Austin PD cop, dead dogs, and facebook fury

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Hulksmash**

The thing is that if the cop had handled it properly (i.e. not drawing on a an unarmed civilian in plain sight) then the civilian (not even the one the cop was there for) would have been able to restrain his dog.

The cop was in the wrong. In so many ways. And I have to say that if someone shot my friendly dog (on my property) I'd be through the roof pissed.

**Frazzled**

AustonT wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
A dog that size would have problems breaking the clothing and skin of most uniforms

Theres a host of problems it can cause if it does break the skin however. Thats why its not cool at all to let your dog run upto random people. In fact, its something an asshat does.

You are right he should have totally lunged to grab his dog, that way the headline could have been. "Man shot saving dog from rabid cop"
These police departments shouldn't let their cops run up to random people with their guns out, In fact it is something an asshat does.

And thats the essential problem. You don't just draw down on the first citizen you see.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:
These police departments shouldn't let their cops run up to random people with their guns out, In fact it is something an asshat does.

1) Its a domestic violence situation, where tempers are usually flared. The police have been called so it must be significant.
2) The man was going for some item into his truck.

Caution is the best thing to do in a situation like that. Not walking into a situation that could get you shot, unarmed.

WHAT NONSENSE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Police don't roll up to domestic violence situaitons with their guns drawn. You've been watching too many hollywood movies.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:That dog doesn't even have to bite the cop to be a thread. If that dog causes a distraction, causes him to trip over it, stumble, or do anything else that would take his attention away from the other guy, then the cop is at danger.

MrDwhitey wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:

The officer did not go in with his gun drawn, he drew it when he saw the suspect going into his truck.

Just noticed in one of the news articles:

Austin police confirmed Monday that Officer Griffin got out of his patrol car with his weapon drawn.

From the http://www.kvue.com/home/Public-outrage-building-up-over-Austin-Police-Officer-who-fatally-shot-a-dog-147681755.html link.

And from that same article:

“He did challenge him. He came out of the yard barking, running towards him, as he probably would for anybody,” said Paxton.

APD's policy regarding discharging a firearm due to an animal is as follows:
"1. In circumstances where officers encounter any animal which reasonably appears, under the circumstances, to pose and imminent threat to the safety of officers or others, officers are authorized to use deadly force to neutralize such a threat.

As far as the officer coming out of his patrol car with his weapon drawn. In order to make any kind of judgement on that I would have to know what sort of information was given to 911, and what information was relayed to the officer.

If the person that called 911 indicated that one of the people had a weapon (bat/knife/gun/whatever) or that one of the people was actively punching the snot out the other, then I have absolutely zero problem with an officer advancing into a dangerous information with his weapon drawn.

At the time of the event the only thing the officer knew was that he was responding to an address where a domestic abuse was in progress (we don't know the extend of the information provided to 911 as to what exactly was happening), he encountered a person going towards his truck to get something, and a dog that is charging him.

Thats not a legal shoot. Can he cap a crying baby too?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:Train his next dog better?

Good luck with that.

**sirlynchmob**

Frazzled wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:That dog doesn't even have to bite the cop to be a thread. If that dog causes a distraction, causes him to trip over it, stumble, or do anything else that would take his attention away from the other guy, then the cop is at danger.

MrDwhitey wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:

The officer did not go in with his gun drawn, he drew it when he saw the suspect going into his truck.

Just noticed in one of the news articles:

Austin police confirmed Monday that Officer Griffin got out of his patrol car with his weapon drawn.

From the http://www.kvue.com/home/Public-outrage-building-up-over-Austin-Police-Officer-who-fatally-shot-a-dog-147681755.html link.

And from that same article:

“He did challenge him. He came out of the yard barking, running towards him, as he probably would for anybody,” said Paxton.

APD's policy regarding discharging a firearm due to an animal is as follows:
"1. In circumstances where officers encounter any animal which reasonably appears, under the circumstances, to pose and imminent threat to the safety of officers or others, officers are authorized to use deadly force to neutralize such a threat.

As far as the officer coming out of his patrol car with his weapon drawn. In order to make any kind of judgement on that I would have to know what sort of information was given to 911, and what information was relayed to the officer.

If the person that called 911 indicated that one of the people had a weapon (bat/knife/gun/whatever) or that one of the people was actively punching the snot out the other, then I have absolutely zero problem with an officer advancing into a dangerous information with his weapon drawn.

At the time of the event the only thing the officer knew was that he was responding to an address where a domestic abuse was in progress (we don't know the extend of the information provided to 911 as to what exactly was happening), he encountered a person going towards his truck to get something, and a dog that is charging him.

Thats not a legal shoot. Can he cap a crying baby too?

Yep, legal shoot
APD's policy regarding discharging a firearm due to an animal is as follows:
"1. In circumstances where officers encounter any animal which reasonably appears, under the circumstances, to pose and imminent threat to the safety of officers or others, officers are authorized to use deadly force to neutralize such a threat.

Its based on a judgement call from the officer, under the circumstances the dog posed an imminent threat.

I know you think of your dogs as your children, but come on. How do you go from shooting a dog charging at you, to a crying baby?

**Hulksmash**

Cause a small dog is about as much of a threat maybe? Just sayin....

**dogma**

d-usa wrote:
Trust me, if you are in your car and stopped by a cop ,and while the cop is walking towards your car he sees you reach for your glove compartment, 9 times out of 10 you will have a gun pointed at you.

If that happens I'm not only thinking about how to not be shot, I'm considering how best to ensure that officer's life is ruined due to his incompetence.

**Frazzled**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:That dog doesn't even have to bite the cop to be a thread. If that dog causes a distraction, causes him to trip over it, stumble, or do anything else that would take his attention away from the other guy, then the cop is at danger.

MrDwhitey wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:

The officer did not go in with his gun drawn, he drew it when he saw the suspect going into his truck.

Just noticed in one of the news articles:

Austin police confirmed Monday that Officer Griffin got out of his patrol car with his weapon drawn.

From the http://www.kvue.com/home/Public-outrage-building-up-over-Austin-Police-Officer-who-fatally-shot-a-dog-147681755.html link.

And from that same article:

“He did challenge him. He came out of the yard barking, running towards him, as he probably would for anybody,” said Paxton.

APD's policy regarding discharging a firearm due to an animal is as follows:
"1. In circumstances where officers encounter any animal which reasonably appears, under the circumstances, to pose and imminent threat to the safety of officers or others, officers are authorized to use deadly force to neutralize such a threat.

As far as the officer coming out of his patrol car with his weapon drawn. In order to make any kind of judgement on that I would have to know what sort of information was given to 911, and what information was relayed to the officer.

If the person that called 911 indicated that one of the people had a weapon (bat/knife/gun/whatever) or that one of the people was actively punching the snot out the other, then I have absolutely zero problem with an officer advancing into a dangerous information with his weapon drawn.

At the time of the event the only thing the officer knew was that he was responding to an address where a domestic abuse was in progress (we don't know the extend of the information provided to 911 as to what exactly was happening), he encountered a person going towards his truck to get something, and a dog that is charging him.

Thats not a legal shoot. Can he cap a crying baby too?

Yep, legal shoot
APD's policy regarding discharging a firearm due to an animal is as follows:
"1. In circumstances where officers encounter any animal which reasonably appears, under the circumstances, to pose and imminent threat to the safety of officers or others, officers are authorized to use deadly force to neutralize such a threat.

Its based on a judgement call from the officer, under the circumstances the dog posed an imminent threat.

I know you think of your dogs as your children, but come on. How do you go from shooting a dog charging at you, to a crying baby?

Protip don't practice law.
reasonable
imminent
safety

All these words are where the lawyer suing them gets money from the city.

**d-usa**

dogma wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Trust me, if you are in your car and stopped by a cop ,and while the cop is walking towards your car he sees you reach for your glove compartment, 9 times out of 10 you will have a gun pointed at you.

If that happens I'm not only thinking about how to not be shot, I'm considering how best to ensure that officer's life is ruined due to his incompetence.

If you consider a cop not knowing why the person he pulled over is making a reach for the glove compartment to pull who knows what out of it and protecting himself incompetent, then please go ahead.

I had a cop draw his gun on my while he was walking towards the car. He didn't point it at me, but he had it in his hand and out of his holster. I don't know what I did that made him suspicious, for all I know there was a report that a car matching mine did something. Oklahoma City is a big freaking place. Instead of thinking about how to ruin this incompetent officers life I just stuck my hands out of the window to show him I was not armed.

I guess I should have been morally outraged.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
dogma wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Trust me, if you are in your car and stopped by a cop ,and while the cop is walking towards your car he sees you reach for your glove compartment, 9 times out of 10 you will have a gun pointed at you.

If that happens I'm not only thinking about how to not be shot, I'm considering how best to ensure that officer's life is ruined due to his incompetence.

If you consider a cop not knowing why the person he pulled over is making a reach for the glove compartment to pull who knows what out of it and protecting himself incompetent, then please go ahead.

I had a cop draw his gun on my while he was walking towards the car. He didn't point it at me, but he had it in his hand and out of his holster. I don't know what I did that made him suspicious, for all I know there was a report that a car matching mine did something. Oklahoma City is a big freaking place. Instead of thinking about how to ruin this incompetent officers life I just stuck my hands out of the window to show him I was not armed.

I guess I should have been morally outraged.

yes you should have been.

**dogma**

d-usa wrote:
If you consider a cop not knowing why the person he pulled over is making a reach for the glove compartment to pull who knows what out of it and protecting himself incompetent, then please go ahead.

At that point drawing a gun should just be SOP because I can just as easily have one holstered as in the glove box, and you're not going to see me pull that while walking up.

At the end of the day its a dangerous, and often gakky, job. If you're not willing to accept that, then do something else.

d-usa wrote:
I guess I should have been morally outraged.

Its not even a matter of moral outrage. I am amoral at the best of times, and often deliberately immoral. Its a matter of the cop not doing his job, which doesn't hinge on protecting himself first.

**AustonT**

dogma wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Trust me, if you are in your car and stopped by a cop ,and while the cop is walking towards your car he sees you reach for your glove compartment, 9 times out of 10 you will have a gun pointed at you.

If that happens I'm not only thinking about how to not be shot, I'm considering how best to ensure that officer's life is ruined due to his incompetence.

Oddly I like 99% of Americans keep my mandated insurance and registration in my glovebox. If you saying 9/10 traffic stops have guns drawn you are delusional.

**sirlynchmob**

Frazzled wrote:

Protip don't practice law.
reasonable
imminent
safety

All these words are where the lawyer suing them gets money from the city.

Protip, if you can't control your dog without manhandling it, be prepared for it to get shot if it charges a cop.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Protip don't practice law.
reasonable
imminent
safety

All these words are where the lawyer suing them gets money from the city.

And why certain officers become liabilities, instead of assets.

**d-usa**

And I usually keep my insurance and license in my wallet. But I still don't reach for it without the cop seeing what I am doing. I let him come to the window,, and when he asks me for my license I let him know that it is in my wallet in my right front pocket. I keep one hand on the steering wheel and make sure that he can watch me slowly reach for my wallet.

I don't know, maybe I just have a different feeling for what it is like since I spend quite some time as a first responder and never knowing what you are going to run into.

I still think that plenty of cops are bastards who get a huge power drip from the shiny badge on their chest. But I usually don't fault them for trying to protect themselves.

**sirlynchmob**

AustonT wrote:
dogma wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Trust me, if you are in your car and stopped by a cop ,and while the cop is walking towards your car he sees you reach for your glove compartment, 9 times out of 10 you will have a gun pointed at you.

If that happens I'm not only thinking about how to not be shot, I'm considering how best to ensure that officer's life is ruined due to his incompetence.

Oddly I like 99% of Americans keep my mandated insurance and registration in my glovebox. If you saying 9/10 traffic stops have guns drawn you are delusional.

The best thing to do if pulled over, is turn put your car in park, roll down your front windows, turn it off, and put your hands on the wheel in plain site. Wait for the officer to approach the car.

If you have a gun on you the first thing you should tell the cop is you have a gun and its location.

After that comply with the cops instructions, take the ticket, if you disagree with the reasons for the ticket wait for your day in court.

**dogma**

d-usa wrote:
I still think that plenty of cops are bastards who get a huge power drip from the shiny badge on their chest. But I usually don't fault them for trying to protect themselves.

I should be clear, I don't fault them for trying to protect themselves, that would be ridiculous. I fault them for trying to protect themselves when doing so directly interferes with the job they're supposed to be doing. Part of being a cop is putting yourself at risk (Myself, average Joe, isn't going to break up that DV incident.), and many of them accept that, its the guys that don't that are a problem.

Full props to good cops, full scorn to bad. They get the same sort of raw deal as politicians and teachers.

**Frazzled**

AustonT wrote:
dogma wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Trust me, if you are in your car and stopped by a cop ,and while the cop is walking towards your car he sees you reach for your glove compartment, 9 times out of 10 you will have a gun pointed at you.

If that happens I'm not only thinking about how to not be shot, I'm considering how best to ensure that officer's life is ruined due to his incompetence.

Oddly I like 99% of Americans keep my mandated insurance and registration in my glovebox. If you saying 9/10 traffic stops have guns drawn you are delusional.

Agreed. Its the sudden movement part that will get their attention, but slowly opening the box while they are behind you, getting the insurance out, and holding it and your license on the wheel will not draw such.

Unless of course you have a screaming baby or the police officer trips on a curb, then evidently its blast away time.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Protip don't practice law.
reasonable
imminent
safety

All these words are where the lawyer suing them gets money from the city.

Protip, if you can't control your dog without manhandling it, be prepared for it to takew revenge on the cop if he tries to shoot your dog. .

Corrected your typo.

**Mr Hyena**

Cause a small dog is about as much of a threat maybe? Just sayin....

So we've never had a case of a small dog killing a baby...right?

**dogma**

Mr Hyena wrote:
So we've never had a case of a small dog killing a baby...right?

Babies are now being admitted to the police force?

**Mr Hyena**

dogma wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
So we've never had a case of a small dog killing a baby...right?

Babies are now being admitted to the police force?

No, but clearly small dogs can be dangerous too.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
So we've never had a case of a small dog killing a baby...right?

Babies are now being admitted to the police force?

They specialize in breaking up the vaunted pre-K racqueteering cartels.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:
dogma wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
So we've never had a case of a small dog killing a baby...right?

Babies are now being admitted to the police force?

No, but clearly small dogs can't be dangerous too.

Corrected your typo.

**Mr Hyena**

Coprrected your typo.

So dead baby isn't....dead? Thats some pretty good necromancy right there.

**dogma**

Mr Hyena wrote:
No, but clearly small dogs can be dangerous too.

And so can peanuts, but they aren't relevant to this situation.

**Mr Hyena**

dogma wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
No, but clearly small dogs can be dangerous too.

And so can peanuts, but they aren't relevant to this situation.

I didn't say it was relevant. But claiming a small dog is about as threatening as a baby is blatantly false.

I don't remember the last time a baby killed anything.

**Frazzled**

Mr Hyena wrote:

Coprrected your typo.

So dead baby isn't....dead? Thats some pretty good necromancy right there.

What bs are you on about?
1. we're talking cops not babies.
2. cops outweigh babies by what 20x.
3. ants can kill babies. Are you advocating cops be able to open up their Glocks on ant nests?
4. no one but you have said anything about small dogs killing babies. Its as nonsensical as it is besides the point.

The officer exited the vehicle with his gun drawn without a threat and put the bead on the first person that appeared.

**TheRobotLol**

sirlynchmob wrote:
APD's policy regarding discharging a firearm due to an animal is as follows:
"1. In circumstances where officers encounter any animal which reasonably appears, under the circumstances, to pose and imminent threat to the safety of officers or others, officers are authorized to use deadly force to neutralize such a threat.

So if it was his own dog he would of shot it then?

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
No, but clearly small dogs can be dangerous too.

And so can peanuts, but they aren't relevant to this situation.

in Stalinst Russia you don't crack peanuts, peanuts crack YOU!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:
dogma wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
No, but clearly small dogs can be dangerous too.

And so can peanuts, but they aren't relevant to this situation.

I didn't say it was relevant. But claiming a small dog is about as threatening as a baby is blatantly false.

I don't remember the last time a baby killed anything.

I don't remember the last time a small dog killed anything either. Ok in truth Rodney is indeed the wiener dog's answer to Dexter when it comes to snake serial murder, but the best he's done against humans is redden an ankle. Thats not harm, thats just bad tanning.

**sirlynchmob**

Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
So we've never had a case of a small dog killing a baby...right?

Babies are now being admitted to the police force?

They specialize in breaking up the vaunted pre-K racqueteering cartels.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:
dogma wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
So we've never had a case of a small dog killing a baby...right?

Babies are now being admitted to the police force?

No, but clearly small dogs can't be dangerous too.

Corrected your typo.

Ok so if what you are claiming is true, how big does a dog need to be before it is dangerous?

**Frazzled**

TheRobotLol wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
APD's policy regarding discharging a firearm due to an animal is as follows:
"1. In circumstances where officers encounter any animal which reasonably appears, under the circumstances, to pose and imminent threat to the safety of officers or others, officers are authorized to use deadly force to neutralize such a threat.

So if it was his own dog he would of shot it then?

I guess if the cop stumbled upon a clutch of rabbits he'd have to call in the national guard under this standard.

**TheRobotLol**

TheRobotLol wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
APD's policy regarding discharging a firearm due to an animal is as follows:
"1. In circumstances where officers encounter any animal which reasonably appears, under the circumstances, to pose and imminent threat to the safety of officers or others, officers are authorized to use deadly force to neutralize such a threat.

So if it was his own dog he would of shot it then?

Hmmm?

**AustonT**