TexasCHLforum.com

nightmare69 wrote:

newlife12176 wrote:

Abraham wrote:nightmare69,

Presumably, they'd be looking for rabies or a brain tumor to help explain the dog's aggressiveness?

Or, am I off base?

Thanks!

No way. Who is gonna pay for that? They have to find a DVM to do it. Shelter vets are too busy. That isn't routine at all. Doesn't matter why the dog was aggressive. Even if rabid. Highly highly unlikely. Dog was aggressive cause it was not neutered and had an idiot for an owner.

The LE dept pays a veterinarian to do it. I've shot a couple on duty when I worked for the Sheriff Office and we were required to take the dogs body as evidence. Thanks to Deputy Dooley this is standard procedure in Texas when police have to put down a dog. He was the reason all Texas LEOs had to take the "dogs and police shoot or don't shoot" course.

Obviously the county deputy has rules and regs they have to follow when they pop a dog. When a citizen does it, those rules wouldn't apply. I am not disagreeing with you or wanting to start a debate however. Even the cases where city police shoot a dog, they don't always take the dogs body to use for evidence. What evidence are you looking for when a dog charges you in the county and you shoot it? Evidence of something that will explain why the dog charged? Rabies? The brain tissue being sent to the State lab in Austin is the only way to determine that. Was your dept holding bodies in a freezer just in case a dog owner called foul?

I have considered taking the class you were referring to. As an animal control officer and LTC holder, I think it would be great to sit through. I went to an animal cruelty seminar recently and the guy that taught it was the retired sheriff of (I think) Van Zandt County. He told everyone of the dog/LE shoot or don't shoot class.

bblhd672 wrote:Its been a long frustrating day so my thought processes weren't fully engaged when I saw the title of the thread "Shooting Dogs" - this is what came to mind:

That's hilarious! That's the kind of dog I want on my side!

allisji wrote:I know the popular position on "warning shots" is that it's never a good idea.

I would assume that if a walker fired a round to the dirt that it would probably scare the dog away, but I don't know if that is a guarantee. I would assume though that if a neighbor called the police after hearing a gunshot, that a person would likely be charged with unlawful weapon discharge, though presumably the walker has a defense if that they had no other way to scare away the aggressive dog (especially if the walker calls the police him or herself). Still seems like a bad idea to fire into the ground. Just curious as I know that most of us never want to shoot someone's pet (or a human for that matter).

In this case it sounds like the pitbull owners could not keep the dog controlled. Had the walker not shot the dog but had called police for a dog attack, with the past history, would this dog have been taken from its owners?

Firing a warning shot is never a good idea in my opinion. Even in this instance. With an aggressive male pit bull attacking, it's doubtful that would have changed its mind. I've seen them hit with tire irons and they still keep attacking.

If the previous complainant in the first case I mentioned would have proceeded with filing a dangerous dog affidavit, then went to court to testify, a judge could have ruled the dog dangerous. The owner then has to keep it behind a locked gate, get 100k insurance policy, etc etc. If they didn't do that, the dog could have been removed from him by court order only. But since the previous complainant didn't want to file DD, there wasn't anything we could have done.

Abraham wrote:nightmare69,

Presumably, they'd be looking for rabies or a brain tumor to help explain the dog's aggressiveness?

Or, am I off base?

Thanks!

No way. Who is gonna pay for that? They have to find a DVM to do it. Shelter vets are too busy. That isn't routine at all. Doesn't matter why the dog was aggressive. Even if rabid. Highly highly unlikely. Dog was aggressive cause it was not neutered and had an idiot for an owner.

nightmare69 wrote:Did the PD take the dogs body for necropsy? This is the standard procedure now.

No, suspect took his own dog. I've never seen or heard any PD doing that.

Since I have been a LTC holder for 8+ years and an animal control officer for the last 2 and a dog owner myself, I have always taken an interest in cases where someone has to use their weapon to dispatch an aggressive dog. Some have debated that the law only allows for your own personal self defense and some say you can defend your dog.

If you look at some of my recent posts you can find discussions and laws quoted by me and others. I do want to tell you about a dog shooting case I was called to by city police yesterday. I work for one of the largest cities in DFW btw. I'd rather not say which one. I had been called to a dog on dog attack 2 weeks ago. Guy was walking his dog in the park. An unrestrained pit bull charged his dog and bit him in the neck. Dog survived and was taken to animal hospital. I issued citations to the dogs owner as I found out where it lived.

Yesterday, I was called by the police to come assist them with a pit bull that was shot by a resident in the same neighborhood. When I arrived, there were 4 police officers (one a sergeant supervisor) and 3 patrol units. Sure enough, the same damn dog was the aggressor. Someone else was walking their Yorky on a leash in front of their house. Dog charged and attempted to maul dog walker's dog. He was legally armed and carrying a pocket 9mm. He said he had no choice but to blast the dog with 2 rounds. The dog died. I issued citations to the pit bull owner again. Suspect dog died on scene. Sergeant shook the shooters hand. Everyone went back to work or back home. Guy admitted he was defending his dog. No repercussions. Just thought I would share my experience so someone else can learn from them.