for shooting someone's dog. Good for the Sheriff.

And good for the citizens who expressed their concern in whatever way they did.

In the report I saw, the Sheriff said that officials had received an overwhelming number of calls and messages from the citizens in the county that demanded immediate action be taken in this case...and he responded.