How was the owner even remotely irresponsible? Unfortunate circumstances but I'm not so sure the officer could not have retreated and shut gate too. Plus he already knew the residence did not fit the description. Why was he entering from rear yard. Why would he not have knocked at front door?
Re: "ALL" the fatal shootings in recent years have been committed by LEOs
April 19 2012, 7:05 PM
?? I seriously doubt that..
This message has been edited by JBJO on Apr 19, 2012 7:10 PM This message has been edited by JBJO on Apr 19, 2012 7:10 PM This message has been edited by JBJO on Apr 19, 2012 7:09 PM This message has been edited by JBJO on Apr 19, 2012 7:07 PM
In this case, the officer went into the house and the owner's dog went for him. The officer claimed he shot the dog in self defense. An investigation found that the officer had no legal right to enter the residence and the dog was just protecting his owner. That officer is currently on suspension.
FWIW, if that dog is like mine (and she's a sweetheart), it was probably barking when the officer went to the backyard. Now, would you go into a yard if you heard a dog barking nearby? If he really was reaching for his sidearm, then he was anticipating using that gun. I like how the officer put all of it on the owner's back. "I'm in your fenced-in yard, on private property and it's your fault the dog came up to me." Yeah, right.
This message has been edited by RedFeather on Apr 18, 2012 10:32 PM
When getting out of the vehicle, if you uunderstand police issue locking holsters, I personally ensure my weapon is secured. Officers are also trained to do such, especially going in to situations violent in nature, i.e. domestic calls.
We saw him reach, we did not see him remove his weapon. If he did remove his weapon, he was still well within the right to do so based on the nature of the call (again, especially in Texas). I have personally drawn my weapon in such a situation to scan and search for the attacker in closed in areas.
"The majority of things in our lives are created by folks no smarter than the rest. Afterall, the world is comprised, and operated by C average people intellctually, academically, and morally. These people are often the great pioneers that set the precedent for what excellence should be."
with the recient death of a LEO in Austin, I guess most are on edge. going to the wrong location and entering into someones back yard without permission , well under the Castle Law in Texas, the home owner has the right to protect his property, and his dog was just that. So if the homeowner would have shot the LEO, what would happen to him, probably a death sentance for shooting the LEO.
What of the LEO, did he have the right to shoot the dog, after all the dog was protecting his owners home.
Now if the home owner had posted signs to warn of his dog, than the LEO should be tried for animal cruility and fired from the force.
But this is just my opinion.
OH, to those who think I'm PETA , forget it, I'm just a responsible dog owner who would do anything to protect his pets on my own property.
Buster
\\\ X ////
one step closer to the ultimate goal
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
For those who fully support the state of Texas stand point on the protection of tangible property and feel that such law is worthy, you then would have to agree with the provisions which allow officers to exercise their own disgretion in the given scenario. Afterall, the same people wrote the laws for both individual scenarios.
Texas rank is high on the violation of civil liberties, take that for what it is worth.
No, it wasn't murder. Murder only applies to humans. In fact, most states do not even allow equal force to protect an animal. I say most, as ALL the states I have reviewed do not, but I have not reviewed them all.
"The majority of things in our lives are created by folks no smarter than the rest. Afterall, the world is comprised, and operated by C average people intellctually, academically, and morally. These people are often the great pioneers that set the precedent for what excellence should be."
The Plaintiff should sue the LEO Civilly for wrongful death resulting in emotional injury.
Differences between
Civil and Criminal Law in the USA
Introduction
Criminal law is much better known to laymen than civil law, as a result of journalists' reports of famous criminal trials. In talking with people about law, I find that they often misapply principles from criminal law to situations in civil (e.g., tort) law, which results in their misunderstanding. They are surprised when they learn the actual legal principles that apply to a problem. The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast criminal and civil law.
In civil law, a private party (e.g., a corporation or individual person) files the lawsuit and becomes the plaintiff. In criminal law, the litigation is always filed by the government, who is called the prosecution.
punishment
One of the most fundamental distinctions between civil and criminal law is in the notion of punishment.
criminal law
In criminal law, a guilty defendant is punished by either (1) incarceration in a jail or prison, (2) fine paid to the government, or, in exceptional cases, (3) execution of the defendant: the death penalty. Crimes are divided into two broad classes: felonies have a maximum possible sentence of more than one year incarceration, misdemeanors have a maximum possible sentence of less than one year incarceration.
civil law
In contrast, a defendant in civil litigation is never incarcerated and never executed. In general, a losing defendant in civil litigation only reimburses the plaintiff for losses caused by the defendant's behavior.
So-called punitive damages are never awarded in a civil case under contract law. In a civil case under tort law, there is a possibility of punitive damages, if the defendant's conduct is egregious and had either (1) a malicious intent (i.e., desire to cause harm), (2) gross negligence (i.e., conscious indifference), or (3) a willful disregard for the rights of others. The use of punitive damages makes a public example of the defendant and supposedly deters future wrongful conduct by others. Punitive damages are particularly important in torts involving dignitary harms (e.g., invasion of privacy) and civil rights, where the actual monetary injury to plaintiff(s) may be small.
One can purchase insurance that will pay damages and attorney's fees for tort claims. Such insurance coverage is a standard part of homeowner's insurance policies, automobile insurance, and insurance for businesses. In contrast, it is not possible for a defendant to purchase insurance to pay for his/her criminal acts.
While a court can order a defendant to pay damages, the plaintiff may receive nothing if the defendant has no assets and no insurance, or if the defendant is skillful in concealing assets. In this way, large awards for plaintiffs in tort cases are often an illusion.
effect of punishment
The notion that the threat of punishment will deter criminal conduct is based on the principle that human beings are rational. In practice, criminals are either impulsive (i.e., not rational) or believe that they will not be caught by the police. Therefore, the threat of punishment does not deter criminal conduct, as one is reminded every day by reading reports of journalists.
Legal theory considers the possibility of loss of freedom (i.e., incarceration) as much more serious than merely paying damages to an injured plaintiff. As a result of this high value placed on personal freedom, legal dogma is that criminal litigation is more serious than civil litigation, therefore criminal defendants have more rights and protections than civil defendants, as explained later in this essay. The economic reality is that most people would prefer to spend, for example, one year in prison, than pay a million dollars from their personal assets.
burden of proof
criminal law
In criminal litigation, the burden of proof is always on the state. The state must prove that the defendant is guilty. The defendant is assumed to be innocent; the defendant needs to prove nothing. (There are exceptions. If the defendant wishes to claim that he/she is insane, and therefore not guilty, the defendant bears the burden of proving his/her insanity. Other exceptions include defendants who claim self-defense or duress.)
In criminal litigation, the state must prove that the defendant satisfied each element of the statutory definition of the crime, and the defendant's participation, "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is difficult to put a valid numerical value on the probability that a guilty person really committed the crime, but legal authorities who do assign a numerical value generally say "at least 98% or 99%" certainty of guilt.
civil law
In civil litigation, the burden of proof is initially on the plaintiff. However, there are a number of technical situations in which the burden shifts to the defendant. For example, when the plaintiff has made a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to refute or rebut the plaintiff's evidence.
In civil litigation, the plaintiff wins if the preponderance of the evidence favors the plaintiff. For example, if the jury believes that there is more than a 50% probability that the defendant was negligent in causing the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff wins. This is a very low standard, compared to criminal law. In my personal view, it is too low a standard, especially considering that the defendant could be ordered to pay millions of dollars to the plaintiff(s).
A few tort claims (e.g., fraud) require that plaintiff prove his/her case at a level of "clear and convincing evidence", which is a standard higher than preponderance, but less than "beyond a reasonable doubt."
protections for criminal defendants
Anyone who has studied civics in the USA knows of a number of protections specified in the U.S. Constitution:
No ex post facto law. Art. I, §9 and 10
If an act was lawful when it was performed, the performer can not be convicted of a crime as a result of a law enacted after the performance.
prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures". Amendment IV.
prohibition of double jeopardy. Amendment V.
This protection takes two forms:
A defendant who is found "not guilty" of a more serious charge can not have a second trial on a lesser included offense. For example, if D is found "not guilty" on a charge of felony murder (e.g., incidental killing of someone during the commission of a felony, such as robbery), then D can not be tried for the underlying felony (e.g., robbery).
The prosecution can not appeal a "not guilty" verdict. Of course, the criminal defendant can appeal a "guilty" verdict and an incarcerated criminal can file a "habeas corpus" writ.
However, it is possible to try a defendant in criminal court and then try the same defendant again in civil court, for the same event. The most common example of such two trials is a criminal prosecution for homicide and then have a second trial for the same defendant for the tort of wrongful death: the most famous example of this situation is the cases of O.J. Simpson. While legal scholars carefully explain the distinction between criminal and civil law, the plain fact is that one can be tried twice for the same event. Another situation in which one can have two trials for the same event is a prosecution under state law (e.g., for assault and battery) in a state court, then a second prosecution in a federal court under federal statute (e.g., civil rights violation).
prohibition against compelled self-incrimination. Amendment V
the right to a speedy trial. Amendment VI
the right to the assistance of counsel. Amendment VI, as interpreted in, among other cases, Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979); Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932).
Indigent defendants have the right to an attorney who is paid by the state, even during custodial questioning by police. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
It may come as a surprise to know that these protections are not available in civil law.
The standard in tort cases is what a reasonable and prudent man would have done, the details of applying this standard to the facts of the case is decided by the jury, and unknown to the defendant until the end of the trial.
In criminal law, police generally must first obtain a search warrant in a proceeding showing a "neutral and detached" magistrate that there is "probable cause", before searching or seizing items from a person's house. Spinelli v. U.S., 393 U.S. 410 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964); Johnson v. U.S., 333 U.S. 10 (1946).
In civil law, an attorney may request documents or a visit inside a building. (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34). In civil law, an attorney may demand information from the opposing party about any matter that is relevant to the case, provided that information is not privileged. In civil law, an attorney may properly demand information that would be inadmissible at trial, if such demand "appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence". Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). An attorney may even take the deposition of nonparties in a civil case, and require them to bring documents with them. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, 34(c).
The prohibition against double jeopardy applies only to criminal trials. The corresponding concept in civil litigation is res judicata: one can have only one trial for claims arising from one transaction or occurrence.
In a criminal case, the suspect or defendant has the right to remain silent during questioning by police and prosecuting attorneys. In a criminal case, the defendant may choose to refuse to be a witness, and the jury may infer nothing from the defendant's choice not to testify. However, in a civil case, the defendant must be available and cooperative for depositions and testimony as a witness in the trial. In fact, the defendant in a civil case in Federal court must voluntarily provide his/her opponent with a copy of documents "in the possession, custody, or control of the party that are relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings." [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(B)] Further, the defendant in a civil case must voluntarily provide names of people who are "likely to have discoverable information relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings." [FRCP 26(a)(1)(A)] In other words, the defendant in a civil case must help his/her opponent collect evidence that will defeat the defendant. And, at trial, if a party invokes their fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, then the judge will instruct the jury that they may make an adverse inference against the party who refused to testify.
There are often several years between the filing of a complaint in a civil case and the trial. So much for "speedy trial"!
People who can not pay for an attorney (legal fees for trial preparation often run to more than US$ 100,000) are practically unable to obtain access to the courts in civil cases. The one notable exception is in tort law, where attorneys for plaintiffs often take cases with the possibility of large awards (e.g., more than US$ 500,000) on a contingency fee: the attorney is paid, for example, 1/3 of any award, but the attorney is paid nothing for his/her time if plaintiff loses. However, the plaintiff usually pays for expert witnesses, deposition transcripts, and other expenses. These expenses can be tens of thousands of dollars.
ignorance of the law is no excuse
The statement "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is an ancient legal doctrine:
Ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all men know the law; but because 'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to confute him.
John Selden (1584-1654), posthumously published in Table Talk, 1689.
If a defendant were allowed to escape legal responsibility for his acts, merely by saying "I didn't know it was wrong/illegal", the system of using law to regulate human conduct would collapse. So the doctrine is a practical necessity.
This doctrine still has vitality and validity today. See, for example, Ratzlaf v. U.S., 510 U.S. 135, 149 (1994); U.S. v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 612 (1971) (Brennan, J., concurring); Minnesota v. King, 257 N.W.2d 693, 697 (1977).
However, the law in the USA has swelled to a size that is unknowable even by experts. In Oct 1998, the annotated edition of the U.S. Code (i.e., federal statutes) occupied 990 cm of library shelf space. In Oct 1998, the annotated edition of the New York state statutes occupied 675 cm of library shelf space. Who can know all that is within these pages? A criminal law class in law school contains only about 40 hours of lectures, mostly about homicides, with a little about larceny and rape. The only solution seems to be a detailed search of statutes and cases in a database on a computer (e.g., WESTLAW), plus the avoidance of any behavior that harms people, either through physical, financial, or emotional injury, or by deceit.
A related concept in law is "wilful blindness": the criminal defendant who should have known, and could have asked, but deliberately chose not to ask. The law regards "wilful blindness" as equivalent to knowledge. U.S. v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 700-701 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 951 (1976). Cited with approval in U.S. v. Lara-Velasquez, 919 F.2d. 946, 950-951 (5th Cir. 1990).
The officer gave the politically correct reply to the owner..
April 19 2012, 1:49 PM
The camera cannot see what happened, but recorded the audio. As for the audio, the officer must have follwed his department's protocol for the use of his weapon.
Me? I would have not used my weapon until absolutely needed, if needed at all. Had several situations where dogs rushed up on me only to jump on me to give dog kisses, or try to use their 'red rocket'.
Also, for those that think an LEO must excersice the same legal practice to gain entry to land as they do a dwelling, you are wrong. In particular, as ironic as it may sound, Texas. The fact he was at the wrong address was not on the officer, dispatch was given the wrong address. Whenever going to a call like so, anything is possible. In such a situation, when human life is potentially at risk, officers may enter a dwelling too. For example, a domestic call. If a call is made to dispatch, officers arrive and can hear the ruckus of arguing, the smashing of items, screams for help, they may enter.
Is the department culpable and liabile in the civil sense? You bet. Criminal? Not even remotely.
"The majority of things in our lives are created by folks no smarter than the rest. Afterall, the world is comprised, and operated by C average people intellctually, academically, and morally. These people are often the great pioneers that set the precedent for what excellence should be."
This message has been edited by Duane30 on Apr 19, 2012 3:38 PM
A far as wrong address at the responsible link in the scenario should be fired but with the union probably won't be allied any reprimand on record. Or as they used to say in NYC after a similar snafu "tell it to the dead minister" who was murdered in his home. In this case it wasn't a dispatcher but bad info not verified, not a typo. And it was murder.
There are fear biters and fear shooters. Fear biters should be kept fenced and fear shooters should be kept at a desk armed with a fly swatter.
Often emotional sense guides us to determine what happened.
April 19 2012, 7:26 PM
Murder is murder (requires a series of elements before such an act can be determined such). Homicide is not murder necessarily. Accidental homicide is not murder. Manslaughter isn't even murder.
Sadly, in some situations, animals aren't afforded civil liberties like us humans. Dogs aren't permitted to stand their ground like us humans.
Honestly, I doubt the dog was going to attack in the sense of what an attack is. The officer didn't know that, but the owner did, I'm sure. At this point, post shooting, it is a matter of what the officer felt and used his discretion based on that.
Like I said, civil case would be an easy win.
It is amazing that departments in metropolitan areas do not under training to handle dogs. Most do not - it is a new field of study in law enforcement. I have undergone the training. First rule we have been taught when the access to ANY fenced yard is to scope it out for animals first. Just like room entry, every precaution has to be taken to ensure officer safety to the max.
"The majority of things in our lives are created by folks no smarter than the rest. Afterall, the world is comprised, and operated by C average people intellctually, academically, and morally. These people are often the great pioneers that set the precedent for what excellence should be."
This message has been edited by Duane30 on Apr 19, 2012 8:53 PM This message has been edited by Duane30 on Apr 19, 2012 8:49 PM
If I went into someones back and felt threathened by an aggressive dog and shot the dog, with all your law studies, what do you think would happen to me.
Well I would be arrested, hancuffed , put in a police car in front of all my neighbors and taken down to the pokie , locked up and charged with animal cruelty. I would have to post bail , retain a lawyer and go thru the legal system with possible convection with jail time and fined.
now the LEO have the LAW on their side. Lawyers usually write those laws, not to protect the citizens but to protect them self and LEO from being prosecuted for the crime that I would have been charged with.
So I ask, again, WHO POLICE'S THE POLICE. Judgement call ya say, one bad judgement call. that LEO should not only face a civil court but also a criminal court and face that same pentaly that I would have to face.
After all, he should have to follow the same law that I have to.
Buster
\\\ X ////
one step closer to the ultimate goal
Let's say you were in the state of Texas. You too were responding to protect a person or their property as just a citizen, as Texas allows, chances are nothing will happen. Of course, that is if you act within reason.
The examples you gave, one displays intent, the officer's example does not. The officer did not gain entry to the yard with the intent of killing the dog. Pretty simple.
Police panels, in most jurisdictions are made up of several members of society. Some of the members are LEO's themselves (brass), the other half is comprised of professional citizens along with Internal Affairs officers - whom do not work for the department - state employed they are. The citizens are independent of the department as well. They are the police of the police as are the overall populous of citizens in the community.
As far as the jaded view of legal professionals, that is a personal issue. I assure you it is not the case. Police conducting illegal behavior go to jail all the time, as they should.
Prove to me what the officer did was of criminal nature. No evidence of that, as there isn't any. My reference to civil penalties holds true. Doesn't mean he is guilty of criminal acts. Police shoot and kill PEOPLE who are well within the said use of force continuum all the time and still get sued and lose. Ask O.J. Simpson about criminal and civil liability; he was found in civil court...but not in criminal court.
This brings to mind the individual on here who recently lost his dog to a hit and run. Is the hit and run an illegal act? Sure. However, if the jurisdiction has a leash ordinance, which the state of Deleware does (if that is where he is at?) along with many of the East coast states that Route 9 runs through (New Jersey, Mass., Deleware, New York), if the driver had stopped, the owner could be found guilty and have to pay up for damages to the vehicle. Just a thought to put out there. So, in reality, the driver isn't totally at fault if a leash ordinance does exhist. Still a sad incident regardless.
"The majority of things in our lives are created by folks no smarter than the rest. Afterall, the world is comprised, and operated by C average people intellctually, academically, and morally. These people are often the great pioneers that set the precedent for what excellence should be."
This message has been edited by Duane30 on Apr 20, 2012 12:01 AM
How about 8 shots from a Glock .40 at a Bloodhound
April 19 2012, 10:32 PM
A buddy had two dogs that were kept in his yard and fed outside. A stray(or runaway)what looked to be full blooded bloodhound had been hanging around and eating his dogs food when they were inside but he couldn't get close to the dog to read the tags.
During one of his daughter's 10 birthday(the is now 25) he looked out the picture window and saw an elderly woman walking a small dog on a leash out by the road and the bloodhound was attacking the "yap" dog. He ran out his driveway and beat the bloodhound away with a broom and his wife helped the woman and dog onto his porch.
He called and reported it to the state police and the bloodhound wouldn't leave and was still in his yard when they arrived. He was inside but there were 8 shot fired with 7 blood curdling howls before it was over. He was so pissed he ordered the cop off his property yelling at him that if he wanted the dog dead he would have done with one shot of his deer rifle, not traumatized a party of 10 yo girls taking 8 shots to put the dog down at less than 10 yards away on the front lawn. Might have been the SP spec trigger but if I were a LEO I would have wanted the moron to be covering my back front "target" that shoot back.
Civil liability is not criminal liability. As you found out, speedy trial rule does not apply to civil cases, why the shock? Also, state provided counsel for indigent persons does not apply to civil cases.
As for lectures in crimial law, I disagree. As a law student myself, thus far we have had many more lecture hours in criminal matters and wider in scope than murder. As my chosen field is criminal and constitutional law, the specific structure of the degree is primarily around criminal and constitutional issues. Much less time spent in tort. What we are taught, and must be able to use, is the language and the ability to research.
There are several classifications of rape as there are several classifications of larceny. Many jurisdictions have degrees of murder. In short, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, law can widely vary. Enough to interpret that some are archaic, such as in Texas.
"The majority of things in our lives are created by folks no smarter than the rest. Afterall, the world is comprised, and operated by C average people intellctually, academically, and morally. These people are often the great pioneers that set the precedent for what excellence should be."
Not a very manly way to stand up to that dog imho...
April 19 2012, 3:48 PM
Where do I start?
It doesn't appear the dog owner was given much if any time to stabilize the situation and put the dog in a safe place. The dog does not look very physically intimidating to me, I would not be in fear for my life, and any officer that is should in my humble opinion consider careers less strenuous and risky than law enforcement.
Anyone that lives in suburbia or the country knows a little bit about how to treat dogs, and get them to back off if necessary. A man of average strength, especially with a nightstick or most any kind of makeshift weapon can get a dog to back off almost 99 percent of the time, almost always without use of the makeshift weapon.
If this particular officer does not handle his weapon any better than this around such a dog, my real concern is that his judgement and ability's are equally poor when handling situations around people...
OK, I read that legaleese about use of force to protect property
April 19 2012, 5:31 PM
Looks reasonable to me, taking what the property is into consideration, but it doesn't seem to apply to this situation. The officer was not protecting property. In fact, he destroyed the homeowner's property (fido). One thing's for sure. It's a good thing Harry Homeowner didn't come storming around enraged at the sight of his dead/dying pooch. Maybe the officer would have drilled him, as well! Isn't the officer supposed to have a cool head when being called to a possible domestic dispute? You would think so, since many involve belligerent drunks. Or are they fair game in Texas?
Austin police's policy on deadly force against aggressive animals says: In circumstances where officers encounter any animal which reasonably appears under the circumstances to pose an imminent threat to the safety of officers or others, officers are authorized to use deadly force to neutralize such a threat.
"The majority of things in our lives are created by folks no smarter than the rest. Afterall, the world is comprised, and operated by C average people intellctually, academically, and morally. These people are often the great pioneers that set the precedent for what excellence should be."
"...or close the damned gate"? I realize an attacking dog is a serious problem but how many dogs do you think will bark at someone who comes into their yard unannounced? The other night I let my dog out front to pee. She was on one of those reel type leashes and right off the gitgo down the steps she runs to the end of it. Up the yard comes four medium sized dogs (labs, etc). What the??? Suddenly I'm knee deep in yapping, jumping pooches. A poor lady across the street was walking them for a neighbor and, when they took off, it was either let go the leash or be dragged. Now, had I a side arm like that cop, why I could have neutralized each and every one of those threats. Instead we just rounded up the dumb mutts, mine included.
That policy s about as vague as saying he's doing something against the law
April 19 2012, 7:03 PM
while in the service it was called Artical 54, catch all.
So you tell me, What does an agressive dog look like??? I've had Chihuahua try to take a chunk of my leg while walking my dogs , while on a leash. But I was walking the street, not in their back yard.
An agressive dog, one in his own back yard, that's protecting his ground , his home. Granted they have to make that quick decision, in this case , the LEO was wrong and HE did destroy someones property, his dog.
Who police's the police.
Buster
\\\ X ////
one step closer to the ultimate goal
Mistakes were made. Yes. A beloved pet died because of those mistakes. Yes. Reason leads me to believe this cop regrets what happened. I'll bet the dipatcher does too. The fact the dog was fenced puts the whole thing in a different light. I have to believe people need to realize a pet is not a human no matter how much better than a human a lot of pets actually behave. Was this a grave mistake? I wish we were all perfect but we aren't. I can only hope the owner and those involved can forgive the officer. It's going to be bad enough this fellow is going to have to live with this in his memory. And his peers are always going to have this incident in the backs of their minds. This will be hung around this guy's neck like an albatross the rest of his days.
On another note:
I've had a pair of mastiffs run into the road while out riding in the countryside. I saw these two big dogs charge out of the farm yard and right in front of me. I slowed and stopped. There wasn't anything else I could do. They barked and got closer and closer to me. Initially they were showing their teeth but by the time they got right up to me they weren't really making any noise. I put a gloved hand out and they sniffed it. No nips, and now more growling. I talked calmly to them, telling them they did a good job protecting their home. I swear the damn things understood because their attitudes settled to where they both nudged my legs. Is this usual? I have no idea but stuff like this has happened more than once. In the case of the two mastiffs they wouldn't let me go. I think they were bored and maybe a little lonely. Every time I started to roll on the throttle one got ahead of the bike and the other started barking like crazy. Took about twenty minutes before I could get them to let me leave. Roll, bark-bark, stop. Repeat.
Now I was able to stop safely. But what if I couldn't have stopped safely. Those dogs could have created a dire situation for me. And there was no one around. Much as I like dogs I have no sympathy for dogs in the road. None. I can't. When I'm riding it's my life or an animal's. And when I'm in a car I sure as hell am not going to swerve to miss a dog if I have to choose between parking in a ditch or going into oncoming traffic. Even my insurance agent told me it's no different than hitting a deer. If you swerve off the road or into oncoming traffic or even bump a vehicle travelling next to you in Minnesota in order to miss hitting an animal, insurance will NOT cover your damages. It's written in the policies that way.
This happened to my mother in law. She had to prove she hit the deer and then lost control of the car, thereby going into the ditch. Luckily she had my father in law as a witness (and an attorney) or they would have had to cover their own damages.
Harv
This message has been edited by eureeka on Apr 20, 2012 9:59 AM This message has been edited by eureeka on Apr 20, 2012 9:54 AM
If so, When did Primates become Humans?
Alternatively, When did Wolves become Dogs?
It's all a matter perspective wouldn't you say?
The World From a Dog's Perspective
A dog knows from its nose, says Alexandra Horowitz, author of the New York Times' best-selling "Inside of a Dog."
Dog owners know all too well that a walk with their pets will involve countless stops so the dogs can sniff...and sniff...and sniff some more.
Rather than jerk the dog's leash - with the comment "You've smelled there long enough" - dog owners ought to let their pets sniff as much as they want, says Alexandra Horowitz, author of the New York Times' best-selling "Inside of a Dog."
"Maybe you take a half-hour walk and get 35 yards. Who cares?" Horowitz, a professor at Barnard College in New York, told a full house in Fairfield Public Library's Memorial Room on June 12. "That's his world."
While humans mostly see the world through their eyes, a dog sees the world through his or her nose - and it's a pretty powerful nose too. Horowitz said a dog can detect a teaspoon of sugar in two Olympic-sized swimming pools of water, something she said is off-the-charts for a human to fathom.
Trying to understand a dog's experience and point of view - what it might be like to be a dog - begins with the nose, Horowitz said.
"The dog is the nose...Their sense of smell is so much more acute than ours. That's their main way of seeing the world," Horowitz said. She said dogs have more and different kinds of receptors in their noses than humans, as well as "a second nose" that detects pheromones, or hormones.
"When we're stressed, they can detect that hormone," Horowitz said.
A dog that sneaks into the library doesn't see the library the way a human does, Horowitz said. Rather than looking at the library, the dog is interested in odors, such as paths people walked and air coming in from vents and windows, Horowitz said. "Unless it has some interesting scent on it, some meaningful scent on it, it's not a part of his world view," she said.
That's why fire hydrants are so interesting to dogs - they can tell who's been there, how recently they've been there and learn information about visitors to the fire hydrants by the smell of their urine.
Ginny Bales, president of the Barnard Club of Connecticut, which co-sponsored Horowitz's appearance, said she has a friend who is convinced her dog knew she was pregnant before she did because the dog became very protective of her.
Horowitz wasn't surprised, saying dogs can detect from hormones whether a woman is pregnant, whether someone recently had sex and can even be trained to detect if someone has cancer. "Dogs can detect if something has changed in you and that can be as subtle as whether your stress level has changed. They certainly can smell it on you," Horowitz said.
But dogs don't get overloaded with sensory input because they tune out a lot of what can be seen and heard. "It's not smell on top of what we see. It's smell in place of what we see," Horowitz said.
Dogs who are especially good at tracking also have long ears that kick up odors as they drag along the ground, she added.
People shouldn't view dogs as an extension of themselves, or assume they know why dogs behave a certain way or what they're thinking, Horowitz said.
Horowitz said dog owners in Manhattan will put raincoats and little boots on their dogs during a walk in the rain, thinking dogs, like humans, don't want to get wet.
But dogs evolved from a wolf-like ancestor, and one way wolves mildly rebuke a younger wolf is to stand over the younger wolf and press on its back, Horowitz said. She said when people put a raincoat on their dogs, the dogs often freeze, thinking, "Somebody bigger is around me, and I'm getting scolded."
Horowitz said people also misinterpret dogs' kisses and licks on their faces as love or affection, when that behavior also has ancestoral origins. Wolves in packs excitedly greeted a wolf who returned from hunting by licking its face, Horowitz said. The younger wolves were undoubtedly excited to see the hunter, but the licking was "also a request to regurgitate some of the food eaten and consumed," Horowitz said.
"It is a greeting," she said of a dog licking its owner's face, "but does it show love? Not necessarily. It shows we are part of the same family pack and we've been out eating."
An audience member said her dog won't kiss her or her husband but will kiss other people. Horowitz said that was probably due to the dog not liking an odor and not a lack of affection.
A common way people project their thoughts onto dogs is by saying they know their dogs' "guilty look" - the look on a dog's face when it's misbehaved and is about to be scolded, Horowitz said.
Horowitz said she put that theory to the test by visiting dog owners' homes and having the owner leave a treat for the dog on the floor, making clear the treat was not to be eaten before leaving the room.
When the owner returned, Horowitz said, she would falsely tell the owner half the time that the dog had eaten the treat when it hadn't. "Sometimes the dog was innocent and got scolded, sometimes the dog was guilty and got scolded," Horowitz said, adding that the scolding was only a mild verbal rebuke.
"The amount of the look doesn't seem to correlate to whether they're guilty," Horowitz said. "It correlates to the action of the owner. The dog is watching you all the time; they know when something's slightly different. Even before you scold them, they sense we're about to scold them."
The "guilty look," Horowitz said, was really a "submissive look."
"That's a look they put on when maybe they're a little scared or about to be punished, not a look because they feel guilty," she said.
Researchers in England put to a test humans' assumption about another animal - the chicken, Horowitz said. Humans figured chickens would want a lot of space to roam around, but when chickens were given that space, they tended to congregate together. The test results didn't mean chickens liked to be packed together in cages like sardines; just that the idea a chicken wants to wander off in a lot of space by itself wasn't correct, Horowitz said.
Horowitz also disputed the notion that dogs don't have a sense of time, saying dogs "have plenty of markers of a day's passage," such as the return of its owner, when it's time to go for a walk and the weakening of an odor's strength or changes in a room's odor.
The bond that formed between humans and dogs was mostly due to a dog's interest in making sustained eye contact with its owner, which Horowitz said was unusual for an animal. She said dogs aren't naturally fearful of humans and use sustained eye contact to gain information from their owners and to impart the idea that "We're in this together."
Horowitz said she thinks dogs do love us, but isn't sure it's love as humans would define it. "They want to affiliate with us. They seek us out. They form attachments to us. They form a bond," Horowitz said. "I'm not sure our definition of love is the same."
Dogs have different personalities and not all of that can be attributed to their breed, Horowitz said. "Dogs can vary enormously, and I don't think it's inappropriate to call them different personalities. Part of it is due to breed...but there's going to be individual variations. That's the magic of the genetic code," she said.
Horowitz advised new dog owners to observe their pets and not assume they know right away what the dog likes and doesn't like. "You're meeting an animal who has its own personality. Just try to observe him, without knowing what he's like. Just observe behavior, see what he likes, and encourage things he likes and you like. Just embrace its personality," she said. "Occasionally organize your life around the dog. Indulge the dog."
Patti Schott of Trumbull, an audience member and owner of Isabella, a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, said she thought Horowitz's talk was "very interesting."
"It really did give you a whole different perspective on how you view your dog's life," she said.
Schott and Gail Andreyka of Monroe, who owns three Daschunds, agreed that dogs have their own personalities.
"They all have their quirks," Andreyka said of her Daschunds. "One's a little more friendly, one's a little more affectionate. They have basic Daschund traits, but they definitely have different personalities."
Andreyka said she loved Horowitz's advice to just let a dog be a dog. "Love your dog for who it is and just let it be," she said.
JK's Airgun Forums, moderators, and administrators are not responsible for any problems that may occur from reading or using content posted on this forum, as they are the exclusive responsibility of two parties: the person who posted it and the person who acted on said posted information.Use of our forums by people under 18 years old is allowed only with legal guardian(s) present..
![[linked image]](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e20/RedFeather2/knife-dog-kinife-dog-hiding-dogs-1306363846.jpg)
[/IMG]