TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:

Wienerdogtroy wrote:

matriculated wrote:

Excaliber wrote:
An officer or any other person who appears to be acting aggressively toward a dog owner will elicit an aggressive response from a dog. That's what dogs do out of loyalty to their masters. Once again, a competent officer understands and respects this, and takes it into account. Dealing with people in the presence of their dogs is a very common occurrence, and an officer should be able to handle it easily and successfully.

In over 20 years of police work, I recall one instance where an officer was compelled to shoot an attacking doberman. That's it - one case in a department of 200 officers who responded to over 50,000 calls a year. We dealt with lots of dogs, but didn't use gunfire as our primary go to tactic. There are lots of alternatives. Many officers kept small bags of dog treats in their briefcases for those times when a little canine bribery was needed to accomplish the mission.

We didn't point guns at people without clear justification either. Our officers were intensively trained in the proper use of force. Whenever a firearm was pointed at a person, our procedures required that the officer complete a Use of Force report that detailed the legal justification and practical necessity for doing so. Some would say this is an unnecessary administrative burden, but we did it deliberately to guide officers to think about what they were doing with deadly weapons and to make good use of force decisions. With this in place, it was a rarity to find firearms deployed when they shouldn't be, and our officers were very sharp on using them only when they should. When the gun was the right choice, it was brought into play without hesitation and with confidence because the officers knew for sure they were acting properly and that the command staff would back them when they acted within the bounds of the law and good judgment.

If one of my officers had behaved as the one in the Austin instance reportedly did, my agency would have been doing a serious review of his ability to handle his responsibilities. If the reports we have are true and complete, the officer's behavior indicates inordinate fear and reactions that border on hysterical. When these characteristics show up in a person who is sent to calls where conflict is common, courage is routinely called for and life and death decisions must be made correctly every time, it's a disaster just searching for its time and place.

All I can say is I applaud you and whatever department you either work for, or used to work for. You are exactly the kind of police officer I want responding if I ever have an issue and your department is the kind of department I want to be dealing with. Sounds like cool heads all around.

Seconded.

Nice screen name. I missed that last "r" and thought it was Weiner dog toy.

matriculated wrote:

Excaliber wrote:
An officer or any other person who appears to be acting aggressively toward a dog owner will elicit an aggressive response from a dog. That's what dogs do out of loyalty to their masters. Once again, a competent officer understands and respects this, and takes it into account. Dealing with people in the presence of their dogs is a very common occurrence, and an officer should be able to handle it easily and successfully.

In over 20 years of police work, I recall one instance where an officer was compelled to shoot an attacking doberman. That's it - one case in a department of 200 officers who responded to over 50,000 calls a year. We dealt with lots of dogs, but didn't use gunfire as our primary go to tactic. There are lots of alternatives. Many officers kept small bags of dog treats in their briefcases for those times when a little canine bribery was needed to accomplish the mission.

We didn't point guns at people without clear justification either. Our officers were intensively trained in the proper use of force. Whenever a firearm was pointed at a person, our procedures required that the officer complete a Use of Force report that detailed the legal justification and practical necessity for doing so. Some would say this is an unnecessary administrative burden, but we did it deliberately to guide officers to think about what they were doing with deadly weapons and to make good use of force decisions. With this in place, it was a rarity to find firearms deployed when they shouldn't be, and our officers were very sharp on using them only when they should. When the gun was the right choice, it was brought into play without hesitation and with confidence because the officers knew for sure they were acting properly and that the command staff would back them when they acted within the bounds of the law and good judgment.

If one of my officers had behaved as the one in the Austin instance reportedly did, my agency would have been doing a serious review of his ability to handle his responsibilities. If the reports we have are true and complete, the officer's behavior indicates inordinate fear and reactions that border on hysterical. When these characteristics show up in a person who is sent to calls where conflict is common, courage is routinely called for and life and death decisions must be made correctly every time, it's a disaster just searching for its time and place.

All I can say is I applaud you and whatever department you either work for, or used to work for. You are exactly the kind of police officer I want responding if I ever have an issue and your department is the kind of department I want to be dealing with. Sounds like cool heads all around.

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:And officers responding to the wrong address seem to be the most dangerous calls for innocent people.
The LEO community can circle the wagons all they want but this officer made several mistakes and needs to pay for them with his badge.