TexasCHLforum.com

nyj wrote:No one is trying to change any laws. The goal is to better APD's and other agencies policies in dealing with other people's animals.

This is very good news. Beware getting too close to so-called animal rights groups. They are rabid anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-pet-ownership and they would love to use this shooting as a poster child for all sorts of legislative mischief.

Chas.

nyj wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:NYJ, I noticed on your Cisco Facebook page a statement that concerns me a great deal. Specifically, it states "Currently, we are looking into specific policies and laws that are, or are not, in place for situations such as this, and for those that ARE, are they actively being followed."

It appears to me that people involved in this issue are not only looking to Austin PD for some resolution, but are also considering trying to change Texas law as it deals with killing of animals. Is that something you or anyone with this Facebook page planning on doing in the 2013 Texas Legislative session?

Chas.

Chas,

If you are at all interested in giving whatever advice you are able to, I would truly be glad to hear it. We've kind of made our official way into a "animal rights activist group," without even knowing it. We are certainly wanting to work with APD, but the sad truth is, this happens more often then it should all around the states, and very predominantly in Texas.

You didn't really answer my question, but I suspected that to be the case. You're not going to like my advice; don't try to change Texas law. Your website states that you have found one other incident at it wasin 2000! That's hardly something that is predominant in Texas as you state. You want to change Texas law for two incidents in 12 years. That won't fly with the legislature and you'll be surprised at the strength of the opposition.

Very few pets are killed unnecessarily, but if Texas law where changed, good people could find themselves facing prosecution for defending themselves, their family, or even their own pets from attacking dogs. The focus should be on why the officer drew his weapon in the first place, not trying to change the law because of one sad incident.

My wife and I certainly would be considered dog lovers, as you can see from my posts and my support of the Miniature Schnauzer Rescue of Houston. We have had three rescued Schnauzers and will have more in years to come. Our dogs are truly part of the family and we've spent more money on their medical care over the years than I will admit. Nevertheless, the loss of a dog is not justification to put good people at risk of unfair prosecution by ill-advised legislation by so-called "animal rights activist groups."

Chas.

NYJ, I noticed on your Cisco Facebook page a statement that concerns me a great deal. Specifically, it states "Currently, we are looking into specific policies and laws that are, or are not, in place for situations such as this, and for those that ARE, are they actively being followed."

It appears to me that people involved in this issue are not only looking to Austin PD for some resolution, but are also considering trying to change Texas law as it deals with killing of animals. Is that something you or anyone with this Facebook page planning on doing in the 2013 Texas Legislative session?

Chas.

matriculated wrote:This forum is ridiculously strict on treatment of LEO's, . . .

Why, because we require people to talk about specific incidents rather than engage in bashing of law enforcement personnel in general? In case you haven't read the Forum rule on this issue, it's copied below. Please point out anything in it you feel is overreaching.

Chas.

Forum Rule 9 wrote:Blatant, global, or rampant law enforcement bashing is prohibited. Discussions of specific identifiable events presented factually are fine.

nyj wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

nyj wrote:Thanks for those who have supported us so far.

Who is "us?"

Chas.

"us" are the friends of Michael, and myself and one of Michael's closest friends, whom are running the facebook page. I consider this a campaign now, and "us" can be everyone standing behind supporting some sort of action to be done. Does it matter?

No, it doesn't matter. I was just curious because you were the OP and you didn't say that was your Facebook site. The first indication I had that you were referring people to your own page was your comment that ". . . who have supported us . . ."

Chas.

nyj wrote:Thanks for those who have supported us so far.

Who is "us?"

Chas.

thenick_ttu wrote:with all "due" respect

Do you really think this makes a personal attack in violation of Forum rules okay? Stop now.

Chas.