Posted on 04/18/2012 7:34:52 AM PDT by beaversmom
Let me give you a different color - avoiding the issue. You have been discussing everything EXCEPT the details of the story. This isn't about animal control, it isn't about whether the dog was on a lease or had all its vaccinations up to date or even whether or not the owner picked up the dog's poop!
This story is about a cop bursting into someone's home - the WRONG home, as it turns out - and killing someone's dog before he knew what that dog's intentions were. Why can't you discuss THAT story, instead of trying to throw all this other BS into the mix??
All your BS about animal control requirements have NO BEARING on this particular story. The dog was in his own house. In his own house, the dog doesn't have to be leashed, it doesn't have to wear a collar, it doesn't even have to have its vaccinations!! Those things only come into play when the dog is OUTSIDE of the house.
So, let's get back to the story that I posted comments about that you objected to. Discuss THOSE issues, before you start throwing all of your red herrings into the ring!!
BTW, for your edification, I have had dogs in urban areas and in rural areas. I've NEVER had any issue with my dogs and there was never any problem with animal control. Our dogs primarily remain indoors except when we let them out into a fenced backyard to take care of business. So, don't lecture me about irresponsible dog owners. 90+% of dog owners are NOT irresponsible. The ones you talk about shouldn't have animals. And, ALL of my dogs have been rescued because they were dumped by people who should NEVER have animals. And, this is the one point upon which we may agree.
If you had read any account of the story, you would have seen that the entire event occurred on the outside, essentially in the front yard and driveway. So your premise is incorrect, and your color may be red.
Let me give you a different color - avoiding the issue. You have been discussing everything EXCEPT the details of the story. This isn't about animal control, it isn't about whether the dog was on a lease or had all its vaccinations up to date or even whether or not the owner picked up the dog's poop!
No, the details of the story have already been published and discussed. You missed the issue, in the sense that had not the dog been running at large, but secured according to the code, this whole scenario would not have occurred. However, the owner has refused to take ownership of the problem. Read the accounts:
Dog Shot Had History With Animal Control
Dog shot by police was subject of two complaints
The dog got shot because his owner did not have him either tied up, on a leash, or had not fenced him in(with a warning sign). Here is the link to a previous topic on this:
Public outrage builds over police officer who fatally shot dog (Austin, Texas) (Some of my comments which took hits were Posts #56, 80, and 103)
By and large the responses were quite passionately "anti-cop" and one-sided, even to irrationality. Owner responsibility, dog characteristics, animal codes and care, and police procedure were largely ignored. You might want to review some of these factors to reorient your thinking.
This story is about a cop bursting into someone's home - the WRONG home, as it turns out - and killing someone's dog before he knew what that dog's intentions were. Why can't you discuss THAT story, instead of trying to throw all this other BS into the mix??
The policeman did not burst into the home -- that would have been unlawful without a warrant. You are quite wrong in this. The entire scenario was in the yard, the open external environs, which were publically accessible without trespass.
The dog's intentions to the policeman were quite obviously to attack and bite him (in my imagination running at him with teeth bared, snarling and snapping). Please note that this dog species is BRED to nip and bite large animals! The dog was behaving according to his instinctive inbred nature, and needed to be under restraint. The owner certainly must have been aware of this, and ignored it to the detriment of others. Your assumptions are wrong in this also.
All your BS about animal control requirements have NO BEARING on this particular story. The dog was in his own house. In his own house, the dog doesn't have to be leashed, it doesn't have to wear a collar, it doesn't even have to have its vaccinations!! Those things only come into play when the dog is OUTSIDE of the house.
What I have said has everything to do with how this scenario played out, and the facts are against you. Tell me, how did you ever place the dog within the house? I think your imagination has been playing tricks on you.
So, let's get back to the story that I posted comments about that you objected to. Discuss THOSE issues, before you start throwing all of your red herrings into the ring!!
I already discussed them in other comments. Read them. Furthermore, have you read the Travis County Code and the City codes of Austin, TX regarding Animal Control? I have. You will find that Cisco's owner failed to observe those codes and provide a home and environment safe for him and for passers-by or visitors to the residence. You will also note that full attention to detail says that (a) by reason of past complaints, the dog is defined as a "dangerous animal"; and (b) the police officer being attacked by the dog has full authority to put the dog down right there, immediately if necessary.
BTW, for your edification, I have had dogs in urban areas and in rural areas. I've NEVER had any issue with my dogs and there was never any problem with animal control. Our dogs primarily remain indoors except when we let them out into a fenced backyard to take care of business. So, don't lecture me about irresponsible dog owners. 90+% of dog owners are NOT irresponsible. The ones you talk about shouldn't have animals. And, ALL of my dogs have been rescued because they were dumped by people who should NEVER have animals. And, this is the one point upon which we may agree.
Again, your note here is not only anecdotal, but also irrelevant to the issue. You may have been a good and law-abiding owner with consideration to others, but that helps neither Cisco's owner nor the officer.
What you might do is think this through, keeping in mind the boundary conditions, and approaching it from the point of view of the officer who has been directed to defuse a domestic disturbance. He has been told why he is sent, warned of its potential tumultuousness, and expects to have to confront a situation that is urgent needing immediate physical intervention. He is also tense, hears a boistrous activity to the rear of the house, heads there, then is suddenly attacked by a running, snapping, snarling dog. The officer's goal is to give his attention to the disturbance. not to mollify the interfering dog. Concurrently he is confronted by the occupant rushing out. Take it from there, giving a little credit to the officer's need to make this procedural decision, and the owner's neglect which has precipitated the officer's reaction.
Finally, you have had a lot more time to deliberate on your response, but in two posts have been way off base. According to the tone of your notes to me I already have an impression of your character, and thus do not expect an apology. But if you wish, it will be accepted, and my estimate revised. From most of the commenters on this issue, there has been a lot of heat, but little light; a lot of dog-lover passion but not much cool thinking on the accidental coincidence of the lawman's expectations and the consequences of the owner's neglect.
I am glad that you have indicated your care of your own pets.
Respectfully --
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.