TexasCHLforum.com

So it really boils down to whether we believe the cop/dad or the dogowner Briana Reyes, doesn't it? In perusing the comments made by Stephenville residents in the Empire-Tribune newspaper it appears that Chilli was afraid of dogs-especially big dogs. Did this color his judgement in the shooting? Undoubtably it did. His behaviour after the "shooting" was also suspect. He started cussing up a storm at the dogowner and pointed his gun toward her and her other dog. Conduct becoming of a LEO? I think not. From other comments found it appears that his children were no longer in the area when the shot was fired so was the dog really a threat? Too many unanswered questions here to let this one slide by with "it was a justified shooting" by the Chief of Police. I would like to raise a question previously raised but never answered by those proponents favoring shooting the dog. If you or I shot that dog, do you think the results would be the same? Or would you and I be in jail awaiting prosecution for endangerment of the other bystanders in the park? I think we all know the answer to that one!!!

He shot the dog because "he could" and he knew he would get away with it. That's all there is to it.

We only have the self-serving statement of the dad/leo that the dog was about to attack his children which isn't verifiable by anybody. If it was me that shot that dog I would be in jail and the cops and DA would have thrown away the key-for endangering the children in the park. The leo gets off scot-free-a dual standard anyway you look at it. But I am just repeating what I said in my prior post-sorry. In this case I tend to believe the dog owner's version of the event-not the LEO's.

After reading all of the posts here and the newspaper accounts with all of the so-called witness reports here is what I "think" happened. The dog approached the children with no intention of doing harm to them. He does not have a history of any prior vicious attacks and apparently had a good reputation in the park. It was more out of curiosity IMO. The children, not accustomed to dealing with dogs, any dogs, panicked and tried to get away. Now whether the dog actually growled or snarled at them as if to attack them is open to conjecture. We only have the statement of the father that this happened and of course that explanation is self-serving and would make the shooting "good." . It seems curious to me that no one else noticed or heard what was going on. I never heard from the owner whether she heard or didn't hear the growling or snarling. She was probably close at hand. When the children started crying Dad also panicked and decided to take matters into his own hands and shot the dog and apparently didn't do a very good job of it as the dog survived. Here where I live (Far West Texas) LEO's have a good reputation for shooting Pit Bulls wherever they find them deserved or not. And of course anytime a LEO is involved in a shooting, any kind of a shooting, he is almost always no-billed by the Grand Jury. A witness would have to have very strong evidence (video) to get him convicted. Now if it were one of us who performed this "dastardly deed" we would still be in lockup and characterized as the most vicious gun-packing villain by the media and Chief of Police for endangering children in the park. Anyway that's my $.02 worth on the matter.

Let's see. The officer shot the dog in the head at almost point blank range with a .40 Caliber. And the dog survived!!! What does this say about the stopping power of the .40? I think I am going to stick with my .357 Mag. I guarantee you that dog would have been dead if shot in the head with a .357 Magnum.