APD Shot and killed buddy's dog

[C-dub]

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.

[flintknapper]

Underestimating your opponent can lead to bad results.

As can “over-reacting”, correct?

Most bites like this will be in the lower leg or hand area and they can do some damage there.

“Can” yes, depending upon the animal and its dedication to an attack (if any). I would be much more concerned about a large breed dog (Lab, Cur, Pit Bull, etc) or those with physical attributes that make them specifically more dangerous (pits and bull-dogs) than with someone’s smallish pet.

On top of that…the LEO seemed to giving conflicting commands to the owner. First he told (at GUN POINT) to show his hands, then instructed to “get his dog”. I would have done exactly as the owner did and not budged.

I’ve read of incidents where one LEO (or more) is yelling for someone to not move, while another is telling him to get on the ground! Perfect scenario for getting shot….with an overly “nervous” LEO.

[C-dub]

Yes and yes. Re: Eric Scott (RIP) at Costo.

[Wienerdogtroy]

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.

And the old dog himself:

[flintknapper]

Nice Weiner dog!

If anyone were to shoot one of mine…they would likely have a large and immediate problem on their hands. Chips fall where they may.



The owner of Cisco has been much more gracious than I would have been. I know policing is not an easy job, but this story stinks IMO.

[Oldgringo]

Nice Weiner dog!

If anyone were to shoot one of mine…they would likely have a large and immediate problem on their hands. Chips fall where they may.



The owner of Cisco has been much more gracious than I would have been. I know policing is not an easy job, but this story stinks IMO.

This story stinks to the high heavens. Somebody is responsible for the hiring and the assigning of this LEO.

[OldCannon]

That Facebook page is over 40,000 likes and is gaining a lot of national attention now.

[Beiruty]

That Facebook page is over 40,000 likes and is gaining a lot of national attention now.

Now @ 56,000+

[VoiceofReason]

I am more concerned why the Police officer has to draw on unarmed person who is not a threat or even aggressive or non-compliant. That would be an aggravated assault if done by a civilian. That officer has be sent to for long time re-training and long time office desk duty to cool down and learn to control his fear. He behaved like scared bat squirting out from a cave.

Was there a weapon involved in the initial report? If so I can understand the officer drawing his sidearm.

How would you know the subject was “unarmed” until you have searched him? I agree the officer probably overreacted but none of us were there and don’t know all of the details. It is easy to criticize when one is sitting safely in front of his/her keyboard and take all the time he/she wants to think about what he/she would do in a situation we don’t know all the facts about.

...those of us who HAVE spent several years on the streets usually consider what's in the subject's HANDS to determine whether or not to draw and cover them...more often it's handled as you posted earlier...then search him/her if/as the situation calls for it...the fact that the officer greatly overreacted is not in dispute, with the facts we are given here...where one is sitting when coming to these conclusions makes little difference to the conclusions drawn...Beiruty's concerns are valid and well supported by the supplied facts...the dashboard audio tells us a lot...

I HAVE spent time on the streets with a Sherriff’s Department. If I were dispatched to a domestic disturbance call and the caller reported a gun or knife involved, I would draw on someone that came around the corner of a house, approaching me. To do otherwise is betting your life that he/she does not have a small gun or large knife in their hand just out of site behind their leg, in their pocket, in the belt in the small of their back etc. After patting them down then we could talk. If he was more than 15 feet from me I would just put my hand on my gun and order him against a wall so I could pat him down.

I once took custody of a male subject from a DPS officer and transported him to the county jail so the DPS officer could answer another call. When I got him to the jail and told him to empty his pockets, he laid a large buck knife on the counter. I had assumed the DPS officer had searched him before handcuffing him. I had assumed the subject was unarmed so I didn’t search him myself before taking custody. I never made that mistake again.

My point is that none of us were there and we don’t know what the original report was or how close to the officer the subject or the dog was. The dashboard audio may tell a lot but without the video it may leave out a lot also. Earlier in this thread people were condemning the officer for going to the wrong address when they didn’t know he was dispatched to the wrong address.

[VoiceofReason]

If that officer is so startled by that small dog that he shoots it because it runs up to him, he should be in another line of work. Luckily the owner of the dog didn't get too close to him either or he might be laying next to his dog.

And how many dog bites should a police officer be required to take in his line of work? What size dog should he have to allow to bite him? Should that be stated in an LEO’s job description?

http://www.hillcountrynews.com/news/art ... f887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; the city is suing the owner of a dog that bit an officer. I wonder if the officer could file suit against a dog’s owner that bit him/her also, or would the officer be limited to Workman’s Compensation?

[speedsix]

I am more concerned why the Police officer has to draw on unarmed person who is not a threat or even aggressive or non-compliant. That would be an aggravated assault if done by a civilian. That officer has be sent to for long time re-training and long time office desk duty to cool down and learn to control his fear. He behaved like scared bat squirting out from a cave.

Was there a weapon involved in the initial report? If so I can understand the officer drawing his sidearm.

How would you know the subject was “unarmed” until you have searched him? I agree the officer probably overreacted but none of us were there and don’t know all of the details. It is easy to criticize when one is sitting safely in front of his/her keyboard and take all the time he/she wants to think about what he/she would do in a situation we don’t know all the facts about.

...those of us who HAVE spent several years on the streets usually consider what's in the subject's HANDS to determine whether or not to draw and cover them...more often it's handled as you posted earlier...then search him/her if/as the situation calls for it...the fact that the officer greatly overreacted is not in dispute, with the facts we are given here...where one is sitting when coming to these conclusions makes little difference to the conclusions drawn...Beiruty's concerns are valid and well supported by the supplied facts...the dashboard audio tells us a lot...

I HAVE spent time on the streets with a Sherriff’s Department. If I were dispatched to a domestic disturbance call and the caller reported a gun or knife involved, I would draw on someone that came around the corner of a house, approaching me. To do otherwise is betting your life that he/she does not have a small gun or large knife in their hand just out of site behind their leg, in their pocket, in the belt in the small of their back etc. After patting them down then we could talk. If he was more than 15 feet from me I would just put my hand on my gun and order him against a wall so I could pat him down.

I once took custody of a male subject from a DPS officer and transported him to the county jail so the DPS officer could answer another call. When I got him to the jail and told him to empty his pockets, he laid a large buck knife on the counter. I had assumed the DPS officer had searched him before handcuffing him. I had assumed the subject was unarmed so I didn’t search him myself before taking custody. I never made that mistake again.

My point is that none of us were there and we don’t know what the original report was or how close to the officer the subject or the dog was. The dashboard audio may tell a lot but without the video it may leave out a lot also. Earlier in this thread people were condemning the officer for going to the wrong address when they didn’t know he was dispatched to the wrong address.

...if you introduce a reported weapon, of course that would justify at least low ready...however there was NO report of a weapon...the 911 caller said clearly there was NO weapon involved, and also described the man in the argument/altercation as a hispanic with salt and pepper hair...none of that translates to justification for drawing one's weapon and aiming at a man unless he's seen to have a weapon in his hands..especially when he's nowhere close to the description given...there's no defense for this guy on that...


http://digitaltexan.net/2012/austin-loc ... icle31830/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bci21984]

We could play "what ifs" all day long. None of us were there. Whats to say in the "domestic" that he was dispatched to wife called boyfriend and THEN called police. Boyfriend was subject he found in the driveway. Maybe the officer was cognizant of the description of the male described and could differintiate that this male was an unknown. Again, we werent there. This is a quote from the breed description of heelers, "Although not aggressive it was bred to bite, and owing to the strong attachment it forms to its owners can be protective of them and their possessions." I grew up on a farm and have been around countless heelers, some as small as 25-30lbs, others 40-50. Working dogs are mainly muscle regardless of the breed. 35-40lbs of "youre not hurting my owner" muscle is match for anyone. It happened very fast, the outcome is tragic, and like any use of force, its ugly. The officer was placed into a dangerous possibly life altering/ending situation in a matter of seconds and made a decision that allowed him to go home with the same number of holes he went to work with. In my years in law enforcement Ive sprayed many people. Pepper doesnt always work. Im sure its the same with dogs. The dog could have been deadly. So deadly force as a reaction is justified. The use of force continuum adopted by most leo agencies allows a +1 ratio. Our force is justifiable if taken to the level just above the level of force being used against us. Again, none of us were there.

[mamabearCali]

. In my years in law enforcement Ive sprayed many people. Pepper doesnt always work. Im sure its the same with dogs. The dog could have been deadly. So deadly force as a reaction is justified. The use of force continuum adopted by most leo agencies allows a +1 ratio. Our force is justifiable if taken to the level just above the level of force being used against us. Again, none of us were there.

Dogs are very different then people. People can become desensitized by exposure to pepper spray...dogs are MUCH more sensitive some breeds like 1000x more sensitive than people. So it is not very likely at all that they would not react to pepper spray.

The method of force justification is really worrying to me (+1). I was always told that the only reason a police officer is permitted to shoot someone is if his life or the lives of innocents are in danger. So by that method a person could tell a police officer to "go away and leave me alone" (probably in not so nice terms) and the police officer is justified in pepper spraying them? Not that I am saying smarting off to a police officer is wise or acceptable behavior, but the +1 policy really worries me. What if a person spits on your shirt (assault) are you then permitted to used lethal force? Just saying that really seems to set up really serious concerns. It also could contribute to the them vs us mentality that causes problems for all in a community both LEO and civilian. If a civilian took that position on force they could find themselves in very hot water very fast.

[philip964]

A liberal friend, who lives in Austin, has seen the video, and has blamed me and my guns on Facebook for this incident. Also got Zimmerman in there at the same time.

[bci21984]

"So it is not very likely at all that they would not react to pepper spray." I can only assume that your participation in this forum is based on your possession or intent to possess a firearm that is carried for defense of self and if applicable the defense of others, should the situation arise. If that is the case, "it is not very likely" that you will ever use said firearm. But then again you know. NEVER base your survival on "it is not very likely". Again, playing what if's, what if the officer previously in his career was injured by a dog and had attempted to pepper spray the said previous dog with no effect. Is the officer going to risk injury a second time in a serious bodily injury/possible death situation by spraying a dog that might not react to the pepper. No, he is not. Also, with the unknowns of the situation and already having his service weapon drawn, is the officer in a split second decision making time frame going to holster his weapon and draw whichever less lethal device he's going to use to subdue the charging/barking/growling dog. I cant speak of your familiarity with working dogs but they are very quick and agile. My boxer can make it (in full sprint) up the stairs of my house in 3 steps. He can jump the privacy fence in my back yard. I have seen heelers jump onto the backs of cattle and cross the herd to get to the other side. The officer simply wouldnt have had time to react, transition and re-engage. If he wouldve attempted he would have been defenseless against the dog and wouldve had to try to defend himself after the attack had begun. He was able to stop the perceived threat before the attack began. Bottom line: The officer was put in fear of his life and sever bodily injury due to circumstances out of his control.

The method of force justification is really worrying to me (+1). I was always told that the only reason a police officer is permitted to shoot someone is if his life or the lives of innocents are in danger. So by that method a person could tell a police officer to "go away and leave me alone" (probably in not so nice terms) and the police officer is justified in pepper spraying them? Not that I am saying smarting off to a police officer is wise or acceptable behavior, but the +1 policy really worries me. What if a person spits on your shirt (assault) are you then permitted to used lethal force? Just saying that really seems to set up really serious concerns. It also could contribute to the them vs us mentality that causes problems for all in a community both LEO and civilian. If a civilian took that position on force they could find themselves in very hot water very

I wouldnt expect you to be able to understand the functions of "Use of force" as it pertains to police work as we receive HOURS upon HOURS of training in the matter, much in the same fashion I couldnt expect myself to understand the functions of the complexities of the work you are trained to do. It would be unfamiliar territory for both us. Heres a model that helps break it down. As far as youre examples, if an officer gives you a lawful command, such as "stand up, and turn around, youre under arrest", and you answer with "go away and leave me alone" (in not so nice terms) the officer is legally justified in pepper spraying you based on the use of force continuum. Does it always happen that way, no it doesnt. Is it legal and justifiable, yes it is. If a person spits at me (in Tx its a felony) it could be to temporarily blind me, so that they can easier assault me or it could be to infect me with whatever communicable disease they have. (yes, it actually happens) This scenarior is a little more in depth. If the spit is precursored with "im gonna (insert bodily harm intended)" then the action would be "assualtive" and the legal and justifiable response would be deadly force. Again, does it always happen that way, no, but it would be legal and justifiable. "The suspect who was known to have extensive criminal history pertaining to assault on police, interferring with police, and weapons charges stated to me, "Im going to kill you" and then spat in my face. The spit was followed by the suspect attempting to punch me with his right fist. I was in fear that the suspect would cause me great bodily harm or follow through with his threat of death. I backed away from the suspect and gave loud clear commands to "get on the ground" and "youre under arrest". I wiped the suspect's saliva from my eyes and could see that he was still approaching me in a combative/assaultive stance. The suspect had his left hand in his pocket and was refusing to follow my commands. I drew my service weapon and fired at the suspect. He fell to the ground, I continued my loud clear commands and the suspect refused to follow them. I covered the suspect until back up arrived." is different than "he spat in my face and I shot him."