Koda wrote:

ETA: As the officer said in the video-- if that driveway is shared (and if it's an apartment it would be), then the driveway is NOT his personal property.

I did not hear that the first time, so I understand that aspect

I think we all would like to say that we would have died for our dogs if it happened for us. But that man seems like he cared for his dog VERY much, especially in his voice in that video. And well... he didn't move. He had a gun pointed at him. We all do things we aren't proud of or things we don't expect when faced with our own mortality. I don't blame the owner for not stampeding the cop anymore than I blame the cop for reacting too fast.

And I'm not defending the officer's actions as a "He did nothing wrong". I am trying to help others see that there are two sides to every story. In the end, I still think the policeman made a stupid and inexperienced mistake that he'll regret for the rest of his life. But I don't think that we have a right to jump to conclusions or perpetuate gossip or assumptions... and I think he's likely already being punished enough with this public outcry. I'm sure he is probably on suspension for his own protection.

I make the same arguments when we are "attacking" a noob for not giving more information and then getting defensive, or when I'm defending someone who was wrongfully or hastily attacked on the forum. I try very hard not to judge others or a situation without a) knowing all the facts and b) without having been in that situation myself.

It's just annoying they lied about the dash cam video and said the officer was "emotionally distraught and devastated" ...right he could have just said sorry after killing his dog without admitting fault instead of just shrugging and being how he went to the correct house and finished the report he was supose to do in the first place doesn't seem like a smart choice on their end having someone who's "emotionally distraught and devataed" over killin the guys dog continue working, he clearly wasn't being how he reminded on duty for the rest of his shift.

This story, and the discussion of less than lethal force being used first made me think of a news story from a while ago.

Aurora PD, here in CO, had a rash of shootings, and in response, bought a simulator to train officers on when to use lethal force, etc. They then invited a bunch of community leaders out to try the training. The results are pretty interesting.

http://www.denverpost.com/murphy/ci_20117872/civilians-walk-cops-shoes-yields-quite-body-count

"Members of the city's Key Community Response Team and other civic activists brought carnage to the unarmed and barely armed make-believe bad guys. The only two of six suspects who survived were carrying a large knife or a handgun. Had it been real, they likely would have killed the trigger-shy officers they faced.

Meanwhile, two young men (one unarmed), a warehouse burglar wielding a short length of pipe and a school shooter were dispatched to the great beyond — but not before the school shooter took at least one officer with him because the cop's partners were slow on the draw."

There are more little tidbits in the story, as well as video.



and "On Tuesday, Larsen patiently walked each group of three through two scenarios per group. One of the three in each of three groups had both a Taser or a handgun in their belts, but in every case but one, the wearer eventually reached for the faux Glock."

FWIW- the officer didn't go to the next house alone. They called a back-up car and there was someone else with him the entire time. I'd be just as outraged as you Brady if he was on the rest of the call alone, but he clearly wasn't. It's another defense mechanism. If they pulled the cop from the scene, then it's another way of "admitting fault" but if you listen to the cop's voice, personally, there's no doubt in my mind that he is shocked and doing his best to remain calm when he knew he pulled the trigger too soon. Shit happens. And this was an awful and terrible mistake.


ETA: LOL. I think I received more negative treats in this thread than I have in my entire 3 years of owning this board I'm not offended, we're all entitled to our opinions. I'm just amused by that.

Koda wrote:

ETA: LOL. I think I received more negative treats in this thread than I have in my entire 3 years of owning this board I'm not offended, we're all entitled to our opinions. I'm just amused by that.

I noticed that LOL! I didn't take any away, but I thought "she is just speaking her mind, like we are!"


btw: what does FWIW mean?

FWIW= For What It's Worth

I'm just surprised by some of the ones that DID get negative treats, lol

FWIW: (hahahah, thanks Tori!) I do find it slightly ironic that this happened, just as Texas law makers are allowing people to use for the "sentimental" damages to loosing a pet. I know when my girls were killed in 2010, we were not able to sue because we could ONLY collect what they were worth monetarily. (500, and 250).

As of Nov. 2011 a pet owner can sue for “sentimental and intrinsic” damages. They can claim the emotional toll that it has caused on it.

However, if he DOES sue, this will be long, drawn out and ugly. So, Suing is not something that should be done. It doesn't make the situation any better.

FTR: The chief of police called a radio show this morning and apologized.
http://www.klbjfm.com/podcasts/Episodes.aspx?PID=100
April 17- Pt 2
(fast forward to 42:30 or so when they start talking about the topic)

Also-- check out the youtube video of the guy took of the situation. That cop is remorseful. He shrugs in a "I don't know what to do" kind of way. He doesn't look like he has no remorse... he looks like a man who knows that he fucked up and doesn't know what to do about it.

ETA: It was advertised as "the cop" but it was actually the chief of police. The entire conversation is very well-moderated and controlled. I have to say, the radio announcer, Michael Paxton, and the chief of police all composed themselves very well and I have to say that I am impressed.

Tiff&Kya wrote:

FWIW: (hahahah, thanks Tori!) I do find it slightly ironic that this happened, just as Texas law makers are allowing people to use for the "sentimental" damages to loosing a pet. I know when my girls were killed in 2010, we were not able to sue because we could ONLY collect what they were worth monetarily. (500, and 250).

As of Nov. 2011 a pet owner can sue for “sentimental and intrinsic” damages. They can claim the emotional toll that it has caused on it.

However, if he DOES sue, this will be long, drawn out and ugly. So, Suing is not something that should be done. It doesn't make the situation any better.

If he disclosed to APD that he was in the process of pressing charges, I'm sure some form of settlement would be offered in order to avoid extreme stress on both parties. It has been said many times before, but no amount of money will ever bring my pup back if she were taken from me (though I would definitely carefully listen to the offers..i'm only human). In a situation like this, I'd prefer to see justice served, not just get paid off to be silent. What happened was fundamentally wrong, and things like that can't be allowed to progress.

just my

I fail to see how pressing charges would solve anything. In fact, on the interview, Michael Paxton says that he wants to see changes in the force. He doesn't want to see anyone fired or to get any money... he wants to help right the wrongs and correct the breakdown in training the APD.

I hope this doesn't turn into another "to feed your dog raw eggs or not to feed" thread lol

Nahh- no one is insulting anyone... we are expressing opinions. We are not going to agree 100% of the time. I encourage healthy and mature discussions

Sorry folks had a doctors appointment.
I am glad that some of you now see what I have been trying to say. Cops all over need more training on what to do if a dog is involved.
If that cop is scared of dogs how is he going to react to the next one he comes across. Is he going to shoot it too. IS he a trigger happy cop? Has this happen before with him? These cops when they are hired they have to go through psych test and stuff. I guess the do not do one for panic attacks with dogs. Maybe they should all go through K-9 handling also then maybe they will understand a dog better. Maybe they need to get AC involved like I said before.
It's very sad and it should have never happen. Yea I listened earlier to the cops saying sorry but I would not consider that as an apology. They own him a face to face public apology. As far as I am concerned they can shoved that radio apology up their a$$. I say sue the hell out of them and then donate the money to a rescue shelter.

Okay I'll chime in. Most police and public alike if they are not dog owners are:

1) can't read dog body language
2) are scared of big dogs
3) have the mentality ' it's just a dog'

With that said the difference is a cop carries a gun.

I think there should be charges everytime anyone discharges a weapon with disregard to public safety.

iceblulady wrote:

...As far as I am concerned they can shoved that radio apology up their a$$. I say sue the hell out of them and then donate the money to a rescue shelter.

My thoughts exactly!

No, no insulting going on. It is going to get heated because this is something that everyone feels strongly about. However, we are adults, and as Tori says, a mature discussion is just fine

Koda wrote:

Nahh- no one is insulting anyone... we are expressing opinions. We are not going to agree 100% of the time. I encourage healthy and mature discussions

+1. Don't express your opinion if you can't be mature and listen to a counter-argument. Everyone feels differently.

The latest...

https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForCisco/posts/324766780924062

TBH: I lived in that area my entire life (until 2007) and the police system there has always been bad. They beat a homeless man because he wouldn't give AC his kitten in 1999. They had cops fired for soliciting "favors" from pretty girls they pulled over, and there are so many more things that could be listed.

APD is slightly corrupted and Acevedo needs to go. He is incharge of training and keeping people safe, and it falls back on his lack of understanding of the "everyday" people. I understand with a police force that size, it is hard to train everyone to the tee, because people aren't going to cooperate, or they are going to find ways out of it. However, they need to do something better.

I've been in charge of training large groups before. No matter what you do, someone isn't going to get it. Think about the number of times your mind wanders when you are in a discussion or lecture. It's human nature and while we should take every opportunity to train people to their fullest, being a cop entails a LOT of training and responsibility already.

If they don't have it already, they should definitely have a program and protocol for dealing with animals.

However, realistically-- even with this in place, mistakes ARE going to happen. And yes, people should be held accountable, but asking the police force to be perfect is like asking you to never make a mistake in parenting or at your job.

And I DO wish society were different. I wish the police force could enforce an apology and not have to worry about the legal ramifications. But our society is far from perfect.

If you listened to the whole radio interview, the officer involved is being questioned, there is a full investigation going on (contrary to some news reports) and the officer and the dog owner will have the ability to get together one-on-one and talk. I hope it is in that controlled environment that a heartfelt apology is made. But as sick as it is... I can't blame the police force for not issuing more of an apology than they already have.

I look forward to the day when society might be different and we don't sue people for making a mistake. We are all human, afterall.

Everyone makes mistakes or have errors in judgement. When that however results in loss pf life, human or animal that person needs held accountable. Just like drunk driving or numerous other examples. Like I said people that use deadly force need a higher level of thought and training.

Lordbroll wrote:

Everyone makes mistakes or have errors in judgement. When that however results in loss pf life, human or animal that person needs held accountable. Just like drunk driving or numerous other examples. Like I said people that use deadly force need a higher level of thought and training.

I just want to be sure that people realize that I agree with that. Just because I believe that people make mistakes does NOT mean that I don't think they should be held accountable. I 100% agree that there should be disciplinary actions. However, that doesn't mean that I think anyone is an evil or awful person. That also doesn't mean that I don't think that such actions will prevent future altercations. There will always be mistakes. It's a fact of life. It's our job to prevent them as much as possible, but no amount of prevention will eradicate mistakes completely.

So I wanted to do some research on fatal dog bites in the US. Take an average of the last few years at 37. Most of which are infants involved with a dog known to the family. You stand a better chance of dying by a bee sting, 50 to 100 deaths a year.

So why are most cops around the nation trained to shoot first and asked questions later when it comes to incidents involving dogs?

While there is no written policy specific to dogs for the PD where I'm at, I have cops friends tell me the rule is if the dog is baring teeth and growling to shoot. Changing that mentality would be the true justice for Cisco and dogs like him.

Anyone remember Bear Bear the husky gunned down by an off duty Baltimore cop? We really do need better training for those that carry lethal weapons.

Brian, let it be known that I completely agree, no qualifiers. I totally agree with what you said.

However, I do want to offer that I bet the dogs that most cops deal with regularly, not all but most, ARE dangerous dogs. Not because of breed but because of bad, irresponsible owners. Criminals don't strike me as the type who take the time to train or socialize their dogs properly, or of they do, it IS to attack.

I am in no way saying "shoot first" is the appropriate response, but perhaps that is how that mentality came about? For the average American, I'd say that study totally holds true. But you have to look at what you're sampling. Perhaps the better studies to compare are how many cops are injured in the field and then how many of those injuries are animal related.

if someone were to shoot a police trained dog while being chased by it (because it is trained to attack on command) would they be reprimanded for their actions?