TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article ... 609152.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Leander Texas. Serving traffic warrant at wrong address, dog was a trained therapy dog. Fortunately survived.

I was just reading several stories on this. My questions that the reporters should be asking, but won't here in anti police Austin are:

1: Were the homes visibly numbered? One story said there were several houses on a large lot which could make finding the correct house difficult.

2: Were the German Shepherds contained in a fenced yard or were they running loose? That in itself makes a world of difference. If they were loose then it is easy to understand the officer defending himself.

From a better news article:

http://www.kvue.com/news/Dog-shot-by-po ... 80611.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After entering the Simmons’ gate and knocking on their front door, the Leander police officer began walking around to the back of the house.
According to the officer, two German Shepherds starting running toward him, so he fired three shots and one of them struck Vinny in the back of the neck.
The Simmons say not only was it a close call for their dog, Vinny, but it was also a close call for their six-year-old terminally ill grandchild playing just around the corner.
“I was in my house, my grandchild was at the back picnic table, my husband was in the kitchen getting a snack and my dogs do what they do; run in and out.”
Leander police say the officer never noticed the child, and it’s policy to use lethal force on any animal they think is attacking.

After entering the Simmons’ gate

For an officer under authority given him, and "believing" he is doing the right thing (though in this case mistaken) he is protected, and covered by the law..Might see some department hand slapping.. But the law protects LEO mistakes made with good intentions.. even though the same mistakes by a non LEO often result in criminal charges and convection's.

Had the officer done due diligence, he would have never entered the gated property and never placed his own life in danger from a dog trained to be non aggressive.

Not having been there and seeing the aggression in the dog, real or perceived, it's easy for us to say a lot of things.

I am convinced though that some would not be happy with an LEO shooting a dog until the dog was actually chewing on him and perhaps maybe not even then.

"The address on the warrant is in Cedar Park, not Liberty Hill"

well, there's your problem....I'm sorry but if the police don't know the difference between Cedar Park and Liberty Hill, or even Leander, (I started getting confused as I read that article) those folks are in a world of hurt if they are relying on the cops to save their lives as Cedar Park and Liberty Hill are over 20 mins apart!!!!

the Leander Police should pay for the dog's treatment, not a non-profit.

SQLGeek wrote:Not having been there and seeing the aggression in the dog, real or perceived, it's easy for us to say a lot of things.

I am convinced though that some would not be happy with an LEO shooting a dog until the dog was actually chewing on him and perhaps maybe not even then.

I don't want to see an officer bitten by an attacking animal. To state or imply differently is being dishonest on the that persons part, or they simple do not understand or know the truth of it.

I'd be happy if an officer, or anyone else that had no justifiable reason to enter a gated property, would ask the owners permission prior to being in an area with the animal.

The officers mistake put him in that position, his handling of the event he caused is the issue as well as his mistake.

Officer safety, ah yes an often stated reason for an officers action the average citizen would be arrested for. Sorry, not buying it.

I believe officers by personal choice or "department" policy choose to shoot an animal many times more often then workers who are in contact with these same animals and never find the need to do the same. Why is that? What makes those other workers so skilled they do not need to kill an "attacking" animal so often as we read about it happen by a LEO?


Utilities meter reader folks, postmen, package deliver folks, utility workers, and many others have contact on privet property with dogs in total more often then LEO's I would guess.. Yet, they seem to be able to walk to a front door without the need to shoot a dog.. and do so thousands of times a day, every day, all year long.

I was told by a professor when I worked at Oregon State University as an instructor.. If the majority of your students fail the test, it's not the students fault.. If we look at the over all group of workers that are by job description in constant contact with gated property, and animals behind those fences and not... One small subset in the group seems to be failing the test.. but the majority of the group is not..... That in my mind points to the "students fault" not the test...

I don't have an answer to the problem, a suggestion would be, don't go to the wrong address..be as well trained at handing dogs as you are humans, have a plan to handle "aggressive" dogs as you do humans (we demand LEOs do not "shoot first" by choice and policy every "aggressive" human they contact... why is that the first (only) choice for dogs?

It's no secret, I like dogs more then most humans... I dislike humans that have no regard for there safety, trust, loyalty and no bounds selfless love for their humans. I've put dogs and humans down when needed...neither gives me joy. And both leave me feeling a responsibility and consequence beyond words.

texanjoker wrote:I was just reading several stories on this. My questions that the reporters should be asking, but won't here in anti police Austin are:

1: Were the homes visibly numbered? One story said there were several houses on a large lot which could make finding the correct house difficult.

2: Were the German Shepherds contained in a fenced yard or were they running loose? That in itself makes a world of difference. If they were loose then it is easy to understand the officer defending himself.

1. The article you quoted says, according to the Leander PD, their database showed the Simmons' address was the "last known address" of Bradley Simpson (not Simmons), who the warrant was issued for, indicating the officer was able to ID the house, so evidently numbering wasn't an issue. However, the warrant he was attempting to serve showed a Cedar Park address for Simpson, and the Simmons have lived at the Liberty Hill address for 9 years. Think they have a database problem?
2. According to the officer's statement, he entered the yard through the front gate and knocked on the door...indicating the yard was enclosed.

Once again, we have an Officer entering someone's private property...by mistake...and the result is a pet or a person is shot. The Leander PD is calling it "an unfortunate incident". That phrase is sounding awfully familiar.

Sure seems like a lot of LEO's are afraid of dogs. If I shot every dog that ran towards me I'd be, well, in jail, and poor. If I went on to someone's property by mistake and shot their dog I imagine I'd be in jail. Oh well, all animals are equal. They need to issue guns to letter carriers, meter readers, yard guys, and UPS and Fedex delivery men, so they can shoot dogs too.

E.Marquez wrote: It's no secret, I like dogs more then most humans... I dislike humans that have no regard for there safety, trust, loyalty and no bounds selfless love for their humans. I've put dogs and humans down when needed...neither gives me joy. And both leave me feeling a responsibility and consequence beyond words.

Here here, to all of it, but especially the above.

Maybe more police departments need to institute training for officers, as Fort Worth did after an officer arrived at the wrong house and shot and killed a collie that was not being aggressive to him. It would be good for the departments, the public, and the pets.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Dog-Tr ... 88751.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Leander is a completely different town then Cedar Park. Not even sure if they even have jurisidiction unless it was the county Sheriff. Why are they serving arrest warrants for expired vehicle registrations? Clarification someone?

honest question. if the warrant was issued for address A, but the database showed address B, which one is the one they should have gone to? I would have thought A, the warrant, which is what the judge signed off on.

another question....did anyone ever find the right guy?

VMI77 wrote:Sure seems like a lot of LEO's are afraid of dogs. If I shot every dog that ran towards me I'd be, well, in jail, and poor. If I went on to someone's property by mistake and shot their dog I imagine I'd be in jail. Oh well, all animals are equal. They need to issue guns to letter carriers, meter readers, yard guys, and UPS and Fedex delivery men, so they can shoot dogs too.

The BIG difference is, all of those other categories of workers...that deal with dogs on a daily basis far more than LEO's... is that they are LIABLE for whatever harm they do. If you remove that immunity from liability, officers would quickly find other methods to deal with animals than shooting them.

It does not matter how dangerous, self-less, or hard a job is. Once they stop being accountable For their mistakes they no longer deserve admiration or respect.

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.