Austin Police Shoot Dog (video)

Nonsense.

The dog came at him and he shot it, one bullet, one dog. No danger to the human in that.

He brandished his weapon in a confusing situation. Maybe some additional training. He will not and should not be seriously censured.

All this will pass shortly.
 
As well, another "meta-view" could be seen in the "not my fault" stance that positions of authority hold over the population. Are residents supposed to simply shrug their shoulders and say, "well, **** happens, but the cops said it's my fault"? I offered my opinion of why compensation should be considered, and it had nothing to do with a "you killed my dog, you bastard", pay me for my hurt feelings, attitude that others here lecture is the only derivation that can come from this incident.

I'm simply opining that the owner could use civil charges and compensatory action as a means to preventing this from happening to other pet owners- not that raw, selfish emotion and desire to punish someone with extreme fines to make the loss of a beloved "pet" is the only drving force in potential outcome of the case.
 
Somebody mentioned that the Police Officer had a Right to be there? I think he needs Probable Cause or a Warrant to have a Right to be there. He had Probable Cause at a wrong address, does that give him the Right to be on that man's property?
 
Buckhorn if I understand your logic, barking Chihuahuas and Miniature Poodles would also fall within the parameters for the ******* cop to draw his deadly weapon and shoot them??? I mean if you are going to give this ******* a pass on a heeler, then by all means pull out your deadly weapon shoot the barking Chihuahua.
The ******* cop was afraid of a small barking dog and used deadly force to kill the dog. Heelers are protective and will get between you and the other person, not attack. Just like the owner said happened.
This dick had no reason pull and fire his weapon and should be fired for doing so. I damn sure dont want this pos patroling my neighborhood. Again, the owner of the dog is lucky he wasn't shot.
 
The cop may need some further training, but he should not lose his livelihood over what was a confusing situation and the death of a dog unless there is some egregious and definite breach of protocol. I don't care what kind of a dog it was. I think the issue is that he was called to a violent domestic disturbance and, in the course of trying to contend with a human he was worried about, disposed of the dog, which, for all he knew, could have undermined his ability to subdue a criminal.

If the cop broke some rule or protocol then I have no problem with him being censured per those rules of engagement. That should be obvious and need no real clarification. However, if the police feel he handled it adequately and no one can point to a specific violation, then I don't see a reason to take action against him.

I don't see any major issue here that would require a firing. I hardly see the need for admin leave and a major investigation. It should be fairly apparent on its face. Either he is allowed to brandish the weapon based on the info he had or he isn't. He didn't kill or obviously endanger anyone as his shot was true.

It is an unfortunate situation. Beyond that, unless some problem is specifically brought up in re rules of engagement, etc., I don't see making a big deal out of this.
 
Yes, a heeler can attack, so can a Chihuahua and a Rotweiler. Which one requires the pulling and firing of a deadly weapon?

The point is that the officer should never have pulled his weapon and fired it. Listen to the video, the ******* tries to cover his *** trying to get the owner to agree the dog attacked. The owner did not agree and has said the dog barked at him, not attacked him.

He misused his authority by discharging his firearm in a situation that did not warrant the use of a firearm and could very well have killed the owner. He was obviously afraid of a small dog and panicked.
We don't need this pos as police officer.
 
Yes, a heeler can attack, so can a Chihuahua and a Rotweiler. Which one requires the pulling and firing of a deadly weapon?

Who can tell?


The point is that the officer should never have pulled his weapon and fired it.

No, the point is we can't tell which breed requires the pulling of a weapon.

He misused his authority by discharging his firearm in a situation that did not warrant the use of a firearm....

Your going from dumb to dumber. Misused his authority? Hardly. His use of his firearm was unwarranted? Again, hardly.
 
Since I have seen it with my own eyes, a panicked person does not always shoot straight and hits the wrong person. A person like this pos cop that is afraid of dogs (would have to be if he thought this heeler was a threat) panics and hits something other than the dog. ie: the owner. Didn't happen, but damn sure could have. The point is that this cop should never have pulled his gun and discharged it. In doing so, he is not suitable to be a police offiicer. I would like to see this *******'s record and be the first to predict a major problem by him in the future. Bad decisions involving firearms by cops should never be tolerated.

By the way, I have no problem with a po shooting a dangerous animal. None what so ever. That is not the case here.
 
Why do officers even bother carrying batons, pepper spray or tasers? Some of you seem to be missing a strong part of the discussion. It's not that the officer has the right granted to him to use force to protect himself; it's that the officer went to his most potent weapon first, causing many to believe that had he done better in assessing the situation before getting his gun on, the dog may not have been killed, the owner may not have saught investigation, and the discussion here would've been stymied.
 
The cop's performance reviews were 8/10, exemplary.

The City of Austin PD Rules or when they can use Deadly force against animals is if he felt threatned at any point. Very subjective and needs to be reviewed. From my review, he is in the clear.

Again, the protocal for what happened before the shooting and training of Police Officers in dealing with dogs or animals needs to be reviewed. The original 911 caller and the dispatcher are as much to blame in this situation as the cop.

Driving by and glimpsing something for less than 3 seconds does not give you the right to call 911 on a Domestic Abuse case and then give an inaccurate address. The 911 System is intertwined with local database and the locations of all registered dogs or threats should be downloaded.

The 911 system has a database with every address, it can be uploaded with Dog licenses or other threats to PD and put into the file. When the dispatcher enters the address to be checked out she should be letting the cop know there is not such address or there are dogs or other harmful elements at the location.

The 911 system and the database have these capabilities, if they are not being used properly, negligence is very much in play with this tragedy.
 
Thanks for clarifying that, Perham. Maybe you need to call the dog's owner and let him on on your consensus. He may not be up to speed on your posts.
 
That the dog owner may be upset, that the dog owner himself may think it a tragedy, does not make this a tragedy.

This is not a tragedy.

Some clarification is much needed in this thread.
 
I agree. You are right to describe the event as what YOU deem to be a tragedy, not what others think constitutes a tragedy. Blanket statements often are misinterpreted, and best unused.
 
Just like a good and staunch liberal, you sure keep up the mantra that your opinion is the only opinion. It must have been a hard life, knowing that you're always right, you know.

Kudos to you.....
 
In my opinion it is a tragedy.

You have made your point, can you add anything else to the discussion that people are trying to have or do you just want to keep terd bombing?
 
Oh, my opinion is not the only opinion.

It is often the only correct opinion.

But really, I don't exist in a realm where the death of Fido is a tragedy. Is it sad? Yes. But I reserve tragedy for much more profound losses.
 
Where should I mail the Internet Tough Guy of the Month award?
whiteflag.gif
 
Noticing that there was not a domestic dispute, but rather a man in his own backyard and his little barking heeler, what was a cop to do? Yes, shoot the little barking dog. Protocol and all. I understand there were no cats or chihuahuas available to shoot at the time.
You can't be too careful when you come upon a little barking dog with his owner in the owners own backyard.
Yes, the proper action by this hero was to pull and discharge his weapon. Protocol, you know.
After all, a man and his little barking dog in his own back yard can be a very threatening environment. Very threatening.
Shooting the little dog was extremely important in this scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top