TexasCHLforum.com

Rex B wrote:Irrelevant.
My only point is this is a typical suburban, nice neighborhood, sidewalks etc. Gated community, with paid security?
If you are in such a neighborhood, your front yard is not fenced, dogs don't roam free, and you have a nice inviting walkway up to the front door "Welcome" mat, and a doorbell to press.
It's not a Red Alert event if someone walks up to your door. Maybe a yellow at best. And if you have pets, you take care they don't slip past you and get out when you open the door.

Yes, and sometimes they get out anyway. Some people train their dogs to stay on their property. Some people have invisible fences to keep the dog on their property. And I'll point out the simple fact: lawn guys, letter carriers, UPS drivers, meter readers, sales people, census takers, all encounter dogs routinely, some of them hostile (and the dog shot was not), yet they don't find the need to be armed to protect themselves against them, and they don't shoot dogs. In fact, there seems to be some unfathomable belief that somehow because someone is authorized to carry a gun as a LEO, or "security guard," that shooting people's dogs is somehow OK --the primary reason probably being the fact that, so far as the police go, they always get away with it. If UPS drivers shot dogs like this their companies would lose money --consequences-- and they would be risking taking a few bullets themselves. I don't give one whit that this guy is a rent-a-cop, he should be charged with assault, whatever other act is applicable, and sued, just like a UPS driver would be if he'd done the same thing.

Rex B wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:
In my part of the world, goofballs don't shoot dogs on the street, much less in our front yards. I live in Plano...BTW...the exact neighborhood you describe. If anything, there is less chance some nut is going to start flipping out and firing rounds at my dog. That Barney Fife would be full of holes in my front yard with that same manuever!

If you are going to quote me, your response should relate to what i said. It does not.

Actually it does. You made a point of how different hoods have different expectations of dogs. I was pointing out they don't.

Grog wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Glad we agree that rent a cops haven't the training to be running around with loaded guns playing batman.

Why do you have such an issue with security officers? Police officers receive more hours of training in many subjects, but do not ever make believe that they receive a heck of a lot more than armed security does in the actual use of firearms.

I only have issues with armed security officers that over step their bounds. They typically don't have the proper training to be equated to a police officer. They are not even close. Mostly, I have a huge issue with a armed security guard behaving in the manner of this particular hot rod. Thank god the clown did not accidentally shoot the home owner. A bullet can easily penetrate through a dog and bounce off the ground hitting bystanders.

The issue is not "HOW" to use a firearm... the issue is when. Any fool with five minutes training, can shoot a handgun accurately. It is not a special skill. I will go with a policemans decision making ability over a rent a cop any day of the week.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

Grog wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Glad we agree that rent a cops haven't the training to be running around with loaded guns playing batman.

Why do you have such an issue with security officers? Police officers receive more hours of training in many subjects, but do not ever make believe that they receive a heck of a lot more than armed security does in the actual use of firearms.

I only have issues with armed security officers that over step their bounds. They typically don't have the proper training to be equated to a police officer. They are not even close. Mostly, I have a huge issue with a armed security guard behaving in the manner of this particular hot rod. Thank god the clown did not accidentally shoot the home owner. A bullet can easily penetrate through a dog and bounce off the ground hitting bystanders.

The issue is not "HOW" to use a firearm... the issue is when. Any fool with five minutes training, can shoot a handgun accurately. It is not a special skill. I will go with a policemans decision making ability over a rent a cop any day of the week.

It isn't just training, it's experience --by which I mean exposure to threatening situations......a rent-a-cop driving around in a gated subdivision probably doesn't encounter many bad guys and situations that test his judgement.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

MoJo wrote:I will not live where there is a Homeowner Nazi Association. Rent-a-cops should only be unarmed watchmen. The amount of training an armed security guard receives is minuscule compared to what a sworn TECLOSE certified LEO has. If the Homeowner Nazi Association wants armed security hire off-duty-cops. The local police has a COP (citizens on patrol) program. They cannot have any type of weapon when they are on patrol. They have a marked car, a uniform shirt, police band walkie talkie, flash light and they are to call the real police if they encounter any trouble.

edit: I would be making arrangements with a lawyer to sue the pants off the homeowner's association, the security company and the rent-a-cop.

Yep, if this is the River Oaks that I'm thinking of, that is going to be one very expensive, albeit deceased, dearly beloved family pet.

Grog wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Glad we agree that rent a cops haven't the training to be running around with loaded guns playing batman.

Why do you have such an issue with security officers? Police officers receive more hours of training in many subjects, but do not ever make believe that they receive a heck of a lot more than armed security does in the actual use of firearms.

I have nothing against security officers, but the difference in firearms training between them and police is not make believe.

I've got a pretty good handle on what the real deal is because I have been a police officer in 2 states (including Texas) and took the commissioned security officer course in Texas as a prerequisite for executive protection work. I also was the director of training for a 200 officer police department.

I can state from personal experience that a recruit in the police academy gets a minimum of 5 times as much direct firearms training in the basic academy than a commissioned security officer does to earn that license. Then the police recruit usually gets about another 40 hours when he joins an agency, and gets annual refresher and specialized training all during his career. He also qualifies to considerably higher (though still not very challenging) standards at least annually, with many agencies requiring semiannual or even quarterly training or qualifications.

To meet license renewal requirements, the security officer just has to qualify once a year on a course of fire that could almost literally be passed while blindfolded.

Please don't take these facts as disparagement of the many fine commissioned security officers out there. They are meeting all the standards their profession requires, and they perform sometimes dangerous work for very marginal pay that is commensurate with their level of skill, education and training. My point is that their professional standards are far below those maintained by police agencies by several orders of magnitude.

Any police officer who did what the security officer in this case did would likely find himself on the rubber gun squad until his termination processing was complete.

I personally hope that the dog owners in this case file a complaint against the guard's license with the Private Security Bureau, which is now an arm of the Texas Department of Public Safety. I have a feeling that agency would be pretty interested in what happened.

Oldgringo wrote:Yep, if this is the River Oaks that I'm thinking of, that is going to be one very expensive, albeit deceased, dearly beloved family pet.

If they win a lot of money from the HOA, can the HOA raise their dues to make it up?

Ameer wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Yep, if this is the River Oaks that I'm thinking of, that is going to be one very expensive, albeit deceased, dearly beloved family pet.

If they win a lot of money from the HOA, can the HOA raise their dues to make it up?

Not my problem...in either case.

Oldgringo wrote:

Ameer wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Yep, if this is the River Oaks that I'm thinking of, that is going to be one very expensive, albeit deceased, dearly beloved family pet.

If they win a lot of money from the HOA, can the HOA raise their dues to make it up?

Not my problem...in either case.

I'd imagine that either the HOA or the security company would have insurance.

Ameer wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Yep, if this is the River Oaks that I'm thinking of, that is going to be one very expensive, albeit deceased, dearly beloved family pet.

If they win a lot of money from the HOA, can the HOA raise their dues to make it up?

Yes it is and yes they will. The pet did not die. It lost its front leg and shoulder. The animal emergency center for Houston is only about 2 miles away.

I live near the location of the incident and know the owner of the dog. He and his wife were shocked and devastated by what happened. I also know a number of the River Oaks patrol officers. They are not the stereotypical Paul Blart mall cop types. They are well trained and very professional. And they do a good job of helping keep the neighborhood crime rate low.

It's easy, in hindsight, to criticize each of the parties involved in the incident. However, since none of us witnessed or were actually involved, it is unfair to speculate on whether or not the officer was justified in discharging his weapon.

FYI, here is the text of an email sent out by River Oaks Property Owners, Inc. on March 21:

"Media outlets in Houston have been covering an incident which occurred in the neighborhood on Saturday, March 17th. To date, River Oaks Patrol has not responded to any of the requests for comments. We wanted to comment first to the neighborhood.

One of the patrol officers stopped at a property after viewing a suspicious vehicle parked in front. He knocked at the door of the property to ask the resident about the vehicle. At that time, the property owner and her dog answered the door. The dog became agitated and ran outside toward the officer. The officer asked the property owner to get control of her dog. The property owner attempted to do so, but failed. The dog lunged at the officer and the officer discharged his weapon, wounding the animal. The officer immediately apologized to the property owner, called his supervisor to report to the scene and began offering first aid to stabilize the animal's condition so the animal could be transported to the family veterinarian. HPD was contacted to investigate the incident, as was Bureau of Animal Control (BARC). The investigators for both organizations found no fault with the officer's handling of the incident.

River Oaks Property Owners, Inc. and River Oaks Patrol deeply regret that the incident occurred and our thoughts are with the family and their wounded pet.

River Oaks Patrol has a history of being pet-friendly. When a lost pet call comes in to our offices, extra efforts are made by our patrol staff to assist with finding the animal. Numerous dogs have been reunited with their families due to the intervention of our officers. Our website offers a "Lost and Found Pets" feature available to our neighbors.

Sadly, a number of our officers have been bitten and wounded by neighborhood dogs, with one officer having to endure a series of painful rabies shots after a particularly vicious attack. Our officers have only seconds to decide how protect themselves from the unknown. In this case, we cannot know what the outcome might have been, had the officer not discharged his weapon. We can state that our officers are highly trained not to discharge their weapon unless they feel their safety or the safety of a neighbor is being threatened. It is not a decision any of our officers would take lightly. In fact, this is the first time an officer has discharged a weapon in the neighborhood in 27 years.

We are currently reviewing various alternative approaches to follow up on suspicious vehicles in an effort to minimize the intrusion on households in the neighborhood while still performing the very important task of protecting our residents. Further, we are investigating professional training related to handling aggressive animal encounters to better equip our officers for such events. Lastly, we will consider alternative methods of repelling an aggressive animal short of have to use a service weapon.

We hope this email will offer you some insight into this very difficult situation."

...I guess he didn't tell his bosses the part where he hid behind the lady...

Thank you Uncle-Buck and welcome to the forum. The email from the HOA reads like a legal defense. I'm not buying it.
I have followed this thread and I want to repeat the comment I made on the news story website.
"A license and a uniform do not excuse criminal behavior on the part of the patrolman."

In my neighborhood, the neighborhood watch has phone numbers for it's members. As a courtesy, we call folks first. In my opinion, the HOA needs to seriously reconsider its policies regarding patrolman procedures. Based on the news story, it appears the patrolman escalated the situation by grabbing the homeowner. The consequences of this incident will depend on the behavior of the patrolman, not the dog.

My two cents, Nick

I don't buy it either, the HOA has a vested interest in framing events to escape a lawsuit. The description doesn't even make sense. If the officer was at the door then the dog couldn't run outside towards the officer, since after his first couple of steps he'd be past him; and in order for the dog to need to be controlled he would have to be well outside --and the news report said he was in the flower bed which doesn't sound like he ran "at" anyone. Furthermore, just because the officer asked her to control the dog doesn't mean the dog was actually out of control, as their statement attempts to imply. It also fails to mention that he grabbed the woman, as reported in the news. That deliberate omission is an attempt to make it look like the dog acted without provocation, but it appears from combining the different version of events, that IF the dog lunged, he did so after the officer grabbed his owner.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

Rex B wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:
In my part of the world, goofballs don't shoot dogs on the street, much less in our front yards. I live in Plano...BTW...the exact neighborhood you describe. If anything, there is less chance some nut is going to start flipping out and firing rounds at my dog. That Barney Fife would be full of holes in my front yard with that same manuever!

If you are going to quote me, your response should relate to what i said. It does not.

Actually it does. You made a point of how different hoods have different expectations of dogs. I was pointing out they don't.

Actually, it really appears that you're just reinforcing Rex's point. If there weren't in fact different expectations where he lives, than where you live, you be wouldn't be having this discussion at all. And while I agree that I don't live in a place where people run around shooting dogs, that's really an extreme action, an outlier. If you look to more common situations, the differences are likely to become more pronounced. Such as VM volunteering an hour of his time to try and get a stray back to it's home. That may be a normal reaction upon seeing a stray dog where he lives. Where I live I believe most people would simply ignore it.