TexasCHLforum.com

So if Ralphy the wonder dog is kicking it in the back yard when an LEO appears, if the LEO does not identify himself (as dogs can't read) can Ralphy bite him on the tushy under the state's castle doctrine -for self defense.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:So if Ralphy the wonder dog is kicking it in the back yard when an LEO appears, if the LEO does not identify himself (as dogs can't read) can Ralphy bite him on the tushy under the state's castle doctrine -for self defense.

No it's a case of dog shot because officer could not read dog.

I find myself figuring the error here happened in one of two places.

1) When the warrant was being sworn/printed, the address was entered wrong,
OR
2) The officer serving the warrant used a GPS to find the address, and failed to notice the city was wrong.

Either way, it's a departmental/court error, and they ought to pay the costs for the whole thing. I'm not going to go after the officer for shooting a dog he probably believed was attacking him; but I can fault him for being where he had no business. I say that as someone who has been chewed up a time or two (not on duty), and who has come close to having to use force on a dog in self-defense (on duty). Once that animal starts charging, be it either for play, protection, or aggression, you don't really have much time to go back and re-examine the address, etc, before it gets there; it's grab whatever tool pops into your head to use, and set about defending yourself. Add in the additional adrenaline of serving a warrant, fear of some ex-con having violent buddies over, trained attack dogs, etc, and it gets more and more understandable that the officer would shoot first, play fetch later. So I don't fault him here. BUT....

The problem isn't that he shot the dog. The problem is that he was at the wrong address in the first place, and THAT is what makes everything afterward the liability of the department and/or court that issued the warrant.

Sounds like we need doggie translators on the force.
"Look out he's going to attack!"
"No, he's saying 'lets play ball!' and he is a she."

JSThane wrote:I find myself figuring the error here happened in one of two places.

1) When the warrant was being sworn/printed, the address was entered wrong,
OR
2) The officer serving the warrant used a GPS to find the address, and failed to notice the city was wrong.

Either way, it's a departmental/court error, and they ought to pay the costs for the whole thing. I'm not going to go after the officer for shooting a dog he probably believed was attacking him; but I can fault him for being where he had no business. I say that as someone who has been chewed up a time or two (not on duty), and who has come close to having to use force on a dog in self-defense (on duty). Once that animal starts charging, be it either for play, protection, or aggression, you don't really have much time to go back and re-examine the address, etc, before it gets there; it's grab whatever tool pops into your head to use, and set about defending yourself. Add in the additional adrenaline of serving a warrant, fear of some ex-con having violent buddies over, trained attack dogs, etc, and it gets more and more understandable that the officer would shoot first, play fetch later. So I don't fault him here. BUT....

The problem isn't that he shot the dog. The problem is that he was at the wrong address in the first place, and THAT is what makes everything afterward the liability of the department and/or court that issued the warrant.

With respect. I think the problem is that + he shot the dog. Poor doggie.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:With respect. I think the problem is that + he shot the dog. Poor doggie.

I get ya, and I do feel bad for dog and owner, but my point was that, had he been at the right address, there wouldn't be any question. Justifying use of force on an animal is a bit simpler than on a person, especially since the dog can't testify against you. (Bad joke, I know, but it's also true) Had the officer had the right address, no one would have questioned shooting the dog. Therefore, shooting a dog is itself not the problem here, but the mistake that led to this whole screw-up is.

Pacifist wrote:

VMI77 wrote:They need to issue guns to letter carriers, meter readers, yard guys, and UPS and Fedex delivery men, so they can shoot dogs too.

Wow. Another of the all-too-common, LEO-involved, shoot-first-ask-questions-later scenarios.

I'd say better that we start issuing firearms to the family pets, so they can finally have a means of defending themselves against the true aggressors.

You realize I was being sarcastic, right?

JSThane wrote:The problem isn't that he shot the dog. The problem is that he was at the wrong address in the first place, and THAT is what makes everything afterward the liability of the department and/or court that issued the warrant.

Yes, that is the problem. If he hadn't shot the dog, we wouldn't even be discussing it. The problem is that the police are less competent at dealing with dogs than letter carriers, delivery men and women, census takers, meter readers, and yard guys --none of whom get to shoot dogs. And the reason they are less competent is that they get to shoot dogs without consequences.

The problem seems to be that government employees make mistakes quite often but are almost never made to suffer a disadvantage for them. Everyone in private life suffers when they screw up. The legal principle used to be that "the king could do no wrong" when these days the king often can't do right.

When Tom Brady throws an interception half the people stand up and boo and everyone in New England. When a McDonald's clerk puts the wrong sandwich in the bag someone complains and it is made right. When some SWAT team serves a no-knock warrant on the wrong house and shoots the terrified, innocent occupants, "no blame to the officers" an innocent regrettable error.

JSThane wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:With respect. I think the problem is that + he shot the dog. Poor doggie.

I get ya, and I do feel bad for dog and owner, but my point was that, had he been at the right address, there wouldn't be any question. Justifying use of force on an animal is a bit simpler than on a person, especially since the dog can't testify against you. (Bad joke, I know, but it's also true) Had the officer had the right address, no one would have questioned shooting the dog. Therefore, shooting a dog is itself not the problem here, but the mistake that led to this whole screw-up is.

Not true. Let's say the dog he shot was at the right address. It doesn't change the fact that his unreasonable fear or incompetence resulted in a dog being killed. He was serving a traffic warrant, not busting a drug house. The notion that a cop should be able to come onto my property to serve a traffic warrant and kill my dog without any consequences is absurd. No one else who comes on my property gets to do this. All he had to do was call the people inside BEFORE he entered their property and ask them to secure any animals. Neither I, nor the Constitution that is supposed to guarantee my inalienable rights, exists to make life easier for law enforcement.

With just a little bit of training most people can determine if a dog is being aggressive, defensive, or just wanting to play. I cannot for the life of me believe a trained therapy dog showed aggression, maybe he was defensive, but not aggressive. I have been bitten by an aggressive dog and for a long time had a fear of all dogs and still become panicky around aggressive dogs, but I have learned how to read a dog and can quickly determine their disposition. I applaud the Fort Worth Police Department for their training of officers in dog behavior to prevent these types of incidents, I only wish more departments would do the same.

VMI77 wrote:

Pacifist wrote:

VMI77 wrote:They need to issue guns to letter carriers, meter readers, yard guys, and UPS and Fedex delivery men, so they can shoot dogs too.

Wow. Another of the all-too-common, LEO-involved, shoot-first-ask-questions-later scenarios.

I'd say better that we start issuing firearms to the family pets, so they can finally have a means of defending themselves against the true aggressors.

You realize I was being sarcastic, right?

Was there anything in my response that appeared to indicate otherwise?

JSThane wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:With respect. I think the problem is that + he shot the dog. Poor doggie.

I get ya, and I do feel bad for dog and owner, but my point was that, had he been at the right address, there wouldn't be any question.

Judging by the inherent reactions when this comes up, I don't think thats accurate. I think there's pletny of question.

Again, for clarity, whats an arrest warrant for traffic registration violations (what one news article said)? Why arew they ninjaing into people's homes to serve that. Are people making mad dashes for freedom for municipal violations now? (maybe they are).
I'm not seeing why animals consistently get blasted but other workers (utility, postal) do just fine without that?
After all, forget the issue with the dogs, those bullets are going somewhere everytime you shoot. Why not pepper spray or a loud voice?

Pacifist wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Pacifist wrote:

VMI77 wrote:They need to issue guns to letter carriers, meter readers, yard guys, and UPS and Fedex delivery men, so they can shoot dogs too.

Wow. Another of the all-too-common, LEO-involved, shoot-first-ask-questions-later scenarios.

I'd say better that we start issuing firearms to the family pets, so they can finally have a means of defending themselves against the true aggressors.

You realize I was being sarcastic, right?

Was there anything in my response that appeared to indicate otherwise?

Since you selected a particular part of my comment I wasn't sure if your first sentence was referring to my comment or to the incident under discussion.

JALLEN wrote:The problem seems to be that government employees make mistakes quite often but are almost never made to suffer a disadvantage for them. Everyone in private life suffers when they screw up. The legal principle used to be that "the king could do no wrong" when these days the king often can't do right.

When Tom Brady throws an interception half the people stand up and boo and everyone in New England. When a McDonald's clerk puts the wrong sandwich in the bag someone complains and it is made right. When some SWAT team serves a no-knock warrant on the wrong house and shoots the terrified, innocent occupants, "no blame to the officers" an innocent regrettable error.

I think LEOs get a great deal of scrutiny.

Now that I'm in industrial sales, my supervisor doesn't field many calls about me changing lanes without a blinker or not wearing my seatbelt. There is no shortage of people willing to BOOO at cops.