TexasCHLforum.com

flb_78 wrote:Shoot first, ask questions later.

We should all be allowed to do that.

That is a joke right?

Emergency responders are taught to assess before acting. This particular officer must have been out that day.
edit: the word access to assess.

If the dog is attacking the woman and the cop is shooting at the dog that is just reckless, now if he was firing near the dog to say scare it away, that is just a bit less reckless. A whistle, siren, running at dog and yelling would all have been better options. But as they say hind sight is 20/20.

The woman's parents said one of the bullets hit the ground and fragments ricocheted, wounding her in the upper body . She was taken by helicopter to Memorial Hermann Hospital, treated and released.

Sugar was also wounded. The dog's owner took Sugar to a vet and it is expected to recover.

Geez, the world's been wimped out so much that it's now "lightly wound 'em all and let the administrators sort 'em out."

MoJo wrote:What happened to asking if the person needed help? How long does it take to shout "Mam are you all right?"

Funny..that's about the same amount of time it takes for a pitt bull to rip a large chunk of flesh off your face or crush your windpipe with its jaws. Who woulda thunk it?

How often do officers enter into situations where they MUST shoot 1st and ask questions later, yah hind site is 20/20 and the media are GREAT at spinning it so the LEO was in the wrong..

Wonder what the headline would have read if the lady/girl was being attacked and the officer just stood there.

Please stop trying to create artificial dilemmas.

The cop didn't have to keep driving or stand around with her hands on her hips. She had a lot of other choices.

I've already said that if a dog is attacking, I think it's going to be pretty obvious that the human is in fear and trying to defend herself.

A lot of cops have shot people who didn't need shooting, including out-of-uniform cops, because they failed to evaluate a situation.

I'll also speculate that if the shooter had not been a LEO, the person would be in jail now facing a charge of aggravated assault, not taking paid time off work.

- Jim

Well, the Galveston County Daily News has a detailed story about this incident, which I just got around to reading:

http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewc ... 419513146a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“Basically there was a little girl, or young lady, playing with the dog in the front yard,” [the dog's owner] said in an interview with KHOU-TV. “(The dog) does get excited, so she will knock you down. The young lady started hollering and just at that time, a police officer was coming down the road and thought the dog was attacking the lady.”

I have to admit that my previous judgment was too harsh, though based on facts as I understood them at the time.

If the little girl or young lady (pick one, please) was on the ground hollering (or screaming or yelling), the officer had a lot more justification for shooting.

- Jim

Oh, and here's your factual, objective report from the Houston Fox TV affiliate:
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/lo ... ing_victim" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

Grand jury no-billed in this event. Officer continues to be on desk duty pending an internal review.

http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewc ... b6de590906" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

It was profiling, used to be called stereotyping, before that it was prejudice.

Zee wrote:It was profiling, used to be called stereotyping, before that it was prejudice.

Could you explain that in more detail?

- Jim

The 3 words are all the same. The dog was seen as a pitbull. Pitbulls go nuts and kill. That pitbull is nuts and needs to be shot.

All three words pre-define based on general assumptions based on broad beliefs, not on individual characteristics on that unique person/ dog.

X type people are crooked, smart, etc. Could be true, maybe not. If I say all xx need to be closely watched it can be accepted as fact, as long as we are not xx . Insurance companies say male teens are risky drivers therefore your son will pay a higher rate.

Profiling=stereotyping=prejudice all pre-judge

Whatever happened to the "innocent third party rule" that a CHL holder is held to? Is it not the same for LEO's?

If I was the lady I would already have a lawsuit in the works.

Thanks for the clarification, Zee.

shortysboy09 wrote:Whatever happened to the "innocent third party rule" that a CHL holder is held to? Is it not the same for LEO's?

It's a simple fact that first responders get cut more slack in case of accidental injury to innocent parties. They could barely do their jobs otherwise.

A grand jury found no probable cause that the officer committed a crime. The police department internal-affairs department has yet to decide whether policy was violated.

If I was the lady I would already have a lawsuit in the works.

I am pretty sure it is in the works.

My opinion about this case is ambiguous. I wasn't there. I did not speak to the officer or read the reports. If a large dog was jumping on or otherwise approaching a young lady who was on the ground and "hollering" (to quote an earlier account), immediate intervention seems reasonable.

Could the officer have used a Taser or pepper spray? I don't know.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Thanks for the clarification, Zee.

shortysboy09 wrote:Whatever happened to the "innocent third party rule" that a CHL holder is held to? Is it not the same for LEO's?

It's a simple fact that first responders get cut more slack in case of accidental injury to innocent parties. They could barely do their jobs otherwise.

A grand jury found no probable cause that the officer committed a crime. The police department internal-affairs department has yet to decide whether policy was violated.

If I was the lady I would already have a lawsuit in the works.

I am pretty sure it is in the works.

My opinion about this case is ambiguous. I wasn't there. I did not speak to the officer or read the reports. If a large dog was jumping on or otherwise approaching a young lady who was on the ground and "hollering" (to quote an earlier account), immediate intervention seems reasonable.

Could the officer have used a Taser or pepper spray? I don't know.

- Jim

I do agree with what your'e saying. None of us were there and we don't know all the important details to the incident.

The one time the officer didn't intervene would be the time an attack was real. Although I don't think you just start shooting at the dog with the person your'e trying to save being that close.

But, then again like you said, that's my interpretation and it means nothing because I just wasn't there. Could've turned out a lot worse and I'm glad no one received life-threatening injuries.