# Justice for Cisco



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

That is just awful. I can't really see any justification for this. A trigger happy, coward that shouldn't be a police officer might explain it...but there is no "excuse". I can't imagine it either, how horrid.


----------



## Poco1220 (Apr 6, 2010)

Cisco has a fb page now too. This has made ABC, CNN, radio stations & more. The APD did release an apology but I think at this point it's not enough.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

I agree, Poco. Its far from "enough". I would want this officer off the force - and never allowed to be on any other "force", he shouldn't be carrying a gun w a license to kill - I don't know how much more clear that could get.


----------



## Ink (Sep 25, 2009)

OMG that's awful. I wonder what the call was like? I didn't think it was common practice to hold someone at gun point right off the bat for a domestic disturbance. If the man was clearly unarmed, why not at least give him the chance to restrain the animal?


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

if a dog was coming at me when i was going to check out a scene then yea i would shot them too... its sad cisco was shot but the officer had a right to shot even if he was at the wrong house... the dog could have been a threat. 
its a sad story for both cop and dog and dog owner but there is way to much that plays into this besides just thinking the cop was trigger happy...


----------



## arrowsaway (Aug 31, 2011)

For me personally, watching my dog get shot to death before my very eyes would be like watching my CHILD get shot to death. They are my family, my best friends... I can't imagine this man's pain.

This police officer really ought to lose his badge. Unfortunately, I just don't think people care enough to make this happen.

Anyway, there's a special place in hell, I hope.


----------



## JSMidnight (Mar 15, 2012)

arrowsaway said:


> For me personally, watching my dog get shot to death before my very eyes would be like watching my CHILD get shot to death. They are my family, my best friends... I can't imagine this man's pain.
> 
> This police officer really ought to lose his badge. Unfortunately, I just don't think people care enough to make this happen.
> 
> Anyway, there's a special place in hell, I hope.


I completely agree. I would be heartbroken and really mad all at the same time.


----------



## arrowsaway (Aug 31, 2011)

kait18 said:


> if a dog was coming at me when i was going to check out a scene then yea i would shot them too... its sad cisco was shot but the officer had a right to shot even if he was at the wrong house... the dog could have been a threat.
> its a sad story for both cop and dog and dog owner but there is way to much that plays into this besides just thinking the cop was trigger happy...


he held an unarmed man at gunpoint and shot his best friend all because he can't read an address correctly.

this guy should not have a gun.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

kait18 said:


> if a dog was coming at me when i was going to check out a scene then yea i would shot them too... its sad cisco was shot but the officer had a right to shot even if he was at the wrong house... the dog could have been a threat.
> its a sad story for both cop and dog and dog owner but there is way to much that plays into this besides just thinking the cop was trigger happy...


Kait, the officer was responding to a domestic disturbance. I would think they would not be "trigger happy" when responding to ma and pa kettle yelling at each other, or even shoving one another. He gets to a house where a man is playing frizbee and he doesn't stop to check his non-existant "common sense" or gps?? From the looks of it, the dog didn't weigh over 50 lbs. I know I would have waited to fire until the dog actually went for me -as in clearly attempted to attack.


----------



## Ink (Sep 25, 2009)

That's very true kait. We had something similar happen near where I live several years ago. Highway patrol pulled over a family because their vehicle had been reported stolen or something. It turned out to be a huge misunderstanding. They had left a walled or purse on top of the car; it was spilling out bills so someone called it in. Anyway, they also had a dog with them that ended up getting shot. I believe it was a pit bull. 

It was a huge to do. The family even went on Oprah, and there was a huge back-lash for the officer that shot the dog. My mom actually knew the responsible officer's family from PTA and his wife explained that that's how they're trained to respond to a dog they think could be aggressive. 

It is a bad situation for everyone involved. On the one hand, I know police work can be dangerous and the officer was only trying to protect himself and do his job, but I also know if I were in the owner's shoes I'd be beside myself. I can't even imagine.


----------



## Country Woman (Dec 14, 2011)

awe this is so sad to hear this


----------



## Ink (Sep 25, 2009)

Missy May said:


> *Kait, the officer was responding to a domestic disturbance. I would think they would not be "trigger happy" when responding to ma and pa kettle yelling at each other, or even shoving one another.* He gets to a house where a man is playing frizbee and he doesn't stop to check his non-existant "common sense" or gps?? From the looks of it, the dog didn't weigh over 50 lbs. I know I would have waited to fire until the dog actually went for me -as in clearly attempted to attack.


This is what I would think with your average domestic disturbance, which makes me wonder what the call was like. If there was mention of a weapon being involved then I can see the officer being more on guard, but still...


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

arrowsaway said:


> he held an unarmed man at gunpoint and shot his best friend all because he can't read an address correctly.
> 
> this guy should not have a gun.


we dont know how the dispatch came in on the radio or what type of domestic violence call it was. domestic violence goes from anything from yelling at eachother to people holding weapons on eachother... could of been anytype of call. and yes the officer should not of held the gun out immediately when responding to the call...but either way if the dog was coming at me when responding to a call he would have been shot whether it was 5lbs to 100+ lbs
the small distraction the animal can cause can get the cop killed on scene especially when arriving alone. 

cops deal with alot and never know what to expect when arriving so they have to be ready for the worst and hope for the best... the dog owner even said it himself in a video he doesnt blame the cop for killing his dog , he just wishes he arrived at the scene differently, only asks for an apology


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

Missy May said:


> Kait, the officer was responding to a domestic disturbance. I would think they would not be "trigger happy" when responding to ma and pa kettle yelling at each other, or even shoving one another. He gets to a house where a man is playing frizbee and he doesn't stop to check his non-existant "common sense" or gps?? From the looks of it, the dog didn't weigh over 50 lbs. I know I would have waited to fire until the dog actually went for me -as in clearly attempted to attack.


there are way to many times a call comes in and there is true violence going on and when the police arrive one person is out happily doing something else acting as if nothing happened... but as i said to arrow... we don't know what type of call was made to dispatch. and if you decide to wait on shooting a dog coming at you then thats fine... most dogs that are in homes where cops are called are usually unfriendly or over protective. i wouldn't want to wait and see how much damage the dog can cause me...


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

Ink said:


> That's very true kait. We had something similar happen near where I live several years ago. Highway patrol pulled over a family because their vehicle had been reported stolen or something. It turned out to be a huge misunderstanding. They had left a walled or purse on top of the car; it was spilling out bills so someone called it in. Anyway, they also had a dog with them that ended up getting shot. I believe it was a pit bull.
> 
> It was a huge to do. The family even went on Oprah, and there was a huge back-lash for the officer that shot the dog. My mom actually knew the responsible officer's family from PTA and his wife explained that that's how they're trained to respond to a dog they think could be aggressive.
> 
> It is a bad situation for everyone involved. On the one hand, I know police work can be dangerous and the officer was only trying to protect himself and do his job, but I also know if I were in the owner's shoes I'd be beside myself. I can't even imagine.


i agree ink thats is what i am trying to say. and i would be beside myself to if my dog was shot in front of my eyes... sad situation for both sides


----------



## furbabymum (Dec 28, 2011)

Missy May said:


> Kait, the officer was responding to a domestic disturbance. I would think they would not be "trigger happy" when responding to ma and pa kettle yelling at each other, or even shoving one another. He gets to a house where a man is playing frizbee and he doesn't stop to check his non-existant "common sense" or gps?? From the looks of it, the dog didn't weigh over 50 lbs. I know I would have waited to fire until the dog actually went for me -as in clearly attempted to attack.


Dogs really freak some people out. My husband's best friend is positively petrified of them. Seriously about passes out when a dog comes near him. 

I have and love my dogs. I could still see the unfortunateness of this and understand where the officer is coming from (to an extent). 

On one hand he shouldn't have had his gun out for a domestic. That was the problem right there. However, wrong house or not an unknown dog coming at you is scary. I'm sure my dogs would have been shot and I doubt they would have sprung into an attack. Just the barking and defensive posture (and the fact that they're freaking huge) would scare the bejeezus out of most people.


----------



## Poco1220 (Apr 6, 2010)

According to the news stories the officer was called for a man choking a woman (no weapon involved). The cop was drawing his gun as soon as he left the vehicle effort even speaking to the dogs owner (you can verify this on the police video which is now public). He also never asked the man to restrain the dog at all. The cop reportedly had pepper spray, a tazer, and a gun on him so why was the gun the first choice?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

i dont trust news stories.. they are to one sided and usually edit video clips and use only bits and peices of what people actually say to give off a certain idea...

i also don't know the type of training this officer had nor was i at the scene when everything happened... so i can not make a guilty or innocent plea for this officer until the investigation report comes out. 

but i do feel bad about the whole situation...


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

I guess the one thing I question:. the guy is playing frisbee in his backyard with the dog, yet the dog charges the policeman on the driveway.. Sounds like the dog was loose to charge the policeman and was not under control of the owner.
Sad for the dog and owner, but if the dog had been under control, behind a fence or on a leash, he would not have been able to charge the office.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

I agree, furbaby, some people are afraid of dogs, and I understand and am sympathetic to phobias - but those people should not be police officers, IMHO. 

And, Kait, I do not trust news stories, either. However, there is no question this officer ended up at the wrong house. That is an error that was easily avoided and corrective action(s) should have been put in place at the "police station" level decades ago to prevent, 100% of the time, that type of mistake from happening for obvious reasons.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

wyominggrandma said:


> I guess the one thing I question:. the guy is playing frisbee in his backyard with the dog, yet the dog charges the policeman on the driveway.. Sounds like the dog was loose to charge the policeman and was not under control of the owner.
> Sad for the dog and owner, but if the dog had been under control, behind a fence or on a leash, he would not have been able to charge the office.


If a police officer pulled up unannounced and unexpected in my drive on my private property, my dog is in "his rights" to greet the police officer regardless of where we were playing originally...most all dogs would. Kelpies and a few others possibly wouldn't bark...but most would. I am under no legal obligation to keep my friendly dog restrained on my own property.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

I think that it is truly horrible when a dog gets shot, horrific when unarmed innocent people get shot, both in peace and war, just the worst thing out.

BUT

I am not going to make a judgment call on a police officer or a soldier, who day after day put their lives on the line against all sorts of crazy and badness that I can't even start to imagine.

If I walked through life knowing that the next person who I interacted with in the course of my job is likely to shoot me, I maybe a little trigger happy as well. 

This is a sad and tragic accident, and an innocent life was lost, but I understand why it may happen.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

Missy May said:


> If a police officer pulled up unannounced and unexpected in my drive on my private property, my dog is in "his rights" to greet the police officer regardless of where we were playing originally...most all dogs would. Kelpies and a few others possibly wouldn't bark...but most would. I am under no legal obligation to keep my friendly dog restrained on my own property.


 
Really? You have no legal obligation to keep YOUR dog on YOUR property? Where do you live? The legal obligation is called a leash law.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

wyominggrandma said:


> Really? You have no legal obligation to keep YOUR dog on YOUR property? Where do you live? The legal obligation is called a leash law.


I live where there is a county wide leash law that requires you to keep your dog contained on your _own_ property (my driveway is my own property), and restrained (leashed) off of your own property. What other kind of leash law is their?


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

Missy May said:


> I live where there is a county wide leash law that requires you to keep your dog contained on your _own_ property (my driveway is my own property), and restrained (leashed) off of your own property. What other kind of leash law is their?


yes and when your dog bites a mailman or policeman or even a regular everyday person walking by dropping something off at your house on your property they can sue you personal and have your dog taken away and pts as they attacked a government official... its the same if the dog was a human coming at the officer while on there own property... the human will be restrained either with bullet, a throw down or tazer etc... and the land owner/person or owner of dog attacking would be at fault... 
whether its fair or not


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

kait18 said:


> yes and when your dog *bites a mailman or policeman or even a regular everyday person walking by* dropping something off at your house on your property they can sue you personal and have your dog taken away and pts as they attacked a government official... its the same if the dog was a human coming at the officer while on there own property... the human will be restrained either with bullet, a throw down or tazer etc... and the land owner/person or owner of dog attacking would be at fault...
> whether its fair or not


That is a horse of a different color. I said "friendly" dog, which is, reportedly, what Cisco was. Where would this "restraint" stop? In your house? Should one keep their dog on a leash inside_ in case_ an officer mistakes their house for another and uses forced entry? At what age should the 24/7 restraint begin? Directly after birth? If someone has a phobia of dogs...it might not matter that they don't have their eyes open, yet. 

Police departments have a function. Going to houses is part of their function, and going to the wrong house is _entirely_ avoidable and it is their responsibility to manage their function well enough to prevent "mistaken" house visits. There should be some sort of reprimand.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

And do you know how many dog owners, after their dog has bitten or viciously attacked someone says" my dog is friendly, he loves everyone"?
It is wrong that dog was shot, it was wrong the officer went to the wrong home, but at least it was not a human that was shot. Law officers lives are in danger every time they get into a police car. An officer that is shot and killed can't be replaced, the dog can, whether a police K9 or a pet.


----------



## arrowsaway (Aug 31, 2011)

a dog can be replaced...

interesting idea. those of us who consider our animals to be family members may disagree.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Ink said:


> This is what I would think with your average domestic disturbance, which makes me wonder what the call was like. If there was mention of a weapon being involved then I can see the officer being more on guard, but still...



Responding to Domestic Violence / Disturbance calls is one of the most dreaded calls a Police officer gets. It is often very dangerous situation and ends up being a lose/lose result when the wife (it's more often the wife that is receiveing the aggression) refuses to press charges after all.

I think this was a terrible mistake and I do wonder why the officer held the man at gunpoint. But please keep in mind how very stressful it is to interject yourself into what could easily become a deadly argument.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

This is what one can easily verify - the officer parks his car in front of a house in a neighborhood w several houses. The car is pointed such that the installed camera is pointed down the paved road and tapes nothing of the house or yard of the house that is so incredibley dangerous that he *pulls his gun just after he gets out of the car. *
Cisco's owner gave an account that he was coming around from the back of his house after getting something for his truck. This is where Cisco's owner lives, he had done nothing wrong, is completely innocent of any wrong doing and isn't expecting a police officer to be in his front yard with a loaded gun pointing at him. Enhanced audio you can hear the officer saying "I asked you to get your hands up", the man apparently does, then you hear a gun shot. Enhanced audio, the officer says, "why didn't you tell me your dog was in back". VIDEO taken by Cisco's owner shows the officer shrugging his shoulders when the owners says this is the officer that just shot my dog. 

Okay, so the officer blamed the VICTIM for not immediately notifying him that his dog was coming - as FEW would have thought to do when met w an officer with GUN DRAWN and pointing at them on their own property where they have done NOTHING wrong.

The police department isn't clear on the "address" thing. Its just, "whoever made the call gave the wrong address". Really? No one asked for some sort of identifying land mark, make and model of a car parked in front, color or the building? No, its the CALLERS fault! So far this police department has blamed the "911 caller" and the VICTIM. 

I have called 911 when I came up on serious car accident that turned out to be a fatal one, it was a long empty stretch of highway so I had to give mile markers. They not ONLY wanted as much info as to "where" it was that I could give, they wanted my name, address, and phone. They ALSO called me back on my cell TWICE. So, the Cisco murder and crew clearly didn't BOTHER calling the "911 caller" when they got to the house and say, "okay, I am in front I see a "fill in the blank" model car, a house with a white door - is this where you saw/heard the dispute??" Nope, no need for that, it isn't as if it matters...b/c you can just BLAME the victim of your incompetence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For those that are okay w this level of incompetence, it would be FINE if it were isolated to ONLY those police officers and departments that serviced your areas.


----------



## AlexS (Aug 9, 2010)

I have a dog who would be a danger to someone coming onto my property uninvited. She would probably be shot in a situation like that, but unless they busted my door down, she would be on a leash or under my control. 

As much as the cop had the right to protect himself, the dog had the right to protect his property. 

I'm interested to know how the legalities of this will pan out, but I don't think much will happen as a dog is just property.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

arrowsaway said:


> a dog can be replaced...
> 
> interesting idea. those of us who consider our animals to be family members may disagree.


I love all my animals, have shown/bred/trained dogs and horses for years and years. Work at a vet for over 30 years... I LOVE animals. PERIOD
However, if the choice was one of my HUMAN family members or an animal, I'm sorry but it would be the animal everytime.
I am sure spouses of officers who use K-9's feel the same way, they welcome the dog into the family, its their spouses partner, but if the choice was to have their spouse come home at night or the dog, bet they would also choose the spouse.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

hmm, interesting Missy May. I read that the dog owner was playing frisbee in the backyard and the dog took off running down the driveway to meet the officer. Guess it depends on what news account or story.. 
I don't aprove of the officer shooting the dog or having the gun pulled, but I was not there and only know what I have read.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Well, here is an interesting youtube video





 
Pay careful attention to the officer's "account" of what happened that he gave to his supervisor - taken in front of a police camera (i.e, there is no question it happened). He lied - big time. Is that just "all part of police work", too??


----------



## furbabymum (Dec 28, 2011)

Missy May said:


> The police department isn't clear on the "address" thing. Its just, "whoever made the call gave the wrong address". Really? No one asked for some sort of identifying land mark, make and model of a car parked in front, color or the building? No, its the CALLERS fault! So far this police department has blamed the "911 caller" and the VICTIM.
> 
> I have called 911 when I came up on serious car accident that turned out to be a fatal one, it was a long empty stretch of highway so I had to give mile markers. They not ONLY wanted as much info as to "where" it was that I could give, they wanted my name, address, and phone. They ALSO called me back on my cell TWICE. So, the Cisco murder and crew clearly didn't BOTHER calling the "911 caller" when they got to the house and say, "okay, I am in front I see a "fill in the blank" model car, a house with a white door - is this where you saw/heard the dispute??" Nope, no need for that, it isn't as if it matters...b/c you can just BLAME the victim of your incompetence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> For those that are okay w this level of incompetence, it would be FINE if it were isolated to ONLY those police officers and departments that serviced your areas.


I'm pretty much a professional 911 caller. We had 5 fires near our house one year and I had to call on every single one. I've never had them ask for landmarks or cars nearby. I tell them it's on this road going this direction between this road and this road. Done. They've never called me back and I've never thought they should. I'm confused that you think they should have. 

I've called highway patrol on 3 drunk drivers and never received a call back.

I've called the sheriff what feels like a million times on my neighbors loose cow. Never received a call back and never had them ask me what car is parked in my neighbors driveway.


----------



## furbabymum (Dec 28, 2011)

Missy May said:


> That is a horse of a different color. I said "friendly" dog, which is, reportedly, what Cisco was. Where would this "restraint" stop? In your house? Should one keep their dog on a leash inside_ in case_ an officer mistakes their house for another and uses forced entry? At what age should the 24/7 restraint begin? Directly after birth? If someone has a phobia of dogs...it might not matter that they don't have their eyes open, yet.
> 
> Police departments have a function. Going to houses is part of their function, and going to the wrong house is _entirely_ avoidable and it is their responsibility to manage their function well enough to prevent "mistaken" house visits. There should be some sort of reprimand.


My St. Bernard is friendly. After being introduced to someone he'll love on them till the cows come home. He'd never attack anyone. Doesn't change the fact that he'd bark his head off at strangers coming onto our property and doesn't LOOK friendly when he's running at you barking.

Your arguments are asinine. The police officer had no idea what kind of dog was running at him. He's wrong in what happened but you're wrong in your thinking that your dog is somehow above the rest of the people in the world.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

I have never had them do callbacks either. You make a call, they take care of it. 
I don't beleive for a minute that the officer being called to a dispute has enough time to say" is this the right car", is this the right color house? If you expect an officer or 911 to do that everytime, the victim could alredy be dead by the time they keep calling back. 
Its not incompetence at all, its an officers job to do what he/she has been called out to do when they are called. If they take their sweet time worrying about having been given the wrong address by the caller, then they will get thrown to the wolves by the papers for not responding fast enough, or taking time to ask a bunch of questions before getting out of the car.
I think, MistyMay, that you have issues against law enforcement and probably feel everthing they do is wrong. 
There are three sides to this story, the officers side, the owners side and the newspapers/videos side. Unless you happened to be standing there watching the whole thing, nobody knows what happened except the two people there. Maybe if the news reporters would stay out of it, things would not get so out of hand like it did.


----------



## furbabymum (Dec 28, 2011)

Never mind the fact that a call back would totally go unanswered in a domestic situation such as described.
"Hold on husband we are getting a call can you please stop choking me for a minute so I can answer and see what they want."
Give me a break!


wyominggrandma said:


> I have never had them do callbacks either. You make a call, they take care of it.
> I don't beleive for a minute that the officer being called to a dispute has enough time to say" is this the right car", is this the right color house? If you expect an officer or 911 to do that everytime, the victim could alredy be dead by the time they keep calling back.
> Its not incompetence at all, its an officers job to do what he/she has been called out to do when they are called. If they take their sweet time worrying about having been given the wrong address by the caller, then they will get thrown to the wolves by the papers for not responding fast enough, or taking time to ask a bunch of questions before getting out of the car.
> I think, MistyMay, that you have issues against law enforcement and probably feel everthing they do is wrong.
> There are three sides to this story, the officers side, the owners side and the newspapers/videos side. Unless you happened to be standing there watching the whole thing, nobody knows what happened except the two people there. Maybe if the news reporters would stay out of it, things would not get so out of hand like it did.


----------



## DuffyDuck (Sep 27, 2011)

Wasn't there a video of this??

And the guy was playing with the dog, the officer told the owner to put his hands up and started yelling, and pointing the gun and the dog barked at the officer.. this is the first I've heard of any charging, and the guy was saying 'don't shoot my dog.. don't shoot my dog! You've just killed my best friend!' or something along those lines.

I have to admit, I cried when I read it.

HOWEVER. I play with my dogs in a fenced in yard- because off the lead they won't come back if they see another human they go to them wagging their butts off- so I don't let them off the lead. Its getting trained out of them, but you never know.

SO. If someone came in to my yard, why WOULDNT my dog approach them?? Its their known territory.

Sorry, but I side with Cisco on this one. 

Poor creature.


----------



## redpony (Apr 17, 2012)

Domestic violence calls are the most dangerous calls for police officers. I believe they should use EVERY caution to preserve their safety. It's very sad that Cisco was killed but I hold no blame on the officer.


----------



## FlyGap (Sep 25, 2011)

Poor poor dog! I wonder how aggressive he was acting, surely not deadly. 
I support police officers 1,000% especially when they are out on a call. But, there should be some serious "compensation" for this tragic accident!

Around here...
My dogs are GUARD DOGS. There are warning signs up, they are trained to protect me. If you are coming on my property you are subject to evaluation by my "guards". Again there are warning signs posted on my LOCKED gates with a phone number posted at the beginning and end of my .5 mile driveway with a warning to call before entering. If a person does not heed the warning they are up to no good and subject to elimination for trespassing. There have been a few occasions when I really needed my dogs to protect me and they didn't let me down. Of course I can call my dogs off. Poor poor Cisco, he thought he was doing his job too. Just so sad.


----------



## Poco1220 (Apr 6, 2010)

I don't think it became a huge deal until it was realized that the officer was at the wrong address and then refused to give any kind of apology for what had happened. I understand an officer trying to protect himself but once you realize that a major mistake has been made wouldn't you immediately offer up some sort of "I'm sorry" for the man who is devastated over his dog??? It took it being on all the local news, plus online, plus CNN, and a major petition, multiple calls and e-mails to the APD, and a HUGE facebook support page before any apology was even considered.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

wyominggrandma said:


> I have never had them do callbacks either. You make a call, they take care of it.
> I don't beleive for a minute that the officer being called to a dispute has enough time to say" is this the right car", is this the right color house? If you expect an officer or 911 to do that everytime, the victim could alredy be dead by the time they keep calling back.
> Its not incompetence at all, its an officers job to do what he/she has been called out to do when they are called. If they take their sweet time worrying about having been given the wrong address by the caller, then they will get thrown to the wolves by the papers for not responding fast enough, or taking time to ask a bunch of questions before getting out of the car.
> I think, MistyMay, that you have issues against law enforcement and probably feel everthing they do is wrong.
> There are three sides to this story, the officers side, the owners side and the newspapers/videos side. Unless you happened to be standing there watching the whole thing, nobody knows what happened except the two people there. Maybe if the news reporters would stay out of it, things would not get so out of hand like it did.


You belief that I have an issue against law enforcement is really off the chart. I do not have an "issue" w airlines or air-transport, but when a plane goes down b/c procedures were not followed either at the tower or by the pilot - I think procedures should have been followed, an apology should be issued, and a "real" investigation should be conducted to ensure it does not happen for the same reason - again. *I think you have an issue with procedures.*
Why bother with news reporters, when you have video and audio?? The 911 caller stated in clear english, when asked for the address, they were "just driving by", hence, there should have been SOME effort to ensure they had the address correct. That isn't my opinion, it is ON TAPE.
It was essentially a surprise attack on an innocent man and his dog. The officer was in his yard holding a gun when he came around the corner of the house, the officer was yelling at the man while pointing a gun at him. Yet the officer BLAMED him (ON TAPE) for not having told him he had a dog? From the time the officer left his car to the time he shot the dog it was TWENTY SECONDS.
There are procedural errors out the yin yang. If you believe there should be NO procedures for police to follow...I hear N. Korea is nice this time of year.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

furbabymum said:


> Never mind the fact that a call back would totally go unanswered in a domestic situation such as described.
> "Hold on husband we are getting a call can you please stop choking me for a minute so I can answer and see what they want."
> Give me a break!


First of all, when I called 911 _I_ wasn't in an accident, I clearly said I came up on one. Second of all, it wasn't the responders that called me back, it was a 911 operator...as is USUALLY the case. Third, time and _location_ was extremely important, including the position of the vehicles on the road, how many vehicles and people were involved, etc.,. They did their job - correctly!
In Cisco's case, it wasn't the person being attacked that called 911..it was some random person that was driving by in the neighborhood and reported what they saw occuring on the OUTSIDE of a house...which wasn't this guy's house. How would you even know where people on the OUTSIDE of a given house having some altercation lactually live???


----------



## furbabymum (Dec 28, 2011)

Well there you go. What exactly are you expecting? Did the caller stop outside and wait for the authorities to arrive? The caller wasn't even sure which house it was, calling them back wouldn't have cleared anything up at all. That argument is null right there.

I've never said the police officer was 100% correct in his actions. I just know dogs and I'm not delusioned into thinking everyone feels about dogs as I do. Even I treat strange dogs as hostile. I don't know them, I don't know what they'll do. The one thing I do know is that if they chose they could maim or kill me. Until proven nice I treat all dogs hostile. 

So, his shooting the dog is somewhat understandable. Was it the right thing to do? Obviously not. 


Missy May said:


> First of all, when I called 911 _I_ wasn't in an accident, I clearly said I came up on one. Second of all, it wasn't the responders that called me back, it was a 911 operator...as is USUALLY the case. Third, time and _location_ was extremely important, including the position of the vehicles on the road, how many vehicles and people were involved, etc.,. They did their job - correctly!
> In Cisco's case, it wasn't the person being attacked that called 911..it was some random person that was driving by in the neighborhood and reported what they saw occuring on the OUTSIDE of a house...which wasn't this guy's house. How would you even know where people on the OUTSIDE of a given house having some altercation lactually live???


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

furbabymum said:


> Well there you go. What exactly are you expecting? Did the caller stop outside and wait for the authorities to arrive? The caller wasn't even sure which house it was, calling them back wouldn't have cleared anything up at all. That argument is null right there.
> 
> I've never said the police officer was 100% correct in his actions. I just know dogs and I'm not delusioned into thinking everyone feels about dogs as I do. Even I treat strange dogs as hostile. I don't know them, I don't know what they'll do. The one thing I do know is that if they chose they could maim or kill me. Until proven nice I treat all dogs hostile.
> 
> So, his shooting the dog is somewhat understandable. Was it the right thing to do? Obviously not.


Lets see, what do I expect? hmm. Well, gee - I don't know, how about "address was given by a drive by caller which reported an altercation on the _outside_ of given address". And, I would expect the officer to have two neurons connected at the same time long enough AND have the training to procede appropriately. AFTER he shot the dog, every officer on the planet arrived. Why? He was just "doing his job". The person they were actually after was caught somewhere in the area (how nearby is unclear) by another of the multiple officers that showed up after Cisco was shot. Why did it take more than one additional officer to catch the man, if ONE was the number they sent in, alone, to begin with??

NOTICE .. in clear video/audio the officer point blank LIED to his supervisor about what happened, this was captured on video by the police car camera, it is inarguable - you can watch it for yourself. Is that also part of the "drop the puppy dogs" policy??? He said he went "door to door", clearly he DID NOT. Did he maybe think he made a HUGE mistake and wasn't at ALL worried about Cisco or the owner's devastation - instead he was worried about his own behind???

*NO *apology was issued until the police felt public pressure. Is THAT part of the "save me from the 50 lb mad dog" procedure, TOO? There is no question mistakes were made on many levels...yet NO unsolicited apology was issued, no remorse was shown, no "compensation" was offered?

What do I expect? Honesty (whoa, novel idea!)...such as "a tragic mistake was made, we are going to investigate this fairly, bring in an unbiased 3rd party for transparency, and ensure that IF our procedures do not _already _appropriately address all aspects of this incident, including the 911 call, there will be changes, and if need be, there will be a reprimand(s) issued". I would have expected this within HOURs of the shooting. _ Instead_, they initially blamed the victim, the caller, and the dog. BAD JUJU.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

You know what MissyMay, you are rude. The North Korea comment? VERY VERY UNCALLED for. I NEVER said procedures should not be followed, not one time. I stated that officers also have their procedures to follow and when sent on a call for domestic, they have to be careful.Would you please show me where I said, anywhere, that no procedures were to be followed? 
I noticed your brought up plane crashes. It would be comical except my husband and myself has lost many many dear friends to airplane accidents recently, hobby and professional pilots killed doing what they love best. Their mistakes, most likely, but since they are DEAD there is no way to ask them what went wrong. Just the FAA doing what they do and crashed planes. Oh by the way, my husband builds planes and worries about pilots all the time. 
. I work where procedure is done daily, have worked at the same job for 16 years and follow what needs to be done to the letter. So, I have no issues with procedures at all. Nor law enforcement. Funny, I never ever get an apology from the owner of the animal that has bitten me while doing my job, it is usually" oh poor poopsie, the mean lady held you to give a shot"... Where is my apology ?
I am leaving this thread. I do not like being told to move to North Korea, nor do I feel that it is a funny comment.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Re Apologies.....

It is yet another very sad fact of this crazy world that we live in that people are scared to apologize.

Apology = guilt

Guilt = liability

Liability = lawyers, court, and ridiculous damages.

A lot of companies advise not taking the first step, I don't know what the police view is.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

wyominggrandma said:


> You know what MissyMay, you are rude. The North Korea comment? VERY VERY UNCALLED for. I NEVER said procedures should not be followed, not one time. I stated that officers also have their procedures to follow and when sent on a call for domestic, they have to be careful.Would you please show me where I said, anywhere, that no procedures were to be followed?
> I noticed your brought up plane crashes. It would be comical except my husband and myself has lost many many dear friends to airplane accidents recently, hobby and professional pilots killed doing what they love best. Their mistakes, most likely, but since they are DEAD there is no way to ask them what went wrong. Just the FAA doing what they do and crashed planes. Oh by the way, my husband builds planes and worries about pilots all the time.
> . I work where procedure is done daily, have worked at the same job for 16 years and follow what needs to be done to the letter. So, I have no issues with procedures at all. Nor law enforcement. Funny, I never ever get an apology from the owner of the animal that has bitten me while doing my job, it is usually" oh poor poopsie, the mean lady held you to give a shot"... Where is my apology ?
> I am leaving this thread. I do not like being told to move to North Korea, nor do I feel that it is a funny comment.


Hello Kettle, meet pot.
You seem to conveniently forget, Kettle, that my statement concerning procedures was _in response_ to your less than warm and fuzzy post to me that included a statement about an “issue” you _decided_ I had w law enforcement, in general. I never said any such thing, yet, y_our_ comment was based on what? You believe you can read minds? Because I have a problem with this very _specific incident_ that involves law enforcement? Or, was that just your kettle way of being friendly? 
Oh, and your prior statement about my argument being asinine was so sugary sweet I nearly went into a diabetic coma.
I am not sure how else one can interpret your responses above along w the facts (I limit the facts to what is on camera and audio) _other _than you feel law enforcement are “above following procedures”, and/or that no procedure ever written should be revised. 
I don’t know you from Adam, I used an analogy (planes) – and you took it personally? My husband flies helos – _sooooo what_? WHAT could that _possibly_ have to do with my analogy OR procedure or the _lack_ of effective procedures in the case of CISCO??
Oh...AND, I never told you to move to N. Korea.
I could go on and on, Kettle, but my nails aren’t quite dry yet.


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

i am pretty sure its still policy for all military, firemen, and police not to issue an apology until a superior officer tells them to and that is usually only when public pressure is put on... so i understand from that why the officer wouldn't say sorry on the scene... (ie how i know this... dad is firemen currently and i intern with the state troopers and went into the military and was discharged due to ohysical disability) 

also note that whether the cop had his gun drawn right after getting out of his car or it being pulled out when he first saw the dog... the dog would still be dead... the officer would have reacted in the same manner which leads to the same outcome.

if we really want to hold anyone responsible i would blame the neighbors!! if you can't be happy with out laying hands on eachother to cause harm then leave eachother alone and move on with your **** lives.. but since they couldn't do that this man had a gun pointed at him and his dog was shot...

i also think it is completely unreasonable to ask for operators to call back or ask for any insane amount of information before getting it on the radio..it is not procedure for them to do so. is it more helpful yes. but the only time they ask for a number and a name of the caller is when they know they will need a witness. and even then the operator is not the one calling its a detective


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

That was NOT me that said your post was ASININE, go check and see who wrote that please, it was furbabymom... NOT me..........


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

Missy May said:


> You belief that I have an issue against law enforcement is really off the chart. I do not have an "issue" w airlines or air-transport, but when a plane goes down b/c procedures were not followed either at the tower or by the pilot - I think procedures should have been followed, an apology should be issued, and a "real" investigation should be conducted to ensure it does not happen for the same reason - again. *I think you have an issue with procedures.*
> Why bother with news reporters, when you have video and audio?? The 911 caller stated in clear english, when asked for the address, they were "just driving by", hence, there should have been SOME effort to ensure they had the address correct. That isn't my opinion, it is ON TAPE.
> It was essentially a surprise attack on an innocent man and his dog. The officer was in his yard holding a gun when he came around the corner of the house, the officer was yelling at the man while pointing a gun at him. Yet the officer BLAMED him (ON TAPE) for not having told him he had a dog? From the time the officer left his car to the time he shot the dog it was TWENTY SECONDS.
> There are procedural errors out the yin yang. If you believe there should be NO procedures for police to follow...I hear N. Korea is nice this time of year.


um, this last sentence at the end of YOUR comment was in the post you directed to me......... Sorry, I am not going to North Korea.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

wyominggrandma said:


> That was NOT me that said your post was ASININE, go check and see who wrote that please, it was furbabymom... NOT me..........


Okay, I stand corrected. I issue an apology. Sorry, I was in the wrong and I admit it, please forgive.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

wyominggrandma said:


> um, this last sentence at the end of YOUR comment was in the post you directed to me......... Sorry, I am not going to North Korea.


It is an "IF - THEN" statement, and yes I freely admit it was IN RESPONSE to you. I did not ask you to go to N. Korea. You misinterpreted it. It makes a relevant and obvious point. It was not a "nasty comment", but if you choose to take it personally and cannot understand the point, then I will rephrase it.....IF law enforcement is not required to follow procedures and are not held accountable if they do not, THEN you will have a system identical to that of N. Korea.


----------



## furbabymum (Dec 28, 2011)

Well snap. I had a response typed out but my internet said it couldn't connect and now it's not here. WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyway, I don't disagree with you. You just need to realize that human error happens. Bad judgment happens. I'm happy it was the dog and not the owner. I'd much rather see one of my beloved dogs get shot than my son or husband.
Expecting an apology over a shot dog is a little much for me. My office has sued the government several times over law enforcement officials beating the crap out of PEOPLE because they’re Mexican. They’ve never offered an apology or recognized doing any wrong, they just pay settlement to get us to go away.


Missy May said:


> Lets see, what do I expect? hmm. Well, gee - I don't know, how about "address was given by a drive by caller which reported an altercation on the _outside_ of given address". And, I would expect the officer to have two neurons connected at the same time long enough AND have the training to procede appropriately. AFTER he shot the dog, every officer on the planet arrived. Why? He was just "doing his job". The person they were actually after was caught somewhere in the area (how nearby is unclear) by another of the multiple officers that showed up after Cisco was shot. Why did it take more than one additional officer to catch the man, if ONE was the number they sent in, alone, to begin with??
> 
> NOTICE .. in clear video/audio the officer point blank LIED to his supervisor about what happened, this was captured on video by the police car camera, it is inarguable - you can watch it for yourself. Is that also part of the "drop the puppy dogs" policy??? He said he went "door to door", clearly he DID NOT. Did he maybe think he made a HUGE mistake and wasn't at ALL worried about Cisco or the owner's devastation - instead he was worried about his own behind???
> 
> ...


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

thanks for the apology.... 

I'm sorry the guy lost his dog... I wasn't there so don't know the whole story, just two sides saying different things.
It will end and something else will come up to cause an uproar. 
Life goes on.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

wyominggrandma said:


> thanks for the apology....
> 
> I'm sorry the guy lost his dog... I wasn't there so don't know the whole story, just two sides saying different things.
> It will end and something else will come up to cause an uproar.
> Life goes on.


I am glad you accepted my apology. It is a very sad and interesting situation. I believe "justice of Cisco" is aimed at making positive change. I believe it will.


----------



## SunnyDraco (Dec 8, 2011)

kait18 said:


> i am pretty sure its still policy for all military, firemen, and police not to issue an apology until a superior officer tells them to and that is usually only when public pressure is put on... so i understand from that why the officer wouldn't say sorry on the scene... (ie how i know this... dad is firemen currently and i intern with the state troopers and went into the military and was discharged due to ohysical disability)


My DH got an apology over the phone from a police officer last year. No public pressure, and the officer came into the department on a day off just to call and apologize. The story, a couple nights before, my hubby was driving home from working until nearly midnight. I was actually talking to him over the cell phone when he told me that he was getting pulled over. The officer had told him that he clocked him going 87mph, my DH insisted he wasn't since his car couldn't handle going over 70mph (which is why he hardly went as fast as the 65mph speed limit). Officer told him that his equipment proves that he was going much faster and that the speedometer must be broken. He gets an ugly speeding ticket that we were going to fight, when the officer called, apologized and said that he would take care of the ticket. I think he checked his equipment over the weekend and found out that it was way off. 

I respect honest apologies that are not forced, otherwise they are meaningless. Someone who can admit to human error, bad information that they acted on, and put their life on the line every day in a selfless act to protect their community are priceless heroes. 

Someone who lies through their teeth on camera to their superior officer (and they know they have audio and visual) just to make it sound like they made the correct choice really needs to be re-evaluated before continuing to serve the community, IMO. I would suggest that they need to at least test the officer's response to stressful situations. It is not suited for everyone, so his response to explain the events would be the same as some victims that just underwent a stressful situation. Their mind doesn't remember the true events and their mind tells them false information that they somehow believe happened. Several eye witnesses can see the same thing and have completely different recollections of what happened, what was said, and where everything was when it happened. I would point out that in the video/audio, the officer yelled at the man about him not restraining the dog when he told him to and why didn't he tell him that he had a dog? The owner was completely baffled by the questions, shocked by his companion being shot, and has a gun drawn on him. If the video did not cut anything out, the officer never asked about a dog, and shot the dog almost immediately after he recognized verbally. I believe that with the adrenalin and stress of coming into a situation that is believed to be a domestic dispute with a man with a spear (audio from 911 call), time slowed down for the officer and he ended up with false memories of what was said and done. He could still be very valuable to the community, but I would feel better if he had a desk job. The reason being is because if he creates false realities when he is stressed, he could have seen things that weren't there like a person coming to attack in a threatening manner (when they were only coming running from around the corner to see what the commotion was all about).


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

sunny - that could be true i am just saying last i checked they normally didn't do it because of the liability and the admitting to fault. thats why they only do it when pressure is put on. there are the few people who actually have a guilty conscious and will do the right thing and say sorry but that is a rare thing i have ever seen.


----------



## arrowsaway (Aug 31, 2011)

Missy, I don't think you're rude... I think you're upset because bad people get away with bad things. I try not to expect much out of folks, but every now and again I still get disappointed too. 

The concept of justice is a fairy tale. Especially when it comes to animals. People just don't care enough. They say, It's just a dog, so what? Or, a dog can be replaced. Well, my animals are all I have, and no, they CAN'T be replaced. 

I think this pretty much sums up what's going on here:
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
--Ghandi

We have a long way to go as a society.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Missy May said:


> That is just awful. I can't really see any justification for this. A trigger happy, coward that shouldn't be a police officer might explain it...but there is no "excuse". I can't imagine it either, how horrid.


 
That is extremely judgemental for a person who wasn't there. By the owners admission on the tape, he agreed that his dog was running at the officer barking. He said "but he wouldn't bite you". How the heck could the officer know this? AFTER the dog tore his leg open...or worse?

I think it is tragic and sad. But calling him a trigger happy coward is horrid and uncalled for, IMO. I am a dog lover in the extreme, but if a dog did this to me, I just might have done the same thing.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

arrowsaway said:


> he held an unarmed man at gunpoint and shot his best friend all because he can't read an address correctly.
> 
> this guy should not have a gun.


I think you may need to listen to the tape again. The person calling 911 gave the wrong address to the dispatcher. The officer went to the correct address as given him by the 911 operator. 

As for the guy being unarmed....domestics are the most dangerous thing police officers are asked to handle and many are killed every year doing it. The officer didn't know if the guy was unarmed and didn't have time to assess it as event unfolded too fast. 

I am saddened by the linch mob mentality from people who may never have faced such a possibly dangerous situation. He had no idea he had been SENT to the wrong address. And, the dog ran at him barking. Wait until he is injured....or not, before acting? only if you are doing it, not me.


----------



## redpony (Apr 17, 2012)

Allison Finch said:


> I think you may need to listen to the tape again. The person calling 911 gave the wrong address to the dispatcher. The officer went to the correct address as given him by the 911 operator.
> 
> As for the guy being unarmed....domestics are the most dangerous thing police officers are asked to handle and many are killed every year doing it. The officer didn't know if the guy was unarmed and didn't have time to assess it as event unfolded too fast.
> 
> I am saddened by the linch mob mentality from people who may never have faced such a possibly dangerous situation. He had no idea he had been SENT to the wrong address. And, the dog ran at him barking. Wait until he is injured....or not, before acting? only if you are doing it, not me.


Allison, it is calkedemoathy
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## redpony (Apr 17, 2012)

redpony said:


> Allison, it is calkedemoathy
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Fail! Lol
I was going to say it is called empathy and no one seems to have any these days, only a very narrow view of their own priorities
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

Oh heck, I was trying hard to figure out what you were trying to say redpony.. lol

I agree, and said it a couple of times, none of us were there, none of us saw exactly what happened and how it went... Yet, there are many who think the officer should lose his job. 
He did exactly what he was supposed to do, go to a home with a domestic happening, he did not have time to decide" hmm, I wonder if the dispatch gave me the wrong address, maybe I should turn around and go back and see, or pull over and call ......".. 
I hope none of the "lynch mob" ever need an officer badly because of some horrible thing happening, and find out that all calls must be checked and rechecked before going into the home and not carry weapons in case a dog might be there .. 
I love my animals dearly and do not have aggressive dogs, however, if I needed a police officer/paramedic for something immediately and my dog was making it so they could not come into the home, like a rape attack, or someone holding a gun, or one of my family or myself was dying, I would hope an officer chooses to shoot my dog to save my life or my families life instead of being afraid of losing their job.


----------



## sandy2u1 (May 7, 2008)

I can understand why an officer might draw his gun to search a property. As for the officer holding a gun on an unarmed man, that is not procedure. If you are that scared of an unarmed person, then you are in the wrong line of work. 

I realize that domestic disputes can be very dangerous. Sometimes even then victim can become the enemy. However, when the police come to those calls, it is not normal for them to come to the residence with their guns drawn.

If this cop has been on duty more than a week, then this isn't the first dog to ever run up to him barking. I don't see anywhere that says the dog was acting in a vicious manner. Dogs bark and run up to strangers....nothing surprising there. 

Just because the guy is a cop, doesn't make him a good person. There are plenty of no good for nothing, dirty cops. There are plenty that are cowards as well. I think the cop in question is for sure either a piece of scum or a coward. He got out of his car, gun drawn, held it on an unarmed man and shot a dog for running up to him and barking. He should probably rethink his career choice.

I for sure would love to be a part of the IA investigation.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

U.S. News - Dog shot by Texas cop was subject of 2 complaints

Interesting article on Cisco. Seems he has charged/nipped other people walking past his house. Hmm, maybe there is a bit more to the story than the cop shooting an innocent dog... Of course, the owner says the dog was not vicious, but to some folks, unless the bite is HUGE and requires stitches, the dog is not biting, just playing.


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

sandy2u1 said:


> I can understand why an officer might draw his gun to search a property. As for the officer holding a gun on an unarmed man, that is not procedure. If you are that scared of an unarmed person, then you are in the wrong line of work.
> 
> I realize that domestic disputes can be very dangerous. Sometimes even then victim can become the enemy. However, when the police come to those calls, it is not normal for them to come to the residence with their guns drawn.
> 
> ...


why would you want ot be apart of the investigation?? you already think he is guilty which means you already have a baised opinion... which is not fair.

yes he lied to his superior officer on tape(i do not condone this behavior)... but he was responding to a domestic violence that was called in with actual harm being inflicted on the victim... the choking could have been with just hands, or bat, string, etc pulled across her neck... either way i hope when i am being attacked in such a manner an officer has his gun drawn and ready to not ony protect me but himself as well...

way to many cops die on the line and people just b**** and complain how they weren't doing there jobs... well if no one has gone through there training or lived a day in there shoes and deal with the procedures they have to follow ... then why are we making judgement calls on how they do there job. we have safe jobs where we do not have to put our lives on the line. we shouldl be thankful there are people who do this so 18 year old kids arent forced into this type of career.

and it is procedure to have your gun drawn when you (the officer) believe there might be a weapon involved on scene when you are the first one arriving..its called a judgement call depending on how things play out/look when arriving. and there is no way to tell if he is unarmed until they do a pat down..which the officer never had the chance to do because the dog was already running at him... what the officer is just suppose to take the mans word for it??

officers don't have time to tell if a dog is aggressive or happy when they come running towards them.. its a myth that a dog wagging his tail is happy and its a myth that dogs who have mean aggressive barking/growling will bite.. its individual dogs with individual minds...you can't sterotype oh this dog is wagging his tail running at me must mean he is safe... you either act or deal with the consquences of being hurt... i would rather shoot the dog and not be harmed while trying to help someone else...


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

After reading this new story you now have to honestly wonder how the dog approached/charged the officer. Puts a new light on the story.
The owner still says the dog is not a vicious dog, yet two others have been bitten/charged by the dog, how many did not report an incedent. I have had dogs come into the vets and my training classes with owners in denial" he isn't mean, he just protects me". He probably won't bite, he is just cautious" I get bit because an owner won't admit his dog bites because it becomes a liability issue with the law.
Just because a dog runs wagging its tail, it can still be aggressive and intending to bite, and the officer did not have time to decide if it was wagging its tail in greeting, fear, aggressiveness or full out attack, you have to have a chance to see the dogs body posture to correctly read what it is going to do, and when one is running at you, there is not time.
Heelers/cattle dogs are notorius for biting and being sneeky about it, which this dog was.


----------



## furbabymum (Dec 28, 2011)

Tail wagging is NEVER a good indication for anything. Most dogs put their tails up to look more threatening. My Pyr will come at you with his tail up and swaying. I gaurantee he's not going to give you a kiss. 

I for one am confident that my dogs would attack someone they thought was threatening the family. The panic I would be feeling at gun point would certainly translate to my animals and would decide how they behaved. I've had strangers come into the house and be unharmed as I was not worried, stressed, frightened, etc. They knew I didn't need any help. This officer would have been taken down had he come onto my property and put me at gunpoint. Unless he's an awesome shot he wouldn't be able to get all 4 dogs before they got to him. I love the big hairy beasts as I feel 100% safe in a very isolated area.

Anyway, I've gotten way off topic with that haven't I. 

For people saying those of us who are saying it's just a dog are callous or somehow animal haters. Couldn't be more wrong. I really love my dogs. We spend a lot of time and money on them. We have put a lot of emotional energy into them. They are like kids to me. I love them dearly. I also know that the great pyr was purchased for the sole purpose of gaurding the house and he's done a **** good job. He's repelled at least one intruder that we know of. He could have easily been killed in that situation. We would mourn his death deeply. I'd still prefer it be him rather than my 15 month old son. I'd still rather it be him than me.

Does this look like the household of someone who doesn't care about animals?










wyominggrandma said:


> After reading this new story you now have to honestly wonder how the dog approached/charged the officer. Puts a new light on the story.
> The owner still says the dog is not a vicious dog, yet two others have been bitten/charged by the dog, how many did not report an incedent. I have had dogs come into the vets and my training classes with owners in denial" he isn't mean, he just protects me". He probably won't bite, he is just cautious" I get bit because an owner won't admit his dog bites because it becomes a liability issue with the law.
> Just because a dog runs wagging its tail, it can still be aggressive and intending to bite, and the officer did not have time to decide if it was wagging its tail in greeting, fear, aggressiveness or full out attack, you have to have a chance to see the dogs body posture to correctly read what it is going to do, and when one is running at you, there is not time.
> Heelers/cattle dogs are notorius for biting and being sneeky about it, which this dog was.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

hmm, interesting,
No rebuttals from the group that was sure this was a poor innocent dog that was shot for happily walking out to greet the officer? Could it be the officer saw something different looking at this dog coming at him than what the video from the owner is saying? Maybe this "best friend" is not the sweet loving happy dog as portrayed by the owner, but a nasty , nipping dog that has been loose before to do the same to innocent folks walking by...........
As I said in the beginning, sometimes things are not what the news/videos/tv portray....


----------



## furbabymum (Dec 28, 2011)

Never mind the fact that most dogs are perfect angels for their owners.


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

furbabymum said:


> Tail wagging is NEVER a good indication for anything. Most dogs put their tails up to look more threatening. My Pyr will come at you with his tail up and swaying. I gaurantee he's not going to give you a kiss.
> 
> I for one am confident that my dogs would attack someone they thought was threatening the family. The panic I would be feeling at gun point would certainly translate to my animals and would decide how they behaved. I've had strangers come into the house and be unharmed as I was not worried, stressed, frightened, etc. They knew I didn't need any help. This officer would have been taken down had he come onto my property and put me at gunpoint. Unless he's an awesome shot he wouldn't be able to get all 4 dogs before they got to him. I love the big hairy beasts as I feel 100% safe in a very isolated area.
> 
> ...


 \

off topic i know but i love your dogs!!!!!


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Nothing is going to change the fact that officer lied to his supervisor about the incident - its on tape, its undeniable. Nor is it going to change the incident was handled starting w the 911 call. Like I said before, the police blamed the caller, the dog, and the dog owner. That, too, is inarguable. Yes, they changed their tune in the face of public pressure (some mistakenly call it "mob mentality").

As far as the use of the term "mob mentality", that just doesn't apply here. The term was_ immediatly_ utilized by the police department in question and parroted by people that feel that all police are beyone reproach. Notice, I said immediatley....long before the police _claim_ they got threats. I would call the_ police department's_ response "acting in unison". You see the same thing happen when police beatings are caught on tape, there is _always_ that "police are always right" group that insists the victim is to blame - and "deserved" it b/c there are "two sides to every story", its excusable b/c "police are stressed", "its a dangerous job", "no one knows the real story", etc.,.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

furbabymum said:


> Does this look like the household of someone who doesn't care about animals?


Frankly, yes, it looks like there is a lot of unnecessary pressure put on those dogs.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

I was not trying to say the officer/911caller/dispatch was not wrong, I was trying to point out that the feeling was this poor sweet innocent dog was murdered by an officer for no reason because his owner said "he is my best friend and a sweet dog". 
This was not a sweet innocent loving dog, this was a dog with a proven aggression issue on previous innocent folks walking down the street. A dog that obviously isn't kept in his yard, under control, but let to go onto a public street to harrass other people. 
That is my point. Okay, the officer lied, hmmm, can anyone say they have not lied? Can anyone say they have not said something they regret? 
The most important thing is the officer was not trigger happy and didn't shoot the human when he came out of the backyard, coming after his loose aggressive dog which was going towards the officer on the driveway most likely to bite the officer.
Nobody is perfect, look at the dispatcher that didn't call immediately for officers to get to Josh Powells house when he was on the line to the lady who was telling him to "call the police, he has taken the kids in the house without me". That delay caused two innocent children to be butchered/killed by their dad. He got a written reprimand in his folder............ Two innocent children??? 
Yet some of you want this officer that shot a dog to basically be hung and quartered and lose his job..........
Kinda puts things in perspective, doesn't it?


----------



## furbabymum (Dec 28, 2011)

kait18 said:


> \
> 
> off topic i know but i love your dogs!!!!!


Thanks! They're pretty special to me!


----------



## redpony (Apr 17, 2012)

wyominggrandma said:


> After reading this new story you now have to honestly wonder how the dog approached/charged the officer. Puts a new light on the story.
> The owner still says the dog is not a vicious dog, yet two others have been bitten/charged by the dog, how many did not report an incedent. I have had dogs come into the vets and my training classes with owners in denial" he isn't mean, he just protects me". He probably won't bite, he is just cautious" I get bit because an owner won't admit his dog bites because it becomes a liability issue with the law.
> Just because a dog runs wagging its tail, it can still be aggressive and intending to bite, and the officer did not have time to decide if it was wagging its tail in greeting, fear, aggressiveness or full out attack, you have to have a chance to see the dogs body posture to correctly read what it is going to do, and when one is running at you, there is not time.
> Heelers/cattle dogs are notorius for biting and being sneeky about it, which this dog was.[/Quot
> ...


----------



## furbabymum (Dec 28, 2011)

Missy May said:


> Frankly, yes, it looks like there is a lot of unnecessary pressure put on those dogs.


It's a mututally beneficial relationship I assure you. lol


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

wyominggrandma said:


> Yet some of you want this officer that shot a dog to basically be hung and quartered and lose his job..........
> Kinda puts things in perspective, doesn't it?


I do not think this officer belongs on a "beat", there are multiple other jobs w a force. But, that is past hoping for. I think he should have, at minimum, been reprimanded when all the facts were reviewed, not "defended" _first thing_, which is 10x _worse_ than _just_ "no reprimand". 
Yes, mistakes happen _all_ the time. This does not mean none should not be addressed. Horrible things occur every day, this should never "justify" the "less horrid" going unchallenged. 
Lets not attack the victim. Cisco and his owner were doing NOTHING wrong and were on _their_ propery. What the dog's temperment was or his "_alleged_ history" is - is completely irrelevant to the 20 seconds that it took to drop him from the time the police officer arrived. I have been "attacked" on numerous occasions by numerous different blue heelers, they ALL have the same tactic...dart in, they nip *AT* you, they dart out. I never took action, weren't my dogs, and I took no offense....they were in their rights to do so, I was on _their _property. I don't think poor Cisco even got the chance to "dart in", and we will never know if he would have.
I would LOVE to know how the "real" criminal in this case was apprehended. I would love to see THAT video. Was _he_ approached the same way?


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

Missymay:I like how you said "alledged" bites/nips, yet the videos you are talking about are the truth... Why isn't the alledged bites/nips being taken as the truth by you since it was a news story? Because Ciscos owners is defending his dog? Only the dog owner is telling the truth, that the dog was not going to hurt the officer?
Of course the force backs up the officer, that is the way it happens. Parents defend their kids when they are in trouble, "my kid doesn't bully other kids, my kid doesnt do drugs, my kid didn't drive drunk". 
He is getting a reprimand, what do you want? Blood? I also have to ask, why do you care so much about an officer that you do not know, or will probably never see? We read, hear about these things all the time.. Why is this particular one so important to you that you are determined to trash this officer and his department and whomever ever else you can???
I am also curious, if the man had come out of the backyard with a gun, would you have preferred the officer being so careful to not shoot the dog that the man shot the officer? Who would the blame be on then? The officer who let himself be killed because he was too worried about not shooting a dog? 
He was on a domestic, he had reason to worry about his life, how did he know the dog was not the first "wave" of an attack from the true criminal? Why not blame the dispatch and call war on the person who called in the domestic and gave the wrong address? I just think you are on a vendetta of some kind against the officer.. Blame the dispatch, blame the 911 caller, the officer was doing his duty, which is to save lives, his and the victims. Who knows, another officer in the same situation might have shot the man running at him, not the dog....... 
Give it a break. We get you hate the way this has happened, but it seems you are just not going to even try to see the other side of this story, that humans could have been killed also, not just a dog.
I am so done, stick me with a fork.... have a nice day.


----------



## sandy2u1 (May 7, 2008)

A cops job is very dangerous, no doubt about that. Anytime they go on a call or pull someone over, they are facing the unknown and are risking their lives. I am not arguing that point at all. But we aren't talking about all cops, we are talking about this cop. 

Everyone keeps asking why we aren't seeing both sides of this. The cop has a side, too. Well, guess what, the cop is a liar. Nobody can argue that point, yet we are still supposed to just take the cops word for it. That seems odd to me.

I also think it is excessive that the cop got out of the car with his gun drawn. I think it is also excessive that he continued to hold the man at gun point and then shot his dog when it came running up to the cop barking. That is what I would expect any dog to do. If a person is that scared of dogs, then they should not be working in a field that requires them to go to strangers homes. 

I'm not sure what the point was supposed to be when someone said even a dog wagging his tail could bite. That is very true, but I'm not sure how it fits here. Does that mean that no matter what the dog was doing, the cop has a right to shoot him? 

Just last week, I was down at the barn working on my stalls. My dogs were with me, not bothering anything, just laying around watching me work. My dogs all of a sudden jump up and go running and barking up towards the house. I could tell by the way they were barking that someone was here and I wasn't expecting anyone. I come out of the barn and saw that they were barking and raising tee total hell at a car that was parked in my driveway. It was pitch black outside. Turns out it was a cop. He got out of his car and met me half way between the barn and house. It wasn't until I realized it was a cop that I called my dogs back to me. This story makes me thankful that some trigger happy cop like the one in this story, isn't who came out to my house. I might have had two dead dogs on my hands.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

wyominggrandma said:


> Missymay:I like how you said "alledged" bites/nips, yet the videos you are talking about are the truth... Why isn't the alledged bites/nips being taken as the truth by you since it was a news story? ..................... I just think you are on a vendetta of some kind against the officer..


First you fabricated a "theory" out of thin air that I have something against law enforcement, then you AGAIN come up with a _baseless_ theory that I have something against the officer. I have a problem with how one follows PROCEDURES, and exactly WHAT the procedures ARE...INCLUDING how the 911 call was handled. HOWEVER, I will remind you that when I pointed out I though YOU had a problem with procedures, YOU went ballistic. So, going back to what I said...if procedures are NOT important, there is NO room for improvement - EVER, and law enforcement is beyond reproach...then I can ONLY surmise that YOU do have a problem with police having to follow procedures of any kind or having their procedures reviewed for effectiveness not to mention safety.

What more "judge for yourself" do you need other than a video...the video was NOT the property of "the news". There is long footage of this incident along w the accompanying audio. I do not see a video of this dog attacking. 


The man wasn't armed. Why not address the facts, the fact is - he wasn't armed. The fact is, he had done nothing wrong, the fact is his dog was on his property, the fact is the officer drew his gun just after leaving his vehicle...so even though it isn't in the video, the audio tells the rest of the story. This IS NOT the "news" it is from the POLICE's OWN video record.


How many times this dog caught a frizbee, not important. How long it took to pottey train him, not important, when or if he had his tailed docked, not important. Why his owner chose to live at that address, not important.

It was 20 seconds...what happend in THOSE twenty second...important. Why it happened (911 call) important, where it happened (WRONG house) important. How it happened, important.


Lets try another type of perspective, the Challenger went down for a myriad of reasons, the vast majority being that procedures were not followed....but an investigation identified few reasons were _*not*_ addressed by procedure and were ADDED b/c of the tragedy. Going with your premise....What were they thinking????? WHY BOTHER! S*** happens! Anyone that thinks otherwise has "issues" w NASA.


And, what about the apprehension of the "real" offender....not interested in how he was apprehended, start to finish? I am. Because if training is of NO importance, and NO use, then lets NOT do it! It costs huge amounts of money...HUGE.

I get your point...there is no room for improvement EVER when it comes to law enforcement, no one shoud EVER complain. *I do NOT agree*. This DOES NOT mean I have an "issue" w law enforcement. That is a just a "non argument".


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

sandy2u1 said:


> A cops job is very dangerous, no doubt about that. Anytime they go on a call or pull someone over, they are facing the unknown and are risking their lives. I am not arguing that point at all. But we aren't talking about all cops, we are talking about this cop.
> 
> Everyone keeps asking why we aren't seeing both sides of this. The cop has a side, too. Well, guess what, the cop is a liar. Nobody can argue that point, yet we are still supposed to just take the cops word for it. That seems odd to me.
> 
> ...


yes the cop is a liar and i am also seeing the dog owner as a liar as well here... there is no clean side 

may i ask why you think its excessive to hold the man at gun point when you don't know if he is armed or not when the caller gave his address?? then to find out a dog comes running at you... l see a dangerous situation without even looking to the final outcome. 

i also dont understand why its acceptable to allow a dog to go running up to people... the only time my great dane pit (ex fighter) leaves my side is when i give a command. unless i give it he is not going to charge someone or someones dog coming on my property off leash or on leash it doesn't matter he waits for command... its called training your dog. if your dog isn't trained for a recall he should be in a fenced yard or on leash at all times...simple as that. i also dont allow my dogs to go bombarding people who arrive at my house... my dog stays near me and will bark in the direction of the car but will not go at the car..i do not want them accidently getting hit by car or scaring ppl away. 

also the comment about wagging tails was just so that people understood it doesnt always mean a happy dog. which in thiis case the dog was supposedly friendly wagging his tail coming at the officer and the owner wanted people to believe the dog is freindly...which in the past the dog has been proven to be aggressive.
whether the officer is scared of the dog or not he has the right to shoot the dog or human if they come at him/her for their own safety...if the dog pays no attention to him and doesnt come at them they dont shoot. 

and your story is differnet. no one reported a violence at your residents why would the cop have his gun out??


----------



## themacpack (Jul 16, 2009)

kait18 said:


> yes the cop is a liar and i am also seeing the dog owner as a liar as well here... there is no clean side
> 
> may i ask why you think its excessive to hold the man at gun point when you don't know if he is armed or not when the caller gave his address?? then to find out a dog comes running at you... l see a dangerous situation without even looking to the final outcome.
> 
> ...


ITA with it all, but especially the bolded.


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

Missy May said:


> First you fabricated a "theory" out of thin air that I have something against law enforcement, then you AGAIN come up with a _baseless_ theory that I have something against the officer. I have a problem with how one follows PROCEDURES, and exactly WHAT the procedures ARE...INCLUDING how the 911 call was handled. HOWEVER, I will remind you that when I pointed out I though YOU had a problem with procedures, YOU went ballistic. So, going back to what I said...if procedures are NOT important, there is NO room for improvement - EVER, and law enforcement is beyond reproach...then I can ONLY surmise that YOU do have a problem with police having to follow procedures of any kind or having their procedures reviewed for effectiveness not to mention safety.
> 
> What more "judge for yourself" do you need other than a video...the video was NOT the property of "the news". There is long footage of this incident along w the accompanying audio. I do not see a video of this dog attacking.
> 
> ...


i know this is not directed at me but i am confused with your theory above... i agree there is always room for improvement in every procedure.. 

but you stated facts that were only made clear after the accident..think about it in the officers eyes..
fact: he gets a call from dispatch with an address and known violence taking place
gets to home man is walking away from him (i believe ) to back of house
dog comes running at him

the officer didn't know the man was unarmed..never had a chance to pat him down or get a story from him before the dog came running at him... knowing the facts at the time the incident went down is what determines who is right or wrong not the facts after the incident occured...

so i am confused as to how we can blame the cop...whether he had the gun drawn right after he got out of car or pulled it out when he say the man.. the dog still would be dead bc he came at the officer.. which is a sad situation.


----------



## TaMMa89 (Apr 12, 2008)

*MODERATOR'S NOTE:*

The Horseforum.com staff understand that some subjects and topics can cause strong reactions and feelings.

Despite of that, please refrain from going personal and making personal comments about other users. Also bad language is strictly forbidden. I'm not referring to the latest 2-3 messages but some exchange that I've noticed earlier in that thread.

Not following these rules can lead editing, removing and sanctions.

Thank you for co-operating and keeping the forum nice & friendly.

Regards,
The Moderating Team


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Missy May said:


> First you fabricated a "theory" out of thin air that I have something against law enforcement, then you AGAIN come up with a _baseless_ theory that I have something against the officer.


I also see a very strong hatred aimed at the officer. Go back and read your posts and the names you call a man you only know from seconds of an audio tape. You made quick and STRONG conclusions about this man based on very little actual knowledge.



> I have a problem with how one follows PROCEDURES, and exactly WHAT the procedures ARE...INCLUDING how the 911 call was handled. HOWEVER, I will remind you that when I pointed out I though YOU had a problem with procedures, YOU went ballistic. So, going back to what I said...if procedures are NOT important, there is NO room for improvement - EVER, and law enforcement is beyond reproach...then I can ONLY surmise that YOU do have a problem with police having to follow procedures of any kind or having their procedures reviewed for effectiveness not to mention safety.


I am a patrol Sgt. What "procedures" are you even talking about? Do you actually think officers have "procedures" that are like scripts as to how to handle a violent domestic assault? REALLY? The officer has to go into a volatile and otherwise unknown situation. Are there "procedures" that say you do not go into a domestic with your gun drawn? When you don't know where the suspect actually is? when you are going through a yard where anything can jump out at you? Absolutely not. No such as "procedures" that determine every step you take. You are simply unfamiliar with police work.



> What more "judge for yourself" do you need other than a video...the video was NOT the property of "the news". There is long footage of this incident along w the accompanying audio. I do not see a video of this dog attacking.


Right. The audio SHOWS how quickly thew officer had to make a decision based solely on the info he had. Violent domestic assault...unknown suspect location....suddenly a man in front of him at the *dispatched address* with unknown possibility of a weapon......instantly charged by a aggressive dog who may be about to rip him up, for all he knew. Waiting until teeth are locked on your jugular vein is a bad time to decide you should have considered shooting said dog. 




> The man wasn't armed. Why not address the facts, the fact is - he wasn't armed.


How did he have time to determine that? Is he clairvoyant? Does he have instant X-ray vision to see through his clothing? Weapons are concealable, you know. They can be produced from a hidden position in a flash too fast for him to react.

This video shows what can happen when officers try too hard to be nice. How did this officer know he didn't have a similar suspect? This guy was in a domestic assault, too.







Our training would have us shooting this guy much quicker. Our department uses tasers. It MIGHT have been something to try...until he attacked. Then the lead injection should have been made, IMO.
Things happened way too fast in the incident of this thread for the cop to even know if this guy was armed.




> The fact is, he had done nothing wrong,


Sadly, you are right. He was targeted because of bad information from the original caller. That makes this the tragedy.



> the fact is his dog was on his property, the fact is the officer drew his gun just after leaving his vehicle...so even though it isn't in the video, the audio tells the rest of the story. This IS NOT the "news" it is from the POLICE's OWN video record.


Yup, and the video clearly shows that things happened so fast there was simply no time to fully analyze the situation.




> Lets try another type of perspective, the Challenger went down for a myriad of reasons, the vast majority being that procedures were not followed....


WHAT procedures?? Please quote what actual procedures were violated in such a quickly developing incident.




> And, what about the apprehension of the "real" offender....not interested in how he was apprehended, start to finish? I am. *Because if training is of NO importance, *and NO use, then lets NOT do it! It costs huge amounts of money...HUGE.


The real offender was never added to the story so I have no idea what happened, and I doubt you do either. The dog was the story. What about training? We are trained to evaluate as quickly and, hopefully, as accurately as we can and take quick lifesaving action. Yes, mistakes can happen when things happen this quickly...as this case shows.



> I get your point...there is no room for improvement EVER when it comes to law enforcement, no one shoud EVER complain. *I do NOT agree*. This DOES NOT mean I have an "issue" w law enforcement. That is a just a "non argument".


There is always room for improvement. Hardly anything happens on the job that there isn't some kind of "after the fact" feedback. We always try to learn how to do things better. Do you have ANY idea how much inservice training we get every month that is mandatory? You would be amazed how our training continues constantly throughout the year. Training for domestic violence situations is constant.

You are quick to judge. And you base this judgement on very little actual knowledge about police work, I suspect.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

kait18 said:


> i know this is not directed at me but i am confused with your theory above... i agree there is always room for improvement in every procedure..
> 
> but you stated facts that were only made clear after the accident..think about it in the officers eyes..
> fact: he gets a call from dispatch with an address and known violence taking place
> ...


What facts could I state that were non-existant before the incident?

My "theory"? I don't have a "theory". I have an opinion that this incident brings to light some procedures that either weren't followed OR need revisiting as well as training or lack thereof. That is it, nothing greater than that. I think the way the police handled it afterwords (i.e., no apology, shrugging of the sholders, etc.,) is deplorable. If, as the police _repeatedly_ stated, everything they did was completely "by the book", then they had NO liability to worry about by apologizing to this completely innocent man - whose dog they killed. 

And, why wouldn't I take this man's word for anything??? What has he done?? With the aid of a friend, he started a fb page, on which it clearly stated (FROM THE GET GO) he will not tolerate defamatory comments about the officer involved. He wanted positive change. The officer, on the other hand, clearly lied which, agian, it is on police video - NOT the news.

There is no video that shows it, however, both the officer and the man say the man came _around from the back of his house_ - and to some degree the audio verifies that. This also makes sense since the dog came from the _back_ of the house, too, In other words, the cop was in the yard, ALONE, armed, Cisco's owner did not know he was there (had NO reason to think he was), and came around from the back of _his own house_ to be "greeted" by police officer with a gun pointed at him....then the officer started and _kept_ yelling "get your hands up", and then dropped the dog. THEN procedes to yell at the man for not telling him he had a dog!!!! Remember, from the time the officer left his vehicle to the time he dropped the dog was 20 seconds!!! This can EASILY be verified by POLICE tape, NOT the news.

I have repeatedly stated that the procedures that need to be reviewed INCLUDE 911 calls. The officer is clearly afraid of dogs and the police department in question has a policy to "drop em" whenever they feel threatened. I see a_ real_ problem with that. With a policy such as that, they do not have to consider any candidate's "phobias" of dogs when placing them in appropriate positions. Did the officer write that policy - NO. Do I blame him for the policy..NO. Yes, he was given an incorrect address...NOT the officer's fault. But it isn't the dogs fault or the owner's either. Is the officer responsible for how he handled the incident? If not... WHOSE responsibility was it? So far, I see a lot of people that think it was the resposibility of an INNOCENT man and his dog to have _expected_ an officer in their front yard, armed and pointing a gun at them, and to shoot their dog! 

I can clearly see the officer is not in any way culpable for the wrong address. I cannot see how he is not responsible for LIEING about the incident (on POLICE video...NOT the news).

Again, HOW was the real "bad guy" apprehended? From the looks of it (and I _freely_ admit I do not know) he was apprehended by a multi-man team. There is video from those cars....why aren't they releasing them so we can all see how it is _always_ done "this way" (the way the officer in question did it)?? I go back to my original gripe...NO apology was issued, they said the officer did everything _just right_.

AFTER all of that ^...we are in complete agreement, ALL I am saying is what you said, there is room for improvement...and it isn't the victim that is in need of improvement.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Alison, your statement:

"Sadly, you are right [that he had done nothing wrong] He was targeted because of bad information from the original caller. That makes this the tragedy."

Pretty well sums it up, you have a problem with the victim.

And, I stand corrected - if you are in law enforcement and you say there are no procedures...then there is none, none what-so-ever. 
I count "regulations", including those in the CFR, US, state and local codes as - procedures, btw. I am not in law enforcement, they don't apply to me - I can't just drop a dog anytime I want to, so I have no reason to research these non-existant codes, procedures, regulations...whatever you would like to call those sets of rules that only law enforcement is exempt from.


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

Missy May said:


> Alison, your statement:
> 
> "Sadly, you are right [that he had done nothing wrong] He was targeted because of bad information from the original caller. That makes this the tragedy."
> 
> ...


you have the right to drop a dog if you feel threatened!!! its your safety..just like this officer felt is was a safety issue. as long as you have the proper permits to carry a concealed weapon (since we are not law enforcement) and the dog is off leash or not in a yard and is coming at you ... 

i carry my handgun when i ride and my paintball gun... if the paintball gun doesnt deter them you can bet i am going to use the handgun!!! haven't yet but i will not hestitate. i have been attacked once and i will not be attacked again by some dog because his owner was incompetent in controling there pet...

and what i think allison meant by there being no procedures is that there is no set procedure on how to handle a situation since there is never the same situation happening. it is always different therefore you cant make a strict guideline to follow as that could be more dangerous.


----------



## sandy2u1 (May 7, 2008)

> yes the cop is a liar and I am also seeing the dog owner as a liar as well here... there is no clean side
> 
> May I ask why you think its excessive to hold the man at gun point when you don't know if he is armed or not when the caller gave his address?? Then to find out a dog comes running at you... l see a dangerous situation without even looking to the final outcome.
> 
> ...


Read more: http://www.horseforum.com/horse-talk/justice-cisco-120410/page9/#ixzz1sc0stNUC
I think a more appropriate response would have been to access the situation and be prepared to draw a gun if necessary. Unless there is reports of gun fire or someone holding a weapon on someone, I think you will find that most officers go up to the door and knock when they get those domestic violence cases. Not nearly as exciting as the cops jumping out of their cars waving their guns around, but still.

In my situation, I was in my barn, minding my own business and it was late at night. Nobody has business at my house that time of night. If they do, then they should have called. I see nothing wrong with letting my dogs go up and check things out on my own property. If it had been a person up to no good, then the dogs could have very well persuaded them to stay in their car. Now had I been in the house, I would have gotten out the gun and kept the dogs inside and investigated myself. 

The officer that responded, was responding to a 911 hang-up call. He had no idea what he was coming in to. It was dark and I came walking up to him from the barn and my dogs were barking at him and carrying on. At no point did he draw his gun. 

The only thing any of us can do is argue the point based on what we know, which is what the media feeds us. That goes for both sides of the argument. As I said, I'd love to be involved in an IA investigation on this one. 

I don't think the officer should be hung and to refer to those against his actions as a lynch mob is ridiculous. I think he should be suspended and for his own sake, should consider taking a desk job. That is only going by what the media has told us. There is probably plenty of details being left out.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

I am going to say something again,Missymay and sandy2u1, I would hope neither of you ever plan to marry a law enforcement officer. Allison Finch, as and officer explained things and yet you still believe this officer who shot the dog should no longer be on patrol, instead get a desk job. Do you not realize how DANGEROUS the situation he was walking into, as far as he knew, was possible that he would be killed? How do you expect an officer to stand and wait around why a dog and a man are running toward him, when he is at an address where a domestic was reported to be happening. What if the man had pulled a gun? He was unarmed, but did the officer know that? How many times has a criminal walked up to an officer saying he was not armed or just pretending to walk up to say hi and the officer be shot??? I imagine the files are full of those type of things. ... How long do you expece an officer to stand around to access the situation before he loses his life. THIS officer had no idea , except a domestic was called, what he was walking into......... I know for a fact that "fake" situations are used daily to kill officers, as innocent as the calls seem.
This officer shot a dog.According to MissyMay, this happened in 20 seconds. A dog charging him, a man running to him yelling. What would you have done? Just calmly stood by and waited to see what would happen.
If you are walking to the grocery store and a person starts yelling and running towards you, will you just stand there and wait to see what he wants? Kidnap you, shoot you, grab your purse? Grab your child? I would be hauling butt the other way since I don't know what the person is up to.
I hope neither of you or your families marry into the law enforcement life. I imagine that you would prefer your spouse to come home alive and find out he shot a dog than have the Captain come knocking on your door to tell you your spouse is dead because he waited in an unknown situation.Would any of you feel the same if it was a police K-9 shot in the line of duty by the man running out of the back yard? I wonder.
I am sure there are lots of details being held back, but on all sides. Some will come out, some won't. Bottom line, an animal was killed, not a human.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

AlisonF you stated, 

"The real offender was never added to the story so I have no idea what happened, and I doubt you do either. The dog was the story. What about training? We are trained to evaluate as quickly and, hopefully, as accurately as we can and take quick lifesaving action. Yes, mistakes can happen when things happen this quickly...as this case shows."

The "real offender" is on police car video, and it looks like he has black hair and is wearing some sort of psuedo "team" shirt. I have not seen the video of how he was apprehended.

AND, when I have made mistakes or accidently, inadvertantly hurt someone - even if it was just their _feelings_ I hurt - and I am advised of it...I apologized. I judge myself...or I would NOT apologize, I do not judge this officer ANY differently than I would judge myself.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

kait18 said:


> you have the right to drop a dog if you feel threatened!!! its your safety..just like this officer felt is was a safety issue. as long as you have the proper permits to carry a concealed weapon (since we are not law enforcement) and the dog is off leash or not in a yard and is coming at you ...
> 
> i carry my handgun when i ride and my paintball gun... if the paintball gun doesnt deter them you can bet i am going to use the handgun!!! haven't yet but i will not hestitate. i have been attacked once and i will not be attacked again by some dog because his owner was incompetent in controling there pet...
> 
> and what i think allison meant by there being no procedures is that there is no set procedure on how to handle a situation since there is never the same situation happening. it is always different therefore you cant make a strict guideline to follow as that could be more dangerous.


You have the right to drop a person in your own house if they break and entered and you feel threatened. And, you have the right to shop at walmart. Niether are related to shooting a dog in it's own yard, and a _civilian _does _not _have the right to randomly walk into someones yard unannounced and uninvited and shoot their dog - cc permit or not.


----------



## redpony (Apr 17, 2012)

After all these posts I decided to watch the video again. And I have to say that if I had been the man in this situation, my first thought wouldn't be I think I'll video tape this and put it on FB. I would be greiving for my dog.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

redpony said:


> After all these posts I decided to watch the video again. And I have to say that if I had been the man in this situation, my first thought wouldn't be I think I'll video tape this and put it on FB. I would be greiving for my dog.


That is probably why he didn't - a friend set it up for him.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

But criminals walk into peoples yard and houses all the time and kill humans and shoot dogs, rob people, rape women/kids, yet they do not have the right to do so. They are not supposed to carry guns as felons, yet they do.

Police officers/innocent civilians are killed all the time because anyone can get a gun and carry it unlawfully hidden in their clothes while they do walk through walmart and the sidewalks and parks... Tell me, can you in 20 seconds decide if someone running towards you is carrying a gun and going to kill you? Can you , in 20 seconds tell if a dog that is running towards you is going to attack and bite you or lick your hand???
How long to you propose that a person: officer, civilian, child, soccer mom,anyone is supposed to stand around and wonder if that person/dog coming towards you running is a friend or foe in a called in dangerous situation? 
I'm sorry, but it is hard for me to believe that if you had a loved one, husband, child, mother, father, sister, brother standing in your yard or in the street and someone or a dog acts threateningly towards them that you will wait the "required time" to protect them before you start doing something.
Have you ever seen what damage a dog can do? My husbands nephew had his nose and upper lip and cheek taken off by a "friendly" dog that they were playing with............ He was lucky not to have died... Maybe the officer did not feel like he needed to stand around and wait and see if the dog was going to attack him. 
I believe Missymay that you called him a coward because he shot a dog. 
I hope if any of your family or friends are faced with the same situation you will not call them a coward for either kicking the heck out of the dog or doing whatever is necessary to protect themselves, whether they walked onto someones property or not.People are bitten severely daily while visiting with friends, with permission, when a dog bites them... or thier children.. Bet you would okay your family to protect themselves, why isn't the officer allowed to do the same?


----------



## redpony (Apr 17, 2012)

Missy May said:


> That is probably why he didn't - a friend set it up for him.


He was video traping it with his phone
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

Missymay, do you know this person personally? Just curious, you seem to know so much about this situation that is not being said anywhere.. Where was it said that a friend fixed up the video for him?


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

wyominggrandma said:


> But criminals walk into peoples yard and houses all the time and kill humans and shoot dogs, rob people, rape women/kids, yet they do not have the right to do so. They are not supposed to carry guns as felons, yet they do.
> 
> Police officers/innocent civilians are killed all the time because anyone can get a gun and carry it unlawfully hidden in their clothes while they do walk through walmart and the sidewalks and parks... Tell me, can you in 20 seconds decide if someone running towards you is carrying a gun and going to kill you? Can you , in 20 seconds tell if a dog that is running towards you is going to attack and bite you or lick your hand???
> How long to you propose that a person: officer, civilian, child, soccer mom,anyone is supposed to stand around and wonder if that person/dog coming towards you running is a friend or foe in a called in dangerous situation?
> ...


I am not sure why you believe Cisco's owner came "running toward" the officer. He came around from the back of the house, neither he nor the officer said he was "running". And, I tend to believe the man when he says that when he saw the officer with a gun pointed at him, he stopped. 

I do not blame the dogs in Beijing for it, or the officers in LA for it, or Canada, or the owner, or the dog or _just_ the officer involved. Are all of those that have gone before that questioned how something (anything) was done or handled - wrong, _all_ of them? As well as the change it brought about? _All_ of it? The ENTIRE point of "justice for Cisco" is to bring about positive change. You can _easily_ email the Austin police, your congressman, or whoever and tell them you do not think _anything_ should ever be questioned and efforts for positive change are always bad. 

I am not sure what your issue is with anything I have said. We disagree, end of story. I will never agree that this was fine, dandy, great, super, all in the name of public safety and their is no reason to question how it was handled. This officer and every single other officer on that particular force are completely in their rights to be affraid of dogs and shoot them (cowards) b/c this particular force does NOT care or address the issue of "dog phobia", and has clearly stated their policy is to drop them. This incident is bringing that policy into question, and I think it IS a positive direction. If you do not...then I am sure their is some group you can join to try and stop it. 

There are people that spend their entire lives on "risk assessment". I think the risk of wrong addresses given by 911 callers is worth looking at, as well as how that risk can be reduced. Notice, I said WORTH looking at...that means, analyzing it and coming up with a statistical probability that gives a "meaningful" answer - yes or no. This DOES NOT mean I have "issues" with 911 callers or dispatchers.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

wyominggrandma said:


> Missymay, do you know this person personally? Just curious, you seem to know so much about this situation that is not being said anywhere.. Where was it said that a friend fixed up the video for him?


The man thanked his friend for doing so during one of the first news interviews he was on. I believe, but may be mistaken, it is in the video I posted earlier.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

I see that my efforts to try to make Missy and Sandy try to put themselves in the officers shoes was an epic fail, and I am not surprised. Missy, if you were a patrol officer and used techniques (ooops, procedures) that you think the officer SHOULD have used, I suspect your life on the streets would be very short.

Saying things about the officer like;

he's "A trigger happy, coward that shouldn't be a police officer"

I would want this officer off the force and never allowed to be on any other "force",

he shouldn't be carrying a gun w a license to kill 

I would think they would not be "trigger happy" when responding to ma and pa kettle yelling at each other, or even shoving one another.

I know I would have waited to fire until the dog actually went for me _(this one makes me chuckle, personally)_

Police departments have a function. Going to houses is part of their function, and going to the wrong house is entirely avoidable

The man wasn't armed. Why not address the facts, the fact is - he wasn't armed. _(yes, sadly HINDSIGHT is always 20/20)
_

Missy, these comments show that you will never have a deep understanding of what law enforcement officers handle every day, nor should you. Luckily, it is not a job for everyone. But, given the facts, as I know them, I would possibly have done the same thing. And I have been on patrol for over 15 years and I am a firearms instructor. I am also an animal rehabber and have no "phobias" of any animal *AND* love dogs.

Your last comment of;

"Pretty well sums it up, you have a problem with the victim."

Wow, you don't know me from Adam but you can come to this conclusion? I feel HORRIBLE for the man. And the reports I have read say the officer does too.That still doesn't change the fact that it was a sad, but understandable tragedy, IMO.

And, since this is a circular thread with everyone (including me) vying for the last word, I am going to try to sit on my hands after this post. I simply refuse to waste too many more attempts to explain further.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Allison it seems that you cannot get some people to imagine what it is like to walk in a patrol officers shoes.

I say again, thank you to all those who walk in the front line, to protect me, who literaly put their lives on the line day after day. 

I will not judge, because I can't imagine what that feels like


----------



## sandy2u1 (May 7, 2008)

Because a couple of posts were posted directly at me, then I think I should respond. 

First of all, as I said many times, I realize that police officers risk their lives on a daily basis. I, however, do not believe that most cops handle domestic violence calls by jumping out of their cars with gun drawn and then later holding it on an unarmed man just because the man was walking towards him. That's right, I said walk, not run. Because my understanding of the situation is that the dog owner came walking up. Had he come running up to that cop on that day, I believe he would have been shot. 

Allison, do you really get out of your car and draw your gun when you go on domestic calls? Be honest. 

I have had many dogs come running up to me barking. Haven't y'all? I have never felt a need to pull out a gun and shoot any of them. Especially a single dog running towards you and barking. I feel more threatened by a dog that is not running towards you, but standing and snarling and daring you to get closer. Or a pack of dogs running at you might cause me to want to take action. 

You all keep saying that we aren't trying to put ourselves in the cops position. Well, you aren't trying to put yourself in the other mans position either. Think about it. You are a law abiding citizen outside playing with your dog and enjoying the day. All of a sudden, a cop comes in your yard with a gun drawn on you. While he is holding you at gunpoint, your dog comes up barking. He is then shot and killed right in front of your face. The dog and the dog owner are the victims here. My heart goes out to him.

I would be more sympathetic to the cop had he had a different attitude about the whole thing. I'd really like to know what kind of cop he has been up until now. I wonder if he has ever shot anyone elses dog.

Oh and Wyoming, I do have a cop in the family. He actually shot a person. He, however, didn't jump out of his patrol car holding people at gun point. When it became necessary, he drew his gun and shot the person. And even after something bad like that happened, he still doesn't feel a need to immediately draw his gun...even on a call for domestic violence. He has used his taser a lot more than his gun. He has never had to shoot a dog. He has been a cop for more than 10 years, so I am sure he has had a few run up to him barking. 

I expect the cop in my family to do as much as necessary, but as little as possible to get the job done. Of course I want him to protect himself first and foremost. I want him to use good sense too, though. I don't want him to go around making victims of people and animals just because he has the power to do so.

Based solely on what the media have fed us, the cop was in the wrong and acted excessively on the call as a whole, IMO. I guarantee IA knows a whole lot more about it than any of us, the media either for that matter. Hopefully, the decision they make will be just either way.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Allison Finch said:


> I see that my efforts to try to make Missy and Sandy try to put themselves in the officers shoes was an epic fail, and I am not surprised. Missy, if you were a patrol officer and used techniques (ooops, procedures) that you think the officer SHOULD have used, I suspect your life on the streets would be very short.
> 
> Saying things about the officer like;
> 
> ...


Taking snipets out of context is always useful. NOT. 

You don't know _me_ from Adam and YOU stated "I also see a very strong hatred aimed at the officer." There is a HUGE difference between hatred for a _person_ and _extreme_ dislike for what a person _has done_ and why. I forgive this man b/c I should, I do NOT, however forgive his actions. And, yes, I judged his actions,which is _not_ the same as "hatred". I have been attacked by dogs (two at the same time) while I was armed and in my full rights to shoot them, and chose not to....IF I had of killed them, then I would have judge _myself _for what I had done. I do not apologize for judging this officer. Hatred is not in the equation, but I think you would like it to be for some odd reason, judging from the fact you repeatedly ignore the rest of what I have said about the incident.

Training (for dog encounters) and revisiting policies is being reviewed by the department in question as a possibility. So, is the police force in question wrong for saying they are open to making changes? I mean, it seems there is no need to make any changes in your book b/c they are always right. I just see it as a positive result.

WHAT are you "trying to explain"??? That _all_ officers need to be beyond reproach in order to do their job effectively and none is ill-suited for that kind of power, and tragedies are just the price we all should be willing to pay? From your out-of-context "snipping" that is all I can gather you are trying to explain.


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Ok, I’m really late to the party here….sorry.

Sandy2u1 wrote “I think you will find that most officers go up to the door and knock when they get those domestic violence cases.”
With all due respect, no that is not how most departments or police officers handle domestics.
Maybe many years ago, but not these days. Domestics are some of the most dangerous situations to respond to because of the unknowns.

Not long ago three police officers in a city near where I live responded to a domestic call with no supposed or suspected weapons. Officers approached with caution anyway, as trained, even though all “appeared” calm. Upon opening the door as instructed, the suspect open fired. Killed the officer in front immediately and in the ensuing battle killed the other two officers as well. Unfortunately these situations have become very common across the US. There is no such thing as a routine domestic call anymore.

To the rest of the “ lynch mob“ labeled people…. It is real easy to play armchair judge and jury, but until you have strapped on a duty belt, a gun, and pinned on a badge, you have no idea what it is like to walk in a cop’s shoes, how you will react in any given situation, and haven‘t the foggiest notion of what is like to represent the city or municipality and their rules and regulations that you were hired to enforce/defend. 

Police departments are para-military in how they are run. That means military fashion, with a chain of command and everyone has to answer to a higher-up. That’s primarily why officer’s don’t issues statements (or apologies) of any kind. The chief does. That is how things are done. Personal dealing with failed equipment as mentioned in a previous post aren’t in the same arena here.


Most departments have their own SOPs (Standards of Operating Procedures) that cover the givens for most situations for that particular city/local/department and officers have to follow them. However, no SOP could ever cover all of the variables in any given situation. No two domestics will ever be the same, no two felony stops will ever be the same, no two drug busts will ever be the same. The variables are just too great to predict.

Perhaps the SOP for his department was to shoot any approaching dog during a domestic. Maybe not. Either way, hardly a reason to call him a coward, accuse him of having a dog phobia, or tar and feather the guy, when none of you were present for the entire situation. Not a 20 second snippet and added media sensationalism. The entire situation.

Its interesting that after 911 many people became more aware of the threats we (the US) faces as a nation, however are still so clueless about the threats right here on our very own soil and neighborhoods from each other and what goes on to protect that soil and those neighborhoods.

Freedom and Safety both come with a cost.

Missy, with all due respect (again) you are like a dog with a bone here. No pun intended. Wanting to have the entire department to re-think their policy on domestics with pets involved is one thing, but dragging this officer under the bus in another entirely. You have no idea what it takes to be a cop or deal with any of the situations that cops do.

I feel bad for the situation and what went wrong, but really… how many of you can honestly say YOU or YOUR place of employment have NEVER made mistakes???


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Awesome post Lockwood


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

thank you lockwood!! awesome post


----------

