Fort Worth LEO Shoots and Kills Dog....at the wrong house.

[steveincowtown]

Fort Worth Officer responds to the wrong address, shoots home owners dog in the back.

http://www.aol.com/video/family-dog-sho ... nk1|164940" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very, very sad.

[mamabearCali]

What is going on here? Is this just SOP, show up at house, shoot dog, go on with day? Come on. I think we need some additional training. Peoples dogs are important, some are costly, the dog we are thinking of getting will cost around 1K. Plus--soot the dog in the back? REALLY?

[Teamless]

You shoot my dog, that is an irreplaceable family member, no different than a son or daughter of the human species!

We are going to have issues should someone shoot my dog!

[knotquiteawake]

It didn't even look like one of the aggressive breeds of dogs. I really don't see how he could have felt his life was in danger. I guess you had to be there...

[The Annoyed Man]

Has this become a knee-jerk reaction to dogs?

Seems so to me. Plus, what kind of idiot cop can't tell the difference between a border collie and a pit bull, since his statement was "I didn't know if it was a pitbull or not?" The two breeds aren't even remotely similar, except for having four legs and hair, nor do they have the same naturally aggressive instincts.

Forgetting for a minute that our pets are family and keeping in mind that in the eyes of the law they are "merely" chattel property......how is it that cops can go to an incorrect address and destroy someone's property with impunity? If a police officer goes to a wrong address and destroys someone's property, that person deserves some compensation and an official apology from the city in question, and an acknowledgment that the officer did a wrong thing. That may seem unfair to police, but we pay them to maintain a higher standard of behavior, and when the consequences of their mistakes can result in destroyed property, false arrest, and shot family dogs, that higher standard of behavior is entirely appropriate. If an officer cannot maintain it, they don't belong on the force. It's really that simple.

I was once fired from a job as a phlebotomist for drawing blood from a wrong patient. I walked into the room next to the correct room, and was operating on coffee and lack of sleep near the end of a 16 hour shift, and I did not properly check the patient's ID bracelet against the lab order before drawing the blood. The mistake was discovered in time, and thank God that no real harm came to the patient I drew the blood from (other than an unnecessary needle stick) or to the patient whose blood I was supposed to draw. They fired me.....and I deserved it. And now we have a cop who didn't take the time to back check that he was at the right address—just like I failed to check the patient's ID bracelet against the lab order—and that homeowner's precious dog was back-shot while giving a friendly greeting. Why is this officer still employed? Unlike with my firing, where no real harm was done and there was only the potential for harm, this guy actually shot and killed someone's pet family member....or in the eyes of the law, destroyed that homeowner's chattel property.

This may not be a big deal to some, and I realize that officers or former officers who are members of this forum may view it differently. But this really IS a big deal, and here's why: If the department acknowledges their responsibility and offers compensation for the destroyed property along with an apology without having to be dragged into court to get it that is the right thing to do. Equally, FAILURE on the part of a department or city to acknowledge their responsibility and to make it right without having to be compelled to do so is destructive to the trust between police and community which is essential to public safety. That makes a cop's job harder than it needs to be.

When police kick down enough doors at enough wrong addresses, arrest/detain enough mistaken people at wrong addresses, and shoot enough dogs at wrong addresses without apologizing and compensating residents for the property and psychological damages they inflict, then they no longer hold the moral high ground which is essential to good policing, and they become just another gang running a protection racket that citizens have to beware of......while suffering the gall of knowing that it is their taxes that keep these gangs in business. No sane person wants to live this way, and no sane police hierarchy would want their moral authority to degrade into this kind of madness.

If the Fort Worth PD is really concerned about effective policing and the maintenance of the moral high ground from which to police the rest of us, they will not reflexively try to evade their responsibilities in the matter. If they can't demonstrate good self-policing, then they can't be trusted with policing the rest of us. I don't think I'm being too harsh here because there is too much at stake when things go wrong and innocent people and their property are the victims of police bungling. I want to see police departments highly paid so that they can attract the very best and brightest people who are willing to take on this necessary work. And when a cop screws up in a situation where there is a potential for great harm (like what would have happened if the justifiably outraged homeowner had started shouting at the cop in question and ran toward him in anger), I want that cop held fully accountable, just as I was held fully accountable, even if it's "only" a dog that he shot. The dog's owners deserve no less.

Am I being unreasonable? I don't think so.

[mamabearCali]

It was a aussie shepherd mix, not usually aggressive breed and if it was standing next to him on the porch so that he could shoot it in the back it was not being aggressive (at least in a typical aussie fashion). Now if he hit at it or yelled at it when it was beside him it might have become such. I don't know, but then that is on him. My parents have an aussie shepherd and when they get aggressive they go down near the ground and then suddenly explode in a burst (think herding goats) and then bite and shake.

[Teamless]

the norm on a raid seems to be to open the door, and shoot the dog(s)

I love almost all dogs.
While I never want to see one shot, if the officer is at the RIGHT house, and it is a DRUG or other 'normal' dwelling that dogs are used to protect the bad guys from the cops, then it may be OK to shoot the dog first.

If the owner of the house is a criminal, well, they get what is coming.

but make sure you are AT THE RIGHT HOUSE.

If you are at the wrong house, well, that is another story and is totally unacceptable!

[sjfcontrol]

Perhaps we should spring for "On Star" for all the police units so they can find the proper addresses. Just a suggestion...

[Oldgringo]

I do not wish to defend the officer in this case.

However, in conversation with some SWAT, FBI types, they claim that most druggies nowadays have agressive dogs for warning or protection. Consequently, the norm on a raid seems to be to open the door, and shoot the dog(s).

Maybe that partially explains the "shoot first" attitude.

...uh, shoot the druggie first?

[AEA]

Am I being unreasonable? I don't think so.

[Diesel42]

First, I agree with TAM.
I've been entertained all day with the comments to the Ft Worth Star Telegram article.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/05/28 ... ficer.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm afraid I would not be as calm as the Bolings if an officer killed on of my rescues. My thoughts and prayers go out to the Bolings. I hope the officer is fired.

[The Annoyed Man]

I do not wish to defend the officer in this case.

However, in conversation with some SWAT, FBI types, they claim that most druggies nowadays have agressive dogs for warning or protection. Consequently, the norm on a raid seems to be to open the door, and shoot the dog(s).

Maybe that partially explains the "shoot first" attitude.

This was not a SWAT mission. This was a single cop, responding to a call, and knocking on a front door. The homeowners were in their driveway at the time, and their two dogs were with them. The cop went up onto the front porch, and one of the dogs ran up to the porch to greet him.

If it is standard police policy to shoot the dogs whenever they send a lone officer to respond to a call, then you can bet that people will stop calling police and will start handling whatever needs to be handled themselves. This may not be the best response—for the homeowners, the police, or for the person whose behavior caused the call in the first place. If police want to provide good service, they need to train their officers to not reflexively shoot every dog that comes to greet them. If they can't do that, then they need to find another line of work.

This could all be avoided with some variation on a very simple procedure: when the officer is arriving, or about to arrive on scene, he radios the dispatcher, asking dispatch to phone the home to notify the resident that he is out front, and to ask the resident (who after all is the one who called the cops) to please go to their front window and verify that they see the officer. When they confirm to dispatch that they see the officer, the dispatcher instructs the homeowner to get any dogs he owns under control. Only then does the officer exit his vehicle and approach the house. The right of the homeowner to be safe and secure in his person and property is then observed, as is the right of the officer in question to have a safer work environment.

Does all this cost extra money? Probably. Fine. Buy one less urban assault vehicle or surveillance drone.

[steveincowtown]

This could all be avoided with some variation on a very simple procedure: when the officer is arriving, or about to arrive on scene, he radios the dispatcher, asking dispatch to phone the home to notify the resident that he is out front, and to ask the resident (who after all is the one who called the cops) to please go to their front window and verify that they see the officer. When they confirm to dispatch that they see the officer, the dispatcher instructs the homeowner to get any dogs he owns under control. Only then does the officer exit his vehicle and approach the house. The right of the homeowner to be safe and secure in his person and property is then observed, as is the right of the officer in question to have a safer work environment.

I agree TAM, but step one is that the officer has to show up at the correct address.