TexasCHLforum.com

nyj wrote:anygun,

Sorry you feel that way, but I for one, would gladly cherish the life of my loyal companion that has been by my side for 10 years now, then one life out of half of these moronic people I have to deal with on a daily basis in my job.

A bond with a dog is a special thing, and no matter what, your best canine friend will never be as ignorant, rude, and careless as half of our population.

Yes pets are special and have a place in our lives. Their love is undeniable. They were put here for a purpose just like everything else.

Even the rude and obnoxious people are worth more than any animal. Life is precious. When we start thinking that just because someone is not up to our standards and that they do not deserve to live, we are placing ourselves in the same circumstances. We do not meet someone else's standards and therefore do not deserve to live. Think about it.

There are factions that place any animal above human life. Including yours.

Anygunanywhere

Some people view dogs differently than others. Some think of them as just pets, others think of them as part of the family. Mine are part of the family and the only thing I love more than my dogs is my family. As long as I am able to I will always have at least one dog by my side.

...I agree about the dash cam facts..
...as to the dispatch/caller problem...I know both sides of it...from 40 years ago and the last ten years...
...in the 70s, land lines and radio w/o computers were it...caller called in...dispatcher asked/relayed whatever they thought of...if I had $1 for every gun call I went on without any info on the presence of a gun being passed on to me...I'd be off the rest of the year...sometimes the caller told and the dispatcher failed to relay...sometimes it just didn't come up in the call at all...we'd commonly chew the dispatcher out on the radio for not passing CRITICAL info to us..."pouting" at officers on the street in the middle of the night was common...and dangerous...

...since I have lived where I do...94...I have called both 911 and the non-emerg. number many times, given the dispatcher(same switchboard answers both numbers) proper and detailed information...answered all questions...spelled and repeated...and the officer got there with only an address and name...no details whatsoever...or details that didn't come up in the conversation at all...but the dispatcher "read into" what was said...I've had the Chief's sec'y and the call center supv go back and read the tapes...verifying everything I said right down to attitudes and tone of voice...and it goes on...one day, it'll get an officer killed, or into a career-ruining situation without necessary info...
...I believe the solution to the problem is to have the officers on the street rotate into the call center for a week at a time, and therefore have street-experienced ops asking AND PASSING ON the necessary info, fully realizing how important accuracy and details are to the man out there in the street...but it will seldom happen due to budget/personnel problems...so the guys out there pick up the tab...and do the best they can with what they're given...just like 40 years ago...some departments are better...some are worse...

...this case, unless the dispatcher added considerably to what the 911 caller clearly said...did not justify what was done...period...if the dispatcher turned what the caller is recorded as saying into a situation where the officer was justified in doing what he did...they would have made a big deal about firing the dispatcher to put it to rest...and both the 911 incall and the dispatched info are recorded in the system...when all is said and done, this one will be on the shoulders of the responding officer...even though he was given the wrong address...

Very few pets are killed unnecessarily, but if Texas law where changed, good people could find themselves facing prosecution for defending themselves, their family, or even their own pets from attacking dogs. The focus should be on why the officer drew his weapon in the first place, not trying to change the law because of one sad incident.

^^^^^^+1

Exactly right!

The law is both a good one and necessary. Lacking widespread abuse...it should remain "as is".

I would not be in favor of changing any law no matter how sad this incident was. It was one incident that should be addressed at a local level with additional training for the officer and an apology with a new pet for the owner.

It really bothers me when something terrible or tragic happens and then suddenly there is this huge push to "fix it!!". That is how I am getting we have ended up with a bunch of really really stupid laws. If a law change needs to be made it needs to be done slowly, carefully, with no haste whatsoever, and much consideration of all the angles this could possibly be taken in. Hard cases make for bad law.

...agreed...the 1968 Gun Law and Brady being two stellar examples...

speedsix wrote:...I agree about the dash cam facts..
...as to the dispatch/caller problem...I know both sides of it...from 40 years ago and the last ten years...
...in the 70s, land lines and radio w/o computers were it...caller called in...dispatcher asked/relayed whatever they thought of...if I had $1 for every gun call I went on without any info on the presence of a gun being passed on to me...I'd be off the rest of the year...sometimes the caller told and the dispatcher failed to relay...sometimes it just didn't come up in the call at all...we'd commonly chew the dispatcher out on the radio for not passing CRITICAL info to us..."pouting" at officers on the street in the middle of the night was common...and dangerous...

...since I have lived where I do...94...I have called both 911 and the non-emerg. number many times, given the dispatcher(same switchboard answers both numbers) proper and detailed information...answered all questions...spelled and repeated...and the officer got there with only an address and name...no details whatsoever...or details that didn't come up in the conversation at all...but the dispatcher "read into" what was said...I've had the Chief's sec'y and the call center supv go back and read the tapes...verifying everything I said right down to attitudes and tone of voice...and it goes on...one day, it'll get an officer killed, or into a career-ruining situation without necessary info...
...I believe the solution to the problem is to have the officers on the street rotate into the call center for a week at a time, and therefore have street-experienced ops asking AND PASSING ON the necessary info, fully realizing how important accuracy and details are to the man out there in the street...but it will seldom happen due to budget/personnel problems...so the guys out there pick up the tab...and do the best they can with what they're given...just like 40 years ago...some departments are better...some are worse...

...this case, unless the dispatcher added considerably to what the 911 caller clearly said...did not justify what was done...period...if the dispatcher turned what the caller is recorded as saying into a situation where the officer was justified in doing what he did...they would have made a big deal about firing the dispatcher to put it to rest...and both the 911 incall and the dispatched info are recorded in the system...when all is said and done, this one will be on the shoulders of the responding officer...even though he was given the wrong address...

Amen about rotating field personnel into the dispatch center, and have the dispatchers ride along as frequently so they can appreciate how hard it is to copy when they talk fast, mumble, jumble, and otherwise make it tough to understand. It's tough enough being out there in emergency mode without adding in trying to understand someone whose headset is a couple of inches too far from their mouth and they sound like they have a mouth full of breakfast.

Years of experience as a fireman and a little as a cop. When I was a cop, my first job was to be the "desk officer" at our little HQ, and run the radio. The "Chief" ( a lieutenant in the NYS State Park Police) told me, at the end of the season, that he would have loved to hire me just as a dispatcher because of my radio presence. Lots of years as a ham radio operator and my father's overbearing influence.

And then there is the callers that get it all garbled and worse.

The issue I have seen in the DFW area when I have called 911 is the 911 operators are usually not the dispatchers and may not be as quick on things as a dispatcher is.

I had to call 911 the other night on a suspected DWI that I had gotten behind on my way home from Ft. Worth. When the operator answered I gave her our location and direction of travel, a description of the vehicle, and then gave her the license number phonetically (using the police department adapted phonetic version) and she said 'Uh, slow down, you are going to fast.' I was purposefully speaking slowly and clearly to make sure she had time to collect the info. After the third reading of the license, she finally said 'OK, got it. Let me transfer you to the agency that has jurisdiction over where you are. I stated, no, I am in your jurisdiction and gave her the location again. She still insisted on transferring me to the other agency. When I got them, they said "That's the under the department that just transfered you'. I told them I tried to tell them that, but they 911 operator wouldn't listen. They transfered me back and I got a different operator. That operator was a little better, but still wasn't sure about who had control of the road I was on (it does kinda split cities.)

In the end, they had no one within response range that was open. I think the person realized they were being followed and that may have got them focused a little as they started driving somewhat better (still not perfect), but were at least staying in there lane. They turned off into a neighborhood, so I didn't follow them and hoped they were close to their destination.

Bottom line, the 911 operators may not be as good at sizing up the caller info and what they pass to the dispatcher or even out to an officer via their MDT may be incorrect or misleading in some cases.

Keith B wrote:The issue I have seen in the DFW area when I have called 911 is the 911 operators are usually not the dispatchers and may not be as quick on things as a dispatcher is.

The difference between Dallas fire (all firefighters/paramedics) and Dallas PD/911 (civilian) dispatchers is shocking. The anecdote you related is not that unusual.

Keith B wrote: Bottom line, the 911 operators may not be as good at sizing up the caller info and what they pass to the dispatcher or even out to an officer via their MDT may be incorrect or misleading in some cases.

Kinda dating yourself there, it's MDC now not MDT but I rmemebr when there was neither

Dragonfighter wrote: Kinda dating yourself there, it's MDC now not MDT but I rmemebr when there was neither

Well, in MY day, we were such a small department had to wait for the Chief to finish his soup for 2 lunches and then hope the Mayor would give us budget enough for a really long string to tie the cans together.

Seriously, we had a giant Motorola radio in cars (control head under dash and main unit mounted in the trunk) and a handheld radio the size and weight of a large brick. The only data terminal you had at all was for NCIC and MULES (Missouri's version of TLETS) at the dispatcher's desk in the station.

Dragonfighter wrote:

Keith B wrote:The issue I have seen in the DFW area when I have called 911 is the 911 operators are usually not the dispatchers and may not be as quick on things as a dispatcher is.

The difference between Dallas fire (all firefighters/paramedics) and Dallas PD/911 (civilian) dispatchers is shocking. The anecdote you related is not that unusual.

Keith B wrote: Bottom line, the 911 operators may not be as good at sizing up the caller info and what they pass to the dispatcher or even out to an officer via their MDT may be incorrect or misleading in some cases.

Kinda dating yourself there, it's MDC now not MDT but I rmemebr when there was neither

...that hurts my feelings...I wondered what MDT meant!!!...the only exposure I had to any modern data equipment was when our Commissioner of Public Safety bought Xerox printers for the cars...mounted them backwards where we couldn't read the paper tape they printed on without stopping the car...then they were obsolete within a year or so...no parts available...

speedsix wrote:...that hurts my feelings...I wondered what MDT meant!!!...the only exposure I had to any modern data equipment was when our Commissioner of Public Safety bought Xerox printers for the cars...mounted them backwards where we couldn't read the paper tape they printed on without stopping the car...then they were obsolete within a year or so...no parts available...

I'll bet those were not really Xerox printers. Sounds like a thermal printer, and I don't think Xerox ever made any of those.

Although I could be wrong. They did get into some wild applications along the ways. Like XeroRadiography. (Mammograms by Xerox.) All the Xerox managers put up posters of mammograms in their offices. Kind of a backhanded way to bypass the "no sexual harassment" policy that prohibited suggestive pictures in offices.

I just realized we have drifted way far off topic. So, disregard my previous post.

Now, back to shooting dogs.

...well, if I remember the brand wrong after 40 years, I'll be doggoned!!!(now we're back)...

anygunanywhere wrote:Regradless of how I feel about any animal, they are never going to be more valuable than a human person. Any human. They are animals.

Can't agree with that....depends on the dog, and the human. For example, you think your dog's life is less valuable than the life of a man who rapes and murders a child? I don't.

anygunanywhere wrote:The real issue here as I see it is that this LEO has been drawn, quartered, charged, tried, convicted, and executed without ever being in a courtroom. Most of this has been done by the same individuals who are quick to scream when someone who shares our love of the 2A and firearms is treated in this manner by those who seek our demise.

What I called for is a financial cost to the city or DEPARTMENT, that would provide an incentive for appropriate training, policy, and restraint. That's a far cry from tried, convicted, and executed. The killing occurred because of negligence. It may not of been the officer's negligence....but it's an issue for his department. The initial report was that the officer and his superior didn't even apologize for the error. That suggests a POLICY that is hostile to property rights, individual rights, and dogs, and unless the officer was violating policy, it's the department LEADERSHIP that is at fault.

anygunanywhere wrote:The man who shot the dog will be living with this for a long time.

That's an assumption that unless you know the officer personally, is without any basis. He may be a dog hater. He may feel justified and not feel any guilt whatsoever. Or he may feel guilty.....it doesn't really matter. It's not an individual issue, it's a departmental issue...a matter of training and policy.