TexasCHLforum.com

Speedsix, I agree with everything you're saying and also understand everyone's point of view and think almost all of them are valid. There's just that one.

Also, from my point of view, I have been training dogs for obedience, tracking, and protection for over 20 years. I probably didn't gain enough understanding to be able to reliably "read" a dog's intent and ability within a few seconds until I had been at it for over 5 years. The average LEO simply will not have that same level of understanding. If this had been me and one of my dogs the officer would not have seen him coming. My dogs are trained for this type of threat and in this type of situation unless I give them the guard command they will not bark and they will go for the hand with the weapon. This is another reason I take more care with my dogs.

Cisco my not have had a mean bone in his body, but the officer could not have known this because he was threatening Cisco's Master and Cisco stepped up to the plate. I am truely deeply sorry for the owner.

I wish the APD would now step up to the plate and apologize and try to make this right. I think that's all they can do at this point and maybe all the owner is really looking for.

speedsix wrote: ...I made hundreds of domestic disturbances...in all parts of town in all times of the night...all by myself because there WAS no backup...I never answered ONE with gun in hand...even when I had to peel them apart...in all those years, I had to pull my gun on ONE man...after spotting a .38 in his jeans pocket, and having peeled him off his wife...I think the gun in hand is used too much...for various reasons...among which are found unreasonable fear and incompetence...

speedsix wrote:...since when do police, even on a domestic dispute, pull a gun on an unarmed man who's just walking around the side of his house in broad daylight??? That's a bit much, even given the wrong address...I can see where he felt threatened by the dog, but if he'd been behaving in a calm, professional manner, the dog wouldn't have advanced on him...he was screaming at his owner and holding a gun on him...I don't blame the dog...this should cost the city a bundle and the officer some time off...and if he was given the wrong address by HQ, time off for the person who put out the wrong address...the saddest part of this all, nothing will bring Cisco back...the best thing about this...the hysterical officer didn't shoot the homeowner...

Speedsix is dead on point here.

Competent officers don't respond to domestic disturbances with gun in hand unless there is a clear reason to believe a danger of serious injury or death exists. They also don't point guns at folks who aren't doing anything threatening just because they're present at or near a call location. The fact that domestic disputes can turn violent doesn't cut it until they do.

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.

Full dash cam video:
http://www.weareaustin.com/news/top-sto ... me_oneline" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Why didn't you get your dog when I told you to?" ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Excaliber wrote:
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.

nyj wrote:Full dash cam video:
http://www.weareaustin.com/news/top-sto ... me_oneline" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Why didn't you get your dog when I told you to?" ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

AAAAAaaahhhh! Watching and listening to that video hurts. "Why didn't you get your dog?" What a joke. He shot that poor dog lickety-split. Get it how exactly? The owner didn't seem like Flashman to me.

Very sad situation. My sympathy goes out to your friend. Not able to see exactly where the dog was in relation to the officer, but that shot definitely was taken awfully quickly. My gut says he overreacted big time to the dog coming to investigate and then tried to cover it with his blaming your friend for not getting his dog, when in reality your friend had not even had time to process what was going on and react himself. This is one time when the dash cam audio will be an asset for your friend to prove liability on the city.

Thank you, Keith.

He will be doing a live interview @ 9pm tonight on FOX.

Keith B wrote:Very sad situation. My sympathy goes out to your friend. Not able to see exactly where the dog was in relation to the officer, but that shot definitely was taken awfully quickly. My gut says he overreacted big time to the dog coming to investigate and then tried to cover it with his blaming your friend for not getting his dog, when in reality your friend had not even had time to process what was going on and react himself. This is one time when the dash cam audio will be an asset for your friend to prove liability on the city.

Yeah. Even without the video it sounds bad for the officer and he immediately began trying to pass the blame to the owner. To me, that says he immediately knew he did something wrong and was trying to distance himself from his actions.

C-dub wrote:

Keith B wrote:Very sad situation. My sympathy goes out to your friend. Not able to see exactly where the dog was in relation to the officer, but that shot definitely was taken awfully quickly. My gut says he overreacted big time to the dog coming to investigate and then tried to cover it with his blaming your friend for not getting his dog, when in reality your friend had not even had time to process what was going on and react himself. This is one time when the dash cam audio will be an asset for your friend to prove liability on the city.

Yeah. Even without the video it sounds bad for the officer and he immediately began trying to pass the blame to the owner. To me, that says he immediately knew he did something wrong and was trying to distance himself from his actions.

I don't think there's any question the officer reacted too quickly and too aggressively. Aside from being male, Mr. Paxton did not match the description given the officer. There was no indication in the disturbance call to indicate the actual suspect was armed. As Keith said, this time the dash cam will pretty much put the blame on the officer.

He did great on Fox news!

...musta been the local station...it's not on Fox network...

speedsix wrote:...musta been the local station...it's not on Fox network...

Yeah, nothing's aired about it up here in Plano. I did learn a lot about a new tornado warning system though.

Here ya'll go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olVJpJVIcp0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

nyj wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

nyj wrote:Thanks for those who have supported us so far.

Who is "us?"

Chas.

"us" are the friends of Michael, and myself and one of Michael's closest friends, whom are running the facebook page. I consider this a campaign now, and "us" can be everyone standing behind supporting some sort of action to be done. Does it matter?

No, it doesn't matter. I was just curious because you were the OP and you didn't say that was your Facebook site. The first indication I had that you were referring people to your own page was your comment that ". . . who have supported us . . ."

Chas.